NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Misleading article by George Ou regarding cell tower radiation
Even though the title is a less than fair way to discuss my letter, I will
thank you for at least bringing this important debate to the group.
I think there are two important points to be made.
First, Chris O'Brien like so many other cell phone fear mongers only cite
the studies with a few thousand test subjects that hint at dangers which is
truly misleading in my view. Citing large studies with millions of test
subjects is a legitimate point to raise in this debate. What is truly
misleading is when people start counting the number of studies rather than
the quality and size of the studies. I've seen Lawrence Lessig use this
trick in one of his video presentations. But what is more important? 10
studies with 1000 test subjects each or 1 study with millions of test
subjects across different continents?
Two, you state:
"Ou's premise is that under normal conditions your cell phone emits more
radiation when you are farther from a cell site than when you are close by.
True enough, assuming power control is working properly, though I'll note
that it is not uncommon for non-CDMA, non-3G systems to have poor power
control implementations."
I think this misses the point. Even if we assume that power control is
poor, it still supports my thesis that living closer to a tower results in
lower RF exposure. The power level of a weakest cell phone is still 8000
times higher than the strongest cell tower and typical values will be
hundreds of thousands of times different.
The real point is that under a good implementation, the only way to minimize
RF exposure is the use of smaller and more densely packed cell towers.
Taken to the ultimate level, every home and business would have a microcell
which allows cell phones to operate in the 30 milliwatt range like Wi-Fi
gear instead of the 300 milliwatt to 2000 milliwatt range. Furthermore,
these smaller cell towers are easier to disguise such that they are
unobtrusive visually.
George Ou
[ The overall universe of studies so far in this area is pretty
screwy with far too few controls. They also tend not to
differentiate well between different modulation schemes, power
levels, phone placement vis-a-vis the body, and other aspects.
The politics on both sides obscures the facts even more. My
essential view on this is that we need more information, one way
or the other. Better studies over longer periods of time. My gut
feeling is that if there were significant health effects we'd be
starting to see them at statistically obvious levels, but RF
biology is not my area of expertise. Again, we need more and
better data.
My argument is that you appeared to be completely discounting cell
tower radiation simply because it is at lower levels than the
average cell phone, and even though the former impacts non-cell
phone users. In reality, power levels very close to towers are
quite significant, over a broader frequency range (given that they
tend to be running many multiple channels at once, vs. your phone
that is only doing one at once). Granted, CDMA and other spread
spectrum tech muddies this, but *overall* the power density very
near a major tower can be very high over a relatively broad range
of "channels." Is this significant from a health standpoint? I
know one family who lives on the top floor of a building with a
major tower right above them. The power levels there are quite
impressive. Does this matter more than a phone pressed against
the cheek -- or at the waist with a bluetooth transceiver in the
ear? I don't know the answer.
But I do feel that you did a disservice by completely
deemphasizing the cell tower side of the equation, and utterly
dismissing exposure to non-cell phone users by tower facilities.
> The real point is that under a good implementation, the only way
> to minimize
> RF exposure is the use of smaller and more densely packed cell
> towers.
Agreed.
> Taken to the ultimate level, every home and business would have a microcell
> which allows cell phones to operate in the 30 milliwatt range like Wi-Fi
> gear instead of the 300 milliwatt to 2000 milliwatt range. Furthermore,
> these smaller cell towers are easier to disguise such that they are
> unobtrusive visually.
Given sufficient backhaul bandwidth, and nonpredatory pricing, this
could be desirable, and might take us back toward more of the
"mesh" concepts that have been tried in the past. But
centralization of facilities provides more control and often better
cost containment. The backhaul problem is a toughie, as is ongoing
maintenance of distributed facilities and the availability of
alternative facilities when a local node or its connectivity fails.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Lauren Weinstein
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 4:30 PM
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Misleading article by George Ou regarding cell tower
radiation
Misleading article by George Ou regarding cell tower radiation
- - -
Living closer to a cell tower means lower RF exposure:
http://bit.ly/9uS7bo (Digital Society)
- - -
Lauren's comments:
I'm forwarding this misleading item from George Ou not because I
want to get into a discussion of the continuing controversies
regarding the health effects (or non-effects) of microwave radiation
on human biology.
Despite Ou's simplistic assertion about millions of test subjects, the
fact is that tests to date continue to yield conflicting results --
and true longitudinal studies are few and far between. While it is
generally assumed that non-ionizing radiation doesn't create biological
effects beyond "simple heating" -- and studies to date tend to cluster
perceived effects very close to statistical "noise" levels, the
general consensus is that we still have much to learn in this area.
But Ou's piece is an excellent example of a misleading presentation,
through his omission (purposely or not) of a key factor.
Ou's premise is that under normal conditions your cell phone emits
more radiation when you are farther from a cell site than when you are
close by. True enough, assuming power control is working properly,
though I'll note that it is not uncommon for non-CDMA, non-3G systems
to have poor power control implementations.
But you'll note the hook to Ou's piece was protests about a proposed
cell tower near schools.
Therein is the clue to the misdirection in Ou's article. Ou has
chosen to draw comparisons between the radiation received from a cell
tower, vs. the radiation received from a cell phone.
But of course, when you are near a cell tower, you receive radiation
from that tower *whether you are using a cell phone or not*. And when
you use a cell phone near a cell tower, you receive radiation *both*
from the cell phone and the cell tower.
True, you're very likely receiving much more radiation from the phone
than the tower, while the phone is *actively* in use. But what if
you're not a cell phone user? Or you hardly use a cell phone?
Or you're too young to have a cell phone? Or ...
Obviously, if you live near that tower you're getting more radiation
than you would if you weren't living near it, whether you use a cell
phone or not. Parents of primary school children with a nearby cell
tower aren't likely concerned with comparisons with cell phone
radiation, they're concerned with the radiation exposure that all
persons in the vicinity are being exposed to from the tower in
absolute terms -- not relative to cell phone radiation levels. You
can choose not to use a cell phone. But if you're a child in school,
you can't choose not to accept the radiation from a nearby tower.
Now, it may well be the case that time will demonstrate that indeed
there are no negative health effects from these transmissions, either
from cell towers (which tend to run at relatively high power levels),
or from microcells (which tend to run at lower levels), or from cell
phones (which indeed produce high field intensities when on calls, due
to their proximity to the body).
And there is a continuing conflict between cell phone users' demands
for better coverage vs. protests over the placement of cell sites.
But Ou's tactic in this case of using comparative RF levels between
towers and phones, neglecting the entire category of persons near
towers who are (for example) not cell phone users, demonstrably
undercuts his argument that "When a cell tower is closer to you,
you're effectively exposed to much lower levels of radio frequency."
Good try, George.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz