Slashdot Mirror


Killer Apartment Vs. Persistent Microwave Exposure?

An anonymous reader writes "I am considering buying a penthouse apartment in Manhattan that happens to be about twenty feet away from a pair of panel antennas belonging to a major cellular carrier. The antennas are on roughly the same plane as the apartment and point in its direction. I have sifted through a lot of information online about cell towers, most of which suggest that the radiation they emit is low-level and benign. Most of this information, however, seems to concern ground-level exposure at non-regular intervals. My question to Slashdot is: should the prospect of persistent exposure to microwave radiation from this pair of antennas sitting twenty feet from where I rest my head worry me? Am I just being a jackass? Can I, perhaps, line the walls of the place with a tight metal mesh and thereby deflect the radiation? My background is in computer engineering — I am not particularly knowledgeable about the physics of devices such as these. Please help me make an enlightened decision."

791 comments

  1. If you are worried about it... by AlexiaDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dont buy it. You will worry yourself sick whatever we say.

    1. Re:If you are worried about it... by DingoTango · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed. Notice that you referred to the space as a "killer" apartment.

    2. Re:If you are worried about it... by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In addition, if you are worried consider that future buyers may also be worried. Unless you plan to either die in the apartment or leave it to your children, resale ability and ease of resale may be things you wish to consider.

    3. Re:If you are worried about it... by mrpacmanjel · · Score: 1

      There have been numerous studies worldwide about the effects of these transmitters and so far I don't think there is any proof of ill-effects.

      Logically you should be fine.

      However, it all depends how you feel about being so close to the transmitter. We are emotive creatures not logical creatures.

      If you bought the apartment would you look over your shoulder evrytime you think about it?

      If you have doubts then maybe it's a bad idea.

    4. Re:If you are worried about it... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry until you have had a radiation team doing measurements in your apartment and found out that the levels are near what's considered unhealthy.

      But be prepared to find out that your apartment is considered unfit for living.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:If you are worried about it... by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Easy one. Just start wearing a tin foil hat. I'm sure some kind soul here would be more than willing to help you out!

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    6. Re:If you are worried about it... by Blowit · · Score: 1

      If you still want to buy it, ask your Landlord to mesh it. It is his responsibility to protect his tenants.

      --
      *Headline News* censorship shuts down the Internet! More at 6PM!
    7. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perception is everything.
      It doesnt matter if, after serious research, you conclude that its safe. The "public's" perception is that they are not and you wont be able to change that.

      Put in a dirt cheap offer based on the resale value.

    8. Re:If you are worried about it... by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      In addition, if you are worried consider that future buyers may also be worried. Unless you plan to either die in the apartment or leave it to your children, resale ability and ease of resale may be things you wish to consider.

      Look on the bright side: if he really does die from the microwave radiation, he won't have to worry about resale value.

    9. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than the radiation may harm your health constantly wondering about whether it does and the insistence of others that it does WILL have a negative effect on your health.

      Whether the radiation ends up injuring your health or not the combination of nagging and a negative placebo effect (or actual cancer) will likely drive you to an early grave.

    10. Re:If you are worried about it... by bkeahl · · Score: 1
      That's a good point. If this person is going to be worried about exposure or selling (renting out) later then perception matters.

      That being said, there are several reasons to not be overly concerned:
      • The cell company would be idiots to focus those antennas on a structure. It defeats the purpose of putting them up.
      • There are exposure charts that set limits and they can't put the antennas up if they'll hit or exceed those limits.
      • The cell phone you carry with you probably affects you more due to proximity ...
      • The inverse-square law says power is quartered every time you double distance to the transmitter.
      • As for resale, some graffiti artist will probably paint them to look like breasts or smiley faces before long, so they'll blend in.
    11. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Should this be +Funny? Because in 'Killer Apartment vs Microwave Exposure', Microwave Exposure is presumably the bad thing, so 'Killer Apartment' must be the good thing, which could be an expression for 'Really Really Great Apartment'. >.>

    12. Re:If you are worried about it... by rastilin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that is an advantage if you're capable of buying it very cheap. Even a low sale price could be profitable, more so if something happens to make the tower go away before the apartment. There's nothing that can happen with the tower to make you lose money.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    13. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Easy one. Just start wearing a tin foil hat. I'm sure some kind soul here would be more than willing to help you out!

      Someone actually performed a study on this and discovered that a tin foil hat would only amplify electromagnetic waves!
      I kid you not.

    14. Re:If you are worried about it... by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Darn it, all I can find is aluminum foil!

      Curse you government! I see what you're doing!

    15. Re:If you are worried about it... by Sebilrazen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually below the summary has the actual title of the submission as "Kickass Apt. vs. Persistent Microwave Exposure."

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    16. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If he's buying it he won't have a landlord and he won't be a tenant, moron.

    17. Re:If you are worried about it... by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Informative
      There are paints you can get which have metallic dust incorporated into them. This will act as shielding. You can also go with a "Luster Dust" which would give a metallic sheen to your current wall color. Or even a straight metallic wall paint. There is also metallic wall paper.

      see also Force Field Wireless for paint additive, although you could also experiment with various metallic powders on your own.

      Ditto Storm windows with metal frames and screens. Apparently prefinished flooring also contains metallic powder which can reduce wifi signals. The new double pane windows also have metallic coatings that can reduce wifi.

      Normal cell phone reception would have to come from the side of the building opposite where the transmitters are located.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    18. Re:If you are worried about it... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No! That's the worst thing you can do! Have you ever seen what happens to a ball of tin foil when you put it in the microwave?!

      What you need are magnets! It's like how a motor works, but in reverse.

      No, not like a dynamo. More like the deflector dish on the Enterprise.

      Just don't cross the streams. Never cross the streams.

      Unless wearing waders.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    19. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, don't worry, I was born under such antennas and was left without consequenceesesesesesesesewseseseses

    20. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can borrow mine if you want. Its a Fedora.

    21. Re:If you are worried about it... by Random5 · · Score: 1

      Because your average tinfoil hat wearer doesn't earth the tinfoil :)

    22. Re:If you are worried about it... by noc007 · · Score: 1

      This. Perhaps it isn't the next asbestos, but I know that certain radio waves * intensity * proximity distance * exposure time = highly unfavorable effects to the human body. Even if you had been living there for a couple of years with no ill effects and were selling it, the moment I saw that tower out the window, I'd be heading towards the door with my wife in tow mumbling about not wanting my balls to fall off. I wouldn't be surprised if most potential buyers would scoff at the site of that tower.

    23. Re:If you are worried about it... by AeiwiMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      One protective paint is yshield.
      http://www.yshield.com/

    24. Re:If you are worried about it... by udippel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You tried your best, but missed the relevant points, sorry to say:

      The inverse-square actually depends on the directivity of the whole lot. A point source is fine, a laser isn't.
      Therefore, the 'proximity' isn't good neither. Roughly, considering your side of the head to be flat and the phone a point on that plane, you get half of the energy into your brain. That's not convincing, to me, because that's easily half a watt of RF that seeps through my brains. If I put my phone 20 feet away (let's stick to scientific units: 6 m), the point source would seep around 1 watt through a surface of a sphere 4*pi*r*r, that is around 100 square meters. With the average head diameter being around 22 cm, the surface of the head through which the energy seeps is around pi*r*r, that is around 0.04 square meter. So you'd get around 1/100*0.04, that is 0.0004 watt of RF radiation. That wouldn't bug me at all.
      But I wouldn't buy the place nevertheless: Firstly, you don't know the actual RF-wattage as produced. It can be significantly above 1 watt. How about 100 watt? And then, you don't know the directivity of that antenna. If it focuses the energy into your direction, and the main beam has a diameter of 1 m at 6 m of distance, it would blow 4 watt through your brain, and that 24/7. A parabola antenna is very good at concentrating energy. The place is not good at all. Fingers off, it might be totally harmless (see above), and it might be bad for your health (see below). Better safe than sorry!

      That's my advice!

    25. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Alu-min-i-um, you insensitive colonial.

      No worries: if it was unsafe, I am sure that the cellular industry would tell you.

    26. Re:If you are worried about it... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Typical editors (not just here but in general). They change the words to "improve" the article or story, but then they create a logical fallacy/ plot flaw.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:If you are worried about it... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dont buy it. You will worry yourself sick whatever we say.

      Agreed.

      Even if experts came to you in person and told you not to worry, chances are it would always be in the back of your mind. One of the things you want when you get a place is peace of mind.

      I'm not a doctor and I do not worry about things like cellphones or WiFi access points; but having a cell antenna pointed at window from a few feet away would be dis concerning.

      And as others already posted, if you ever plan on selling the place your customer base may have the same fears.

      Sure if it's an incredible one-in-a-lifetime deal it's hard to pass up, but you have to ask yourself "why is the owner willing to part with it for a song?" My guess is if you ever want to sell it you'll have to drop the price to a sweet deal as well.

    28. Re:If you are worried about it... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Insightful

      (steps into of a time machine)
      (steps out in the 1960s)

      "There have been numerous studies worldwide about the effects of these cigarettes, and so far I don't think there is any proof of ill-effects. On the contrary many of our studies show cigarettes to be beneficial, and 4 out of 5 doctors agree that our brand is the best."

      Perhaps towers ARE safe for most people under normal circumstances, but that doesn't mean they are always safe, especially if they are only a few feet away. Sailors in the navy are forbidden from being on the foredeck when the Aegis Radar is operating, because it will cook their bodies like a hot dog in a microwave. Antennas DO have the ability to damage human tissues, just as surely as one cigarette will not kill you, but over time the accumulated damage of repeated use means a shorter life.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    29. Re:If you are worried about it... by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      So you'd get around 1/100*0.04, that is 0.0004 watt of RF radiation.

      Most of the radiation is passing through you (your head doesn't block the signal), so I think you'd actually get a lot less than that.

      --
      Visit the
    30. Re:If you are worried about it... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're probably right, since they've studied the hell out of the effects of EMF radiation for years and years and found no correlation between EMF and illness. There's nothing special about microwave frequencies, but people think there is because microwave ovens cook meat.

      Here's a study of one: My dad, like hundreds of thousands like him was an electrical lineman for forty years. He worked with alternating current next to voltages up to 90 kv. He couldn't wear a wristwatch because the magnetic fields would magnetize that steel parts, which stopped working.

      He'll be 79 this June, and he still goes square dancing every Saturday.

      He did get some cancers from radiation -- solar radiation, not EMF. Working outside for forty years gave him some minor skin cancers on his face. The big fusion generator in the sky puts your puny EMF to shame. Worried about cancer? Stay out of the sun and don't smoke cigarettes.

    31. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Darn it, all I can find is aluminum foil!

      Curse you government! I see what you're doing!

      You won't be able to find it in the United States (hmm, I wonder why...), but I hear aluminium foil is a perfectly adequate substitute for tin.

    32. Re:If you are worried about it... by motorhead · · Score: 0

      Regardless what you chose you're screwed - that's life!

      --
      Employee Of the Month - Cyberdyne Systems Corporation - September 1997
    33. Re:If you are worried about it... by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In addition, if you are worried consider that future buyers may also be worried. Unless you plan to either die in the apartment or leave it to your children, resale ability and ease of resale may be things you wish to consider.

      Look on the bright side: if he really does die from the microwave radiation, he won't have to worry about resale value.

      Even better: If he buys the apartment, he may never have to worry about having children.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    34. Re:If you are worried about it... by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry until you have had a radiation team doing measurements in your apartment and found out that the levels are near what's considered unhealthy.

      Time, distance and shielding are your friends. But that's really immaterial here, the perception is what you have to consider. Not just for yourself but when you want to sell it sometime in the future.

      I can go on for hours about why it's safe to live under power lines, but if it's your house, it's not going to sell. I'd take a pass. Not because of the microwaves, but because of the resale issues.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    35. Re:If you are worried about it... by Fear13ss · · Score: 1

      Have you ever worn a tin foil hat that close to a tower? I assume the result would be something similar to aluminum foil in a microwave, probably bad news for any surrounding tissue. I suggest starting with an appendage less critical to your survival, like a non-dominant arm. If after 10 minutes of use your skin begins to sear, discontinue use.

    36. Re:If you are worried about it... by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Also, was "I'm about to buy a Manhattan penthouse" just a way of saying "BTW, I'm fucking rich ROFLMAO???" Because If you're that worried about this Manhattan penthouse, and you can afford to buy a Manhattan penthouse at all, then you can probably afford to buy a different Manhattan penthouse.

    37. Re:If you are worried about it... by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      The intensity in this case is many times less then the amount you need for unfavorable effects.
      The amount of energy you get from exposure is less than when you step from the shade into the sunlight.

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    38. Re:If you are worried about it... by TopherC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even though I'm skeptical that relatively low levels of microwave radiation could really be harmful, I thought I should point out that these metallic coatings or similar solutions do not absorb the radiation, they merely reflect it. Since complete coverage (floor, ceiling, windows, doors, etc) isn't realistic, you may easily reduce radiation overall but you might be allowing standing waves in certain locations, concentrating the radiation here and there, like hot spots in a microwave oven. An appartment is much bigger than a microwave oven, the walls are less flat, and there is more absorption etc. But the overall principle still applies to some degree. So I guess if I were worried enough about microwave radiation, still bought the apartment, but applied these reflective paints and such, then I'd also be worried about standing waves. Sniffing these out would be very time-consuming.

    39. Re:If you are worried about it... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 3, Funny

      But if he does, they are more likely to be mutants. (99% chance of them being bad mutations, but that .1% chance that he will be the father of the new master race....)

    40. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA! Impeede the carriers signal! I bet they loose a few Db if you shield ur apt.

    41. Re:If you are worried about it... by hughk · · Score: 1

      I believe an AT&T guy got fried whilst working on a dish on the empire state building a while back. To be fair though, being in front of a dish push a directional multi-kw pulse is about as safe as living in a microwave oven.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    42. Re:If you are worried about it... by hduff · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil athletic supporter might be a better option. And I'm sure duct tape would be useful somehow . . .

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    43. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eletromagnetic radiations are EVERYWHERE. Unless you plan in living in a faraday cage, you'll be exposed to them. In fact, they even emmanate from deep space, just like those powerful cosmic rays or even gamma radiation. In fact, they are likely the cause of the mutations allowing for evolution. Now thanks for rising our paranoia level one notch higher.

    44. Re:If you are worried about it... by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      I know! The switch from tin to aluminum is a plot to give everyone smart enough to wear a tinfoil hat Alzheimer's. If they can't beam their brainwaves in, then they've decided just to destroy our brains.

    45. Re:If you are worried about it... by jayspec462 · · Score: 1

      The RF geeks replying that it probably won't do any harm are absolutely correct. It will almost certainly be entirely harmless.

      However, the people saying that it will adversely affect your resale value are also correct, and in this case their opinion is the far more important one. Anyone purchasing a Manhattan penthouse will certainly do sufficient due diligence to look out the window before purchasing. The future purchaser won't think, "Hey, there's a cell tower right by me, maybe I should ask Slashdot." They'll think, "OMG, my testicles will fry! Abort transaction!"

      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
    46. Re:If you are worried about it... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      As any one needs to brag in a bad economy that they have the money for a Manhattan penthouse. I would say they are perfectly safe, heck I would even recommend drinking the rain water wash off, and the pidgins only add extra vitamins to the water.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    47. Re:If you are worried about it... by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1

      I would think a tin foil codpiece would be a good idea as well.

    48. Re:If you are worried about it... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Duct tape is always useful.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    49. Re:If you are worried about it... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      On the up side though, nobody will be jacking your wifi signal. Including you if you shield the interior walls too.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    50. Re:If you are worried about it... by b4upoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      And here people have prejudice against mobile home dwellers. Imagine all that aluminum protecting them day and night!

    51. Re:If you are worried about it... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    52. Re:If you are worried about it... by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Easy one. Just start wearing a tin foil hat. I'm sure some kind soul here would be more than willing to help you out!

      Someone actually performed a study on this and discovered that a tin foil hat would only amplify electromagnetic waves! I kid you not.

      Going out on a limb here, but is this the study you were talking about?

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    53. Re:If you are worried about it... by dnahelicase · · Score: 1
      Easy. Lead Paint. Throw a couple coats on. They say it's "dangerous" but it is still used all over the world where people aren't quite as "concerned".

      You might even want to throw a little extra lead in there. Then you don't have to worry about radiation from the antennas, stray superheroes that might be looking in, or any fly-by RFID scanners...

    54. Re:If you are worried about it... by Creepy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Speaking of low level radiation, and specifically non-ionizing radiation like cell phones, popsci has an article about a guy that is hypersensitive to it. The online article is four pages (I think the print article was 10-12) and it does cover a lot of ground, including arguments from both sides. I kinda skimmed over it, myself, but if you care about this sort of thing it may be worth a read.

    55. Re:If you are worried about it... by tempest69 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Man, keep the apartment.. just think, you can place a bowl of popcorn kernels on your kitchen table, and try to catch them as they pop.. sure invite friends over, have some drinks. invite that cute girl with braces over so you can eavesdrop on peoples conversations. Get a pair of rabbit ears and let the microwaves power a jacobs ladder. Get some blinds, so you can turn off peoples cell phones in the whole area, then open them so you can really keep them cranky.
      Create a parabolic dish, so that you can nail some poor schmuck in jersey with roaming charges. (so poor that his cell phone charges for roaming)..

      enjoy
      Storm

    56. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Absolutely correct. Besides re-sale will be a very long nightmare.

      But from the science side of things, ask a Ham operator what they know about low RF signals and such. I use to be a Ham operator and I use to hold a fluorecent light bulb in my hand and wave it over my old transmitter and watch it light up. This is not a joke or lie. I can only imagine what prolonged exposure to a microwave (yes, some towers transmit in the microwave range) transmissions will do to your DNA.

    57. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead is a good choice for the material of the metallic dust. They used it all the time in the past so it must be good.

    58. Re:If you are worried about it... by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to Jesusland, where killing is OK, but kicking someone's very naughty part is not.

    59. Re:If you are worried about it... by InSINCskip · · Score: 1

      I agree! If you are worried now, just think what the next buyer will do! Hard to resell. Now if it was a AT&T tower, you wouldn't have anything to worry about anyway :O

    60. Re:If you are worried about it... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Another consideration, though, is how fast can you sell it. With something like this, you might exclude a significant percentage of potential buyers, making it harder to unload when you want to unload it and move somewhere else.

      I stated an anecdote about one of these houses I just looked at, that had high tension wires across the backyard, it was on the market for around 100 days, where the average here is only around 7-15 days. And right now there is a real estate feeding frenzy, so this might be worse in a normal market.

      There isn't many things worse than sitting on a property that you can't sell.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    61. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Resale? It's an apartment! That's one thing he doesn't need to be worried about.

    62. Re:If you are worried about it... by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "Notice that you referred to the space as a 'killer' apartment."

      Editors (kdawson) write the headlines, not the submitter. (IME)

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    63. Re:If you are worried about it... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      At least he'll have amazing Cell coverage in his house.

    64. Re:If you are worried about it... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Magnetic paint from home depot in the paint section is FAR cheaper and works great IF you ground it. I.E.: give it a drain to ground which is easy enough if you get a piece of copper foil tape and paint to it and wire that to the ground in your outlet.

      I did this to let my daughter stick magnets to her walls in her bedroom, It added a side effect of the cellphones, wifi and even the cordless phones stop working when her door was closed (we painted that too)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    65. Re:If you are worried about it... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Since complete coverage (floor, ceiling, windows, doors, etc) isn't realistic...

      why not? paint all the walls, celing and flooring below the carpet and doors with it as a base coat. Windows you simply cover with a fine aluminum or copper screening. It's very realistic and easily doable.

      Granted it will make life very miserable for any wireless technology in your home.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    66. Re:If you are worried about it... by the+biologist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "On a walk last summer, he ran into one of his few neighbors, a man who lives in a cottage about 100 yards away. During their chat, the man’s cellphone rang, and Segerbäck, 54, was overcome by nausea. Within seconds, he was unconscious."

      The guy in the article only develops symptoms of exposure when he realizes he's being exposed. He's a paranoid lunatic to a severe degree. It is probable that medication will help him, but not until he accepts that the problem is internal not external in nature.

    67. Re:If you are worried about it... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I think it's far more likely that his cellphone will not be able to get a usable signal there due to cross-channel harmonics, same for his WiFi and even his cordless phone for the land-line then it would be for him to have any health effects. There is no guarantee that his TV, radio or even stereo will work without mind-bending distortion and interference. There is probably a real reason the "killer" apartment is available to him, if something is too good to be true, it probably is.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    68. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I need my hat... Otherwize the government will steal all my great ideas...

    69. Re:If you are worried about it... by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

      I can go on for hours about why it's safe to live under power lines, but if it's your house, it's not going to sell. I'd take a pass. Not because of the microwaves, but because of the resale issues.

      Umm, this is a penthouse in Manhattan. Most people that don't read /. wouldn't notice a cell phone antenna, and the ones that would might think it's a benefit.

      In the midwest people won't live under powerlines because you can choose anywhere to live. How many penthouses are on the market and available in Manhattan?

    70. Re:If you are worried about it... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Who cares. Just buy sheets of lead, and install them on the wall next to the the cell base stations...problem solved and lead is fairly cheap.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    71. Re:If you are worried about it... by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Informative

      Be careful!

      There was one guy in a suit over stuff like this. So, they sent out a doctor to go with the patient to confirm the symptoms. The guy demonstrated when and where the problems occurred, and sure enough, they did! But what he didn't know was that the cellular company had TURNED OFF the nearby tower on that day, thus was emitting no "low level" radiation at all.

      Killed the lawsuit, the guy turned out to be a crazy, and there will be plenty more. Not saying that there aren't some symptoms of low-level radiation, but when somebody turns out to be "ultra sensitive" to these kinds of things, it's a near certainty is all cooked up in their brains.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    72. Re:If you are worried about it... by cartman94501 · · Score: 1

      Resale value is irrelevant. If you're already getting a discount because the market fears radiation, your lower resale value will be offset by the lower purchase price now. In other words, your profit or loss when you sell will probably be similar to those of all apartment sellers in Manhattan at time of sale.

    73. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

      HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCIEVABLE!

    74. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm giving up Mod Points just be able to say I Agree with the OP. If its really that much of a concern, its not worth it, even if it all turns out to be benign. Sure you can turn your apartment into some sort of Faraday Cage, but then you'll get no cellular service anyways. Keep on looking, you just might find an even better place at a better deal.

    75. Re:If you are worried about it... by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Why is this funny? If you can afford the penthouse you can afford some chicken-wire and a ground under the drywall.

    76. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The old CTO of Sprint died of a brain tumor a couple of years after they installed a cell antenna over his office on the Sprint campus.

      Anecdotal at best but ... I would not live near one if I could avoid it.

    77. Re:If you are worried about it... by josath · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was actually named Aluminum by its discoverer, a British chemist. No idea why a bunch of jerkoffs decided to rename it just because they didn't like his naming.

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
    78. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    79. Re:If you are worried about it... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      There are paints you can get which have metallic dust incorporated into them.

      A few years ago my daughter wanted to be able to put magnets on her walls, so we bought some of that primer that contains iron. Let me tell you a few things about using that stuff...

      * It is HEAVY as all get out.

      * Mixing it is unbelievably difficult, and in addition will quickly break any standard paint stir stick. I ended up using a thick piece of dowel.

      * It's also not going to look very good on your windows, which are probably the biggest transmitters of radiation in your apartment.

      Also, FWIW the types of weak magnets most kids like to use don't hold worth a darn on that stuff.

      (As an aside - Slashcode seems to do weird things to lists, if you're wondering why I didn't use one)

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    80. Re:If you are worried about it... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      New cell towers use about 100 watts, but I couldn't tell you from that how much they put out. That's actually much lower wattage than it used to be.

      These antennas, however, will definitely not be concave parabolas. Cell towers need to spread the signal out, not direct it. They will either be multiple flat antennas, or a smaller number of slightly convex antennas.

      If it is a tower to tower link you're worried about, you needn't be - those will be setup to keep clear of buildings and are very directed, you'd never get any of the radiation.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    81. Re:If you are worried about it... by cmattdetzel · · Score: 1

      And then there have been rather recent studies which indicate plenty of ill effects. http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1

      --
      Total value of the derivatives time-bomb: $1.144 quadrillion and counting.

    82. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was actually named Aluminum by its discoverer, a British chemist. No idea why a bunch of jerkoffs decided to rename it just because they didn't like his naming.

      Hello. British.

    83. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      usually GSM base station radiates 20w per carrier per direction, constant radiation, not 1/8 of time like GSM phones do

    84. Re:If you are worried about it... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that this thread is just getting started.

    85. Re:If you are worried about it... by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      ...when somebody turns out to be "ultra sensitive" to these kinds of things, it's a near certainty is all cooked up in their brains.

      One way or another!

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    86. Re:If you are worried about it... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      HAHA! Impeede the carriers signal! I bet they loose a few Db if you shield ur apt.

      Maybe this apartment is in New York... and the fact that so many people have put these metallic paints on their walls is the reason why the 3G coverage is so bad that ATT doesn't want to sell iPhone 3Gs in the area...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    87. Re:If you are worried about it... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      But if he does, they are more likely to be mutants. (99% chance of them being bad mutations, but that .1% chance that he will be the father of the new master race....)

      Each human has about 100 novel mutations from their parents. It turns out that the vast majority of mutations are actually neutral...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    88. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think when he asked us to help him make an enlightened decision, the whole point was to avoid using the renter as a guinea pig for testing theories. :P

    89. Re:If you are worried about it... by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      And here people have prejudice against mobile home dwellers. Imagine all that aluminum protecting them day and night!

      Yeah, but those benefits are offset by the tornado-attracting qualities of that same aluminum.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    90. Re:If you are worried about it... by scld · · Score: 1

      I tried to find something amusing to say about this comment, but failed. Here's something informative, instead. THAT IS NOT TRUE

      --
      'Those are my principles. If you don't like them, well. . .I have others.'

      twitter.com/scld

    91. Re:If you are worried about it... by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      To put numbers to your comments:

      We do know the actual RF wattage that can be produced, it's not some big mystery it takes 2 seconds of googling. See WHO, it is between 10 and 100W, with newer towers being smaller power levels.

      It should be obvious that cell towers don't use parabolic antennas. They are typically going for wide coverage, which directly translates into a low-gain antenna. You will notice that most cell antenna masts have three antennas pointing 120 degrees apart, which suggests probably about 6dB gain per antenna, maybe a bit less. The vertical pattern is narrowed, so call it another 2dB, so call it 8dB gain. The max equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) will thus be 100W*10^0.8 = 630W.

      630W / (4*pi*(6m)^2) gives 1.4W/m^2 at a 6 meter (20foot) distance.

      The ANSI standard at 300MHz in uncontrolled environments is 2W/m^2. So it is under the gov. mandated safety limit. It could be much less if the base station is not an old high power one, or could be a bit higher if my antenna gain estimate is off. Standing wave effects (if reflection and incident wave are in phase at your location) could push it higher, but the 2W/m^2 is actually 20% the exposure level for controlled environments (10W/m^2), so there is already a generous safety margin to account for that. And cell phones operate over 300MHz where the limits are actually higher.

      If in doubt, call the phone company and get details, or do as others say and shield your apartment.

    92. Re:If you are worried about it... by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Nope. Your head is largely made of water with ionic compounds in it. Water is highly polar so it absorbs a lot of power through dielectric effects (how a microwave oven works). It's also a poor conductor, so it absorbs power through conduction effects. Perfect conductors and perfect insulators absorb no power, it's the poor conductors that you have to worry about.

    93. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if he does, they are more likely to be mutants. (99% chance of them being bad mutations, but that .1% chance that he will be the father of the new master race....)

      Don't forget the 0.9% chance that the mutant child will suck at math :P

    94. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First,

      Inverse sqluare law applied to all RF and light systems, regardless of antennas being directional or not. It just means as the distance increases, the level of signal will reduce by the square on the distance. (regardless if it's a directional antenna or an OMNI.)

      Antenna's that are directional have "gain", which mean they focus more power in one direction over another. But the level of power from the directional antenna also lives by the inverse square law.

      (also distance for RF calculations, for inverse square law are done in number of Wavelengths.)

      So if you have a parabolic antenna with 3db gain, that is an effective doubling of radiated power (in the direction it is pointing). So if you have a 10 watt transmitter, and a 3db gain antenna you will have an "EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER" of 20 watts. (again in the direction the antenna is pointed).

      It's that 20 watts of effective power that is then subject to the inverse square law.

      It's almost impossible to compare using a cell phone, to living near a cell tower.

      It's about total radiated power and duty cycle.

      If you use you're cell phone you might actually talk to a few minutes, most of the time you are recieving, also if you have a good signal level, you're phone will wind back it's transmit power to a minimum.

      Cell towers, CONTINUOUSLY talk to hundreds or thousands of phones, they transmit on multiple channels at the same time, and it's done 24/7.

      So the effective radiated power of a cell tower will be FAR higher and CONSTANT, not only constant, but multiple, constant transmissions, on different channels at the same time.

      Good quality RF shielding paid, is VERY expensive, we used to use it, and it was like $20 for a bottle the size of a bottle of finger nail polish.

      And it would be basically impossible to effectively shield you're apartment.

      My advise, would be NOT to move there, if there was any other alternative. Especially if you intended to live there for any extended period of time.

      It's just not worth the risk, and worry... and you are right to worry.

    95. Re:If you are worried about it... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Hey! Quit trying to change our words you dang tea swilling Limey! if it wasn't fer the USA your butts would be speaking the German with a big old Nazi flag flying right over the queen's place, so you just keep yer fancy spellings, yer crappy metric system, and yer shitty little beep beep cars to yourselves now, you hear? WE WON the Cold War, the least we should get out of it is the right to spell however we want and to keep our superior gallons over them crappy ass metric liters. Liters is for Coke, not gas.

      So it's Alu- Mi- Num, like Brits- Is- Dumb, if they think we is gonna change! Like we should trust any country that would create something like the mini. That ain't no vehicle son, that's a dang go-cart. No wonder you can get by on a liter of gas, it is probably all that little moped engine will take! So you just leave our aluminum and gallons alone, or we'll have to liberate your ass and replace all those fish and chips shops with McDonald's! And they are called FRIES dammit!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    96. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see a good side... and a bad side to this...

      The good side: Think how much money you'll save on keeping warm in the winter.

      The bad side: That personal summer you're feeling just might NOT be menopause.

    97. Re:If you are worried about it... by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      What about the other .9%?

    98. Re:If you are worried about it... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Well, the headline says "apartment". If it means "apartment" (not "condo") then resale is Someone Else's Problem.

    99. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, I know a microwave tech for TV and he had to be certified for the job because its dangerous stuff. He popped a bag of popcorn next to the TV truck - for real.

      These people know the dangers when they bounce broadcasts off windows and buildings in town; they keep the distance and power down to avoid problems and must be certified in this state.

      I wouldn't live near the tower without knowing exactly how much is getting in the room; furthermore, you never know when they decide to upgrade that tower and you are stuck with a problem.

    100. Re:If you are worried about it... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Just because you Yanks really suck at hockey is no reason to get upset about everything! The Brits pronounce it the way they spell it, the Yanks pronounce it the way they spell it, and both are acceptable! Now STFU and start practicing your goaltending for Sochi!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    101. Re:If you are worried about it... by hazydave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm... yeah. He's not sensitive to the guy's cellphone before the call, even though that phone is transmitting beacons all the time, to remain in contact with the local tower. Sounds like a nut. I did read the article, but it was just about this guy, and didn't offer any real critique. They should have sent a reporter out there with a 2-something GHz "white noise" generator in hit pocket. Or better still, do a real double-blind test. If the guy's actually sensitive to higher UHF spectrum RFI, that would be pretty interesting. Far as anyone knows, this stuff can't be detected by biological critters in any way. Some critters do, however, detect magnetic fields.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    102. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your general point is good—the radiation is likely harmless. But your analogy to sunlight is terrible. Direct sunlight is quite strong, and humans can suffer long- and short-term medical consequences from overexposure in mere hours. There's a reason we have sunscreen but not cellscreen.

      Although, come to think of it, a full-body coating of conductive silver paint (with conductive goggles, etc.) would probably solve the guy's problem, plus he could make some side income performing as a robot at crowded tourist intersections.

    103. Re:If you are worried about it... by Sanat · · Score: 1

      Speaking of that... I worked for 8 years with nuclear weapons (Minuteman missiles) sometimes having the warhead just inches from my skin/body.

      Recently I had a DNA test for genealogy reasons ( distant lost relatives) and not only do I not match my current family's DNA, but I do not match anyone's DNA who is registered so far with ancestry.com... which is a bunch of people.

      Hopefully the cell tower radiation will not create such a thing for the occupants.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    104. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either ass kicking or killer, doesn't sound to healthy to live in. Independent of the radiation.

    105. Re:If you are worried about it... by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Sailors in the navy are forbidden from being on the foredeck when the Aegis Radar is operating, because it will cook their bodies like a hot dog in a microwave.

      Yes, but that's a 250kW radar with a very tightly focused beam, not a 10W Cellphone transmitter with a 30 degree antenna.

      Antennas DO have the ability to damage human tissues

      Only if you are physically struck with one.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    106. Re:If you are worried about it... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Eh.. it depends. If his concerns would be assuaged by evidence, then he should put in an offer contingent upon satisfactory results from a site survey performed by a company chosen by him, at cost to the seller. (Google turned up this in NY).

    107. Re:If you are worried about it... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      I was getting concerned that women were always complaining about us talking about their breastststststs...we must be emitting some kind of radiation that they're picking up...

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    108. Re:If you are worried about it... by FreeFull · · Score: 1

      Visible light can kill you too if concentrated enough (eg. lasers) but it's likely that everyday you step out into sunlight.

      --
      No ascii art.
    109. Re:If you are worried about it... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I think that, in general, any services that measure unhealthy {air/water/radiation/mold/building materials} are also in the business of selling expensive solutions to the problems they report.

    110. Re:If you are worried about it... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      It was an English man that came up with the term aluminum. It was only afterwards upon a peer review that others opted to change the name purely because other discovered materials had the ium suffix.

      If the British don't like the US spelling then blame the British guy who came up with it.

    111. Re:If you are worried about it... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is why I don't take these people seriously. We've been surrounded by radio and TV signals for ages and unless you live in a rural area you are almost certainly surrounded by wifi, mobile phone, radio and TV signals amongst others on a near constant basis.

      If you need to be made aware of what's around you before you get sick then you're full of it, imo.

    112. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a fellow scientist with a field meter take some measures. Note that traditional analog meters do not give precise vaues of impulsive waves like those used in cellphones and such. With the correct numbers, take an informed decission.

      Other way to act is trying to lower the price becouse your concerns about the antenna and a day after moving to your shiny new appt., shoot them!

    113. Re:If you are worried about it... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Since you are worried about the radiation that would be absorbed by your body, and concerned that incomplete coverage of your apartment with conductive foil would encourage standing waves, the obvious solution is to cover your walls with a material that has the same absorption characteristics as your body. Yes! Cover your walls with slabs of beef!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    114. Re:If you are worried about it... by LowG1974 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but anyone's reply that contains "isn't good neither" is automatically disqualified. But wait, now my reply contains those words. Dang my inflexible regulations!!

      --
      there is no spoon. or fork. there is a butter knife, and it's dull.
    115. Re:If you are worried about it... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but considering that the waves come from underground lairs, the tinfoil hat acts as a wonderful parabolic dish. That's why I leave off the hat and just line my shoes with tinfoil.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    116. Re:If you are worried about it... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Someone actually performed a study on this and discovered that a tin foil hat would only amplify electromagnetic waves!

      Simple solution to your study: put your tin foil hat around your cell phone (which is the same type of radiation he is worried about). If your phone loses all signal, the hat stops the signal; if your phone gains signal, the hat increases signal.

      I tried this on my cell phone and it lost all signal. It took several seconds to figure that out, but then it starts its lost service beeps. So I know for a fact my tin foil hat stops cell phone signals. If I cared I could do the same with my wifi router, but I'll leave that experiment to those who do.

      BTW, I actually don't wear said hat, I was just demonstrating the principle to someone who saw a study like the one you mention above.

    117. Re:If you are worried about it... by paxcoder · · Score: 1

      I see your sig all the time. You must be refreshing your feed like crazy to be among the first to post.

    118. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Test? Real simple.

      Put "sensitive" person into shielded room with transmitter. Tell person about test OR tell person "you are safe here while we look for cure".
      Turn transmitter up/down without telling person.
      Change frequencies.
      repeat.
      Observe. ...
      profit

      Person gets sick, without knowing that you turned up the juice? not crazy. time to find an actual cause/cure.
      Person sits there waiting for cure while cooking inside the microwave? Rubber stamp with "crazy" and move on to more important things.

    119. Re:If you are worried about it... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Firstly, you don't know the actual RF-wattage as produced. It can be significantly above 1 watt. How about 100 watt?

      Just put a similar antenna and you will have free electricity.

      However, it would be stupid to place a directional antenna so most of the power goes through a building - if you put the antenna above the building you will need less power or you will be able to transmit the signal farther.

      In any case, just get the RF levels measured.

    120. Re:If you are worried about it... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      No, he's *buying* an apartment. "Apartment" is used for ownership, apparently more often on the East Coast. (Most of us use condo for that, like you did.)

    121. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I not match my current family's DNA

      But what about past families?

    122. Re:If you are worried about it... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Very few people are aware that kdawson is actually a movie script ghostwriter. He's worked on projects such as Starship Troopers, I Am Legend, and The Bourne Identity.

    123. Re:If you are worried about it... by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

      Are cellphone signals in the microwave band? I don't know, but I have always believed them not to be. Microwaves definitely can be dangerous, but other radiation bands may or may not be so. Given that cell towers are trying to blanket a wide region of space in all directions to provide service, I would suspect that they are not microwaves. Microwaves generally are used for highly directional signaling, such as point-to-point communication.

    124. Re:If you are worried about it... by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      I like your answer, must simpler than what I was going to suggest. I used to work in a cell phone R&d lab and we had fully shielded rooms, not for safety, but to prevent us from interfering with the outside world and more importantly, to prevent them from bothering us. As freqs go up, the grid for the cage must become denser so you might as well use the cheapest foil that works. A test such as yours would work, or you could get an RF engineer friend to run the numbers which is what I was about to recommend. The problem with my suggestion is that the friend should share your biases, but he's more inclined to share the biases of his employer. So, do the test, identify the foil that works and use it to shield that side of your apartment. If you and your RF friend are smart, you will set up a window to use to microwave your food for free and another gizmo that might induce enough power to light your lights and keep your computer and other equipment going for free. If you don't get rich from all the free induced power, you can still sue your landlord (or the phone company) for the tumor in your brain caused by excessive cell phone use.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    125. Re:If you are worried about it... by Sanat · · Score: 1

      Different from all of them to a significant degree. As if I am adopted or something, but I look just like my father. My brother uses his DNA test to look for past relatives.

      Don't know if it was the nuclear radiation, space aliens changing my DNA, or something even more sinister than that... if something more sinister could exist :)

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    126. Re:If you are worried about it... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      If you're posting here, you already own one.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    127. Re:If you are worried about it... by Phizital1ty · · Score: 1

      actually the original article that was submitted was named "kick ass apartment" they renamed it for home page viewing

    128. Re:If you are worried about it... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      I don't know about cell phone towers, but the Cold War era microwave relay towers could kill birds if they got close enough

    129. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's not like sunlight can cause cancer.. OH SNAP MELANOMA!

    130. Re:If you are worried about it... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      In addition, if you are worried consider that future buyers may also be worried. Unless you plan to either die in the apartment or leave it to your children, resale ability and ease of resale may be things you wish to consider.

      If the existence of the cell tower is obvious, then the apartment's current asking price probably already factors this in. He should research the prices that comparable apartments are selling for in that area. If the asking price is significantly below what you'd expect based on the price per square foot of comparable properties in the area, then that's probably evidence that the seller knows it's an issue, and all potential buyers know it's an issue. Then once the OP convinces himself that it's not a health issue (which is isn't, because it's non-ionizing radiation), he gets it at a low price, and when he sells it he'll also sell it at a low price. Say the reduction is $50k. The net gain on the transaction is unaffected by the cell tower. However, he gets to keep $50k in the stock market or whatever instead of locking it up in a non-liquid piece of real estate.

      If it's not obvious to potential buyers that microwaves are passing through it, or if the price is not significantly less than comparable properties, then he should probably not buy it, because he might get screwed on resale when potential buyers realize the microwave situation.

    131. Re:If you are worried about it... by yukk · · Score: 1

      WE WON the Cold War, the least we should get out of it is the right to spell however we want and to keep our superior gallons over them crappy ass metric liters. Liters is for Coke, not gas.

      Aww, hey, don't feel bad. Just because the British Gallon is bigger than the American one:

      ... one British (imperial) gallon equals 1.2009 gallons US I'm not even going to go into litres.

      --
      The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin
    132. Re:If you are worried about it... by Meski · · Score: 1

      A jackass... well, you might end up as sterile as a mule after a while :^)

    133. Re:If you are worried about it... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is because we really don't care about them crazy canuck sports like hockey! We need to put a REAL sport in there...Football! No, not that sissy shorts wearing soccer crap you Limeys call football, but REAL football, where giant steroid monsters crush you like a bug! Not THAT is a sport, not that dang crazy canuck crap!

      I will give you lousy Limeys credit for ONE thing though...Rugby. Now there is some tough bastards! We need to steal some of them rugby players, pump them full of steroids, hell I bet they may even qualify then for our beloved Football!

      But don't think anybody here is crying over that sissy canuck crap. hell most of us don't even watch that stupid Olympics crap! NO Football, our dream team basketball slaughters, and hell, do they even have baseball? Just a bunch of crappy sports like "figure skating"...and there ain't even any land mines or nothing! That ain't a sport, that is just sissies on ice!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    134. Re:If you are worried about it... by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

      I missed the part where you told us they were radiating/transmitting antennas.

    135. Re:If you are worried about it... by bkeahl · · Score: 1

      My point was, and is, there are exposure limits already in place. The cell company has a legal limit to how much it can expose people to and it's bad business to waste your money on a tower that's pointed towards an obstruction. The actual limits are 450 W/cm2 @ 900 MHz and 950 W/cm2 @ 1900 MHz. We're not talking watts of exposure, we're talking .00045 watts to .001 watts worst case. 3G systems tend to emit lower power and won't even get close to these levels.

      But, given the level ignorance most folks have of almost everything technical, I'd be concerned about resale/leasing. Shoot, most reasonably intelligent people wouldn't waste their time determining safety, they'll just go find a place where they don't have to worry about it ... and if their luck is like mine, watch a company start construction of a cell tower out the kitchen window right after moving in!

    136. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait till he gets going.... Now where was he?

    137. Re:If you are worried about it... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      It *is* a killer apartment. It's got a killer view, and it just radiates charm

    138. Re:If you are worried about it... by codemaster2b · · Score: 1

      Are you unaware of the signal behavior of a cell phone shortly before it receives a call? I have noticed on several dozen occasions that if a cell phone is located near an unshielded speaker or speaker signal wire (a headphone cable, for instance), the speaker will emit a series of beeps in a particular pattern.

      Obviously, the cell phone is inducing current into the wire. The man's behavior is not psychosomatic in nature, necessarily. The cell phone does behave differently when it is negotiating a new call.

      As for your tests, I whole-heartedly agree that this would be the best way to prove it. However, finding a scientific method of doing it is somewhat hard to do, since any experiment must be repeatable, and the experiment matter may be hard to find (i.e. is not believed to exist at all by some people). Also, it is hardly humane to conduct experiments on a person who negatively reacts to a cell phone; if he was telling the truth, and the radiation knocked him unconcious, who knows what further radiation might do?

      --
      And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t
    139. Re:If you are worried about it... by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      you may easily reduce radiation overall but you might be allowing standing waves in certain locations

      All he needs to do is line the entire floor with chocolate bars to detect the hot spots. And also measure the speed of light while he's at it. Double prizes!

    140. Re:If you are worried about it... by howe.chris · · Score: 0

      If he's buying it he won't have a landlord and he won't be a tenant, moron.

      He will be a tenet to the best landlord ever, Tyler Durden. He should shave his head and stand on the stoop and wait to be invited in. I bet the view even has quite a few bank high rises in perfect view. (I would probably advise against owning a gun at this time though.)

    141. Re:If you are worried about it... by PAStheLoD · · Score: 1

      You start with a theory.

      These cigarettes are not causing any harm because all of its effetcs are, [here comes your explanation/theory].

      Not just "let's do science" and you hand out cartons of cigarettes and if no one gets sick, then you conclude it's fine.

      The theory regarding smoking is what the common sense dictates. Inhaling ash is bad.

      In case of the microwave the common sense is nothing, we can't even see it. Most people associate microwave radiation with microwave ovens, which do heating by creating magnetic fields changing over time to cause tiny molecules to wiggle, thus increase their entropy, energy, temperature. And it's just coincidence that these magnetic fields have a frequency of approx. 2.45 GHz.

      So, OP should consider it a form of free heating in the winter, and sit outside in his pool on the top of Manhattan in the summer.

    142. Re:If you are worried about it... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

      Don't mind the speech impediment, it comes from the Asbestos in his walls...

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    143. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, just only paint the wall nearest the transmitter, since the radiation will mostly travel in a straight line, this will block most of it, but there won't be other significantly sized reflective surfaces in the apartment with which to create standing waves.

    144. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy in the article only develops symptoms of exposure when he realizes he's being exposed. He's a paranoid lunatic to a severe degree. It is probable that medication will help him, but not until he accepts that the problem is internal not external in nature.

      It's a bit extreme to declare a person a lunatic because he passed out. It's not that common to get nausia and pass out within seconds due to mental issues.

      Let's try a little interesting scenario:
      Assume that we have a mobile phone and we want to get permission to sell it. However instead of proving it not harmful as an electronic gadget we will have to prove it not harmful to humans the way we test medication. The goal is to find sideeffects including the severe ones, nomatter how rare they are. If you look at the documentation for some medication you could see stuff like "sideeffects for 1 out of between 100.000 and 1.000.000: heart attack. If present call for an ambulance at once". It goes without saying that if the real number is say 1 out of 700.000, then you need to test a whole lot of people to find it.

      Now if we test 10k or even 100k people, then odds are that nobody will suffer a heart attack. Given your statement (and quite a lot of other people's) then if the example drug is tested on 100k people and no link to heart attacks have been found, then everybody suffering a heart attack within 24 hours of taking the drug would get the heart attack due to mental issues and everybody claiming otherwise would be lunatics.

      If look at test to see if say talking on a mobile phone is dangerous, then it will test say 2500 people. All have no record of issues with mobile phones and checked by a doctor to be declared healthy. They are then told to talk on a phone for an hour and then asked if they are dizzy, in pain or any other discomfort. Statistics would indicate that none of them are and then the phone in question is harmless. However it have not been proven to be safe to everybody or even everybody in a group of say 50k people. Besides there is no long term results of such a one hour test. It could hurt after a year even though the test passed.

      The reason why "real" tests aren't being made is because people claiming phones to be dangerous lack money for proper tests and the people who can afford to make proper tests are the ones making money selling phones, which means they have a financial interest in not discovering potential hazards.

      The medical world have a tendency to declare everything mental issues unless it's proven as a physical issue. A good example is migraine. Until recently it have been considered a mental issue because no physical issues were found. However today it's known to be a physical condition and people suffering from it have been declared "un-mentally ill" (unless declared for other reasons)

    145. Re:If you are worried about it... by FreeFull · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked UV radiation wasn't visible

      --
      No ascii art.
    146. Re:If you are worried about it... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that microwaves do damage cells and therefore can cause cancer but only at higher levels than are produced by cell phone towers. I used to work for a long distance carrier who used microwaves to provide service to remote areas. I visited a retransmission site and the local engineers told me that if a bird flew in front of the dish it just dropped to the ground immediately fried. In other words, there is no dispute over the fact the microwaves are harmful, the question is at what level are they harmful.

      Also, when I worked in NY in the WTC, there was a study done that showed that those working in the upper floors of the tower next to the one with the TV antenna had higher body temperatures due to the microwaves from the TV antenna.

    147. Re:If you are worried about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont buy it. You will worry yourself sick whatever we say.

      This.

      There's no way to tell if it's harmful or not. Which "studies" do you believe? The ones paid for by cell providers or the ones paid for by electrosensitivity freaks?

      As with any controversial topic (cell radiation, global warming, smoking, etc.) you get bullshitted by every side.

      Point is, if you already worry, there is nothing to make it go away. This will impact your quality of living.

  2. Yes, you are being a jackass by dnaumov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If exposure to mobile carrier antenna radio waves was of any danger to public health, there is no way you would be seeing these antennas anywhere near apartment complexes, the FCC or whatever is the appropriate authority is in your country would be all over this. On the contrary, you should be happy that your apartment is going to get some pretty damn good coverage :)

    1. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well well I would not be that fast to say that this could not be an health issue. There is enough evidence that radiation can be hazardious. However we are not sure of what type and energy levels are unhealty.

      Resently though it has been shown that mobile phones are a not that bad as first anticipated. On grown up it can hardly be an issue at all. Though on childen it's evident that a modern mobile phone does heat up their brain while beeing on a mobile phone. It's not known what the effects of this in the end are. But that is reason enough to be carefull.

      When it comes to antennas of the kind you describe I have no Idea of the energy levels, but I do doubt that they would be any lower than of an mobile phone. If you want to make sure you can measure the energy levels and compare them to energy levels of a mobile phone and make your conlusions out from that.

      Some people take this to extreems, but you might also consider usage of window blinds. Aluminium or some other neath loocking type. That would moste surely give you a shielding that is enough without being a jackass nutcase. Grounding would that be an totally overkill, i dont know?

    2. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If exposure to asbestos was of any danger to the public health,[sic] there is no way you would be seeing asbestos anywhere near apartment complexes.

    3. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by tagno25 · · Score: 4, Informative

      800+ watts in the 2.4ghz band is a known killer.
      Most consumer devices run at under 5 watts.
      Amateur radio operators have been using devices that can put out 5 to 1500 watts since the 1930s (possibly earlier)

    4. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is that why it has been observed that children living under power lines had a 70% increased risk of leukemia?? Is that why DDT has been sprayed directly onto people as a standard anti-mosquito practice?. Is that why asbestos has been used extensively as an insulator and structural material? Is that why lead paint has been the standard paint for home renovation and art? Is that why gasoline is carcinogenic? Is that why wet Portland cement causes serious health problems which include severe burns that damage nerves?

      Just because something is banal, widely used and is seen as an accepted practice it doesn't mean that it is perfectly safe and free from any nasty side effects. History has a pretty long damning list of cases where the dangers are only known after the stuff that causes them is widely deployed.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    5. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If exposure to asbestos was of any danger to public health, there is no way you would be seeing it used anywhere near apartment complexes.

    6. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, the phone companies don't have enough money to pay off the regulatory authorities which govern whether or not they can place a cell phone tower somewhere.

      Look, man, if you can afford a Manhattan penthouse why not keep looking for one in a safer location? Of course, one less rich asshole in the world won't bother me a bit.

    7. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Madman · · Score: 4, Informative

      The studies that found a higher risk of leukemia in children didn't control for family income or any other social factors. It was correlation which isn't particularly useful

    8. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is that why it has been observed that children living under power lines had a 70% increased risk of leukemia?

      http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html

      Is that why DDT has been sprayed directly onto people as a standard anti-mosquito practice?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria

      History has a pretty long damning list of cases where the dangers are only known after the stuff that causes them is widely deployed.

      So your solution is .... avoid everything? How much does it cost to live in a clean-room, anyway?

      Just out of curiosity, I gotta ask ... why do you hate science?

    9. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by carlhaagen · · Score: 1

      Very naive answer. In fact, it's the same answer that everyone has had for everything that we in the past century have eventually found to be hazardous to human health; "c'mon, do you think they'd be allowed to sell it if it was dangerous?" We could reminisce back in time, to f.e. the 50s and the post-war times, which saw a surge in production and consumption of new goods, of which a substantial amount since has been banned for both resale and production, and all of it was sold and promoted with the same reason you bring. If you had read your history books, you would've known this. I guess this makes you the jackass.

    10. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by beh · · Score: 1

      Hmm - if exposure to cigarette smoke was of any danger to public health, you'd never have seen them anywhere... ...what's 'of any danger to public health' is a relative term - even if the managers of todays companies would be aware of any problems, trust me that this information would only begin to see the light of day after their golden parachutes got deployed, and some new Chief-Idiot-Officer has been in his position long enough so blame won't be attributed to any of the 'current' CEOs...

      Big tobacco has played this game masterfully for decades; everyone just has to deny ANY problem whatsoever until AFTER their departure from any high-paying job at the company...

    11. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 0

      Could you please point out exactly where I proposed any thing at all, let alone that everyone should "avoid everything"?

      Please, do not pull this sort of idiotic stunt. I am pretty capable of saying crap by myself. I don't need you to try to put your words into my mouth, let alone that sort of nonsense.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    12. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Wandered+Inn · · Score: 1

      And we should trust our health to the government????

      --
      Later,,,
    13. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Malaria is rather more dangerous than DDT. DDT was banned by a politician, who was overriding the decision of his own regulators who had actually heard and read all the evidence and concluded that the benefits of DDT outweighed the risks that alarmists trumped up.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    14. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ffreeloader · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amateur radio operators have been using devices that can put out 5 to 1500 watts since the 1930s (possibly earlier)

      Yeah, and look at what all that radiation has done to them. It's turned them into hams.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    15. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Kizeh · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...and once transmitting at more than 50W, HAMs must conduct a station evaluation to make sure no excessive fields pose a hazard to humans or animals, according to FCC rules. Also, see http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html. When considering these antennae, also consider that they are likely to be very high duty cycle and directional (rather than omnidirectional) which increases the radiation density. When using directional antennae with 2.4 GHz Wifi, you're limited to tens of milliwatts or even less, depending on the gain. Sum: I'd worry.

    16. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's news that the health risks of power lines is not due to the radiation, directly, but rather the effect of their magnetic fields on pollution.

    17. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by kumarnarain · · Score: 1

      yes I remember Thalomide also

    18. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kind of reasoning has cost a lot of lives. If everybody smokes then it must be harmless..Why, we all use DDT, why would there be a reason not to...Fructose is a sugar like anything else (but for some reason the wave of morbid obesity in the US started with its introduction)..

      Wake up dude!

    19. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      Could you please point out exactly where I proposed any thing at all, let alone that everyone should "avoid everything"?

      Debunking aside, I think what he's getting at is your post, as best I could tell, implied to avoid all things currently deemed safe that will be found to be dangerous in the future. There is no scientific way to pin-point only those things, so only by avoiding everything can this be accomplished.

      If the above was not what you intended to carry across, by all means, clarify your proposal.

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    20. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      I will take that as an joke, and not an insult. I am a amateur radio operator. Will not put my call here.

    21. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Could you please point out exactly where I proposed any thing at all, let alone that everyone should "avoid everything"?

      Please, do not pull this sort of idiotic stunt. I am pretty capable of saying crap by myself. I don't need you to try to put your words into my mouth, let alone that sort of nonsense.

      He responded to you the way he did because you came off as a bit of a paranoid nutjob.

      And for the record, New Scientist is not what you would call a highly reputable organization. Linking them was your first mistake, after that few people will take you seriously.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    22. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Temkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      When using directional antennae with 2.4 GHz Wifi, you're limited to tens of milliwatts or even less, depending on the gain.

      Last time I checked Ham's are authorized 1500 watts @2.4Ghz. They just need to conduct the safety evaluation. Now meeting the safety requirements with a 24dbi dish might prove difficult... But if you can, you're good to go. (yes, I'm serious, think morse code via moon bounce...)

    23. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      > There is enough evidence that radiation can be hazardious.

      Yeah, we should've outlawed that evil daystar centuries ago.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    24. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The World Health Organization estimates that during the period of its use approximately 25 million lives were saved. ...Many species of insects developed resistance to DDT" ( http://www.3dchem.com/molecules.asp?ID=90 )

      "What harmful effects can DDT have on us?
      Probable human carcinogen
      Damages the liver
      Temporarily damages the nervous system
      Reduces reproductive success
      Can cause liver cancer
      Damages reproductive system"
      ( http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm )

      I think we can all agree that DDT has done some good. However, it is hard to argue that widespread use is beneficial. What's the old saying? Something like, "when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

    25. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Random5 · · Score: 1

      Queue study showing that living in a clean room makes your body's immune system go crazy and kill you.

    26. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point. The point is that just because something is widely deployed, accepted and free from any regulatory restriction it doesn't mean it is necessarily safe. There are plenty of stuff which has been scientifically demonstrated to be harmful and yet it has been made available and used without any restrictions being imposed.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    27. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's irrelevant if you don't have a malaria/mosquito problem in the first place. In which case the use of DDT increases your risk (instead of reducing it).

      It's not a choice between DDT and Malaria the submitter is facing here.

      It's persistent microwave exposure vs not living in a kickass apartment (see the original title).

      What would be relevant is how much his risk would increase by. I don't know what it is but I would say it's not zero.

      --
    28. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most consumer devices run at under 5 watts.

      Most consumer devices are under 0.1 watts, if not closer to 0.02 watts...

    29. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by dziban303 · · Score: 1

      You forgot thalidomide!

    30. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He responded to you the way he did because you came off as a bit of a paranoid nutjob.

      Exactly what part of my post comes off to you as something being said by "a paranoid nutjob"? The OP claimed that, somehow, something which isn't regulated and widely available and extensively used is automatically unquestionably safe, to which I replied by pointing out a hand full of examples of unregulated, widely available and extensively used products which have been scientifically proved to cause quite a lot of health problems. There is no conspiracy anywhere to be seen and everything I've mentioned is publicly known.

      And for the record, New Scientist is not what you would call a highly reputable organization. Linking them was your first mistake, after that few people will take you seriously.

      If you feel you have a problem with the statement then you should demonstrate why it is false. If it isn't possible to claim that a statement is false then, no matter how fiercely you attack the messenger, the validity of it's message will stay invariably true.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    31. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Haven't you seen the 'living in the age of wonders' videos from the 50s that showed kids swimming in pools that were being fogged with DDT?

      Controlling malaria is probably a sane use of it, but they were way past that.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    32. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      The DDT one really was a political thing rather than a health thing.
      malaria is a very nasty disease.

    33. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was a pun.

      I've considered becoming a ham radio operator a few times.

      I was first exposed to ham radio by one of my grade school teachers back in the mid 60's who taught a group of a dozen of us students Morse code. I passed the initial licensing test in the 5th grade, but I never did anything more with it as that teacher moved away the next year and my parents wouldn't even consider spending that kind of money on a hobby.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    34. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      if sigarets would be harmfull, they wouldn't be for sale any more ?
      As long as there's (loads of) money involved, ... health is not a priority

    35. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      You failed to see the point. This isn't a Malaria Vs DDT issue nor did anyone claimed that DDT should never be used at all. The point is that there is quite a lot of stuff which is extensively used without any regulation or any attention from authorities, and yet it has been scientifically demonstrated that it's dangerous and harmful. I pointed that out to demonstrate that the OP's statement is blatantly false and terribly misguided.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    36. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      No, he's not being a jackass, he's being sensible and prudent.

      "If exposure to or consumption of cigarettes, bisphenol A, hydrogenated vegetable oil, asbestos, DDT, etc. was of any danger to public health, there is no way you would be seeing these things anywhere where they could pose a danger to humans, the relevant governemnt authority or whatever the appropriate authority is in your country would be all over this."

      Yeah, right. Even if you DO trust any government to protect you from such things given sufficient evidence of harm, (and I certainly don't), the fact is that, as was the case with the things I mentioned above, it often takes several decades to determine that something is a health risk. And it seldom happens in an "Oh my God, that's a serious health risk, let's do something about it!" manner. Typically there are some suggestions that it might be a risk, followed by push-back from not-so-disinterested parties, followed by more evidence, more pushback, etc. Just as is happening now regarding the health effects of electromagnetic radiation.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    37. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but real 'mericans know that government regulation like the FCC is a liberal-commie-socialist-nazi propaganda scheme to keep us down!

      if these things were bad for us then we would at least get them cheaper via free market forces which would also heal us from any damage done. Or something like that.

    38. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Exactly what part of my post comes off to you as something being said by "a paranoid nutjob"?

      Everything in between "Is that why" and "widely deployed".

      to which I replied by pointing out a hand full of examples of unregulated, widely available and extensively used products which have been scientifically proved to cause quite a lot of health problems

      No, you replied with a bunch of FUD, completely devoid of any context. It's as if the OP had claimed that being out in the sun is good for you, and you screamed back "OMFG DONTCHU KNOW NUTING, SUNLIGHT GIVES U CANCER AND CAUSES FOREST FIRES!!!!". Except in that case your reply would at least have been relevant to his original statement, whereas your actual reply went off on a complete tangent.

    39. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by SirTreveyan · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, you are not being a jackass. It is far better to ask questions and be INFORMED than make assumptions that might not be true.

      As an Extra class amateur radio operator licensee I can tell you that the FCC considers exposure to RF radiation a significant risk. To obtain an amateur radio license and to be granted greater privileges, tests are given and several questions pertain to safe exposure limits. While I would doubt that the antenna poses a hazard, for your own peace of mind there is some homework you must do, questions you must ask of the company that owns the antenna and possibly the FCC.

      Is the antenna used for receiving, transmitting or both? Is the antenna directional? What kind of gain does the antenna exhibit? What does the energy distribution look like? Are you able to see a site evaluation? (the FCC might have that on record) Find out the name of the company that owns the antenna and ask these question.

      Many systems use separate antennas for receiving and transmitting. Doing so allows the antenna to be optimized for the job. It is quite possible that the antenna in question is used purely for reception of the cell signals from another tower. In that case the antenna poses no risk what so ever.

      If the antenna is used for transmission of microwave signals a whole new can of worms is opened and RF exposure must be considered. RF radiation exposure limits are divided into two categories, a controlled environment and an uncontrolled environment. Basically, these two categories refer to the exposure limits of people working with the equipment and the general public. Several things are considered when looking at RF exposure limits; antenna type, power delivered to the antenna and the effective power radiated. A highly directional antenna can direct the input wattage into a very narrow beam called a lobe, effectively amplifying the signal in that direction. So a signal of 200 watts can effectively become a signal of much higher strength depending upon the gain of the antenna. One of the advantages of this is that the signal to the sides of the main lobe is extremely weak. From a safety stand point, only something directly in the path of the lobe is being exposed to radiation.

      Again, ask the questions I gave to you earlier of an electrical engineer working at the company owing the antenna. Make an appointment to meet at the site of the apartment. The FCC requires they keep detailed information available on their systems just for answering this type of issue.

      Regards,
      W2TKW

      --

      SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

      0 rows returned

    40. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      What the heck does family income have to do with blood cell cancer? It doesn't care if you are rich or poor, and therefore there's no point for a study to "control" for it.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    41. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I haven't implied any of that and I can't see how anyone in their right mind could read that absurd allegation from what I've wrote, much less if we bear in mind the post I replied to.

      Moreover, I haven't proposed anything, which therefore means that there is no proposal to clarify.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    42. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Foolicious · · Score: 1

      I will take that as an joke, and not an insult.

      Why are all the amateur guys so fricking sensitive? (This is a serious question.)

      --
      Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
    43. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Please tell me that response was sarcastic?

    44. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Exactly what part of my post comes off to you as something being said by "a paranoid nutjob"?

      Everything in between "Is that why" and "widely deployed".

      If you believe that pointing out stuff such as "asbestos is bad for your health" is the words of "a paranoid nutjob" then I believe that you are a disturbed individual who seriously should deal with your issues.

      to which I replied by pointing out a hand full of examples of unregulated, widely available and extensively used products which have been scientifically proved to cause quite a lot of health problems

      No, you replied with a bunch of FUD.

      I'm not sure if your reading comprehension skills are that appalling or if you are simply a poor troll who isn't thinking things all the way through.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    45. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by eggoeater · · Score: 3, Informative

      If DDT were still in use, the Bald Eagle would be extinct, along with several other birds.


      ...

    46. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Kizeh · · Score: 1

      Correct; I should've been clearer -- I meant the situation when a non-ham is using the 2.4 Ghz unlicensed band. I run into this at work where, when you follow Cisco guidelines on allowed unlicensed Wifi power levels for their parabolic antennas, you have to reduce AP output into a fraction of the power allowed into an lower gain antenna.

    47. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are so poor that you are forced to live in an unhealthy, cancer-prone area then family income will also be linked to your health problems.

    48. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      anyone who has suffered the misfortune of listening to the aged Elmers prattle on about their maladies and the most inconsequential banalities for hours on end over the aether will know the brain of the ham is indeed baked. The Elmers killed ham radio, not the internet.

    49. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ejtttje · · Score: 1

      Assume for the moment that poor people tend to live in less desirable areas, and that power lines reduce land value, and also that being poor is bad for your health, then you will find that people living under power lines tend to be sick. But this is due to the common cause of being poor: given these assumptions the power lines are filtering the population sample, as opposed to making them sick in the first place.

      This is why correlation is not causation: there may be other correlations as well, and one of them may be a common cause.

    50. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Banning DDT made sense in the US, because our Malaria rates are rather low, and we can afford the more expensive alternatives to DDT that don't interfere with local wildlife.

      There was also quite a bit of hysteria at the time concerning its potential effect on humans, which was perhaps a good precaution to take, but ultimately unnecessary, as these claims were extensively debunked.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    51. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Courageous · · Score: 2, Funny

      Amateur radio operators have been using devices that can put out 5 to 1500 watts since the 1930s (possibly earlier)

      Yes, but this is known to cause madness. Check out the evidence:

      http://www.w8mrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ham_car_inside.jpg

    52. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 1

      Well, different socioeconomic groups have markedly different diets, for a start. And food base is *certainly* likely to affect various types of cancer risk. It may also correlate with air quality - a lot of power lines are found in low-value land areas (which are affordable to lower strata) that often include a lot of light-to-heavy industry nearby (since the industry requires power) and which may have possible carcinogenic effects. It's not inconceivable that family income matters.

      I've actually heard it said that the power-line leukaemia correlation has been found to be linked to *herbicides* used to keep the power-line easement clear. [Citation probably needed], though, and I'm afraid I can't provide one right now - it's just something I've heard.

    53. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If exposure to mobile carrier antenna radio waves was of any danger to public health, there is no way you would be seeing these antennas anywhere near apartment complexes, the FCC or whatever is the appropriate authority is in your country would be all over this.

      Wow, that's a lot of faith in the authorities.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    54. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by lwsimon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've heard that, and I've also heard that it was never proven.

      Do you have reputable sources for this claim?

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    55. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      He was trying to show that just because something is widely-used and accepted as safe doesn't necessarily mean it's safe. People used many of the items the GP quoted for a long time before realizing they were very bad for the public's health. Hence why many items were pulled from everyday use.

      A lot of companies "sponsor" what they call "studies" to show that their own products are perfectly safe. I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same with cell towers and microwave radiation. And while I live in an apartment building with a US Cellular repeater in it, I certainly wouldn't want it pointed at my head for eight hours a day while I slept. Yes, most EM radiation is low enough to not be a health hazard, short or long-term. But the radiation from a cell tower or antenna of any kind has to be well above safe levels. Call me paranoid, but I don't see how radiation of any kind is safe for long-term exposure. (For examples, think of: the sun, uranium, microwave ovens, etc.) And being this close to these antennae would make me uncomfortable to not want to live there.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    56. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by TWX · · Score: 1

      So, now we have to worry about Fuddites too?

      My biggest problem is my ham radio friends moved away (and before you make a joke about there being a device capable of long distance communication, I have a Tech-nocode license and a 2m HT and a not-complete 10m that I can only use half the band on anyway) and when I listen in on communications on 2m, I see what you mean about Elmers.

      I'll probably renew my license when it comes up next year regardless, as many of these extremely high profile natural disasters over the last several years (Boxing-day Tsunami, Katrina, Haitian and now Chilean earthquakes) could be handled better with communication, and after these disasters sometimes low-power radio is the only thing that works. On top of that, since theoretically there's some accountability with ham due to the licensing, it's probably going to be more reliable than CB for accuracy.

      At this point I'm certainly not doing it for the camaraderie...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    57. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by AndrewBC · · Score: 1

      The Elmers killed ham radio, not the internet.

      Luckily, video killed those radio stars.

    58. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes time for this sort of thing to be proven dangerous...look how long cigarette companies managed to push back the fact that their product kills people.

    59. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      No, he's suggesting that he move into the apartment and report back at regular intervals.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    60. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by cynical+kane · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, it's not worth it to save those kids from malaria, at the expense of the Bald Eagle... in Africa... where bald eagles are...

      You're obviously talking about two different instances of banning DDT... but it's worth noting that the GP is full of shit and DDT is still used actively to combat malaria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#DDT_use_against_malaria

    61. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by chudnall · · Score: 1

      What the heck does family income have to do with blood cell cancer? It doesn't care if you are rich or poor, and therefore there's no point for a study to "control" for it.

      Family A earns $250,000 and can afford a fairly nice house. Family B earns $25,000 and can't afford to pay much rent. Pop Quiz: which family is more likely to be living directly underneath high power lines? If exposure to high power radiation is taken out of the equation, which family is more likely to have someone develop leukemia due to poor diet or exposure to something else? If you don't understand why this is relevant: 1) What are you doing on slashdot? 2) You should go back to school and take some basic science and statistics courses before opining on any more scientific matters.

      P.S. Please also refrain from voting or serving on any civil lawsuit juries. Thanks.

      --
      Disclaimer: Evolution comes with NO WARRANTY, except for the IMPLIED WARRANTY of FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    62. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have just demonstrated why debating with nerds is so frustrating and pointless (and yet I keep coming back to Slashdot— clearly I'm not right in the head). Nerds get caught up in trivial details, and completely miss the point that is being made.

      The point of the post to which you replied was that not everything that is commonly used is inherently safe. By pointing out that one of the poster's examples can be debunked, attempting to explain the reasoning behind one of the other examples (while doing nothing to dispute its dangers), and then making the ludicrous suggestion that the poster wants to avoid everything (WTF?) does absolutely nothing to challenge the actual point being made.

      Yet, the Slashnerds, who are equally caught up in details so as to be unable to get the point, modded you "Informative".

      Which brings me to ask ... why do you hate logic?

    63. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a lot fewer HUMANS would be dead from malaria...

    64. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

      Wikipedia suggests your view is more of a myth promoted by anti-regulatory free-market ideologists. Kind of like the "AGW doesn't exist" crowd.

    65. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1
      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    66. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I see. So because family income and other social factors weren't accounted for in a number like 70% higher incidence it is meaningless? What do you do? Work for the power companies?

      There's no way social factors alone could account for that level of increase in leukemia. So what if they accounted for even 10-20% of the increase? What's left after subtracting even 20% is a staggering number. I wouldn't want any child or grandchild of mine living under high-power lines. I wouldn't live under them either.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    67. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So human life trumps birds.

    68. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Dang. I see you found a picture of the inside of the cab of my little brother's pickup.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    69. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Yeh, but be fair - they found a cure.

    70. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... without knowing the frequency, the EIRP (Effective Isotropically-Radiated Power) is hard to know, since the FCC varies this by band. It could be as high as 11W...

      I will tell you this; out of all the towers I have climbed, and gear I have installed, I have never seen a cellular antenna that didn't have a giant yellow warning sticker on the back, saying something to the effect of "WARNING: HIGH LEVELS OF RADIATION. DO NOT STAND DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ANTENNA WHEN POWERED".

      I am in the wireless industry and am around wireless gear every day, right now I have several Access Points pointed at me this very moment... I managed to have normal kids, but I would pass on that apartment. 20ft? Too close for my comfort... it may take 50 years to kill you... but you might develop a migraine in a few months... might not... is it worth the risk?

      The FCC is there to protect us? HAHA! Since when does the government do that? The FCC is one of the most lobbied of all the Fed. Depts....

    71. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I just Googled leukemia and income levels. There is study after study about mortality rates and income levels for leukemia patients, but I didn't find one that addressed total incidence rates and income levels. Yes, income level has a lot to do with being able to afford treatment, and with the attitude of jackass doctors toward their patients, and so greatly affects mortality rates. But, that is a completely separate issue from total incidence rates for leukemia.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    72. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's a lie.

      Rachel Carson is responsible for more deaths than Stalin.

    73. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by untorqued · · Score: 2, Informative

      If DDT were still in use, the Bald Eagle would be extinct, along with several other birds.

      As I understand it, before DDT was banned in the U.S., it's main effect on bird reproduction was a result of its being sprayed outside in massive quantities to kill teh bugz. Today, the rest of the world (where it's not banned) has different protocols; turns out small amounts in a room, for example, keeps the room mosquito free. And no one thinks massive outdoor spraying makes sense anymore. Maybe a reaction of "let's use this tool more wisely" would've done just as well at preserving wild birds as the "it's evil, let's ban it" reaction did. And we'd have, y'know, a useful tool available too.

    74. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best.unmodded.humor.evar.

    75. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      I'm going to take gunner's side, your original post did come off a bit Art-Bellish.

      That said, your follow up posts seem to indicate that you're not a paranoid nutjob, just a little overly defensive.

      Yes, asbestos is bad for your health, and surprise, you don't want to stick your hands in very basic liquids, like portland cement. But they're incredibly useful, so with the proper safety precautions we still use them.

      However, your original post read, at least to me and a few others, as if you were saying that the world is full of hidden dangers - that someone is keeping from us. We know plenty of things are bad, we know we don't fully understand the risks of some things, but we also know that there are plenty of people out there who are trying to draw attention to themselves, and sometimes even make a buck by scaremongering about perfectly safe things- like MMR vaccines, low level EM radiation, power lines, and florinated water.

      So try not to take too much offense, but if several people read your post and thought you were paranoid, it's possible that the deficiency isn't in our reading comprehension skills but in your writing - I know I've quickly written out a post that didn't convey what I meant many times.

    76. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I agree. That comment was very funny. It's just so obtuse many people won't recognize it.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    77. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to take gunner's side, your original post did come off a bit Art-Bellish.

      Only to anyone who didn't actually read and comprehend it. And especially to anyone who didn't bother to read the post it was in response to so as to put it in context.

      The original post said "anything that is widely used is obviously safe". Then "GreatBunzinni" responded with examples of things that are/were widely used while not being completely safe. Suddenly, a bunch of people jumped all over him like he was whining that nothing's safe. Wow, way to completely miss the point. "c6gunner" even went so far as to try to debunk two of the points, which serves no purpose whatsoever in the context of the actual point that "GreatBunzinni" was making— a point that should be obvious to anyone who actually read the comment.

      The point was that not everything widely used is safe. This should be obvious by the part that said "Just because something is banal, widely used and is seen as an accepted practice it doesn't mean that it is perfectly safe and free from any nasty side effects." I mean, how do you miss that point and think that he's being some Art Bell conspiracy theorist nut claiming that everything is dangerous?

    78. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by amorsen · · Score: 1

      DDT is an extreme case where the people who benefit from it and the people who are harmed by it aren't the same people. DDT is used in the tropics, but the people affected by it are in the arctics living off of marine mammals. If you're utilitarian and therefore just trying to maximize the global utility, DDT is certainly positive: Many people are helped a lot, and few are harmed. There are other schools of ethics apart from utilitarianism however.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    79. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by the+biologist · · Score: 1

      Currently is it used in small amounts on mosquito nets over sleeping areas.

      An earlier use of DDT was to spray it on the interior walls where mosquitos rested after feeding. This rapidly led to the evolution of mosquitos which would fly away into the plants outside before resting after a feed.

    80. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The scar across my hand from holding a 3db gain 5/8th wave antenna when I transmitted on 6 meters at 580 watts tells you otherwise.

      High power drunk QSO contesting is not a safe hobby.

      Why its it not working??? CQ,CQ AAAAAAAHHHHGGGGAAHHH THAT HURTS!

      Sideband is a harsh mistress.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    81. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I see your point. On one of my many long-term business trips, I stayed in a $500/month hotel. It was a great bargain (even included free cable and internet), but it was also located right next to a large power switching station that I could hear humming every time I opened the door.

      The other person made a good point about how it could be the herbicides, not the tower. That correlates with a previous Slashdot story about people complaining cell towers were making them sick, but the owner of said towers said that can't be, because they turned-off the towers 3 months earlier. So it wasn't the tower - it must have been something else.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    82. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Atriqus · · Score: 1

      Here's how people arrived at that conclusion while being in their right mind:

      OP: Premise given, concluding it's safe.
      You: List of examples attempting to discount premise.
      Re OP: Debunks some examples, questions effective use the remaining ones. Notes anti-science behavior.
      Re You: Discounts claiming a position.
      Me: Attempts to explain the Re OP's assumption. Requests clarification.

      I think I might have figured out what's going on here. The OP gave an actionable premise and conclusion. Therefore, we took your retort also to be actionable. Since a precise action was not given, it was assumed that your platform is "don't follow the OP's advice."

      I guess the only thing to ask at this point is, if you had no intention in either agreeing or disagreeing with the OP's concluded actions, what were we suppose to take away from your initial post?

      --
      Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
    83. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sideband is a harsh mistress.

      I hope that your mistress was a single sideband, not a married one.

    84. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DDT is still in use. Just not in certain places. And (theoretically) more precision applications.

    85. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malaria isn't of any significant concern in the US, and DDT has never been banned for anti-malaria use in the countries that do have malaria concerns (e.g. African countries).

    86. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If DDT were still in use, the Bald Eagle would be extinct, along with several other birds.

      If it was still in use by farmers, who use many thousands of times more than would be used to end the mosquito infestations that spread malaria, feeding it into the ground water via their fields rather than lightly applying it to walls of homes.

      But malaria is only a problem for people in other countries, and us Americans know that people in other countries aren't REAL people.

    87. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the US test is harder, however, I can assure you the basic HAM qualification for Canada requires that while you must know the maximum operating power you may use on each band, you certainly don't need any knowledge of what happens when you are exposed to RF to pass it, nor any idea of even something simple like how much RF passes through various organic materials. None whatsoever. I did my test less than 10 years ago, and I highly doubt it has changed. In fact, you can access the question bank here. If you can memorize the correct answer to all questions, congratulations, you just passed. I haven't done it myself, but the advanced qualification question bank is here, and I bet it also doesn't discuss these things.

      Not saying that knowing this stuff isn't useful, but don't expect that speaking with a licensed HAM will get you any useful information on this stuff past "Don't glue to antenna to your hardhat" and exactly how much RF power any single point is likely to expose you to.

    88. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's not science. "I *know* something can't have any effect so I'm not going to check for it."

    89. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Huzzah! · · Score: 1
      Although the government (U.S.) strictly prohibits asbestos in most schools, it is also the biggest user of asbestos, and OSHA limits your exposure to it in the workplace - to 16 MILLION fibers inhaled during an 8-hour shift!

      As you imply, the government is not an institution to rely on to protect your health in all cases.

    90. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      DDT is effective for controlling malaria when it is used properly. However, when the chemical is applied to the land like butter on toast, mosquitoes often become resistant to the chemical over time. This is in fact what happened in India and resulted in the use of Malethion for which the mosquitoes were largely not resistant. DDT continues to be used in a small number of countries for the express purpose of controlling malaria, Like antibiotics, DDT must be used intelligently to avoid resistance to the chemical in the target species.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    91. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      I believe that his point was that DDT prevented more deaths from Malaria than it took from its toxicity. This is probably the case but the fact remains that it ought to be phased out in favor of a safer alternative that effectively saves even more lives.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    92. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by alphajim · · Score: 1

      Even amateur radio has issues at high power. The FCC calls it MPE or Maximum Permissible Exposure. As others have said it's based on power, freq., distance and exposure time. The allowed exposure for say 3.9 mhz is WAY higher than say 29Mhz, and cell is up near the ghz range.

      You are in what they call an uncontrolled area (which is more restrictive). Your problem is that exposure will be hours at a time, at high frequency in Continious Commercial Service (100% duty). Even if the ERP isn't that high, I'd still be a little wary.

      Having said that, this is really a REAL ESTATE issue. The reason you can afford that killer appt is that every buyer who goes up there sees those antennas too. Location, location.... Unless the market is smokin' hot it'll be tough to re-sell. Even if you understand that there's no danger, you'd have to convince every prospective buyer of that

      Walk away now.

       

    93. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by mollog · · Score: 1

      @ dnaumov, who writes If exposure to mobile carrier antenna radio waves was of any danger to public health, there is no way you would be seeing these antennas anywhere near apartment complexes, the FCC or whatever is the appropriate authority is in your country would be all over this.

      Cigarettes causes cancer and a host of other health problems, yet they are still sold over the counter. Alcohol is known to cause grave birth defects and it is widely available. People are still allowed to talk and text on cell phones despite the knowledge that they are at higher risk to cause serious traffic accidents. Guns are protected by politicians despite the obvious daily evidence the the consequences of ownership.

      Republicans are allowed to vote despite the knowledge that they have lower IQs and less education.

      --
      Best regards.
    94. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You just demonstrated why debating with non-nerds is so annoying to nerds.

      The original person is pointing out that there is a fallacy in saying that it is widespread and thus safe... he is pointing out the fallacy of appeal to the majority. As evidence he presents certain premises.

      The next person points out that the premises used are flawed. Things that are widely in use are widely in use typically because they're preventing something significantly worse than any side-effect that may result from their use.

      DDT was preventing Malaria. Asbestos was preventing fires. Vaccines are preventing horrible debilitating diseases. DDT is still used to prevent Malaria where it is a big deal (which is not the USA). Asbestos is still used in certain cases. Asbestos is generally safe, until it breaks down into fibers that get into the lungs. As it is created with a binding agent, this typically only happens once it gets wet and deteriorates. And vaccines... screw autism... you could get an INFECTION at the injection site that if untreated could lead to your death, but we can treat all the side-effects a heck of a lot better than we can treat mumps measles and rubella. And if you don't remember how bad these diseases are if you get them, you should ask an person around age 50, I think would do right now.

      The point here, is that a lot of pseudoscience gets its brazenness behind "well, people thought plate techtonics was crazy when it was first proposed." (and it actually was as originally proposed... he was using it to explain the Biblical Flood)

      There is a common habit for people to jump on the bandwagon of fear-mongering because the other fear-mongers point out other cases where things went wrong, but they don't point out the millions of times where things DIDN'T went wrong.

      When the first trains were making it up to 25-mph, Scientific American reported that people were concerned that it would suck all the air out of the train and suffocate passengers.

      Fear-mongering just to fear-monger is WORTHLESS, and he was trying to point that out. He didn't attack the root of the original argument about the safety of XY, because the other guy didn't make an argument about the safety of XY, but rather made the argument that A, B, and C turned out bad, so we should avoid XY... So he points out that the same analogous argument can be made FOR EVERYTHING... so if one wants to make a REAL logical argument based on it, the only logical conclusion is absurdity. (reductio ad absurdium)

      Which brings me to ask... why did you hate doing logic PROPERLY?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    95. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol .. the first witty joke in a while.

    96. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      You, sir, have presented the best argument that I could possible consider for this discussion, and I end reading here.

      Thank you, you have won this level of teh intarwebs.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    97. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      By not accounting for income, you cannot account for other relevant factors.

      For example, why are there so many power lines in the less desirable neighborhoods? It certainly isn't because the neighborhoods need that much power, and it certainly isn't because a place that already has a power line is cheaper to build on - those things take up space in awkward ways, and you have land rights to deal with. It's cheaper to build in an area with nothing than an area with power lines.

      So why do they build there? Well, the reason there are power lines are to feed that automobile factory, or that industrial chemicals factory, or whatever other nasty widget factory it may be. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. See, that factory is an eyesore, it pumps out nasty chemicals so the air isn't so hot, and there is a chance the soil has been ruined by either pollutants settling out of the air or nasty bits getting into the ground water.

      So now we see why the price is so low, it's much cheaper to build there than anywhere else because it is very undesirable land, and the only people who would be willing to live there are those who can't afford to live anywhere else. It's cheap because it's a nasty, polluted area, and there is no doubt you'd see higher rates of cancer regardless of whether or not the power lines were there.

      If they don't control for the other factors, the best they can say is that people who live in areas that have a lot of power lines have a higher incident rate for cancer. They cannot conclude that the power lines themselves had anything at all to do with it. They can only do that by eliminating other factors, which hasn't been done. That makes the study next to worthless regarding power lines, except to be able to say that people with lower incomes get cancer more often than people with higher incomes, and that they often live closer to power lines. The correlation means effectively nothing.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    98. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Have you thought that perhaps the giant factories those power lines are feeding might be the cause, and not the power lines themselves?

      By looking solely at the number of power lines, which is not a known source of cancer, and ignoring things like proximity to large polluters, which are known sources of cancer, you effectively invalidate the entire study.

      Income by itself isn't all that important, except that the people are more likely to work physically demanding and stressful jobs (which is also a potential contributing factor). However, low income people live in low income housing, and low income housing tends to be in places where high income people are unwilling to live.

      Those power lines are going somewhere, and chances are the reason the low income housing is in the area is because it is near a major polluter. In other words, people who live near power lines are far more likely to live near a major source of polution, which could very easily account for the 70% higher incidence.

      You need to control for everything in a study, or it is not worthwhile. There is nothing in the studies about power lines that show power lines themselves are the cause, because there are a host of other factors which are equally likely to be in close proximity of people who live near power lines, and some of these are well known to cause cancer.

      Take a coal fired power plant, for example. Everything down wind of that plant is going to be low-income housing. There are also going to be a lot of power lines going back and forth between the plant and the city.

      Is it the power lines causing the higher cancer that occurs in that case, or is it the radioactive ash and other known carcinogens the plant is pumping into their air? Which do YOU think it is? Higher income housing is not going to be near the power lines, but it also won't be near the coal plant. You haven't eliminated the variables, how did you come to the conclusion that it is the power lines causing the 70% increase in incidents?

      That's the point, if you don't account for income, which affects stress levels and ability to afford care (both of which can increase your susceptibility for cancer and a host of other diseases), and if you don't account for other known potential sources for cancer (often associated with low income), then the study is next to worthless. Yeah, it may tell you that people who live near power lines get cancer more often, but it won't tell you why. If it isn't the power lines at all, then it just makes people needlessly afraid of the power lines, when they should be worried about the actual causes (like that coal plant down the road).

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    99. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      If DDT were still in use, the Bald Eagle would be extinct, along with several other birds.

      That's because our parents / grandparents were spraying it all over the countryside. Looking back, it was pretty irresponsible.

      Unfortunately, DDT is the only thing that bedbugs and prevents re-infestations, and now that it's illegal, bedbugs are making a comeback. In the days of DDT, an exterminator could leave a coat of DDT that would kill eggs that hatch for the next few months. Today, the best we can do is bag a mattress and hope that we got rid of all of the eggs.

    100. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know if you're serious or not, but really this was a big panic. Asbestos is harmful, IF and ONLY IF you inhale asbestos dust. Asbestos shingles and siding don't make dust, and asbsestos insulation makes rather a lot of dust but only if it's being torn out. The asbestos ban was perfectly sensible, there were safer replacements on the market, and production of these asbestos products was probably quite harmful to workers in the factories. Ripping out the EXISTING asbestos? I don't have a source but have heard estimates there was probably more harmful asbestos exposure from the mass asbestos removals than there would have ever been just leaving it in place and perhaps tagging it so future demolitionists or whatever know it's there.

    101. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      Also, DDT was undone by its low cost. Farmers were using tens or even hundreds of times the effective amount because it cost next to nothing. If used as directed, the environmental cost/benefit is even higher. I've read that some scientists are promoting its reintroduction to combat malaria in Africa.

    102. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Wow. Thank you ... you've just completely emasculated his argument with a flow and passion that I could never have managed. You've got me all misty eyed and beaming here. :)

    103. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      He was trying to show that just because something is widely-used and accepted as safe doesn't necessarily mean it's safe. People used many of the items the GP quoted for a long time before realizing they were very bad for the public's health. Hence why many items were pulled from everyday use.

      I understand what he was trying to do - I'm saying it's asinine, and, as I said, he's spreading FUD.

      If I make the case that X is safe, you don't get to say "well Y and Z are unsafe, so X might be too". That's just stupid. The reason we know that Y and Z are unsafe is because we have evidence to support that premise. The time to be worried about X is when we have similar evidence concerning it's safety. If you simply ignore evidence, you have no choice but to assume that everything is unsafe, and you certainly have no way of making proper risk assessments.

      Call me paranoid, but I don't see how radiation of any kind is safe for long-term exposure.

      Ok, you're paranoid. And, by the way, you should probably stop using computers if you want to be consistent about your paranoia. Not to mention that it's more than a little asshat-ish to advocate unsupported anti-technology viewpoints through the use of a computer and a global communications network.

      FYI, everything emits radiation. YOU emit radiation. Being in the military allowed me to see a practical demonstration of that fact - IR devices detect infrared radiation being emitted by whichever object you're looking at. You'll even continue radiating when you're a corpse, it just won't be actively generated by your body any more.

    104. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      You really enjoy picking and choosing what you argue, don't you? I made clear that the levels of radiation involved are important, here. Low levels of radiation aren't a big deal, and barely penetrate past skin, if at all. When we're talking cell provider antennae, I have a feeling the level of radiation is just a little bit higher than what my laptop emits. (Plus, my laptop isn't emitting microwaves.)

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    105. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Exposure to installed asbestos is safe. One time exposures to particulate asbestos is also reasonable safe. It is only repeated exposure to particulate asbestos that is a problem. People who have to deal with asbestos removal on a regular basis should be concerned, but if you're a homeowner who discovers asbestos in your textured ceiling, don't worry about it because you are safe.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    106. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't believe that DDT is harmful look at the cockroaches exposed to it.

    107. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I made clear that the levels of radiation involved are important, here.

      Yes, because when people say:

      I don't see how radiation of any kind is safe for long-term exposure.

      it's clear that they're excluding low-level radiation.

      How about you figure out what argument you want to make, and then get back to me? I was about to jump on your "microwaves" thing but, really, there's no point.

    108. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I thought DDT was banned because of its harmful effects on birds, not people. After all, you could spout a long list of harmful effects DEET has on humans as well.

    109. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by dreethal · · Score: 1

      Please hold on while I edit Wikipedia and bribe some OSHA government officials to fix those issues for you...

    110. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Why don't you show me some study that says poor people have a 70% higher incidence of any health problem?

      A lot of your arguments about how poor people have more health risks because they do physical labor actually argue against your conclusions. Physical labor leads to much better physical conditioning for those who physically work hard than sitting at a desk does for those who work at sedentary jobs. Good physical condition, good muscle strength, less obesity, etc... lead to good health outcomes and lower health risks. And don't tell me that every sedentary worker works out so they get the same level of exercise. That's simply not true. Sedentary jobs are closely related to weight problems, along with all the related health problems.

      Poor kids who go outside and play rather than sitting down to a video game or computer as more affluent kids do also have lower health risks because, once again, they are more physically fit.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    111. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that the power lines which were looked into are anywhere near factories or even if the people who live near the power lines have anything to do with any factory whatsoever?

    112. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      As I said in answer to another post of yours, if what you're positing is such common knowledge, start pointing me to studies that show that poor people have a 70% higher incidence of any health problem than afflent people do?

         

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    113. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      Here's how people arrived at that conclusion while being in their right mind:

      OP: Premise given, concluding it's safe.

      You: List of examples attempting to discount premise.

      Re OP: Debunks some examples, questions effective use the remaining ones. Notes anti-science behavior.

      Re You: Discounts claiming a position.

      Me: Attempts to explain the Re OP's assumption. Requests clarification.

      Anyone who has adequate reading comprehension skills and is in their right mind would never have come to that conclusion because, as anyone can attest after reading the comments, what happened was:

      • dmaurov: Something (exposure to mobile carrier antenna radio waves) isn't dangerous because an authoritative organization (the FCC) doesn't say it's dangerous.
      • me: Something isn't automatically safe just because an authoritative organization doesn't claim it's dangerous nor restricts it's use. To demonstrate, here's a list of examples of dangerous stuff which is/has been used without government agency restrictions.
      • c6gunner:Out of your half a dozen examples, one (powerline/leukemia) is a correlation and another has been used to fight a disease. ZOMG you want to avoid everything, ZOMG you hate science.
      • me:: I never said I "want to avoid everything", nor did I said I "hated science". Don't put words into my mouth

      This is what any reasonable person would read,as it is what was actually been said.

      I think I might have figured out what's going on here. The OP gave an actionable premise and conclusion. Therefore, we took your retort also to be actionable. Since a precise action was not given, it was assumed that your platform is "don't follow the OP's advice."

      The GP (c6gunner) failed to put up a remotely relevant case for multiple reasons. First, he clearly showed he failed to even understand the point of this whole thread (i.e., something is automatically safe if no state agency claims it's dangerous). Second, out of the 6 cases which I presented, he only managed to confront two of them and did it very poorly thought out manner. To be more precise, in one (the leukemia) he posted a link to an article trying to debunk a study which not only doesn't have any relation to the one I've provided but also looks into completely different issues associated with the underlying case. In the other (DDT) c6gunner didn't even tried to attack it and only managed to claim that DDT was used to fight a disease. As that, as it is easy to see, not only doesn't make DDT less dangerous but it also doesn't come even close to disprove my proposition (i.e., DDT has been widely deployed while no state agency claimed it to be dangerous, which disproves OP's allegation and the origin of this thread).

      And if that isn't enough c6gunner ends his post by trying to attribute to me a couple of very idiotic statement I never made (ZOMG avoid everything, ZOMG I hate science).

      I guess the only thing to ask at this point is, if you had no intention in either agreeing or disagreeing with the OP's concluded actions, what were we suppose to take away from your initial post?

      I believe it's easy to see by reading my original post that what has been said was that something isn't inherently and perfectly safe just because a state agency doesn't claim it is dangerous. The OP said otherwise and I've written that post to disprove the point the OP made (the FCC didn't say it's bad so it must be good).

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    114. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      DDT as a matter of fact is still in daily use. In China at least it is. Even though it's illegal, highly damaging to the environment in the long term, but on the short term it works wonders. And that's what the farmers see.

    115. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been at a cell tower that had a big sign saying 'Danger! Radiation! Keep 15 metres away unless you are a radiation worker!' or similar. The risk must exist, I'm shocked at the naivety of the majority of posters here. Thanks for a sensible reply that explained the sign I saw.

    116. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by jcr · · Score: 1

      DDT is still used actively to combat malaria

      "Again", not "still". DDT use was resumed a couple years back, after tens of millions of needless deaths.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    117. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by rhook · · Score: 1

      The antenna's for those high powered setups are also up in towers, much more than 20' from them.

    118. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn that's the funniest thing i've ever read. + one million funneh

    119. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the real killer that is lurking in every home in the United States: dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide is used in all sorts of industrial processes and is associated with thousands of deaths each year, it a is a major component of acid rain, has been linked to school shootings, and can be found in our rivers and streams.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    120. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      In addition to the environmental factors, poor people tend to have bad habits and living conditions that lend themselves to health problems. They are more likely to smoke, more likely to have an alcohol problem, less likely to be well educated, less likely to eat fresh food. At work, they are more likely to do shift work, and swing/night shift workers tend to be less healthy and more accident prone than average. When you can't pay the bills, you get stressed out; stress is bad for your health.

      Poor folks are also less likely to have health insurance, and are also less likely to take advantage of preventative care follow a doctors instructions or interact with medical providers in a productive way. I worked for a place with a substantial workforce that had great insurance for medical/dental/vision with $2 co-pays, but internal surveys indicated that the average hourly employee didn't have a primary care provider and hadn't seen a dentist in two years or more.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    121. Re:Yes, you are being a jackass by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      DDT was banned after it was discovered that it had moved through the food chain with devastating effect. For example, birds of prey were essentially wiped out by the use of DDT. It also behaves in an estrogenic manner and can trigger hormone response in some situations, (ie. fetal development and miscarriage) and may be a carcinogen.

      Is spraying DDT in the US worth the potential human and demonstrated risk to animals? In my opinion, no. Is spraying DDT in sub-saharan Africa where the probability of getting malaria or some other tropical disease worth it? Maybe -- but mosquito nets may be a better overall investment for the folks living there.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  3. On the upside, no worries about poor reception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you'll actually get a phone signal! Brilliant!

    Personally I would be a little worried, and certainly wouldn't sign a contract to buy the place until you had the research. The signal power will reduce by the cube of distance from the masts, so 20ft might be okay, whereas 10ft could be a real issue.

    1. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by tapanitarvainen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The signal power will reduce by the cube of distance from the masts

      Square of the distance, actually.

    2. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by dukw_butter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The intensity of the radiation varies inversely with the square of the distance, not the cube of the distance.

    3. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by hardie · · Score: 1

      Square of the distance assumes a point source.

      I think in this case the signal won't be dropping off nearly that fast.

      Steve

    4. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      The point of source is just a larger area (or somewhere behind the antenna for the math)

    5. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by hardie · · Score: 1

      Right. I wasn't clear on the point I was making.
      If the apartment had a point source 20' away, moving an additional 20' to the other side of the apartment would decrease intensity 4x.
      Instead, take the situation as an equivalent point source 100' away--the intensity drops off much more slowly, about 2x decrease.

      Steve

    6. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to post something snarky to the computer engineer about the power being O(1/n^2). Since it sounds like they are using dishes it's probably closer to O(1/n).

    7. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by ari_j · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gentlemen, can't we compromise? The signal power will reduce by the 2.5 power of the distance. Getting along isn't so difficult, after all!

    8. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      He said panel antenna, so it's actually emitting a focused beam. Intensity could be negligible or almost full power.

    9. Re:On the upside, no worries about poor reception by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you're posting from, but you should realize that this story was submitted from a 3D Flatland.

      Rules of thumb for four-dee universes do not apply here.

  4. Easy by acehole · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tin foil suit.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Easy by MadMagician · · Score: 1

      Really, a Faraday Box would totally make this a non-issue.

      It's OK to have some holes in them, like for a door. Minor perturbation (use conformal mapping to verify).

      Math is fun!:)

    2. Re:Easy by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      A Faraday Box would make this a non-issue. The problem is what else do you use that you'd be blocking? You would lose cell service inside your home. For Radio and TV (if you even care about antiquated communication, but then there's HD) you may be able to wire antennas to the exterior, but you'd have to check with the complex's association bi-laws --which likely to enforce a "clean" look.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    3. Re:Easy by frenchbedroom · · Score: 1

      Shiny. Plate. Armor.

    4. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmm... new sex fetish besides leather and rubber.

    5. Re:Easy by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1

      A Faraday Box would make this a non-issue. The problem is what else do you use that you'd be blocking? You would lose cell service inside your home. For Radio and TV (if you even care about antiquated communication, but then there's HD) you may be able to wire antennas to the exterior, but you'd have to check with the complex's association bi-laws --which likely to enforce a "clean" look.

      Wow, fringe benefits! Wouldn't the space between the wires need to be about 1 wavelength? For 1900GHz that would be about 1.7 mm. Is that feasible, or can you get by with more than 1 wavelength spacing?

      --
      Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
    6. Re:Easy by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Cell phone wavelengths are about 1/3 meter. You can make a Faraday cage with fairly large mesh size and block almost everything. So, you will have no problems with holes.

  5. On the plus side, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'll get great reception.

  6. depends what you mean by "facing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If it's a simple dipole antenna and its long axis is aimed at you, there should be minimal exposure. The power emission profile looks kind of like a doughnut with the long part of the antenna at the middle.

    1. Re:depends what you mean by "facing" by jibjibjib · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cell towers (panel antennas, as described in the summary) are not dipole antennas.

    2. Re:depends what you mean by "facing" by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Dipole antennas in this case are installed vertically. Think of it this way: the doughnut is meant to cover you, the customer.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    3. Re:depends what you mean by "facing" by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sector antennas tend to have an even NARROWER vertical beamwidth than dipoles, in addition to adding moderate horizontal directionality (usually 90 or 120 degrees horizontal beamwidth instead of 360 degree coverage.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  7. recent cellphone radiation reports by phil42 · · Score: 0

    i suggest that you read the recent (and not so recent) reports that show greater risk of cancer under cell phone radiation.

    1. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And then fail utterly to find a controlled study that shows repeatable results.

      Lets make this clear, in over fifty years of trying nobody and I repeat nobody has yet managed to do a REPEATABLE study that shows harmful effects of low level non-ionizing radiation.

      The key factor here is REPEATABLE. If it cannot be repeated it is just a meaningless statistical fluke.

    2. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by asc99c · · Score: 1

      One other factor is causation. The fact is that on this subject there are some studies that seem to show correlation, drowned out by ones which don't. But so far, there is no known method for this radiation to affect living tissues. Maybe if anyone could get anywhere describing a mechanism for causation, then serious scientists would take another look at the extremely weak correlation.

    3. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And, on the other side, 50 years of trying and nobody can show it is safe, either - rates of cancer acquisition aren't exactly falling in the "modern world."

    4. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The problem is people can't tell the difference between low level and high level and they overreact. It's like the power line thing - you get some on one side insisting quite stupidly that if it's not over the horizon it's dangerous and a stupid knee jerk reaction on the other side insisting that it can never happen and induction furnaces could never melt steel (inductive heating is the mechanism that causes problems, the same thing that melts the steel only warming the body this time).
      The reality is if you are not close enough that you are worried about reaching out and getting electrocuted then nobody can measure a temperature rise inside your body. So we've had pregnant women working next to poorly sheilded high voltage machinery giving birth to babies with defects and nothing else so far in about half a century.

    5. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over 50 years?

      I don't believe the modern cell phone era has existed for more than 20 years, let alone 50.

      And as far as your studies go, short term lab studies are not indicative of long term exposure effects. I doubt if they intend to live in the apartment for the same amount of time your 'studies' were run against. And, who conducted the studies? The cell phone companies or one of their proxies?

    6. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then fail utterly to find a controlled study that shows repeatable results.

      Lets make this clear, in over fifty years of trying nobody and I repeat nobody has yet managed to do a REPEATABLE study that shows harmful effects of smoking tobacco.

      The key factor here is REPEATABLE. If it cannot be repeated it is just a meaningless statistical fluke.

      -----------

      Your logic is as flawed. All other non-immediately revealed/understood health concerns of the last century at one time were debated in the exact same manner.

    7. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm probably way to late to this party but...

      How many people are going to volunteer for a fully scientific, repeatable and otherwise bullet-proof test to see if they do or do not get cancer when living near a cell tower?

      I think we can be reasonably sure that short or infrequent exposure is really no problem (or at least has such a small effect that we can't detect it). I can see how we could do scientific tests for this - just a quick phone call with a cell phone would do it, possibly to book into the lab to get tested.

      How do you test for long term exposure? How long is long term? 1 month? 1 year? 5 years? 20 years? Who on earth is going to do that for you? Yep, no one. That's why there's no scientific test data already available. Same goes for the use of cell phones, the MMR vaccine, etc etc.

      And before you start to say "yes, but what about testing on mice!?". Well, because now you've got to change the test to make it work. Mice don't live long enough, nor do they live in appartments, and travel by train to work, where they use computers all day. How on earth is anyone ever going to know that living that particular collection of lifestyles is actually the cause of a rate of cancer (or whatever)?

      If you want to call for "results", then please help the entire world by solving the problem of how to actually test for such a thing with all the rigour and repeatability you require?

    8. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we can. We can show that its so safe, that you should worry more about that doughnut you are stuffing into your pie hole. That your constant lack of exercise is causing far more health damage. That your constant consumption of ..... The list goes on. We can prove that most of us are doing many many things on a regular basis that far more damaging to our health.

      But its more convenient to say its a big companies fault.

      And by God if T-Mobile don't improve the coverage in my area soon I'm gunna switch cell phone providers!

    9. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cancer is a catch-all. If you don't die from something else you will eventually get cancer. Anyways, it's impossible to prove that something is safe. You can show evidence, but you can never actually prove it.

    10. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real key is non-ionizing. The OP really needs to learn the difference.

    11. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by japhmi · · Score: 1

      The key factor here is REPEATABLE. If it cannot be repeated it is just a meaningless statistical fluke.

      Or it means that different people are affected differently, and it becomes a question of who gets into the studies.

      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    12. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      ...and nobody's PROVED that the Loch Ness Monster, Easter Bunny and God don't exist either.

      Maybe there's a logical fallacy about proving non-existence in your non-assumptions.

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      No, you got it all wrong: non-ionizing radiation causes longer life expectancy and more college degrees.

    14. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets make this clear, in over fifty years of trying nobody and I repeat nobody has yet managed to do a REPEATABLE study that shows harmful effects of low level non-ionizing radiation.

      The key factor here is REPEATABLE. If it cannot be repeated it is just a meaningless statistical fluke.

      Oh, please!

      Just because nobody has done a credible study of the issue, doesn't mean that there is no danger.

      To say it is a meaningless statistical fluke makes you just as wrong as the people pointing to those flawed studies saying there is danger.

      The obvious answer is, "We just don't whether there are harmful effects of exposure to low level non-ionizing radiation. The data is not conclusive, although it leans this way...."

    15. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      True enough - though one might question the value of those degrees, and whether quality of life is improved if you also have to deal with HMO paperwork?

    16. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      The lack of evidence that is dangerous is evidence that it is safe.

      It is impossible to prove a negative. For example, I could never prove that you are not an android. A perfect android would be indistinguishable from a human in every way, even down to being organic flesh and blood. The best I could do is find something to prove you ARE an android. Now, since there is no evidence to suggest (let alone prove) that you ARE an android, I am pretty confident you are not.

      It's the same reason you can never prove that a god does not exist, you can only fail to prove that he does. You can look and look and not find a god, and therefore be reasonably certain that one does not exist, but you can never prove that one does not exist.

      In the same way, it is impossible to prove that something is not dangerous (the definition of "safe" is basically "not dangerous"). All you have to have done is miss something and your proof is worthless. However, when we try over and over to find a way something is dangerous, and fail, we can then be confident that it is safe. However, we could still be wrong, and there is no way to prove that the thing is safe.

      The only thing close to proof that anything is safe is a failure to prove that it is dangerous.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    17. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      I meant to put this in my other post, but oh well.

      Cancer rates aren't exactly rising by a whole lot either among children (the leading potential indicator of environmental causes of cancer). A study involving the SEER database at the National Cancer Institute concluded there was no statistically significant increase in cancer rates among children between the 1980's and the late 90's. The CDC more or less agrees, giving a 0.6% yearly increase among children since 1990.

      The mortality rate for children with cancer in the same period, however, has plummeted. Obviously that is probably due to better treatment options.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    18. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I agree that treatments are improving, at least for the 5 year horizon, pretty sure I don't want my toddlers receiving radiation or chemo as a "cure" unless they're about to die anyway.

      Yeah, by the 1980s we had lead in the air, 30 years of ozone depletion from aerosol cans and all kinds of other goodness that we finally started to reverse - some things are actually getting better.

    19. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The studies that exposed radio damages made to brains (and other live tissues) have been burried by corrupting the officials during *50* years:

      http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?printable=true

      "modulated EM radiation could cause genetic damage and mutations passed on for generations in a single two-hour exposure"

      "Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of independent studies."

      "In September 2007, the European Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol."

    20. Re:recent cellphone radiation reports by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the #1 cause of death is birth...

      I've watched "the experts" stand around and scratch various body parts while they tried to explain the mercury concentration in the Florida Everglades, explanations like "naturally occuring" and "gee, we just don't know" were floated for about 10 years after the top predators started dying of mercury poisioning. After enough of that nonsense, somebody finally got the "clean" waste incinerators in the neighboring counties to just shut down, and miracle of miracles, mercury levels dropped and the alligators stopped dying with toxic loads of it in their brains.

      High enough levels of non-ionizing radiation are definitely deadly, marginally lower levels cannot really be called "safe" in long-term exposure, and the "science" involved in declaring certain levels safe isn't really all that scientific. I still use cell-phones, live in a city, etc. and I don't think that it's going to kill me, but some common sense precaution is also called for.

  8. not expensive to use wire mesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it bothers you in any case, it doesn't cost a lot to line your walls with appropriate size mesh, it's a good opportunite to mend and paint walls/change wallpapers as well. I certainly do it.

    1. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by Greventls · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The FCC may have something to say about that though. If he is close enough, his mesh may block enough of the signal to put the antenna out of use.

    2. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Are there any laws against passive shielding inside your flat? After all, you could simply put standard metal office furniture inside your flat, and that would cause massive interference, too. I'd say, if the phone company doesn't want the signal to be blocked by whatever is inside a flat, it should put the tower somewhere where it won't be blocked by something inside a flat.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      the furniture would be small enough for the RF to go around, but a faraday cage the size of a apartment would be a bit too large at 20 feet

    4. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by Plekto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The FCC may have something to say about that though. If he is close enough, his mesh may block enough of the signal to put the antenna out of use.

      Any passive blocking that he puts on the walls or windows as an owner is something that he can't he held liable for(as opposed to active blocking or putting up a billboard or similar). I'd love to see the judge's face when the cell phone company tries to explain how their antenna requires his apartment to be non-shielded to operate properly(ie - we need to beam the signal *through* it because we put it in a bad location). They are supposed to be placed in such a manner that they are clear of buildings and physical obstructions. Hence the reason they are almost always on a small tower above a roof top. One thing, though - if you shield your place from these frequencies, you won't be able to use your cell phone at all while at home. You *can* turn your house into a giant Faraday cage. But expect it to act like one as well. You likely also won't be able to use your radio or HDTV over the air. Nothing comes in means nothing gets out as well. (OTOH, Wi-fi in home would be secure - heh)

      Also, the refit won't be cheap. That Scotchtint runs about $1000 for a 60"x100ft roll. EMI resistant mesh for the walls generally runs the same. Generally you have to re-plaster or put another thin layer of drywall over top of it, which is factored into that price. And of course, it has to be installed properly. At that range(feet vs hundreds of feet) it will generate a significant amount of current.

      Possible? Of course. But in today's world, being without tv, radio, wireless, and so on in such a place in NYC would be horrendous. In fact, trying to sell a place that you purposely turned into that would probably make it just as hard to resell as if you did nothing at all. I'd just keep looking. Maybe there's a similar place a block or two over?

    5. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      tv - cable/FIOS radio - internet radio? wireless - get google voice and link your cell and landline.

    6. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The FCC may have something to say about that though. If he is close enough, his mesh may block enough of the signal to put the antenna out of use.

      Any passive blocking that he puts on the walls or windows as an owner is something that he can't he held liable for(as opposed to active blocking or putting up a billboard or similar). I'd love to see the judge's face when the cell phone company tries to explain how their antenna requires his apartment to be non-shielded to operate properly(ie - we need to beam the signal *through* it because we put it in a bad location).

      Good point. Also if it does become useless and they relocate it you probably increased the resale value.

      But in today's world, being without tv, radio, wireless, and so on in such a place in NYC would be horrendous.

      maybe not if you have cable.

    7. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      No need for mesh he can replace the drywall with fire rated drywall that has a foil back. Just tape the studs with aluminum tape so there is contunity between the boards and put a transparent mesh on the windows while it won't be perfect the levels would be knocked down.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    8. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by jimbolauski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The FCC can't do shit he is not radiating, wire mesh is used for plaster, houses with plaster may not have slats they have a wire mesh also foil backed drywall (fireboard) could be used, all of these things are within code and he could not be forced to remove them.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    9. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already live in a world where people mostly don't listen to external radios inside their homes, with the exception of cell phones.

      Radio? I typically listen to internet radio because I like a station that is well out of range. Even when I listen to a local station, I listen to the internet feed because it is static free.

      Television? I suspect 99% of people in NYC and 100% of people on the market for a Deluxe Apartment in the Sky would have cable.

      That leaves google voice + a "land line" or some similar voip trick for getting cell phone coverage in your house, so the only thing you'd be SOL on would be SMS messages.

      None of these would be *killer* issues for an apartment. I might reduce my offer by 1-5% relative to comparable apartments elsewhere, but this guy is probably buying it at a comparable discount, so it would be (mostly) a wash.

      And that's assuming people even notice their phone doesn't work too well there while they're inspecting the place. People often just assume there is something wrong with *their* phone or *their* provider.

    10. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I guess the answer is yes. Capitalization of the air.

    11. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by Plekto · · Score: 1

      True, but it's a major minus for a lot of potential buyers later on. Though I guess some paranoid or EMI sensitive types might seek out a place like this...(or bad guys not wanting to be traced...)

    12. Re:not expensive to use wire mesh by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Very particularly placed wire on internal wall nearest transmitter.

      Apply power.

      Transmitter go boom.

      Repeat until transmitter owner gets fed up and relocates it.

      Hopefully not to your roof.

  9. Insert small coil by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you're that close, you should be able to put a small coil of wire in your apartment and induce a nice free electric current. It won't make you popular with the owners of the antenna but what do they know? Otherwise no, I don't see a problem with RF.

    --
    Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    1. Re:Insert small coil by Angstroem · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're talking about cell phone here, not military-strength microwave radar signals :)

      Would really astonish me if he could even light up a energy-saving lamp with the cell-phone signal.

    2. Re:Insert small coil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      At least the country that I live in have this practice outlawed.

      It's called energy theft or something like that.

    3. Re:Insert small coil by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Would astonish me if he could so much as light up an LED with it...

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:Insert small coil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      At least the country that I live in have this practice outlawed.

      It's called energy theft or something like that.

      I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that in the U.S., when something from an a neighbor's property like, for example, a branch, extends over one's property, the property owner can deal with it as he likes. By that logic, if your apple tree is extending across the fence into my yard, I may harvest the apples or cut off that part of the branch, as I choose.

      The property owner can give an easement that allows the neighbor to pass through his property in some way. Easements are often part of the deed to the property. For example, the lot my house is built on has easements for the electric, telephone, and cable companies to run underground cables to my house, as well as easements for the water/sewer service and an underground runoff pipe along the back side of the yard.

      Absent an easement, I don't think the owner of the transmitter could prevent you from harvesting a little power.

    5. Re:Insert small coil by Vexar · · Score: 1

      OK, that one is the best! I think the longer the coil (diameter), the more twists, the more power drained, right?

    6. Re:Insert small coil by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Would really astonish me if he could even light up a energy-saving lamp with the cell-phone signal.

      I dount if he could harvest enough energy to run a wrist watch. With that insignifigant amount of power, why should anyone worry?

    7. Re:Insert small coil by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia, a wristwtch runs at about 1 microwatt. Given the estimates some people have made above, it seems as if he might able to capture and use in the range of 100 microwatts to a few milliwatts. Enough to power many watches, or a small efficient LED.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Insert small coil by Brianwa · · Score: 1

      I can't cite any sources here, but I vaguely remember a story in the news about this. Someone was draining a fair amount of power from some long distance transmission lines near his house. The power company puzzled over the losses and spent a fair amount of effort tracking him down (I think he had large visible coils outside). They tried to prosecute, but could not. Instead they had to estimate his power use and send him a bill.

    9. Re:Insert small coil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading about FM radios that could power themselves this way. Small devices like weather stations supposedly can do that too.

      Still, it's mostly a legal matter, depending on the country you live in; or a matter of civil disobedience; your choice :D

  10. These guys found the prefect solution... by tangent3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...for your problem.
    Right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1pv16G-liw

    1. Re:These guys found the prefect solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I couldn't make it more than five seconds in. Not for the music or the general douchiness, but the specific douchiness of one of the pranksters wearing a sweater vest and looking like he's used to it.

  11. I'd pass by mariushm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wouldn't risk living there.

    As far as I know (and I'm no expert, just good at googling) , the radiation levels from antennas are relatively safe about 3-5 meters away from them but depending on the type of antenna their beam can kind of focused in one direction so that 3-5 meters estimation could mean a measurement ouside the beam direction and if the apartment is inside the beam the radiation could be above safe levels. For example, I've heard that in my country, if you live on the last floor of a building and an antenna is above, the antenna must be on a pole at least 2-2.5 meters high so that distance between the apartments below and the emitter is around 3 meters.

    Cellphone antennas would not be uni-directional so there shouldn't be any focused beam or whatever it's called but who knows what other antennas will be installed in the future on the same pole.

    So from a radiation point of view you may be safe, but you never know how sensitive you are or how sensitive your family / children etc will be.

    Second, while you may not care so much, the property will be harder to sell in the future because of that antenna.

    1. Re:I'd pass by dltaylor · · Score: 1

      cell-phone radiation isn't spherical.

      by design, there is more emission in the plane of the array than straight up or down.

    2. Re:I'd pass by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      Cellphone antennas would not be uni-directional so there shouldn't be any focused beam or whatever it's called but who knows what other antennas will be installed in the future on the same pole.

      A directional antenna or beam antenna is an antenna which radiates greater power in one or more directions
      An omnidirectional antenna is an antenna system which radiates power uniformly in one plane with a directive pattern shape in a perpendicular plane

      Cell phone transmitters are directional. There are usually three sets of antennas (One transmitter per set and one or more receivers) facing in different directions.

    3. Re:I'd pass by maxume · · Score: 1

      If a risk to humans is ever substantiated, the antennas would be removed.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:I'd pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      Considering that if it is safe now, it may not be in the future. There is breakage, wind shearing forces, all sorts of things that can break the antenna or shift it so more radiation goes INTO your apartment. Or if it works with another antenna focused on it, a crew may realign that antenna similarly blasting radiation into your apartment (with a misalignment or wrong power setting). Even if temporary, I wouldn't want to get fried with a few hours of exposure while the antenna owning company gets a crew out there.

      At the very least, if you buy it, put some monitors up, so that you know the levels you are exposed to, as well as if something changes.

      Similarly, if this is a single site worth having a cell phone antenna on, there are likely other antennas with newer tech without a safety/health track record that may end up being put up there (without you noticing). Worse, some of these may be transmitting/receiving to other buildings, at higher settings, or with deflections (may be safe, but if it hits something, the scatter may not be), so that not only a misalignment of the antenna on your roof could screw you, but the antenna trying to connect to your building may be misaligned and bombarding you. This latter situation is even worse considering that you may have even fewer recourse to get the alignment fixed, since it requires hunting down and contacting a crew to work on some other building or tower.

      Even if something is lined, it doesn't mean it couldn't become misaligned to bypass the obivous protections you may have put up to protect yourself.

      btw, if you can afford this sort of thing, you likely can afford something nice elsewhere. A brownstone, a penthouse in a shorter nearby building that doesn't have antennas, a nice townhouse near a subway line to the city, etc. Esp. in this economy, where real estate in the city is probably still completely flat or depressed.

    5. Re:I'd pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know (and I'm no expert, just good at googling) , the radiation levels from antennas are relatively safe about 3-5 meters away from them but depending on the type of antenna their beam can kind of focused in one direction so that 3-5 meters estimation could mean a measurement ouside the beam direction

      This is a cellphone tower, so surely the beam moves to track the telephones? Hence why they have 2 antennas for each direction (phased array and all that)

      You would hope the fixed beams (uplink etc) wouldn't point through buildings because they've been carefully aimed. (captcha: occlude)

    6. Re:I'd pass by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      you know nothing.
      (sorry, too drunk to go further in detail. Let's just say that your laptop (you are sitting within two feet from) is probably emitting more actual RFI exposure than a cell tower at 20 feet. Logarithmic scale is a beautiful thing. :))

    7. Re:I'd pass by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Breathe man, breathe!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  12. Buy it by edittard · · Score: 3, Funny

    1) Buy it.
    2) Sue phone company
    3) ...
    4) profit!!!!!!!

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:Buy it by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Funny

      3) win lawsuit

    2. Re:Buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is #3 Die?

    3. Re:Buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was 3) get cancer.

    4. Re:Buy it by lindoran · · Score: 1

      1) Buy it.
      2) Sue phone company
      3) ...
      4) profit!!!!!!!</p></quote>

      yes! the underpants gnomes! .... ah south park you answer so many of life's little quandaries....

    5. Re:Buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.5) Become ill

      I'm sure this will be a requirement.

    6. Re:Buy it by marz007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This may be the only way you'll get any kind of AT&T Reception for your nifty cool iPhone in Manhattan...assuming that it's an AT&T Tower pointing at you, of course.

    7. Re:Buy it by stakovahflow · · Score: 1

      It may be difficult to win said lawsuit, ya know, with missing parts of your cerebral cortex, etc, due to microwave radiation...

      Good luck!

      --Stak

      --
      Holy happy hippy crap!
    8. Re:Buy it by edittard · · Score: 1

      Not if your lawyer is good^H expensive enough.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    9. Re:Buy it by edittard · · Score: 1

      It may be difficult to win said lawsuit, ya know, with missing parts of your cerebral cortex, etc

      Hell, you can win a case without any of that.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    10. Re:Buy it by stakovahflow · · Score: 1

      Good point...

      Noted, indexed, "CRAP!"...

      --
      Holy happy hippy crap!
  13. Try before you buy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See if you can stay a few nights. If you start to glow in the dark, you'll want to decide between fathering children or making another investment!

    On the plus side, you'd no longer need a reading lamp!

  14. Perfect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, now that GSM decryption is possible:

    1) Start recording conversations
    2) Sift through for credit card orders
    3) ???
    4) Profit!

  15. Re:No, he's not being a jackass by frozentier · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The FCC enforces on a case-by-case basis. Unless someone has turned this situation (this SPECIFIC apartment being this close to a transmitting antenna) to the FCC, then chances are that they have no idea the situation even exists. As for my $0.02, you don't want to spend any more time than you have to being 20 feet from a transmitting antenna, LET ALONE living next to one.

  16. I'm not an RF engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    But RF is mostly LoS (Line of Sight), anything blocking is reflected, absorbed or transmissive.

    If you have solid walls (eg concrete), I wouldn't worry about it. Glass, you should be okay. But if it's like wood or plaster, the particles in these materials don't really block anything, so it's mostly transmissive. That's why you may get great reception in a wood frame house, but not in it's basement.

    Basic analogy:

    If you put a translucent material in front of a lightbulb, you can see the lightbulb, but if you put metal foil, you can see around the foil. Therefor you reduce, but not eliminate your exposure.

    If you are seriously worried, grab a CFL tube or a large fluorescent light and hold it outside and inside the building. If it actually glows outside the building, I'd be wary. If it glows inside the building, don't buy it.

    1. Re:I'm not an RF engineer by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      >>>Basic analogy: If you put a translucent material in front of a lightbulb, you can see the lightbulb, but if you put metal foil, you can see around the foil. Therefor you reduce, but not eliminate your exposure.
      >>>

      Thank you Mr. "I'm not an RF Engineer". So if I unnerstand the gist of your analogy, I can cover my telescope with tinfoil, and more effectively allow me to spy on the sorority dorm next door. I can see them, but they can't see me. Thanks!

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  17. Manhattan, Not Kansas by Greventls · · Score: 1

    This is Manhattan, not Kansas. You'll be fine. The power of the antenna in this case is restricted by the larger number of cell phone users in the city. Because of the population, the antennas fill up their bandwidth in a much smaller area. The antenna may only have enough power to cover the city block before it fills up. If it was powerful enough to cover more area than it can serve with cell coverage, there would be interference with other antennas trying to cover those edge areas.

    1. Re:Manhattan, Not Kansas by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it is not is not Manhattan, Kansas?

      You are correct about the range (it probably covers multiple blocks), but there has to overlap so that there are fewer dropped calls

  18. Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by TheDarAve · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a product called Scotch-Tint that is a EMF reducer for windows. Combine that with some metallic fabrics on the walls on that side. www.lessemf.com is one of many suppliers for those products. I've used a conductive plastic from those folks to make a shielded rack for some RF sensitive equipment.

    1. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

      If I just had to have the apartment, this is exactly what I'd do. I'd also get a microwave leak detector so I could prove to visitors, or prospective buyers, should I ever want to sell, that it is safe. Open the window, show the outside levels, then show interior levels, everyone should be happy at that point.

    2. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by djsmiley · · Score: 1

      And hope they never want to have a BBQ? (I'm guessing there is some sort of outside facitity, i couldn't imagine living without that...

      --
      - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    3. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Hmm, and then call tech support because your phone doesn't work inside your apartment...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    4. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by gparent · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is a product called Scotch-Tint that is a EMF reducer for windows.

      Does it work on Linux?

    5. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by Haxzaw · · Score: 1

      It is an apartment in Manhattan, I'd assume the only BBQ they'll get is down the street at a diner.

    6. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by GRW · · Score: 1

      It only filters ultraviolet. Its purpose is to prevent the fading of colours on fabrics exposed to sunlight from windows.

    7. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by bobs666 · · Score: 1

      And This is why I have aluminum foil under my hat.

    8. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by Huzzah! · · Score: 1

      This is an excellent observation, you can add shielding to the apartment until you can't use your cell phone there, then you know you're safe!

    9. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Except then he'll have no cell service, not to mention terrestrial television or radio reception.

    10. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      There is a product called Scotch-Tint that is a EMF reducer for windows.

      Will it run in Wine for us Ubuntu users?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    11. Re:Conductive films, cloths, or plastics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a product called Scotch-Tint that is a EMF reducer for windows. Combine that with some metallic fabrics on the walls on that side. www.lessemf.com is one of many suppliers for those products. I've used a conductive plastic from those folks to make a shielded rack for some RF sensitive equipment.

      I just want to know when the Linux version is out. Damn non-free EMF reducers...

  19. Thinfoil hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build yourself a faraday cage with copper in the wallpaper? http://www.hollandshielding.com/faraday/index.php

  20. It's not microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I am not sure if you were meaning microwave in the strict sense, as a microwave ant pointed at your building would be dumb. Microwave transmissions are very directional. GSM or CDMA are going to be much lower, and mostly benign. You probably have attended a church or worked in a building that has them. You're around them all the time. Also, cellular systems are cellular. Meaning, their transmit power is relatively small so that the frequency can be reused across the same town for obvious freq management reasons.

    1. Re:It's not microwave by kenh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Telcos use microwave antennas to get carry phone lines over great distances for lower cost than fiber, but they would never point one at a building, as that would defeat the line-of-sight nature of their operation.

      --
      Ken
  21. Every visitor will ask by Moskit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if you get some information from /. and you buy it, you will need to explain that it's safe to every visitor who notices these antennas.

    1. Re:Every visitor will ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that same vein, I had a buddy who had an apartment next to a bird sanctuary for a while. Everybody who looked out his sliding glass balcony door said, "Hey! Nice swamp!"

  22. The facts about urban wireless towers by George_Ou · · Score: 5, Informative

    The facts about urban wireless towers is that they're very low power because of the high population density. They use very small cells in urban towers to achieve a very small coverage radius so that they can put up more towers in the city and reuse the same spectrum. Furthermore, just being in-doors cuts the power level 10-fold and I'd really doubt that you're getting more than -40 dBm which is equivalent to 100 nanowatts of power even if you're outside the windows. My Wi-Fi Access Point is 5 feet from me and it's got a power level of -13 dBm which is about 1000 times stronger than a -40 dBm signal. Now if you think that's high, your cell phone probably has a signal strength of +10 dBm which means the power density is 100,000 times stronger than a -40 dBm signal. And if you think the phone is dangerous, check out this article from me http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/sar-ratings-are-not-a-measure-of-radiation/ and this article http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/01/cell-phone-exposure-prevents-or-reverses-alzheimer-in-mice/. So really, worrying about that cellular tower is just silly. If you're really worried about it, buy one of those $100 "Electrosmog" meters and measure the signal strength yourself at various places.

    1. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by matt4077 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find it interesting that after many years of stories about the impossibility of cellphone radiation having any damaging effect due to its low power, we suddenly hear this story about the positive effects it has. One of the two can't be true. I don't share the paranoids' obsession with radiowaves, but I'd like to know what if anything was wrong with the earlier assessments.

    2. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by stefanb · · Score: 1

      Why do you think a sector antenna would be emitting only -40 dBm? That is on the level of a micro- or nano cell. The maximum allowable is well north of 10 kW EIRP, so even if that cell is tuned down to only cover a small sector, it still will be putting out 40 to 50 dBm. Otherwise, as you rightly state, reception inside builings would be nearly impossible.

      I don't particularly believe in electro-sensitivity, so wouln't be too concerned even with that number, but I still would feel a bit uneasy about potential power levels. Maybe it's worthwile checking FCC permits for this particular site and the actual max. EIRP they're allowed to push out. Shielding those walls with copper mesh wall paper probably puts you right with the tinfoil hat brigade, but might avoid potential interference of any wireless equipment you might want to use.

    3. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by George_Ou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The earlier "assessments" were based on weak studies and half truths (http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/half-truths-on-cell-phone-dangers/). All the studies that found potential dangers were based on tiny sample populations. All the studies that showed no danger were based on massive sample populations.

    4. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by Ropati · · Score: 1

      George probably has it right.

      This is low level non-ionizing radiation, so the only real effect is body heating. Generally body heating is dispersed (except in the eyeballs and testicles) by the flow of body fluids. It takes a lot of power to heat a human body (even eyeballs). There probably isn't enough heat being generated in your body by radio wave absorption to be measured.

      However you do sleep in one position. These types of antennas are highly directional and they could have hotspots. Cell towers operators don't care about RF hazards except to satisfy the FCC. If you are worried, you could put some grounded foil on the wall between your bed and the antenna and make a modified tin foil hat.

      --
      machinator omnis sine licentia
    5. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by George_Ou · · Score: 5, Informative

      A sector antenna typically boosts power levels by 15 dB due to the fact that it "concentrates" the radio waves towards a certain direction. But because of the "boost", the radios in the urban towers reduce their power output considerably. In fact, typical urban power levels are 10 watt ERP (with actual radio power of half a watt) is common (see http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html).

      But this assumes that the sector antennas are aimed directly at his prospective apartment unit. If they're not aimed at him, the power levels are far lower than just the bare .5 watt radios because the power that would have gone towards him are being redirected by the sector antennas. But even if he's in the hot zone for those antennas at 20 feet away, I really doubt his power level is more than -10 dBm which is still really low compared to your own cell phone. Furthermore, having that much signal just means you'll get less overall exposure because your cell phone can use much lower power levels.

      Now the original post mentioned "panel antennas" which are highly directional and typically used for backhaul. Those I'm almost certain aren't facing his apartment because that would kind of make those antennas useless since they need a clear line of sight.

    6. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by l0b0 · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that after many years of stories about the impossibility of cellphone radiation having any damaging effect due to its low power, we suddenly hear this story about the positive effects it has. One of the two can't be true.

      On the contrary, almost everything you get in touch with has positive and negative effects. To take the current example, the radiation might have a statistically significant effect on temperature, bacterial growth rate, electronic equipment or something completely different. Some of these might be positive, some might be negative, and some (probably most) will be either depending on other factors.

    7. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by fbjon · · Score: 1

      There's no reason both can't be true.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    8. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      Right, and we're only talking about 2 degrees C increase in temperature for most highly concentrated gram of tissue mass after one hour of exposure to max SAR levels. But those few grams of tissue won't even come close to that level of heating due to the fact that the other 70,000 grams of your body will absorb the heat, not even accounting for the heat loss from sweat. So we're talking about a heat rise of less than a thousandths of a degrees even after one hour of max SAR exposure. Wearing a hat will produce far more heat increase in your head.

    9. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      Your AP probably transmits at 20-27dBm. A cellular AP probably transmits at 40dBm.

      because of the Inverse-square law the receive strength is very low. Wi-Fi can operate at -88dBm if the noise floor is -96dBm.

    10. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      There do exist microwave antennas that will literally boil your blood if you stand in front of them. So the OP is not an entirely crazy question.

      As far as the mice, I'm inclined to believe the studies that claim cell phone proximity has no measurable effects on biochemistry. But the source cell tower, that's another story.

    11. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      But the cell tower is typically a million times weaker than your own cell phone, and maybe 1000 times weaker even if you're extremely close to the tower. And even the cell phone can't really raise the entire body temperature more than a hundredths of a degrees.

      Testicles do in fact disperse heat even more so than the rest of the body to maintain a slightly lower temperature for optimum sperm production. This is why the skin around them will contract and loosen depending on the temperature.

    12. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that after many years of stories about the impossibility of cellphone radiation having any damaging effect due to its low power, we suddenly hear this story about the positive effects it has. One of the two can't be true.

      Side Effects

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    13. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radar is "safe" but if you stand in front of a radar dish you'll still get microwaved. Water is safe so long as your not hit by a tsunami...

    14. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      "Your AP probably transmits at 20-27dBm. A cellular AP probably transmits at 40dBm."

      That is true, but you're forgetting the difference in the distance and the inverse square law and the 10 dB loss from just the building. A cell tower will be a minimum of 50 feet from your body while a Wi-Fi AP will be 5 feet from you. That 10-fold difference in distance corresponds to a 100-fold decline in power levels and perhaps a 20 dB drop. So even in worst case, your Wi-Fi AP will most likely have a stronger signal than the cell tower.

      Furthermore, remember that Wi-Fi typically operates between -20 dBm and -80 dBm while cell phones are designed to work between -40 dBm and -105 dBm. So Wi-Fi operates with much higher power levels, but your cell phone trumps everything since it's literally a few inches away.

    15. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world isn't black and white here. Why is it impossible for a cell phone to increase chance of cancer AND reduce chance of alzheimers?

    16. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by arielCo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who says you can't have both? With traditional medicine, they're called side effects. Perhaps chemotherapy qualifies too (attack everything, hope the cancer cells die first).

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    17. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Few life sciences people have any clue about electromagnetics, or about physics in general -- as opposed to physics as applied to their corner of biochemistry. I have interacted with some life sciences people, and it's generally a somber experience. Few of them have a clue about basic experimental data processing, much less general physics knowledge. I'd say that people who are interested in "proving" that generally accessible (and within regulatory limits) EM fields are somehow dangerous are already in a group that has poor understanding of science as a discipline that explains the workings of nature. They are subject to a negative bias when it comes to scientific knowledge. I have no problems with anyone doing experiments in this area, but they I'd much rather see it done by people disinterested in the general cause of "fighting electrosmog". Good science is rarely done by those on a "mission" of that sort.

      Having said that, it's obvious that there are some excellent life scientists, and I know of at least two world-class guys whom I'd have no problem tutoring my own kids in most anything. If they don't know it, they'd probably figure it out for themselves first. IOW, they are good. None of them has come anywhere near any of the quackery we're talking about here.

    18. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by IICV · · Score: 1

      It's interesting why that happens actually - if you run a small study on, say, acupuncture or homeopathy or intercessory prayer or wireless allergies or something else that will have a marginal effect and get a null result, you're not going to waste time publishing that; nobody will care, you won't be cited, and you'll have wasted all that time and effort. So you don't tell anyone about your null result.

      If by a statistical fluke you get a controversial result, however, you're going to publish that shit so hard. Yes, your small sample size doesn't rule out a fluke, but that's okay - those results might be the basis for a larger study, which will cite you, and maybe some other people might read the paper too.

      Note that this is not one scientist running small studies until he gets the result he wants; rather, what ends up happening is that one area becomes controversial, so maybe ten scientists get funding to run a small study on it. Eight of them find no result and shelve the data, but the other two get controversial results and publish. You never hear about negative results unless they're found in a large study, which will be published regardless.

    19. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      How old is the tower? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site has power numbers ranging from 3000W for old towers to under 100W for newer ones.

      Lots of stories about high-power ground-based aircraft and weather radar cooking geese and homeless people who nestled up to them for warmth. But that's about it for adverse effects.

      Once you know the power level, you can pretty much gauge the impact in terms of energy emissions... comparing it to, say, a 100W light bulb. But for the most part I'd expect you would get higher doses of gigahertz radiation from your microwave or holding your own cell phone by your head.

      You may or may not want to worry about terahertz radiation: http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/30/1216230/How-Terahertz-Waves-Tear-Apart-DNA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19154093 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19051324 . But you wouldn't be getting those from the cell tower. Supposedly terahertz radiation can have some effect on metabolism, maybe, which might be why they put different types of rocks in saunas and ascribe some kind of wanky "healing powers" to them.

      So there you have it.

    20. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      If you're really worried about it, buy one of those $100 "Electrosmog" meters and measure the signal strength yourself at various places.

      This is the best single piece of advice I've seen in this entire discussion. Too bad you buried it at the end of your post.

    21. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what I don't understand about these antenna array towers. Everyone officially keeps saying they are "low power" yet at the base of nearly every freaking one of them they have so god damn many phases of power going to green boxes with giant capacitors? I don't know about you, but that sounds like lots of CURRENT to run lots of RF!

      For example if I buy a CB radio say a 2950 off eBay and plug it in I need probably a 3 to 4 Amp power supply to get her up an running, but if I add a 2KW amp I now need 13.8VDC @ 200 AMPS or better!!! (like those killer grey faced military power supplies that you can bridge)

      Any way my point here is
      @ 3 Amps the power supply is about the size of the radio
      @ 200 Amps the power supply is three and a half feet tall and maybe two and a half feet wide more than hundred pounds weight

      While they say these antenna array's are low RF power, the power being supplied to them is anything but LOW power. I ain't trying to be paranoid, just stating what I have observed.

    22. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'd call it good advice as it does require that someone wastes $100. I only gave it to this person because it might help him to get the apartment he really wants. Of course after he uses the device for a few days, he'll realize how silly the fear is and probably wonder why he bought it.

    23. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one thing can have both positive and negative effects! are you crazy?.... i'm not even gonna bother sighting examples.

    24. Re:The facts about urban wireless towers by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I really doubt his power level is more than -10 dBm which is still really low compared to your own cell phone.

      Except that the antenna is 24/7, the cell phone is perhaps an hour or two per day at the most.

  23. cell tower next to village by tokul · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mobile company raised cell tower next to some village. Locals complained about health problems caused by this tower. When contacted cell company CEO replied:
    - That's nothing. Wait and see what happens when we turn it on.

    1. Re:cell tower next to village by bkeahl · · Score: 1

      :) Oh, that's rich! But, it proves a point that perception can be just as important as facts when dealing with something you may ultimately try to rent or sell.

    2. Re:cell tower next to village by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I think its just silly. I live about 500 feet from an AT&T tower in my area. Neither me, nor people who live closer to it, have ever experienced any issues because of it. Maybe its because we are Texans and too stupid to worry about it, or maybe the amount of radiation it puts out is so minimal it doesn't affect anyone. I can tell you there are no mutated squirls running around, and my Pecans on my tree are just as safe to eat and tasty as those I buy at the store.

      On the plus side, I get awesome reception and 3G service.

    3. Re:cell tower next to village by Mattsson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've experienced a similar story but about a Wimax-tower.
      The exact day that a Wimax-service went active in the neighbourhood of my girlfriends parents, a couple with "electro-allergy" in the area started having headaches and feeling nauseous.
      The funny thing was, the tower had already been active at full power for several months while they measured coverage and did trial-runs.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    4. Re:cell tower next to village by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mobile company put cell tower on the roof of a building. People ccomplained about sleeping trouble.
      The company answered : "the tower is not yet active, even not powered." ...

    5. Re:cell tower next to village by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the mice were using smart phones...duh!

    6. Re:cell tower next to village by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      That's not quite true if I recall the story correctly. (A village in New Zealand IIRC, I don't have the link with me now.)

      The tower was active for a while, but for reasons unrelated to the complaints, the company shut it down for a few weeks. Residents continued complaining of health effects even after the 6 week mark. (They were not notified of the shutdown until a meeting with company reps around then.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    7. Re:cell tower next to village by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some crazies in Clearview, Washington (illegally) bulldozed a new AM radio tower, thinking it was giving them brain cancer or something. An AM radio tower. AM.

      If AM radio caused brain cancer, you'd think we would have figured that out sometime in the last 80 years we've been using it. Crazy people. Maybe they thought NPR was going to broadcast hypnotic messages into their brains so they'd vote Democrat.

      http://www.kirotv.com/news/20723839/detail.html

      Oh wait it was sports radio. Maybe they have an intense hatred of... high school football? Hell, I dunno.

    8. Re:cell tower next to village by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I had a similar experience when I was an active amateur radio operator. I constructed a 40 foot rohn tower in my backyard to support my 10 - 40 meter yagi antenna. My lawyer friend (who happens to be a ham too) recommended that I let the antenna sit on the tower for a couple of weeks before actually installing the cables.

      The home owners' association filed a grievance against me complaining about TV interference and "head aches" (more like eye-sore). Anyway, I didn't have to use the boiler plate FCC part 15 defense. Instead, I let their representative with my lawyer inspect the tower. After they realized that the tower was not even functional, they ended their complaint. My lawyer reminded them that he will use the visit and the followup "inspection report" as evidence that the complaint is aesthetic related (which wasn't cover by my deed's covenant) and not safety related. I never had any more trouble from them, and operated the station until I moved into my new house.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    9. Re:cell tower next to village by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is scored "funny" but has happened several times just in the last year or two alone... "Oh the radiation, I've had headaches ever since that antenna went up last month!" moan moan, bitch bitch. The antenna installer then points out they have not even installed any equipment yet, the antenna wasn't going to be transmitting for several months. Pwnage at it's finest.

                As for the OP, I agree with the numerous people that have commented that inside a city, the transmit power of cell sites is quite low, since the cover a matter of city blocks instead of miles. I would like to add, I think the exposure from phones is a little exaggerated -- I saw people state a figure of +10dBm... that might be right for GSM, but I've seen CDMA phones in town do -10dBm to -20dBm, and right next to a site like you would be, the phone can drop below -40dBm. I'll add here, what is a dBm? 0dBm is 1 milliwatt, +10 is 10mw, +20 is 100mw, etc. -10 is 1/10th of a mw, -20 1/100th of a mw, etc. The maximum is around +24 dBm for modern phones (250 mw), you'll only see this when you're almost out of service.

    10. Re:cell tower next to village by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a Dilbert strip brewing.

  24. Get a gun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Get a gun. Then, make an appointment with the landlord. Explain your fears and phobias (about microwave radiation) to the landlord. Wave the gun back and forth while you are talking.

    Ask the landlord to relocate the cell-phone towers.

    This strategy is quite effective in dealing with obstinate landlords. I should know since I'm serving time for 1 count of voluntary manslaughter.

    1. Re:Get a gun. by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Damn, I wish I had mod points. That was funny.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    2. Re:Get a gun. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get a gun. Then, make an appointment with the landlord. Explain your fears and phobias (about microwave radiation) to the landlord. Wave the gun back and forth while you are talking. Ask the landlord to relocate the cell-phone towers.

      This strategy is quite effective in dealing with obstinate landlords. I should know since I'm serving time for 1 count of voluntary manslaughter.

      Wait... if you're serving time for voluntary manslaughter, that means your strategy is NOT effective, since obviously the landlord did not do what you wanted him to do (otherwise, why shoot him?).

      But then again, you have a gun and you're willing to use it... I'm sure your strategy is the best strategy ever. No really.

      ...

      Please don't hurt me.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Get a gun. by tzot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wait... if you're serving time for voluntary manslaughter, that means your strategy is NOT effective, since obviously the landlord did not do what you wanted him to do (otherwise, why shoot him?).

      He never said that he dealt this way with only *one* landlord, so your "*the* landlord did not do..." and consequently your complete conjecture about effectiveness is not guaranteed correct.

      --
      I speak England very best
    4. Re:Get a gun. by uncledrax · · Score: 1

      Wait... if you're serving time for voluntary manslaughter, that means your strategy is NOT effective, since obviously the landlord did not do what you wanted him to do (otherwise, why shoot him?).
       

      I dunno.. he wast looking for an inexpensive place to stay.. and he got one.. gets a few square meals a day, and all the sex he can handle (and maybe more!).. sounds win/win to me.

      Although, I believe this is the Manhatten that's in New Your City, so I don't think he can legally bring a gun into the city anyway. IANANYCGN (I am not a NYC gun nut.. nor a lawyer.. so I am likely wrong))

      --
      ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
    5. Re:Get a gun. by pantherace · · Score: 1

      Well, given your lodgings, I'm sure it'll work well with your current landlord!

    6. Re:Get a gun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      His strategy did work, he has solved his housing problem. Free rent no less!

    7. Re:Get a gun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The strategy worked ... he got relocated at the government's expense!

    8. Re:Get a gun. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Although, I believe this is the Manhatten that's in New Your City, so I don't think he can legally bring a gun into the city anyway.

      you are correct. It's why New York has no more crime and no more murders.. Those guns are banned and now there are no more guns.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Get a gun. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      That's not completely accurate, you can legally own guns in NYC, it's just prohibitively difficult.

      It's much easier to just buy one from the shady looking kid on the corner and hide it. You're probably a lot less likely to get busted for that too (assuming you're a fine upstanding citizen in every other way), and it will be a lot easier to defend yourself. Sure, you'll get some jail time, but at least you'll be alive.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    10. Re:Get a gun. by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      Get a gun. Then, make an appointment with the landlord. Explain your fears and phobias (about microwave radiation) to the landlord. Wave the gun back and forth while you are talking.

      You have obviously never dealt in Manhattan real estate.

      Guns are nothing to these people.

    11. Re:Get a gun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... simply shoot a gun to the antenna? *ducks*

    12. Re:Get a gun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, the end result is that he did get a move away from the place that concerned him. Involuntarily. To a cell with poor lighting and a roommate who enjoys things left unmentioned... hmm.

    13. Re:Get a gun. by 32771 · · Score: 1

      >But then again, you have a gun and you're willing to use it... I'm sure your strategy is the best strategy ever. No really.

      Everything else is just self deterrence. Even politicians think so.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    14. Re:Get a gun. by Internet+Stranger · · Score: 1

      Get a gun. Then, make an appointment with the landlord. Explain your fears and phobias (about microwave radiation) to the landlord. Wave the gun back and forth while you are talking. Ask the landlord to relocate the cell-phone towers.

      This strategy is quite effective in dealing with obstinate landlords. I should know since I'm serving time for 1 count of voluntary manslaughter.

      Wait... if you're serving time for voluntary manslaughter, that means your strategy is NOT effective, since obviously the landlord did not do what you wanted him to do (otherwise, why shoot him?).

      But then again, you have a gun and you're willing to use it... I'm sure your strategy is the best strategy ever. No really. ...

      Please don't hurt me.

      He got to kill a guy and is only serving 1 year! Sounds like success to me!

      --
      ------------- I didn't know she was your sister I swear!
  25. Title should be: by dushkin · · Score: 1

    Killer apartment vs. KILLER apartment

    --
    o hai
  26. For what it's worth by Serious+Simon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In 2004 the Dutch laboratory TNO investigated the influence of UMTS and GSM radiation on two groups of people, one with health complaints they ascribed to GSM base stations and one without. The tests were double blind. For both groups a small, but statistically significant relationship was found between exposure to "UMTS-like" radiation and the sense of wellbeing reported by the subjects. This result was a disappointment to the Dutch government, that had commissioned this investigation. They had subsequent research done by a Swiss institution which did not confirm the findings. Anayway, the city of Hoofddorp, where I live, forbids the placement of cellular base station antennas on top of residential buildings. I support this policy; better safe than sorry.

    1. Re:For what it's worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did they actually test and what did the actual report say? Can you link to it? I'm asking because it certainly seems to be an outlier.

    2. Re:For what it's worth by stupid_is · · Score: 1

      Anyway, the city of Hoofddorp, where I live, forbids the placement of cellular base station antennas on top of residential buildings. I support this policy; better safe than sorry.

      Sticking them on top is probably the safest place for them as it is unlikely that any of the signal is directed downwards due to the beam-form produced by the antennas (unless they are pointing downwards, which somewhat limits the coverage achievable).

      GSM & UMTS antennas typically output 20W, and handsets peak at 2W (maybe 5W for older ones), but you will get the highest dose directly in front of the antenna

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    3. Re:For what it's worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do any research if you're going to ignore the results
      if they don't confirm your original bias?

    4. Re:For what it's worth by cerberusss · · Score: 3, Informative

      If anyone is interested, here is a summary of the study in a presentation form (PDF):
      COFAM study result http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/vanrongen_tno.pdf

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    5. Re:For what it's worth by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What significance rating was it? Two sigmas or three? 1 in 20 two-sigma "statistically significant" findings are spurious, after all - and any roleplayer knows that if you roll enough d20s, you're going to get a few critical hits.

    6. Re:For what it's worth by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

      Um, "sense of well-being" isn't the same as being sick. If you expose people to the right form of infrasound, they will report ghost-sightings and physical illness, even though nothing harmful is happening to them.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    7. Re:For what it's worth by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Anayway, the city of Hoofddorp, where I live, forbids the placement of cellular base station antennas on top of residential buildings. I support this policy; better safe than sorry.

      Huh? Residential roof tops would be one of the safer places, I would think. A simple regulation requiring the base station operator to put down a quick metal screen around the base station would provide excellent shielding, and would keep it away from most people....

    8. Re:For what it's worth by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If the results of research can't be repeated, the research is junk. That's how science works. So I wouldn't get too paranoid about the 'small, but statistically significant relationship' if it cannot be reproduced. That suggests it was just an error, or a bad sampling group, or insufficient controls, or whatever.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  27. Do you use a cell phone? by afc_wimbledon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every time you do you are holding the antenna of that right next to your head. Yes it's lower power, but there's an inverse square distance law at work to, so the intensity is massively greater than that from the one 20 feet away. So either buy the apartment, or stop using cell phones. They are the only two logical choices.

    1. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by stevenmenke · · Score: 0

      The antennas are most likely to be directional, so the inverse square distance law doesn't quite apply here.

    2. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      logic on slashdot! may head will explode in gore.

    3. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by umghhh · · Score: 2, Informative
      The actual time you are exposing yourself to radiations from your mobile phone is at two different times:
      • location update
      • when you are talking over it

      this compared with your constant exposure to radiation while being inside a microwave oven of your 'killer apartment' is another exposure altogether. Besides all this - just thinking of possible even if unlikely danger is going to make him sick anyway. If that does not his girlfriend will. Oh wait we are on /. - forget it. Go on buy it!

    4. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1, Insightful
      You forget one thing: most of the people aren't using their phone hours on end. However, in this "killer" apartment, you will spend hours on end exposed to the "radiation".

      I'd still recommend to buy the apartment. But not for living in it yourself. Instead rent it to the MAFIAA...

    5. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Redundant

      >>>Every time you do you are holding the antenna of that right next to your head

      Good point. A cellphone broadcasts at what? 1 watt? The tower is typically only a few microwatts (0.000001) by the time it crosses space and reaches your phone. Of course *this* tower is only a few feet away, but still it has degraded somewhat (milliwatts), so you're getting a LOT more power from the phone right next to your head.

      This is why I typically keep my phone turned off.
      Only turn it on when I need to call, or am expecting a call.
      And don't put it next to my head while talking.
      (Oh and no I would not live to any antenna.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time you do you are holding the antenna of that right next to your head. Yes it's lower power, but there's an inverse square distance law at work to, so the intensity is massively greater than that from the one 20 feet away. So either buy the apartment, or stop using cell phones. They are the only two logical choices.

      Or start using handsfree.... ...moron...

    7. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the cell phone notices the signal level of the base station it's talking to, and will reduce its output power accordingly.

      If the OP is indeed some 20 feet away from a 5w transmitter, his/her cell phone will reduce its output to a milliWatt or less.

      My solution to the problem would be to buy the apartment dirt cheap (I'm assuming this is a purchase, not a rental), then ripping
      out the wallboard of the exterior walls, at least those facing the antenna. and tacking in sheets of metallic lathe, as if he was
      going to plaster the walls. Make sure they're all electrically bonded together and grounded. Do the same for the ceiling in the
      room(s) involved. Depending on the climate of the area, you could also install foiled-backed insulation as well. Then install new
      drywall, and so forth in the normal fashion.

      Once you do that, re-measure the incident RF inside the apartment at the frequencies of interest and see if there's a bit of difference.

      But, don't say a word if the cell phone company's engineers come by and start mumbling about strange signal reflections,
      unintended nulls in the service pattern and so forth :-).

    8. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      It still applies. You just have to factor the gain in, which is a multiplicative factor. If the gain is 15db, then a handset 1cm from your face is equivalent to standing 2.1 cm from the base station. Presuming you're in the center of the beam.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Panel antennas are directional while your phone antenna is not. There is no inverse-square laws for panel antenna. This is why there are software programs to model radiation exposure from an antenna before it is put in. High power microwave towers are quite dangerous.

    10. Re:Do you use a cell phone? by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Hence, depends on the wattage coming out of that tower--how many antennas, antenna shapes, etc...

      If we're saying a tower's ERP is 50W+, you may want to rethinking buying, otherwise, inverse square law is you're friend. Also, your building is likely steel beam/mesh/rebarb-reinforced concrete, which absorbs/attenuates a lot of those cell frequencies since they are quite high in the spectrum. All you would need to worry about are windows. The FCC does have some info here.

      On the positive side, you would have advertised 3G speeds and a solid connection that you could for-go having a broadband setup. And as mentioned, yes, phone next to head can be about 1-2W at a distance of 10mm for a perspective.

      IMO, I think being a construction worker (in the hot sun, smog, noise, everyday), is more hazardous.

  28. Atticfoil - insulate your appartment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....and save on your heating bill. At least that is what you tell the FCC when they want to know why the tower signals are getting blocked. http://www.atticfoil.com/

  29. It may be fine, but do you want to risk it by jgreco · · Score: 1

    There's been a lot of propaganda on both sides of this issue, and a lot of reasons to be skeptical. Since the jury's still out on the dangers of cell tower radiation, the big questions here would seem to be: 1) Do you feel like being a guinea pig? 2) If you do something like making your apartment into a Faraday cage, are you opening up a different can of worms, such as, can the cell carrier take action against you? Probably not, but for a purchase as major as this, you'd probably want to check with a lawyer... 3) How much time and expense do you put into something like this?

  30. no one knows for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please keep /. posted with your medical records (even after you've vacated)

  31. 1. Placebo... 2. Precautionary Principle by gobbo · · Score: 1

    You no buy.

    First, just the shred of doubt will have some effect on your well being. Not just through stress, but through placebo effects.

    Second, this is a relatively new risk of exposure for the species and investigations into it are relatively weak. Seems like a good time to deploy the Precautionary Principle.

    Buy an apt exposed to trees or a view, instead.

  32. live webcam please! by lkcl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    hey, can we ask you a favour? given the likelihood of you being able to post on slashdot should you die of radiation-related disease, could you please put a webcam in your apartment, so that if you die everyone can know that they shouldn't live 20 ft away from celltowers that transmit up to 2 watts peak to anything up to 2,000 users, simultaneously? consider your potential death by proximity to around ooo 4kW microwave radiation to be a public service.

    1. Re:live webcam please! by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      You have no clue. Typical basestation power output is 30-45W average power total. Somewhat higher in rural areas.

      In Manhattan, the power is going to be far less than this.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  33. There are a lot of variables by Leghorn · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work with high power RF for a living. There are a lot of variables that contribute to non-ionizing radiation. Proximity, transmitter power, antenna radiation pattern, materials between you and the antenna, etc. There are ways to estimate the field intensity, but unless you know all the necessary factors, your calculations could be off by orders of magnitude. Having said that, the poster who commented that urban cells are lower power is generally correct, however, in a major metropolitan area, the cell can have many channels active at once, and the effect is cumulative. ANSI C95.2 is the safety standard covering this radiation. It's pretty technical, but the gist is the licensee (in this case the carrier) is responsible for making sure they don't cook the public.

    The carrier must certify to the FCC that there are no publicly accessible areas that receive unsafe RF fields. The exact number varies by frequency, but generally there are two levels specified, one for publicly accessible areas and another for areas where personnel who have been trained in RF can work in levels above the public ones. These areas are normally calculated by the carrier prior to installation and they won't install if there's any chance they might exceed the safe levels.

    As an example, I did an RF survey at one location where there was a multiple-transmitter FM antenna installed on top of a building that was across the street from another taller building. We had three FM broadcast transmitters operating on this antenna with about 250 kilowatts of radiated power, and the measured levels in the building across the street were not over the limits for public access. This was about 150 feet horizontally from the antenna. The solar coating on the building's glass stopped enough RF that it wasn't a problem.

    If you want to measure it yourself, there are some inexpensive meters that are pretty accurate that will give you an indication of how much RF you're seeing. The one I have is this one: http://www.trifield.com/TrifieldMeter.htm It's about $150. I've seen these for sale at Fry's.

    I have calibrated mine against a $5000 Narda commercial RF radiation meter and it's pretty close, certainly close enough for a "go/no-go" test which is what I use it for.

    --
    ----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
    1. Re:There are a lot of variables by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Wish I had some mod points to give you. Attention everyone - this is one of the best posts in the thread.

    2. Re:There are a lot of variables by rugger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many of the solar coatings used on windows are electtrically conductive.

      This was probably why the glass was absorbing a lot of the FM radio energy.

    3. Re:There are a lot of variables by Therefore+I+am · · Score: 1

      And there are no known guaranteed safe levels of R.F. exposure. Brain tumours from R.F. take up to 20+ years to develop and then can kill as surely as the kind that grow quickly. My advice.............. Fergeddaboutit. Not in a pink fit would I buy into a situation that had a continuous R.F. signal from a cell phone relay.

    4. Re:There are a lot of variables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there are no known guaranteed safe levels of R.F. exposure.

      Neither is there a known, guaranteed safe level of apple consumption. Apples are full of cyanide, mostly concentrated in the seeds. They're a choking hazard. EATING JUST ONE APPLE COULD KILL YOU AT LUNCH!

    5. Re:There are a lot of variables by PsiCTO · · Score: 1
      The most important variable is frequency. Anything near microwaves around 2.5 GHz is in the band that causes heating in materials with significant water. FM has never been a problem since it's so much lower. GSM tops out at 1.9 GHz, UMTS-FDD has versions right in the danger zone. As said in the quoted post, get an RF meter and measure for yourself. That being said, at 8 m the power is down by a factor of ~1/(2^4). So a 40 dBm EIRP would be around 2.5 dBm in your apartment. Compare that to 700 W that you'd find in your typical oven. Big difference...

      Last, I agree that you should consider future sale value as perceptions, especially uninformed as you are like to see in the general population, will trump logic...

    6. Re:There are a lot of variables by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The meter is a very good idea, and continuous metering with an alarm threshold for "over limit for more than 10 seconds" would be even better.

      Having said that, I'd take the FCC limits for "safe exposure to the public" and reduce them by a factor of 10, if possible - I don't know what kind of ambient radiation you get on the streets of Manhattan, but I certainly wouldn't accept sleeping in a bedroom that took 100x that exposure all night long.

      This subject (non ionizing radiation) has been studied ad-nauseum since the 1960s, and nobody can seem to come to a conclusion that satisfies "the other side." There are effects, an MRI is "non-ionizing radiation", and MRI scans have been shown to relieve depression due to real, measurable neurostim effects (mostly the high dB/dT during imaging). Take it down to lower levels and there's "probably" nothing going on, except that we don't really understand the fundamental mechanisms of neuroscience well enough to know if there's an effect or not. Just because it's a mystery doesn't prove there's an insidious link, but it does make it virtually impossible to prove there is not.

      All in all, breathing Manhattan air and exposing yourself to the sea of humanity and pathogens that are there, not to mention the political tension, potential for terror strike, etc. is certainly a bigger concern than the cell tower by several orders of magnitude, but it would be a shame to survive all the normal big Apple health challenges and then have the tower get you.

    7. Re:There are a lot of variables by phobos512 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Man, I was starting to get worried. I read through all these posts hoping that someone who works in our field (I work in the same field as leghorn here) would respond with actual information instead of just keyboard jockeying. Thankfully, someone did. Hooray! I have to ask though, are you sure you didn't mean ANSI C95.1? C95.2 is an RF safety signage standard.

    8. Re:There are a lot of variables by Leghorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Darnnit! Didn't proofread closely enough. ANSI C95.1 is the correct standard. Thanks phobos512.

      --
      ----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
    9. Re:There are a lot of variables by amorsen · · Score: 1

      A MRI scan sounds likely to cause induction effects -- at least according to its name it's going for magnetism rather than radiation. Magnetic field strength falls rapidly with distance, as long as your distance to the poles is far larger than the distance between the poles. You aren't going to see induction from a cell phone tower, certainly not from several meters away.

      So MRI scans are a poor predictor for the effects of cell phone radiation.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    10. Re:There are a lot of variables by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Water absorbs pretty strongly from microwave, millimeter wave, terahertz, and through much of infrared. The 2.45GHz frequency for microwave ovens was chosen because of surplus radar magnetrons, or at least magnetron designs, at the end of WW2. Industrial microwave heaters also use 900MHz, the other ISM band.

      I think the lowest cell phone band is 600MHz which may have the least water absorption, but there will still be significant absorption.

    11. Re:There are a lot of variables by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you this, but there are no "known guaranteed safe" levels of anything. "Safe" is a negative, it means "not dangerous". There is absolutely no way to prove conclusively that something is not dangerous. The best you can do is either prove or fail to prove that something is dangerous. Failing to prove it is dangerous is not quite the same as proving something is safe, but that is the best we can do.

      That's why consumer products are subjected to a bevy of tests to see if they are dangerous. If the product fails to be dangerous, we can be reasonably certain that it is safe. However, it isn't a proof that the product is safe, and we can and do miss things. That is why products are recalled on occasion - it passed all the tests but something unexpected proved to be dangerous.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  34. buying leverage by geoskd · · Score: 1

    When / if you make an offer, make sure that it includes an allowance for modification of the structure to make it "radiation safe". Take the allowance and pocket it, thereby saving you a bunch of money on the upfront side.
    Be prepared for the next purchaser to use this same pretext when you sell, and price accordingly.

    Even better: once you own the property, create a B.S. LLC and use it to certify the property as "radiation safe" Then provide the certificate, the "radiation data", and the receipt for the radiation exposure study, when you go to sell the property. Then you get the best price coming and going...

    -=Geoskd

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  35. Measure the Radiation from the Tower by dukw_butter · · Score: 1

    One person said "The power of the antenna in this case is restricted by the larger number of cell phone users in the city." And, it is true that the radiation intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. I personally think that you should attempt to measure the radiation from the tower. Then, you could decide if you needed to turn the apartment into a Farraday cage.

  36. Please put a meat thermometer in your thigh . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . and send a message to /. with the subject, "DING! DING! DING!", just before you are "done."

    So we will all know that it is dinner time, and we can come over to eat you.

    I got dibs on the braaaaiiiiinnn.

    On the serious side, ask the seller If you can put a couple of lab rats in a cage for a month in the apartment, before you settle. If they end up looking like Kentucky Fried Rats, pass on the apartment.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  37. Normally... by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Normally I wouldn't worry at all.

    But the fact that,
    1) It's only 20 feet away,
    2) It's in the same plane as you, and,
    3) It's pointed AT you...

    That worries me some more. Obviously you want to talk to someone who really knows this stuff, and can also measure the EM radiation in your future apt.

    I also assume its a 'killer' apt because its in a great location and its CHEAP. And of course, its CHEAP because everyone is scared of the antenna pointing right at it...

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:Normally... by DCFC · · Score: 1

      I can't add anything to the RF debate, but be aware that being next to any major bit of infrastructure can be a real pain in the ass.

      It will need fixing, and since phone companies show contempt for us all, you can assume that if it's cheaper and easier to make your life hell with noise etc, when they do maintenance or upgrade work, then that is what they will do.

      You might believe in aliens, homeopathy or the existence of Sarah Palin's brain, but can you imagine a supervisor at a telco saying "no we can't do the work now, it might wake people up".

      That won't always be 'working hours' either, you might never notice a drill during the day, but at 4AM you will.

      --
      Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter
    2. Re:Normally... by vlm · · Score: 1

      I can't add anything to the RF debate, but be aware that being next to any major bit of infrastructure can be a real pain in the ass.

      He's already decided to live near a major piece of infrastructure, that being his building's roof. I lived in a top floor apartment (real apartment, not a condo) in the past, so I know how it is. Lets just say the guy on the top floor reports more roof leaks to management than the guy on the first floor. If the roof leaks all the way to the first floor, you've got real problems. It seems disturbing to have contractors occasionally stomping around on the roof, but its actually less annoying than having residents stomping above your ceiling all the time. Also, even in cities, animals live on roofs. Loud animals that chirp at sunrise and creepily scratch at the roof at all hours, and they build ugly nests out of trash and crap all over your windows.

      Another interesting point is about two decades ago I turned down an entry level job of visiting cell sites and running periodic sweeps on the antennas with a spectrum analyzer and TDR the feedlines, along with visual inspection of the antennas and equipment. You'll have a regular "scheduled" visitor, not just repairs and upgrades. I imagine it would be about as annoying as having a water meter reader visit, no big deal, just be prepared for it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Normally... by Americium · · Score: 1

      We had three FM broadcast transmitters operating on this antenna with about 250 kilowatts of radiated power, and the measured levels in the building across the street were not over the limits for public access. This was about 150 feet horizontally from the antenna.

      So the power per square meter is 250kw/(4*pi*r^2) = 8 watts / square meter. I rounded off and used 50 meters for r. Drop the factor of 4 if you want, since it's pointing at you -> 32 watts.

      Now cell phone towers are about 500-1000 less powerful than these radio transmitters, as they transmit 50 miles or so.

      So we are talking more around 10 mW / m^2..... before it hits the window.

      But the fact that, 1) It's only 20 feet away, 2) It's in the same plane as you, and, 3) It's pointed AT you...

      I heard there's this big glowing spot in the sky, right above my house, and it's hitting my roof with 1000 watts/m^2, my god that more than 1000 times more RF than the freaking RF tower.

      Then benefits of not being on the ground floor, and therefore staying away from Radon, far outweighs the cell tower.

    4. Re:Normally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put a hot dog on a long stick and point it out the window towards the microwave array on a non-windy day. If the hot dog doesn't start sizzling after a few minutes, you're probably safe.

      If you have any doubts, don't buy the apartment.

    5. Re:Normally... by DCFC · · Score: 1

      Fair point, but being near two sources of disruption is worse than being near one.

      Also, I wonder about the long term legal issues about a roof with expensive infrastructure on it ?

      I'm not qualified to have a good opinion on RF, but I do know that professional equipment can be badly affected by malfunctioning domestic kit.

      Some friends of mine have a heavy duty mulcher and pump for their toilet, and it sent spikes down the mains which crashed PCs, sometimes.

      This took a while to track down, one does not normally try to correlate flushing with crashing.

      That was merely a funny story for them, but if my equipment made the telco stuff go wrong expensively, that could get painful.

      --
      Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter
  38. I heard... by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, there's alot of sentiment that EM radiation has no effect on DNA, etc etc. But I had read somewhere that people that live near power lines out in the country seem to develop extremely rare forms of cancer at a higher percentage than people living in the city. Of course, coincidence is not causation.

    With that in mind, do I exclusively use a cell phone? Yes. I just don't know if I'd want to live next to a tower that might focus EM radiation right at my room while I sleep 8 hours a day.

    1. Re:I heard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the theory behind powerline cancer is that the lines attract all sorts of nasty dust that people breathe in. It's not EM that is being blamed.

    2. Re:I heard... by Sowelu · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm too lazy to find links, but the counter-anecdote I've heard is that the cancer was tied to the herbicide they used to nuke the ground where they wanted to put the power lines. They used one big standardized REALLY NASTY herbicide across the country because, well, you're trying to build them as cheap as possible, so you want to kill the undergrowth as fast and as dead you can. Turns out it got into the water/air/children playing/whatever.

      Again, though, this is just another anecdote too, until you look up some real research.

    3. Re:I heard... by u38cg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      None of the studies that find such a correlation control for any of the other factors that lead to people living right next to such power lines, such as behaviours that tend to lead to diseases of various sorts.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    4. Re:I heard... by vlm · · Score: 1

      But I had read somewhere that people that live near power lines out in the country seem to develop extremely rare forms of cancer at a higher percentage than people living in the city.

      Since the 1930s TVA Rural electrification program, its been getting pretty difficult to find someone living in the country far away from powerlines. So, difficult, that the data seems merely anecdotal, like, the unibomber, and uh ... yup, the unibomber. We have to make the wild assumption that their statistics are worth anything. And assume they didn't just pull the whole thing out of some orifice as stereotypical anti-capitalism ranting.

      Now, consider the telephone pole in front of my house. Its got a tag on it 59-"some 5 digit number". I have some professional work related knowledge of that simple date code, and that means that pole was sunk in the ground in 1959, its about half a century old. No surprise given that my house was built within a year of that date. Its frankly in pretty good shape, and at work, they claim they're on a case by case 75 year replacement schedule. Around 2034 some power company employee will consider replacing my "telephone" pole, but if its still in good shape, it stays up with occasional inspection. There is a cost benefit ratio where replacing a pole at 2am in the winter during a service outage is around 20 times more expensive and much more dangerous than regular scheduled maintenance replacement on a nice sunny spring afternoon.

      Anyway, in the old days, heck, even now, they use incredibly toxic substances to prevent rot. If you think a harmless raw tree branch could still be in load bearing service after a century of burial, you must live in a weird climate. However, those substances eventually leach into the ground, where the kids play, where the garden grows, etc. My parents always told us never to touch the telephone poles, not so much for electrocution danger or dog pee reasons but because they were sticky with creosote and god only knows what else.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:I heard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't there more powerlines in the city?
      If there are more powerlines and more people in the city, seems like the city should be the group more affected.

    6. Re:I heard... by mellon · · Score: 1

      "I had read somewhere that...?" Dude! Never say stuff like that. Where did you read it, in the New York Post?

  39. You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by RonVNX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you can afford a penthouse apartment in Manhattan, you're making an awful lot of money for a computer engineer. Where can the rest of us get jobs like yours?

    1. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by geoskd · · Score: 1

      If you can afford a penthouse apartment in Manhattan, you're making an awful lot of money for a computer engineer. Where can the rest of us get jobs like yours?

      That's easy, create a successful start-up. Duh.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    2. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Duh. The point of the article was not celltower radiation, but to let everyone know that he has a penthouse in Manhattan.

      Tomorrow I'm going to ask what sort of MP3 player to get for my Ferrari.

    3. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by RonVNX · · Score: 1

      A successful startup? Try again. He's talking about a Manhattan penthouse. That's Trump money not startup money.

    4. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by RonVNX · · Score: 1

      srsly.

    5. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      If you can afford a penthouse apartment in Manhattan, you're making an awful lot of money for a computer engineer. Where can the rest of us get jobs like yours?

      You forget that this particular penthouse is probably lots cheaper than other penthouses in Manhatten because it has a frigging RF antenna directly pointed at the bedroom. Other prospective buyers and the seller are not ignorant of this either, so the price has been adjusted to take this risk into account...

    6. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by RonVNX · · Score: 1

      I can hear the broker now. "It's a steal at only $3 million. It'd be six million if it didn't have the cancer ray beamed at your bedroom."

    7. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that a penthouse is just an apartment on the top floor, right? We aren't necessarily talking a high-rise here with the world's greatest view.

      In fact, in a two story apartment complex half the apartments are penthouses!

      You know those trashy buildings in the projects? Yeah, those all have penthouses too. They aren't exactly Trump money.

      He didn't say how much the apartment was, but apartments seem to start at around $350k, so you should be able to find a penthouse in the $500k-$1M range, which is well within an engineer's reach. Hell a friend of mine is a geologist, and his house is worth around $2M.

      Now, you start getting into the $3-$5M range and you're out of reach for your average successful engineer, but not really out of range for a top tier money-wise engineer (though a money-wise engineer would probably not even bother with an apartment that expensive) running a successful company.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    8. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of places in Manhattan where I wouldn't live even if I were paid to live there. Like... like all of Manhattan.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:You make an awful lot of money for an engineer by RonVNX · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do. You do realize we're talking about Manhattan? If you knew what things cost in Manhattan (and I do, being there helps in that regard) you wouldn't have to ask.

  40. Here's a tip... by Telecommando · · Score: 5, Funny

    If your microwave popcorn starts to pop before you turn the microwave on, it's probably not safe.

    --
    Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
    1. Re:Here's a tip... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Actually, the interior of your microwave would likely be one of the only places adequately shielded against the 2.4ghz radiation.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  41. Comfort by AniVisual · · Score: 1

    Regardless of its effects on your health, EM radiation can heat up deep under your skin. I wouldn't buy that apartment, as I'd then be anticipating continuous uncomfortable heat.

    1. Re:Comfort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL. If he grabs the antenna while it's transmitting, then, sure, yeah, an RF Burn is likely to occur,which is what you appear to be describing.

      But from 20-30ft away ? Not an issue

    2. Re:Comfort by vlm · · Score: 1

      Regardless of its effects on your health, EM radiation can heat up deep under your skin. I wouldn't buy that apartment, as I'd then be anticipating continuous uncomfortable heat.

      The continuous uncomfortable heat comes from being on the top floor in the summer and having to air condition the asphalt roof. Your electric bill will resemble a McMansion rather than an apartment. I have experience with that scenario. The second to the top floor is actually the best location.

      The FCC has an ultra wordy explanation of cell transmitter power

      http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html

      The wikipedia cuts to the chase and calls it about 100 watts total for an urban site.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site

      Based on r^2 scaling laws, assuming you don't literally wrap your body around the antennas to keep warm while you sleep, I don't think you'll get more than a tiny fraction of a watt, much less than a cellphone in a pocket, probably.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  42. Faradays Cage, Measure it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may be able to eliminate radiation exposure by creating a faradays cage around your appertment. This means you will put chicken wire fencing against the exterior wall and maybe a finer type over the windows. That will reflect any radiation (look into it to be sure). Also ther must be a way to determine the level of RF in the appartment, there is expert equipment to measure it, that may not be to costly.

    1. Re:Faradays Cage, Measure it! by egcagrac0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Chicken wire is too coarse for microwave.

      People who build these things use much finer mesh; take a look.

  43. Do you know this expression? by BerntB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You are probably right, because it would need a conspiracy to hide research results. But... remember the tobacco companies' bought research.

    A while ago, I learned a new expression which I've never seen in my native Swedish media -- which do say something about at least Sweden's political trustworthiness:

    Regulatory capture.

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Do you know this expression? by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      I don't think politician's trustworthiness is something that is doubted only in Sweden. Here in the US I haven't seen a trustworthy one in my 56 years of life.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    2. Re:Do you know this expression? by BerntB · · Score: 1

      He, you beat me ... with a decade. :-)

      But that type of naivité which I mentioned is typical here. I'm not certain which place is worst, the difference might just be in style; a result from size differences and the Swedish' tendency to be group oriented.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  44. a jackass? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1, Funny

    I am considering buying a penthouse apartment in Manhattan

    Am I just being a jackass?

    Probably.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  45. Field strenght meter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Why not do this scientifically? Get/procure/rent/borrow a field-strength meter, or hire someone to measure it for you. It's cheap relative to the price you're looking at for a top-floor place in Manhattan.

    Then, measure it. Walk all around, sometimes internal reflections can make a further-away side 'hotter' than a closer one.

    Then measure your cell phone, right up close a cm or two from the front, as if you were holding it.

    The readings will probably be in decibels (dB). Calculate (db of tower) - (db of cellphone). The difference is how much stronger the tower is compared to the cellphone. It goes in powers of 10. 0 dB is equal power. 10 dB is 10x the power. 20 dB is 100x the power. 30 dB is 1000x the power. And so on. If it is negative, it is weaker, by similar power-of-10 ratios.

    Then make a decision depending on what you find. Same or less power than a cellphone, you're OK. 10x the power is probably still OK but you'll have to decide depending how you feel about it all. 100x the power, maybe reconsider.

  46. Stock up on microwave popcorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No muss, no fuss. It'll be easy.

    On the other hand, soon, yes, you'll sprout either wings or horns.

    If you want to know, no, I wouldn't. Period.

  47. Police radio tower gave me headaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lived next to a police station for the majority of my childhood. Perhaps 40 feet away from one of those big old police radio towers. I had chronic headaches to go along with food allergies and other illnesses.

    Then one year the police moved to a new location, and the tower stopped doing anything. My headaches instantly went away. I've been a lot healthier since then, too.

    I never actually made the connection until my mother told me years later, so that rules out my mind/placebo. ;)

    I do believe cell towers push out less power than that big old radio towers from the 1980's - but I'd still be cautious, given my personal experience. You're also an adult, and it's quite possible that it has no effect on adults. One of the deficits of modern testing and certification is no child trials; FCC safe could just mean 30-year-old-man safe.

    1. Re:Police radio tower gave me headaches by VampireByte · · Score: 1

      It might have been the cops that gave you headaches, not the tower.

      --

      Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

    2. Re:Police radio tower gave me headaches by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      Did you ever consider that maybe the headaches could have been caused by the noxious fumes from all the police cars?

      Police radios are like 100 watts, intermittent.

      I lived for 15 years in the shadow of a 50,000-watt radio station tower. On 24/7. No headaches.

  48. Time to start smoking by tjstork · · Score: 0

    The antenna is going to get you anyway, so you may as well light up.

    --
    This is my sig.
  49. Remember you have to sell it eventually by mlush · · Score: 1

    Don't buy, If your having doubts, anyone who you try and sell it to may have the same thoughts and avoid it.

    If this is reflected in the price all well and good, but all you need is a really Juicy Scare story when you put it on the market to really sour the deal.

  50. whois playing the 'race' card now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why the US 'banking' system et al. who do they hate? they do feel justified. they have to.

    the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.

    continued God's speed to you Mr. President.

    never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

  51. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The good point is that you won't need heating, you'll always be hot ;-)

  52. Here's what some experts say... by beguyld · · Score: 1

    http://electromagnetichealth.org/quotes-from-experts/

    Also, worth carefully reading the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

    From the Wikipedia article:

    Sleep, EEG and waking rCBF have been studied in relation to RF exposure for a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some form of effect.

    So there is SOME kind of an effect, and we don't understand it yet. Those that scoff at any biological effect at all are fools. Wise men don't scoff, they watch carefully and reserve final judgment. Take a close look at quantum physics if you don't think we live in a mysterious universe...

    Since there IS some kind of biological effect, and it is not well understood, I would err on the side of caution. I would most especially not want to chance affecting the DNA of a women's eggs (which already exist her whole life) and/or conceiving children in that environment. Maybe the chance of problems is low because the signal "should" be low inside the building, but why take the chance when experts are disagreeing and the trend is toward more caution? (cue the inevitable joke about a real woman there... sigh...)

  53. An Italian court has linked cell radiation to canc by jernejk · · Score: 1

    An Italian court has linked cell radiation to cancer, for the first time in history. I don't have the link in English, but it will probably be discussed online soon. So, no, I wouldn't buy the apartment, unless I wanted to sue for damages later in life.

  54. Fight back! by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    Ever see that perforated metal sheet in the window of your microwave oven? It stops the microwaves from escaping, because their wavelength is larger than the hole diameter.

    So, buy the apartment, and put up a similar metal sheeting against the walls and windows facing the microwave tower.

    If you do it right, it'll actually affect the antennas to the point it will set off some alarms on the systems monitoring the antennas.

    Hopefully you don't subscribe to a cellular service utilizing that tower, or don't expect service to continue in your new apartment.

  55. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just ground yourself frequently, you'll be fine.

  56. Cage? by segwonk · · Score: 1
    Someone help me out here: Wouldn't this be the right occasion to install a Faraday Cage??

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage/

    - jw

    --
    - ------ Go 'til ya know.
  57. measure it by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    first make sure you can measure the level of radiation to an acceptable accuracy.

    then, line one or more of your walls with conducting material to shield the radiation.

    use measurements to determine if there are still hot spots in the most important areas of your home, and add shielding until they are all gone.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  58. who would pay for such a study? by nido · · Score: 2, Informative

    And if the results were unfavorable, what then?

    Here's a recent article on the hazards of transient electromagnetic fields, such as those created by compact fluorescent light bulbs:

    More recently, the new findings on transients — particularly those crawling along utility wiring — are causing some scientists to rethink that part of the EMF debate pertaining to the hazards of power lines. Could they have been focusing on the wrong part of the EMF spectrum?

    Transients: the post-modern carcinogen
    Some earlier, noteable — albeit aborted — research suggests this may be the case. In 1988, Hydro-Québec, a Canadian electric utility, contracted researchers from McGill University to study the health effects of power line EMFs on its employees. Gilles Theriault, MD, DrPH, who led the research and was chair of the department of occupational health at the university, decided to expand his focus to include high-frequency transients and found, even after controlling for smoking, that workers exposed to them had up to a 15-fold risk of developing lung cancer. After the results were published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, the utility decided to put an end to the study.

    That research commenced at a time when energy-efficient devices — the major generators of transients — were beginning to saturate North American homes and clutter up power lines. A telltale sign of an energy-efficient device is the ballast, or transformer, that you see near the end of a power cord on a laptop computer, printer, or cell phone charger (although not all devices have them). When plugged in, it's warm to the touch, an indication that it's tamping down current and throwing off transient pollution. Two of the worst creators of transient radiation: light dimmer switches and compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs). Transients are created when current is repeatedly interrupted. A CFL, for instance, saves energy by turning itself on and off repeatedly, as many as 100,000 times per second.

    -Is ‘electrosmog’ harming our health?

    While I'm posting, here's a neat little website that plots FCC-registered antennas on a google map:
    http://www.antennasearch.com/default.asp

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
    1. Re:who would pay for such a study? by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This study is useless.

      The authors don't realize any if not most laptop power supplies use direct conversion, the transformer is gone. Ballasts are a feature of nearly every flourscent light, have been for decades. 'Energy-efficient' is not the distinguishing factor for these transformers.

      Low-power DC-DC convertors have been in common use for consumer electronics since the 70s, especially in anything with a vacuum-flourescent display; VCRs, microwave ovens, radio-alarm clocks, your car.

      This article is, IMHO, full of crap. I can make that shit up in an afternoon with some great-sounding theories. All crap.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:who would pay for such a study? by Korbeau · · Score: 1

      Don't get all upset. It's a vulgarization article with a lot of sensationalism indeed, but that doesn't mean all studies it quotes are unsound.

    3. Re:who would pay for such a study? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      The authors don't realize any if not most laptop power supplies use direct conversion, the transformer is gone.

      Even if the power supply is switched mode, like the most of them nowadays, there is still a transformer inside, but much smaller (because it operates at higher frequency). Without the transformer, your laptop would be directly connected to the outlet, so it would have 220V on its case, which would be somewhat unsafe.

    4. Re:who would pay for such a study? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Let's see...

      A telltale sign of an energy-efficient device is the ballast, or transformer, that you see near the end of a power cord on a laptop computer, printer, or cell phone charger (although not all devices have them).

      Ballast!=transformer. A transformer converts AC to a different voltage (it can step it up or down), while a ballast regulates the current and is mostly used with fluorescent lamps (the lamp needs higher voltage to ignite and a lower voltage to operate).

      When plugged in, it's warm to the touch, an indication that it's tamping down current and throwing off transient pollution.

      It is warm because it is not 100% efficient and converts some of the electricity to heat. Yes, switch mode power supplies do give out transients (unless they use PFC), but conventional linear power supplies do not and they still are warm (if not warmer - linear power supplies are less efficient).

      Two of the worst creators of transient radiation: light dimmer switches and compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs). Transients are created when current is repeatedly interrupted. A CFL, for instance, saves energy by turning itself on and off repeatedly, as many as 100,000 times per second.

      light dimmers - agreed. Also, old computer power supplies (made before PFC was required by law). CFLs - maybe, but not because "they turn themselves off". CFLs do not turn themselves off repeatedly, also, if they did it, it would not be to save power (the lamp could stay on all the time and be brighter, so the customer would buy a smaller lamp). The electronic ballast converts the frequency of the power from 50Hz to 20kHz so it can use a relatively small capacitor to limit the current to the lamp instead of a large inefficient inductor.

      Also, almost every mains operated device has a transformer. Lamps and fans do not, also old AC/DC tube radios do not, but everything else does. Modern electronics need low voltage (3.3-12V) instead of 220V that is in the outlet. just because there is no power adaptor on the cord does not mean that the device does not have a transformer inside. Also, the electricity passes a few transformers on the way from the power plant to the outlet.

    5. Re:who would pay for such a study? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      There are several patents for transformerless power supplies powered by AC mains. Protection could be by several means, from fuses to varistors to crowbar circuits.

      It can be done, and can be safe, but I would want a three-wire supply cord. A two-wire gets a lot more interesting.

      And at it is at least possible that a transformer could short primary to secondary, though I would expect the design to force an over current and blow a fuse/etc fairly quickly.

      And 'switched mode' is the sort of language this study would use. Such supplies are considered 'switching power supplies', not switched mode. Switching is the design mechanism, not a mode.

      I'm somewhat familiar with these, having serviced various office machines from the 70s to 90s, and most every desktop calculator used some form of a switching power power supply, some very inventive. Back then a transformer was critical to step the voltage from the oscillator, but even that can be dispensed with if you drive the voltage close to the desired regulated output, and then you just use a low-pass filter as you always did on the secondary side of the transformer. Many of the transformers doubled as an inductor in the oscillator circuit, where today you would probably just run a chip. I made few using 555 timers, and today you would probably do it all in a 5-lead package and include regulation and protection. Now going from 110/220v to 5v or 24v was pretty hairy in the 'old days', but it is doable now. Most notebook adapters I see must have transformers in them. Anyone seen a transfomerless PC power supply?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:who would pay for such a study? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      And 'switched mode' is the sort of language this study would use. Such supplies are considered 'switching power supplies', not switched mode. Switching is the design mechanism, not a mode.

      Sorry, English is not my native language. I must have remembered the term incorrectly. On the other hand, now that I googled it, Wikipedia lists both terms as acceptable ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-mode_power_supply ).

      As for transformerless power supplies, fuses and varistors would only protect the device, but not the user. Also, AFAIK switching power supplies are more efficient if they output a voltage similar to input voltage, so a 220V/5V power supply would be inefficient without a transformer, also it could very easily output 100V and fry the whatever device it is connected to.

    7. Re:who would pay for such a study? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Most USB chargers for headsets and such are so light there can't be much of a transformer in there. I got to crack open one of my spares and see how it's done.

      I bet it's simple as dirt.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:who would pay for such a study? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      They probably have the transformer, because otherwise they would not be insulated from the mains and as such would be very dangerous.

      Well, the only of getting relatively safe DC out of the outlet without using a transformer would be to use a half wave rectifier, which means that the other wire is connected straight to the circuit and is ultimately passed to the connector. If I plug it so that this wire is neutral, everything would be OK, but if I reversed the plug, I would get a live wire on the connector.

      I sometimes build tube amplifiers. They, as you know, usually use 200-300V DC, so in theory I could save on an expensive 220V/220V transformer, however, talking to some people smarter than me led me to believe that this is impossible to do safely if the user is supposed to touch any metal parts of the device (for example a nixie clock that has insulated case and buttons).

      I had two ideas, one was the half wave rectifier, which would probably only be safe if it used earth contact for power instead of neutral, which would be bad. I also had an idea of using relays and an earthed plug to basically select which wire was live and which was neutral. If a relay fails it would be bad.

  59. ...and pick a better title... by beh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Killer Apartment Vs. Persistent Microwave Exposure"?

    If the 'persistent microwave exposure' turns out a bad thing, the place may indeed be a 'killer apartment'... ;-)

    Re re-saleability - even if you plan to stay there in the long term, you should still make your offer reflect the antennae... ...after all, your current vendor already faces a lower sellability on the place because of the antennae. Bid lower and leave it to the vendor to decide whether and how much more time to invest to try and line up another buyer...

    1. Re:...and pick a better title... by umghhh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • tell the current owner that you are concerned but your concern may go away if price goes down
      • sue the 'major cellular operator' till they move the antennae away to save time and money
      • sell apartment for a good price it deserves
      • profit
    2. Re:...and pick a better title... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are assuming that any other potential buyers even notice the cell towers. I garauntee about 90% of them see that they have full bars on their phone and think no further of it.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:...and pick a better title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually we made it against the law to remove/prevent building of cell-phone antennae based on medical arguments. Thank Congress.

    4. Re:...and pick a better title... by Threni · · Score: 1

      Get some lead (or some other metal) shielding. Perhaps if everyone did this (if they lived near a tower) then, health risk or not, the towers might be moved elsewhere.

    5. Re:...and pick a better title... by mmmmbeer · · Score: 1

      The price is probably already down. I'm betting that's why he's considering this apartment instead of a different one.

    6. Re:...and pick a better title... by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      So instead of being exposed to an EM field, which has not been proven to be harmfull, you want him to expose himself to lead-paint?

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    7. Re:...and pick a better title... by ericspinder · · Score: 1

      Chances are that the cell phone equipment was the reason he could afford it.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    8. Re:...and pick a better title... by neurovish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get some lead (or some other metal) shielding. Perhaps if everyone did this (if they lived near a tower) then, health risk or not, the towers might be moved elsewhere.

      I've heard that paint used to be made with lead. Just locate some of this old lead-based paint, and use that to re-paint the walls of your apartment. It's not like you're going to be keeping goats in there.

    9. Re:...and pick a better title... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because those arguments are utter crap. Just like there was an article on /. not long ago (too lazy to search for it) about a transmission tower in Africa where a group of crackpots were saying they were allergic to its signals; however, they found out later that it had been turned off for weeks during a period they supposedly had 'symptoms'.

      It's non-ionizing radiation. It doesn't impart enough energy to have harmful effects.

      So yeah, thank you, Congress. At least you get things right occasionally.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    10. Re:...and pick a better title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, man. I got better idea.
      Ask your friends to look at property and make tem say to land lord - no fckn way i get thi sproperty with that thing. ask 3-4 friends at least.
      Buy appartment half price of what is left. Sell it, profit ;)

    11. Re:...and pick a better title... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why he said lead, that's foolish. What you need is a faraday cage, which is just a (conducting) wire mesh.

      If you want the smooth-wall look or the lightly textured look, put the mesh up behind the drywall. If you like stucco you can use the mesh as your plaster-holder and keep it outside the drywall.

      Talk the price down as much as you can, too, site a bunch of bogus studies, blah blah, then offer something way below what they currently want. I'm sure you'll be able to work something out.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    12. Re:...and pick a better title... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I used to work (I say "work", I was a student) in a building with a cell tower on the top. On the lower floors signal was very patchy: you had to be careful to put your phone on the desk in a 5-bar place. 30cm further left and it might be 0-bar. I'm not sure if this was because the building was big and concrete, or if it was some side-effect of the antenna (which is presumably more concerned with 'across' than 'down').

    13. Re:...and pick a better title... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can also guarantee that you're a dumbass.

      Why do you think it's such a "kickass apartment"? If it were ordinarily in his price range it wouldn't look much different than the other apartments in that price range. But this one is kickass, suggesting that the price is depressed.

      Now, what do you think could depress the price of a kickass apartment sitting next to a pair of cell phone antennas?

      I guarantee at least 50% of people see the towers and don't even bother looking at the apartment. It's not really a question of whether you think it's dangerous, it's how strongly you believe it's safe. If there is any hesitation at all people generally don't even bother to consider the place.

      Of course, none of them care enough to sit down and work out the physics of it, and come to the conclusion that they get significantly more radiation when they stick their phone up to their ears. That doesn't matter, they see radio towers of any kind, and people don't want to be near them. At the very least it's "better safe than sorry", especially given the number of times the experts have been wrong. Better to not take the chance.

      Thus, houses in these types of situations typically go for much less than similar houses further away for radio towers or power lines.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    14. Re:...and pick a better title... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      I used to work (I say "work", I was a student) in a building with a cell tower on the top. On the lower floors signal was very patchy:you had to be careful to put your phone on the desk in a 5-bar place. 30cm further left and it might be 0-bar. I'm not sure if this was because the building was big and concrete, or if it was some side-effect of the antenna (which is presumably more concerned with 'across' than 'down').

      Or it could be that those anntennas weren't owned by your carrier in the first place and you were trying to pick up a cell tower five miles away.

    15. Re:...and pick a better title... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Try Chinese toy factories.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    16. Re:...and pick a better title... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Why would you assume that 50% of the people who look at the apartment even know what a cell tower looks like?

      http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=cell+tower&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

      These things are visible nearly everywhere throughout the city (I kind of like when they are amongst trees and disguised to look like a tall oddly shaped tree, but thats usually outside the city). I would be shocked if more than one person in 20 could identify those as cell towers without any help.

      Of course, most of the stories of danger are about cell phones, and most people don't associate the risk with wireless access points or other similar devices.... so my assumption is, most people will not even know what they are, and if it has ANY effect on the sale price it is not by virtue of the danger of radio waves, but how ugly of a thing these are to have to gaze upon outside your window.

      Also, there can be other explanations of "kick ass". Why should we assume the apartment hunter is experienced and has looked at many places. A lot of people just have low expectations.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    17. Re:...and pick a better title... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Wow, it looks like the mods didn't get your joke.

    18. Re:...and pick a better title... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      • sue the 'major cellular operator' till they move the antennae away to save time and money

      That's not going to happen. Carriers already have to go through hell to get zoning approval and work lease agreements to put up antennas. That's what I do for a living. They're not going to move them.

    19. Re:...and pick a better title... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Lead isn't necessary for this, and is poisonous. These aren't x-rays. You could make a Faraday cage out of steel wire, or just cover your walls with aluminium foil.

    20. Re:...and pick a better title... by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 1

      Full bars are better than fubars...

    21. Re:...and pick a better title... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, being non-ionizing doesn't mean that it doesn't impart enough energy to have harmful effects. There are other harmful effects beyond having chemical bonds ruptured by EM fields. If the size of your body is near to or larger than a wavelength, your body will absorb some of the incident radiation. It heats your body. This is why microwave ovens have door interlocks. This is why people have DIED, cooked alive while working on microwave communication antennas.

      My understanding is that cellphone systems aren't high power; you're likely to be safe. If you're really concerned, buy (about $300), rent, or borrow a field strength meter and find out.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    22. Re:...and pick a better title... by Tycho · · Score: 1

      And then there is the FCC, which last year made states and municipalities approve new antenna installations within 90 days assuming the plans follow the laws and regulations already in place by the federal government. Some cases applications for antenna installation had been delayed as long as nine years by municipalities. Sometimes, it was paranoia about health effects, sometimes idiotic concerns about the antenna's effect on the aesthetics of the area, and obviously some good old fashioned blocking of competition by established players.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    23. Re:...and pick a better title... by horza · · Score: 1

      I was thinking along similar lines.

      • collect all articles about cellular tower effects on health
      • put negative articles in Folder A "Show to seller" and positive articles in Folder B "Show to buyer"
      • use Folder A to negotiate a healthy discount
      • realise that the antenna ramps power up/down depending on the distance of handsets to base station, so in a dense urban area like Manhatten it will be operating on minimum power - relax and enjoy apartment
      • sell when 2.5G infrastructure has been turned off, or use Folder B

      Phillip.

  60. The only solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Fill the apartment with mice
    2. ???
    3. Some of them are bound to get cancer
    4. Profit!

  61. Not worth the hassle ... by lorg · · Score: 1

    Science report wise it seems to be a bit of a tossup between "totally safe" and "guarantee of cancer and death" so I don't think you'll find great comfort in reading any of it, unless you think one report is better then the others.

    It might be harmless and safe for "normal" exposure, whatever that is. But concidering you are going to live there, spending "lots" of time there everyday for possibly years and years to come. I think I'd pass if I was in the situation, don't think the killer appartment will be worth the potential hassle and constant thinking about the risks it would bring.

    I guess if you are inclined and really want the place you could turn the entire apartment into a giant Faraday Cage totally shielding it from any type of radiation. Naturally this will probably also totally kill your cellphone reception, wifi connections and whatnot, unless you put in booster antennas for that, which sort of defeats its purpose.

    Will the giant forest of antennas bring down the price? It might be worth buying then and starting to campaing against having the antennas moved, become one of those people that go down to City Hall and protest once a week and send in letters all the time.

    Possibly there might be some kinda device you could aquire that will knockout the antennas, this will or might possibly be illegal, that you can turn on and off as you see fit. Eventually they might get tired of the interruptions to service and move them.

  62. A contrarian viewpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not get together some simple equipment and measure the field intensity ?
    A common analog field-strength meter is about twenty bucks, you can set the sensitivity knob against the emission from your cellphone, then walk through the apartment watching the meter. Not accurately calibrated in microvolts / meter but a metric nonetheless.
    Actually getting data is more useful than arguing about what somebodys paper said.
    Having said all that, my gut feeling would still be to walk away and let an optimist buy that penthouse.

    1. Re:A contrarian viewpoint by Auroch · · Score: 1

      Actually getting accurate data is more useful than arguing about what somebodys paper said.

      Fixed that for ya.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
  63. You can afford by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait a minute, you can afford a penthouse apt in manhattan, but you are unsure about the safety of living next to a cellular antenna array that (to use your words) is pointed right at your apartment, so you turn to Slashdot? I don't believe it.

    I also don't believe that any company would install a cellular antenna array and point it at a structure - it would seriously impact the coverage area of the antenna, and they could probably just as easily installed the antenna on a taller building and avoid interference...

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:You can afford by ari_j · · Score: 1

      That's why I gave this the "jackass" tag. This guy is either (a) posting to get attention to his riches (hence his rhetorical question about just being a jackass) or (b) the proverbial fool who will soon be parted from his money. If you can afford a penthouse, you can afford a day off to do your own research about this issue, rather than asking Slashdot about it, which is roughly akin to going to a strip club to learn about anatomy - sure, you'll get a good view, but it will not be the full picture.

    2. Re:You can afford by akboss · · Score: 1

      But I bet you get fantastic reception in the apt. Never a dropped call.

      --
      "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
    3. Re:You can afford by IICV · · Score: 1

      His story doesn't make much sense, it's true - there's it doesn't make much sense for the cell phone company to point sector antennas directly at his apartment, unless they really wanted him to have good signal. What would be more sensible is if they are pointed directly at his apartment, but tilted down (which can be hard to see if they're really pointed directly at you). This would beam signal down onto the streets beneath where they are mounted, and not at his apartment.

    4. Re:You can afford by kenh · · Score: 1

      Maybe the CEO of a major wireless company previously lived there, and his engineers NEVER wanted to get a "No Coverage" call from him/her! ;^)

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:You can afford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute, you can afford a penthouse apt in manhattan

      ...twenty feet from a cell tower.

      I imagine it's probably a bit below the average price.

    6. Re:You can afford by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      The beauty of the internet is that you can get information about everything. The problem is that you can get the information about everything. This means that Slashdot is a perfectly good way of getting information, along with all of the standard research and government agencies dealing with this. I'd look at Slashdot as a secondary source, in case there's someone checking it that day who knows what he/she's talking about.

      Not to mention that it's a question that's being frequently asked in the media these days, and I trust Slashdot posters more than I trust the media. Largely because I can read the equivalent of 150 MSM articles on the topic in the course of a single Slashdot thread.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:You can afford by guspasho · · Score: 1

      I think the answer the OP really wants is whether fear over cell phone tower radiation will stop depressing prices anytime soon. That way he can buy the apartment at the depressed, "killer" price, and make a bundle selling it later.

    8. Re:You can afford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I live in a 6 story U-shaped building. Being on the top floor and having cellular antennae pointed at the unit is not improbable. Our building has them in rack arrays along all the roof edges of the building and the side corner edges. More antennae = more $ for the building management.

    9. Re:You can afford by 32771 · · Score: 1
      --
      Je me souviens.
    10. Re:You can afford by story645 · · Score: 1

      You know, the towers could have been built before his apartment went up. New construction and all that, and there's tons of it, even in places like Harlem, so he could actually afford a penthouse in a few select neighborhoods. Though he also should have covered in class; hell my E&M professor spends quite a few lectures ranting about this topic.

      --
      open source modern art: laser taggi
  64. *Buzz* by neumayr · · Score: 2, Informative

    While I can't comment on the radiation issues (a touchy subject with lots and lots of seemingly conflicting findings by not necessarily independent researchers), some of those towers do generate a very annoying sound.
    A friend of mine lives in close proximity of one of those beasts, and the high pitched humming makes me uncomfortable. Wouldn't want to live there myself.

    --
    Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  65. No, you're being too trusting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If exposure to mobile carrier antenna radio waves was of any danger to public health, there is no way you would be seeing these antennas anywhere near apartment complexes, the FCC or whatever is the appropriate authority is in your country would be all over this. On the contrary, you should be happy that your apartment is going to get some pretty damn good coverage :)

    You have waaaaaayyyy too much trust in Government; their competence, their inability to be swayed by industry, and that they're human too.

    Case: Tuna. The Tuna industry made sure that the FDA said that appropriate levels of mercury in food were above what is in Tuna - even though in reality, Tune has too much mercury in it. You will find no reference to this because everyone at the FDA who was party to it is too afraid to say anything for fear of losing their jobs.

    When it comes to toxicity, always go to outside sources. Then you run into the problem with organizations with their own agendas.

    It really sucks being a consumer.

  66. It's your life... by mgravlee · · Score: 1

    Why in the world would you take a chance like this?

  67. strength falls off with cube of distance by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    so if it were five feet away (on your windowsill), i'd perhaps do a doubletake. but 20 feet away, and the power you are actually getting is much lower than first impression dictates

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:strength falls off with cube of distance by SorcererX · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not the cube of the distance. It is governed by the inverse square law (I = I/d^2). The strength is essentially energy/(surface area of a cube) = Energy/(4*pi*r^2). This means that the strength will decrease by the square of the distance (and not the cube of the distance). This is provided the antenna is omni-directional, if it is directional, the signal will be even stronger.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  68. Depends on the energy of the photons by semargofni · · Score: 1

    I guess it depends on whether the photons have enough kinetic energy to knock a nucleotide out of a DNA molecule. If they don't, you're safe, if they do, you would have to multiply the number of times a nucleotide gets knocked out, with the chance of developing cancer from that event (pretty small chance actually, it might even be that a base pair needs to be knocked out to create a mutation, not just one nucleotide, I wonder if anyone did any research on that). Other than that the only thing that could happen is excitement of your molecules, making your body temperature rise, but I would guess the power you absorb over the volume of your body would be insignificant compared to other influences.

  69. That's true, not funny. by Auroch · · Score: 1

    Okay, it's funny too. But it's also true, I just can't find the reference.

    --
    Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    1. Re:That's true, not funny. by tokul · · Score: 1

      But it's also true, I just can't find the reference.

      It was a joke. I am too lazy to search in anekdotov.net for a reference.

    2. Re:That's true, not funny. by Auroch · · Score: 1

      Oh, here it is... Courtesy of Slashdot (see? Slashdot is useful!)

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
  70. Just wear a tinfoil hat.. by jcr · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..and you'll be fine.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  71. Femtocells by Nowhere.Men · · Score: 1

    Go find an apartment that have a poor cell phone coverage.
    Then to improve the situation, you buy a femtocell or your neighbor buy one and install next to the wall closest to your bed.

    Legislation define maximum exposure allowed.
    The distance from an antena is not the main factor; you also have to factor the power of the antenna.
    In a city with lots of people to connect, you will have lots of low power antenna. While in the suburb, you will have more powerful antenna. The exposition of a nice house surrounded by trees from an antena a block away may be higher than in your apartment.

    The fact that you can see the antena just show that you don't have a nice view. Next apartment you visit, the view may be better, the antena may be fixed on your building around the corner of your windows.

  72. Paint and Some Good Advise by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there a recent article here on /. detailing paint that stopped radio waves? I'd look into that.
    I'd also drop the FCC a line about regulations regarding placement of dishes. I don't think they allow situations like that.
    Anyway the paint will stop WiFi so you won't be able to jack anyone elses and visa versa. Probably not good for getting FM or T.V. reception, but then if you can afford an apt. like that you likely get cable.
                On the other hand, if you're a New Yorker, you've chosen a life that is going to kill you far too young from environment/social/stress issues anyway. Best to chuck it all and find your own private Idaho and some nice MLM that will let you vacation as you work, get proper nutrition and retire in a few years with a wad o cash. If you've made it to Manhattan living under your own power, this should be childs play for you.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  73. Two words... by joshamania · · Score: 1

    ...Faraday cage.

    1. Re:Two words... by Huzzah! · · Score: 1

      And the question is, where do you keep your Faraday when you capture one?

  74. Mess with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So set up a couple of reflectors in the windows, and send some signal back to the antennas.

  75. Well by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your first hint should be that the apartment is for sale because everyone in it died of leukemia...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  76. Get rid of antenna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get some tin foil and wrap it around the antenna.
    Wait until some cell dude comes up to check why cells not working.
    Remove tin foil before he see's it.

    Repeat process.

    Eventually no antenna!!!

  77. You can use copper mesh...see below by PatSand · · Score: 1

    In Communications Security (COMSEC, for short), they follow what are called TEMPEST guidelines to prevent unwanted signals from getting out or in.

    While you can Google TEMPEST COMSEC and get lots of hits, here are some useful suggestions you can implement:

    1. Use copper mesh on the walls. It doesn't have to be embedded in the walls if you use decorative screens or floor to ceiling drapes (presumably behind nice curtains, unless you are into the Metallic/Techno decorating thing). 2. Likewise, for windows, a stainless steel or copper screen will do a great job and not look hideous. 3. You may want to put up a decorative wall panel (trifold) between your computer stuff and windows and have some copper mesh embedded/applied to it.

    As regards the building itself, if there is brick or stone on the facade facing the towers, you shouldn't have to worry about dealing with walls. Using options 2 or 3 should suffice for windows and doors.

    Since you are getting a penthouse suite, you should have money to do this and might want to call in a business/computer security expert with TEMPEST experience. Not cheap, but will make sure no industrial espionage or stray radiation will get into your domicile.

    By the way, my Father used to work in a high-rise building for the Federal government just next to a high-powered radio station tower near D.C. and they stated that as long as he kept the sliding glass door out onto the patio covered, he was safe. Of course, radio reception was lousy for anything other than that station, and cell phones and wireless networking was not around then. Being the Federal government (back in the 70's), they did come around and ask if he wanted patio furniture for the deck (facing the radio tower)! He wisely and graciously declined citing the potential health hazard (and not mentioning that it was a waste of money).

    --
    Supreme Granter of Doctor of Obviology Letters ("A FIRM Command of the Obvious")
  78. The basic physics... by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    The basic physics say you're more than okay.

    The sunlight streaming in thru your windows is:

    (1) At least 100 times stronger, in incident watts.

    (2) Has a million times more punch per photon.

    (3) Couples to your body at least 10 times more. ... so as a rough estimate, the cell phone signals affect your body about a billion times less than standing in the sunlight.

    (Actually, much less than that, as photons below infrared cannot, no way, dislodge any electrons, so there cannot be any chemical changes
    in your body as a result. )

    1. Re:The basic physics... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The basic physics say you're more than okay.

            Very well. Expose yourself to direct sunlight 24/7 and let's see how long it takes for you to get skin cancer.

            Just because "the basic physics" you mention in your claim point to there being less energy involved than sunlight, this does not eliminate the possibility of risk - especially when sunlight is a KNOWN carcinogen.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:The basic physics... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Remember, the sunlight is a billion times stronger than his likely exposure to the RF.

      For a more realistic test, expose yourself to the light from a 30 W incandescent bulb 24/7. It's still many times what you're likely to be getting from a cell tower. Most of us do at least this without even thinking about it.

      Oh, and living in Manhattan is probably far worse for your health than anything a measly cell phone tower is going to do to you.

    3. Re:The basic physics... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you will get cancer from a microwave tower. I am pointing out that the argument used above is invalid and does not rule out that microwave towers can cause cancer.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:The basic physics... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nothing rules out that microwave towers can cause cancer. The key is to figure out whether the risk is worth worrying about or not.

      We don't generally worry about light bulbs, yet the physics tells us that a light bulb is considerably more likely to be dangerous than the situation the poster is describing. Experiments also tend to support this conclusion.

      Does that mean that certain frequencies of RF don't behave in a very special and unprecedented way? Not at all. But the chances of that are small. Even if they do, which frequencies are they? The ones that happen to be emitted by your cell phone? That would be quite the coincidence, wouldn't it?

    5. Re:The basic physics... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      UV radiation is ionizing, microwaves aren't.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:The basic physics... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      If you are exposing yourself to direct sunlight 24/7, you are either:
      • Commuting between the north pole and the south pole every half year.
      • Circling the globe in your custom-made SST with the window in the roof always open.
      • Circling the globe in a spacecraft with the window always open.

      In any case, you've got other problems to worry about than skin cancer.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  79. Pay someone to find out! by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

    If you can afford such an apartment and this is that important to you, what the heck are you doing searching the web for free info and asking Slashdot for free info?

    I am 100% certain that there are qualified and competent folks out there who can provide you with accurate information, for a fee.

    --
    SARAVA!
  80. Inverse square law by afc_wimbledon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless you are intercepting the entire beam of a directional antenna (only likely if this is an antenna communicating with another mast or base station, rather than the more likely scenario of one designed to talk to handsets) then inverse square is the correct formula, surely.

    1. Re:Inverse square law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct sir! and don't call me Shirley.

  81. Armadillo hat is better by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry but a tin-foil hat is not going to cut it. You need an Armadillo hat. You have seen how a transformer is made from plates? Well same with an Armadillo hat - you need the overlapping plates to prevent the formation of Eddy Currents.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Armadillo hat is better by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Wow, I remember Eddy Currents from the 80's man. Is he still working with Lenz's Law? They was just awesome... I love the copper tube bit.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re:Armadillo hat is better by camperdave · · Score: 1

      That would have been so much better in full motion video instead of slide show dissolves.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  82. Irresistable... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 0, Redundant

    A tinfoil hat should help....

  83. shielding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy one. Just start wearing a tin foil hat. I'm sure some kind soul here would be more than willing to help you out!

    To hell with the hat! Wear a lead jockstrap / cup.

  84. heh by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    I love how he had to note he was "getting the penthouse".

    I don't think you need to worry about the antennas as much as the butler cause the butler is always the one that did it!

    1. Re:heh by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Seriously... could he not have conveyed the same question without dropping the word "penthouse" into the equation? If he had just said "apartment", you wouldn't see all the snarkiness in the replies.

  85. A bullet is far too valuable... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    ... to waste on a petty dispute with your landlord.

    Better save it for when the real enemies (the MAFIAA and their cronies) come calling.

    1. Re:A bullet is far too valuable... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Nah, you can make a bullet for pennies. Lead is cheap, so are tin and antimony for lead alloys. Bullet molds and lead smelters are also cheap.

      Good gunpowder is a lot harder to make, but doable (a bit of nitric acid and cotton, then mix with ether and alcohol and make into a powder). It's the primers that are tough, got to get a hold of a stable high explosive for that one. Making it yourself is pretty freaking dangerous.

      Buying bullets is pretty damned expensive though.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  86. Easy and cheap solution: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If there isn’t a window on that side where the panels are, just get some wallpaper that filters them. You know: Tinfoil hat style. (Well, usually some kind of wireframe suffices, if it’s e.g. 1/3 smaller than the waves.)

    But if you want to know EXACTLY, you can always find out the energy (=frequency) of the radiation, and compare it against the bonding energy of e.g. proteins in your body (keyword Van-der-Waals bond) and others. But be aware that the quantum physics of this is often counterintuitive.
    Then you don’t have to rely on biased tests or people telling you their bias, but know it yourself.

    From what I remember, microwaves can only create 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius of heating in the body. So less than (the infrared in) sunlight, but deeper penetrating.

    Or in simple terms: If you fear microwaves, you should have more fear of sunlight, as it’s much stronger. :)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Easy and cheap solution: by polyphemus · · Score: 1

      Also, microwaves only penetrate a centimeter or two. And yes, putting wire mesh (say, 1 cm square) in the walls will completely shield you from all of the microwaves. Of course, it might also cause cell-phone troubles. And your windows will be holes in your net, but that should be fine unless you sleep with a window and no screen, facing the towers.

      But seriously, you should be fine.

  87. Buyer's Market by RevWaldo · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a buyer's market for luxury property in Manhattan right now. Express your concerns to the sellers and hint that you'll need to have a survey team out to test for EMF exposure before you'd consider buying. Build an image in their minds of 3-4 guys in Tyvek jumpsuits walking around with meters on the roof and in the halls and knocking on your future neighbor's doors. (There's no reason for them to wear Tyvek jumpsuits, but you get the idea.) They'll likely offer to drop the price in exchange for you not doing that. More than enough to cover the cost of shielding and chemotherapy.

    1. Re:Buyer's Market by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of reason to wear Tyvek jumpsuits. They're comfortable, stylish, and company provided. It's like a trifecta!

  88. Ballpark guesstimate by BrentH · · Score: 1

    Assuming a 1kW transmitter, uniformly distributed over a one half sphere (because it makes no sense to send signals straight up), you 70kg standing an hour at 20ft from the transmitter, you'd heat up 0.06 degrees Celsius or almost a tenth of a Fahrenheit. Seems benign.

    wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1000W*((1m^2)/(2*Pi*(20ft)^2)))*3600s/(70kg*4186J/(kg*K))

    1. Re:Ballpark guesstimate by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If nothing else he'll save a lot on heating bills!

      --
      No sig today...
  89. oops by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    sorry, you're right. i fail at physics

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  90. Signal strength at the source by Targon · · Score: 1

    One thing that should concern you is that the exact response of the human body to these signals is still not understood. Can you trust ANY study when these studies are intended to prove or disprove something in the first place, in regards to the health impact of being near a cell phone tower for an extended period of time? Also, think about all of the things that have been discovered to be harmful after decades of use, and then look at cell phones. You may remember DDT, Saccharin, and other things that have caused so many health problems.

    So, don't go for it, just because you can't know for sure if there would be a health concern due to prolonged exposure.

  91. It's not like there's a shortage of penthouses by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    in manhattan. Take a different one. Yes it likely has no effect at all (actually what frequency are they, you could put a lot of material that absorbs it to heat your apartment in winter, I kid, I kid) but you are considering it and so will potential buyers down the line when the second leg down in this recession means you can't make the payments anymore.

    Also, if you are buying it it isn't an apartment it's a condo (heck it's NYC could be a co-op even), right?

  92. big-ass x-ray by kallisti5 · · Score: 0

    Buy a used X-ray tube, hook it up and point it directly at the antenna... some safty is gotta trigger to shut the antenna down, also you irradiate yourself and your neighbors, then just sit back and sue the cell phone company. win-win.. minus the radiation poisoning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ9TYCZXzcE

  93. Just need good marketing spin by beirutbob · · Score: 1

    Best... cell... reception... EVER!

  94. Don't put shielding up on your walls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But rather, put shielding around then antenna. That way:

    * You will need a lot less metal lathe
    * You don't need to buy expensive transparent shielding for your windows
    * You will eliminate all radiation coming from it!

    Aw heck, you could just get a cutting torch...

  95. The antennas aren't pointing right at your aptmt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be a total waste of RF energy.

    Most people can't tell where an antenna's energy is going just by looking at it.

    The other thing to consider is that, in a downtown location, all cells are likely to be micro-cells. The working range is only a block or so and the power has to be quite limited so as to not interfere with other cells.

    Don't worry, buy the apartment. The nastiest possible sources of RF energy are the ones you can't see anyway(like FM stations bouncing off the local skyscrapers.)

  96. Radiation, yes indeed! by ahodgkinson · · Score: 1

    It's definitely safe. This problem was put to bed back in the 80s:

    "Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked, goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand 100 chest x-rays a year. They ought to have 'em too."
    - J. Frank Parnell in "Repo Man"

    There, now that that's solved...

    --
    ---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
  97. Add Testing to the Contract by foxxlf25 · · Score: 1

    Companies can do RF testing. Just like you have a home inspection, you could add RF testing to the clause and make them pay for it and allow any even questionable levels to allow you to walk. This would also provide clear documentation for future sale.

  98. 1500 WATTS?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just sickening that hams can just stomp on public safety like that. 1500 watts where legitimate business users are limited to milliwatts? What happens if an airplane flies over you? I suppose that's just acceptable right? Just like it's acceptable to block vital lifesaving police robots from using required frequencies because it might interfere with your own personal satellites? You people make me sick with rage. I just can't wait until the FCC finally sees the light and puts you all out of business. It's the embodiment of government waste and the public WILL be educated and WILL make change!

    1. Re:1500 WATTS?!? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Licensed business users are allowed pretty high power levels too.

      Also, there are clearly defined amateur radio bands. If a ham goes outside the bands they are licensed for (easy to figure out who due to amateur radio identification requirements), they're subject to losing their license if it proves to be continuous behavior.

      I can't figure out whether you're utterly clueless or a total troll.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:1500 WATTS?!? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Hams typically are well educated unlike Slashdot AC posters that like to be outraged at things they know absolutely nothing about.

      P.S. you have a 1000Watt 2.4ghz transmitter in your home.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  99. Jose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the risk of having a car accident? Do you keep on using a car?

    Another example is "Mad Cow Disease". People stop buying/eating beef meat. In USA 3 people died of vCJD:
    http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/vcjdworld.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy

    But nothing has stopped selling tobacco.
    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/

    I guess we are all likely to die in any other way.

    Enjoy your flat!

  100. Overlooked Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Why has the apartment become available?
    2. Is the previous occupant bald?

  101. wrong forum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am considering buying a penthouse ... a pair of ... exposure ... persistent exposure ... this pair of ... head ... a tight ...

    It sounds like you should be asking Larry Flint instead. ;-)

  102. Do you use a cell phone? by Bazzible · · Score: 1

    Think about the coverage, not a single dropped call in that apartment.

  103. DO you want mutant powers or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up and take it and be AWESOME.

  104. Biology vs electronics by gregor-e · · Score: 3, Funny
    If you're discussing bugs, antennae is correct. If you're talking radio, however, it's "antennas".

    Also, recall that the power density drops by the square of the distance from the antenna. So, if you measure the power at one micron away from the antenna, it will be twice the strength you'd get if you measure it two microns away. Extend this out, and at 3 microns, you're down to 1/8th the power, 4 microns = 1/16th. At 20 feet, you should be all the way down to 1 / 3,716,121,600,000th the original power, or about one three-trillionth the original power. Right? So nothing to worry about.

    1. Re:Biology vs electronics by yumyum · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if we start with nanometers, then they power is even less at 20 ft. Important to keep your units straight, and remember its all a matter of your frame of reference. No frame, no reference, no danger. BUY BUY BUY

    2. Re:Biology vs electronics by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice! Except power density is expressed in watts per square METER. Not watts per square micron. So while your calculation suggests that 1 / 3,716,121,600,000th is a tiny number, there's a trillion square microns in a square meter. So while the power measured is a tiny amount of what you'd measure at one micron, it's not such a small number when measuring using meters.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Biology vs electronics by AtomicSnarl · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So, if you measure it at 5 feet, then 10 feet would be half that power, and 20 feet 1/16 power.

      Oh, try 1 foot! Then it's half at two feet, 1/16 at 4 feet, and now just 1/400 at 20 feet!

      Try using angstroms as your measurement base next time. You can manufacture a hugely small number that way! Not that it changes the actual power level at the distance in question...

      This situation calls for professional testing and measurements, and whether or not the local codes on radiation load in living areas are both valid and being enforced.

      --
      Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
    4. Re:Biology vs electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your calculation is based on the concept that the antenna radiates in every direction. This is probably not the case for antennas used in urban areas.

    5. Re:Biology vs electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, recall that the power density drops by the square of the distance from the antenna. So, if you measure the power at one micron away from the antenna, it will be twice the strength you'd get if you measure it two microns away.

      Meters, not microns.

      See this article for a decent write up:

      http://www.vertical-visions.com/radiation.php

    6. Re:Biology vs electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the radiated power is constant (conservation of energy) the power density decreases as the square of the distance (in the far field ~ 10 wavelengths). A typical E1 interlink would be operating in the 5GHz band with a power of 50 watts or so into the antenna. The antenna has some "gain" (meaning that instead of radiating power uniformly in all directions i.e. isotropically it concentrates into a smaller set of lobes). At a given distance the power density is P = PtG/(4Pir^2) that is to say the power density at a given distance is proportional to the power in times the antenna gain divided by 4 pi r squared. A typical panel antenna in that band has a gain of about 24 dBi (about 250 x an equivalent isotropic radiator) - but we can assume the center of that main lobe is NOT pointed at your apartment (pointless unless the receiving antenna is inside) so its probably safe to say that you will be at the edge of the main lobe - at least 6 dB (a factor of 4) down. At a distance of 10 m that would give a power density of 0.25 mW / cm^2 - the official safety limit for the public (a quite conservative limit) is 5 mW/cm^2 see http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/exposure_regs.html so its nothing to worry about.

    7. Re:Biology vs electronics by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 1

      Also, recall that the power density drops by the square of the distance from the antenna. So, if you measure the power at one micron away from the antenna, it will be twice the strength you'd get if you measure it two microns away. Extend this out, and at 3 microns, you're down to 1/8th the power, 4 microns = 1/16th. At 20 feet, you should be all the way down to 1 / 3,716,121,600,000th the original power, or about one three-trillionth the original power. Right? So nothing to worry about.

      Why was this modded interesting and not funny? Definitely reflects the quality of moderation here.

      Please study before you post.

    8. Re:Biology vs electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Basically what you are saying is that the antenna shouldn't work. Fortunately, this is dipole radiation, which is highly directional and doesn't follow the one over the square law. It goes like one over the distance.

      Sorry, go back to physics 101. For more info, see here: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node94.html

    9. Re:Biology vs electronics by Grieviant · · Score: 1

      If you're discussing bugs, antennae is correct. If you're talking radio, however, it's "antennas".

      Also, recall that the power density drops by the square of the distance from the antenna. So, if you measure the power at one micron away from the antenna, it will be twice the strength you'd get if you measure it two microns away. Extend this out, and at 3 microns, you're down to 1/8th the power, 4 microns = 1/16th. At 20 feet, you should be all the way down to 1 / 3,716,121,600,000th the original power, or about one three-trillionth the original power. Right? So nothing to worry about.

      This is incorrect.

      At cellular frequencies just microns away from the antenna, you're still in the near field. You need to be at least several wavelengths (1 wavelength ~= 15 centimeters at 2GHz) distance from the source before you start seeing the predictable, far-field inverse square law decay of power.

      More importantly, in path loss calculations the distance is effectively normalized to the wavelength [decay ~ (distance/wavelength)^2] rather than some arbitary scale such as a micron.

      Rough calculation neglecting any shielding offered by the building:
      20 ft ~= 40 wavelengths at 2GHz
      Power loss ~= 16*pi^2*40^2 = 2.53E5 = 54 dB

      So, neglecting antenna gains and any shielding offered by the building itself, even if the tower was pumping out 1kW (60 dBm), you'd still only see 60 dBm - 54 dB = 6 dBm = 4 milliwatts. This is considerably less than what you're exposed to by putting your cell phone with transmit power ~= 100 milliWatts right next to your head (near field situation). The results are still favourable even if we're talking about 900 MHz cellular instead of 2 GHz.

    10. Re:Biology vs electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Did you just express that his number and unit is less valid than yours because your number is higher in a standard unit? Maybe what you should have said is, "The standard measure for power density is watts per square meter, and they may be disingenuously using watts per square micron."

    11. Re:Biology vs electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why you picked microns, but power falling of at 1/r^2 only applies in the far field.

    12. Re:Biology vs electronics by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't say that. Go back and re-read it. Then find someone to explain it to you. Otherwise, I'm going to make you suck my cock, which measures an incredibly huge number of microns, but still fails to impress the ladies.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  105. The current owner IS dead by Timo_UK · · Score: 0, Troll

    died of a sudden brain cancer only about 3 months after moving in. But nothing to worry about.

    --
    Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
  106. Human guinea pig by junglebeast · · Score: 1

    First of all, the radiation from these towers is often strong enough to vibrate your brain waves making you imagine that you are hearing it. Interestingly the subject always hears the sounds as if they are right behind their head. The army has investigated using this technology to confuse enemy troops by inducing the sound of voices behind their enemy's heads.

    Here's are some more scientific publications to "ease your mind" on the subject:

    Magnetic-Field: Induced DNA Strand Breaks in Brain Cells of the Rat
    Author(s): Henry Lai and Narendra P. Singh
    Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 112, No. 6 (May, 2004), pp. 687-694
    Published by: Brogan & Partners
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3435995

    Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile
    Phones
    Author(s): Leif G. Salford, Arne E. Brun, Jacob L. Eberhardt, Lars Malmgren, Bertil R. R.
    Persson
    Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 111, No. 7 (Jun., 2003), pp. 881-883
    Published by: Brogan & Partners
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3435159

    NEURAL FUNCTION AND BEHAVIOR:
    DEFINING THE RELATIONSHIP
    Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld, and Barbara Frey

    SECTION 6
    EVIDENCE FOR GENOTOXIC EFFECTS
    (RFR AND ELF Genotoxicity)
    Henry Lai, PhD
    Department of Bioengineering
    University of Washington
    Seattle, Washington
    USA

  107. aha! by whoppo · · Score: 1

    So.... NYC cell providers point their panels at apartment buildings... I guess that explains why AT&T's service in Manhattan is so poor these days.

    --
    chown -R us /base
  108. Re:No, he's not being a jackass by jimbolauski · · Score: 4, Informative

    The FCC enforces on a case-by-case basis. Unless someone has turned this situation (this SPECIFIC apartment being this close to a transmitting antenna) to the FCC, then chances are that they have no idea the situation even exists.

    Most urabn cell phone towers have a 20W average power (100W in rural areas), since they want a large coverage area the gain will only be 3dB (parabolic dish 25 dB gain) at 6 meters with a 100W power source and 25dB of gain the power density is 6.7718 mW/cm2 using typical numbers 20W 3dB 6 meters the power density is 0.0086 mW/cm2 the "safe exposure level" for 2.4 GHz as defined by national association for amerature radio is 30 mW/cm2 for uncontrolled and 100 mW/cm2 for controlled. A cell phone with 3W 2.2dB of gain (diapole) at 1 inch would have a power density of 61.4108 mW/cm2.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  109. Measure, don't guess by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

    Obviously, you're concerned.

    Measure how much RF is blasting through there. A field strength meter or possibly a spectrum analyzer will be very helpful with this pursuit.

    Don't trust the MPE guidelines (if you did, you need to base it off the "uncontrolled exposure" side, only far more conservative), because they want you to die a gruesome painful death.

    Measure first, build your Farraday cage, measure again, improve your Farraday cage... ad nauseum.

  110. Probably fine by VeriTea · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am a PE and have done hundreds of RF emissions studies on wireless facilities, including rooftop installations like the one you describe. My initial thought is that twenty feet would be an unusually small distance between the antennas and your window. It may very well be much larger then that (50' or more is more likely - and would have much lower emission levels) but seems closer due to the perspective of the surrounding panoramic view. If it were truly only 20', and the building hosted antenna arrays from many wireless carriers (and FM transmitters), then there is a very slight possibility that the levels in your apartment could be near the public exposure limit. This situation is quite unlikely however. Most wireless carriers have an independent RF emissions study performed on rooftop installations that include measurements of the pre-existing antennas, so if you reached the right person and were persuasive enough you might be able to get them to share that with you (very unlikely). Another poster recommended a cheap meter. I'm not convinced of their accuracy, but you could give it a try if it worries you. Someone else mentioned low-E glass and correctly stated that it blocks a significant amount of RF energy. If you have low-e glass then even 20' away would mean your apartment is below the public exposure limit.

    --
    --- There are two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it
    1. Re:Probably fine by blankoboy · · Score: 1

      The key take away word here is "probably".

  111. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah.. you will die if you live there. I can't mention who I work for, or what I know... but there is a DAMN good reason these kinds of towers are located where they are... when you take into account that you are preventing thousands of people from getting sick and maybe just making 1 or 2 people ill.. the monetary gains out weigh the potential problems for the few lost souls who move into apartments directly in the radius of the signals being sent.

    Live else where.

    If you block the signal, and they can prove it's you.. they _could_ sue.

    (Ps. you wont' die from it right away.. it would be more of a gradual cancer type sickness that creeps over you 15-20 years from now. ;) )

  112. Are you crazy? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Why are you even considering buying this place? Its an obvious problem.
    As well as all the likely serious health hazards such as frequent migraines and increased risk of cancer, it will be a bitch to ever sell again.

  113. Re:No, he's not being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there were any chance of cigarettes causing every possible disease....

  114. Something doesn't seem right about this story. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It does not make sense that a cell phone tower's panel antenna would be blasting straight into an adjacent apartment as the article poster describes. This is counterproductive to achieving good coverage from that antenna.

    The article poster says "roughly" on the same plane, how is "roughly" defined? Those panel antennas can have some pretty significant directionality in the vertical plane, such that even if "roughly" means "one or two stories difference", the antennas are probably shooting OVER this apartment and not INTO it. Especially since, as I said before, it makes no sense for these antennas to be shooting into it.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  115. Best to stray on the safe side... by blankoboy · · Score: 1

    Why trust what anyone says and then risk your health only to find out 10~20 years from now that it was in fact hazardous but after it is too late? Best to stray on the side of safety. You can always find another apartment....another body, not so much.

  116. I know what hams are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yes, I know what hams are. Hams regularly interfere with police and fire operations trying to help when it is not needed. Hams use obsolete analog communication on huge swaths of valuable spectrum under the excuse of helping emergency communications when really they oppose it as much as they are able. Hams claim to create technological innovation when in actuality none of them has developed anything useful in several decades. Most hams nowadays purchase their equipment from outlets like any other consumer. Hams are an outmoded obsolete throwback from an earlier era, like eugenics or racism. Ham radio should be abolished and the spectrum put to profit-making use for the public good, instead of the good of a select few. But hams have a powerful political lobby in this country and overseas to protect their interests. Hams have so much money have their own personal satellites in orbit. I hate every last one of you and will strive to the utmost to see your hobby destroyed by any means necessary.

    1. Re:I know what hams are by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are confused, total ham bandwidth is miniscule. The entity with the properties you describe is the U.S. military.

    2. Re:I know what hams are by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Hams use obsolete analog communication on huge swaths of valuable spectrum

      One of the stupidities of ham rules is that there are limits on which modulations you can use on which frequencies. This obviously limits innovation.

      I'm licensed but I don't use the license.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:I know what hams are by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Any ham who is caught interfering with fire or police frequencies is going to lose their license and go to jail. Yes, every group is going to have a few "bad apples", so please show an example of interference that was sanctioned by the ARRL, FCC, or other reputable organization. If I recall correctly, Cornell's ARC received a commendation from the local police/fire departments for the service they provided after some severe icestorms that knocked out the cell network AND some of the police repeaters in the mid-1990s. W2CXM and CUPD have shared rooftop space for antennas for quite some time in a mutually beneficial arrangement.

      Sadly, innovation coming from amateur radio has indeed slowed down, but not stopped. This is mostly due to archaic FCC rules on spread spectrum communications - hams are severely limited by old FCC regs in the ability to do SS work, even on uncrowded microwave bands, while everyone in the commercial industry is using SS techniques. There still is development work being done by hams though, especially in terms of software defined radios.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  117. Re:No, he's not being a jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I trust you're never going to use wi-fi? :)

  118. don't forget multiple simultaneous channels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh... 10W EIRP *per channel*.. the phone next to your head is only a single channel. A cell site could have dozens of channels, each at the max power, so the overall power is substantially higher.

    From the FCC OET website you cited: "an ERP of 10 watts *per channel* (corresponding to a radiated power of 0.5 - 1 watt) "

  119. Available living space in Manhattan by SlappyBastard · · Score: 2, Funny

    The first clue that something's up is that it's available. Previous tenants doubtlessly died. Or went crazy . . . and died in a hail of gunfire. Or were taken over by the government and sent to do a mission . . . and died at the hands of Iranian intelligence.

    The hows and the whats are meaningless . . . if you get that place, you are going to die.

    In conclusion, you are exposed to radiation every day -- don't be a pussy.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  120. whatever you do by deuterium · · Score: 1

    just don't buy the bed with the huge parabolic headboard.

  121. cant you just be happy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cant you just be happy with the EXCELLENT cell phone coverage you'll have day in and day out! If I was your landlord, I would bill it as a selling point.

  122. Get a radiation survey done, by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

    as other posters suggest. Make your intellectual decision based on the rad survey results. Make your emotional decision based on the burden of constant, even though possibly irrational, worry. Dismiss any thoughts of effectively shielding your living space. This can only be done at the construction phase, is incredibly expensive, and is compromised every time you open a window or a door. Post-construction measures like RF reflective or absorbent paints will not prevent RF leakage through what might seem like minor discontinuities, but which act as slot antennas to re-radiate RF energy into a room. There are lots of apartments, it's not a good idea (for several reasons) to fall in love with a particular bit of real estate when you're in the buying mode anyway.

  123. Dude, think before you buy....then buy. by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Use as much info as you can from the internet and other sources to get documents showing possible threats to health, and that you would be ok to move in but at a discounted rate.

    Then once moved in, proceed to start jamming the panel by using such food stuffs as
    paints etc....shoot them using balloons(like water balloons).
    This will make a coating needing the company to come and clean up the panel, after a few times of this they might get the idea that being so close to a building was not such a good idea, and relocate.

    Might also include some other tenants in on it, to make it a sort of game if you will, keep score so that the one with the most hits gets a free bottle of vodka or something.... you would be surprised at how much people will do for free booze.

    Also, make sure that no one ever does it from their window, always from the roof. If a camera catches you (or witness) they can point to the window, if they see you from the roof, they can barely make out details. Then if ever approached, just say those pesky teenagers have been at it again.

    Seriously, is there no regulation about such things, I know there is for hydro lines being too close to housing, why not cell towers?

  124. Conflicting information by joeyblades · · Score: 1

    Generally accepted scientific information from the FCC suggests that beyond about 5 meters from the antenna, the power levels are sufficiently safe. However a couple of studies in Germany and Israel suggest that the incidence of cancer is increased by 3 to 4 times at distances of several hundred meters. If it were me, I would play it safe and not take that apartment.

  125. Asymmetry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a cell phone tower can pick up a signal from a phone, shouldn't it only need to "reply" back with a signal around the same order of magnitude as the cell phone? If the tower and the phone are around the same order of magnitude (say within a factor of 10), wouldn't it be *more* dangerous to be talking on your phone? Granted, most people do not continuously chat on their cell phone. Wouldn't it be comparable to being in a busy location with people chatting on phones constantly?

  126. Flexible lead sheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could put flexible lead sheets under the sheetrock in your apartment, it will deaden the sound and block the radiation because of it density. I have done this is the past as a Union Carpenter at several businesses and homes.

  127. "I read somewhere" by SlappyBastard · · Score: 2

    I read somewhere that Barrack Obama is a Kenyan. Not very science-y, but I read it somewhere.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  128. Shield it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it concerns you remodel the apartment and shield it in the process. copper foil behind the walls in the ceiling and floor, copper mesh in the windows. Make sure you tie it all together electrically.

  129. pics or gtfo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pics or gtfo!

  130. Line the Wall With Aluminum Foil by littlewink · · Score: 1

    But first roll a giant ball of foil and go into the apartment. If it starts to spark, then you probably will need to do what the subject line says.

    Foil is cheap: sanity is priceless.

  131. So you call this new place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a dead spot?

  132. Save your money, buy a modest apartment and save by NevarMore · · Score: 1

    "penthouse apartment in Manhattan".

    Rent a nice regular apartment, have some cash left and go to Ikea, still have money left, go to dinner and the theatre, still have money left in the bank. Work to live life and see things and do things, don't work to acquire stuff, especially rented stuff.

  133. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will be exposed to much higher power levels than the person on the street and should be taking the same precautions as telephone company maintenance workers, who are advised to not expose themselves to the beam! At that very close distance your primary health risk will be microwave induced cataracts. Here is a quote from the World Health Organization on the subject. Quote can be found at:
          http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html

    Cataracts
    General eye irritation and cataracts have sometimes been reported in workers exposed to high levels of radiofrequency and microwave radiation, but animal studies do not support the idea that such forms of eye damage can be produced at levels that are not thermally hazardous. There is no evidence that these effects occur at levels experienced by the general public.

  134. Simple: don't but it ... by tgd · · Score: 1

    The answer you're going to get on here is going to be different between people thinking about the question you asked, and the question you should've asked.

    The merits of the theory that the radiation is harmful may be debated, but there's a better reason not to buy it that there really is no debate on:

    When you need to sell it, the next buyer will be asking the same question.

    It doesn't matter if its safe or not, its going to make it hard to sell it the next time, unless you are enough experienced in the market to know how much its going to drop the value on a resale and ensure you buy at that much below market now.

    Its like buying a house near powerlines. It may be perfectly safe, but selling the house later is going to be a pain in the ass.

  135. Just buy 1200 old microwaves by spineboy · · Score: 1

    And wallpaper your apartment with the grids, and the windows too. Just be sure to ground them onto the plumbing, or opening doors might be fun.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  136. Buy it, now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DUDE, DUDE! Buy the apartment, now!

    You're going to have the _best_ 3G data connection!!!

  137. The tag says it all... by Frankenshteen · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the tinfoil hat. That's what they're for after all...

    --
    "It's a doughnut stuffed with M&M's. That way when you finish the doughnut, you don't have to eat any M&M's."
  138. You can do your own survey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't want to call in a consultant every time you look at a place. Some times there is an obvious source, but other times you can have excessive fields due to hidden reasons (e.g. bad wiring, elevator drives, large power transformers, etc). So you should always do a scan before buying anything.

    Get a "body model" EMF meter like this one: http://www.trifield.com/EMF_meter.htm possibly here: http://www.frys.com/product/5594210?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

    Walk the apartment during peak usage (probably daytime for cell phones) and look for anything above the "low" readings on the meter for magnetic, electric, or RF. If you plan to live there, you don't want to be exposed to anything medium or high.

    Oddly, the Russians have the most conservative standards on all this. Maybe that's because their industry can't lobby their lawmakers.... Of course, I'm not suggesting that the Russians enforce those standards :-)

    I once looked into a house that was near power lines and did such a scan on a summer evening (i.e. peak power draw). The house was borderline OK, but the neighbors were definitely not (electric fields decay as distance is increased). I couldn't imagine living next door and wondering what problems they might develop.

    -Dan

  139. Old Slashdot Story - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe that none of you mentioned this old story on on /. - paint that contains metal strands to block EM signals. (look for "aluminum paint" in /. search field, or use this URL ... http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/04/12/29/2128253/Wireless-Security-By-The-Gallon) .

    AC

  140. Invisible Threat? by GRW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You could read this book and be even more afraid (or maybe this author is just paranoid.)

  141. You should just rent it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares? You are going to die soon anyway... enjoy the ride buddy.

  142. Yep, a killing one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being RF engineer, I can tell you to stay away from it.
    There's always a part of RF beam pointing directly backwards of the antenna, ranging from 10 to 50 feets depending on power of a basestation.
    The bad part is that you cannot effectively shield yourself because it is unknown frequency. Yes, you can guess, but you can never be sure, because of, well, you know, 3G, LTE and whatever-the-next-day-brings.
    And to someone above posted about tinfoil hat: - no, tinfoil hat is not saving you. It's even act as an amplifier for some frequencies (google do know).

  143. Microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the plus side if you unwrap your food from tin-foil, and leave it on the window facing the transmitters you'll have a nice warm meal.

  144. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reference is in METERS, not MICRONS. And it DOES matter

  145. yeah but how many bars do you have? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

    Two words: cellular internet

  146. The missed question by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    Why is this apartment on the market in the first place? Did someone drop dead in the apartment?

    1. Re:The missed question by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      That's the only way to get an apartment in Manhattan: Follow the obituaries and be the first person at the door, preferably before the paramedics wheel the body out.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  147. Exercise caution. by slashdotjunker · · Score: 1

    The technical answer is interesting but you should really consider the future consequences of purchasing a home with an obvious red flag. If you buy this home, you will eventually want to sell the home. Many potential buyers will most likely be turned off by the antenna. Not all buyers are proactive enough to educate themselves (or ask Slashdot to educate them) about RF emissions. Regardless of whether or not the home is safe, I would advise against purchasing it.

  148. Two words ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... Faraday cage.

  149. Use the radiation to generate electricity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much power you could absorb with your own antenna pointed back at it. Free electricity!

  150. You Should Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was working on an SCR controlled welder on a new construction (50th story), across the street from a building with transmitters on the roof (approx 300 ft away)

    The machine had no control and went wide open, acting shorted

    Plugged my leads in my Simpson 260 and in all scales the meter would fluctuate and peg due to those waves from across the street. We had to put a motor generator in place (no electronics). Anyone who thinks living in a place like this is OK doesn't understand electrical radiation. Many people thinks it's OK - I think they are WRONG. Out of 30 years of working on industrial electrical and electronics I have never seen such an extreme example of microwave radiation since we used to fry seagulls out of the air with our ships radars.

  151. and you even consider buying it? by oglueck · · Score: 1

    When you are already in doubt that this radiation could be a serious health risk, why do you still consider buying it? When in 10 years the radiation is known to cause longterm damage, it will be too late.

  152. if you are truly paranoid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you truly want this apartment, and are extremely paranoid, simply line the walls with a mesh that will act as a Faraday cage, and ensure that the cage is connected to the ground of your electrical outlet. you will then have a nice Electromagnetic Free apartment. The only issue is ensuring that the the mesh is small enough to ensure that it captures the energy...the higher frequency the smaller the mesh needs to be.

  153. Solution by swaha · · Score: 1

    Just line the walls with aluminum foil. :-)

  154. Check it out for yourself by kenbo0422 · · Score: 1

    Forget the inverse of the square and everyone else who's trying to find the most technical analysis to your dilemma. Seems you've all missed the point. Get an inexpensive electromagnetic field detector (you can even make one) and scan the apartment for electromagnetic radiation. If it is consistently above 3 to 5 milligauss then you may want to reconsider. If it is higher, then you ask yourself whether or not you 'feel' strange in the apartment (due to the electromagnetic fields possibly being an influence on your brain). The only way to know is to test it for yourself.

  155. WTF by Javarufus · · Score: 0

    No, you're a jack-ass because you're stating that you have enough money to purchase penthouse real estate in Manhattan!

  156. Cellular Co may sue you for blocking signal by Leemeng · · Score: 1

    Here's something else to consider. If you go as far as to turn your apt into an Faraday cage, use EMF shielding paint, or whathaveyou, you would probably draw the ire of the cellular co. Since your apt is so close to the tower, any shielding in your apt could affect other users "downstream" in a fairly wide radius. Plus, the apt is in Manhattan, so that could mean the tower serves hundreds or even thousands of users! The cellular co may accuse you of "cellphone jamming" or "blocking cellphone services", both of which are illegal in the US.

  157. Occam's Razor, people by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

    Why not assume the obvious - the post is a troll?

  158. physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a medical physicist. Leghorn points out earlier that the RF microwave radiation is NON-IONIZING. Ionizing radiation (like UV and x-rays) are what can potentially damage DNA and increase probability of cancer. Radiation of the RF/microwave wavelength is non-ionizing. Don't worry about your health.

    DO: worry about interference with other RF devices you have, such as wifi routers. There may be interference depending on if there's overlap in the broadcast spectra.

    DO: act like you're concerned about the towers to drive the price down when you negotiate.

  159. No worries! by shaitand · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I grew up in that very apartment and I came out just fine!

    *puts custom tard helmet complete with propeller back on and proceeds to charge the concrete wall headfirst repeatedly*

  160. field strength meter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get a field strength meter and measure, then compare to allowable field strengths. If you try to put, say, copper screen around, measure AGAIN when done to be sure it is really blocking. Also remember if this works, cell phone, any over the air TV or radio etc. will not work in the space.

  161. I ain't afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of no Ghosts!

  162. Nice math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    99.1%? I thought all /.ers were too nerdy to make that mistake?

    1. Re:Nice math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1% chance of a positive mutation, but only 1 in 10 of those would result in a "breeder." thus the 0.1%

  163. If you really want something to worry about... by n6gn · · Score: 1

    Warm up a cup of coffee in your microwave oven and drink it while you look over these measurements I made at my house: http://www.sonic.net/~n6gn/EVDOforums/radiation.pdf n6gn

  164. Re:No, he's not being a jackass by thsths · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > 20W 3dB 6 meters the power density is 0.0086 mW/cm2

    I tend to agree - most likely there is very little radiation actually reaching the apartment. Just get a cheap RF meter and check how significant the background radiation is compared to a mobile phone. Chances are that it is negligible - and that would answer your question.

  165. Re:An Italian court has linked cell radiation to c by amorsen · · Score: 1

    Yes, don't believe scientists, believe the Italian courts!

    I suppose there's a chance they're better at science than at law though.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  166. Mobile Mania by GRW · · Score: 1
    Here are a couple of articles in Skeptical Inquirer:
  167. It's good to know by geekoid · · Score: 1

    that even the rich can be ignorant. and by good to know, I mean really sad.

    If you can buy a penthouse in manhatten, you should consider education as a good way to spend money.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  168. It will eff up your bluetooth reception big time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a cell transmitter that close will degrade your bluetooth reception from 20+ feet to about 2 feet or less.

  169. Ooops by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Used use 10*ln(x) for db instead of 10*log(x) for db. The equivalent distance should be 5.6 cm

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  170. Read the regulations by leighklotz · · Score: 1

    Here's a link to the FCC and OET regulations that the cell company has to comply with.
    If there are multiple antennas from different installations, they have to take those into account too.

    http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/

  171. Richly rewarding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can afford to buy a penthouse apartment in Manhattan, then by all means you should buy this one. Especially this one. Enjoy.

  172. FUD by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    The worry will have more effect on your health than the actual microwaves.

    If you have the slightest worry about the physics involved then it's not right for you.

    --
    No sig today...
  173. Proposition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a nice antenna that only runs 50KW AM (for a bunch of amateur cowboy music, I mean global warm.., I mean Rush Lim.., er Girl Scouts) can we locate the antenna and power requirements over to your apartment? I was thinking you should just turn your apartment INTO a Cell Tower, what'dya think? We can provide you $10,000 a year for the space. Your money could be delivered anonymously in gold if you like.

  174. Placebo Effect by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    While it seems the scientists are still out on the long term effects of low level electromagnetic radiation exposure, consider that the Placebo Effect is well known and quite real. If you think you are going to feel ill as a result of being exposed to the radiation, you probably will.

    Personally, I am a little dubious that it is harmful, since we are constantly bathed in all sorts of low level electromagnetic radiation just living on Earth. Its possible that microwave radiation can cause caner, but any more so than tv, radio waves, UV, infrared, etc?

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Placebo Effect by snowgirl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was going to say... "scientists are still out on the long term effects of low level electromagnetic radiation exposure" Due to the anthropomorphic condition, the fact that we're here, and the sun constantly emits "low-level EM radiation" is nothing that hasn't been a selective pressure to tolerate since forever.

      It's like those people who are running around with EM detectors, get into a brightly lit area and freak out going "OMG! THERE'S A HOTSPOT OF EM RADIATION HERE!!!!"

      It's like... anime tear face... you can SEE part of the EM spectrum you twit.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Placebo Effect by genner · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a sweat drop not a tear.

    3. Re:Placebo Effect by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Nah, the anime tear face is when the waterworks are shooting directly over the head with the face pointed up, Charlie Brown-style.

  175. Yes you are being a jackass by DogAlmity · · Score: 1

    But only for using Ask Slashdot as a means to brag about buying a penthouse in Manhattan.

  176. Look for Simplicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally a use for lead based paints.

  177. Consider the benefits by DrVomact · · Score: 1

    Obviously, you have not considered the advantages of living in an apartment subject to heavy microwave radiation. Microwaves heat stuff. To prove this, just put your cat in the microwave and turn it on. Clearly, this means that you will be saving tons of money on your heating bills—the cell phone company will be heating the apartment for free! (Well, maybe they will just be heating conductive objects, like for instance you, but that's all you need during those chilly Manhattan winters.

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  178. Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by FiloEleven · · Score: 5, Informative

    The man who discovered aluminum in 1808, a British chemist named Humphrey Davy, first named it "alumium." When he published in 1812 he had renamed it to "aluminum," which is the name still used in America. So where did that extra "i" come from? Wikipedia has the answer.

    'An anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, in a review of Davy's book, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound."'

    That's right. All of the haughtiness with which the British defend their extra syllable, all of the bloodshed spilled over the difference, and all of the mutual incomprehension that ensued is due to a change made against the discoverer's wishes based on the rant of an Anonymous Coward. If that isn't a successful troll I don't know what is.

    1. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      So then there are at least three spellings that are right.

      And consider "Wo", which is Wolfram in some countries and Tungsten in other is really funny for a swede since Tungsten comes from the comment "Tung Sten" in the notes of the discoverer, which means "Heavy Rock".

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by Deluge · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to consider W, which is Wolfram/Tungsten...

    3. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all of the bloodshed spilled over the difference

      Ah, I'd quite forgotten the 1836 Aluminum War, where the Patriot Americans expelled the hated British I.

      Also, bloodshed spilled is redundant redundant.

      Aluminum matches alumina, but aluminium matches most of the metals. I can see arguments both ways, and am swayed by the fact that aluminium sounds nicer to my British ear.

    4. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, the IUPAC standard spelling is aluminium.

      If you don't like it, go back to spelling sulfur the way it was originally spelled rather than the IUPAC way.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    5. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Also, bloodshed spilled is redundant redundant.

      Ouch. I'm usually pretty good about that sort of thing. I guess sometimes everybody slips up sometimes ;)

    6. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, it's alumiini in Finnish, which has one i more than even the British spelling.

    7. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same wikipedia article, incidentally entitled Aluminium! It is quoted that "The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990", and it is recognised in pretty much all dictionaries in the world as Aluminium except those of the US and Canada, strange that huh ;)

      Also incidentally, it was originally changed from Aluminum as this was also seen as an irregularity as the self same individual who named it also isolated and named potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium, notice the 'i'.

    8. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To end the bickering, maybe we should call it Rickastlium from now on?

    9. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for this! A brit friend used to give me grief over the proper spelling/pronunciation. He was hung up on the mundane sound of "num" and was certain that we colonials had bastardized the proper name.

    10. Re:Aluminium, or, A Very Successful Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did, it is a little known fact that the Americans actually replaced Humphrey Davy with a doppelganger so they could get their preferred spelling in straight away and make it seem legitimate.

  179. manhattan penthouse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like you can afford the chemo.

  180. Near field or far field? by TwineLogic · · Score: 1

    You may want to calculate whether you are going to be in the "near field" of this antenna, the range where magnetic field dominates and decreases as 1/R^3. The radiation pattern of the electrical field is what transmits the signal. However, if you live inside the near field, currents will be induced in you, and you will become warmer. Also, inside the near field, devices like microphones and speakers pick up a lot of interference.

  181. Best place to ask by cecom · · Score: 1

    Slashdot, please help me make an enlightened decision.

    How did that go for you?

  182. Been done... by DrVomact · · Score: 1

    And wallpaper your apartment with the grids, and the windows too. Just be sure to ground them onto the plumbing, or opening doors might be fun.

    That's what the old U.S. embassy in Moscow had to do, though they just used metal foil. Apparently, the KGB bugs planted throughout the embassy required microwaves to power them, so the Soviets did the obvious thing. Of course, localized microwave beams would just help locate the bugs, so the Soviets blanketed the whole building.

    I wonder if the foil wallpaper helped, either to reduce the health hazards or to cut off power to the bugs.

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  183. Get conductive curtains by TheSync · · Score: 1

    You can get conductive fabric to make EMF-shielding curtains from LessEMF.com.

  184. ask.metafilter.com by Weezul · · Score: 1

    I'd say that ask.metafilter.com is usually better for serious questions like this one, slashdot users know almost nothing outside their own favorite software or programming languages. I'll give you an ask.metafilter.com style answer though :

    If you've got the money for a penthouse in Manhattan, then you've got the money to hire a medical doctor and/or electrical engineer who can evaluate the actual radiation levels in the apartment.

    You should make an appointment with an M.D. in radiology in NYC, say like Manhattan Diagnostic Radiology. I doubt they'll have the equipment for evaluating the dangers themselves, but a radiology doctor will figure out how you should proceed, and might evaluate you for other cancer risk factors.

    Two bonuses :
    (1) you might never feel secure unless you have an actual medical opinion.
    (2) you'll know how to alley the fears of the next person you sell the apartment to.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  185. RF burns by dacarr · · Score: 1
    As near as I can tell, your only hazard is if you come in direct physical contact with the transmitter antennas. RF burns are no fun, so don't do that.

    Beyond that, while the frequency is in the range of what is used to, say, cook a hot dog in your microwave oven, keep in mind that a modern microwave oven will typically "transmit" over 1 KW of power. A cell broadcast tower does roughly 2% of this, as per was pointed out above.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  186. Frustrate the owners of the MW towers by mollog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Get the apartment, and then create a resonant chamber that creates interference for the transmitters/receivers. If the equipment can get interference from something you're doing in the apartment, then it is clear that the microwaves are penetrating the walls of the unit.

    BTW, why did the previous owner leave the apartment? Died of brain cancer?

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Frustrate the owners of the MW towers by wildtux · · Score: 1

      Just made your whole apartment a hugh "Faraday Cage". You could then do experiments to your heart content on EMI/RFI from other devices to see how the relationship of uWave radiation interferes with those devices - A nice empherical study that you probably could charge big $ for. Hey! your got the ideal real-time web site for observing such relationships = Exploite it just as those developers that build or allow such rediculious "living standards" exploite the ever gullable "public". If not, well at least you would be recieving ANY radiation including TV, your own phone or whatever unless you cable the services into your virtual faraday cage.

  187. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the same problem. I simply wear my stormtrooper uniform when I'm at home. It's kinda hard to go to the bathroom, but , the peace of mind is worth it.

  188. Addendum from original poster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am the anonymous coward who posted this piece. The antennas are sector antennas, not panel antennas.

  189. AIEEE!!! GIANT ANTS!!! by Hasai · · Score: 1

    Puh-leeze. You get more radiation, of the ionizing type, from standing in the sun for fifteen minutes.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  190. Perception, not fact. by mrthoughtful · · Score: 1

    If it's cheap because everyone fears the radiation, regardless of whether or not it will cook you, you will have trouble selling it for the same reason.
    If you are worried in the least, don't buy it. You don't need the stress.
    If you want to be clever and get a bargain because you don't need to fear, then (if you can) get someone to measure the RF over a week; chances are it will be okay, but what do I know?
    As an investment, remember that the market always depends upon perceived value. Having some gigantic wire beast staring at the window will generate fear in many buyers. Probably why it's going cheap in the first place.

    If you are ever thinking of selling, it's probably better just to go for a nice flat that doesn't have any threatening uber-wire modern science gizmo just outside the window. Nothing to do with risk to health, everything to do with perception of risk to health.

    --
    This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
  191. 120 degrees by mikeiver1 · · Score: 0

    Cell antennas are usually 120 degree radiators with a down tilt bias for terrestrial service. IF the antennas are on the same plane as one of the walls of the apartment you are thinking of buying then likely there is little to no issue here. The antenna have very little side lobe. FYI, The output power from a cell tower is several hundred Watts. A couple of hundred should get someone to do an RF sweep of the pat to either confirm or allay fears.

  192. Gather empirical data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can find out what carrier(s) use the cell, you may be able to gather some info on the level of RF with a phone on that service. Blackberries have a code you can enter to get them to report signal strength in dBm rather than graphical bars. A jailbroken iPhone can do the same.

    dBm is a log scale with 1 dBm = 1 mW. -10 dBm = 0.1 mW. Right now I'm getting -77 dBm from the nearby AT&T tower. That's 1.9952623149688786 e-11 watts. That's not much radiation by the old "600 watts will pop popcorn" measure.

    Another way to look at it, if you can get that dBm data, is to compare it to your WLAN signal strength. Usually the WiFi signal where ever my iPhone is attached is 10 to 30 dBm higher. That's 10 to 1000 times more radiation from an AP than the cell tower I'm associated to. Are you comfortable with your WiFi radiation?

    Also, I don't know about cells in highly urban areas where there actually are subscribers at high altitudes, but out here in the 'burbs the antenna radiation patterns tend to be angled down toward the ground (like a cone). You may get less radiation standing in front of the antenna than below it.

  193. Tin Foil Hats by mneisler · · Score: 1

    Just wear a tin foil hat when your in your apartment and you will be fine. Plus you will have the added benefit of our reptile overlords not being able to control you.

  194. Are the Cellular companies paying you?? by Blowit · · Score: 1

    Since the Antenna is right outside of your dwelling, are they actually paying you to rent the space the signal will be transmitting from? If not, you may ask them to pay you outright or have them fully isolate the signal from entering your dwelling. Otherwise, you can contact the Condo administration and ask for your "kickback" for housing such "dangerous" signals to your dwelling. Has anyone done this in the past?

    --
    *Headline News* censorship shuts down the Internet! More at 6PM!
  195. Be cautious... by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    It is very common now for cell sites to be placed in all sorts of unobtrusive uban locations such as the roofs and exterior walls of commercial buildings, or disguised as power poles, trees, or flagpoles. It is also very common for several companies to co-locate at a good location once the first company has built its site. Cell companies tend to rent out space at their location to other companies because those other companies can help them out at other sites. What you need to look at is how many different carriers are set up at the site near the apartment and generally how powerful the transmitters are. Each carrier will install its own antennas, backup power equipment, and power supply cabling which you can often see at least portions of at the site. Some cell sites can have a power output of thousands of watts while others can be much smaller, depending on what sort of area the site is supposed to serve and how good its antenna location is. You can get some approximate idea of how powerful the cell site is by looking at how big the backup power generator is and how large the power supply cabling (i.e. the conduit diameter) to the transmitter is. If there are 3 companies co-located and each has 30+ kw backup generators installed, you can expect that it is a relatively high power site. In general, it seems that people are not happy being located in close proximity to cell transmitters. I have seen cell towers quietly installed on the roofs of office buildings and within a few years, the top floor(s) of the building are devoid of tenants. Office building landlords just factor that into the rent that they charge the cell companies. In your case, you are probably getting a nicer apartment than the same money would get at a cell-free location but when you go to sell the unit, the selling price will reflect the current cell site situation at the time that you sell. If you are serious about buying, try to determine if it is likely that other cell companies will co-locate at the original site, possibly lowering your future value.

  196. Have a ham radio operator do an RF safety survey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look up your local amateur radio clubs and find a ham radio operator who knows how to do a RF exposure survey and ask them to do one at your apartment because of your concern. Many hams know how to do these, and they'll probably be happy to do it for free because someone appreciates their skill and knowledge.

    The FCC has exact requirements on RF safety, and I'm completely comfortable that your apartment is safe from harmful radiation. See the ARRL's Web page on RF safety at
    http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfexpose.html
    Scroll down and download the articles that look interesting (I'm logged in as a member, but I'm assuming these articles are available to non-members). You can read up on the rules yourself and be knowledgeable when you talk to the hams.

  197. yes by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Am I just being a jackass?

    If you have enough money to afford a penthouse apartment in NYC, then yes, you are probably a jackass.

  198. Concerns affect value by Quenyar · · Score: 1

    Remember that any concern you can have another buyer can have. This will effect the value of the apartment negatively. It is highly probable that other health-affective environmental factors may kill you before you would succumb to the radiation exposure from this apartment and exhibit any symptoms therefrom... or it might be the straw that broke the camel's back. But I guarantee you one thing: you will never be able to prove anything in a court of law that would win you damages in a law suit.

  199. At least you will get good 3g coverage by curado · · Score: 1

    If somebody can't hear you its THEIR phone

  200. Stupid question by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Why does it do the cell tower any good to have higher power than the handset? Being able to reach a larger area does no good if the radios you're talking to can't reach you back! In fact, I'd expect the towers to be more directional than the handsets, and thus require even less power for two way communication.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Stupid question by kitgerrits · · Score: 1

      The power of the cell tower is measured on the 'receiving' end of the antenna.
      The tower also gets the same 3dB boost from the antenna on incoming signals.
      Also, the antenna has some incredibly sensitive sensors.

      --
      "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
    2. Re:Stupid question by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      The tower Rx antenna is connected to a Low Noise Amp which would cost too much to put into a handset.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
  201. Don't Buy It. by Joe+Mucchiello · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter if you will or won't get irradiated to death living there. Forget about that. Imagine trying to sell the place and the potential BUYERS worrying about being irradiated to death. That perception will lower the value of the property and you won't get as good a deal when you sell. It has a lower cost than similarly sized condos right? That's why you are looking at it and now you are worried. Same thing will happen when you try to sell.

  202. Re:Have a ham radio operator do an RF safety surve by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

    Great advice, but for my family's safety, I'd want a professional survey and a report with a PE signature on it, not an amateur survey.

  203. Find another apartment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find another place that won't give you cancer. Problem solved.

    Seriously though, the Faraday cage is probably the best solution if you still want to live there. I agree with the first person to post though, as it will always be in the back of your mind of whether or not you are safe in your apartment. On a side note, there is a cell phone tower about a half of a mile away from where I live, and the phone company planted trees around it. The trees were all dead or dying after 6 months. They keep replanting them, but they keep dying. The corn fields 40 feet away from the tower are fine.

  204. Ask a local ham by nsayer · · Score: 1

    By that, I mean amateur radio operator. Since the amateur radio service rules include RF exposure safety rules, and we all have to know how to do the math, they will likely be able to reassure you that the situation is safe. The rules for amateur stations are similar to the rules that all other RF transmitting services generally have to follow. Since the condo is not part of the fenced in enclosure where the antenna is, it's part of the 'uncontrolled' space (that is, space where the general public - particularly people not owning or working on the antenna). The exposure limits for uncontrolled space exposure are much stricter than controlled space (that is, any place where a person could be without having the transmitter shut down).

    In all likelihood, the antennas in question are aimed such that the energy won't be going into the apartment. How can that be? They have to pay to generate the RF, and they want as much of it as possible to hit the opposite antenna rather than be used to irradiate a nearby condo.

    They're selling this unit for a song likely because of the "what if?" thoughts you yourself are having. Educate yourself and turn this into an opportunity to acquire an undervalued property!

  205. You're not exposed to multiple channels by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    Multiple channels don't matter because they're usually pointed in a different direction. Each sector gets its own channel and you can't be in multiple sectors at once. And even if you are exposed by 10 cell tower channels at once, it doesn't overcome the fact that your Wi-Fi AP is probably 100-1000 times stronger, or the fact that your cell phone is 1000-1000000 times stronger.

    1. Re:You're not exposed to multiple channels by clarkie.mg · · Score: 1

      What if you don't use a wi-fi AP and only use your cell phone once or twice a day for less than a minute ?

      You are - correctly - showing that the effects of cell tower antennas are several orders of magnitude lower than those of an individual phone or wi-fi AP but why do you ignore the length of exposure factor ?

      If you have a broken bone, you will probably pass a x ray radio scan with no protection but you will notice that the medical operator is protected behind a wall. Different exposure.

      --
      Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
    2. Re:You're not exposed to multiple channels by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      "What if you don't use a wi-fi AP and only use your cell phone once or twice a day for less than a minute"

      First of all, let me say that cell phones are such low power that they're inconsequential and the largest studies have confirmed this. The amount of energy we're talking about isn't enough to raise your temperature 1/100th of a degrees even in the worst case, and the temperature of the room and the clothing you wear is a much larger factor.

      Second, you're making the cumulative effects argument. But even if you use the cell phone 5 minutes a day, that's 288 times less cumulative exposure. But the phone is 1000 to 1000000 times greater in strength which means 5 minutes of cell phone exposure is orders of magnitude more cumulative energy than a cell tower.

      Third, I reject the cumulative effect argument. Can you say that jumping off a 1 foot cliff 100 times is as harmful as jumping off a 100 foot cliff a single time? What if I exposed you to one hour of sunlight but concentrated it down to 5 minutes? Does one hour exposure do the same cumulative damage as the same amount of sunlight given to you in 5 minutes? These examples demonstrate how absurd the cumulative effect argument is.

  206. Re:No, he's not being a jackass by tftp · · Score: 1

    Just get a cheap RF meter and check

    The "cheap RF meter" consists of one (per band) calibrated omni antenna on a plastic tripod, one wideband preamp, and one spectrum analyzer. This set will cost you maybe $20K to buy, or $500 to rent for a week - assuming that you know how to correctly operate it and how to interpret the results.

    Anything cheaper than that will give you results that you can't bet your life on.

  207. No worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've lived in close proximity to an atenna for years andfakgjlkfdakj ag sh j df hghfgh sf kfgl.

  208. Dangers of EMR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are 2 articles I would like you to read before you consider purchasing. Particularly if you are considering having children

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/red-symons-son-speaks-out-about-his-battle-with-cancer/story-e6frf96o-1225827604821

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y01LKmD0QXI

    This was caused by a power stations Electro Magnetic Radiation.

    RMIT Uni Transmission Towers
    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1637123.htm

    ABC Transmission Towers
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826613.htm

    I would be buying some measuring tools for EMR
    http://www.grainmills.com.au/category28_1.htm

    Can it be shielded Yes. Will you Mobile phone work once the shielding is in place ? Sure if you attach it to an External Antenna :) or switch to WiFi IP Telephony.

  209. Tinfoil ain't going to do it. by dlingman · · Score: 1

    Trust me - we've done tests. You want steel wool. Preferably an inch or so thick. You can test this out quite easily, by wrapping your phone in tinfoil, and then calling it. when it rings, you know that's not enough. Steel wool, then tinfoil on the outside, will do just fine.

  210. Orgonite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Place organite at the base of the tower. :-)

    Do a Youtube search for "orgonite". No, I don't believe in this stuff, but it's shocking what some people will believe.

  211. Sector 7G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's Klaus Hergersheimer when you need him?

  212. An "in the field" perspective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am an rf technician and I am around lots and lots and lots of rf. This includes the quantities that have to have warning signs placed next to then. I have been doing this for several years and let me tell you, if there was a negative side effect I would be among the first to know.
    The real question is how far away from the antenna are you?
    What does the antenna look like? This will determine the amount of gain the antenna has and give some idea to the power being pushed through it.
    Most basestations will broadcast anywhere from +40 to +96 db. Most rf looses roughly 40db in the first 10'.
    Chances are the amou nt of radiation your being exposed to here is actually less than what you would be routinely exposed to walking in the downtown area of a busy city.
    I say go for it and don't worry. If you feel the need go for the metallic paint, but a grid works best so metal lathe from home depot between the walls would work wonders.

  213. cell info by max847 · · Score: 1

    cell towers tend to operate in the 900 to 1.2 ghz range just like any radiation range time and shielding are factors there are electromagnetic meters that can show you your exposier, sometimes a cheap AM radio can on static can give interesting results. the higher the frequency the smaller the fish and the better "net" you need. the shielding doesnt need to be thick or even block light very fine metal screen or metalic mylar may give shielding, a multimeter that shows conduction and the film is grounded properly can be effective. also flat pannels attached at 90 degree angle will reflect the radiation away, if the cell company complains you can use the argument that the freq energy is too low to be harmful to people should also not be harmful to equipment especially at double the distance. im not an expert so take with grain of salt,, might take a look at amateur radio info or find a ham operator,, even if it doesnt directly effect you it may effect other items like electronics, also walls are no garentee of protection.

  214. You canna change the laws of physics by LandGator · · Score: 1

    Let's do the math: Ask a biochemist or a physicist.
    If you calculate the energy required to break a carbon-carbon molecular bond (348 kJ/mol) you can caluate the mininum frequency which can generate that energy, as > 600 THz. Your cellular antennas transmit between 0.8 and 1.99 GHz, nowhere close by over four orders of magnitude.
    Now, sunlight is dangerous, but not a 20W transceiver 6' away. Police cars typically use higher power radios, and you don't see them kvetching about the risk.
    If you are still concerned, put some aluminum window scren on the wall where the antennas are mounted, and stucco over the screen.
    http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html debunks the 'power lines cause leukemia' myth, BTW.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  215. You just need anti-radiation underwear: by hellop2 · · Score: 1
    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  216. Univ Michigan Radiation Lab Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The University of Michigan has done many studies on Microwave Radiation and found no health effects. They even put high power microwave horns next to peoples heads to no effect.

    Microwaves are just light whose energy is too low to see with the human eye. Light passes through windows just fine without damaging the window.

    Your body is transparent to microwaves.

  217. don't move into that by uglymuged · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't move into that apartment unless you love Luekemia or some other illness sweeping over you. I had a good friend who lived in an apartment directly underneath a bank of cell antennas. He was a video editor and occasionally he would give us copies of what he was working on but they would always be distorted and have big noisy sections in them. Thanks to the cell towers burst disrupting his electrical equipment. He should have taken that as a warning, because now he has cancer.

  218. Resale value by yusing · · Score: 1

    If you think you might ever sell the thing, consider that the potential buyers will have the same questions.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  219. Historical precedent by danielpauldavis · · Score: 1

    I read that The Soviets used microwaves beamed against windows of the U.S. embassy to eavesdrop on conversations and the side effect was physical ailments. Intensity of the beams will be the question whose answer decides this one.

    --
    Cranky educator.
  220. Measure the intensity, if you can by niftymitch · · Score: 1
    For goodness sake measure the intensity if you can.

    You need the information before you move in and more importantly you need the information should any change be made to the transmitter.

    While a tinfoil hat is silly and not stylish it might make sense to sandwich inexpensive copper screen and steel wool between 1/4" plywood, decorate it and make a headboard for the bed with it. No need to tell anyone either...

    I do not believe that there is a hazard but I do not sleep on railroad tracks either.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  221. Lightning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radiation, shmadiation. You folks are all worried about tin-hat stuff.

    Here's the real danger ... lightning strikes.

    Seriously, as someone who has been nearby several times when antennas and towers have been hit by lightning, and seen and felt the damage, I wouldn't worry about radiation at all. And I was a LOT further away than this apartment. Once you've witnessed and experienced the incredible power of lighting, you'll respect it like nothing else. Once you've smelled ionized air and had to throw away clothes that forever smelled burned, even though they were nowhere near, or smelled burning everything for two weeks afterward, then you'll respect lightning.

    One example ... our AM radio station towers got hit all the time, but it's always different. One blew the wooden people door right off its hinges. Another blew the main service panel off the wall, across the room, and through the window on the other side. Another wiped out the service panel in a farmhouse a quarter mile away. Another blew out all the tires on the cars in the gravel parking lot about 50' from the base of the tower.

    So I say screw the radiation concern; you'll be forced out of the apartment by lightning strikes.
    Oh, and good luck with those Chinese power strips, bucky. If you post on /., then you already own too much equipment to risk.

  222. Except you still don't have a point by George_Ou · · Score: 1

    I posted this response already to someone else asking a similar problem.

    First of all, let me say that cell phones are such low power that they're inconsequential and the largest studies have confirmed this. The amount of energy we're talking about isn't enough to raise your temperature 1/100th of a degrees even in the worst case, and the temperature of the room and the clothing you wear is a much larger factor.

    Second, you're making the cumulative effects argument. But even if you use the cell phone 5 minutes a day, that's 288 times less cumulative exposure. But the phone is 1000 to 1000000 times greater in strength which means 5 minutes of cell phone exposure is orders of magnitude more cumulative energy than a cell tower.

    Third, I reject the cumulative effect argument. Can you say that jumping off a 1 foot cliff 100 times is as harmful as jumping off a 100 foot cliff a single time? What if I exposed you to one hour of sunlight but concentrated it down to 5 minutes? Does one hour exposure do the same cumulative damage as the same amount of sunlight given to you in 5 minutes? These examples demonstrate how absurd the cumulative effect argument is.

  223. Liter of ... by Baby+Duck · · Score: 1

    "Liters is for Coke, not gas."

    You mean petro?

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins