The email below addressed to Stephen contains misleading information. The FCC article states that in the U.S. antennas typically transmit 5 - 10 watts per CHANNEL, NOT per ANTENNA. Each antenna has many CHANNELs or transmitters. In the U. S., typically an antenna has 63 channels. The safety limit permitted by the FCC is 500 watts effective radiated power per channel corresponding to an actual power output of 25 – 50 watts per channel. Please see the following quotes from the FCC article to verify what I am saying:
QUOTE At a cell site, the total RF power that could be transmitted from each transmitting antenna at a cell site depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) that have been authorized and the power of each transmitter. Typically, for a cellular base station, a maximum of 21 channels per sector (depending on the system) could be used. Thus, for a typical cell site utilizing sector antennas, each of the three transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21 transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters per site. When omnidirectional antennas are used, up to 96 transmitters could be implemented at a cell site, but this would be unusual. While a typical base station could have as many as 63 transmitters, not all of the transmitters would be expected to operate simultaneously thus reducing overall emission levels. For the case of PCS base stations, fewer transmitters are normally required due to the relatively greater number of base stations. UNQUOTE QUOTE Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts per channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular base stations in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of about 5-10 watts, depending on the type of antenna used (ERP is not equivalent to the power that is radiated but, rather, is a quantity that takes into consideration transmitter power and antenna directivity). UNQUOTE In some countries like Australia there could be as many as 168 channels per base station. Please see: http://www.mobilenetworkguide.com.au/mobile_base_stations.html. Regarding the various symptoms and brain tumors claimed to be caused by cell phone and tower radiations in the email to Stephen below, none of it is supported by evidence in humans in the medical literature. There is in fact CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE in support of the following: 1. The incidence of all cancers put together is declining in the U.S., India and many other countries since 1992 while cell phone and Wi-Fi use has gone up from 0% to 100% during that time. 2. The world-wide infertility rate has remained unchanged over the past 20 years while cell phone and Wi-Fi use has gone up exponentially. 3. The fetal mortality rate in the U.S. and many other countries has decreased since 1990 while cell phone and Wi-Fi use has increased exponentially. Now regarding the so-called Bio-Initiative Report here is what I wrote in my review of it a couple of years ago. The report appears to have been assembled in a hodgepodge manner by two co-editors, one a man named David Carpenter who is a physician, and a woman named Cindy Sage who is an environmental consultant. Her consultancy practice is called Sage EMF Design. Please see: http://www.silcom.com/~sage/emf/cindysage.html As I had suspected, there is a lot of biased selective reporting of non-reproducible and flawed studies with positive results in this report. Indeed, some research papers cited were retracted by the original authors subsequently, presumably because they were erroneous or could not be replicated. But the BIR 2012 does not mention this fact. The negative studies are largely ignored, contrary to the important precept in science, which regards even a single instance of falsification as the basis to reject a hypothesis. In general, it is a misleading and shoddy report. That is why many experts and expert committees in the EMF field have roundly criticized and rejected this report, and its 2007 version, which was, for the most part, the same as the 2012 version. If we follow all the ridiculous recommendations of the authors of the Bio-Initiative Report, we would have to give up electricity, radio, TV, radar, cordless phones, WiFi, internet, satellites, computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc. and live inside a copper wire cage to protect against cosmic radio waves and cosmic microwave background radiation. In short, we would have to revert to the 17th century using the copper wire cage as the only useful technological advance. Cheers, Santosh Dr. Santosh A Helekar, M.B.B.S., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Neurology Houston Methodist Research Institute and Weill Medical College of Cornell University Houston, Texas, U.S.A. On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Girish Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Stephen, > > Recd your following email, where you have forwarded email from > Santosh Helekar. He has mentioned two websites: > 1. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/human-exposure- > radio-frequency-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs-sites > > It quotes: An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of > 5-10 watts, depending on the type of antenna used. In urban areas, cell > sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts per channel or less. For PCS cell > sites, even lower ERPs are typical. > This implies that in the urban areas, power transmitted from each antenna > is 0.5 to 1W. I have attached FCC-oet56-ed4-1999.pdf > (Please see Page 21 of this document). > In India, operators are allowed to transmit 20W of power per antenna > even in the urban area. There may be 10+ antennas, so the total power > radiated will be 100's of watts. > 2. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/ > risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet > I have attached this document and highlighted some portions in the red > color, which shows there are health hazards. No conclusive evidence does > not mean no evidence. Also, many results presented show exposure duration > for short time. > > Please refer following para from Page 4 of this document. > > Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the > brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of > the brain (2 > <https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet#r2>), > the other study (3 > <https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet#r3>) > found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone > was used. > I downloaded Ref (3), they have used exposure of only half hour and hence > no negative effect. However, when people use cell phones for hours per day > over a decade, there are substantial health hazards, such as hearing and > eyes problems, headache, sleep disorder, lack of concentration, memory > loss, brain tumor, etc. > This document specifically mentions that long time exposure caused health > problems. > Please see: *www.bioinitiative.org <http://www.bioinitiative.org>*. I > have attached its conclusion. > > We have been also emphasizing overuse of cell phone is harmful and > the transmitted power from cell towers must be reduced to <1Watt > especially in the densely populated areas. > > With regards. > > ***************************************************************** > Girish Kumar > Professor, Electrical Engineering Department > I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA > Tel. - (022) 2576 7436, Fax - (022) 2572 3707 > email - [email protected], [email protected] > ***************************************************************** > > >
