Cellphone tower worries could spur rule changes

Cancer is caused by the breaking of bonds in DNA creating mutations. For electromagnetic radiation (light, radio, microwaves, x rays, etc.) to break these bonds there needs to be a quite high minimum energy per interaction. Over 100 years ago some young fellow called Albert Einstein, provided the solution for the "photo-electric effect" this is where an electron is removed from an atom by a photon of light. What Einstein discovered was that light (and any other electromagnetic radiation) interacts with matter as a photon, a small quanta (amount) of light where the energy (of the photon) is related to the frequency and not the intensity of the light (that is determined by the number of photons). What this means is that the minimum amount of energy needed to break a bond in the DNA (and hence cause cancer) means there is a minimum frequency of light that is needed. In fact the frequencies that are needed to break chemical bonds are in the region where visible light becomes ultra-violet (UV) light. So UV light can cause DNA mutations (and skin cancer) but radio waves as are used in cell phone communications are simply to low frequency. Cell phones simply do not have energetic enough photons to break chemical bonds and hence cannot cause cancer.

I would like to ask those who are currently protesting the siting of relay transmission-towers, whether or not they are cellphone users. If they are, then it would seem they are being a mite inconsistent by protesting at all. You cannot complain of limited 'coverage' on the one hand, as most 'users' invariably do, and on the other use one or more these infernal devices on a daily basis. There is another anomaly as well. Signal strength for signal strength, the output from one of these towers at a distance of a few hundred metres is about one-millionth of that of the same signal being output when a cell-phone is held against the side of the users' head. (I concede, of course, that the output from a cellular phone is much less than that of a transmission-tower).
This is an issue which cropped up for me some years ago and during a discussion on relative signal propagation strengths, (where my figures were checked by an electronics expert with extensive avionics experience in the US), he came back with a figure more like 1/500,000th to allow for an anomaly or two. (By the way, the principle is quite simple, based mainly on calculating the surface-area of a sphere of the required radius, since signal intensity falls off roughly as the inverse square of the distance, providing both the transmission source and receiver are visible to each other. Microwaves, because of their exceedingly high frequencies, don't travel 'around corners'.)
What I am trying to say, is that it is inconsistent to indulge in hand-wringing about the dangers of cell-phone tower sites on the one hand, but to be quite happy about holding a cellphone, a device of lesser signal strength but still a microwave emitter, something like 15cms from your central nervous system. Think about it, and consider in addition that saturation use of Wi-fi and other devices emitting signals in the 2.4gHz band, has given rise to a new health-hazard in European cities known as 'electronic smog'. Since this band is licence-free, the average household probably has, unbeknown to it, any number of devices outputting microwave frequencies already, (albeit at low signal levels). It all adds-up.