Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Judges Vs Cellular Telecommunications Antenna masts
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/17/2008 Posts: 23,365 Location: Nairobi
|
Kaigangio wrote:McReggae wrote:segemia wrote:McReggae wrote:segemia wrote:McReggae wrote:Largely though....studies all over the world has shown no correllation between these masts and Cancer!!!! Several cases of brain tumors on the side that the cell phone is answered to have been reported severally the world over.  How does the number of reported cases compare to the number of cell phone users world wide, I will use Ole Lenku's words....insignificant!!! There could be as many as 500,000 cell phone tumor cases world wide. The cell phone technology is not a very old technology as such. The effect of the microwave radiation through the brain when one is using the cell phone is cummulative until such a time when the threshold radiation level has been reached which may take years and that is when the locallised human cells have been irrevasibly damaged. My guess is that we will eventually have cancer epidemic as cell phone users will have reached the threshold radiation level in big numbers. Reminds me of when anti radition stickers were being sold in Nairobi and many Kenyans were rushing for them and bandikaing them on his/her phone. The fact is the alarmist reports are always the most spread in this world, the facts exist out there but nobody wanna spread the same: Non-ionizing radio frequency radiation from mobile phones, electric power transmission, and other similar sources have been described as a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. However, studies have not found a consistent link between cell phone radiation and cancer risk.[ @McReggae I did some simple calculations in my original post and showed you why the microwaves radiation from the telecommunications base stations are lethal. The safety level power density was arrived at after extensive tests were carried out on human body cells and this research helped to unearth some numerous hazards associated with the prolonged use of cell phones and radiations from the cellular telecommunications antennas. Let nobody lie to you about these health hazards...the mobile phone providers have enough money to influence any research findings like they have always done in pharmaceutical fields... Could you please provide us with data and calculations to show why working in a heavily radio frequency polluted environment will not cause any kind of ailment... To start off, have you guys the proponents of what the judges are saying 1st remove cancer from the equation? Almost every technology has it's pros and cons and can be shown to be dangerous my friend once you sit down and do the calculations but the fact is that the allegations must be proven after the calculations are done ..."Wewe ni mtu mdogo sana....na mwenye amekuandika pia ni mtu mdogo sana!".
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 1/17/2010 Posts: 142 Location: Twiha
|
Kaigangio wrote:Hi all
bandwidth. Each carrier frequency may transmit between 10 to 20 Watts of power. This means that the operator having several carrier frequencies may transmit 50 to 100 Watts of power. Assuming that each of the local mobile operators have several carrier frequencies and have antennas in the same roof or tower then the total power transmitted is in the range of 200 to 400 Watts. In addition since directional antennas used by mobile operators have a gain of about 17dB (numeric value is 50) meaning that the power transmitted in the main beam direction is several KiloWatts effectively!!!
Consider a Judge seated at a point near the mast (say 15m from the antenna) at the horizontal beam level.
Radiated Microwave Power Density = P = P(t) x G(t)/(4πR2) Watts. Where P(t) is Transmitter power in Watts G(t) is Gain of transmitting antenna and R is the distance from the antenna to the judge.
Power density P = (20W x 50)/(4 x 3.14 x 15 x 15) = 0.353W/m2
This is power for a single carrier by one operator. Let us assume that each of the mobile operators has at least 2 frequency carriers, then the total power density is effectively 0.706 W/m2.
If we model the judge’s body as a cylinder, then his area will be 1.436 square meter (average height 5'6" = 1.67 m and waist 34" = 86 cm).
Power received by the judge is = Power density x Surface area of the judge
Power received by the judge = 2.82W/m2 x 1.436m2 = 4.05Watts
In one hour, microwave energy absorbed will be 4.05Watts x 3600 = 14.6 KW-sec
In 8 hours the power absorbed by the judge is 14.6 x 8 = 116.8KW-sec.
You got an amazing gift with numbers. However you forgot to include the absorbed power by the building walls usually it's around 10db so you need to subtract that.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/27/2007 Posts: 2,768
|
jaggernaut wrote:Kaigangio wrote:FRM2011 wrote:Thanks @kagizzard for the info.
My neighbour has one of those masts right inside his inside his compound.
How about the multichoice dishes? Take a block of apartments with twenty hoses and a similar number of satelite dishes. Ama the emission is negligible? Your multichoice dishes are not transmitters, but receivers... Besides, the signal received through those dishes are too weak to be of any health concern. What about wi-fi which is everywhere nowadays, in offices, homes, cafes, pubs, malls, matatus, buses etc? At the point of reception the wifi signals are not lethal...why??? To start with wi-fi, bluetooth, WLAN, Bluetooth, Microwave oven radio signals are transmitted at an average frequency of 2450MHz... Power received by a wi-fi antenna is given by the expression: P(r) = P(t) x G(t) x G(r) x (λ / (4πR2))2 Where P(t) = Power received by the antenna P(t) = Power transmitted by the transmitting antenna = 20Watts for single carrier frequency G(t) = Transmitting antenna gain Gt = 17 dB G(r) = receiving monopole antenna gain Gt = 2 dB λ = Transmitting antenna signal wavelength R = Distance from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna say 1000m (1km). To calculate the wavelength of the transmitted radio signal we use: λ = c / vc = velocity of light = 300,000,000m/s v = Signal transmission frequency = 2450MHz Therefore λ = 300,000,000/2,450,000,000 = 0.122mPower received is therefore,P(r) = 20w x 50 x 1.584 x (0.122/4 x 3.14 x 1000)2 P(r) = 0.00015mWThis value is pretty small compared to the values computed in the original post...So no worry!!! ...besides, the presence of a safe alone does not signify that there is money inside...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/27/2007 Posts: 2,768
|
XSK wrote:McReggae wrote:segemia wrote:McReggae wrote:Largely though....studies all over the world has shown no correllation between these masts and Cancer!!!! Several cases of brain tumors on the side that the cell phone is answered to have been reported severally the world over. How does the number of reported cases compare to the number of cell phone users world wide, I will use Ole Lenku's words....insignificant!!! @McReggae I agree completely. Watu should stop spreading alarmist info based on little or no data without correlation. While mobile telephony has its own cons, no one has proven any of the allegations peddled against it especially when used outdoors. While its a fact that if you stand directly in front of a Microwave Antenna at high power you will be fried literary by the main lobe. The same is not true for the side lobes which have less power less radiation. Stop contradicting yourself...You agree that if you spent much of your time in the telecommunications antenna main beam transmission path then sooner you will be a mobile cancer cell... You see looking at the radiation pattern of the antenna in horizontal and vertical planes one thing is clear: For a horizontal direction the main lobe half-power beam-width is a massive 65 degrees. For short distances from the antenna, the horizontal sweep is small, but it is not the case with longer distances. For the vertical direction the half-power beam-width is only 6 degrees and the behaviour in that direction is similar to the horizontal plane consideration... However, the several side lobes whose maximum levels are about -13 to -20 dB below the main lobe level are also lethal. Again, depending on the distance from the transmitting antenna, as long as the summation of power density exceeds the recommended one irrespective of whether you are within the side lobes coverage or the main lobe you still on a hazardous ground. ...besides, the presence of a safe alone does not signify that there is money inside...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/17/2008 Posts: 23,365 Location: Nairobi
|
Kaigangio wrote:XSK wrote:McReggae wrote:segemia wrote:McReggae wrote:Largely though....studies all over the world has shown no correllation between these masts and Cancer!!!! Several cases of brain tumors on the side that the cell phone is answered to have been reported severally the world over. How does the number of reported cases compare to the number of cell phone users world wide, I will use Ole Lenku's words....insignificant!!! @McReggae I agree completely. Watu should stop spreading alarmist info based on little or no data without correlation. While mobile telephony has its own cons, no one has proven any of the allegations peddled against it especially when used outdoors. While its a fact that if you stand directly in front of a Microwave Antenna at high power you will be fried literary by the main lobe. The same is not true for the side lobes which have less power less radiation. Stop contradicting yourself...You agree that if you spent much of your time in the telecommunications antenna main beam transmission path then sooner you will be a mobile cancer cell... You see looking at the radiation pattern of the antenna in horizontal and vertical planes one thing is clear: For a horizontal direction the main lobe half-power beam-width is a massive 65 degrees. For short distances from the antenna, the horizontal sweep is small, but it is not the case with longer distances. For the vertical direction the half-power beam-width is only 6 degrees and the behaviour in that direction is similar to the horizontal plane consideration... However, the several side lobes whose maximum levels are about -13 to -20 dB below the main lobe level are also lethal. Again, depending on the distance from the transmitting antenna, as long as the summation of power density exceeds the recommended one irrespective of whether you are within the side lobes coverage or the main lobe you still on a hazardous ground. @Kaigz, so you still don't agree that there is no documented proven relationship between the mobiles phone radiation and cancer? ISORAIT!!!! ..."Wewe ni mtu mdogo sana....na mwenye amekuandika pia ni mtu mdogo sana!".
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/27/2007 Posts: 2,768
|
McReggae wrote:Kaigangio wrote:McReggae wrote:segemia wrote:McReggae wrote:segemia wrote:McReggae wrote:Largely though....studies all over the world has shown no correllation between these masts and Cancer!!!! Several cases of brain tumors on the side that the cell phone is answered to have been reported severally the world over. How does the number of reported cases compare to the number of cell phone users world wide, I will use Ole Lenku's words....insignificant!!! There could be as many as 500,000 cell phone tumor cases world wide. The cell phone technology is not a very old technology as such. The effect of the microwave radiation through the brain when one is using the cell phone is cummulative until such a time when the threshold radiation level has been reached which may take years and that is when the locallised human cells have been irrevasibly damaged. My guess is that we will eventually have cancer epidemic as cell phone users will have reached the threshold radiation level in big numbers. Reminds me of when anti radition stickers were being sold in Nairobi and many Kenyans were rushing for them and bandikaing them on his/her phone. The fact is the alarmist reports are always the most spread in this world, the facts exist out there but nobody wanna spread the same: Non-ionizing radio frequency radiation from mobile phones, electric power transmission, and other similar sources have been described as a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. However, studies have not found a consistent link between cell phone radiation and cancer risk.[ @McReggae I did some simple calculations in my original post and showed you why the microwaves radiation from the telecommunications base stations are lethal. The safety level power density was arrived at after extensive tests were carried out on human body cells and this research helped to unearth some numerous hazards associated with the prolonged use of cell phones and radiations from the cellular telecommunications antennas. Let nobody lie to you about these health hazards...the mobile phone providers have enough money to influence any research findings like they have always done in pharmaceutical fields... Could you please provide us with data and calculations to show why working in a heavily radio frequency polluted environment will not cause any kind of ailment... To start off, have you guys the proponents of what the judges are saying 1st remove cancer from the equation? Almost every technology has it's pros and cons and can be shown to be dangerous my friend once you sit down and do the calculations but the fact is that the allegations must be proven after the calculations are done @McReggae just look at the the location of the said telecommunications antennas in Elgon Place building....  If you refer to my original computations you will understand why I would also not occupy an office in that building... ...besides, the presence of a safe alone does not signify that there is money inside...
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/17/2010 Posts: 572
|
McReggae wrote:Kaigangio wrote:XSK wrote:McReggae wrote:segemia wrote:McReggae wrote:Largely though....studies all over the world has shown no correllation between these masts and Cancer!!!! Several cases of brain tumors on the side that the cell phone is answered to have been reported severally the world over. How does the number of reported cases compare to the number of cell phone users world wide, I will use Ole Lenku's words....insignificant!!! @McReggae I agree completely. Watu should stop spreading alarmist info based on little or no data without correlation. While mobile telephony has its own cons, no one has proven any of the allegations peddled against it especially when used outdoors. While its a fact that if you stand directly in front of a Microwave Antenna at high power you will be fried literary by the main lobe. The same is not true for the side lobes which have less power less radiation. Stop contradicting yourself...You agree that if you spent much of your time in the telecommunications antenna main beam transmission path then sooner you will be a mobile cancer cell... You see looking at the radiation pattern of the antenna in horizontal and vertical planes one thing is clear: For a horizontal direction the main lobe half-power beam-width is a massive 65 degrees. For short distances from the antenna, the horizontal sweep is small, but it is not the case with longer distances. For the vertical direction the half-power beam-width is only 6 degrees and the behaviour in that direction is similar to the horizontal plane consideration... However, the several side lobes whose maximum levels are about -13 to -20 dB below the main lobe level are also lethal. Again, depending on the distance from the transmitting antenna, as long as the summation of power density exceeds the recommended one irrespective of whether you are within the side lobes coverage or the main lobe you still on a hazardous ground. @Kaigz, so you still don't agree that there is no documented proven relationship between the mobiles phone radiation and cancer? ISORAIT!!!! herein lies the folly of the information age 'One headache for famous medieval holy people was that someone might murder you to acquire your body parts for the relics trade'
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/27/2007 Posts: 2,768
|
mzeiya411 wrote:Kaigangio wrote:Hi all
bandwidth. Each carrier frequency may transmit between 10 to 20 Watts of power. This means that the operator having several carrier frequencies may transmit 50 to 100 Watts of power. Assuming that each of the local mobile operators have several carrier frequencies and have antennas in the same roof or tower then the total power transmitted is in the range of 200 to 400 Watts. In addition since directional antennas used by mobile operators have a gain of about 17dB (numeric value is 50) meaning that the power transmitted in the main beam direction is several KiloWatts effectively!!!
Consider a Judge seated at a point near the mast (say 15m from the antenna) at the horizontal beam level.
Radiated Microwave Power Density = P = P(t) x G(t)/(4πR2) Watts. Where P(t) is Transmitter power in Watts G(t) is Gain of transmitting antenna and R is the distance from the antenna to the judge.
Power density P = (20W x 50)/(4 x 3.14 x 15 x 15) = 0.353W/m2
This is power for a single carrier by one operator. Let us assume that each of the mobile operators has at least 2 frequency carriers, then the total power density is effectively 0.706 W/m2.
If we model the judge’s body as a cylinder, then his area will be 1.436 square meter (average height 5'6" = 1.67 m and waist 34" = 86 cm).
Power received by the judge is = Power density x Surface area of the judge
Power received by the judge = 2.82W/m2 x 1.436m2 = 4.05Watts
In one hour, microwave energy absorbed will be 4.05Watts x 3600 = 14.6 KW-sec
In 8 hours the power absorbed by the judge is 14.6 x 8 = 116.8KW-sec.
You got an amazing gift with numbers. However you forgot to include the absorbed power by the building walls usually it's around 10db so you need to subtract that. I quite agree that there is going to be some attenuation, but if I saw that building properly the sides facing the antennas have a lot of glass whose attenuation capabilities to radio frequencies is almost nil!! However considering the main beam path in the vertical direction, the floor slab may offer some significant attenuation. So, what happens if a judge is seated on a space between two floor slabs where the main transmission signal beam path from the antenna is having no barrier? ...besides, the presence of a safe alone does not signify that there is money inside...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/14/2007 Posts: 4,152
|
In the next 1 or 2 years there will be so many new buildings around that area of Upper Hill, i think Telkom will most probably be requested to relocate those masts from that area.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/27/2007 Posts: 2,768
|
TAZ wrote:In the next 1 or 2 years there will be so many new buildings around that area of Upper Hill, i think Telkom will most probably be requested to relocate those masts from that area. The Chief Justice must be a wazua member: Okey Judges! Your fears are valid!Amefunguka macho!!! ...besides, the presence of a safe alone does not signify that there is money inside...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/27/2007 Posts: 2,768
|
ION: Do you know falks that you are supposed to use your cell phone for a maximum of 24 minutes per day!!! That is the safety window beyond which the radiation from your cell phone starts to have a finite effect on the fluids in our bodies and especially the brain... ...besides, the presence of a safe alone does not signify that there is money inside...
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/18/2011 Posts: 12,069 Location: Kianjokoma
|
Thanks @kaigz for the info...you are a true warrior But you've scared us! 24mins?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/18/2011 Posts: 12,069 Location: Kianjokoma
|
Quote:Experts consulted by France considered it was mandatory that main antenna axis not to be directly in front of a living place at a distance shorter than 100 metres.[74] This recommendation was modified in 2003[75] to say that antennas located within a 100-metre radius of primary schools or childcare facilities should be better integrated into the cityscape and was not included in a 2005 expert report.[76] The Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale currently says that there is no demonstrated short term effect of electromagnetic fields on health, but that there are open questions for long term effects, and that it's easy to reduce exposure via technological improvements
|
|
|
Rank: New-farer Joined: 9/9/2013 Posts: 91
|
@kaigangio, any evidence to support the 24 minute daily recommendation ? If you can quote a study published by a reputable researcher, itasaidia.
|
|
|
Rank: New-farer Joined: 10/3/2013 Posts: 15
|
Those masts have been there for ages. The judiciary should get another building. Also, if ordinary mortals were to occupy this house would there have been this standoff?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/2/2007 Posts: 8,776 Location: Cameroon
|
Kaigangio wrote:ION: Do you know falks that you are supposed to use your cell phone for a maximum of 24 minutes per day!!!
That is the safety window beyond which the radiation from your cell phone starts to have a finite effect on the fluids in our bodies and especially the brain... Wueh TULIA.........UFUNZWE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/2/2007 Posts: 8,776 Location: Cameroon
|
jaggernaut wrote:Kaigangio wrote:FRM2011 wrote:Thanks @kagizzard for the info.
My neighbour has one of those masts right inside his inside his compound.
How about the multichoice dishes? Take a block of apartments with twenty hoses and a similar number of satelite dishes. Ama the emission is negligible? Your multichoice dishes are not transmitters, but receivers... Besides, the signal received through those dishes are too weak to be of any health concern. What about wi-fi which is everywhere nowadays, in offices, homes, cafes, pubs, malls, matatus, buses etc? Im wondering whether I've been frying my kids in the house with this wi-fi thingy transmitting at 10mbps  TULIA.........UFUNZWE!
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Judges Vs Cellular Telecommunications Antenna masts
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|