the 60W light bulb misconception

http://nomasts.org.uk/index.php?opti...=50&Itemid=116

A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless. Quite apart from the fact that
the light from a 60W light bulb can be harmful to a person with
photo-sensitive epilepsy, if it is flashed at an appropriate rate, the
comparison is solely based on intensities and neglects three important
points:-


1. The fact that more than one carrier signal is usually transmitted from the mast. Thus, the figure of 60W must be multiplied by the number of carriers that are actually transmitted in any particular case; in order to minimise inter-carrier interference, however, this number is restricted typically to 4 at the most, so the total output wattage can be a high as 240W.

2. Beams from the mast, however, are not emitted uniformly in all directions (as happens with light from a light-bulb), but are instead concentrated in specific directions, the degree of directional focusing being quantified through the so-called ‘gain’ (G) of the antenna, even omni-directional types, typical values of which, in the case of GSM, range from about 40 to 60. If we use an optimistic figure of 30 the so-called ‘effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), given by the multiplying Power by Gain – is 1800W, which is further increased to 7.2kW if 4 carriers are transmitted – a value that is 120 times higher than the 60W quoted! The maximum EIRP value permitted by law is 1500W per carrier, whilst the maximum number of carrier signals is 16 (at 1800MHz) and 10 (at 900MHz); in practice, however, the number of carriers is usually restricted to 4 at the most, for the reason mentioned above.

3. The comparison neglects the all important frequency dimension, in
particular the difference in the frequency that characterises the visible
light from the light bulb from that which defines the radiation to be
(invisible) microwave radiation. For whilst the output from such a bulb
is, during the day, completely negligible in comparison with visible light
of natural origin – i.e. that from the Sun – this is not so in the
case of the microwave radiation emitted by a phone mast antenna day and
night, which, several hundred of metres away, is typically 10 billion
(1013) times higher than the microwave radiation that is emitted by the
Sun at the same frequency. Accordingly, the emissions of mobile phone
masts have caused an enormous (and relatively sudden) alteration in the
natural environment (at this frequency) from that in which life on Earth
has, over a very much longer time, evolved. The impact of this altered
environment on biology is further enhanced by the high coherence of the
mobile phone radiation. [11]

---

› See More: the 60W light bulb misconception

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> http://nomasts.org.uk/index.php?opti...=50&Itemid=116
>
> A familiar piece of misinformation

And you'd know all about misinformation, wouldn't you..?!


Ivor

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> http://nomasts.org.uk/index.php?opti...=50&Itemid=116
>
> A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
> that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
> 60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless.

Well, I googled for the above "misinformation" and guess what I found - yep,
the site you quote in your post.
Nothing else.
If you're going to post alleged quotes, at least back them up with a
reference that can be checked and not that of just another single-issue
pressure group.
Can you quote a link to where a mobile phone operator has stated what you
say?

George

In message <[email protected]>
Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:

[a huge load of rubbish]

Your lack of understanding of even the most basic science is
astonishing.

Dave

So you think the 60W is for each carrier do you?

Just exactly why would the mast need to be able to transmit to phones that
were so far away that they haven't a hope in hell of being able to transmit
back to the mast with their tiny 4W peak transmitters??

The 60W is the total you ASSHOLE.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
[email protected]
To email me remove the letter vee.

You still haven't cited your proof that you're involved in research, as you
claimed.

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

You take ****wittery to the extreme.


> typical values of which, in the case of GSM, range from about 40 to 60.
> If we use an optimistic figure of 30
40 to 60 ... figure of 30 ... what ? Turnips? carrots? dog ****?

Admit it, you really dont have a clue what you're talking about.

"Brian Gregory [UK]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> So you think the 60W is for each carrier do you?
>
> Just exactly why would the mast need to be able to
> transmit to phones that were so far away that they
> haven't a hope in hell of being able to transmit back to
> the mast with their tiny 4W peak transmitters??
> The 60W is the total you ASSHOLE.

ARSEhole *please* - we aren't Americans..! Don't insult asses, they're
quite nice animals..!


Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Brian Gregory [UK]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> So you think the 60W is for each carrier do you?
>>
>> Just exactly why would the mast need to be able to
>> transmit to phones that were so far away that they
>> haven't a hope in hell of being able to transmit back to
>> the mast with their tiny 4W peak transmitters??
>> The 60W is the total you ASSHOLE.
>
> ARSEhole *please* - we aren't Americans..! Don't insult asses,
> they're quite nice animals..!
>
.... maybe "asshole" = "ass's arsehole"?

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> the light from a 60W light bulb can be harmful to a person with
> photo-sensitive epilepsy, if it is flashed at an appropriate rate

**** me.

I bet 60W bulbs are harmful if swallowed, too.

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it’s easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it’s
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

Lenny wrote:

> http://nomasts.org.uk/index.php?opti...=50&Itemid=116
>
> A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
> that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
> 60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless.

I've never hard that.

Did you make it up ?

Graham

10/10 for another cut & paste.

Adam

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> http://nomasts.org.uk/index.php?opti...=50&Itemid=116
>
> A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> A familiar piece of misinformation quoted by mobile phone operators is
> that the emissions of a mobile phone mast are comparable to that of only a
> 60W light bulb,

Can you give me the URL to read that for myself, which one of the phone
companies web sites is that on?

> and thus equally harmless.

That depends on how close you get. Holding a phone next to your head is
more risky than standing a distance from a base station aerial.

>Quite apart from the fact that
> the light from a 60W light bulb can be harmful to a person with
> photo-sensitive epilepsy,

STOP! We are not talking about anything other than phones. Don't start
getting confused and wandering off the subject AGAIN!.

> if it is flashed at an appropriate rate,

Again, nothing to do with the discussion on mobiles.

>the
> comparison is solely based on intensities and neglects three important
> points:-
>

Can you give the URL of the phone company you say has compared a 60w bulb to
a mobile phone mast? I would like to read it.

>
> 1. The fact that more than one carrier signal is usually transmitted from
> the mast. Thus, the figure of >60W must be multiplied by the number of
> carriers that are actually transmitted in any particular >case;

It is important you understand about "power", "effective radiated power" and
"feeder loss". I have never known such a low power, the ones I have seen
sually work around 100w.

>in order to minimise inter-carrier interference, however, this number is
restricted typically to 4 at >the most, so the total output wattage can be a
high as 240W.
>

Don't multiply! You are then telling us that three extra transmitters and
aerials have been installed.
Are we back to ONE transmitter and aerial now?
Have you not heard of multiplexers? A quick lesson - a multiplexer allows
an aerial to have more than one transmitted frequency put through it at the
same time. It also allows simultaneous transmission and reception on
different frequencies - at the same time. You also have one in your mobile
which is why you only need ONE aerial.


> 2. Beams from the mast, however, are not emitted uniformly in all
> directions (as happens with light >from a light-bulb), but are instead
> concentrated in specific directions,

If three aerials are used, the transmitter output power is DIVIDED between
them and each one covers 120degrees. Unless it's on the cost and coverage
of the sea would be pointless, then the angles would be adjusted. There is
also a downward tilt on the radiation pattern to make sure the coverage is
only over a certain area. Why have a mobile phone that can pick up a base
but not be heard by it.

>the degree of directional focusing being quantified through the so-called
‘gain’

No that is not correct. I can put a reflector behind an omnidirectional
aerial to block coverage in a certain direction without increasing gain.
Gain is the advantage an aerial has over either an omnidirectional aerial OR
a fictional Isotropic one. Using terms like "directional focusing" is vague
and will confuse you as you don't appear technically minded.

(G) of the antenna, even omni-directional types,

It would need to be a stacked dipole or colinear type, not used that often
on phone systems.

> typical values of which, in the case of GSM, range from about 40 to 60.

A gain figure of between 40dB and 60dB ? WOW! Not one manufacturer I know
can provide such an aerial. Is this still in your imagination or have you
added a "0" on for effect and shock factor!


If we use an optimistic figure of 30

Are you working in dB here? Don't forget it is not a linear scale.

> the so-called ‘effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP),

Right, so if you are talking ISOTROPIC then you need to SUBTRACT 2.15dB from
the fictional gain figure you quoted in order to compare it to a diople
which has no gain. That lack of knowledge on your part shows you haven't a
clue - AGAIN!

>given by the multiplying Power by Gain – is 1800W,

Maybe to suit you it is! The ERP is calculated by multiplying the power
input AT THE AERIAL by a factor as shown on a dB chart. So a 3dB gain =
multiply by 2, 6dB gin = multiply by 4, 10dB = multiply by 10 and so on.


> which is further increased to 7.2kW if 4 carriers are transmitted – a
> value that is 120 times higher >than the 60W quoted!

Well it is to suit you - but your figures are not being calculated
correctly. Are you measuring transmitter output power or the power at the
end of the feeder? You obviously know nothing about transmission feeders or
coax either. At mobile phone frequencies "coax" is very lossy, you can lose
half the power in 100ft. So a 100w transmitter will only end up as being
around 50w at the point of connection to the aerial. This further reduces
your argument over power figures and gain.
You are using the wrong figures and calculating incorrectly.

>The maximum EIRP value permitted by law is 1500W per carrier,

Is it? Which Law is that? English, Scottish, around the world? Output
power and effective radiated power is governed by the terms on the licence
issued by OFCOM. You're getting confused again. So the only Law in place
to stop an operator going over the maximum allowed on the licence is one of
the Wireless & Telegraphy Acts. Those "Laws" do not state power outputs if
you care to browse through a copy of Halsburys Statutes when you're bored.
http://www.lexis-nexis.co.uk/site/Ha...s%20Direct.asp

> whilst the maximum number of carrier signals is 16 (at 1800MHz) and 10 (at
> 900MHz); in >practice, however, the number of carriers is usually
> restricted to 4 at the most, for the reason >mentioned above.
>

I didn't see any valid or technical reason - only what you think it might be
to suit the figure you incorrectly calculated earlier through a total lack
of knowledge.

> 3. The comparison neglects the all important frequency dimension,

Tell us more! What is a "frequency dimension"? Is this one of your
technical terms?

>in
> particular the difference in the frequency that characterises the visible
> light from the light bulb from that which defines the radiation to be
> (invisible) microwave radiation.

So in English what do you mean? You can illuminate a light bulb with RF too
just to confuse you further. Car headlights can emit ultra violet light -
should we be scared of that.


>For whilst the output from such a bulb
> is, during the day, completely negligible in comparison with visible light
> of natural origin – i.e. that from the Sun –

The sun is further away from a light bulb in your house. If you were to use
the uV tubes on a sunbed in your cieling rather than a conventional bulb,
you would go a strange colour in no time. You are comparing different
"types" of radiation.

>this is not so in the
> case of the microwave radiation emitted by a phone mast antenna day and
> night,

What are you going on about? The power level almost always stays the same.

> which, several hundred of metres away, is typically 10 billion
> (1013) times higher than the microwave radiation that is emitted by the
> Sun at the same frequency.

You're starting to show signs of being thick now. Why are you now comparing
a phone mast to the sun? As far as I know the sun doesn't have any mobile
phone masts on it. Please tell me which companies managed that one.

> Accordingly, the emissions of mobile phone
> masts have caused an enormous (and relatively sudden) alteration in the
> natural environment (at this frequency) from that in which life on Earth
> has, over a very much longer time, evolved.

Really? Point me to the evidence you have to support that statement. You
must have compiled a lot of research in order to prove that. The statement
you make, when examined, doesn't make sense to normal people anyway although
I understand it might in your own mind. Evolution has nothing to do with a
mobile phone or base station.

>The impact of this altered
> environment on biology is further enhanced by the high coherence of the
> mobile phone radiation. [11]

You might have to explain that in plain English as your choice of words is
impressive but meaningless when put together. Anyway - homework for next
week - go and learn about relative field strength, dB, gain and what
isotropic means. I didn't want to confuse you further by mentioning the
VSWR of the aerial - this further reduces the effective radiated power.

You are definitely the group joker. One piece of advice for you is to at
least learn more about what you try to quote from others.

"Tim Dunne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> the light from a 60W light bulb can be harmful to a person with
>> photo-sensitive epilepsy, if it is flashed at an appropriate rate
>
> **** me.
>
> I bet 60W bulbs are harmful if swallowed, too.
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
> 'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
> better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
> My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped
>
>
Oh don't go encouraging the do-gooders. We will now require a warning on
the box as people might rush off to buy one to try eating it. I forgot to
say to Loony that he should take a fluorescent tube to a transmitter site at
night and wave it in the air. It will light up. You could do it at Rugby
before the masts went and you can do it by large TV transmitters such as
Winter Hill.
I hope he slips on the tube.