[NBLUG/talk] Cell Tower Upgrades in Sebastopol

Matt Hardwick matthew.hardwick at gmail.com
Wed Dec 7 14:35:09 PST 2011

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

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

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 <waggie at waggie.net> wrote:
> 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 <waggie at waggie.net>
> 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
> talk at nblug.org
> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at nblug.org
> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

More information about the talk mailing list