Cell site issue

[Nathanvoite]

With all the debate over cell phones causing cancer, I wonder why more media attention isn't given to all the people who are exposed to high levels of RF radiation while on the job. As more and more cell sites are put on roof-tops, building facades, billboards etc. the potential is there to expose roofers, electricians, repairmen, firefighters and others to levels of RF radiation in excess of FCC limits. A cell phone may max out at 300 milli-Watts, but a cell antenna can continually transmit hundreds of Watts - stand in front of those and you WILL get hurt.

Does anybody else have thoughts on this issue?

[hillbilly44]

Originally Posted by Nathanvoite

With all the debate over cell phones causing cancer, I wonder why more media attention isn't given to all the people who are exposed to high levels of RF radiation while on the job. As more and more cell sites are put on roof-tops, building facades, billboards etc. the potential is there to expose roofers, electricians, repairmen, firefighters and others to levels of RF radiation in excess of FCC limits. A cell phone may max out at 300 milli-Watts, but a cell antenna can continually transmit hundreds of Watts - stand in front of those and you WILL get hurt.

Does anybody else have thoughts on this issue?

Yes if you stand in front of an antenna for a centain period of time you can get hurt,but I know for a fact that there are signage, barriers and other things that can limit a persons exposure to RF on places like rooftops (barriers, signage), building facades (are you going to fly in mid-air in front of the antenna?). As far as all the people you state can be exposed, how often are they within the areas where they might be exposed? do you have any actual facts or are you just going to fling things about and see what sticks?

[Nathanvoite]

I didn't mean to be inflammatory, but a sign stating that one should use 'caution' and stay back 5 feet from an antenna means very little to roofer/painter/window washer whose job depends on getting his work finished in a timely manner. I understand that stand alone towers pose a low risk as the only people climbing those towers will be employees of tower company/cell carrier - those employees have RF training and knowledge of power down procedures.

[Benwagner]

The IBEW wrote an interesting article about this very subject.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6520037722

[hillbilly44]

Originally Posted by Nathanvoite

I didn't mean to be inflammatory, but a sign stating that one should use 'caution' and stay back 5 feet from an antenna means very little to roofer/painter/window washer whose job depends on getting his work finished in a timely manner. I understand that stand alone towers pose a low risk as the only people climbing those towers will be employees of tower company/cell carrier - those employees have RF training and knowledge of power down procedures.

Really? alot of roof tops have more than signs? they have barriers to prevent a person from climbing in front of an antenna. And what's wrong with a sign? The sign specifically says Warning RF Hazard. I don't understand the excuse well I saw the sign but decided to ignore it. So don't blame it all on the cell phone companies.

[hillbilly44]

Originally Posted by Benwagner

The IBEW wrote an interesting article about this very subject.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6520037722

The IBEW is complaining because Verizon is mainly a non-union company that would like to organize Verizon Wireless.

[Benwagner]

I don't think that anyone is painting the cell phone service providers as the bad guys - at least I'm not - certainly the building owner shares some responsibility to inform third party workers that a hazard is present. Also remember that nearly half of the antennas out there are owned by different federal and state governments and local municipalities.

Attached is a picture I've worked on recently. This pole is in a parkinglot owned by the county. There is no sign on the pole - no warning to guy who uses a bucket lift or ladder to change the light bulb. There are thousands of antennas that pose similar hazards to workers.

I do believe that cell site safety is a serious problem.

[Nathanvoite]

I climbed this tower to change the light bulbs a few weeks ago, its located at a city park. There were no signs on the pole. I found the equipment shed about 50 yards away that had a disconnected phone number listed on the contact information. I called the park manager to get the antennas turned off - he had no idea how to do that or who to contact. He said he'd call me back when he had more information. Still no word from him.
There are a lot of people who are getting hurt on the job because of situations like this.

[larry]

Originally Posted by Nathanvoite

I climbed this tower to change the light bulbs a few weeks ago, its located at a city park. There were no signs on the pole. I found the equipment shed about 50 yards away that had a disconnected phone number listed on the contact information. I called the park manager to get the antennas turned off - he had no idea how to do that or who to contact. He said he'd call me back when he had more information. Still no word from him.
There are a lot of people who are getting hurt on the job because of situations like this.

Why did you create a 2nd username (Benwagner)? Having and using multiple usernames is not allowed and we especially don't like it when you use them to shill for one another.

[Benwagner]

Originally Posted by larry

Why did you create a 2nd username (Benwagner)? Having and using multiple usernames is not allowed and we especially don't like it when you use them to shill for one another.

Nate and I share an office - We have similar points of view. I wasn't 'shilling' for him.

[Nathanvoite]

More examples of typical sites that pose risks to workers.

[larry]

Originally Posted by Benwagner

Nate and I share an office - We have similar points of view. I wasn't 'shilling' for him.

Umm ok. And very similar writing styles as well huh? Like using dashes the same way. I still consider this type of thing shilling.

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by Benwagner

Nate and I share an office - We have similar points of view. I wasn't 'shilling' for him.

Do you share one computer also?

In any case, if you two do share an office, a computer, and have identical viewpoints, it hardly makes sense for both of you post on the same topic just to say the same thing.

[Charlyee]

Nathanvoite, It is very interesting that you reported the post I made to Benwagner as harassing you. . You two must feel each others pain more so than identical twins.

In any case, no one is ever harassed on this forum for having a different viewpoint than a moderator, all differing viewpoints are welcome and encouraged, that is exactly what this forum is for.

Let's go back to the actual problem, giving you the benefit of doubt, the two of you are just too same to waste bandwidth posting the same thing in support of each other. Why don't you post jointly maybe as "NickBen"?

[larry]

Creating multiple usernames from the same computer is not allowed. Period. Because then anyone could use the excuse that it's their buddy in the same office which might or might not be true (more often not true). But we can't let that sort of thing happen here because there would potentially be too many users with multiple user names which can lead to shilling, flaming, circumventing bans, etc. So if your friend or co-worker wants to be a part of WA that's fine but they'll have to sign up using a different computer or IP address. Case closed.

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by Nathanvoite

More examples of typical sites that pose risks to workers.

In the first picture (and maybe also the second) the antennas shouldn't be bunched together (and so low!) in the center of the rooftop. The signal is getting attenuated by the roof of the building and not providing much coverage(!). They should really be placed closer to the edges of the building for more effective coverage.

...as for the saftey of workers: if someone passes briefily in front of an antenna, it shouldn't be a problem. If you'll be near it for a longer period of time, and it needs to be switched off for a while, then contact the operator directly, or ask the building owner to contact the operator in your behalf. The transmission of the antenna can be disabled remotely by the click of a mouse button. It's very easy. The hard part is finding out who to contact.

[Nathanvoite]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

In the first picture (and maybe also the second) the antennas shouldn't be bunched together (and so low!) in the center of the rooftop. The signal is getting attenuated by the roof of the building and not providing much coverage(!). They should really be placed closer to the edges of the building for more effective coverage.

...as for the saftey of workers: if someone passes briefily in front of an antenna, it shouldn't be a problem. If you'll be near it for a longer period of time, and it needs to be switched off for a while, then contact the operator directly, or ask the building owner to contact the operator in your behalf. The transmission of the antenna can be disabled remotely by the click of a mouse button. It's very easy. The hard part is finding out who to contact.

I aggree that the antennas placement is less than ideal. I believe the city council denied the original mounting plan because it would be too visible from street level.

The real problem is that the workers who are getting over-exposed don't even know that the antennas are potentially dangerous. The roofer or HVAC guy may have zero RF training to even know that they shouldn't get in front of the antenna for more than a few moments. More and more antennas are clad in fiberglass panels, so that even if they did know the dangers, they may not realize where the antenna is.

I'm not saying any one party is to blame. The FCC licensee, property owner, employer etc all share responsibility. I'm just trying to generate discussion on a problem that will only get worse as more base stations are needed and local ordinances become more restrictive.