Cell phone towers

L

LancelotSA

Banned
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
14,713
Reaction score
5
Location
Stunning Africa
I see this topic was raised a while ago here but I was wondering if anyone knows the current going monthly rental rate for the installation of a cellphone tower/wireless tower on a building roof is?

I am fully aware of the health risks that may be associated with this (a whole different discussion what with the proliferation of cell towers, wireless networks etc etc springing up) and our body corporate is considering allowing Mweb to do an installation and we already have a Vodacom tower up there! They brag about the money it will bring in but I would like to get an idea of what can be demanded.

When you factor in that it saves them building a "palm tree" they should be made to fork out! Also they need to compensate for the years they may be taking off my life.

I don't want to take my own thread off the main topic of finding out the going rate but anyone know if being directly under a tower is even more dangerous. And related to this can you insist on getting radiation readings done to ensure it is safe? And if so what reading is a safe reading for these types of radio waves?
 
Last edited:
Where did you hear that the waves are dangerous? AFAIK (from an engineering background), it's not dangerous at all. It may mess with the signal reception in other applications, but a health hazard it is NOT
 
sn3rd said:
Where did you hear that the waves are dangerous? AFAIK (from an engineering background), it's not dangerous at all. It may mess with the signal reception in other applications, but a health hazard it is NOT
Click to expand...

http://www.symbian-freak.com/news/008/06/2_billion_may_suffer_from_mobile_cancer_by_2020.htm
http://discoverrealanswers.com/Resources.shtml#Cell_Towers
http://www.iaff18.org/index.cfm?method=pages.showPage&pageid=343cb6b9-047c-08fa-5026-57d0198443e6
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4908113/
http://www.liveindia.com/news/radiation5.html

Those are just the articles that contained some information I was wanting to use when asking questions about the installation.

Of course no "conclusive" proof exists as this would take money and of course the cell companies and most governments would not be willing to throw money at it. It's a bit like cigarettes at first....
 
Oh and if you'd like a full explanation of WHY they aren't dangerous, let me know. I'd be glad to explain (quite lengthy though).

And to answer your other question, if there WERE any ill effects, you'd probably experience LESS being directly below, because those antennas are designed to radiate OUTward, not DOWNward
 
A (possibly) more credible source: www.cancer.org

There is no proof because the theory suggests that it wouldn't be worth investing money to research something that probably will turn up results that are already generally accepted. The waves contain very little energy at too large a wavelength to create issues.

Of course there is always an exception, and in this case, I think pacemakers serve this purpose
 
sn3rd said:
Oh and if you'd like a full explanation of WHY they aren't dangerous, let me know. I'd be glad to explain (quite lengthy though).

And to answer your other question, if there WERE any ill effects, you'd probably experience LESS being directly below, because those antennas are designed to radiate OUTward, not DOWNward
Click to expand...

That is what I have assumed and told people. Rather be below! :)

I would not mind an explanation at some point as the sites I have read seem to explain that they are just below microwaves on the spectrum and can heat the molecules in your body and cause problems over time. Rats exposed have been shown to have damage to the protective layer on the brain.
 
At the end of the day, frequencies emitted by your microwave oven or computer are probably more dangerous.

Wavelength = 1 / Frequency (in Hz)

So higher frequency devices emit waves with smaller wavelengths (more likely to collide with cells).

Heating properties are proportional to the amount of energy carried in the wave. Lower energy means less heating capacity.
 
My neighbor was getting R10 000 from cell c a few years ago, he managed to negotiate two phones in the deal as well. He was a clever bastard and put the tower at the far end of his 1 acre property, right next to his other neighbors house.
When the dude complained, they threw so much paper work at him that he just gave up.

Just remember that any income earned from that tower is taxable as it is rental.
 
sn3rd said:
Where did you hear that the waves are dangerous? AFAIK (from an engineering background), it's not dangerous at all. It may mess with the signal reception in other applications, but a health hazard it is NOT
Click to expand...
Microwave ovens and bluetooth both operate @ ~2.4ghz. Kinda makes you think doesn't it...;)

I'm not saying its a health risk...I don't know whether it is....in fact these towers & stuff haven't been around long enough for anyone to really know.
 
Nerfherder said:
My neighbor was getting R10 000 from cell c a few years ago, he managed to negotiate two phones in the deal as well. He was a clever bastard and put the tower at the far end of his 1 acre property, right next to his other neighbors house.
When the dude complained, they threw so much paper work at him that he just gave up.

Just remember that any income earned from that tower is taxable as it is rental.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen our agreement resulted in R80,000 income for last year which seemed a small amount to me considering the coverage they are getting from the top of a 15 storey flat with no need for any tower... I want to cause a bit of noise about it at the upcoming AGM which is why I am asking about rental. I'm sure that Vodacom wangled a 10 year contract or something too!
 
(Sorry for multiple posts... On my phone again :p)
The meninges is no different from any other body part, so I don't see why it would be affected more than any other body part. Sounds like conspiracy theory hysteria to me. Can't really search, but was that out of a credible, peer-reviewed journal article?

One is exposed to much more RF in normal life than what would be added by a cellphone tower
 
@ HaVoC: AND let's not forget about 802.11's... 2.4(ish) and 5 GHz
 
sn3rd said:
(Sorry for multiple posts... On my phone again :p)
The meninges is no different from any other body part, so I don't see why it would be affected more than any other body part. Sounds like conspiracy theory hysteria to me. Can't really search, but was that out of a credible, peer-reviewed journal article?

One is exposed to much more RF in normal life than what would be added by a cellphone tower
Click to expand...

My understanding is they tested the rats as if they were humans with the phones up against their heads hence the outcome.

And there are numerous references to studies by scientists in Sweden, Australia and others.
 
Very interesting article in that link you posted sn3rd... http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phone_Towers.asp?sitearea=PED .... it is too long to post it all here but it contains some good info. Not totally conclusive or at least not as regards it saying there is no risk but it does say unlikely.

How Are People Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy From Cellular Phone Towers?

As people use cellular phones to make phone calls, signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station. The radio waves produced at the base station are emitted into the environment, where people can be exposed.

The energy from a cellular phone antenna, like that of other telecommunication antennas, is directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter. Base station antennas use higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, but much lower levels than radio and television broadcast stations. The power density decreases with increasing distance from the antenna. As a result, the level of exposure to radio waves at ground level is very low compared to the level close to the antenna.

Public exposure to radio waves from cellular phone antennas is slight for several reasons. The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted at high above ground level, and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly.

Agencies such as the National Council on Radiation Protections and Measurements, the International Radiation Protection Association, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the American National Standards Institute, have established guidelines for exposure to RF radiation originating from cellular communications base stations. These guidelines were designed to protect workers, as well as the public, from potentially harmful radio frequency. The recommended exposure limits are in the range of .41-.45 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) for cellular radiofrequencies.

Exposures that exceed these recommended standards can sometimes be encountered on the rooftops of buildings where base stations are mounted. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited. The power density inside buildings where a base station is mounted is typically 10 to 100 times lower than the level outside depending on the construction materials of the building. Wood or cement block reduces the exposure level of RF radiation by a factor of about ten.(we are two floors below) The power density behind an antenna is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front. Therefore, if an antenna is mounted on the side of a building, the exposure level in the room directly behind the wall is typically well below the recommended exposure limits.

Do Cellular Phone Towers Cause Cancer?

Humans generate electromagnetic fields internally as well as externally. The simple collision between 2 molecules is an electrical event. Since there is electrical activity inside the human body, the question arises as to whether radio waves emitted by cellular phone towers can influence cell function, and in particular whether they can cause cancer.

However, several theoretical considerations suggest that cellular phone towers are unlikely to cause cancer.

First, the energy level of radio waves is relatively low. Electromagnetic energy comes in "packages" that are referred to as photons. Photon energy is measured in electron volts (eV), the energy gained by an electron after accelerating over 1 volt. The energy in the photons depends directly on the frequency, and decreases as one moves down the electromagnetic spectrum. X-rays have about 1,000 eV of energy, while the photon energy of radio waves from cellular phone towers is about one millionth of an eV, not enough to alter molecules in the body.

A second issue has to do with wavelength. Radio waves have a wavelength of approximately 1 foot in air, and about 2 inches in body tissue. As a result, RF radiation can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from radio waves could be concentrated on a small bit of tissue, affecting individual cells.

A third issue has to do with the magnitude of exposure. Measurements taken around typical cellular phone towers show ground level power densities well below the recommended limits. Moreover, public exposure near cell phone towers is not significantly different than background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.

For these reasons, cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Any published journal article references? Journal articles are the scientific community's way of weeding out pseudoscience.

Every credible source I've ever consulted on the matter has confirmed negligible danger. The closest they've come is a "we can't be sure". But as I say, looking at the theory, there's no reason to belive otherwise (do you feel in danger using a computer with a 3GHz processor?)
 
These guidelines were designed to protect workers, as well as the public, from potentially harmful radio frequency. The recommended exposure limits are in the range of .41-.45 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) for cellular radiofrequencies.
Click to expand...

Any way of measuring these myself or do you need expensive tools? Perhaps we should insist Vodacom comes and does reading themselves to appease us as owners?
 
You COULD measure yourself (inexpensively, but a bit of a mission), but you can't be guaranteed of the accuracy of the measurement. Knowing Vodacom, even a high reading will be reported as a low reading in order to push the deal through. The best bet would be to do the research yourself, and see why I'm so unmoved on my stance
 
sn3rd said:
You COULD measure yourself (inexpensively, but a bit of a mission), but you can't be guaranteed of the accuracy of the measurement. Knowing Vodacom, even a high reading will be reported as a low reading in order to push the deal through. The best bet would be to do the research yourself, and see why I'm so unmoved on my stance
Click to expand...

Your link did make me feel a little better but it does use vague terms like "close to the antenna" when describing the risks. Would prefer it if they said something definite like 1m! :)

You obviously have no idea about the amount to charge for rental for the antenna? Anyone else out there?
 
sn3rd said:
Any published journal article references? Journal articles are the scientific community's way of weeding out pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
There are a zillion journals arguing in favour of each side. Shouldn't be too hard to find some that say its dangerous:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/15/1724218&from=rss
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/02/0511256

sn3rd said:
Every credible source I've ever consulted on the matter has confirmed negligible danger.
Click to expand...
The long-term effects are not known and cannot be known because they stuff is still new.

sn3rd said:
But as I say, looking at the theory, there's no reason to belive otherwise (do you feel in danger using a computer with a 3GHz processor?)
Click to expand...
You do realize that the one is a clock frequency while the other is electromagnetic radiation? :confused: Not exactly comparing apples & apples...
 
And we're talking in the region of 400 MICRO watts per square centimeter here... That's so low. Pretty sure plenty of appliances output that as noise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X