ᐅ Cell tower next to construction site

nordanney schrieb:

@WingVII: Now let's get to the point. Please explain your findings and where you got them from to all of us and the original poster. So far, you’ve just thrown in a "WHO!" or something similar and tried to spread fear by leaving out important information (keyword Brazilian study).

I have no evidence to provide. It remains an unresolved issue and is probably harmless. But there is also a smaller chance that it could be harmful. Simply dismissing the entire discussion as esoteric, conspiracy thinking, or something similar is very limited and shows pure ignorance. I’m not trying to convince anyone here; in my case, I’m only aiming to minimize risk. This means that, for me, living directly in the main beam/lobe (and that is a technical definition, not an esoteric one) without at least well-founded technical measures was out of the question. However, I now live there and don’t give the mast a second thought. Furthermore, I’m interested in the whole topic from a technical and physical perspective, which is why I initially wanted to briefly show what is possible.

Lumpi_LE schrieb:

Something like that is actually completely counterproductive. It’s great that no radiation reaches you from the router or the cell tower, but your phone heats up trying to send something there, which significantly increases radiation exposure... Unless you don’t use any devices in the house, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

No, it is not. Your assumption is completely wrong. You can easily make calls even below the target value of 1 microwatt/m² (1 µW/m²). Levels as low as 0.1 are sufficient. Since I have data cables installed everywhere, nothing else has bothered me so far.

Proving a negative is inherently much more difficult. It’s like saying, “Prove to me that God does not exist.” This marks the end of any factual discussion.

WingVII schrieb:

No, it is not. Your assumption is completely wrong. You can still easily make phone calls even below the target value of 1 microwatt/m² (0.0001 microwatt/ft²). Even 0.1 is sufficient. And since I have computer network cables everywhere, nothing else has bothered me so far.

Read carefully? Of course, you can still make calls like that, but the mobile phone transmits at a much higher power, which creates the opposite effect. I also don’t understand what the computer network cables have to do with mobile reception.

Lumpi_LE schrieb:

Reading?
Of course, you can still make phone calls this way, but the phone transmits at a much higher power, which actually causes the opposite effect.
I also don’t see the connection between the IT cables and mobile reception.

No, it does not transmit stronger! Even behind the 45-decibel attenuation, I still get 75–90% signal. Because attenuation reduces the power proportionally from 200 microwatts/m² to near zero (that is, between 1 and 0.1 microwatts/m²), but not completely. Much lower power levels are sufficient to make calls without the phone overworking.

The IT cables were referring to the Wi-Fi ;-). And I have Wi-Fi coverage almost everywhere, only in the bedroom it gets weak. But I don’t need it there anyway.

WingVII schrieb:

I have no evidence for this. It remains unresolved and is probably harmless.

No, the fact remains that as of today there is no evidence of any negative effects. There is no information about risks—only speculation, rumors, YouTube videos, and so on.