Thursday, July 02, 2009
How to Reduce Cell-Phone Radiation Exposure
A new network architecture could dramatically reduce the radiation exposure from cell phones.
Here's a simple idea for creating a cell-phone network that minimizes the radiation exposure for callers while maximizing the battery life of handsets.
Today's cell-phone networks consist of base stations that both transmit and receive signals. The strength of the signals that a handset has to generate depends on how far away it is from such a base station. Obviously, handsets in smaller cells transmit at a lower power, reducing the user's radiation exposure.
So in theory, you could reduce users' radiation exposure from handsets by reducing the size of the cells that each base station serves. But in practice, that isn't possible because people who live nearby naturally object to the constant exposure that a base station would expose them to.
But Doron Ezri and Shimi Shilo at Greenair Wireless, an Israeli startup, have dreamed up a way around this. Their idea is to enhance existing networks by adding large numbers of base stations that only receive signals and are connected up to the rest of the network via a landline or a line-of-sight microwave link.
This creates large numbers of microcells in which the handsets can transmit at low power while the existing base stations continue to do the transmitting. So during any conversation, the handset transmits to one of the new nearby base stations but receives from a more distant conventional base station.
And since the new base stations only receive, there shouldn't be the same kind of objections to putting them up. At least that's what Ezri and Shilo think.
Although the jury is still out on the health risks of mobile-phone radiation exposure, it seems wise to employ the precautionary principle whenever possible. Greenair is the startup that Ezri and Shilo have created to commercialize the idea, which should improve battery life to boot.
Good luck to them, but a word of advice: never underestimate the power of the NIMBYs.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0906.5289: Green Cellular--Optimizing the Cellular Network for Minimal Emission from Mobile Stations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
From the FCC's RF Safety FAQ's: "In urban and suburban areas, cellular and PCS service providers commonly use 'sector' antennas for their base stations. These antennas are rectangular panels, e.g., about 1 by 4 feet in size, typically mounted on a rooftop or other structure, but they are also mounted on towers or poles. Panel antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three each. It is common that not all antennas are used for the transmission of RF energy; some antennas may be receive-only" [emphasis mine]
It seems what's novel is calling a receive-only station a "green antenna" and emphasizing its already-existing safety aspect. Let's just hope the patent office does some background legwork before blindly issuing these patents and letting these people sue existing installations out of business.
norm
07/02/2009
Posts:3
While current communications technologies employ receive only antennas (most technologies supporting MIMO do, as WiMAX, LTE, WiFi), these receive only antennas are co-located with transceiver antennas (say on the same tower).
The new (and seems brilliant) idea here is that the receive only antennas are distributed away from transceiver antennas. The paper shows these new antennas can significantly reduce radiation from mobile devices.
Good luck to Doron and Shimi for this new idea.
rekalman
07/03/2009
Posts:2
luyseyal
07/02/2009
Posts:1
ncm
07/02/2009
Posts:14
But, I'm not sure the connection to the network is trivial. Anyway, very nice concept.
rekalman
07/03/2009
Posts:2
The power needed to reach your phone and provide service is the same no matter how far the transmitter is or the number of transmitters. What is different is the amount of energy you receive from all the other calls integrated over your integrated time and spacial placement over time.
Exposure will go down drastically as more transmitters are put into service that allows the average transmission power to drop at the 3rd root of your average distance.
This idea relies on NIMBYISM + DUMBYISM.
We cant solve NIMBYISM. (WE are all possible NIMBY's at times) But we can do something about DUMBYISM by clear and careful explanation of physics.
A analogy is light from a light bulb for those that cannot visualize RF radiation.
I hope this sheds some light on the subject...
:)
techron
07/06/2009
Posts:13
Using remote receivers is something that ham radio and commercial two-way radio operators have been doing for decades. It's long been an established practice and mentioned (for example) in the 2007 ARRL Handbook on page 15.20: "Once you have one remote receiver site it is natural to consider a second site to better hear those “weak mobiles” on the other side of town (Fig 15.16)."
Also, it's not just the "radiation hazard" that have the NIMBYs upset, it's also the visual impact of radio towers. Many believe a nearby tower of any type lowers their property value, whether it transmits signals or not. For better or worse, I don't see the "Green" solution solving this problem, but exacerbating it.
rhampton
07/06/2009
Posts:1
HandyManDan
07/06/2009
Posts:1
While receive only antennas are (obviously) not a new idea, the application of remote receive only devices for reduction of radiation in cellular networks is new for all I know, and looks very promising.
Having some experience in cellular networks, I think making it work, however, would be a significant technological challenge (in contrast to amateur radio).
Josh11
07/06/2009
Posts:1
However, the paper discusses the use of these antennas for the sole purpose of reducing the radiation from cellular handsets, and this is something that, to the best of my knowledge, is not taken into account in today's standards. Hence, I think it is new.
jaywalker
07/06/2009
Posts:1
manufanu
07/09/2009
Posts:1
Another possibility is to raise all cellular networks to a level 1000 feet above the ground and make the network 5 feet thick. No waves would travel below 1000, or above 1005 feet. Imagine the EMF would exist between two concentric spheres with diameters 5 feet difference. This would create a spherical shell around the earth 5 feet thick, but no waves would penetrate below 1000 feet. Then all cell phones, or wifi antennas connected to transmitters would emit a very narrow laser like beam that shoots straight up. The beam both transmits and receives by interacting with the field placed high above the ground when pointed to the sky but would automatically turn off when placed near horizontal position, so it could not be used as a microwave weapon. The lasers would become visible colored beams if any object came between and alert users with a warning signal that the laser was being obstructed. Any laser would disengage with in 2 seconds of direct interference. Later tunnels, overpasses and city streets with tall structures could be specially outfitted to pick up the signal as pedestrians, or cars passed below.
For inside structures, special phone stations, or even landlines could be used.
Brave New World circa 2060. (After the world finally understands the health impacts of these fields - 1100 studies connect RF/ Microwaves to 65 different bio-effects, mostly neurological and immune system related www.bioinitiative.org).
Alex
AlexRichards
07/10/2009
Posts:1