How to Measure Radiation from a Cell Phone Tower?

What kind of "radiation" do you intend on measuring? Are you thinking there is nuclear radiation coming from them? If so, you are wrong. I had to ask because this is a very common misconception due to the ubiquitous use of the word "radiation" to mean anything that we can't see which emits from something else.

Electro-Magnetic radiation, in the form of microwaves, is what cell towers put out and measurement is a complex issue. Try this for starters.

http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/measurement.cfm

I was wondering: Hypothetically if one could generate 4 Tesla's of magnetic power in permanent magnets, would this have and adverse health effect in one were to place within such a field for long periods of time?

Or is there a difference in the quality of phonton energy between permanent and electromanetic magnets?

(Taken from World Health Organization Fact sheet N°299 March 2006)

HEALTH EFFECTS

For static magnetic fields, acute effects are only likely to occur when there is movement in the field, such as motion of a person or internal body movement, such as blood flow or heart beat. A person moving within a field above 2 T can experience sensations of vertigo and nausea, and sometimes a metallic taste in the mouth and perceptions of light flashes. Although only temporary, such effects may have a safety impact for workers executing delicate procedures (such as surgeons performing operations within MRI units).

Static magnetic fields exert forces on moving charges in the blood, such as ions, generating electrical fields and currents around the heart and major blood vessels that can slightly impede the flow of blood. Possible effects range from minor changes in heartbeat to an increase in the risk of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmia) that might be life-threatening (such as ventricular fibrillation). However, these types of acute effects are only likely within fields in excess of 8 T.

It is not possible to determine whether there are any long-term health consequences even from exposure in the millitesla range because, to date, there are no well-conducted epidemiological or long-term animal studies. Thus the carcinogenicity of static magnetic fields to humans is not at present classifiable (IARC, 2002).

I see you're a Kiwi. I've played rugby here in NZ for many years, and been on many fields. There's one particular field in the Bay of Plenty located at Galatea, the local rugby field down there. I've played on that field 4 different times in as many different years, and everytime, I felt a surge of energy that left me playing out of my skin.

I'm not sure how much you know about the history of Galatea, but after world war two, the government assigned the land their to be balloted by lot for the returned service men.

a number of ex pats won their lots and moved onto the land. But, nothing would grow there, and the only animals that could handle living in that harsh environment were brumby horses.

anyway, after a number of years, and countless walk off from farmers that couldn't manage to handle the losses incurred from the harsh conditions, scientists discovered that the arid conditions were a direct result of a lack of Cobalt in the soil.

A plan was developed to dump tonnes of cobalt on the soil, and now the land flourishes. I may be wrong, but perhaps the magnetic properties has contributed the marked difference in performance capacity.

...or you replicate the Philadelphia Experiment.

http://users.cihost.com/ata/phillyintro.htm

bubbapebi, Your link sent me into a reading tangent that lasted almost 2 hours! I find the supernatural, government hoax, X-file subject matter entertaining at times. I was especially pleased to find a link to "Real" MIB, (Men in Black) like in the recent series of movies starring Will Smith. Thanks

As far as worrying about adverse heath affects from the Microwaves emitted from the cell towers, I would worry more about the handset your pressing directly against your brain for hours a day. I've heard tests have not proven any physical illness results from their use. I say we'll see in about 20 more years, or so, of widespread use.

If I'm not mistaken I think the level of radiation emitted is much higher off of an AM Radio site.

JRaef, cool link! And a good one.

As to the basic answer of what equipment is required to measure "radiation" from a cell tower, you are probably carrying one in your pocket or in a holster on your belt.

All cell phones actually measure the Received Signal Strength from the tower(s) they are "talking" to. This measurement is what generates the "bars" on the display. You can also look at it more specifically by going into the debug mode. The way to get into debug varies from handset to handset and is best done on the smartphone/PDAs (Palm OS or Windows Mobile). These can be accessed by typing ##DEBUG#. Then look for RSSI or Received Signal Strength -- measured in dBm.

The fact is that the signal from a tower is extremely weak, generally 15 watts or less. That accounts for the range of a cell tower being so limited -- like around two miles -- varied for rural or metropolitan areas. In the US, all cell carriers have to comply with the FCC's Specific Absorption Rate (1.6 watts/kilogram), meaning that they cannot generate more power than can be absorbed by an average individual -- and this applies to the cell phone as well as the network towers.

Here is a link that can help explain why it really isn't worth the time and effort to try and measure this:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/

If you still want to do some more measurement and tests, Mr. Google will help you find some people who are willing to sell you test equipment -- and it ain't cheap. Agilent is probably the leader in the field -- most cell carriers in the US buy their test equipment from them -- at around $45K+ per device.

Of course, this deals with the US only; other countries may have different standards, but I imagine they are going to be very, very similar.

One can obtain a "tunable field strength meter" for a couple of hundred dollars.

(do a google search for the words in quotes above)

These instruments typically present their readings either in dBm, or in nano/micro/milli watts.

Using the cell phone in your pocket won't work if the cell tower you are trying to "measure" isn't on the same frequency as your cell phone!

(i.e., CDMA vs. TDMA vs. GSM vs. something else...)

Good point. Working for a wireless provider, I forget that there are others out there.

Thanks, JMAN.

"All cell phones actually measure the Received Signal Strength from the tower(s) they are "talking" to. This measurement is what generates the "bars" on the display. You can also look at it more specifically by going into the debug mode. The way to get into debug varies from handset to handset and is best done on the smart phone/PDAs (Palm OS or Windows Mobile). These can be accessed by typing ##DEBUG#. Then look for RSSI or Received Signal Strength -- measured in dBm."

Derrrr... why didn't I think of that! But can one convert dBm to Teslas? My math skills have fallen off to the point of virtual uselessness now. Thank God for computers!

Speaking of Tesla, I often wonder if all the experiments he conducted on himself in order to prove the safety of AC fields eventually made his OCD worse. Still, he lived to a ripe old age didn't he?

Balancing my checkbook has ruined my math skills. I think depression may have played a part in the process, too. Depression and my bank balance seem to be inversely proportional.

I looked around and there are a bunch of sites that deal with conversion of dBM and Teslas, but not directly. I guess you could work your way into that.. Frankly, I have never needed that information, so I haven't chased it.

Been there... the depression part at least.

A friend once told me, "No one else can make you feel good, it's up to you to look deep within and heal" and she was right. It may take a while, but your happiness is a worthy adverseray. So there's nothing wrong with doing according to what you needed, or didn't needed. the important thing is to be clear about it.

I'm also reminded of the saying "its as simple as done"

so good luck to you

No matter what type of test equipment you come up with, setting up the proper lab environment is essential to getting good results.

Not to metion the proper attire!

hahahahaha It takes all kinds! I've heard it said that "Wires make the world go round. But money sure greases the Wheels!"

I found this thread while seeking an answer to the very question posted above.

As an engineer and scientist, I wish some of us would have better answers to the original inquirer's topic.

Really now, in this age of growing mistrust, wouldn't some openness and love for verification be welcome?

My sincerest thanks to those who posted substantive responses. I do not recommend the following, but I am looking into them.

http://www.orgonelab.org/cart/ycellphonemeter.htm

http://www.safelivingtechnologies.ca/rf/products_rf_meters.htm

and an ebay search:

http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=RF+radiation+meter&_sacat=0&_odkw=cellphone+radiation+meter&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313

I want to be scientific about this. The radiation issue is going to be one of intensity level, proximity and time of exposure. I am keenly interested in correlation. Some dear friends have been very ill, as a family, since the phone co. put that cell tower across the street from them. Right now, I am the only one they can trust, and I want some answers.

I may also have access to a professional grade unit for a brief while, to get some correlation with the cheaper units.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael A. Banak, PE

In this uncertain age, I can understand your mistrust, mbanak.

I looked at the two sites you referenced but I am not sure they are going to get you what you want to know. The question you are asking is: "Does the cell tower across the street emit too much radiation?"

The devices referenced seem to show the power received in a fairly broad range, without indicating where the power is coming from within that range. This is critical because cell towers transmit on a fairly narrow range of frequencies. In the USA, that is the 800 MHz band, 1.9 GHz band, and, with the advent of 4G, the 2.5 GHz band. In this case, "band" = approximately 100 MHz with the band number as the center of the band. So, the 800 MHZ band is roughly 750 MHz to 850 MHz. The actual values are different, but for your purposes, this should be good enough. In Europe, cell towers transmit on 900 MHz and 1.8 GHz.

The devices that you have referenced look like they measure all power across the whole spectrum from 27MHz to 3 GHz. While this includes the cell tower frequencies, it also includes a lot of other things that may be transmitting in the same range. For example, a malfunctioning microwave, or one that isn't shielding properly, will produce effects in the 2.4 GHZ range. I couldn't see where there is a way on the devices to isolate the frequency range you wanted to measure.

Now, all of that is based on a review of the materials posted on line. I have not held one of these devices in my hand, so cannot absolutely say for sure they can't isolate frequencies for measurement, but their ability in this regard does seem to be limited.

So, I go back to my original proposition. Use a cell phone to see what kind of signal you are getting. If possible, use a smart phone or PDA that can actually display signal strength as a measurement. Of course, it wold have to be from the same provider that operates the antennas on the tower. In the US, there are often multiple providers on a given tower.

Other than that, if you have access to more sophisticated (and expensive) test equipment, go ahead an use it. That will give you precise results and will help you determine what, if anything, is actually polluting the RF environment for your friends.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, BP.

INstrumentation and test mean a lot to me. Verification, correlatin, etc.

I expect this to come in several steps, all of them easy, but time consming.

- Characterize towers in my own area with the bars on my cell phone

- Then with one of these low cost units.....

I would have to try with varing settngs.

- Then with a high - end unit to which I may have access soon.

Once I get a fix on some practical numbers, I can go to the site populated by my freinds, and get a fix on what's happening. I smel a rat, but I don't want to play chicken little.

I look at those $400 nits and I envision a short BOM inside. So what I am paying for is the assembly, cnovenience, etc.,

Gratefully,

Michael

Amen on the time consuming part!

You may be able to cut a corner though. I didn't really consider this on the original reply; it came to me as I read your latest post.)

What the low end units would be able to tell you is whether or not there is a problem. It may not be able to tell you where the problem is, but if the readings are too high, then you know there is a problem. The Orgonelab website you refernced has an interesting article describing the allowed safe limits -- and their own recommendations. If the readings are too high, then the issue is to find out where the excess is coming from. So, then back to the process you've outlined.

If the low end unit does NOT indicate a problem with escessive RF energy boucing around, then you can look for somehting elsethat may be polluting their environment: lead paint, asbestos, excessive radon, etc., etc., etc.

Good luck! I hope this all turns out well for you and your friends.

Thanks again, BP.

I will also be using Google Earth to estimate distances and size up the terrain beforehand. If I wasn't such a geek, I would probably be annoyed by all this.

Yes, the internal environment is also a consideration. In a spirit of balance, I would enjoy pointing out that there were, at one time, entrenched interests defending THOSE factors against indictment.

Bu time wounds all heels!

Regards,

Michael