"The recently proposed Connect Our Parks Act calls for increased cell service in parks but does not weigh the damaging impacts of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation — emitted by cellular installations — on all living creatures. Introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Angus King (I-Maine), this new bill does not consider the many ways that cell tower radiating equipment can impair ecologically sensitive areas and every living thing in its wake, ranging from insects to mammals to the plants and trees on which their survival depends. "

They're right about that. RF is strongly suspected of disorienting navigation of many different organisms, which is not surprising since it's well known their natural sensory systems are beyond belief sensitive.

This is how you end up with the "Devil Bird" migrating to NYC, quite a ways from Brazil.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/experts-sound-alarm-rare-appearances-111500049.html

More legislation introduced by phony pro-business GOP types prostituting their home states for tourist dollars, re-paying their donors for campaign contributions:

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 11:05:49 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > "The recently proposed Connect Our Parks Act calls for increased cell service in parks but does not weigh the damaging impacts of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation — emitted by cellular installations — on all living creatures. Introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Angus King (I-Maine), this new bill does not consider the many ways that cell tower radiating equipment can impair ecologically sensitive areas and every living thing in its wake, ranging from insects to mammals to the plants and trees on which their survival depends. "
> >
> > They're right about that. RF is strongly suspected of disorienting navigation of many different organisms, which is not surprising since it's well known their natural sensory systems are beyond belief sensitive.
> The people who strongly suspect it are beyond belief whack jobs.
> > This is how you end up with the "Devil Bird" migrating to NYC, quite a ways from Brazil.
> >
> > https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/experts-sound-alarm-rare-appearances-111500049.html
> It isn't. The articles actually blames global warming for messing up the environment, rather than cellular radio towers messing the bird's navigation.
> > More legislation introduced by phony pro-business GOP types prostituting their home states for tourist dollars, re-paying their donors for campaign contributions:
> >
> > https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
> Wack jobs do get worried about cellular radio tower emissions. There's not a scrap of objective evidence that the emissions have any effect at all, but whack jobs run on irrational prejudice, rather than rational argument.

You're not at all familiar with the scientific literature accumulating in this area of wildlife studies that has been steadily accumulating for at least the past 25 years. Ornithologists have been studying bird migrations in very minute detail, and there is a very strong association of increasing 'vagrancy' with proliferation of cell towers. Swarming insects have been observed to be affected by it too. Even UK has recognized this to be a problem there, where it's even a bigger issue because those people have nearly killed every living thing on the isles.

Just because you can't find a textbook or PNAS paper spelling every little thing out in elementary detail a person like you can even understand, doesn't mean it's not happening.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 30/07/2023 14:27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman
> wrote:
>>
>>> https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
>>
>>>
> Wack jobs do get worried about cellular radio tower emissions.
> There's not a scrap of objective evidence that the emissions have any
> effect at all, but whack jobs run on irrational prejudice, rather
> than rational argument.

They tend to set fire to 5G towers too which causes quite a bit of
pollution. That is likely the primary mechanism by which cell towers
harm the natural environment- when the wack jobs torch them!
>
> You're not at all familiar with the scientific literature
> accumulating in this area of wildlife studies that has been steadily
> accumulating for at least the past 25 years. Ornithologists have been
> studying bird migrations in very minute detail, and there is a very
> strong association of increasing 'vagrancy' with proliferation of
> cell towers. Swarming insects have been observed to be affected by it

Most of the vagrancy of birds off course seems to be associated with
unusual seasonal weather during their migration, strong winds and shifts
in jetstream and ocean currents. Correlation does not imply causation.

We are seeing a few unusual species entering the UK and breeding for the
first time because of global warming. Exotic bee eaters in S England now.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/15/exotic-bee-eater-returns-to-uk-for-second-summer-in-a-row

That is driven by AGW and nothing to do with cell phone networks.
(also a couple of novelty butterflies and pests have made the leap)

> too. Even UK has recognized this to be a problem there, where it's
> even a bigger issue because those people have nearly killed every
> living thing on the isles.

You are seriously delusional.

> Just because you can't find a textbook or PNAS paper spelling every
> little thing out in elementary detail a person like you can even
> understand, doesn't mean it's not happening.

It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn't
very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.

--
Martin Brown

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:58:08 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 30/07/2023 14:27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
> >>
> >>>
> > Wack jobs do get worried about cellular radio tower emissions.
> > There's not a scrap of objective evidence that the emissions have any
> > effect at all, but whack jobs run on irrational prejudice, rather
> > than rational argument.
> They tend to set fire to 5G towers too which causes quite a bit of
> pollution. That is likely the primary mechanism by which cell towers
> harm the natural environment- when the wack jobs torch them!
> >
> > You're not at all familiar with the scientific literature
> > accumulating in this area of wildlife studies that has been steadily
> > accumulating for at least the past 25 years. Ornithologists have been
> > studying bird migrations in very minute detail, and there is a very
> > strong association of increasing 'vagrancy' with proliferation of
> > cell towers. Swarming insects have been observed to be affected by it
> Most of the vagrancy of birds off course seems to be associated with
> unusual seasonal weather during their migration, strong winds and shifts
> in jetstream and ocean currents. Correlation does not imply causation.
>
> We are seeing a few unusual species entering the UK and breeding for the
> first time because of global warming. Exotic bee eaters in S England now.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/15/exotic-bee-eater-returns-to-uk-for-second-summer-in-a-row
>
> That is driven by AGW and nothing to do with cell phone networks.
> (also a couple of novelty butterflies and pests have made the leap)
> > too. Even UK has recognized this to be a problem there, where it's
> > even a bigger issue because those people have nearly killed every
> > living thing on the isles.
> You are seriously delusional.
> > Just because you can't find a textbook or PNAS paper spelling every
> > little thing out in elementary detail a person like you can even
> > understand, doesn't mean it's not happening.
> It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn't
> very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
> range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
> emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
> who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.

Peer reviewed literature in mainstream scence:

https://mdsafetech.org/2021/07/19/wildlife-and-biodiversity-a-disappearing-act-by-cell-towers-on-land-and-in-space/

Altered behavior is a marker for physical effect.

>
> --
> Martin Brown

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:58:08 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 30/07/2023 14:27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
> >>
> >>>
> > Wack jobs do get worried about cellular radio tower emissions.
> > There's not a scrap of objective evidence that the emissions have any
> > effect at all, but whack jobs run on irrational prejudice, rather
> > than rational argument.
> They tend to set fire to 5G towers too which causes quite a bit of
> pollution. That is likely the primary mechanism by which cell towers
> harm the natural environment- when the wack jobs torch them!
> >
> > You're not at all familiar with the scientific literature
> > accumulating in this area of wildlife studies that has been steadily
> > accumulating for at least the past 25 years. Ornithologists have been
> > studying bird migrations in very minute detail, and there is a very
> > strong association of increasing 'vagrancy' with proliferation of
> > cell towers. Swarming insects have been observed to be affected by it
> Most of the vagrancy of birds off course seems to be associated with
> unusual seasonal weather during their migration, strong winds and shifts
> in jetstream and ocean currents. Correlation does not imply causation.
>
> We are seeing a few unusual species entering the UK and breeding for the
> first time because of global warming. Exotic bee eaters in S England now.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/15/exotic-bee-eater-returns-to-uk-for-second-summer-in-a-row
>
> That is driven by AGW and nothing to do with cell phone networks.
> (also a couple of novelty butterflies and pests have made the leap)
> > too. Even UK has recognized this to be a problem there, where it's
> > even a bigger issue because those people have nearly killed every
> > living thing on the isles.
> You are seriously delusional.

Nearly endless list of all the species killed off:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_the_British_Isles

> > Just because you can't find a textbook or PNAS paper spelling every
> > little thing out in elementary detail a person like you can even
> > understand, doesn't mean it's not happening.
> It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn't
> very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
> range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
> emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
> who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.
>
> --
> Martin Brown

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:57:58 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>
[snip]
>
>It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn't
>very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
>range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
>emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
>who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.

Well, these long-range microwave links are not all that powerful, so
let's talk about radar engineers and technicians. We're talking
megawatts versus a kilowatt.

In short, they don't die of brain cancer any more often than does the
general population, and not for lack of exposure.

How the Microwave Oven was invented by Percey Spencer is instructive:

'Spencer is best known as the inventor of the microwave oven. During
his research into electromagnetic waves in the 1940s, Spencer noticed
that a candy bar in his pocket melted when he was standing next to a
magnetron. He realized that electromagnetic waves could be used to
cook food, and Spencer subsequently filed a patent with Raytheon for
the RadarRange in 1945. As Vannevar Bush once said, Spencer “earned
the respect of every physicist in the country, not only for his
ingenuity, but for what he has learned about physics by absorbing it
through his skin.” '

..<https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/profile/percy-spencer/>

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Spencer>

He died at age 76.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>"The recently proposed Connect Our Parks Act calls for increased cell service in parks but does not weigh the damaging impacts of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation — emitted by cellular installations — on all living creatures. Introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Angus King (I-Maine), this new bill does not consider the many ways that cell tower radiating equipment can impair ecologically sensitive areas and every living thing in its wake, ranging from insects to mammals to the plants and trees on which their survival depends. "
>
>They're right about that. RF is strongly suspected of disorienting navigation of many different organisms, which is not surprising since it's well known their natural sensory systems are beyond belief sensitive.
>
>This is how you end up with the "Devil Bird" migrating to NYC, quite a ways from Brazil.
>
>https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/experts-sound-alarm-rare-appearances-111500049.html
>
>More legislation introduced by phony pro-business GOP types prostituting their home states for tourist dollars, re-paying their donors for campaign contributions:
>
>https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
>

You seem to live terrified, in constant fear, and research yet more
things to be afraid of.

I suspect fear level is genetic, fixed at birth. The world is far
safer that it used to be, but our gene pool is slow to adapt.

On a sunny day (Sun, 30 Jul 2023 12:21:46 -0400) it happened Joe Gwinn
<joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in <lk2dci19f7pmr395d39afgbdgr4qhdrjk6@4ax.com>:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:57:58 +0100, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>[snip]
>>
>>It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn't
>>very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
>>range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
>>emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
>>who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.
>
>Well, these long-range microwave links are not all that powerful, so
>let's talk about radar engineers and technicians. We're talking
>megawatts versus a kilowatt.
>
>In short, they don't die of brain cancer any more often than does the
>general population, and not for lack of exposure.
>
>How the Microwave Oven was invented by Percey Spencer is instructive:
>
>'Spencer is best known as the inventor of the microwave oven. During
>his research into electromagnetic waves in the 1940s, Spencer noticed
>that a candy bar in his pocket melted when he was standing next to a
>magnetron. He realized that electromagnetic waves could be used to
>cook food, and Spencer subsequently filed a patent with Raytheon for
>the RadarRange in 1945. As Vannevar Bush once said, Spencer �earned
>the respect of every physicist in the country, not only for his
>ingenuity, but for what he has learned about physics by absorbing it
>through his skin.� '
>
>.<https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/profile/percy-spencer/>
>
>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Spencer>
>
>He died at age 76.
>
>Joe Gwinn

I did an experiment sleeping with my cellphone under my pillow (it was on standby),
created a horrible sort of buzz feeling in my head,
I have WiFi off, not only for security (that sucks with WiFi),
but to not be exposed to not needed radiation.
Effect decreases exponential with distance, so when they start giggle-Hertz transmission
at every lamppost maybe time for an alu-foil head, or body armor.
If they go even higher to the light / visible spectrum?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:57:58 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 30/07/2023 14:27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
>>>
>>>>
> > Wack jobs do get worried about cellular radio tower emissions.
> > There's not a scrap of objective evidence that the emissions have any
> > effect at all, but whack jobs run on irrational prejudice, rather
> > than rational argument.
>
>They tend to set fire to 5G towers too which causes quite a bit of
>pollution. That is likely the primary mechanism by which cell towers
>harm the natural environment- when the wack jobs torch them!
>>
>> You're not at all familiar with the scientific literature
>> accumulating in this area of wildlife studies that has been steadily
>> accumulating for at least the past 25 years. Ornithologists have been
>> studying bird migrations in very minute detail, and there is a very
>> strong association of increasing 'vagrancy' with proliferation of
>> cell towers. Swarming insects have been observed to be affected by it
>
>Most of the vagrancy of birds off course seems to be associated with
>unusual seasonal weather during their migration, strong winds and shifts
>in jetstream and ocean currents. Correlation does not imply causation.
>
>We are seeing a few unusual species entering the UK and breeding for the
>first time because of global warming. Exotic bee eaters in S England now.
>
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/15/exotic-bee-eater-returns-to-uk-for-second-summer-in-a-row
>
>That is driven by AGW and nothing to do with cell phone networks.

And you're oblivious to the irony. AGW may be a valid contention, but
it's *definitely* nothing to do with CO2 levels! RF broadcast
emissions are a far more likely culprit here (and these emissions do
NOT cause birds to fly off-course).

>(also a couple of novelty butterflies and pests have made the leap)
>
>> too. Even UK has recognized this to be a problem there, where it's
>> even a bigger issue because those people have nearly killed every
>> living thing on the isles.
>
>You are seriously delusional.

Yes, but so are you.

>> Just because you can't find a textbook or PNAS paper spelling every
>> little thing out in elementary detail a person like you can even
>> understand, doesn't mean it's not happening.
>
>It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn't
>very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
>range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
>emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
>who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.

Absolute crap. I had friends who worked their entire lives *inside*
the BBC's World Service transmitters when they were still in E. Sussex
and none of them ever suffered from any such issues. You and Fred are
*both* full of shit on this one.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 09:46:41 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"The recently proposed Connect Our Parks Act calls for increased cell service in parks but does not weigh the damaging impacts of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation — emitted by cellular installations — on all living creatures. Introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Angus King (I-Maine), this new bill does not consider the many ways that cell tower radiating equipment can impair ecologically sensitive areas and every living thing in its wake, ranging from insects to mammals to the plants and trees on which their survival depends. "
>>
>>They're right about that. RF is strongly suspected of disorienting navigation of many different organisms, which is not surprising since it's well known their natural sensory systems are beyond belief sensitive.
>>
>>This is how you end up with the "Devil Bird" migrating to NYC, quite a ways from Brazil.
>>
>>https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/experts-sound-alarm-rare-appearances-111500049.html
>>
>>More legislation introduced by phony pro-business GOP types prostituting their home states for tourist dollars, re-paying their donors for campaign contributions:
>>
>>https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
>>
>
>You seem to live terrified, in constant fear, and research yet more
>things to be afraid of.

Fred seems to have always suffered from some form of mental illness,
if his postings here over the years are anything to go by. I can
understand how the unrelenting assault of AGW propaganda can damage
the cognitive functioning of children and young people, but how anyone
of Fred's age - and presumably capable of some level of critical
thinking - can fall for this BS is at once both remarkable and deeply
concerning.

>I suspect fear level is genetic, fixed at birth. The world is far
>safer that it used to be, but our gene pool is slow to adapt.

Not so I'm afraid. Anxiety is predominantly due to nurture and adverse
life experiences. It's certainly NOT fixed at birth!

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 18:40:53 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 09:46:41 -0700, John Larkin
><jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"The recently proposed Connect Our Parks Act calls for increased cell service in parks but does not weigh the damaging impacts of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation — emitted by cellular installations — on all living creatures. Introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Angus King (I-Maine), this new bill does not consider the many ways that cell tower radiating equipment can impair ecologically sensitive areas and every living thing in its wake, ranging from insects to mammals to the plants and trees on which their survival depends. "
>>>
>>>They're right about that. RF is strongly suspected of disorienting navigation of many different organisms, which is not surprising since it's well known their natural sensory systems are beyond belief sensitive.
>>>
>>>This is how you end up with the "Devil Bird" migrating to NYC, quite a ways from Brazil.
>>>
>>>https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/experts-sound-alarm-rare-appearances-111500049.html
>>>
>>>More legislation introduced by phony pro-business GOP types prostituting their home states for tourist dollars, re-paying their donors for campaign contributions:
>>>
>>>https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
>>>
>>
>>You seem to live terrified, in constant fear, and research yet more
>>things to be afraid of.
>
>Fred seems to have always suffered from some form of mental illness,
>if his postings here over the years are anything to go by. I can
>understand how the unrelenting assault of AGW propaganda can damage
>the cognitive functioning of children and young people, but how anyone
>of Fred's age - and presumably capable of some level of critical
>thinking - can fall for this BS is at once both remarkable and deeply
>concerning.
>
>>I suspect fear level is genetic, fixed at birth. The world is far
>>safer that it used to be, but our gene pool is slow to adapt.
>
>Not so I'm afraid. Anxiety is predominantly due to nurture and adverse
>life experiences. It's certainly NOT fixed at birth!

Some little kids are wild and reckless, some are timid and afraid. I
don't think they had time to learn those attitudes.

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 12:22:03 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> .
> Well, these long-range microwave links are not all that powerful, so
> let's talk about radar engineers and technicians. We're talking
> megawatts versus a kilowatt.
>

Some analog TV station radiated 5MW on the UHF channels.

Our sun also emits a tremendous amount of RF, well past 4GHz. C-band birds had 'Sun Outages twice a year, for several day in a row as it aligned itslf behind the birds. Due to the fairly low beam width of a good dish, it was under ten minutes on the worst day.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 12:21:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:57:58 +0100, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>[snip]
>>
>>It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn't
>>very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
>>range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
>>emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
>>who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.
>
>Well, these long-range microwave links are not all that powerful, so
>let's talk about radar engineers and technicians. We're talking
>megawatts versus a kilowatt.

Direct visual line of sight links require little radiated power
(EiRP).

Apparently the "long-range" links refer to the troposcatter
over-the-horizon links between Scotland and the North Sea oil rigs.
Such tropospheric scatter links require really high EiRP. When going
over the radio horizon, you have to increase the power ten times (+10
dB) for every degree the signal has to bend down past the horizon.

Those North Sea links had huge fixed parabolic reflectors on the
shore.

It is interesting to note that people get more and more scared when
the parabolic disk size is increased. In fact if the transmitter power
remains the same, the near field field strength is lowered when the
disk size is increased. The most dangerous point in a parabolic
antenna is close to the feed point. Never look into the waveguide or
feedhorn unless you are absolutely sure that the transmitter is
powered down, or you may get blind in a few seconds.

Regarding the 5 MW EiRP UHF transmitters, the much smaller transmitter
power is directed towards the horizon to reach as far as possible.
Very little is radiated above the horizon or to the ground just around
the tower. Thus walking on the ground towards the tower, the power
densities remains quite low.

However do not fly close to the tower at 300 to 600 m altitude in a
wooden biplane, since you are in the antenna main lobe and the wooden
plane doesn't protect you as a metallic plane does.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:04:43?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:58:08?AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>> > On 30/07/2023 14:27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
>> Peer reviewed literature in mainstream science:
>>
>> https://mdsafetech.org/2021/07/19/wildlife-and-biodiversity-a-disappearing-act-by-cell-towers-on-land-and-in-space/
>>
>> Altered behavior is a marker for physical effect.
>
>But you have to work out which physical effect is making the difference. The fact that you can see cell phone towers doesn't mean that they are what is making the difference.
>
>Physicians for Safe Technology doesn't sound all that mainstream. and physicians have published some truly terrible science.

Here's some 5G BS for ya I ran across a while back...

https://youtu.be/BwyDCHf5iCY?list=PLEnjh_SJZNljxwoFqc6N4w5JNSj5y8kop&t=347

On 7/30/23 13:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 11:05:49 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> "The recently proposed Connect Our Parks Act calls for increased cell service in parks but does not weigh the damaging impacts of wireless radio frequency (RF) radiation — emitted by cellular installations — on all living creatures. Introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Angus King (I-Maine), this new bill does not consider the many ways that cell tower radiating equipment can impair ecologically sensitive areas and every living thing in its wake, ranging from insects to mammals to the plants and trees on which their survival depends. "
>>
>> They're right about that. RF is strongly suspected of disorienting navigation of many different organisms, which is not surprising since it's well known their natural sensory systems are beyond belief sensitive.
>
> The people who strongly suspect it are beyond belief whack jobs.
>
>> This is how you end up with the "Devil Bird" migrating to NYC, quite a ways from Brazil.
>>
>> https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/experts-sound-alarm-rare-appearances-111500049.html
>
> It isn't. The articles actually blames global warming for messing up the environment, rather than cellular radio towers messing the bird's navigation.
>
>> More legislation introduced by phony pro-business GOP types prostituting their home states for tourist dollars, re-paying their donors for campaign contributions:
>>
>> https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4124742-we-cannot-ignore-the-dangers-of-radiation-in-our-national-parks/
>
> Wack jobs do get worried about cellular radio tower emissions. There's not a scrap of objective evidence that the emissions have any effect at all, but whack jobs run on irrational prejudice, rather than rational argument.
>

Since radiation exposure goes down, iirc, as the square of
distance, you would probably get far more radiation exposure every
time you put your mobile to your ear. The 5G stuff here in the uk
has caused a lot of controversy, but no evidence, as usual. You
just can't debate anything with some technically illiterate people.
Belief system, not reason.

Been around ham radio and other transmitters for a lifetime, but
would still probably use a hands free kit for the mobile if I used
it a lot...

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 3:17:36?AM UTC+10, boB wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:04:43?AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:58:08?AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>> >> > On 30/07/2023 14:27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> >> > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 9:16:56?AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> >
>> >> Peer reviewed literature in mainstream science:
>> >>
>> >> https://mdsafetech.org/2021/07/19/wildlife-and-biodiversity-a-disappearing-act-by-cell-towers-on-land-and-in-space/
>> >>
>> >> Altered behavior is a marker for physical effect.
>> >
>> >But you have to work out which physical effect is making the difference. The fact that you can see cell phone towers doesn't mean that they are what is making the difference.
>> >
>> >Physicians for Safe Technology doesn't sound all that mainstream. and physicians have published some truly terrible science.
>>
>> Here's some 5G BS for ya I ran across a while back...
>>
>> https://youtu.be/BwyDCHf5iCY?list=PLEnjh_SJZNljxwoFqc6N4w5JNSj5y8kop&t=347
>
>"comments are turned off". YouTube is mostly not worth wasting time on, and when comments are turned off it's really not worth finding out why.

BUT it is GREAT BS !

You can comment here where some people may understand you. It was
the BSers that did not want intelligent people to comment.

boB

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:54:00 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 12:21:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:57:58 +0100, Martin Brown
> ><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >>It is extremely unlikely that cell towers affect anything that isn't
> >>very close to the emitters. Back in the old days some of the fast long
> >>range microwave links had dangerous power levels up close to the
> >>emitter. I suspect that they did for a RF engineer of my acquaintance
> >>who died very young of an unusual and rare brain cancer.
> >
> >Well, these long-range microwave links are not all that powerful, so
> >let's talk about radar engineers and technicians. We're talking
> >megawatts versus a kilowatt.
> Direct visual line of sight links require little radiated power
> (EiRP).
>
> Apparently the "long-range" links refer to the troposcatter
> over-the-horizon links between Scotland and the North Sea oil rigs.
> Such tropospheric scatter links require really high EiRP. When going
> over the radio horizon, you have to increase the power ten times (+10
> dB) for every degree the signal has to bend down past the horizon.
>
> Those North Sea links had huge fixed parabolic reflectors on the
> shore.
>
> It is interesting to note that people get more and more scared when
> the parabolic disk size is increased. In fact if the transmitter power
> remains the same, the near field field strength is lowered when the
> disk size is increased. The most dangerous point in a parabolic
> antenna is close to the feed point. Never look into the waveguide or
> feedhorn unless you are absolutely sure that the transmitter is
> powered down, or you may get blind in a few seconds.
>
>
> Regarding the 5 MW EiRP UHF transmitters, the much smaller transmitter
> power is directed towards the horizon to reach as far as possible.
> Very little is radiated above the horizon or to the ground just around
> the tower. Thus walking on the ground towards the tower, the power
> densities remains quite low.
>
> However do not fly close to the tower at 300 to 600 m altitude in a
> wooden biplane, since you are in the antenna main lobe and the wooden
> plane doesn't protect you as a metallic plane does.

Alaska's now long gone White Alice network was used to provide phone service between all military bases. It was used to provide service over mountain ranges. I used it in '73/'74. It worked quite well, but it required very large antennas and a lot of power. It used refraction to go over mountain peaks.. There are photos online, along with it's history. It states that this was the first used for that application.

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 3:54:00 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 12:21:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:57:58 +0100, Martin Brown

> >
> >Well, these long-range microwave links are not all that powerful, so
> >let's talk about radar engineers and technicians. We're talking
> >megawatts versus a kilowatt.
> Direct visual line of sight links require little radiated power
> (EiRP).

The STL transmitters we used were at 7GHz and under 5W for a 40+ mile hop.

>
> Regarding the 5 MW EiRP UHF transmitters, the much smaller transmitter
> power is directed towards the horizon to reach as far as possible.
> Very little is radiated above the horizon or to the ground just around
> the tower. Thus walking on the ground towards the tower, the power
> densities remains quite low.

You couldn't get enough signal in the transmitter building to monitor your signal. The transmitter had a test port that we used for off air monitoring.. The tower was 1700 feet tall, with two TV, five FM and a Trunking radio service, along with man leased repeaters for Government agencies like the fire service. Our antenna was at the top.

Because of its height, and proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the seaward side had a reflector to minimize the seaward side signal.

> However do not fly close to the tower at 300 to 600 m altitude in a
> wooden biplane, since you are in the antenna main lobe and the wooden
> plane doesn't protect you as a metallic plane does.