AlexandrNJ wrote:Scrooge McDuck wrote:Да поставить-то наверное можно, никто и не догадается.
А попробуйте.
И не где нибудь в далеких лесах - а в городе. Отгородите площадку и начните чем нибудь заниматься без разрешения города. Сараюшку строить или мачту монтировать.
SergeyM800 wrote:Вот я и не верю на слово владельцу вышки
SergeyM800 wrote:Интересно получается вышку Nextel строил, а ноги мне искать
AlexandrNJ wrote:Scrooge McDuck wrote:Поверьте такое мог сделать только бармалей
Утрирую, отгородите 10 на 10 футов на Тайм Сквере без разрешительных документов о результатах доложите.
:-).
Компране ву?Slava V wrote:на ту же тему: надо будет посмотреть местные нормы по расстоянию ЛЭП от жилых домов.
AlexandrNJ wrote:Так посмотрите, и попытайтесь разобраться
...
не поленитесь посмотреть статистику по болезням
...
Исследования проводили, мне запомнились ребята которые в банку набили биомассу (не помню детали - но схожую с человечьим мозгом) и несколько лет облучали мобильным телефоном на максимальной мощности - после исследовали и не нашли изменений в структуре клеток.
Q. Has the FCC set rules for how much radiofrequency energy from mobile phones is OK?
A. In 1996, the FCC accepted a standard, developed by the IEEE, of 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over 1 gram of tissue. The exposure limit is based on the heating effects of radiofrequency energy on human tissue, because it has been shown that radiofrequency energy at high enough power can heat tissue, causing damage. The scientific measurement is called "specific absorption rate [SAR]."
Slava V wrote:А тут совсем весело:
AlexandrNJ wrote:Slava V wrote:А тут совсем весело:
Что именно Вы узнали из этих статей, и на то ли Вы обращаете внимание, при прочтении?
What are the results of the research done already?
The research done thus far has produced conflicting results, and many studies have suffered from flaws in their research methods. Animal experiments investigating the effects of radiofrequency energy (RF) exposures characteristic of wireless phones have yielded conflicting results that often cannot be repeated in other laboratories. A few animal studies, however, have suggested that low levels of RF could accelerate the development of cancer in laboratory animals. However, many of the studies that showed increased tumor development used animals that had been genetically engineered or treated with cancer-causing chemicals so as to be pre-disposed to develop cancer in the absence of RF exposure. Other studies exposed the animals to RF for up to 22 hours per day. These conditions are not similar to the conditions under which people use wireless phones, so we don’t know with certainty what the results of such studies mean for human health.
Three large epidemiology studies have been published since December 2000. Between them, the studies investigated any possible association between the use of wireless phones and primary brain cancer, glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, tumors of the brain or salivary gland, leukemia, or other cancers. None of the studies demonstrated the existence of any harmful health effects from wireless phone RF exposures. However, none of the studies can answer questions about long-term exposures, since the average period of phone use in these studies was around three years.
