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<http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523#> radio and signal amplification equipment. Secondly, the electricity load varies throughout the day, depending on the call volume and data rates <http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523#> 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 <http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523#> 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> http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1307523#ixzz2nIa2yO1N On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:29 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> 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 <l...@thedyers.org.uk> 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 <cheme...@gmail.com>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 <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: >>>> >>>> >>>> < >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
