• 29 JAN 11
    • 0

    1341: Will new wireless technologies be safe to use?

    The following is an article submitted to EMFacts by Georgiy Ostroumov PhD:

    Will new wireless technologies be safe to use?
    Georgiy Ostroumov PhD

    Common sense says that different scenarios can be implemented. But I would like
    to draw your attention to phrase ”It is however unlikely, due to general rules
    governing the design of radio systems, that any new technology will cause
    significantly higher exposures to the general public in the foreseeable future
    than the examples introduced here.:

    http://www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/2009/fi_FI/news_578/
    _files/82468269424050267/default/ANNEX161109EMF.pdf

    Who has written this? The Nordic Radiation Safety Authorities have written
    this. This means that there is only dangerous scenario for humanity. It may be,
    but it must not happen! No need to scare people by describing only disastrous
    scenario. Many people around the world are hoping that all radiation safety
    authorities will prevent use of dangerous technologies. Yes, the new
    technologies can lead to significant increase in total public exposure. But one
    should always emphasize fact that this is not sentence. On the contrary, many
    new technologies can and must use technical solutions leading to reduction of
    the total public exposure. It is worth adding that many new wireless
    technologies are more cost-effective and energy efficient.
    I would not want to talk abstractly about any new technology, as The Nordic
    Radiation Safety Authorities do. Let us look at some new technologies.

    New digital TV (DVB-T), compared with analogue TV, theoretically allows
    repeatedly to reduce microwave background. For example, in the third TV
    frequency range, you can use a digital transmitter with output power in 5 times
    smaller than it was for an analog transmitter. Thus, this new technology may
    lead to significant reduction in exposure to electromagnetic fields. In
    practice, incorrect transition to the digital TV can lead to increase in the
    exposure to the electromagnetic fields (for example, if a digital TV transmitter
    of the fourth frequency range replaces a analog TV transmitter of the first
    frequency range). Despite this, power flux density remains high even at distance
    of 10 km from the digital transmitter and can cause negative symptoms. For this
    reason, terrestrial TV (digital and analog) must be completely replaced by
    satellite TV, cable TV and internet TV. This decision would not only be safe,
    but also cost effective. Benefit is achieved by using TV frequencies for needs
    of mobile communication.

    Mobile TV based on mobile networks (3G, 4G) also is new technology which does
    not lead to substantial increase in the exposure to the electromagnetic fields.
    I would think everybody should support this technology of the mobile TV.

    Unfortunately, government officials have often supported new and dangerous
    technology (DVB-H). Concept of the technology is inhuman concept. I would say
    that this technology is a killer of population in big cities. Why? To understand
    better this, let us look at the terrestrial TV.
    Only large external antenna can receive weak signals of the terrestrial TV.
    Relatively small indoor antenna could receive TV signals only near TV
    transmitter. But people sick more often and die sooner if they live close to the
    TV transmitter. I remember in 1969-1970 I lived in the centre of Donetsk
    (Ukraine) and TV tower was located quite close (approximately 1 km). TV signal
    was so powerful that a TV receiver worked without any antenna. It is very likely
    that I have got my EHS for this reason. Obviously, many residents received
    health problems for the same reason. Later, this TV tower was replaced with new
    TV tower, but outside of the city.
    Usually only part of the residents suffers from radiation of the terrestrial TV.
    Mobile TV (DVB-H) changes this situation radically. The concept of this mobile
    TV, essentially says that all city residents will live close to powerful
    transmitters because a mobile TV receiver must have a very small antenna! Of
    course, experts in the field of the technology (DVB-H) say completely different
    words: “A receiver of the mobile TV has to work indoors (up to the second wall).
    Unlimited number of users should be able to view the mobile TV simultaneously.”
    So “Fine words dress ill deeds”. For example, two networks of this mobile TV
    (DVB-H) are working in Moscow. Each network contains 35 TV transmitters (each of
    these 34 transmitters emits power 400 W). This is disaster for the health of
    millions of people in the city because nobody will relocate people to a safe
    distance from the transmitter (about 3 km). Let us estimate potential harm of
    the technology (DVB-H) by comparing this technology with 3G technology.
    Typically, a transmitter of 3G technology emits power not more than 20 W in the
    city. Furthermore, in terms of depth of penetration into a human body, DVB-H
    frequencies are more dangerous (about 3.2 times) than 3G frequencies (at least
    the ICNIRP says so). Of course, this estimate is very approximate and ignores
    possible influence of the other factors.
    Thus, taking into account only energy parameters we can say that the transmitter
    of the mobile TV may be more dangerous (about 64 times) than the transmitter of
    the 3G technology.

    In practice, very few citizens are using this mobile TV.
    Needless to say that the mobile TV based on mobile networks (3G, 4G) allows
    users to watch programs also outside cities, while the technology (DVB-H) cannot
    do this due to economic reasons.

    Thus, the technology for mobile TV based on broadcasts via the mobile networks
    (3G, 4G) can and should completely replace the technology (DVB-H) in the big
    cities.

    Let us discuss briefly 4G technologies (mobile WiMAX and LTE) because they can
    lead to increase the exposure of the public from wireless communication systems
    in the near future. There are several reasons that could lead to increase the
    public exposure from the 4G technologies. But the 4G technologies can provide
    and such technical solutions that lead to significant reduction the public
    exposure from the microwave radiation.

    Good to know:
    -radiation power of base stations (2G, 3G, 4G) is approximately the same;
    -2G phone can emit up to 2 W, 3G(UMTS) phone can emit up to 1 W, while 4G phone
    can emit only 0.2 W.
    Moreover, the 4G technologies could use various types of smart antennas. It
    could significantly reduce the public exposure from 4G base stations and 4G
    mobile terminals.

    There will be new possibility to do extremely cheap calls (voice, video) using
    the 4G phone. Thus in many case no need to keep the phone near head.
    Unfortunately, this technical solution (the new possibility) is not profitable
    for mobile operators (2G, 3G).

    Lastly, the 4G technologies will capable fully replace technologies such as 2G,
    3G, DVB-H, etc. At this point I would like to emphasize that many mobile
    operators (2G) will develop the 4G technologies, but they will support and 2G
    technology as long as possible.

    Thus, introduction the 4G technologies could significantly reduce the public
    exposure (compared with current level of exposure). It should be. At least such
    scenario exists.

    But if the technical solutions to reduce the public exposure from microwave
    devices will be ignored and if the networks (2G, 3G, and DVB-H) will continue to
    operate for many more years, introduction of the 4G technologies will only lead
    to increasing the public exposure from wireless communication.

    The 4G technologies use completely new signals. It would therefore be highly
    desirable to investigate influence of these signals on human health.

    Thus, these three examples show that the new wireless technologies can provide
    significant reduction in the public exposure, lower power consumption and cost.
    Unfortunately, just dangerous and expensive technology is often implemented.
    Why? Guess please.

    Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D., microwaves

    Leave a reply →