Subject:  Distributed base stations (Holden)..
Date:     Thu, 30 Dec 1999 024054 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------


......Here is a worthy new subject.....  I, too, have wondered about the 
health trade-offs between the standard more powerful transmitters and
a system of much less powerful ... that would be spread out more???

My GUESS is that you would not gain that much -- would increase the cost
-- and would raise the probability of more political/public opposition....
(I am simply putting on my "utility" hat in that guess.....)

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                       NEW!!!  Website 
...................People are more important than profits.................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:48:02 -0500
From: Ross Holden 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: Distributed base stations

Hi,

A while back there was an email or two that seemed to imply that 
distributed base stations would not be beneficial -- just the 
opposite to what I was thinking. I'm just now getting around to 
following up on the idea. I would be interested in feedback on 
the analysis below. 

The advantage of distributed base stations (many small cells 
replace larger ones) would seem to be in the power levels required 
for the transmitters -- almost everyone would get a reduction in 
the RFR "dose" received. 

Here's what I thought should happen for distributed case:
     - The power level at a (base station) transmitter is a function 
       of the square of the distance it needs to cover. If you reduce
       the distance between transmitters, the power needed drops 
       according to the square law. 
       (that is, at one half the distance one needs one quarter the 
       power; at one eight the distance : 1/64 power, etc.)
      - Maximum dose would be drastically reduced
      - Average dose is substantially reduced
      - In fact, the "dose" at any point in the grid should only go 
        down
      - This assumes the service providers use the minimum required 
        power for transmitters
      - As an added bonus, smaller cells require fewer channels thus 
        cutting even more power
      - Another bonus is that the cellular appliance (phone, 2w-pager,
        datalink, ...) requires much less power to reach the closer 
        receiver.
      - Tower heights can be reduced substantially.

A simple example:
      - Replace an existing grid of base stations spaced 6 miles 
        apart with a new grid spaced at 0.6 miles between base 
        stations (or 10km and 1km respectively, if you prefer)
      - If the old transmitters had 10 channels at 100 watts, the 
        new stations would need 4 or less channels at 1 watt each.
      - maximum "dose" in grid :: reduced by a factor of 250 or 
        less (depends on tower heights for positions very close to 
        towers -- and yes, we don't want a 4 watt transmitter right 
        outside a bedroom window)
      - minimum "dose" in grid :: does not change -- but there are 
        100 times more points that are at this low level
      - 96 % of the area has lower dose levels, average dose 
        reduction would be approximately 30-50 times

Let me know what you think!
Does anyone have a simulator that can do a better job than my rough
calculations?

Happy New Years and Y2K to All!

--
Cheers,
    .... Ross
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ross Holden
holden@canada.com
(613) 692-4898



Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com