- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / Cell phone tower distance new home
. 1 . 2 . >>
Author Message
johnSmith
# Posted: 21 Jul 2013 20:20
Reply 


Moving to a new home (well having it built) in a nice neighborhood. There is a tower 322 meters away from the property. I have taken readings with an RF meter over several days and around the property they vary from .1uW/m2 - 100uW/m2. I still have time to back out of this. How much lower would it be in the house? I really just wish I could know if bedrooms would be safe. I know these levels are not terrible but Im not sure they are safe for kids. Thanks Jon.

johnSmith
# Posted: 21 Jul 2013 20:22
Reply 


I should add that the average reading around the entire property is 1uW/m2 - 3uW/m2

M
# Posted: 22 Jul 2013 22:28
Reply 


You need to measure the readings inside the building - the higher up the room the higher the readings are likely to be, the closer the vertical height of the room to the transmitter height the higher the level will be.
Remember that the radiation will pass through walls, ceilings, the roof.
Pilkington K glass gives the best shielding of windows.

Look up - Our Life in the Main Beam + Christine Kind.

Look up these studies on cancer incidence near phone masts-
The Naila Study + Dr Eger done in GErmany

look up 'Wolf and Wolf ' + phone mast + cancers +study

More general effects of phone mast radiation on health
Look up
phone mast + Santini
phone mast + Dr Gerd Oberfeld
phone mast + Navarro + Spaanish study

Look here at what has been written by Girish Kumar Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai - 400076, INDIA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/151459167/Cell-Phone-Tower-Radiation-Hazards-and-Solutions- Prof-Girish-Kumar-s-Newsletter-July-August-2013

Go to the www.powerwatch.org.uk website and look at the
research studies and the advice there

Go to the council and get the plans for the mast application.
What is the direction of the main beams and what is the 'down tilt' of the antennae?

Personally, I think that it is too close. I am EHS and i cannot tolerate
100 uW/m2. I want to move home,
My choice would be a minimum of 500 metres from a phone mast.
Preferably further away.

We live about 250 metres from the nearest phone mast.
I cannot stand being in the upstairs front bedroom. [0.2 - 0.3 V/m peak reading]
Downstairs much lower readings [<0.02 V/m].
I have to sleep under a canopy in the back bedroom.

M
# Posted: 22 Jul 2013 22:59
Reply 


cont.d
Read what Alasdair Philips has to say
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/masts.asp

and look at the links on his webpages.

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp#masts
Eger H et al, (November 2004) The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer, Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft 17,4 2004
Bortkiewicz A et al, (2004) Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review, Med Pr. 2004;55(4):345-51 [View Author's abstract conclusions] [View on Pubmed]
Oberfeld G et al, (October 2004) The Microwave Syndrome - Further Aspects of a Spanish Study, Conference Proceedings
Wolf R, Wolf D, (April 2004) Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 1(2) April
Navarro EA et al, (December 2003) The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain, Electromagn Biol Med 22(2-3): 161-169
Santini R et al, (September 2003) Symptoms experienced by people in vicinity of base stations: II/ Incidences of age, duration of exposure, location of subjects in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors, Pathol Biol (Paris). 2003 Sep;51(7):412-5
Santini R et al, (July 2002) Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex, Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002 Jul;50(6):369-73

M

M
# Posted: 22 Jul 2013 23:09
Reply 


4G is more penetrative than 2G or 3G.
I do not recommend the Chromax material for shielding against 4G.
I have had to change the material used for my bed shielding.

M
# Posted: 22 Jul 2013 23:17
Reply 


I have taken readings with an RF meter over several days and around the property they vary from .1uW/m2 - 100uW/m2.
I should add that the average reading around the entire property is 1uW/m2 - 3uW/m2
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The peak readings are biologically important, These peak are the reading that the Building Biologists use in Germany.

The ICNIRP guidelines use averages - not a good idea - convenient for the mobile industry and the engineers who support them to make the exposures seem lower.

M
# Posted: 22 Jul 2013 23:25
Reply 


http://www.baubiologie.de/downloads/english/richtwerte_2008_englisch.pdf
Building Biology Guidelines

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 22 Jul 2013 23:32
Reply 


My choice would be a minimum of 500 metres from a phone mast.

I would agree with that; about 500m distance is when I start to feel the effects of a mast. Original industry guidelines/recommendations in the 90s were for a minimum of 300m if near residential areas (obviously never adhered to!), but 500m is a more realistic distance for safety.

100m or less, as inflicted upon me and my family, is unbearable.

EG.

johnSmith
# Posted: 23 Jul 2013 22:27
Reply 


thanks for the input. Its a perfect house too. i went back and measured again today with readings from 1-130s uW/m2. I notice that when covered by the trees on side the readings are all under 1. I guess trees make a significant difference? Assuming my readings were 100-150 max (uW/m2) outside (worst cases), what should I expect inside the house (best/worst case)? I am assuming .1-20? Thats 5 to 10 times less which I believe I read on a website was the average difference. I know that it depends on many factors - this would be a standard new 2 story home with vinyl, etc. in the US.

My current house readings for the house I live in now outside are around .1-4 uW/m2. Inside its .1 unless im near the tv, wifi, etc.

Thanks, for the input thus far. I have been reading some of the medical journals for info and a lot of results seem to go back and forth. Obviously I want to err on the side of caution.

M
# Posted: 24 Jul 2013 00:09
Reply 


http://bioenergy.timleitch.net.nz/mast_dangers/cancer_clusters_uk.htm
Cancer clusters at phone masts

I do not know about building practices in the USA.
But wood and plastic do not offer much protection.
The Kind family lived in a wooden-clad home.

You might ask a building biologist. Are there any where you are?
Or, look up Katharina Gustavs [in Canada] or Wolfgang Maes [in Germany].

Look up articles by
Dr Christine Aschermann.[psychotherapist, psychiatrist,neurologist]
'Observations form a psychotherapy practice on mobile telecommunications and DECT phones'

Also,
1379: A Psychiatrist's observations on Personality changes caused by mobile telecommunications
http://www.emfacts.com/2011/04/1379-a-psychiatrists-observations-on-personality-chang es-caused-by-mobile-telecommunications/

Look up articles and research by Professor Olle Johansson, Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

Bear in mind that mobile industry funded studies tend to find no problems, whilst independently funded studies do tend find adverse effects.

Trees help to block the radiation. They also tend to be damaged by the radiation too, especially if in the main beams from the masts.
One of my conifers has been killed by the radiation from next door's technology - 40 uW/m2 [tree died]. further away the trees are OK.

Look at the BEMRI website
http://www.bemri.org/

http://www.bemri.org/component/docman/cat_view/2-publications/5-biological-effects-of -non-ionizing-radiation/17-wildlife-and-plants.html?Itemid=4

Birds, Bees and Mankind

http://www.bemri.org/component/docman/cat_view/2-publications/5-biological-effects-of -non-ionizing-radiation/13-masts.html?Itemid=4

M

http://bemri.org/hese-uk/en/issues/nature3e83.html?id=bees

ericgeneric
Member
# Posted: 24 Jul 2013 02:32
Reply 


Trees help to block the radiation. They also tend to be damaged by the radiation too, especially if in the main beams from the masts.

And, just like one of yours, they can be killed off by the radiation. Wonder how long before so-called environmental agencies and lobbyists begin to care?

EG.

Anonymous
# Posted: 25 Jul 2013 15:23
Reply 


Thanks for all the info.

I just got some good news about the house if it were to be built, its insulated from head to toe with the silver insulation stuff, meaning the whole house would be shielded from rfs except windows. A few tests ive run with the stuff and my wifi shows it blocks it nearly 95%+. Not that im looking to build a brand new house and have to worry about that, but it was reassuring. my wife is really pushing for it though and i keep going back and forth. Also, since neither of us or our kids is rf sensitive it makes it harder to convince her that this is something we need to think about...and the room we have been sleeping in for years has higher readings as our wifi was in the next room. 300+ yards away to her is good enough and its outside the neighborhood so she doesnt see it when we go check it out.

I have went through tons of the research. There are tons of mixed results, bad studies, good studies, etc. out there so its tough to get through it all. I am a researcher (as a career) so I am going through the studies methodologies and really seeing what their controls where, how they calculated their stats, what their variables were, etc. Then trying to find out if the study was funded or not and by who, was the professor tenured, etc. Its a pretty tough process. From what I have gathered, we do know rf fields cause cancer and such, we just have no idea what levels do it and how long we can be exposed to those levels - and i guess that is really the trick in the whole process and why so many studies could not be replicated. In america our FCC recommendations are ridiculous - only accounting for 6 mins of exposure. Cautious seems to be a better choice than being naive about it. Obviously this stuff is not good. There definitely needs to be better research on the topic, done by tenured professors, who will not get fired for publishing results that upsets anyone, in order for more people to take this seriously. I almost feel like I should do it myself. I now have the testing equipment and know how to conduct a study on it.

Anonymous
# Posted: 26 Jul 2013 00:07
Reply 


The Windows - preferably a solid aluminium frame + whatever is the USA equivalent of Pilkington K double glazing, perhaps/ Pilkington 'K' glass is specially coated and reflects ~99% of the microwave radiation. Alumimium refelcts microwaves.
Be careful, the plastic windows offered by many firms do have aluminium in them, BUT there are slits in the aluminium and microwaves easily pass through slits. I have these windows and I have had to also add a shielding net curtain so that the window frame is covered.

You can use shielding material containing silver or silver coated copper in the material to cover the window- but be aware that the shielding can deteriorate with time.

Look up Barrie Trower on the internet.
There are many of his interviews in the Internet.
Look up his 'Open letter' where he lists frequencies.

The best account of the microwave zapping of the USA Embassy in Moscow during the cold war and the health consequences for the ambassadors and the embassy staff and their families was in a book called 'The Zapping of America'.

The problem is that this stuff us wanted by the military for their weapons.
It earns a lot of money for the industry and the governments.

Also bear in mind the biological effect of the low frequencies added to phone mast, mobile phone, DECT, Wi-fi signals.
Barrie Trower lists some of these.

Better research - another problem is that if a university is getting bags of money for research in the engineering department say, the rector is not going to be best pleased if someone in the psychology department say reports that the radiation is causing health effects. Someone finds adverse effect - the funding then dries up.

Why not contact Professor Olle Johansson, Karolinska Institute in Sweden.
He got his lab taken off him, so he could not do his research.

Do you read German?
Ages ago, there was a conference in Salzburg, organised by Dr GErd Oberfeld I think, and someone at the conference had self-built a house using aluminium coated insulation, This guy, a physicist if i remember, was having health problems because it was not properly sealed and the radiation was still getting in and going round and round.

Anonymous
# Posted: 26 Jul 2013 00:42
Reply 


Until eight years ago, I was not EHS. I had a 3G mobile phone. I used a microwave oven to heat my coffee sometimes. I was not bothered by the police masts or the analogue radio and TV transmitters. I loved my home.
Now, we have a number of phone masts nearby. We have digital TV and radio transmitters. I am now EHS. My life has changed.
The levels have been increasing over the past years to levels that I cannot endure.

Don't assume that you are OK now, that you cannot be affected or that your children cannot be affected. Because your health and livelihood /education can be affected. As has happened to so many people who have contacted this website.

Anonymous
# Posted: 26 Jul 2013 03:36
Reply 


Yea I did see the US embassy in moscow thing. Pretty scary stuff. Definitely seems logical that rf radiation was the cause there.

As far as the military and research and funding, you are absolutely right about getting money taken away, getting on blacklists, etc. That does happen and is real, I have seen it first hand. However, that is why I look for tenured professors research. Tenure in the US protects professors so that if they publish research the university doesnt like (or anyone else), their job is protected. Untenured professors do not have that advantage though. So while they will not get more funding, they are free to publish what they want and their university can do very little to them. I am sure that is different in every country though.

I have begun taking measures against rf radiation though since buying my tester such as turning off wifi at night and such. I cannot believe how bad wifi really is. I get readings from 100uW/m2-500uW/m2 from it. I would imagine people in apartment complexes that have like 50 connections would have extremely high readings. I have never talked on a cell phone with the phone by my head. Ive had a cell for over 10 years and only used speaker phone. I just never trusted it. I cringe when I see kids with them.

Anonymous
# Posted: 26 Jul 2013 12:58
Reply 


I wonder why you would use wi-fi at all in your home when you could use a healthier option of a wired Ethernet connection?

The wi-fi from neighbours's devices causes terrible problems for people who become EHS. It drives them out of their homes. Some end up sleeping in forests/woods in caravans or even tents.

You are a researcher, can you actually find a study that shows that the wi-fi is safe, for everyone?

Bear in mind that tenured academics also need to get funding for their students too. The jobs may be legally protected, but that does not mean that the university does not try to force them out by making life impossible for them.

Anonymous
# Posted: 26 Jul 2013 14:10
Reply 


My house just isnt wired for it and its never bothered us. I never really knew wifi was bad until a few weeks ago when I started researching this and then testing it - i didnt realize it was the same radiation as cell phones. My house levels are extremely low (.1uW/m2) except in the bedrooms where we only go at night. So shutting it off is a pretty good option for us. Apparently where i have been sleeping for the past 3 years is at about 300uW/m2 when the wifi is on. Kinda crazy that I didnt realize it sooner.

I will search through what I have found and post a few good studies both for and against the safety of rf radiation. If you want me to analyze any studies just let me know. I love reading and analyzing it, figuring out the stats, etc.

I am in the university system so I see what happens with research that is not favored by the US gov. Most of the profs I know would have no problem doing and reporting that kind of research and their universities will support them in it - in fact it would make them famous, so they more or less want to be the one that does it. At least that has been my experience in academia at the R1 level. I am sure its different everywhere though.

Anonymous
# Posted: 27 Jul 2013 15:13
Reply 


Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems.

Exp Oncol. 2011 Jun;33(2):62-70.
Long-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems.
Yakymenko I, Sidorik E, Kyrylenko S, Chekhun V.

SourceR.E. Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of NAS of Ukraine, Vasylkivska str. 45, Kyiv 03022, Ukraine. yakymenko@btsau.net.ua

Abstract
In this review we discuss alarming epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of long term exposure to low intensity microwave (MW) radiation. Recently, a number of reports revealed that under certain conditions the irradiation by low intensity MW can substantially induce cancer progression in humans and in animal models. The carcinogenic effect of MW irradiation is typically manifested after long term (up to 10 years and more) exposure. Nevertheless, even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among population living nearby. In addition, model studies in rodents unveiled a significant increase in carcinogenesis after 17-24 months of MW exposure both in tumor-prone and intact animals. To that, such metabolic changes, as overproduction of reactive oxygen species, 8-hydroxi-2-deoxyguanosine formation, or ornithine decarboxylase activation under exposure to low intensity MW confirm a stress impact of this factor on living cells. We also address the issue of standards for assessment of biological effects of irradiation. It is now becoming increasingly evident that assessment of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on physical (thermal) approach used in recommendations of current regulatory bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, requires urgent reevaluation. We conclude that recent data strongly point to the need for re-elaboration of the current safety limits for non-ionizing radiation using recently obtained knowledge. We also emphasize that the everyday exposure of both occupational and general public to MW radiation should be regulated based on a precautionary principles which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure.
PMID: 21716201 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201

Ry
# Posted: 25 Apr 2014 01:49
Reply 


Does anyone have a good suggestion for an accurate and reasonably affordable device to measure ELF and/or EMF? Thanks!

agnes
# Posted: 25 Apr 2014 03:34
Reply 


Hi Ry.
If you are in the UK then look up this device:
http://www.emfields.org/detectors/acoustimeter.asp
It is designed by Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, an old soldier in the fight against the EMR pollution.
We own one, which has replaced all our old meters, and it is very good, you can make it howl, or you can just make it do the lightshow.
It is not cheap to buy, but you can hire it for a week at the time.
But anyway it is worth your while to call emfields and they will recommend what you need.
Best regards.
Agnes Ingvarsdottir.
agnes@mast-victims.org

ES
# Posted: 27 Apr 2014 22:00
Reply 


@ Ry
I agree with Agnes about the Acoustimeter
I am affected badly by mobile phone,DECT phoneand wi-fi emissions.
i became electro hypersensitiveafter having a metal knee replacement.
look up srticles wriitten by DR Christine Aschermann some have been translated from German into English.
Also look up:
German Doctors unite on health one th www. powerwatch.org.uk website.

ES
# Posted: 27 Apr 2014 22:23
Reply 


Ry
It is a mistake to assume that if something is not bothering you now ,that it cannot be harmful.Many of us have had our lives,social contact, employment and health wrecked by the microwave emissions from phone masts, neighbours' wi-fi or workplace wi-fi. many have been driven from our homes because of the exoosures,


look up this documant on DrMagda Havas's website:

http://www.magdahavas.com/austrian-medical-association-guidelines-to-diagnosing-and-t reating-patients-with-electrohypersensitivity/
also have a good look at her website
and here:
http://www.es-uk.info/

http://www.bemri.org/

http://www.radiationresearch.org/

Search for wi- fi + Barrrie Trower

I suuggest that you cintactProfessor Olle Johansson at Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

Anonymous
# Posted: 27 Apr 2014 22:32
Reply 


http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/RCNIRPonWi-FiJune2012.pdf
Professor Yuri Grigoriev on Wi-Fi and health


http://memorygapdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/uk-doctors-letter-wifi-ssita-26-ju ne-2013.pdf

Anonymous
# Posted: 27 Apr 2014 22:40
Reply 


http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php

Mobile Telecommunications and Health
Summary of the ECOLOG study for T-Mobile, 2000

Mobile Telecommunications and Health. Read the full ECOLOG report.

the ECOLOG Study carried out and paid for by T--Mobile that T-Mobile buried until \H|ESE discovered the report and translated it into English

Anonymous
# Posted: 27 Apr 2014 22:43
Reply 


http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20101022-cordless-heart.asp

wifi affects heart rate.

Anonymous
# Posted: 27 Apr 2014 22:46
Reply 


http://www.ezu.at/news/15gruendezursorge_en.pdf

http://www.kompetenzinitiative.net/downloads/wifi-warning-febr.-2013.pdf

Anonymous
# Posted: 28 Apr 2014 16:53
Reply 


http://www.emfacts.com/2014/03/is-wireless-technology-in-swedish-schools-adversely-af fecting-the-kids/

s wireless technology in Swedish schools adversely affecting the kids?

Anthony
# Posted: 23 Sep 2014 05:36
Reply 


I have a similar problem. I have a plot of land with plans of build on it, but now my next door neighbor sold a piece of his plot of land to a cell phone company, and I have a cell tower beside my plot of land.

I want to save my investment and try to build in there. I'm wondering about some material to put at the border of my lot, in front of the antennas, in order to block it and try to reduce significantly the radiation emission to my plot of land.

I would like to know if this idea can be useful. How radiation spreads? if is linear, as light, maybe can be done...

Additionally, I know I will must need to use special shield products for the house, but first I would like to know if I can shield all the plot of land.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Am i safe?
# Posted: 20 Feb 2015 12:45
Reply 


They want to build a tower about 650 meters from where i live. I would be 15 Feet from the top of the tower, also there is a group of pines in the direct line of site about 350 Meters from the tower. However, the trees are just as big as the tower will be. so it won't really block much.

Tower level 545 Feet top, Where i live its 535 feet on the second floor but i am 650 meters away.

Am i safe? I hope the city rejects the build plan.

Its basically right in the middle of homes and schools.

Nearest homes are 50 meters away...and 3 schools 350 meters away.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 21 Feb 2015 00:43
Reply 


Hi Am i safe?,

Its a mobile-phone tower, right?

The main-beam from a mobile-phone tower is tilted towards the ground so the highest signal intensity will typically reach ground level somewhere between 50-250m away from the tower. Studies on towers rarely look for health effects beyond a 400m radius. Given typical conditions for a tower: at a distance of 650m you are well outside its main coverage area.

Have you checked for other towers near you? Consider also that there may be other radiating sources closer to you than the tower, like a neighbours WI-FI, cordless-phone etc. Since you're aware of the tower I'm assuming you don't have any such equipment in your own home (?).

. 1 . 2 . >>
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on forum script miniBB™ © 2001-2022