Andrew: One could theorize that the better growth had nothing to do with RF, but with the tower not competing with the surrounding trees for nutrients. Did New Scientist make any cause and effect comments?
I wonder what the EMC-PSTC group thinks of this issue - should there be concern for irradiating trees with cellular phone calls? My own opinion mimics the tag line of John Stoessel on a US ABC-TV news magazine show: "Give me a break." (idomatic expression meaning something like "go away, don't you have better things to worry about?") Regards, Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E. 65 Crandon Way Rochester, NY 14618 Phone: 585 442 3909 Fax: 585 442 2182 [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Carson" <[email protected]> To: "Scott Douglas" <[email protected]>; "Muriel Bittencourt de Liz" <[email protected]>; "Lista de EMC da IEEE" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:13 AM Subject: RE: Environmental question I remember reading an article about this in New Scientist. After several years of operation they had found the Trees to either side of the antenna were growing taller and stronger than the rest of those in the Forest. Andrew Carson Senior Compliance Engineer Xyratex, UK -----Original Message----- From: Scott Douglas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 June 2002 13:16 To: Muriel Bittencourt de Liz; Lista de EMC da IEEE Subject: Re: Environmental question Muriel, Don't know if there are any agency type regulations but can remember this issue came up when the government wanted to install a communications antenna in the north woods of Wisconsin. The antenna was to be used to communicate to submarines deep under water using something like 30 Hz or 60 Hz radio waves. The antenna was a long (miles long) cable buried underground. There were many battles between the local citizens, various environmental and animal groups, and the government (US Navy?). If I recall correctly, there were even court cases trying to prevent the antenna from being installed. The concerns were related to what effect the RF would have on the environment to include plants and animals. Don't know for sure, but I believe the antenna was actually installed and was/is operating. Might be worth a look to see what came of that and to see what arguments were made pro/con. Might even be something came out of all that related to what you want to know. Regards, Scott Senior Compliance Engineer Narad Networks 515 Groton Road Westford, MA 01886 office: 978 589-1869 cell: 978-239-0693 [email protected] www.naradnetworks.com <http://www.naradnetworks.com/> At 06:13 PM 6/24/02 -0300, Muriel Bittencourt de Liz wrote: Hello Group, We already know the standards related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields (e.g. ANSI/IEEE). However some people have asked us if there is any standard/recommendations limiting the exposure of forests, lakes/rivers, animals, etc to RF fields. Do you know any FDA and EPA (or another agency) that regulate this subject of RF fields incidence? Example: Imagine a radio-base station (mobile comm) or antenna (TV or radio) put in the middle of a forest, where there is not human habitation, but we have animals, trees and waters. Is there any standard/recommendation related to this case (only for non-ionizing radiation, ie, EM radiation). Thanks in advance and Regards, Muriel ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
