Laws won’t stop traffic accidents
Dear Editor:
I am sure that law enforcement will want to lead the way to safer driving by laying down their mobile radio microphones while operating their cruisers, and motorbikes.
Sure they will.
The police drive their cars at extreme speeds in all kinds of weather, all kinds of traffic conditions, in pursuit of the public’s safety. The police would be glad to secure their microphones in the holder and wait until they could safely pull over to a stop to contact the dispatcher with details of what they are chasing. Sure.
In the years since 1984 when my area went to cellular, I have not had one policeman tell me of a traffic accident where a cellular phone or a two-way radio was even an indirect cause of a traffic accident.
I talk with quite a few policemen in my line of work as a radio installer at a radio shop.
No matter what legislation, or how many traffic laws are written, or what forms of restrictions might be put upon citizens, traffic accidents can never be legislated out of existence.
I do agree with the proposal to include a warning label advising the mobile operator to use due care and maintain a sharp awareness of traffic conditions when using the mobile radio or cellular phone.
I think a lot can be done short of the drastic measures suggested by several states to ensure safe mobile radio/phone operations.
Mike Joyner
R&M Communications
Radiation levels at sites unfounded
Dear Editor:
I wish to take issue with Cathy Bergman-Venezia’s article in the March 3 issue on page 81. There is indeed an intense debate raging regarding the health and safety of wireless services. Much of it has been blown out of proportion by the sensation-seeking media, leaving common sense behind and attempting to frighten the general public.
Cathy cites a couple of studies in which people who live near broadcast towers were shown to have higher instances of leukemia. Television and FM broadcast facilities typically run greater than 100,000 watts ERP, and some more than a megawatt. The comparison isn’t applicable here, as this is more than 100 times the ERP of most “wireless” facilities addressed in this newspaper.
Cathy complains that the new RF guidelines do not address low-level radiation, but only thermal effects. The new guidelines address thermal effects because we know its danger. Studies on low-level radiation have been inconclusive thus far. Using common sense (a rare natural resource these days) would show that there have been no obvious ill effects on those of us who work with it day-in and day-out year after year. If it were so dangerous, technicians and radio hobbyists would be dropping like flies, all of the same diseases. This is not the case.
The radiation received from a wireless site will be minimal due to the law of physics, which states that as the distance increases, the field strength decreases by the inverse of the distance squared. Illustrating that fact, at a distance of 100 feet, the field of strength is 1/10,000th of that near the antenna. As the distance doubles, the strength is reduced to one-fourth. The highest levels of human absorption will not be due to wireless towers, but to those walking about with a handset against their head (and even this has had no proven ill effects). Those worried about such exposure can opt for other wireless devices with remote antennas (away from the body).
Cathy quotes a statement from the EPA itself, yet ignores its meaning. “The effects information is not yet sufficient to be used as a basis for exposure criteria” means there has not been found an obvious hazard. Media sensationalism stirred up the pot a few years ago, when someone needed to blame (file suit) and punish (take money) from an industry for an illness. The lawyer in this case knows how hard it is to prove something is not true. Example: how could you disprove an allegation that you’re a liar? By never telling a lie. When are you finished proving you’re not? Never.
Due to all this hype on the subject, the FCC is increasing regulation in this area, requiring all of us to jump through more hoops and increase the cost of doing business.
I’m not endorsing the placement of wireless transmitters atop your local child day-care center. I think common sense is what is needed here. The main reason so many siting moratoriums are taking place is that of aesthetics. People don’t want an “ugly” tower in their neighborhood. Those questioning radiation safety are mostly the ill-informed. Much of the general public doesn’t realize that sunlight is a form of electromagnetic radiation. It can be shown that sunlight can be focused enough to cook food or light a cigarette. Certainly this much sunlight isn’t good for you! In some doses, sunlight exposure can cause skin cancer in some people. Yet some amount of sunlight is beneficial to life on planet Earth.
I am unsure what the author’s goal was in this article. Perhaps the goal is fear arousal leading to the elimination of all RF transmitting devices? It would be interesting to see the effects on our world the absence of radio would cause.
Stop and think how much of our world depends on wireless technology (and safely, I might add). Imagine no broadcast radio or television (yes Green Bay, only 60,000 of you could enjoy the Packers), no microwave long-distance phone calls, no cordless phones, no mobile phones, no pagers, no radio dispatch of police and emergency services, no dispatch of repair personnel, tow trucks, taxis, buses. Air travel as we know it would be impossible, and NASA wouldn’t exist. Imagine national defense without radio or radar. The electric power and natural gas distribution networks are largely radio controlled. Closer to home, most of us have a garage door opener and a microwave oven for freshly zapped food.
Pretty scary picture? We live in the information age, and we all must sort through the barrage of information presented to find truth. Common sense still applies, let’s use it.
Paul Blum, K9ARF
Radio Technologist
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
Green Bay, Wisconsin
E-mail: [email protected]
(Please note the opinions expressed here are that of the author only, not WPSC.)
D.C. not only city with crime trouble
Dear Editor:
I was very disturbed to read D.C. Notes in the March 10 issue of RCR because it was another “inside the beltway” approach to problems; long on ideas, short on analysis, high on emotions, unwilling to make tough decisions and, in the final analysis, is solved by reaching into my pocket. It’s disturbing because it comes from a source that is supposed to represent a readership that has a capitalist and entrepreneurial mind set.
We all know the famous line, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help.” Perhaps I have a touch of cynicism from listening to people who make public policy statements, but I begin to feel wary of any article that has D.C. in the title and starts, “Now for some straight talk,” and finishes with the statement, “Just do it.”
Mr. Silva posits that there is a desperate crime problem in D.C., however, he never presents data that supports the contention that things in D.C. are any more desperate than New York, or Philadelphia or Ponca City, Okla. He never answers the question that begs to be addressed, “Why should we all be concerned for the problems in D.C. when we have crime problems in our own cities?” This is critical, since it is somewhat foundational to his position! Regardless, his point not made, he brings out the emotional rhetoric of dying teenagers, dying cops and saving lives as if this is restricted to D.C.
This is typical to the political approach of appealing to an emotional issue as justification to take control of something; in this case, control of the situation in an American city.
The article correctly identifies the fact that there are other factors leading to high crime rates in D.C., but only cites two of the more obscure; apparent lack of concern by people in Virginia and Maryland and a “patronizing Congress.” Now, by merely pronouncement, the cops don’t have radios (no supporting data), there’s insufficient spectrum (no supporting data), kids and cops are dying (no supporting data) and here’s the critical bureaucratic whine, there’s nothing else that can be done, therefore, “American people, pull out your checkbook and let us take control.”
I would suggest that there are far more factors that cause high crime rates and buying new communication equipment or obtaining spectrum is not the primary solution.
We have a crippling welfare system, people waiting for government to solve their problems rather than using their own initiative, a lack of depth in our education system, a media that promotes sex, violence and deviant lifestyles, a general lack of character presented by our government leaders, breakdown of our families supported by government practices and policies, and a pervasive lack of moral values … the list goes on and on and “lack of radios or spectrum” should be at the bottom of this list.
To take a problem like high crime in D.C. and propose that one of the FIRST things that should be done is to take my money to buy radios or give the people of D.C. whatever spectrum they want, is at best, intellectually shallow and at worst, criminal.
Our Congress is crumbling from within as they try to deal with illegal campaign contributions (talking about crime problems …), budget deficits, term limits, special prosecutors (more crime problems), international trade problems, and the like, and the author wants to consider this issue a congressional priority using our government’s already overburdened resources?
Think about this: It was the people of D.C. who elected a mayor convicted on drug charges … and we are supposed to “just do it” to solve their crime problems? Maybe when the people of D.C. begin to take charge of their own city, as all Americans should, then things will change, and the change will be from within-and work!
John F. Jones
Mountain Communications
Colorado Springs, Colo.