How Mobile Works: Home
53
PO01275C Tabor East Neighborhood Meeting Monday, April 20, 2015 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM 1
Transcript of How Mobile Works: Home
PO01275C Tabor East Neighborhood Meeting
Monday, April 20, 2015 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM
1
Opening Remarks, Introductions, Explanation of Agenda
and Procedure
Lenny Borer Moderator
2
Portland Office for Community Technology:
Role, Regulations & Process
3
Wireless Informational Neighborhood Meeting
www.portlandoregon.gov/OCT
4
6
To decrease industry requests for these kinds of wireless towers …
7
… by allowing carriers to collocate on utility poles instead
8
38.2% of Oregon households are “wireless-only”, 14.5% are “wireless mostly”, and another
15.5% are “dual use”.
Nearly 70% of Oregon households clearly depend on wireless devices for
communications.
Many households that retain a landline don’t actually use it.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr061.pdf
9
E911 Call Data
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total E911 Calls 1025670 1007523 1007275 981309 900554 892723 915937 940900Landline E911 Calls 594889 523912 453274 402337 342211 312453 302259 291679E911 Wireless Calls 430781 483611 554001 578972 558343 580270 613678 649221
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
E911 Call Wireless Call Growth 2005 - 2012 Source: Portland Bureau of Emergency Communications
As of June, 2013 over 73% of all E911 calls were originated using a wireless phone
10
In a 1-year period, there were 86,119 E911 calls made on T-Mobile’s network alone. Roughly 239 calls a day.
11
Proposed Facility (PO01275C Tabor East)
Search Ring
Existing and Future Wireless Coverage
12
The Search Ring
13
14
Current coverage in the area
15
The following few slides will answer this question, taking into account that : The current coverage hole is centered to this location and the 4 block radius around Yamhill &
71st. Because of higher ground elevation the surrounding sites cannot provide adequate coverage (please note that the closest site is less than 0.4 miles away to SE).
There is a significant difference in terrain elevation between chosen candidate and alternate locations. Even if we compensate by increasing antenna height, the coverage hole will remain virtually unchanged.
Because of terrain morphology and propagation losses we need a local site. (Approximately 90dB of the original signal (15/16 of it) are lost a block away from a site).
Why in this neighborhood ?
16
Predicted coverage for C candidate Location: SE Yamhill & 71st Ave Ground elevation: 390 ft. Antenna height: 58 ft.
17
Predicted coverage for Y candidate Location: SE Stark & 76th Ave Ground elevation: 280 ft. Antenna height: 100 ft.
18
Predicted coverage for Z candidate Location: SE Yamhill & 82nd Ave Ground elevation: 260 ft. Antenna height: 60 ft.
Proposed Facility (PO01275C Tabor East)
Site Selection & Alternatives, Design
& Zoning Compliance
19
Site Selection & Alternatives Investigation The following options were all considered and evaluated during our site search and candidate selection process: No existing structures were located within the search ring that would achieve the necessary height for coverage objectives. PGE representative accompanied Odelia Pacific and T-Mobile representatives in the field to determine feasibility of pole replacements.
20
Architectural Drawings – Proposed Design
21
Architectural Drawings – Proposed Design
22
Architectural Drawings – Proposed Design
23
Architectural Drawings – Proposed Design
24
Photo Simulations Photo Simulation Location Map
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Compliance with Federal Radio Frequency Standards
Andrew H. Thatcher,
MSHP, CHP, Certified Health Physicist
www.rfthatcher.com
42
Discussion of Radiofrequency Exposure Discussion of Radiofrequency Exposure from Proposed Base Station and from Proposed Base Station and
Review of Health StudiesReview of Health Studies
Andrew H. Thatcher, MSHP, [email protected]
www.rfthatcher.com
T-Mobile Tabor East Community MeetingApril 20, 2015
Maximum outdoor exposure from proposed T-Mobile antennas operating at 100% power
8.6 µW/cm² (@460’)
Max indoor exposure =
0.21 µW/cm²
Likely outdoor exposure < 2 µW/cm²
Maximum outdoor exposure is more than 115 times less than
the public limit. Indoor exposure is 4,600 times less
than limit.
30 30
2 0.05 0.05 0.2 8.6 2 0.21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Ex
posu
re (µ
W/c
m²)
Cordlessphone
Bluetooth BabyMonitor @
7 feet
FM TV WiFi Basestation
maximumoutdoor
exposure
Typicalbase
stationoutdoor
exposure
Basestation
maximumindoor
exposure
Typical Radiofrequency Exposures in our Lives
The Public exposure limit is: 200 µW/cm² for FM425 µW/cm² for TV (UHF)570 µW/cm² for cellular1,000 µW/cm² for PCS
Standards Used in the WorldStandards Used in the World
International Commission of Non Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines (more than 60 countries)
Re-affirmed in 2009Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong,Japan, Hungary, Ireland, Malaysia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Taiwan, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, UK, Venezuela, etc.
FCC Standard: Bolivia, Canada, Estonia, Panama, USA
Below ICNIRP and IEEEBelarus, Bulgaria, China, Lithuania, Poland, RussiaBelgium, Chile, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Switzerland
EU Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks 2015
The results of current scientific research show that there are no evident adverse health effects if exposure remains below the levels recommended by the EU legislation. Overall, the epidemiological studies on radiofrequency EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region.
Previous studies also suggested an association of EMF with an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. New studies on that subject did not confirm this link.
Swedish Council: Ten Year Update Swedish Council: Ten Year Update (2012)(2012)
We now know much more about measurements and absorption of RF fields and also about sources of exposure to the population and levels of exposure. A considerable number of provocation studies on RF exposure and symptoms have been unable to show any association. Overall, the data on brain tumor and mobile telephony do not support an effect of mobile phone use on tumor risk, in particular when taken together with national cancer trend statistics throughout the world.
2012 Expert Committee appointed by the Norwegian Institute of Health, commissioned by the Ministry of Health and Care Services and the Ministry of Transport and Communications :
"The knowledge base in this health risk assessment provides no reason to assert that adverse health effects will occur from thetypical public exposure. This also applies to the use of wireless communications in the office environment."
…"Exposure from base stations and radio and television
transmitters is significantly lower than from using a mobile phone and the available data do not suggest that such low exposure could increase the risk of cancer."
…"There is negligible uncertainty in the risk assessment associated
with other sources, such as base stations, wireless networks, television transmitters and the use of mobile phones by other individuals."
RFR Exposure and RFR Exposure and Health Effects SummaryHealth Effects Summary
Lack of a plausible Biological Mechanism for health effects
Epidemiology provides little evidence, Animal and cellular study results provide no
replicated indication of health effects Lack of a Dose/Response relationship The exposure from towers to public is too small to
result in any effect. No replicated studies have identified any non-thermal effects at these levels nor is there any reason to believe that effects of any type would be observed at these levels
RF Summary RF Summary
Radiofrequency exposures have been studied since the early 1950s.
Current analysis shows that exposures the relatively new technology is no different than exposures from older FM and TV exposures.
This area of study is well established – over 25,000 published studies.
Focus on the major organizational reviews for guidance on possible health effects.
Closing Remarks and Questions
43
