AI summary & topic connections
A longtime broadcast engineer argues that power and proximity matter more than frequency alone, considers handheld transmitters more concerning than distant antennas, and states that ordinary radio-field exposure has caused no measurable damage.
- Other concerns:
be dangerous, BUT so can lower frequencies. What counts is the POWER; you are not going to be climbing up and placing your body in fr
- Towers & siting:
atts. In the field (where we hang out), the electrical field from that antenna is reduced to a tiny value. The transmitter of the phone you ar
- Occupational exposure:
I have been an RF (radio frequency) radio broadcast engineer for 60 years. I hold a General Class Radiotelephone License from the FCC. I
I have been an RF (radio frequency) radio broadcast engineer for 60 years. I hold a General Class Radiotelephone License from the FCC. I have served as Chief Engineer for a number of radio stations, most of them 'full power' facilities in major markets (Boston, Philadelphia)/. Experience with the Radio Sprctrum ranges from the low end of the MW (AM Broadcast) band through the HF, VHF, UHF and 'microwave' bands. I do not have hands on experience with the mobile, personal communications services. The RF bands for these services are very high: Most well above 1 gHz (1 billion Hertz), ranging up yo 79 g
hz. This very complicated allocation system is managed by the World Radio Conference. Yes, high frequencies can be dangerous, BUT so can lower frequencies. What counts is the POWER; you are not going to be climbing up and placing your body in front of that antenna, are you? Even that is low - probaby less that 100 Watts. In the field (where we hang out), the electrical field from that antenna is reduced to a tiny value. The transmitter of the phone you are holding should be of more concern! There are many studies/articles - Google. Ordinarily we are immersed in dozens of radio fields wherever we are. We have been in these fields for over 100 years, No measurable damage -- Ever.