Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Cellphones Government Wireless Networking

Some Northern California Cities Are Blocking Deployment of 5G Towers (techcrunch.com) 187

Posted by EditorDavid from the banning-bandwidth dept.
Hkibtimes tipped us off to some interesting news from TechCrunch: The Bay Area may be the center of the global technology industry, but that hasn't stopped one wealthy enclave from protecting itself from the future. The city council of Mill Valley, a small town located just a few miles north of San Francisco, voted unanimously late last week to effectively block deployments of small-cell 5G wireless towers in the city's residential areas. Through an urgency ordinance, which allows the city council to immediately enact regulations that affect the health and safety of the community, the restrictions and prohibitions will be put into force immediately for all future applications to site 5G telecommunications equipment in the city. Applications for commercial districts are permitted under the passed ordinance....

According to the city, it received 145 pieces of correspondence from citizens voicing opposition to the technology, compared to just five letters in support of it -- a ratio of 29 to 1. While that may not sound like much, the city's population is roughly 14,000, indicating that about 1% of the population had voiced an opinion on the matter. Blocks on 5G deployments are nothing new for Marin County, where other cities including San Anselmo and Ross have passed similar ordinances designed to thwart 5G expansion efforts over health concerns... The telecom industry has long vociferously denied a link between antennas and health outcomes, although California's Department of Public Health has issued warnings about potential health effects of personal cell phone antennas. Reduced radiation emissions from 5G antennas compared to 4G antennas would presumably further reduce any health effects of this technology.
The article concludes that restrictions like Mill Valley's "will make it nearly impossible to deploy 5G in a timely manner."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Some Northern California Cities Are Blocking Deployment of 5G Towers More

Some Northern California Cities Are Blocking Deployment of 5G Towers

Comments Filter:

  • If they are worried about radiation... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...wait until they learn about something called The Sun...

    • Summary is wrong, they didn't ban 5g entirely (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Look up the Inverse square law, Einstein-san. Also - They didn't "ban" 5g, they said they don't want it on light poles in dense residential areas. They still allow it downtown on office buildings. TFS is wrong.

      • You can feel the energy of the sun DIRECTLY on your face. If you stand in it for more than few mins it will begin to cook your skin. Its not disconnected. Those photons came from the Sun approx ~8 mins prior, directly to your face. Even inverse-square has trouble minimizing the power of the Sun, esp at one AU, where the entirety of all life on the planet is fueled directly or indirectly by the suns output.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by meglon ( 1001833 )
          The inverse square law is simply what happens; it doesn't have a problem doing anything.

          As for:

          ....where the entirety of all life on the planet is fueled directly or indirectly by the suns output

          No, it's not.

      • Look up the Inverse square law

        Yep, that's a great start. After you're done looking that up, go ahead and look up the power output of the sun vs a radio antenna.

      • Re:Summary is wrong, they didn't ban 5g entirely (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15, 2018 @01:41PM (#57319930)

        Look up the Inverse square law,

        The problem, if you are concerned with radiation, is moving the towers further away will cause the cell phones in peoples homes that are much much closer to crank up their transmit power.

        Yes this is worse because your phone will be blasting out at max, about 2 watts, potentially right near you in the same room. Being much closer, a much larger amount of radiation intensity remains when it gets to your body.

        The towers are normally pretty far away anyway, and due to the inverse square law the intensity remaining once it has traveled to your body is embarrassingly tiny in comparison.

        Let's actually USE the inverse square law.
        There are four values in the formula, the starting distance and intensity, and the ending distance and intensity. You need three of those values to find the forth as an unknown.

        We know the transmit powers of cell phones and towers at their source, and we can estimate the distance you'd be to both, letting us solve for the intensity at the distance to you.

        Cell phones, at max can transmit about 2 watts of power. If it is in the same room with you, say on your night stand charging, let's go with 20 feet away to be generous.

        2 watt / 20 feet squared = 0.005 watts of power when it reaches you. Ok.

        Towers, typically transmit at 10 watt with 4 and 5G.
        Let's go with one mile away as the distance, at least that's typical around where I am.
        1 mile is 5280 feet, to keep like-units.

        10 watt / 5280 feet squared is 0.0000003587 watts by the time it reaches you.

        That's 5 thousands of a watt your cell phone will be radiating you with at max power, which without a tower near by it will be doing.

        Compared to zero thousands of a watt for the tower placed close by at a mile away.
        You need to go down three whole decimal places to get the first non-zero number.
        Three one-millionths of a watt, or four one-millions of a watt if you wish to round up (rule of 5s)

        That's over a thousand times the radiation exposure now coming from your own cell phone next to you.

        *golfclap* good job on reducing our radiation exposure california!

        • I wish I had mod ooints to mod up the parent.

        • the article is about towers in utility poles rigth out of your home. if you are 1mile from it I assume you live in a rural setting. for me it is about 50ft.

          also, you forgot about time and radiation accumulation. A cellphone is only used a few times a day, while a tower put in front of your house will be dousing you 24/7.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            the article is about towers in utility poles rigth out of your home. if you are 1mile from it I assume you live in a rural setting. for me it is about 50ft.

            Actually I live in a city of about a million people, but I am on the east coast not the west.
            We generally have 1-2 large towers in a given mile radius here.

            I have no doubt major California cities are far more densely populated.
            But if you do the math even 40 feet away will be one one-hundredth of the exposure you would get compared to your cell phone itself.

            also, you forgot about time and radiation accumulation. A cellphone is only used a few times a day, while a tower put in front of your house will be dousing you 24/7.

            I did not forget it, I explained fairly clearly why that isn't actually true.

            You personally may only use your cell phone a few times a day, but that has

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

          If these towers are only using 2 watts then how come they have these big frickin' cables going up? A CB radio from the 1970s used to max out at 5 watts. Some people would hook up a linear and amp it up to hundreds. Seems like the cables going up are awfully big for just 2 watts. The emergency generators at these stations that I see around where I am are enough to run the neighborhood.

          Yet we're near them and we're not fried in the brain. Well some may think this is why we're going crazy recently.

  • they will probably have a change of heart.

  • I'd push for towers (Score:5, Informative)

    by layabout ( 1576461 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @11:45AM (#57319474)
    inverse square law is your friend.

  • I had a customer spouting this stuff to me the other day. Super nice person, but "it changes your blood" and "It damages your mitochondrial dna" was among the stuff I heard. I wonder what the cancer incidence is among cell tower workers is though. All I can google is "They often die by falling." Gee, thanks, Cracked.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "They often die by falling."

      I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED to hear that.

      • I was googling cell tower workers dude. The people who get physically burned by those signals. They're the ones I was googling.

        • I was googling cell tower workers dude.

          So why were you doing that? I am left to guess that your idea was that cell tower workers get more exposure than regular consumers so therefore if they don't get sick from it nobody else should be either.

          If that is the case I see lots of problems with your assumptions. For one thing I would expect a cell tower linesman to be safety trained with regard to not being in front of a powered-up directional signal source. Are the antennas even powered up when they are up there? Once the are done with the i

          • It was based on a tower workers saying they needed to power things up to test them, and photos of RF burn. Also, the premise of the fear is that proximity increases risk. It's a more logical course of investigation than rat cells in whatever petri dish analogue they're grown in, especially given how such studies are notorious for being hard to get good actionable data from. Or are you not aware of how many methods that have been successfully used to eridacate nearly every horrible disease in rats? If rats w

      • So you linked to a bunch of articles from purely China authors in Beijing. While I see a lot of quotes about dangers, I guess if I stick my head in a microwave for 20 or 30 minutes at a time I can understand having some DNA damage. What I don't see is is any explanation of why a microwave sitting my kitchen is danger.

        Might as well be links to the dangers of Di-hydrogen Oxide and all the nasty effects it has.

        • So you linked to a bunch of articles from purely China authors in Beijing.

          nih.gov is "purely China?" Good to know. The fact that you apparently think that the authors are Chinese based in Beijing (writing in perfect English) means that their research is disregard-able suggests to me that you are just so conditioned to take a side that it is your opinion is more questionable.

          What I was hoping for is someone to check what part of the spectrum 5G uses, or maybe the use case and deployment practice, or something else not considered and provide insight as to the safety of the t

          • You listed studies about these dangers, but somehow they are all from China, with only Chinese contributors with no details on their results. Combine that with China have a serious problems with a lack of peer review I am saying that I have some bias on the source of the information. Whether it is listed by the NIH or not is irrelevant.

            If the information is not that common and your struggling to find something on the dangers of 5G usage, I find it unlikely that Mills Valley has some secret knowledge that t

    • Where is Cracked spouting RF alarmism? I thought that even for an infotainment site, Cracked was better than that. So let's first get on the same page as to which article we're looking at.

      (searches the web for site:cracked.com cell phone radiation)
      Are you referring to "5 Terrifying Realities Of My Job As A Cell Tower Climber" by Ryan Menezes [cracked.com]? It mentions RF burn, falling, beehives and bird nests, urination, and dropped tools.

    • What are the odds that the antennae of a cell tower would be shut down before a maintenance worker goes up on the cherry picker (ladder, ropes, whatever). What is the first rule of working on electrical equipment? Switch it off and unplug it. For these things, "switch off" might involve a shutdown procedure of refusing new connections, then handing off existing connections to the next nearest tower (which has to be built into the system, for car users), blah other things, then "shutdown -P NOW"

      If there are

  • Some Rich People In Marin County Don't Want 5G (Score:5, Interesting)

    by careysub ( 976506 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @11:56AM (#57319532)

    I'm perfectly okay with that. They can change their mind any time they want 5G. I'm sure Verizon will be happy to oblige. A wealthy enclave of 14,000 people is not going to hold up the deployment of 5G anywhere, but their own little community.

  • Ask the idiots who wrote in and on Mill Valley city council what the difference is, and if they have scientific evidence corroborating health dangers.

    This is the most aggravating thing about California...it's all about science until it isn't.

    • But the fact is, there still isn't conclusive evidence that the G4/G5 cellphone towers AREN'T a health problem. Provider payed research claims it's not, independant research claims it might... Problem is, we still don't know the longterm effects of extra radiation like Wifi/mobile etc.. It's the same a bit with powerlines, it used to be said that it wasn't a problem, but now we know powerlines do create a health problem.
      And looking at some studies in regard to cellphone towers, it seems there is an increase

  • This is BS (Score:3)

    by Grand Facade ( 35180 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @12:38PM (#57319728)

    Towers will not be allowed in residential areas but will be allowed in commercial areas.
    So if there were actual health concerns I will be exposed at work and what about the folks with property adjacent to commercial locations where towers are allowed? How do you keep the RF from crossing zoning boundaries?

    I think this is about money,
    This effectively diverts the income stream from site leases to only those with commercial property.

    Too bad for the people who want bitchen 5G coverage.

    And it sucks for the residential property owners loss of possible income.

    • So if there were actual health concerns I will be exposed at work and what about the folks with property adjacent to commercial locations where towers are allowed? How do you keep the RF from crossing zoning boundaries?

      The kind of people who will seek to ban something for the reasons that they've expressed probably lack the understanding of the technology or the reasoning ability to consider that.

      As someone else pointed out, if there is a link between cellular radio waves and negative health effects, the biggest cause is going to be the radio in your phone that's right next to your head when you're talking on it. You know, the one that has to increase the power when the cell tower it's trying to connect to is farther a

    • How do you keep the RF from crossing zoning boundaries?

      The exact SAME way you solve the "only good people can use crypto-backdoors" problem: LEGISLATION! It's glorious, wonderful, and more is better.

      As a matter of fact, let's pass a law requiring more legislation. After all, we have to do something to prove our worth. You wouldn't want us to actually work or understand things for a living, would you? That'd be cruel and inhumane -- and bothersome.

    • Chainlink fence.

  • Perhaps there's a reason why a cellphone tower can't be somewhere.

  • I don't know whether localities can impose such restrictions.

  • Can California just have it's huge earthquake and slide off under the Pacific NOW?
    Nothing of any real importance will be lost.

  • FCC wins [fcc.gov]:

    The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules.

    In other words, ban what you want - but the FCC will ignore your ban and you have no legal standing as a city/town/State to say "we're worried about RF emissions" and use that as any part of the justification in banning new cell towers/sites.

    • That sounds familiar. The communities may have some latitude with regards to aesthetics (disguised as a tree, or a certain color). They might be able to keep them out of certain areas as long as there is another nearby place that is also suitable.

      But they can't just outright ban them.

      • Yep. And since this is putting new antennas on existing poles and towers, it's going to be VERY hard to argue on the grounds of aesthetics. 5G antennas tend to be smaller than 3G antennas, so...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      In other words, ban what you want - but the FCC will ignore your ban and you have no legal standing as a city/town/State to say "we're worried about RF emissions" and use that as any part of the justification in banning new cell towers/sites.

      When someone says they want to ban cell towers "for the children" ask them if their children have cell phones, and ask them why they think the cell tower on the other side of town is a greater threat to their children's health than the transmitter in their kid's pocket?

  • Nonsense (Score:2)

    by kenh ( 9056 )

    The telecom industry has long vociferously denied a link between antennas and health outcomes, although California's Department of Public Health has issued warnings about potential health effects of personal cell phone antennas.

    Cell tower antennas are much different from personal cell phone antennas - one is on top of a tower and pointed towards the horizon, the other is typically between 1" to 6" away from your body/head.

    Obviously, the antenna within a few inches of your body is the greater threat, but they want to eliminate the comparatively safe cell towers because it makes them "feel" like they've done something "for the children".

  • Ironic (Score:3)

    by GoRK ( 10018 ) on Saturday September 15, 2018 @04:37PM (#57320588) Homepage Journal

    The irony is these fuckers will be the loudest ones bitching when their phones dont work for shit at home. I have already had to explain this to a lot of work collegues that live in large developments with HOAs. No antennas = no service. How much more fucking obvious can you get?

  • You can instead roll out 5G in my neighborhood. You can put a tower in my back yard. Literally, I have half an acre just growing weeds. Of course I will charge you rent for it, but hey.

Slashdot Top Deals

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak

Close