<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font size="+1">Some very good questions, and I agree, a focus on
decommissioning the older, less efficient equipment is warranted.
Checking with a cell RF engineer friend of mine, I've learned
there isn't much, if any, analog equipment still in service
(definitely not in Sebastopol).</font><big> There is still 2G and
2.5G technology out there in abundance. I do know the currently
existing equipment (3 antennas) is not being removed at this time.</big><br>
<br>
<big>You may want to contact the local engineer on the project, who
may be able to share some of this information. Calling City Hall
in Sebastopol (823-1153), asking for the contact information of
the engineer (Mr. Hammett), then contacting him may yield
results. This engineer is contracted, ultimately, by Verizon.
The other cell carrier co-locating at that tower is MetroPCS, who
is not performing any upgrades at this time. Other carriers have
towers elsewhere in Sebastopol.<br>
<br>
I hope this helps in some way. If you do get more information
outside of this list on this topic, please share it here as well.<br>
<br>
- Chris<br>
</big><br>
On 12/07/2011 02:35 PM, Matt Hardwick wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAENJrjojKr01hGWgp1aX4-ywYc4QmzU_c7hfzn3LV66dfNU8vQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am pretty much on board with what has been said here but one thing
that stands out to me that has not been mentioned is regard to old
equipment.
What is the status of the previous equipment, e.g. Analog, 1G, and 2G?
What has been decommissioned?
If it hasn't what is the prediction/schedule of when they will be
decommissioned?
If this is already happening then the rolling effect of putting up new
equipment and removing old has already been in effect for some years.
If it hasn't, then this is what they should honestly be focusing on in
my opinion.
Anyone know the status on this?
--
Matt Hardwick
Sonoma State University
Student / Developer / IT / Tutor
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Christopher Wagner <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:waggie@waggie.net"><waggie@waggie.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's a fair point, to be sure. I'll also admit that my statement came up
lacking. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. :)
I do think that if the towers don't get upgraded, the old antennas will
never be decommissioned, so upgrading is really the only path to move
towards reducing unneeded EMF, in my opinion. Also, the newer antennas will
be supporting some of the older technologies also (the applicant
specifically stated that the new antennas would also be supporting 3G in
addition to 4G), so while there is a total net increase in radiation (around
800 watts each for the three antennas, not exactly a huge amount), it is
likely that the older equipment can be replaced not too far in the distant
future with more advanced and efficient equipment.
If nothing else, electricity is expensive, and companies are always looking
for ways to make things more efficient. I think that we can at least trust
the companies to find ways to save money on electricity, which will push
them to demand more efficient products from their vendors. We all know
profit margins are the best way to motivate any company.
I'd also like to add that radio technology is nothing new. It has been
improving drastically (Moore's Law in action) in efficiency over the past 60
years. Radio gear can serve a far higher number of users with far less
wattage than was possible even 20 years ago.
To go back to the human health discussion, I know dozens of people that have
been working at close proximity with very high powered radio gear for years
and many of those for decades (some up to 40 or 50 years), at a pretty wide
range of frequencies. None of whom show the slightest ill effects other
than the normal range and occurrence of typical human minor maladies. It's
hardly scientific, but that's my observation and human nature dictates that
I be at least partially influenced by my observations.
Thanks for your input, Steve. I appreciate the insight and discussion.
- Chris
On 12/06/2011 08:47 AM, Steve S. wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Christopher Wagner <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:waggie@waggie.net"><waggie@waggie.net></a>
wrote:
Personally, I support the upgrade, it'll will add 4G coverage in Sebastopol
and despite claims by the opposition, my research indicates this will
actually reduce overall EMF radiation (newer wireless technologies are far
more efficient).
While I'm essentially in agreement with you -- I'd like to see
more/better coverage -- I have to note that ADDING the 4G won't STOP
the older service (at least not for some years... not until pre-4G
phones (and the signal that serves them) fall out of use). The net
load of radiation will thus be higher (for those years)...
:-/
- Steve S.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@nblug.org">talk@nblug.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk">http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk</a>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@nblug.org">talk@nblug.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk">http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@nblug.org">talk@nblug.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk">http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>