Log in to the online community

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in
Mobile Tower Health Safety Standards Regulation Requirements
Whilst the popular SARs standards define the Safety of Radiations from Mobile Phone manufacturers, a critical overlook in terms of Telecommunication policy generally, has been the consideration of safety of technology from mobile towers. As the frequency of transmission for mobile communication is increased to Gigahertz, the associated Energy required for transmission of communications, is also expected to increase exponentially. For example, ARPANSA (2002?) in Australia defines the safe levels of EMF radiation between 3KHz to 300GHz, certainly a higher range for considerations, including any resonating frequency for the human body, irrespective of its ionizing effects.

However, this is known to cause issues for Health, and high energy EMF waves can be a source of severe illnesses such as Cancer. Especially, when the resonating frequency of the human body is heavily subsidized by higher frequency EMF waves, the risk of Cancer would certainly increase exponentially, due to tumours being potentially encouraged by such energetic over-excitations. Certainly, for EMF waves to be harmful, it does not necessarily have to have an ionizing effect, and a match of the resonating frequency would suffice the enlargement and encouragement of tumors.

This forms a reason to investigate and develop a certain Safety Standards for Mobile Towers, especially with GHz transmissions. Whilst SARs addressed the actual handset, an additional Standard Definition by Regulation would be required to ensure a more realistic, and more considerative of resonating human cells, to be adjusted for the levels of Energy that can be applied by Mobile Phone Towers.

In essence, a Standard would be required that states:

Sf(T) <> Rf(H)   ... (formula 1)


Sf(T) = Safe Levels of Energy transmitted by Mobile Towers
Rf(H) = Resonating Frequency of Human Cells

In order for Mobile Towers not be a considerable risk for Cancer.

For regulators, there would be a requirement for constant check of the wave transmissions from such Towers to ensure that it does not cause interference with the workings of a normal human body.

Hence, if the resonating frequency for the human body cells is between 1 to 20 Hz, mobile phone towers will have to consider that in the wireless communication between the tower and the handset, there is not any 5G Energy passed in this range. The expected energy range of 5G wave is about 5-10KWatt, this energy is not transmitted through the Human Frequency range of 1 to 20 Hz, whilst committing to a 5G or GHz transmission.

Indeed, to apply a 5-10 KWatt energy to the range of 1 to 20 Hz, would be a malfunction of the Mobile Phone Tower, potentially seriously injurious to human health, and indeed would require such urgent regulative rectifications.

So, enhancing formula 1,

Sf(T) <> 5-10KWatt
fr(T) is between 1 and 20 Hz

where fr(T) is the transmission pathway of the wave from the Tower to the Receiving module.

Hence, Mobile Towers have to have better enhanced transmission capability that adjusts as per the receiving module frequency, to ensure that during a 5G Transmission intended for a GHz frequency, the energy does not get propagated in the range of 1 - 20 Hz at any time during transmission from the tower to the receiving module.

This can indeed be a risk, when poor modulation techniques used by the Tower, constantly increases the Energy for effective communication, when constantly the signal maybe dropped due to inadequate incapsulation, quite possibly in the 1 to 20Hz range, affecting human health of the population under the transmission tower.

Hence, the a primary regulative implications would be to ensure, that the  malfunctioning of a signal that is emmitted by the Tower, does not, in reality, fall upon Human Health.
3 Replies
2444 Posts
Do you actually understand how mobile phones work, that each phone contains multiple transmitters, and that path loss is reciprocal, and  the fields decay with distance? If not I suggest you should read up on the topic, before putting your thoughts in print. Note the following.
The  power radiated from the the hand set and the base station, per user, is more or less the same at both ends of the link, as the path loss is reciproal - so a base station supporting  20 users may expected to be radiating about 20 times the power of any one user's handset. 
Given the inverse square law,  unless you climb the tower, the phone in your hand is going to be illuminating you with literally thousands of times the radiant flux of the signal from the base station mast.
The 5g handsets are the weakest yet in terms of transmit power to allow them to support modulation schemes with a high peak to mean ratio, and to allow "always on" data and some battery life.
The old GSM that I worked on in the late 90s early 2000s typically radiated 2 watts from the handset, and the bases stations supported 4,8 or 16 simultaneous calls, so radiated no more than 20-30watts when at full chat, and most of the time a lot less. Even when later the antenna designs were sectored to increase the maximum no of users, the power radiated in any given direction  did not change much. When 3G came along, the power was reduced so the average transmit power was well less than a watt per user, and the addition of dynamic power control meant that only users at the edge of cell transmitted (and required base station transmissions) at anything like full power, those at shorter ranges wound the power in  and  saved battery i the handset and RF power at the basestation
4G and 5G take this optimisation further , with variable data rates and power levels, but on average the power levels are falling and  the reduced range meaning more low power cells need be installed to maintain the coverage.
There is no exponential growth in transmitter power - quite the reverse, it is at best linear, and slowly declining.

The frequencies involved are between 800MHZ and 2100MHz for the existing networks, with expansion to 2700- 3500 and there long term  plans to add a super short range but very wide bandwidth segment up around  50GHz. However generating more than tens of milliwatts at these frequencies is unlikely.

The electromagnetic resonance of the human body acting as an antenna is a height dependant frequency but in the low hundreds of MHz - and this is reflected by a lower occupational exposure limit.
Do not confuse this with acoustic resonances of the vital organs at a few tens of Hz or the brains alpha rhythm at between 7 and 14Hz

The greatest health risk from the modern smart phone is to your mental health, under threat from the volume of rubbish on the internet, and the ability it provides for baseless conspiracy theories to circulate very rapidly.

I think you have mis-understood my post. I have pointed out that the Energy levels used for Signal Transmissions for GHz, should not fall into the Resonating Frequency for Human Cells, by the fault of Mobile Tower Technologies. Thereby, Regulations are needed to ensure such Precautions.

Your reply mentions the need for research, and I completely agree that Mobile Tower Manufacturers have to research this issue better for Regulative Compliances. If you personally are employed for this research, I wish you all the best to find the required solution.
2444 Posts
The misunderstanding is mutual. My point, that you have missed, is that the "towers" as you call them are not the cause of greatest human exposure, that is the handsets, because they are typically less than half a metre from the user,often almost in contact, and not as you think the base stations on the towers, where the antennas are several  metres, sometimes tens of metres, off the ground level and are carefully designed to have a radiation pattern that is quite weak downwards, concentrating the energy to the horizon, to give maximum range in the cell. Rules if anything need to consider the handset user, as that exposure is at least a thousand times greater. Even if you could get close to the antennas on the mast, the power levels per user are only comparable, not greater.
Please clarify which kind of " Resonating Frequency for Human Cells " you are considering, and remember that not all modes are excited by EM waves. I'm not aware of any phenomenon other than resistance heating associated with microwaves and RF exposure of the human body, and yes, generation of RF power, and antenna design, siting and safety rules that go with that  has been a large part of my professional career to date.

If you are interested, I suggest you read report 321   as while dated, it has very good explanation of the science. Later reports tend to assume you have read and understood the earlier ones.

Notice that the studies that find an   increased cancer risk in rats exposed to very high doses of RF   are considering doses equivalent to many times the RF power level per kilogram of body mass (practicaclly cooking the poor things), than is permitted for a  person holding a handset, and the power density from base stations are as above less than 1/1000 of that.



Log in

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in