Eric Hanson wrote:EMF is dangerous at specific frequencies and wavelengths. EMF from Cell towers are nowhere near those wavelengths. That EMF will simply pass through your body like it is not even there and not interact with the matter in your body.
bruce Fine wrote:thinking more about this do any of us even know what effects these signals can have on human or wildlife cells?
don't know if you ever saw pictures of people holding brightly glowing fully lit fluorescent tubes standing under high intensity power lines, these bulbs lit by the energy from power lines flowing through the air. but it is a thing and people who live under these types of power lines have been adversely effected.
John Young wrote:Are you sure it's a cell tower, and are there any other antennas on it? You could review the types of antennas in the directionality of them and where there pointed to know whether or not there actually any signals being sent through your property. Or if it's only cell signals get someone with phones from the carriers on the tower to see how many bars they have. Many times properties really close to the cell towers have little to no signal because the antennas are more out than down in their directionality and aren't picking up sending directly below. I have a relative with that exact problem.
If it really worries you, build a house with a layer of reflective insulation behind the siding, a downside to that easy won't be able to use your cell phone inside unless you stand in front of a window.
I personally am not worried about the waves coming off of the cell towers harming me in any way shape or form, and if I was really worried about those I would be terrified of being in a city or the suburbs with everyone's Wi-Fi routers all over the place and a larger collection of TV stations and radio stations being broadcast non discriminately in all directions. I would much rather at that point be in the rural setting with one tower to worry about
At one farm, where there are no cell phone towers, there are abundant signs of wildlife: e.g. migrating and resident birds, bats, small and large mammals, and insects including bees However, at the other farm with a cell-phone tower located adjacent to the berry patch, there are virtually no signs of wildlife: tracks, scat, feathers, etc. Here the berries on bush go uneaten by birds and insects while the ripened berries that have fallen to the ground are going uneaten by animals: turkey, fox, and other wildlife
Eric Hanson wrote:You are in a tough position. The land is there in an approximate area you want.
Douglas Alpenstock wrote:A thought: a cell tower could be a perfect nesting habitat, or hunting perch, for a small raptor like a Merlin or Cooper's Hawk (or your local resident feathered munchie). No surprise, any small bird with sense would leave town. I have seen how these small raptors create a nesting desert, which is why I make my displeasure known until they leave. Ambush hunters don't like some cranky resident gardener clapping two chunks of hardwood plan together (supersonic crack) messing up their schtick.
John F Dean wrote:While I agree with Eric regarding the tangible risks, why buy land that others might find questionable when
It comes time to sell? For that reason, I would not buy it.
Chris Kott wrote:Hey folks. I have read that some people have given their houses tinfoil hats, or rather made rudimentary Faraday Cages in the plaster of their walls and ceilings. I would love to test their efficacy at blocking EMF with the aforementioned modded oscilloscope.
I was wondering how that modded oscilloscope would react to the electrical wiring of a standard, code-built house. Should we be rethinking how we use electricity in our homes?
M. Phelps wrote:when i did highrise window cleaning i would encounter transmitters which were fenced off on the roof with warnings not to cross.
warnings of dangerous electromagnetic radiation
it was piece work so to get the job done i had to cross that barrier
i set up as quick as possible and got over the edge of the building
it had me thinking on the way down... i hope the persons bed is not in that corner of the room!
David Wieland wrote:As has also been noted, the cell transmission antennas are directional, and if the antennas had been installed above inhabited space, there would likely be no danger at all. I live in a rural area beyond cable and get my Internet service via wireless "hub" that connects to a cellular network. The nearby tower, less than 500 meters away and just tall enough to need a blinking red light, is visible through the trees. I've put the hub in my second story office, more in the "beam", and get only 3 bars (out of 5).
When the tower was first proposed over a dozen years ago, I helped canvas the neighborhood with a petition to our council to block the application, citing primarily the Precautionary Principle. (I even read a paper on the subject during the petition period.) But the truth is that the level of radiation is so low that the tower poses no hazard -- and has the great benefit of enabling my access to Permies.com! I've also learned about hormetic effects and that humans evolved in a sea of radiation. Holding a cell phone to your head for long periods every day might expose your brain to risky levels of EMF, but I'd have no concerns about your preferred property being the least bit risky, and I doubt any future purchasers would either.
David Wieland wrote:I didn't check your math
(I also noticed a misleading statement there:
"IARC (International agency for research on Cancer) declared radio frequency radiation (RFR) to be cancer causing in May 2011. "
IARC merely identifies hazards, that is, things that might cause cancer. Risk depends on exposure. A swimming pool is a hazard; the risk of drowning depends on other factors.)