<!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">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.
:)<br>
<br>
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 </font><font size="+1">(the applicant specifically stated
that the new antennas would also be supporting 3G in addition to
4G)</font><font size="+1">, 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.</font><big><br>
<br>
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.</big><br>
<br>
<big>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.</big><br>
<br>
<big>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.</big><br>
<br>
<big>Thanks for your input, Steve. I appreciate the insight and
discussion.</big><br>
<br>
<big>- Chris</big><br>
<br>
On 12/06/2011 08:47 AM, Steve S. wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP9UzSAJ3Y=2tO65+v_0G1LUY22tigup-Lr9-YHSnWS93y5sRg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>