Optus/Vodafone Are Planning to Build a Mobile Phone Base Station Tower on Top of My Apartment Building

kongkee on 25/02/2019 - 10:25
Last edited 25/02/2019 - 10:35

Hi,

Should I be concern about the overall exposure to radiation or electro magnetic energy (EME)? It would be mounted on the rooftop and I live on the top floor. So I'm directly below the tower, it's also more concerning that I have a baby on the way.

On the other hand, a boost on the internet speed would be a welcome change as we are struggling here. But of course if it's health hazard, I'd rather live with a slow internet.

I found their website and this is the report: https://www.rfnsa.com.au/embed-public-report/718548

Photo of the proposed work: https://imgur.com/h15V5EV

Thanks everyone!

Internet

Comments

  • Nugs on 25/02/2019 - 10:27
    -5

    I'd move
    given things that are at one time considered safe, turn out not to be…
    .

    • iDroid on 26/02/2019 - 13:21
      +16

      I'd expect living directly "under" the tower is the safest option and least likely place to receive any energy from it.

      • gezza90 on 26/02/2019 - 21:56
        +5

        ^this.
        I worked as a project engineer on deployment of 4G monopololes and colocation on rooftops around 2011-2012. Seen many EME reports and if you're directly underneath it, you are fine.

    • frewer on 26/02/2019 - 14:32

      These doctors were testified against the roll out of 5G tower in the U.S

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qt5B39LB7c&t=13s
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov1iskVvFSs
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY - This talk was at the University of Melbourne

      INTERNATIONAL APPEAL Stop 5G
      https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal

      I just leave it here so people can make up their mind.

      • This Guy on 27/02/2019 - 17:12
        +1

        When a professional presents a talk, they usually provide their reliant qualifications and body of work on the first slide. Why?

        Dr. Sharon Goldberg is a Obstetrician-gynecologist
        Senator Patrick Colbeck was an Aerospace Engineer
        Dr Devra Davis in an epidemiologist with a Masters of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University but is a Doctor of Science, not Medicine

        Would you expect a gynecologist to build a plane or an engineer to look after vaginal trauma? Both experts are very smart, passionate people, but not qualified in this field to talk publicly as an expert in biological radiation absorption.

        Dr Davis is an epidemiologist. Dr Davis is highly qualified at finding areas of concern that need more research and influencing public policy. Many points were valid if you see her presentation as a call for further research. The problem is we don't deliberately kill people for science, so finding the exact point where non-ionising radiation becomes deadly is not feasible. Further research is not feasible.

        When we can't test driectly, we look for correlations, like an increase in cancer that grew the same way cell phone adoption grew. We then look for a cause. For example, there is a correlation between health problems and cellphone production, but those have been shown to be due to working conditions and tech recycling

        Last time I checked, limits for non-ionising radiation exposure were set 200x less than what could cause effect (meaning cause localised heat) in an adult (like Dr Davis states). Non-ionising radiation has not been shown to cause cell defects, unlike ionising radiation, which is heavily regulated by ARPANSA

        As limits are set for exposure, cell towers will emit significantly more non-ionising radiation than a phone. However, when properly engineered, a cell tower will not breach exposure limits unless someone climbs a tower while it is on

        • frewer on 28/02/2019 - 13:07

          Many points were valid if you see her presentation as a call for further research

          Agree, but $$$ first, health last …

          The problem is we don't deliberately kill people for science

          Making decision based of lack of information is also dangerous.

          non-ionising radiation becomes deadly is not feasible

          Active Denial System (V-MADS)

          Governments dont obligate to the well being of their citizen any more. Not even when you are about to lose your house. In Australia, politician sworn loyalty to the Queen, not the people ( Australian ). What I'm doing is simply giving OP more option to consider.

    • vid_ghost on 26/02/2019 - 14:39
      +5

      A comm's engineer in my company said its not an issue at all.
      My personal views are to sell before the towers go up. The towers are not going to make you sick but you are going to get sick from all the STRESS and worry thinking about what the long term effects will be. :) Your also more likely to get sick from what your eat or drink.. sugar and too many processed foods is a easy way to make your body ill.

    • Solarlux on 26/02/2019 - 16:43
      +4

      Nah just make some alfoil hats and you'll be right!

    • RefusdClassification on 28/02/2019 - 07:02
      +1

      This happens frequently. Things thought to be safe turn out to be harmful in the long term. Tabacco is one example. Lots of pharmaceuticals have been pulled when long term studies demonstrate increased health risk (eg the analgesic Vioxx). Once upon a time prefontal lobotomies were deemed a safe way to cure mental illness. Studies have found that oldies in nursing homes who are given antipsychotics are 250% more likely to drop dead than residents who are drugged.

      I recommend attaching some C4 blocks to the tower and watching the fireworks. It is sickening the way people have no say about what happens in their environment. Corporations, developers and councils can get away with whatever the want; the people have no voice.

  • JimmyF on 25/02/2019 - 10:34
    -3

    Its not just Optus, its Optus and Vodafone. Update title please.

    • kongkee on 25/02/2019 - 10:35
      +1

      Done.

  • Seraphin7 on 25/02/2019 - 10:39
    +1

    Where would you like them to build the things? They need to go somewhere and therefore they will always be on top of someone's building/outside someone's window/over the road from someone's work, etc.

    • kongkee on 25/02/2019 - 10:45

      I don't mind building them on my rooftop as long as it's safe. But if not then that's why I'm concerned.

      • SnoozeAndLose on 25/02/2019 - 14:49
        +1

        it is hard to tell it is safe or not same as using mobile phone these day, it need time like years to prove some disease is EME related but there are people suffering.

    • itsdougie on 26/02/2019 - 18:16

      build it in space preferably

      • Yawhae on 27/02/2019 - 10:12

        Ah, bringing back high latency phone calls. Imagine having to wait a couple of seconds each tim someone says something.

    • JIMB0 on 26/02/2019 - 21:36
      +3

      As long as that someone is someone else.

      • BartholemewH on 27/02/2019 - 05:35
        +1

        Age old case of NOMRT (Not On My Roof Top).

  • Presence on 25/02/2019 - 10:46

    I assume you rent? What happened when you asked your landlord/real estate agent about it?

    • kongkee on 25/02/2019 - 10:46
      +1

      Nope, I own the unit.

      • crashloaded on 25/02/2019 - 13:22
        +40

        Are your BC levies going to be reduced due to BC receiving some sort of payment for leasing the area?

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 28/02/2019 - 09:37
          +5

          I logged in to post exactly this. Carriers pay HUGE dollars to longterm lease locations like this. Contact your owners corp. If you own the unit you will want to know where this money is going.

  • dcep on 25/02/2019 - 10:53
    +10

    if you're directly under then i don't think you'll get the signal

    • Yawhae on 27/02/2019 - 10:13
      +4

      No risk no reward.

  • scotty on 25/02/2019 - 11:25
    +7

    Don't know much about the health implication (assuming that it's safe). Apartment buildings with telco towers usually have lower strata though, which is nice to have.

  • apoy98 on 25/02/2019 - 11:27
    +25

    You'll be fine. There's every sort of radiation everywhere. If you're afraid of the "radiation" from telecom signals, look at your phone now. Is it connected to a network? How many signal bars does it have? Do you have WiFi at home? At work? Your favorite cafe/resto? Do you use bluetooth devices? A microwave? TV? Still alive? Yeah.. that's what i thought.. you'll be fine.

    • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 11:37
      +7

      Yes, you are correct, however radiation levels from power pylons and cell towers are multitudes higher than your average wifi or TV signals if you live near it compared to someone that lives say 2kms away. Radiation power dissipates exponentially, so that means, there is not much difference between radiation power between someone that is say 2kms out and 3kms out, but if you are under the tower, you would be experiencing radiation levels exponentially higher. Yes, exponentially and for more hours than any other place other than work. That is why it is also not a good idea to sit next to the wifi router for extended periods of time.

      • apoy98 on 25/02/2019 - 18:23
        +11

        https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu…
        boop!
        Also apparently.. making a call exposes you to "radiation" 100 times more you'll get from a tower..
        TV signals are stronger too.. that's why you only have so much network antennas.. but have hundreds of base stations..

        Still being non-ionized radiation though…

        but!

        btdubs.. i used to be on the same camp as you, but i've done my research on the topic.

        still..

        you won't believe me anyway…

        • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 19:03
          +1

          Thanks for article, I am sure everyone can agree that being in cellphone coverage area does not cause cancer since you are also exposed to wifi, TV, radio, etc. It is another matter altogether if you are right next to it or under the tower though. All I am saying is that being close to the tower will expose you to exponentially more radiation than an average home say 500 metres away because of how radio signals work.

          We all can't say for sure how much radiation OP will get, because it really depends on how the antennas are being operated at.

          I guess it is up to OP to decide.

          • Dovrick on 26/02/2019 - 17:06
            +2

            @geek001:

            Thanks for article, I am sure everyone can agree that being in cellphone coverage area does not cause cancer since you are also exposed to wifi, TV, radio, etc. It is another matter altogether if you are right next to it or under the tower though. All I am saying is that being close to the tower will expose you to exponentially more radiation than an average home say 500 metres away because of how radio signals work.

            Radio signals from these towers physically bloom, It is difficult to describe but because of absorption and occlusion along with not having a direct line of sight and the source point being physically elevated, being underneath the broadcast point is significantly less exposure than being 100M away. Indeed if you read the RFNSA public report you can easily see the falloff.

            These are not perfectly spherical broadcasters instead they are somewhat rectangular blocks interlayered to face outwards for best quality of reception at distances of 150-300m. The radio waves will, of course, penetrate downwards but not anywhere near as extreme as you describe.

            We all can't say for sure how much radiation OP will get, because it really depends on how the antennas are being operated at.

            This also is present in the report linked in OP's post.

            This type of radiation is not dangerous in the least. Radio waves, in general, are low energy and diffuse. It takes high energy radiation brought on by the molecular decay of radioactive or partially radioactive elements to generate ionizing radiation and to do any real immediate damage based on exposure.

            A short list of things that are more dangerous from a radiology perspective.

            A Banana (Yup potassium has a half-life)

            Flying above 14,000 feet (More than double at 35,000 feet.) Solar radiation is a bitch.

            Granite Blocks or Kitchen Benches.

            X-rays

            Brazil nuts….

            • geek001 on 26/02/2019 - 22:23
              -3

              @Dovrick: Thanks for the info, I must have missed the report link. I will admit maybe cancer is a bit alarmist, but you cannot deny that there are adverse effects to living near cell towers or power pylons.

              Please read this the health risks section on this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

      • [Deactivated] on 26/02/2019 - 17:04
        +2

        "That is why it is also not a good idea to sit next to the wifi router for extended periods of time."

        Says who? What is 'extended'? How close is 'next to'?

      • This Guy on 27/02/2019 - 17:21

        Cell tower antennas are shaped so that no power is wasted below the tower.

        I have had no signal under a cell tower before.

        OP's site report states that the percentage exposure limit is 1.46% upto 50m away and 4.29% to 4.62% between 50 to 200 metres.

        I would expect most of OP's exposure to be reflected from buildings.

    • SnoozeAndLose on 25/02/2019 - 14:27
      -8

      I think you will be panic when you are the one living under the tower. It is like 100x or 1000x stronger then your mobile and wifi at home. if the signal is not strong enough then there should be tower in every building.

      • spaceflight on 26/02/2019 - 21:59
        +1

        under the tower. It is like 100x or 1000x stronger then your mobile and wifi at home

        Being under a tower gets you virtually no signal from that tower. The signal doesn't fall down to the ground.

        The total tower power my be 10000x stronger than your phone however that signal goes over a very large area from the tower so that every point only receives a small amount of power.

        Your phone emits more power than you receive from the tower.

    • solidussnake on 26/02/2019 - 13:57
      +4

      Try working in a store like JB Hif for 5 years !! Every TV, speaker and computer is always on each day and connected to the wifi or B.T lol

  • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 11:28
    -8

    I am sure the radiation will be within safety levels, however if I were you, I would still move. I live out in the suburbs, it took me a while to find a place because it is hard to find a place not near power pylons or cell towers. People will say I am paranoid, and I accept that, but at the end of the day, I have to do what I think is best for my family.

    • abb on 25/02/2019 - 11:33
      +4

      a place not near power pylons

      Do you have electricity wired into your house?

      • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 11:38
        -2

        Studies have shown that children living within 50 metres of power pylons have an increased risk of developing acute leukaemia. If you don't believe me, google it yourself.

        • abb on 25/02/2019 - 11:49
          +12

          Right, but by avoiding my question (hint: inverse square law) you're getting closer to the more likely cause - some other factor, as noted by the author of the first such study I found.

          https://www.bmj.com/content/330/7503/1290.abstract

          the relation may be due to chance or confounding.

          Two possible causes off-hand: houses near ugly power lines cost less money (money is strongly correlated with good health outcomes), power lines are more common in cities (cities tend to have much worse air quality than rural areas)

          Note also, if you can see it (I have access to the journal so I don't know if it's visible to the general public), on the "Responses" tab, you can see a well-reasoned claim that the apparently-increased risk is rather a glitch of data analysis.

          Happy to have a quick glance at any other study you can reference.

          • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 12:49

            @abb: Yes, I do have electricity wired into my house, the difference is the power running through my wires is much less than the power running through the wires on power pylons.

            The study you linked to only studies children living within 600m of the power lines, which will average out the results due to "inverse square law" as you pointed out. No study is perfect, the 50m one that I referenced to previously is the one in California, and it only picks children who are born in California but do not take into account if the children are still living near power lines when diagnosed. The actual number could be bigger or smaller, who knows. I do concede that the increased risk is small, and low frequency EMF may or may not cause leukemia, but I can say for certain that there are negative neurobehavioural effects on children living near power lines.

            Anyway, there is no incentive for me to to convince anyone of anything. I could be proven wrong eventually, but I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

            • HighAndDry on 25/02/2019 - 13:30
              +4

              @geek001: Great, because OP is talking about a mobile phone base station and not power pylons going up on their apartment block.

              • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 14:11
                +1

                @HighAndDry: Cell towers and power lines both emit electromagnetic radiation, the difference is power lines emit low frequency whereas cell towers emit high frequency. You can argue that anything that uses power also emit electromagnetic radiation. The difference is how much. There are some sources that would be not practical to avoid if I wanted to live in a urban area, ie. cell reception, TV reception, radio signals, wifi etc. but I would still try to minimise my exposure as much as possible.

                • HighAndDry on 25/02/2019 - 14:17
                  +2

                  @geek001:

                  electromagnetic radiation

                  You realise this includes light too?

                  the difference is power lines emit low frequency whereas cell towers emit high frequency.

                  The frequency of the EM waves is incredibly important, because that determines if its infra-red (radiant heat), visible light, UV (sunburns!), microwaves (will boil you alive, literally), or very high freqs (X-rays, gamma rays, etc) that'll give you cancer.

                  There are some sources that would be not practical to avoid if I wanted to live in a urban area

                  There are some sources that would not be practical to avoid unless you lived in a cave.

                  • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 14:19

                    @HighAndDry: You are obviously much more knowledgeable than I am. My point is, would you live under a cell tower?

                    • HighAndDry on 25/02/2019 - 14:24
                      +1

                      @geek001: Depends on the situation, but it wouldn't be a deal-breaker.

                      Just to elaborate further - radio waves are lower-frequency than visible light and carry less energy than visible light. The only possible (and I'm using that word very generously and broadly) is around wavelengths approximating the size of water molecules, which might be able to heat water, including the water inside your body.

                      But the most dangerous source of that is unsurprisingly, microwave ovens, and I've never heard of anyone boycotting those due to fears about electromagnetic radiation.

                      • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 14:40
                        +1

                        @HighAndDry: Well, I guess everyone's risk tolerance is different.

                        Actually, I have heard of people not having microwaves because of that very reason! Maybe you can cite your source. AFAIK, microwaves are only dangerous if the shielding is damaged somehow.

                        • HighAndDry on 25/02/2019 - 14:44
                          -1

                          @geek001:

                          AFAIK, microwaves are only dangerous if the shielding is damaged somehow.

                          That is correct, but this applies to all EM. You won't get a sunburn if you're properly shielded from UV radiation, for example.

                          • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 14:48

                            @HighAndDry: The problem is, you get the same amount of shielding living under a cell tower as someone who lives 2kms away from it. According to the inverse square law that @abb pointed out earlier, you WILL get more radiation living under it. Surely you can't dispute maths.

                            • HighAndDry on 25/02/2019 - 14:55
                              +5

                              @geek001: That's only if the tower radiates equally strongly in all directions and if the EM radiation is dangerous in the first place.

                              1. The towers don't - it'd be incredibly wasteful to be broadcasting mobile phone signals directly down or up, and so they don't do this, and

                              2. There's no research to support that EM radiation in the mobile phones 2G/3G/4G spectrums are at all harmful even at high strengths.

                              The inverse square law also means that your mobile phone next to your head is also potentially far stronger than a radio tower even a few tens of meters away, not to mention through various layers of building structure.

                              • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 16:09
                                -2

                                @HighAndDry: Mate, You can't be serious comparing the power emitted by a phone to a cell tower? The other difference is that I only hold my phone to my head maybe a few minutes a day but the cell tower is there emitting radiation ALL the time.

                                Anyway, let's agree to disagree. I did say "if I were you" in answering OP's question, so in your case, I take it you wouldn't be concerned at all.

                                • Drow on 26/02/2019 - 13:16

                                  @geek001: Phones do emit pretty well constantly, they're always seeking but just at lower power levels.

                                  Also consider for a signal from the tower to be strong enough to reach you, how strong does the signal from the phone need to be to reach back to the tower?

                                  The difference is that the tower is communicating with thousands of devices simultaneously so of course the overall power output is higher.

                                  At this point we live in a sea of invisible signals and either we'll all get cancer or none of us will get cancer (from the signals).

                                  • T1OOO on 27/02/2019 - 23:50

                                    @Drow: Dosnt work that way. Natural selection
                                    And gene mutation means those with a resistance will live on the others die off.

                      • AEKaBeer on 28/02/2019 - 08:06

                        @HighAndDry: Microwaves are built to be Faraday cages, the waves aren't getting out unless their is a failure in the design.

                        • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2019 - 10:02

                          @AEKaBeer: @AEKabeer Microwaves are built to be Faraday cages, the waves aren't getting out unless their is a failure in the design.

                          Not quite. Faraday cages only attenuate the waves, they can't 100% prevent them getting out. The standard attenuation of a microwave oven is 1,000,000,000:1. So your 1000W microwave has about 1 microwatt of power "leaking" in normal operation. This is less than the power from an infrared remote control, so it's nothing to humans, but it can be enough to disrupt wifi & bluetooth.

                  • abb on 25/02/2019 - 14:27
                    +6

                    @HighAndDry:

                    There are some sources that would not be practical to avoid unless you lived in a cave.

                    Wait til they hear about neutrinos, not even caves are safe! Won't somebody think of the invisible unstoppable inconsequential interstellar subatomic particles ?!?

                    • HighAndDry on 25/02/2019 - 14:30

                      @abb: OH FUDGE YOU BEAT ME TO IT! (see my comment below…)

                      • abb on 25/02/2019 - 15:05

                        @HighAndDry: Haha, well I almost posted about visible light being EM but you beat me to that, so we'll call it even.

            • abb on 25/02/2019 - 14:23

              @geek001:

              The study you linked to only studies children living within 600m of the power lines, which will average out the results due to "inverse square law" as you pointed out.

              It's merely the first study I found that aligned at all with your claim. Please note that I mention the inverse square law not as a critique of the study, but rather to illustrate the fields in your house from your own wiring and devices are likely to dominate those from a power line. (Do you ever use headphones?)

              I could make a similarly spurious claim that living under power lines shields you from cosmic rays. Better to be safe than sorry!

              • HighAndDry on 25/02/2019 - 14:29

                @abb: I feel I need to interject to warn people to the dangers of neutrinos! They're the result of radioactive decay, are near undetectable, and are unblockable! Neutrinos have been found to penetrate through MILES of solid rock!!!

              • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 14:34
                -1

                @abb: Sorry for the misunderstanding. What you said is fair enough, electromagnetic radiation may or may not be to blame. I was merely trying to point out that there are increased risks from living under a power line even the cause cannot be determined.

            • trapper on 26/02/2019 - 12:55
              +1

              @geek001: A study can't change the laws of physics. Non-ionising radiation can not break any chemical bonds or do any kind of damage to DNA.

              If there is any correlation between living near powerlines and cancer the link must be something other than the radiation.

            • serideth on 27/02/2019 - 00:03

              @geek001:

              the power running through my wires is much less than the power running through the wires on power pylons

              I don't think you understand how electricity works.

              • geek001 on 27/02/2019 - 09:09

                @serideth: Since you are so smart, maybe you can explain to me how power pylons carrying 33kV supplying power to an entire suburb at any given time is carrying the same amount of power as power cables in my house which only has the fridge turned on all the time? I am not talking about power poles you see on the street, I am talking about tall power pylons distributing power to sub-stations.

        • ThirdRonnie on 25/02/2019 - 23:41
          +1

          children living within 50 metres of power pylons have an increased risk of developing acute leukaemia

          So, if they lived 100 metres away, they might only get mild leukaemia.

        • Antikythera on 26/02/2019 - 14:12

          my brother bought up his family in a house with a massive power line in the back yard. it was heaps more room for them to play cricket in. none of his kids got cancer. we had them all tested after my brother died of cancer.

        • plasmoske on 26/02/2019 - 19:46

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2014/09/01/do-hi…

          The conclusion: No it does not.

          Most websites sprouting the power pylons = increased cancer is based off one flawed study.

      • vid_ghost on 26/02/2019 - 14:47

        i think he's talking about long distance towers. not street poles.

      • ATangk on 26/02/2019 - 15:05

        Some suburbs have power going underground.

    • FeRGan on 25/02/2019 - 12:43
      +2

      It could make it harder to sell.

    • HardlyCharly on 25/02/2019 - 13:33
      +7

      but at the end of the day, I have to do what I think is best for my family.

      That's how we got anti-vaxxers, measles outbreaks around the world and dead children. Turned out great for them huh?

      • geek001 on 25/02/2019 - 13:48
        +6

        The difference is, I am not endangering anyone by NOT living near a pylon or cell tower.

        You can live below a cell tower or pylons all you like. Doesn't bother me.

        BTW, my children are immunised.

      • D6C1 on 26/02/2019 - 11:42
        +2

        grabs the popcorn

  • abb on 25/02/2019 - 11:32
    +8

    The antennas on these are designed so that the signal spreads over a wide horizontal area. The radiation intensity directly underneath the tower will be quite low.

    You would be getting hit with much more if the tower was on the building across the road, or a block away.
    edit: you can see this clearly on the rfnsa page, peak intensity is 111m away.

    (Also there's no health risk - it's about the same as having a wifi router in your house)

    • redforever on 25/02/2019 - 11:58

      It is important to note that all the predicted levels in the report are the expected levels at 1.5m above ground level.

  • redforever on 25/02/2019 - 11:36
    +8

    You can request them to pay for independent testing in your unit after the installations to quantify the EME emission levels resulting from the rooftop base station equipment.

    Also, I hope your strata has negotiated a good return. Sounds like a fair bit of equipment going in.

  • SnoozeAndLose on 25/02/2019 - 14:16
    -6

    There are cases where people have brain cancers living so close to the tower. I would sell before the tower get build.

    People who is suffering report frequent headache and sleeping issue.

    Indo believe you will be benefit from it as they need to pay to your strata to get it install but it is mot harm to your health than what you get into your pocket. The EME test cant be done before the installatuon and it is too late if you trying to sell.

  • whooah1979 on 25/02/2019 - 14:23

    Mobile Phone Base Station Tower

    We may expect more towers with the introduction of 5G.

  • ApuN on 25/02/2019 - 18:37
    +18

    The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is more of an authority than any of the comments I have read so far. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation….
    Some key quotes:
    The ARPANSA Standard is based on scientific research that shows the levels at which harmful effects occur and it sets limits, based on international guidelines, well below these harmful levels.
    EME exposure to the public from base stations is typically hundreds of times below the limits of the ARPANSA RF Standard.
    Current research indicates that there are no established health effects from the low exposure to the RF EME from mobile phone base station antennas.

    • singingwolf on 25/02/2019 - 18:52

      Best. Coverage. Ever.

    • kongkee on 26/02/2019 - 09:35
      +1

      Thank you for providing the most useful information.

    • Lateralnw on 26/02/2019 - 10:06
      +1

      Based on current scientific fact! The international guidelines have been challenged as being to leient. While it may not be the case don't forget there is usually money behind these decisions.
      They may be spot on but personally I don't like the idea of concentrated energy on my roof.

      • mrvaluepack on 26/02/2019 - 18:23

        True, remember what happened with DDT and asbestos. Standards today may not be the standards in the future.

        • ThadtheChad on 26/02/2019 - 19:20
          -2

          "…. what about <insert random thing here>? "

          How is DDT and asbestos related to non-ionising radition?

          • mrvaluepack on 26/02/2019 - 19:50
            +1

            @ThadtheChad: What random thing? Why dont you read up before commenting.

            They were both promoted and deemed safe for consumer/industrial use by governments and agencies. Until further studies proved otherwise.

            • ThadtheChad on 28/02/2019 - 12:22
              -1

              @mrvaluepack:

              Why dont you read up before commenting
              I read your comment. It attempts to draw parallels with incredibly weak arguments.

              So just because there have been exceptions where further research found certain widely held standards to be inaccurate doesn't mean ALL current standards/scientific facts are incorrect.

              Tl;dr
              It is definitely not axiomatic that something deemed safe is going to be unsafe; just because there were certain exceptions.

              • mrvaluepack on 03/03/2019 - 09:04
                +1

                @ThadtheChad: Did I mention in any of the posts that includes ALL current scientific facts? I said just to remember those two items, be vigilant and always have critical thinking when accepting new technology.

      • ThadtheChad on 26/02/2019 - 19:19
        -1

        Yeah but that's your opinion. Opinion doesn't trump fact when it comes to objective analysis.

      • Roman Sandstorm on 28/02/2019 - 11:39

        @Lateralnw

        personally I don't like the idea of concentrated energy on my roof

        Well you must have real issues with that big ball of plasma in the sky…

        • Lateralnw on 01/03/2019 - 16:26

          If you read my post you would have realised I acknowledge radiation. E.g the sun.

    • chuckles89 on 26/02/2019 - 12:23
      +1

      This comment!!!! if you want a bit more information - ARPANSA have a talk to scientist on tues & thursdays from 11-12:30pm where you can call them and ask the question directly.

      https://www.arpansa.gov.au/contact-us/talk-to-a-scientist

      • Lateralnw on 01/03/2019 - 16:32

        Yep you don't get it. I guess you don't believe in climate change either.

  • OzFrugie on 26/02/2019 - 00:49
    -2

    wouldnt risk it. object it in your strata AGM or similar

  • farknos on 26/02/2019 - 08:44
    +1

    alfoil hats maybe?

    • AustriaBargain on 28/02/2019 - 03:11

      That just traps the deadly radiation inside your head, focusing it on your brain stem, you’ll be evegeatble within a week

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join