Cell Phone Antennas and rooftop installations

Putnamdenizen, the comparison with the use of cell phones doesn't quite compute with me. I basically have the power to turn my cell phone on and off at any given point, and it's not strapped to my head 24/7. By the way, the same applies to the microwave. Unfortunately, I wouldn't have the same power to pull the lever on the cell phone tower whenever I wish to turn it off. It remains on continuously for whatever lease period is agreed to...this may be up to 20 years! Imagine having your phone attached to your head continuously for 20 years.

Posted by: Stanford at October 20, 2007 11:03 PM in response to Cell Phone Antennas and rooftop installations

Evidence has been inconclusive at best, but that does not eliminate that a doubt does indeed exist, and that medical authorities admit to that doubt. This doubt alone makes me uncomfortable, and is enough to tell me that money earned from this type of project is not worth the risk for me or my family.

Posted by: Stanford at October 21, 2007 10:47 AM in response to Cell Phone Antennas and rooftop installations

Cleo, the biggest "con" would be all the inconclusive information that is available out there with respect to possible medical implications. Just perform a Google search. If you are willing to live with this doubt and are comfortable with the thought that perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years down the line, some questionable medical issues may arise, then by all means forge ahead. The only pro I see to these installations is the money. By the way, I started a thread a few days back on the same subject.

Posted by: Stanford at October 23, 2007 12:25 PM in response to Wireless towers on top of co-ops?

This is also from the American Cancer Society:

"Cellular phone towers, like cellular phones themselves, are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects. In particular, not enough time has elapsed to permit epidemiologic studies. There are some theoretical reasons why cellular phone towers would not be expected to increase cancer risk, and animal studies of RF have not suggested a risk of cancer. People who are concerned can ask for measurements of RF near cellular phone towers to be sure exposures do not exceed recommended limits."

That first sentence speaks volumes!

Posted by: Stanford at October 24, 2007 1:45 PM in response to Wireless towers on top of co-ops?

Would like to know if you have any evidence that cell phone tower waves are damaging (serious question.) From all I've read, emf doing anything bad is just rumor. But could be wrong.

Posted by: cmu at October 21, 2007 10:16 AM in response to Cell Phone Antennas and rooftop installations

Evidence has been inconclusive at best, but that does not eliminate that a doubt does indeed exist, and that medical authorities admit to that doubt. This doubt alone makes me uncomfortable, and is enough to tell me that money earned from this type of project is not worth the risk for me or my family.

Posted by: Stanford at October 21, 2007 10:47 AM in response to Cell Phone Antennas and rooftop installations

How much money is the building collecting for this? Might be worth it.

Posted by: guest at October 21, 2007 8:31 PM in response to Cell Phone Antennas and rooftop installations

I don't own a cell phone because I think holding a powerful radio transmitter half an inch from my brain everyday is about as smart as holding an incandescent light-bulb there. But I've lived under and next to cell phone towers and it never bothered me. The closest one ever was to me when in my apartment was 30 meters and pointed away (which they generally are).

I still don't think this should be done without consulting the co-op members. I lived in a co-op where they sold antenna rights; while I was far from the antennas, one of the antennas, which were on a low attached building, pointed straight into someone's apartment. If the cell-phone antenna planner knew their radiation maps would be shown at a co-op meeting they wouldn't have done this. It was done out of sheer lazyness, the 90 year old man living there did not need a dedicated cell-phone antenna.

Posted by: danielk at October 21, 2007 8:34 PM in response to Cell Phone Antennas and rooftop installations

Brain tumors.

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 4:01 PM in response to Wireless towers on top of co-ops?

It's disappointing. I love the apartment, but I considering not signing the contract due to the cell towers.

Posted by: CleoSiemper at October 23, 2007 4:54 PM in response to Wireless towers on top of co-ops?

We have a long term lease with Sprint which contributes over 25% of our operating budget.

If you want to know more you can email me.

The contracts are usually 5 years renewable by the cell company. Most companies pay between 1500 and 1700 per month.

Posted by: bonsavant at October 23, 2007 5:03 PM in response to Wireless towers on top of co-ops?

Bonsavant brings up the percentages. Most (if not all?) co-ops are only allowed to have 20% or less of their total revenues/operating budget come from non-shareholders. Meaning, if your co-op has a commercial space, the rent the co-op collects from it cannot contribute more than 20% of the co-op's operating budget. It's called the 80/20 rule, I believe.

So there's a limit to how much outside income a co-op can bring in from commercial rents and cell-towers.

And, of course, the brain tumors.

Posted by: chuck at October 23, 2007 8:08 PM in response to Wireless towers on top of co-ops?

How does one approach the cell phone companies to see if they are interested in our roof?

Posted by: guest at October 23, 2007 10:16 PM in response to Wireless towers on top of co-ops?

Cell phone tower radio waves are intermittant, and the blackberry in someones pocket or cell phone at their ear is almost definitely a much higher dose. Or maybe the wi-fi at starbucks. Of course, it's your decision, but if you love everything else about the apartment, you should really do some research about the potential tower effects. Some people can be alarmists, but probably don't have evidence to back it up.

From the American Cancer Society: "Cellular phones operate at the radiofrequency (RF) part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is non-ionizing radiation. Other examples of the non-ionizing part of the electromagnetic spectrum include AM and FM radio waves, microwaves, and infrared waves from heat lamps. Unlike x-rays and gamma rays (which are examples of ionizing radiation), radio waves have too little energy to break the bonds that hold molecules (such as DNA) in cells together. Similarly, since RF of this frequency contains relatively low energy, it does not enter tissues. At very high levels of exposure, RF can cause warming of tissues, much as a heat lamp does. The wavelength of cell phone waves is about one foot and the frequency is approximately 800 to 900 MHz, although newer models may use higher frequencies up to 2,200 MHz."

"The energy from a cellular phone antenna, like that of other telecommunication antennas, is directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter."

So, if anyone's still reading, your phone sends the signal to the tower, which then sends it off over our heads. Disclaimer: I'm not a cell phone provider, just an environmental scientist . . .

Posted by: Heatherie at October 24, 2007 9:03 AM in response to Wireless towers on top of co-ops?