RE: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Chris Zell]

http://www.copradar.com/rdrrange/

As the above suggests, because the antenna is so tightly directional, the ERP 
can be very high.  I don't know typical wattage sent to a radar dish but I did 
work with (non-pulsed) klystrons for many years.

Off Topic:  A BSEE guy once told me that he and another professional field 
engineer could never get the total power output ( including heat) in many 
klystrons to equal AC power input.  Made me wonder...





From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

Yes, those are NEXRAD 750,000 watt pulsed Dopplers there are another 50 or so 
TDWR 250,000 watt airport pulsed  weather radars. Not shown.  No long term 
studies have ever been done

RE: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Chris Zell]

From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

Yes, those are NEXRAD 750,000 watt pulsed Dopplers there are another 50 or so 
TDWR 250,000 watt airport pulsed  weather radars. Not shown.  No long term 
studies have ever been done

On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Chris Zell wrote:
http://www.wunderground.com/radar/map.asp

You mean these?


From: ChemE Stewart 
[mailto:cheme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

I am focusing on the pulsed klystrons in the NEXRAD weather and TDWR stations

On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Chris Zell wrote:
ERP is not the same thing as raw wattage 'into the waveguide'.  It involves 
antenna gain and the transmitter output can be much smaller.

Many TV stations saw huge reductions in energy use after the digital 
transition.  With analog, you needed a really strong signal to look good. With 
digital, you either get a perfect picture or no picture at all.

Cell transmitters can be relatively small for this reason ( compared to an 
analog transmission).  I wouldn't worry about RF generally except to the extent 
that people have a transmitter (cell phone) on their person.

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[ChemE Stewart]

Yes, those are NEXRAD 750,000 watt pulsed Dopplers there are another 50 or
so TDWR 250,000 watt airport pulsed  weather radars. Not shown.  No long
term studies have ever been done

On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Chris Zell wrote:

>  http://www.wunderground.com/radar/map.asp
>
> You mean these?
>
>  --
> *From:* ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com  'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:01 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com  'vortex-l@eskimo.com');>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed
> germination
>
>  I am focusing on the pulsed klystrons in the NEXRAD weather and TDWR
> stations
>
> On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Chris Zell wrote:
>
>>  ERP is not the same thing as raw wattage 'into the waveguide'.  It
>> involves antenna gain and the transmitter output can be much smaller.
>>
>> Many TV stations saw huge reductions in energy use after the digital
>> transition.  With analog, you needed a really strong signal to look good.
>> With digital, you either get a perfect picture or no picture at all.
>>
>> Cell transmitters can be relatively small for this reason ( compared to
>> an analog transmission).  I wouldn't worry about RF generally except to the
>> extent that people have a transmitter (cell phone) on their person.
>>
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Chris Zell]

http://www.wunderground.com/radar/map.asp

You mean these?


From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

I am focusing on the pulsed klystrons in the NEXRAD weather and TDWR stations

On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Chris Zell wrote:
ERP is not the same thing as raw wattage 'into the waveguide'.  It involves 
antenna gain and the transmitter output can be much smaller.

Many TV stations saw huge reductions in energy use after the digital 
transition.  With analog, you needed a really strong signal to look good. With 
digital, you either get a perfect picture or no picture at all.

Cell transmitters can be relatively small for this reason ( compared to an 
analog transmission).  I wouldn't worry about RF generally except to the extent 
that people have a transmitter (cell phone) on their person.

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[ChemE Stewart]

I am focusing on the pulsed klystrons in the NEXRAD weather and TDWR
stations

On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Chris Zell wrote:

>  ERP is not the same thing as raw wattage 'into the waveguide'.  It
> involves antenna gain and the transmitter output can be much smaller.
>
> Many TV stations saw huge reductions in energy use after the digital
> transition.  With analog, you needed a really strong signal to look good.
> With digital, you either get a perfect picture or no picture at all.
>
> Cell transmitters can be relatively small for this reason ( compared to an
> analog transmission).  I wouldn't worry about RF generally except to the
> extent that people have a transmitter (cell phone) on their person.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Chris Zell]

ERP is not the same thing as raw wattage 'into the waveguide'.  It involves 
antenna gain and the transmitter output can be much smaller.

Many TV stations saw huge reductions in energy use after the digital 
transition.  With analog, you needed a really strong signal to look good. With 
digital, you either get a perfect picture or no picture at all.

Cell transmitters can be relatively small for this reason ( compared to an 
analog transmission).  I wouldn't worry about RF generally except to the extent 
that people have a transmitter (cell phone) on their person.

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[ChemE Stewart]

Based upon the number/type off cell channels on the tower it looks like it
can be a total of 30,000-75,000 W per tower at peak use.  Multiply that by
x number of towers and you can see it adds up fast.  Throw in a couple of
250,000 to 750,000 watt Doppler weather stations and a few FM and high def
TV stations and I am surprised we can even think anymore...


http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523
The answer is not simple.

Firstly, "cell tower" does not equal "cell site". There may be several
carriers' sites operating from the same tower, each with its own
powerful radio
and signal amplification equipment.

Secondly, the electricity load varies throughout the day, depending on the
call volume and data rates  handled
by each site. Downtown sites see their highest usage during office hours,
and especially at lunchtime; freeway "corridor" sites peak during rush
hour. Rural sites covering large areas may handle relatively few calls for
much of the time. The "resting" load of a site (when there are no calls in
progress) can be as low as 20 W.

Finally, the number of radios and amplifiers in a site determines its range
(its "coverage") and the maximum volume of calls it can handle (its
"capacity"). Some sites, especially in busy urban areas, are enormous,
housing  as many as 12-24 radios
per sector for GSM and 1-3 per sector for W-CDMA, for a total of 39-81
radios, plus associated amplifiers and HVAC units for cooling. These sites
may need a 400 A AC feed (or more) and draw a whopping 30-75 kW at peak use.

More typically, a cell site runs at an average of about 0.5-3.5 kW, so
total electricity usage in a month would be between 350 kWh and 2500 kWh,
or from about half-a-house to three-times-a-house.

Read more: How much energy/electricity does a cell phone tower typically
use in a month? |
Answerbag
 http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523#ixzz2nIa2yO1N


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:29 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> I think you are right, I was thinking FM broadcast stations
> How far are you from the nearest FM radio tower? Those typically put out
> 100,000W.
>
> Cell Towers
> Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500
> watts per channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular
> or PCS cell sites in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100
> watts per channel or less.
>
> I am not sure how many channels on a typical cell tower??
> Amps = 395 channels for voice
>
> GSM = 125 Channels X 8 Slots per Channel = 1000 Users
>
> CDMA seems to be dynamic, 55 Voice Channels, but it rotates users on each
> channel within time slots to get more users per channel. It also seems the
> more users trying to access the tower the more transmit power required by
> the handset to over come noise and it lowers the bit rate for the call to
> handle more users.
>
> I would assume these numbers are per cell, and I would imagine they have
> more than one cell on a tower.
>
> How far are you from the nearest FM radio tower? Those typically put out
> 100,000W.
>
> Doppler Weather:
> [image: radar power]
>
> http://www.doprad.com/radhaz.php
>
> This information is intended to create awareness regarding the potential
> health hazards associated with high-powered Doppler weather radar systems.
> Today you can watch television across the country and see hundreds of
> televisions stations with their own LIVE Doppler weather radar system. But
> users of some of these “high-powered” (250,000 watt to 1,250,000 watt)
> radars neglect to mention the possible safety and health hazards that are
> an intrinsic byproduct of these systems.
>
> Exposure studies conducted during the 1980′s indicate a possible
> correlation between escalating cancer rates and increasing levels of
> radiation in our environment. We cannot eliminate radiation completely from
> our environment, but we can reduce health risks substantially by
> controlling our exposure to it.
>
> Research indicates that broadcasters using other vendors’ high-powered
> radars do not even realize that these radars may actually exceed the FCC
> standards for safe exposure levels and may pose a heath risk (at the very
> least to those that must work on these units). The graph below shows the
> comparison between radiation output for the high powered radars versus the
> ADC low power, solid-state radar, and references the FCC microwave
> radiation exposure limits. One proactive action that can be taken is to
> make your local broadcasters aware of your concern about the use of these
> unnecessary high-powered Doppler radars. Some of these radars have ERPs
> (Effective Radiated Power) of over 10 GIGAWATTS (OR 10 BILLION watts).
>
>
>  The problem is they also OVERLAP these towers
>
>
> Stewart
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:
>
>>  The figure 

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[ChemE Stewart]

I think you are right, I was thinking FM broadcast stations
How far are you from the nearest FM radio tower? Those typically put out
100,000W.

Cell Towers
Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500
watts per channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular
or PCS cell sites in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100
watts per channel or less.

I am not sure how many channels on a typical cell tower??
Amps = 395 channels for voice

GSM = 125 Channels X 8 Slots per Channel = 1000 Users

CDMA seems to be dynamic, 55 Voice Channels, but it rotates users on each
channel within time slots to get more users per channel. It also seems the
more users trying to access the tower the more transmit power required by
the handset to over come noise and it lowers the bit rate for the call to
handle more users.

I would assume these numbers are per cell, and I would imagine they have
more than one cell on a tower.

How far are you from the nearest FM radio tower? Those typically put out
100,000W.

Doppler Weather:
[image: radar power]

http://www.doprad.com/radhaz.php

This information is intended to create awareness regarding the potential
health hazards associated with high-powered Doppler weather radar systems.
Today you can watch television across the country and see hundreds of
televisions stations with their own LIVE Doppler weather radar system. But
users of some of these “high-powered” (250,000 watt to 1,250,000 watt)
radars neglect to mention the possible safety and health hazards that are
an intrinsic byproduct of these systems.

Exposure studies conducted during the 1980′s indicate a possible
correlation between escalating cancer rates and increasing levels of
radiation in our environment. We cannot eliminate radiation completely from
our environment, but we can reduce health risks substantially by
controlling our exposure to it.

Research indicates that broadcasters using other vendors’ high-powered
radars do not even realize that these radars may actually exceed the FCC
standards for safe exposure levels and may pose a heath risk (at the very
least to those that must work on these units). The graph below shows the
comparison between radiation output for the high powered radars versus the
ADC low power, solid-state radar, and references the FCC microwave
radiation exposure limits. One proactive action that can be taken is to
make your local broadcasters aware of your concern about the use of these
unnecessary high-powered Doppler radars. Some of these radars have ERPs
(Effective Radiated Power) of over 10 GIGAWATTS (OR 10 BILLION watts).


The problem is they also OVERLAP these towers


Stewart


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

>  The figure of 100,000 watts for a cell phone tower seems a little high.
>
> The most plausible figures from the web seem to be up to 500 watts if they
> are covering a large area, or somewhat less if it is a small cell in a city.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 12/12/2013 19:21, leaking pen wrote:
>
> Waldo anyone?
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>>  I think Doppler Weather and Military radar pulsing 750,000 to 3,000,000
>> watts 24/7 into the atmosphere is potentially the worst of the offenders.
>>  The NEXRAD Doppler weather towers cover a 150 mile radius.  In Sitka,
>> Alaska, within that 150 mile radius, the Yellow Cedar trees are slowly
>> wasting/dying, they are having blown/toxic algae blooms, fish/salmon kills
>> and star fish dissolving. To me, that is a sign of penetrating, ionizing
>> radiation. No long term study has ever been done.
>>
>>  Cell towers are around 100,000 watts each tower, I believe, but there
>> are many more of them.
>>
>>  I am seeing something similar across the country around NEXRAD/TDWR
>> towers.  I am in the process of running the statistics  on two years of
>> data in Florida
>>
>>  If time does not exist and you can't average those pulses and figure
>> you are OK, you have to consider what those instantaneous pulses are doing
>> to biology 24/7.  It is no wonder bees, bats, starfish, trees, chronic
>> wasting disease in animals are increasing as well as Autism and Alzheimers.
>> I think we have F&^%&^% up royally
>>
>>  Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>  OTOH …
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This could be good news J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At least for those concerned about the risk of brain cancer from
>>> cell-phones, which are in the same UHF frequency range.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Heck, using the same logic (or lack thereof) maybe UHF radiation kills
>>> cancer cells… one would not think that UHF could both promote cancer and
>>> also stifle cellular development in plants, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Wormus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <
>>> http://a-sheep-no-more.blogspot.com/2013/12/9th-grade-science-project-finds-plants_3.html
>>> >
>>>
>>> This would be an interesting experiment to repeat with plants at varying

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Nigel Dyer]

The figure of 100,000 watts for a cell phone tower seems a little high.

The most plausible figures from the web seem to be up to 500 watts if 
they are covering a large area, or somewhat less if it is a small cell 
in a city.


Nigel
On 12/12/2013 19:21, leaking pen wrote:

Waldo anyone?


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM, ChemE Stewart > wrote:


Guys,

I think Doppler Weather and Military radar pulsing 750,000 to
3,000,000 watts 24/7 into the atmosphere is potentially the worst
of the offenders.  The NEXRAD Doppler weather towers cover a 150
mile radius.  In Sitka, Alaska, within that 150 mile radius, the
Yellow Cedar trees are slowly wasting/dying, they are having
blown/toxic algae blooms, fish/salmon kills and star fish
dissolving. To me, that is a sign of penetrating, ionizing
radiation. No long term study has ever been done.

Cell towers are around 100,000 watts each tower, I believe, but
there are many more of them.

I am seeing something similar across the country around
NEXRAD/TDWR towers.  I am in the process of running the statistics
 on two years of data in Florida

If time does not exist and you can't average those pulses and
figure you are OK, you have to consider what those instantaneous
pulses are doing to biology 24/7.  It is no wonder bees, bats,
starfish, trees, chronic wasting disease in animals are increasing
as well as Autism and Alzheimers. I think we have F&^%&^% up royally

Stewart




On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

OTOH …

This could be good news J

At least for those concerned about the risk of brain cancer
from cell-phones, which are in the same UHF frequency range.

Heck, using the same logic (or lack thereof) maybe UHF
radiation kills cancer cells… one would not think that UHF
could both promote cancer and also stifle cellular development
in plants, right?

Ron Wormus wrote:





This would be an interesting experiment to repeat with plants
at varying distance from the same router to see if there's a
dose response effect.  Even better would be cellular culture,
but that's harder to manage without a lab.

I think I will move my router further away from my desktop.
Ron

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[leaking pen]

Waldo anyone?


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Guys,
>
> I think Doppler Weather and Military radar pulsing 750,000 to 3,000,000
> watts 24/7 into the atmosphere is potentially the worst of the offenders.
>  The NEXRAD Doppler weather towers cover a 150 mile radius.  In Sitka,
> Alaska, within that 150 mile radius, the Yellow Cedar trees are slowly
> wasting/dying, they are having blown/toxic algae blooms, fish/salmon kills
> and star fish dissolving. To me, that is a sign of penetrating, ionizing
> radiation. No long term study has ever been done.
>
> Cell towers are around 100,000 watts each tower, I believe, but there are
> many more of them.
>
> I am seeing something similar across the country around NEXRAD/TDWR
> towers.  I am in the process of running the statistics  on two years of
> data in Florida
>
> If time does not exist and you can't average those pulses and figure you
> are OK, you have to consider what those instantaneous pulses are doing to
> biology 24/7.  It is no wonder bees, bats, starfish, trees, chronic wasting
> disease in animals are increasing as well as Autism and Alzheimers. I think
> we have F&^%&^% up royally
>
> Stewart
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  OTOH …
>>
>>
>>
>> This could be good news J
>>
>>
>>
>> At least for those concerned about the risk of brain cancer from
>> cell-phones, which are in the same UHF frequency range.
>>
>>
>>
>> Heck, using the same logic (or lack thereof) maybe UHF radiation kills
>> cancer cells… one would not think that UHF could both promote cancer and
>> also stifle cellular development in plants, right?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron Wormus wrote:
>>
>>
>> <
>> http://a-sheep-no-more.blogspot.com/2013/12/9th-grade-science-project-finds-plants_3.html
>> >
>>
>> This would be an interesting experiment to repeat with plants at varying
>> distance from the same router to see if there's a dose response effect.
>>  Even better would be cellular culture, but that's harder to manage without
>> a lab.
>>
>> I think I will move my router further away from my desktop.
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[ChemE Stewart]

Guys,

I think Doppler Weather and Military radar pulsing 750,000 to 3,000,000
watts 24/7 into the atmosphere is potentially the worst of the offenders.
 The NEXRAD Doppler weather towers cover a 150 mile radius.  In Sitka,
Alaska, within that 150 mile radius, the Yellow Cedar trees are slowly
wasting/dying, they are having blown/toxic algae blooms, fish/salmon kills
and star fish dissolving. To me, that is a sign of penetrating, ionizing
radiation. No long term study has ever been done.

Cell towers are around 100,000 watts each tower, I believe, but there are
many more of them.

I am seeing something similar across the country around NEXRAD/TDWR towers.
 I am in the process of running the statistics  on two years of data in
Florida

If time does not exist and you can't average those pulses and figure you
are OK, you have to consider what those instantaneous pulses are doing to
biology 24/7.  It is no wonder bees, bats, starfish, trees, chronic wasting
disease in animals are increasing as well as Autism and Alzheimers. I think
we have F&^%&^% up royally

Stewart




On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  OTOH …
>
>
>
> This could be good news J
>
>
>
> At least for those concerned about the risk of brain cancer from
> cell-phones, which are in the same UHF frequency range.
>
>
>
> Heck, using the same logic (or lack thereof) maybe UHF radiation kills
> cancer cells… one would not think that UHF could both promote cancer and
> also stifle cellular development in plants, right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Wormus wrote:
>
>
> <
> http://a-sheep-no-more.blogspot.com/2013/12/9th-grade-science-project-finds-plants_3.html
> >
>
> This would be an interesting experiment to repeat with plants at varying
> distance from the same router to see if there's a dose response effect.
>  Even better would be cellular culture, but that's harder to manage without
> a lab.
>
> I think I will move my router further away from my desktop.
> Ron
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Jones Beene]

OTOH .

 

This could be good news :-) 

 

At least for those concerned about the risk of brain cancer from
cell-phones, which are in the same UHF frequency range. 

 

Heck, using the same logic (or lack thereof) maybe UHF radiation kills
cancer cells. one would not think that UHF could both promote cancer and
also stifle cellular development in plants, right?

 

 

 

Ron Wormus wrote:




This would be an interesting experiment to repeat with plants at varying
distance from the same router to see if there's a dose response effect.
Even better would be cellular culture, but that's harder to manage without a
lab.

I think I will move my router further away from my desktop.
Ron

 

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Jed Rothwell]

Ron Wormus  wrote:


> I think I will move my router further away from my desktop.
>
>
Yup. I did that last spring.

Here is a well-known graph of radiation:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/smartmeterhealth1.jpg

It seems to indicate there should be no problem. If this research is
replicated, this may indicate there is a huge problem, especially with cell
phones used many hours per day.


Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

Snope.
>

This is research, not a rumor. Snopes.com cannot address it. To determine
whether it is valid or not, we will have to see if it can be replicated.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Snope.


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Ron Wormus  wrote:

>
>  grade-science-project-finds-plants_3.html>
>
> This would be an interesting experiment to repeat with plants at varying
> distance from the same router to see if there's a dose response effect.
>  Even better would be cellular culture, but that's harder to manage without
> a lab.
>
> I think I will move my router further away from my desktop.
> Ron
>
>

[Vo]:OT: 9th Grade Science Project: WiFi prevents seed germination

[Ron Wormus]

This would be an interesting experiment to repeat with plants at varying 
distance from the same router to see if there's a dose response effect. 
 Even better would be cellular culture, but that's harder to manage 
without a lab.


I think I will move my router further away from my desktop.
Ron