-
One of the most fervent supporters of Non-Ionizing Radiation topic often discussed on this forum, Mr. Paul Picicco of the city of La Plata, with whom we maintain permanent contact by mail, and we exchanged some information about it.
So when Paul told me he was writing something about it, I proposed to publish in the blog, and is so far below
ALLEGATIONS BY THE PRESENCE OF DANGEROUS ANTENNAS
by Engineer Paul Picicco
Many communities have a process that is increasing in recent times. The presence in the neighborhood of an antenna of substantial size, fear of the possibility that it is quietly producing some damage to health, is launching a round of consultations, reviews, inquiries and speculation among the neighbors finally derive in filing complaints.
Government agencies receiving such complaints, seek appropriate legal and technical support to develop a response. The arguments found in national laws, provincial and municipal stipulating the conditions to be met by satellite, to be enabled and enable it to operate. The Ministry of Communications of the Nation radio system authorizes (frequency, power, transmitters, antennas, etc.), The province of Buenos Aires, through its agency enforces environmental non-ionizing radiation levels of RNI (established by the Ministry of Health of the Nation) and municipalities regulate the permitted uses according to their codes of planning, namely the places where you can place an antenna and the maximum allowable heights, according to the different areas.
Depending on the case, you may not have been met these regulations, but for the purposes of this analysis is considered a facility that meets all the requirements.
Real or virtual
The first significant evidence can be observed is the presence of two approaches, the "virtual" or subjective of the complainant and the "real" or objective of the state agency. It seems that the latter reacts with technical and legal tools unavoidable and justified, to a social demand is not always satisfied with the answers.
If the complainant's concern was based on emotional rather than rational basis, it is necessary to understand the responses that individual's perceptions and mechanisms of reaction to uncertainty, fear, anger and rejection.
Moreover, it is surprising that those should be great interest in resolving these issues (corporate communications), displayed no effort evidenced in this direction. Well it could be argued that there is no satellite communications antennas and there, if communities are determined to reject. It
paradoxical that the very communities that have developed economically (in the broadest sense) using the services and the benefits of wireless communications and rationally never cease do, occur in the public imagination a kind of decoupling of appropriate communication technology while strongly rejecting antennas. Necessary clarifications
appear appropriate to clarify at the outset that the radiating elements, which generate non-ionizing radiation (NIR) are called: Antennas. Can be of various types, sizes, shapes, colors, of an element or arrangements of various components, vertical, horizontal, obvious or subtle, but are always antennas.
What processes occur in waves that radiate these antennas and their potential effects, research is the global scientific community for decades and a concrete result of these studies is the adoption of security measures to protect the health of people. To this aim, as the limit of acceptable levels of radiation, which can expose individuals without health risks. These levels in turn, are hundreds or thousands of times below what is assumed, could have a detrimental effect on people.
The other key component, in addition to the antennas, which constitutes the support of these antennas. The towers. They can also be of different shapes, heights and aspects. Some are restrained (ie supported by bridle), freestanding (with its architecture that wide at the base and tapering towards the end, require no charge for support), single pole (large column-like) and also occur in varying heights and thicknesses. But in addition there are other props towers antenna pedestal to be asserted onto terraces or wall brackets, or water tanks, etc.
So, one thing is quite another antenna and the tower that may be holding.
Hazard or visual impact
the eyes of the public is absolutely different impact that causes a self supporting tower of great size and height, which is supported by an antenna on a water tank on the roof of a building.
This is critical to understand the intent of the analysis "subjective or virtual" about the impact generated by new communications technologies. Because if we compare a single antenna radiating the same electromagnetic waves, ie generating the same non-ionizing radiation (NIR), from the top of an imposing tower of iron or from the water tank on the roof of a building, obviously the perception is very different. So different that very few people in that building are aware the existence of an antenna on the water tank on the contrary, the whole neighborhood can feel more or less threatened by the presence of the iron tower. However, the effect on the health of people is no different in either case.
The reaction of the neighborhood threatened by "the antenna" is to resort to seeking state protection. The district wants the public authority finds the imminent threat and force to move this "hideous structure" several blocks away, oblivious to many aspects.
First, in 90% of cases these mobile facilities. The used technology makes mobile phones work with the minimum power required to communicate with the base station antenna. That is, the radiating antenna but also each of the phones that communicate and they emit more or less power, according to the distance that separates them from "the antenna." Then, zoom means that each cell will operate at higher power and the antenna in question (called base station), too.
Moreover, it is not a gesture of solidarity to claim his transfer to several blocks because people probably live there too, if the subject were a potential health risk. Other complainants then claim that the antennas are located outside the village, preferably in rural areas, the rationale used by some municipalities and established urban planning codes. However, as stated above all need to increase its transmission power to communicate, thereby increasing non-ionizing radiation.
Given the eventual complaint proceeds to make NIR measurements, which are the evidence to determine whether the facility meets the radiation levels permitted by current regulations.
Much to the chagrin of those affected, the measurements reveal a distressing fact. Not only complies, but also the higher the tower is impressive, more people away from antennas and are therefore, the values \u200b\u200bmeasured at ground level are extremely low.
then displayed some lack of communication between the parties. The State provided a rational response to a subjective concerns of neighbors. This shows that the issue is complex and requires an interdisciplinary approach. It is not only technical and legal issues, but may require a comprehensive view from social sciences like psychology, sociology and anthropology. It is about knowing the problem, but also to understand the perception that People are the same.
A possible way
telephone companies, as one of the key players, could be induced to settle investigations made by schools of higher learning, which clarified the issues and make proposals overcome.
turn, from the various levels of government could establish more comprehensive rules that consider the aspects evaluated and the results translate into demands otherwise, to allow installation of antennas.
In concrete terms, that would not prohibit the antennas, or to allow be installed in places where planners of telephone networks, decided on technical and economic issues. In some cases, be feasible to mount a new tower, where such other facilities and have visual impact on the environment and in other cases, it is desirable to camouflage an antenna on the water tank of a building.
environmentalist approach
axis to analyze the problems of the antennas from the interest of protecting the environment would be directly related to the visual pollution. There are no doubts as to the levels that the state allows non-ionizing radiation, set by the health authority (Ministry of Health of the Nation) through its resolution 202/95 and compliance required by the national authority on all radio systems (CNC, Ministry of Communications) through its Resolution 3690/04.
In the province of Buenos Aires, the OPDS (Environment Agency) through the Resolución144/07 establishes rules to be satisfied by any radio installation, located in the province.
This legislation replaced the original resolution 900/05, which had to be modified just two years, becoming the product of actions generated as a result of its implementation.
Resolution 144 was born of the need to surpass his predecessor and by the development of a workshop on RNI, with the participation of various stakeholders. Perhaps
favorable winds begin to blow for a new workshop and a new standard.
Paul Picicco
Telecommunications Engineer
(COPITEC 3713)
-
0 comments:
Post a Comment