sWTF Antennas

View Eight (8) Slides re: the NONSENSE of the FCC RF-EMR Guideline here

RF-EMR = pulsed, data-modulated, Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation

Compliance with the FCC RF-EMR Guideline ≠ Public Safety

Compliance with the 1996-TCA § 324 — Use of Minimum Power = Public Safety

47 U.S. Code § 324In all circumstances . . . all radio . . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.


Versus What is Needed
– 5 dBm 100,000,000 times higher
-25 dBm 1,000,000 times higher
-45 dBm 10,000 times higher
-65 dBm 100 times higher
-85 dBm Max. power necessary
-125 dBm Min. power necessary


RF-EMR Professional Metered -10 dBm in 2nd-Story Bedroom, Where Two Children Sickened

The Power in that bedroom was 25-30 million times higher than necessary for telecommunications service.

In Tucson, and elsewhere, sWTF antennas are far too powerful, far too low and far too close to homes.

Example: Maximum Power Output Capability of Galtronics Extent P6480 Panel Antenna System


Frequency (MHz)

Ant. Gain (dBi)

Power Ratio

Max Input Power × Power Ratio

Watts ERP

1 1695-2180 9.0 7.9 100 × 7.9 = 790
2 1695-2180 9.0 7.9 100 × 7.9 = 790
3 2180-2400 9.5 8.9 100 × 8.9 = 890
4 2180-2400 9.5 8.9 100 × 8.9 = 890
5 3550-3700 8.5 7.1 50 × 7.1 = 355
6 3550-3700 8.5 7.1 50 × 7.1 = 355
7 3550-3700 8.5 7.1 50 × 7.1 = 355
8 3550-3700 8.5 7.1 50 × 7.1 = 355
9 5150-5950 5.5 3.5 1 × 3.5 = 3.5
10 5150-5950 5.5 3.5 1 × 3.5 = 3.5
  TOTAL: Max ERP Output Antenna Capability       4,787 Watts ERP
  With 3dB override . . .       9,574 Watts ERP


The Following Lists Only Radio Specs, but NOT Antenna Specs

Ericcson Air 5331 (KRD 901 079/1; KRD 901 079/4)

Note: an antenna gain of 29 dBi, results in a Power Ratio of 795.

Ericcson Air 5331 Power Output

  • + 60 dBm for maximum power configuration (EIRP)
  • – 90 dBm Needed for excellent telecommunications service
  • Difference = 150 dBM or 1,000,000,000,000,000 times higher (one quadrillion times higher)

Power Output for Ericcson AIR 5331:
Dimension of Non-Compliance Area

Volume of Area That Exceeds FCC General Population
Maximum Public Exposure (GP-MPE) Limit
Band / Freq.



Out from Panel




Number of

B260 / 39,000 MHz 60 dBm 89% 10.5 feet 4.3 feet 13.1 feet 587 cu. feet 20

  • The test results presented in this report define compliance boundaries for maximum power configurations for AIR Ericcson 5331. Inside the compliance boundaries the radio frequency (RF) exposure levels exceed the occupational exposure guidelines specified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (which are five times higher than general population exposure levels)
  • The tests were performed by calculations in accordance with the Ericsson RF exposure calculation procedure
    for base stations , which is in conformity with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 and IEC 62232.
  • Band B260 for 39,000 MHz (ranging from 37,000 to 39,000 GHz)
  • Compliance boundary calculations were conducted according to the Ericsson RF exposure calculation
    procedure for base stations using large array antennas [3] which is based on the far-field formula assuming a
    cosine scan loss and a Gaussian beam shape [5], [8].

  • From measurements of a similar mmW AAS testbed radio (28 GHz) transmitting with total output power of 47.3 dBm, the maximum power density behind was found to be 0.1 W/m2 [7]. Scaling of this result to 60 dBm output power, gives a power density of around 2,000,000 µW/m²

  • It is possible to state that the compliance distance behind the antenna measured from its back plane is 0 meters

Biologically-Based RF Microwave Radiation Exposure Guidelines

BioInitiative, 2019: “A scientific benchmark of 30 µW/m² for lowest observed effect level for RF microwave radiation is based on mobile phone base station-level studies. Applying a ten-fold reduction to compensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide a safety buffer for chronic exposure) or for children as a sensitive subpopulation yields a 3 to 6 µW/m² RF Microwave Radiation exposure guideline”

Similar scientifically-based RF Microwave Radiation Exposure Guidelines are published by the International Institute for Building-Biology & Ecology:

No Hazard

Slight Hazard

Severe Hazard

Extreme Hazard

< 0.1 µW/m²

0.1 µW/m² to 10 µW/m²

10 µW/m² to 1,000 µW/m²

> 1,000 µW/m²

  • µW/m² = millionths of a Watt per square meter (a measurement of power flux density)
  • Power flux density (PFD) = the amount of electrical power that flows through a unit area: expressed as microWatts (µW) per square meter (m²).
  • PFD measures only the rate of electrical power, NOT the total electrical power delivered over time, which requires the rate to be multiplied by the time of exposure and then requires reporting the results in a more relevant unit: µW-seconds/m² or µJoules/m²
  • Average µW/m² readings, as specified by the FCC, significantly under-report the levels of pulsed, data-modulated, RF microwave radiation exposures for two reasons —
  • Peak RF microwave radiation exposures meter 100x–1000x higher than average RF microwave radiation for data-carrying, modulated, high-crest signals like Wi-Fi, 4G/LTE and 5G because of the duty cycle, inherent in these RF signals. Inexplicably, the FCC RF microwave radiation exposure guidelines only consider average RF microwave radiation exposures, which is a significant error because living organisms’ biology reacts to the sharp changes of RF microwave radiation from zero to peak levels and back again. This is more fully explained here: Palo Alto Whitewashes RF Microwave Radiation Exposure Hazards
  • The FCC RF microwave radiation exposure guidelines consider neither the time of exposure nor the total electrical power delivered over time, which is utter nonsense and scientifically unsound. This is more fully explained here: RF Microwave Radiation Counter.

Link to Andrew Campanelli, Esq.:

Here is the test: the courts have said that a town must grant a permit for a location to build a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — even if it violates your local zoning code — if the applicant can prove two things:

  • The wireless carrier suffers from a gap in its personal wireless services
  • The proposed installation is the least intrusive means of remedying that gap and there is no possible less intrusive alternative location

If — and only if — they can prove those two things, then the municipality has to issue the permit for the WTF.

BUT, the important part is to make the applicant prove these two points with substantial written evidence in the public record.

Usually, when it is a site developer, such as Crown Castle or Extenet, it is not the best location. So local governments have to force the applicant to give them probitive evidence, just like anybody else would. The applicant will come in with propagation maps, many of which are bogus. Without the data behind the maps, the municipality does not know if the propagation map is worth the paper it is written on. The truth is that no Federal Court would take a propagation map without verification.

The first thing a town should say to a wireless applicant is “Do you have a gap in telecommunications service? Do a drive test and give me the drive test results. Very cheap. They take take a phone [or RF meter], attach a recording device and they drive through town. The recording device records the signal strengths every few milliseconds and it will give you a precise reading of all the signal strengths on the streets of the town. That hard data will show you if there is a gap in telecommunications service, where it is and what it’s boundaries are.