Cell phone towers

onebrickshort said:
So let me clarify something LancelotSA. You have no problem with potentially getting brain tumours so long as the money's right?:confused:
Click to expand...

No, you are mistaken. If you read the thread you will see my concern was with the risks too. Once this was partially laid to rest my attentions then turned to what they should be expected to pay us for the rights.
 
LancelotSA said:
Damn straight! They are after all saving a fortune by not having to build a tower, never mind trying to find a piece of land on which to do it, and have to compensate us for that 1% chance we may all be getting slowly fried! And we have the ammo of knowing exactly what their profits are! :)
Click to expand...

Noticed the inherent contradiction in your statement. ;)
 
And let's not forget about magnetic coupling as a means for short-range wireless energy transfer
 
LancelotSA said:
No, you are mistaken. If you read the thread you will see my concern was with the risks too. Once this was partially laid to rest my attentions then turned to what they should be expected to pay us for the rights.
Click to expand...

You did mention more than once that you would like to be compensated for potential health risks.

"Also they need to compensate for the years they may be taking off my life."
Click to expand...
"have to compensate us for that 1% chance we may all be getting slowly fried!"
Click to expand...
 
vodacom3g said:
You did mention more than once that you would like to be compensated for potential health risks.
Click to expand...

Yes, and you will notice that the years off our lives was mentioned towards the beginning of the thread and the 1% chance of frying was towards the end which perfectly correlates what I said...
 
You know what does worry me V3G, is that you represent Vodacom so you think you would have the conclusive proof at your fingertips that the cell towers definitely are not harmful to humans... is this perhaps why things are getting deflected here? ;)
 
Oh, and it was MIT... Last year... 2 metres, 60W light bulb, 40% efficiency. Check out wikipedia article on wireless energy transfer, in particular the section on resonant coupling
 
LancelotSA said:
Yes, and you will notice that the years off our lives was mentioned towards the beginning of the thread and the 1% chance of frying was towards the end which perfectly correlates what I said...
Click to expand...

LancelotSA we do have enough politicians in this country as it is. we don't really need anymore ;)
 
LancelotSA said:
Yes, and you will notice that the years off our lives was mentioned towards the beginning of the thread and the 1% chance of frying was towards the end which perfectly correlates what I said...
Click to expand...

I'd suggest when you negotiate, rather focus on the clear measurables, like income vs. cost to deliver the service. Rather than on the more nebulous concepts that you can't quantify. Always a good idea to come to the table with facts, as you would have seen in your favourite legal TV show. ;)
 
"Conclusive proof"... There ain't no such animal in this dynamic, technology race... The problem is that long term effects can't be observed in the short term. Effects might only show a few years later, by which time technology has progressed and the research is no longer relevant. That's why the theory is the most reliable source here. And the theory hasn't set off any alarms YET
 
vodacom3g said:
I'd suggest when you negotiate, rather focus on the clear measurables, like income vs. cost to deliver the service. Rather than on the more nebulous concepts that you can't quantify. Always a good idea to come to the table with facts, as you would have seen in your favourite legal TV show. ;)
Click to expand...

If they are anything like you are turning out in this thread then I know what suggestion they'll get from me....
 
I'm an old fashioned guy... Prefer a regular toothbrush... So you meant to say YOUR electric toothbrush :D

And doesn't your iMac use it too, with its trip-proof cable?
 
Lancelot: I think he's just saying that going to the table complaining about possible health hazards will probably have them say "you're right... It'll probably be best not to put a tower there... For your health, of course". Whereas if you appeal to their business side, you might actually get somewhere
 
LancelotSA said:
You know what does worry me V3G, is that you represent Vodacom so you think you would have the conclusive proof at your fingertips that the cell towers definitely are not harmful to humans... is this perhaps why things are getting deflected here? ;)
Click to expand...

:confused:

I already posted above I don't know what the level of harmful radiation is. And as posted in this thread there are many studies on all fronts. Just like you, it's these same studies the operators have access to.

Or is your conspiracy theory that Vodacom has better (and more damning) information than the rest of the world, and is trying to suppress it? :rolleyes:

If you're concerned about the radiation, you can veto the tower in your complex. Many people do. But your posts here seems to indicate you're more interested in any potential financial gain. Which is cool, it's your choice.
 
sn3rd said:
I'm an old fashioned guy... Prefer a regular toothbrush... So you meant to say YOUR electric toothbrush :D

And doesn't your iMac use it too, with its trip-proof cable?
Click to expand...

Yup, good example. But again, very low frequency, very short distance (a millimeter or 5) and probably shielded as well.

But to try and power your laptop over a few meters will imply substantial increase in frequency while increasing the ERP. So I'm not going to walk through *that* beam. Especially considering the beam is going to pretty close to 'groin-height' :)
 
True... HAHA at groin chirp. BUT... that resonant coupling technique is supposed to eliminate the dangers of this by tunneling the energy more efficiently (less diffusion, etc).
But I still get your point... High power signals at about waist height can be scary
 
LancelotSA said:
If they are anything like you are turning out in this thread then I know what suggestion they'll get from me....
Click to expand...

No, I think you're completely missing what I'm trying to say. I'm actually trying to help you here. ;)

Trying to put a financial number on something intangible is going to be pretty much one-sided and will just result in a debate with no clear way of determining any value. You'll say; "Potential radiation risk = Rx/month", they'll say; "No risk, as shown by many studies". Where does that leave you?

But you CAN focus on the potential income of the site, the cost-savings, etc.
 
sn3rd said:
True... HAHA at groin chirp. BUT... that resonant coupling technique is supposed to eliminate the dangers of this by tunneling the energy more efficiently (less diffusion, etc).
But I still get your point... High power signals at about waist height can be scary
Click to expand...

You would assume the beam will be very tight (to conserve energy, for example), but it must still practically originate somewhere in the house and end at the appliance.

And, if so, there must be a good chance that you can get some body-part in the beam, by walking through it, for example.
 
Interesting stuff in that wiki article about just this... More focused than you'd think. Even laser beams (whether through fibre or otherwise). Great stuff!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X