Polson on target regarding public’s RF perception
Thank you for Peter Polson’s excellent
article “Public opposition expected to rise about RFR radiation,” Feb. 8 in RCR. I agree that there is,
indeed, a great storm brewing and it is about to break over the wireless industry.
I am a wireless field engineer. My
current project is the permitting, zoning and construction of 900 MHz antennas for BellSouth Wireless Data. My
territory is New England. It is a tough area in which to seek permission for siting antennas.
Recently, I went to a
meeting of a small, but vocal, ad hoc group in the town of Marblehead, Mass. Marblehead is a largely upper-middle
class, somewhat “entitled” type of town. The citizen’s group holding the meeting called themselves CARE,
or “Citizens Against RadioFrequency Emissions.” The more I listened, the more disturbed I
became.
The most disturbing thing was the guest speaker. She was a young woman with degrees in civil
engineering from Wellesley and MIT, who gave what appeared to be a tutorial/overview of wireless technology and
EM emissions in general. I was disturbed to see her giving out technical information regarding power outputs,
frequencies and Gauss levels, which were just plain factually WRONG-and she remained unchallenged.
I was
disturbed both by her putting out “junk science,” and posing as an authority, but also by the lumping
together of RF, microwave, power line and other emissions, when they should properly be treated as separate
issues/phenomena. There was also an undertone which suggested paranoia, conspiracy and fear of all large corporations
(wireless companies) and the government. One man was shouting about how FCC pre-emption of local siting
restrictions are “violating our constitutional rights.” (I don’t recall the Constitution mentioning local zoning
issues-this was typical of the mood in the room.)
You are correct when you say that engineering studies will not
assuage people’s fears on this issue. They point to past decades of being reassured that nuclear radiation was harmless,
that DDT was harmless, etc. To get to the truth, to calm people’s fears, we will need to address both their minds and
their hearts. Engineering studies will not address their hearts. We need to find a way to assure people that no one is
trying to poison their children. This is going to be a difficult task. Literacy, numeracy, logic, science literacy and
intelligent argumentation are all apparently in decline in the population at large.
I have a few suggestions:
1) The junk science needs to be credibly debunked by folks who won’t be suspected of being part of a
conspiracy/cover-up.
2) The promoters of the junk science keep saying that no studies have been done. The fact is,
many competent people have been looking at this for a long time. Competent studies HAVE been done, it is just that
any harmful effects from low-level RF or EM fields, IF they exist, are going to be subtle and difficult to prove. The fact
that people are working on this should be advertised and not hidden.
3) The real, true benefits of modern, real-time
communications in saving lives on a daily basis need to be better publicized. I have tried to get some hard data from my
state police on the dispatch center calling patterns since cellular has become ubiquitous. It is clear that road accidents
are now reported in seconds or minutes, not “happened upon” by a cop on patrol, and response times have
shrunk, but this should be documented. Stories of rescued skiers on a mountain aren’t going to cut it. People need to see
this as a REAL BENEFIT to society at large that might even save THEIR lives. The wireless industry needs to take
credit for this!
4) The wireless industry, the FCC, landowners, etc. need to do everything possible to encourage,
even FORCE, collocation. Whenever I see a hill with two, three, or more partly loaded towers, to me, that represents
failure-of planning, of common sense, of engineering, of cooperation, of professionalism, of aesthetics.
5) Most of
our radio systems generate way too much spurious noise and sidebands. With (available) better filtering, noise floors in
general can be reduced, collocation can be increased and power levels used to communicate can be lowered. The FCC
standards on how to measure spurious emissions are way overdue for upgrading. I know from personal experience
(making measurements in the field) that the new digital systems are terrible “air polluters,” and this is
directly due to the way the FCC’s specifications for measuring spurious are written.
Thanks again for a great
article.
Joshua Aranov
RCC Consultants Inc.
Column Kudos
Dear Editor:
Your column
“Notable quotes” Feb. 15 was just outstanding. It caught the humor, momentum and excitement of what
was surely one of the memorable CTIA sessions. Well done. Keep up the creativity and keep up the good work. Our
industry needs this type of incisive comment.
John Major
Wireless Knowledge
Dear Editor:
I
always enjoy reading your editorials. Thanks for the continuous supply of insight blended with sufficient humor that
makes us able to identify and connect with the issues, rather than skip over the trouble spots in the industry. Keep up
the seemingly endless supply of topics of conversation.
Bill McLain
Racom Corp.
MIR platform article
thought-provoking
Dear Editor:
I just wanted to say thank you for Theodor Kusiolek’s very well organized and
thought-provoking article concerning the MIR platform in the Feb. 8 issue of RCR. I, for one, plan to lobby for this
concept with the political leaders from Maine and, with your permission, would like to forward a copy of your article to
them.
Aaron D. Osgood
vice president of operations
GPS Telemessaging
