towers vs. antennas

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

lolahunt3

towers vs. antennas

Hi all,

What do you think, if I look up a location on antennasearch.com, and it says that there are 4 towers within 4 miles (that's 42 fewer than where I currently live!), and the nearest tower is 3.49 miles away (wow!). But there are 5 antennas that are .28 miles away, and 1 antenna that is .33 miles away.

What is the difference between "towers" and "antennas"? What do I need to be looking for, to discern the radiation danger from .28 and .33 miles away?

Thank you for any help,

Sue

S Andreason

Re: towers vs. antennas

lolahunt3 wrote:
> What is the difference between "towers" and "antennas"? What do I need to be looking for, to discern the radiation danger from .28 and .33 miles away?
>

Hi Sue,

Sounds better than your current location.
Still, it is no substitute for measuring the actual levels, on site.

Towers are structures over 150 or 200 feet. They always have something
on them active, for the owner must sell space (multiple antenna
transmitters) to pay for the investment. So always avoid towers on the list.

Antennas can mean anything. It could be very active for phones on a
short structure or building, or very inactive like Railway and Logging.
Look for the list of who owns the antenna, that will give an idea of the
kind of use it gets.

Stewart

lolahunt3

Re: towers vs. antennas

thank you, Stuart, very helpful

My RF Meter arrives in the mail Friday (I broke my first one, by accident, when it got smooshed in my backpack), but I'm going to see this place today...

Just heard that from Oct. to April the woodsmoke in that particular area isunbearable for those with MCS.

Rural has its complications, too.

-Sue

--- In [hidden email], S Andreason <sandreas41@...> wrote:

>
> lolahunt3 wrote:
> > What is the difference between "towers" and "antennas"? What do I needto be looking for, to discern the radiation danger from .28 and .33 miles away?
> >
>
> Hi Sue,
>
> Sounds better than your current location.
> Still, it is no substitute for measuring the actual levels, on site.
>
> Towers are structures over 150 or 200 feet. They always have something
> on them active, for the owner must sell space (multiple antenna
> transmitters) to pay for the investment. So always avoid towers on the list.
>
> Antennas can mean anything. It could be very active for phones on a
> short structure or building, or very inactive like Railway and Logging.
> Look for the list of who owns the antenna, that will give an idea of the
> kind of use it gets.
>
> Stewart
>

stephen_vandevijvere

Re: towers vs. antennas

In reply to this post by lolahunt3

Sue, at first sight, that doesn't seem like a high emf area!

You could measure like Stewart suggests to know more,

Here's a good page (sb on eSens sent me) that gives you an indication of distances:
http://www.wireless-precaution.com/main/distance.php

Of course that's all based on transversal waves and not on the longitudinal: to check for these you should feel how you are doing there?! ;-)

Stephen.

--- In [hidden email], "lolahunt3" <marydelamer@...> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> What do you think, if I look up a location on antennasearch.com, and it says that there are 4 towers within 4 miles (that's 42 fewer than where I currently live!), and the nearest tower is 3.49 miles away (wow!). But thereare 5 antennas that are .28 miles away, and 1 antenna that is .33 miles away.
>
> What is the difference between "towers" and "antennas"? What do I need to be looking for, to discern the radiation danger from .28 and .33 miles away?
>
> Thank you for any help,
>
> Sue
>

emraware

Re: towers vs. antennas

In reply to this post by lolahunt3

I would also recommend trying http://www.cellreception.com
although it is probably not as comprehensive.

--- In [hidden email], "lolahunt3" <marydelamer@...> wrote: