<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Radio and Wireless</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio</link>
	<description>What Was, Is, and Can Be...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:04:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Undestanding Cell Phone Tower Health Risks by Nanook</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2007/04/23/undestanding-cell-phone-tower-health-risks/#comment-132</link>
		<dc:creator>Nanook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=37#comment-132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Honestly?  I think it&#039;s alarmist bullshit. Why aren&#039;t there any citations let alone links to these so called studies?  If there was a real danger there it would show up in human epidemiological studies but so far it&#039;s not.  I give you this quote from J. Mark Elwood from the National Cancer Control Initiative in Melbourne Australia, he states, &quot;Epidemiological studies of radio frequency (RF) exposures and human cancers include studies of military and civilian occupational groups, people who live near television and radio transmitters, and users of mobile phones. Many types of cancer have been assessed, with particular attention given to leukemia and brain tumors. The epidemiological results fall short of the strength and consistency of evidence that is required to come to a conclusion that RF emissions are a cause of human cancer.&quot;

The fact is that levels of radiation are easily measured and areas high intensity are widely known so it would not be hard to correlate disease with exposure to microwave radiation if it were in fact a problem.

And then IF it ever were to become known as a problem do we worry about cell sites with peak power levels of around 900 watts and average of about 30 watts, or do we worry about UHF television stations with power levels of megawatts and radar stations with peak power levels sometimes in the gigawatts?

My own personal belief is that using broad band spread spectrum signalling techniques such as that used in modern cell phone and internet access schemes at relatively low power levels is much more efficient than high power single channel per carrier transmission schemes used by radio and television and so in terms of reducing the total exposure to radiation, and especially radiation that is intense enough to have thermal and real health effects, the proliferation of cell and internet access towers is a good thing.

It&#039;s also good from an energy consumption standpoint and as a society I think the dangers we face from continuing to dump large quantities of CO2 into the air are far greater than those we face from microwave radiation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honestly?  I think it&#8217;s alarmist bullshit. Why aren&#8217;t there any citations let alone links to these so called studies?  If there was a real danger there it would show up in human epidemiological studies but so far it&#8217;s not.  I give you this quote from J. Mark Elwood from the National Cancer Control Initiative in Melbourne Australia, he states, &#8220;Epidemiological studies of radio frequency (RF) exposures and human cancers include studies of military and civilian occupational groups, people who live near television and radio transmitters, and users of mobile phones. Many types of cancer have been assessed, with particular attention given to leukemia and brain tumors. The epidemiological results fall short of the strength and consistency of evidence that is required to come to a conclusion that RF emissions are a cause of human cancer.&#8221;</p>
<p>The fact is that levels of radiation are easily measured and areas high intensity are widely known so it would not be hard to correlate disease with exposure to microwave radiation if it were in fact a problem.</p>
<p>And then IF it ever were to become known as a problem do we worry about cell sites with peak power levels of around 900 watts and average of about 30 watts, or do we worry about UHF television stations with power levels of megawatts and radar stations with peak power levels sometimes in the gigawatts?</p>
<p>My own personal belief is that using broad band spread spectrum signalling techniques such as that used in modern cell phone and internet access schemes at relatively low power levels is much more efficient than high power single channel per carrier transmission schemes used by radio and television and so in terms of reducing the total exposure to radiation, and especially radiation that is intense enough to have thermal and real health effects, the proliferation of cell and internet access towers is a good thing.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also good from an energy consumption standpoint and as a society I think the dangers we face from continuing to dump large quantities of CO2 into the air are far greater than those we face from microwave radiation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Undestanding Cell Phone Tower Health Risks by Nanook</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2007/04/23/undestanding-cell-phone-tower-health-risks/#comment-131</link>
		<dc:creator>Nanook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:50:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=37#comment-131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google killed FTP publishing, but now I&#039;ve converted this to WordPress.
 
A note about that too, Google publicly stated the reason they did so was because peoples FTP servers weren&#039;t working and they end up taking the blame when FTP publishing failed.  Well, I&#039;m here to tell you, MY FTP server worked just fine and their FTP publishing STILL frequently timed out even though I could FTP to my server fine WHILE their publishing was failing.  They had a problem, didn&#039;t want to admit to it, didn&#039;t want to deal with it, so they just killed it.  Personally, I think that sucks but such is life.  This is better anyway, now they have zero control over the content.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google killed FTP publishing, but now I&#8217;ve converted this to WordPress.</p>
<p>A note about that too, Google publicly stated the reason they did so was because peoples FTP servers weren&#8217;t working and they end up taking the blame when FTP publishing failed.  Well, I&#8217;m here to tell you, MY FTP server worked just fine and their FTP publishing STILL frequently timed out even though I could FTP to my server fine WHILE their publishing was failing.  They had a problem, didn&#8217;t want to admit to it, didn&#8217;t want to deal with it, so they just killed it.  Personally, I think that sucks but such is life.  This is better anyway, now they have zero control over the content.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Undestanding Cell Phone Tower Health Risks by Nanook</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2007/04/23/undestanding-cell-phone-tower-health-risks/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Nanook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:46:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=37#comment-130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Biological tissues, specifically nerve tissues do rely on electrical impulses but they are in the order of several hertz to several tens of hertz, not megahertz or gigahertz.  If you want an example of this, stick your finger in a light socket.  At 60 Hz you&#039;ll definitely feel a tingle from the stimulation of the nerves in your finger (make sure you&#039;re not grounded while you do this or that 60 Hz current flowing through your heart might put it into fibrillation and it might be the last thing you feel).  Now, get one of those little plasma globes, they have something like a miniature Tesla coil in them, basically a high voltage transformer that operates at between 10-30 kilohertz.  If you touch the wire from it, you&#039;ll get a burn on your finger.  You won&#039;t feel a tingle or shock because at several tens of kilohertz your nerves can no longer respond and so the only thing you feel is the thermal effects.  Now move on up to Microwaves and you&#039;re dealing with frequencies 100,000 times higher than you have from that plasma globe, way out of the range to which your nervous system can respond.

     Now there are some exceptions, if you have metal in your head, and it&#039;s got joints that are a bit oxidized, they can play diodes, and if the signal is modulated, the modulation components can be recovered by the diode effect of those oxidized joints and they might fall within the range that your nervous system can respond to.  At really strong signal intensities, there might be enough non-linearity in tissue to do that, but that&#039;s at power levels way above what you&#039;re going to get for a cell or internet access tower and probably to power levels where there are thermal effects as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Biological tissues, specifically nerve tissues do rely on electrical impulses but they are in the order of several hertz to several tens of hertz, not megahertz or gigahertz.  If you want an example of this, stick your finger in a light socket.  At 60 Hz you&#8217;ll definitely feel a tingle from the stimulation of the nerves in your finger (make sure you&#8217;re not grounded while you do this or that 60 Hz current flowing through your heart might put it into fibrillation and it might be the last thing you feel).  Now, get one of those little plasma globes, they have something like a miniature Tesla coil in them, basically a high voltage transformer that operates at between 10-30 kilohertz.  If you touch the wire from it, you&#8217;ll get a burn on your finger.  You won&#8217;t feel a tingle or shock because at several tens of kilohertz your nerves can no longer respond and so the only thing you feel is the thermal effects.  Now move on up to Microwaves and you&#8217;re dealing with frequencies 100,000 times higher than you have from that plasma globe, way out of the range to which your nervous system can respond.</p>
<p>     Now there are some exceptions, if you have metal in your head, and it&#8217;s got joints that are a bit oxidized, they can play diodes, and if the signal is modulated, the modulation components can be recovered by the diode effect of those oxidized joints and they might fall within the range that your nervous system can respond to.  At really strong signal intensities, there might be enough non-linearity in tissue to do that, but that&#8217;s at power levels way above what you&#8217;re going to get for a cell or internet access tower and probably to power levels where there are thermal effects as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Undestanding Cell Phone Tower Health Risks by Nanook</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2007/04/23/undestanding-cell-phone-tower-health-risks/#comment-129</link>
		<dc:creator>Nanook</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=37#comment-129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m guessing the reason your signal has decreased is because the noise levels have increased as other services have come online or there are new obstructions between you and the old tower.

     Without knowing the power levels, frequencies, type of service, etc, I can&#039;t be real specific but as long as that 65 feet is substantially above the house and you&#039;re not in the plain of the antenna and very close to it, you&#039;ll probably be okay.  This is because the antennas are directional in the vertical plane and radiate their power mostly out horizontally and not a lot upwards to the sky or down to the ground.
 
     Assuming the transmitter is not over a kilowatt and you&#039;re at least 30 feet from the antenna, I think you&#039;re safe.  If it&#039;s higher power, or you&#039;re closer, then I&#039;d be concerned.  There isn&#039;t a lot of evidence for effects at microwave frequencies at power levels below the point where it causes thermal effects that is solid.

     I&#039;ve seen studies that look at cell phones, which today are generally 100mw or less, and show evidence of cancer for people who were using them 20 years ago, but 20 years ago, they were five watt not 100mw and there were substantial thermal effects (I can speak from personal experience, I had one of those 5-watters and it would heat up the whole side of your head).

     There are people who claim to be extremely sensitive and get headaches and dizziness with exposure to low levels of EMF but I&#039;ve yet to see a single study that takes those individuals and does a double blind study to see if in fact there is ANY relationship between electromagnetic energy (when they aren&#039;t told it&#039;s present) and their symptoms.  People imagine all sorts of things.


     People make the argument that the human nervous system uses very low potentials and thus could be disrupted by such signals but human beings nerves operate at frequencies of from a few hertz to a few tens of hertz, not gigahertz.  Low frequency electromagnetic radiation is problematic at low levels but no evidence that is true of microwaves.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m guessing the reason your signal has decreased is because the noise levels have increased as other services have come online or there are new obstructions between you and the old tower.</p>
<p>     Without knowing the power levels, frequencies, type of service, etc, I can&#8217;t be real specific but as long as that 65 feet is substantially above the house and you&#8217;re not in the plain of the antenna and very close to it, you&#8217;ll probably be okay.  This is because the antennas are directional in the vertical plane and radiate their power mostly out horizontally and not a lot upwards to the sky or down to the ground.</p>
<p>     Assuming the transmitter is not over a kilowatt and you&#8217;re at least 30 feet from the antenna, I think you&#8217;re safe.  If it&#8217;s higher power, or you&#8217;re closer, then I&#8217;d be concerned.  There isn&#8217;t a lot of evidence for effects at microwave frequencies at power levels below the point where it causes thermal effects that is solid.</p>
<p>     I&#8217;ve seen studies that look at cell phones, which today are generally 100mw or less, and show evidence of cancer for people who were using them 20 years ago, but 20 years ago, they were five watt not 100mw and there were substantial thermal effects (I can speak from personal experience, I had one of those 5-watters and it would heat up the whole side of your head).</p>
<p>     There are people who claim to be extremely sensitive and get headaches and dizziness with exposure to low levels of EMF but I&#8217;ve yet to see a single study that takes those individuals and does a double blind study to see if in fact there is ANY relationship between electromagnetic energy (when they aren&#8217;t told it&#8217;s present) and their symptoms.  People imagine all sorts of things.</p>
<p>     People make the argument that the human nervous system uses very low potentials and thus could be disrupted by such signals but human beings nerves operate at frequencies of from a few hertz to a few tens of hertz, not gigahertz.  Low frequency electromagnetic radiation is problematic at low levels but no evidence that is true of microwaves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Undestanding Cell Phone Tower Health Risks by Xina</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2007/04/23/undestanding-cell-phone-tower-health-risks/#comment-128</link>
		<dc:creator>Xina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=37#comment-128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi, Nanook,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I hope you are still operating your blog as you are the first source of genuine trustworthy information I found to answer some of my questions but I still have some - about Wireless internet towers. We live in rural Canada  and have a wireless internet connection facilitated by a small radio positioned on the roof of the house.This radio transmits and receives the Internet signals to and from towers. The towers are up to 65 feet tall and some are mounted on people&#039;s properties (with their permission of course.) Our internet signal has weakened substantially for the past few months for some reason (after nearly two years of high speed) and the only solution ISP arrived to is the installation of one of those towers on our property. We agreed to it. There going to be 65ft tower positioned very close to the house. Can you give an educated info on the health effects that might give us?&lt;br /&gt;With respect,&lt;br /&gt;Olivia]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Nanook,</p>
<p>I hope you are still operating your blog as you are the first source of genuine trustworthy information I found to answer some of my questions but I still have some &#8211; about Wireless internet towers. We live in rural Canada  and have a wireless internet connection facilitated by a small radio positioned on the roof of the house.This radio transmits and receives the Internet signals to and from towers. The towers are up to 65 feet tall and some are mounted on people&#8217;s properties (with their permission of course.) Our internet signal has weakened substantially for the past few months for some reason (after nearly two years of high speed) and the only solution ISP arrived to is the installation of one of those towers on our property. We agreed to it. There going to be 65ft tower positioned very close to the house. Can you give an educated info on the health effects that might give us?<br />With respect,<br />Olivia</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Long Delayed Echo Radio Phenomena by newtonseye</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2006/12/31/long-delayed-echo-radio-phenomena/#comment-127</link>
		<dc:creator>newtonseye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=68#comment-127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would be interested to know when these reports were made, how many people have experienced them and if they have been recorded and examples currently exist.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Regards&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;John&lt;br /&gt;http://g6kqs.blogspot.com/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would be interested to know when these reports were made, how many people have experienced them and if they have been recorded and examples currently exist.</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p>John<br /><a href="http://g6kqs.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://g6kqs.blogspot.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on AM / FM Band Broadcast Transmitters by sun ce</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2006/12/19/am-fm-band-broadcast-transmitters/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator>sun ce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=71#comment-126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The small amount of power the iPhone &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fmheroes.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FM TRANSMITTER&lt;/a&gt; produces, though, is often less than needed to produce clear, crisp, CDor MP3-quality music.FM transmitters have been around for a number of years. The more popular brands, including Griffin and Belkin, use available FM radio frequencies to transmit your mobiles music to your car stereo system via airwaves.&lt;br /&gt;An FM transmitter adapter is the only choice for cars without USB or audio-input connections.If you have an iPhone, it might not transmit if you use a non-iPhone endorsed FM transmitter.Another option is to download a radio app that lets you choose from hundreds of radio stations worldwide. Read more about mobile radio apps.&lt;br /&gt;The selected iPod &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fmheroes.org/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FM TRANSMITTER&lt;/a&gt; shown above are the current best sellers and they have been so for a very long time so that their popularity is a good indication that they are good value for money, especially with the discount sale prices that are available.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The small amount of power the iPhone <a href="http://www.fmheroes.org/" rel="nofollow">FM TRANSMITTER</a> produces, though, is often less than needed to produce clear, crisp, CDor MP3-quality music.FM transmitters have been around for a number of years. The more popular brands, including Griffin and Belkin, use available FM radio frequencies to transmit your mobiles music to your car stereo system via airwaves.<br />An FM transmitter adapter is the only choice for cars without USB or audio-input connections.If you have an iPhone, it might not transmit if you use a non-iPhone endorsed FM transmitter.Another option is to download a radio app that lets you choose from hundreds of radio stations worldwide. Read more about mobile radio apps.<br />The selected iPod <a href="http://www.fmheroes.org/" rel="nofollow">FM TRANSMITTER</a> shown above are the current best sellers and they have been so for a very long time so that their popularity is a good indication that they are good value for money, especially with the discount sale prices that are available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Undestanding Cell Phone Tower Health Risks by StephenAkins</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2007/04/23/undestanding-cell-phone-tower-health-risks/#comment-125</link>
		<dc:creator>StephenAkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=37#comment-125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for your reasonable voice in this age of alarmism.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your reasonable voice in this age of alarmism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on AM Medium Wave Box Loop Antenna for DXing by emanonfmf</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2007/01/07/am-medium-wave-box-loop-antenna-for-dxing/#comment-124</link>
		<dc:creator>emanonfmf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=63#comment-124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m just getting to read this but in any case your article was very informative! Great site too!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.marketingusingvideo.com]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m just getting to read this but in any case your article was very informative! Great site too!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.marketingusingvideo.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.marketingusingvideo.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Undestanding Cell Phone Tower Health Risks by Petre</title>
		<link>http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/2007/04/23/undestanding-cell-phone-tower-health-risks/#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>Petre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/radio/?p=37#comment-123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nanook, there are other effects from cell towers RF on biological tissues besides the thermal effect. Biological tissues rely on electrical impulses to maintain functionality. RF can distort/disturb electrical fields and induce long term changes in tissue functionality. Again, why do we consider only THERMAL effects?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nanook, there are other effects from cell towers RF on biological tissues besides the thermal effect. Biological tissues rely on electrical impulses to maintain functionality. RF can distort/disturb electrical fields and induce long term changes in tissue functionality. Again, why do we consider only THERMAL effects?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
