Dozens, if not hundreds, of satellite antennas and towers loom across Teton County.

When asked if there are any health problems with the wireless radiation emitted by those facilities, many local officials were silent.

Contact Miranda de Moraes at 732-7063 or

Raised in a Brazilian-American household in Southern California, Miranda is fascinated by the intersection of culture and ecology. She holds a master’s in journalism from Columbia and is searching for jackalopes in her free time.

Recommended for you

(2) comments

James Peck

What is this, the New York Post? Good info in the article, but the headline and lead are SO sensationalistic. I guess you need those "eyeballs..."

bob culver

I am curious about the motivation behind this story "Wireless radiation: Hide your kids, hide your wildlife ". It does not appear to correctly address an issue or offer any factual information. Let me explain.

From the very beginning, with the photograph of the tower at the church and the text below it, the statement about RF exposure does not supply any factual or useful data. It dives into hyperbole with unconfirmable statements about RF exposure at the school a few hundred feet away, implying it poses a risk. Depending on the antennas used, the Effective Radiated Power, and many other factors, the RF Exposure to anyone at the school (or elsewhere nearby) could be very low and not anywhere near the Exposure Limit set by the federal Rules.

If you are worrying about "Dozens, if not hundreds, of satellite antennas and towers...", without stating or knowing any facts, don't say anything. “We don’t have anything really to say on that subject,” is really the right answer - If you don't know the subject, remain silent - but that does not sell the story. Indeed, three persons asked to supply input on the issue all decline to fall into the trap of speaking on a subject they have no expertise about. But that does not sell the story.

If you look at FCC OET Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC

Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, you will find my name as a contributor - so let me speak from a position of experience and authority.

Take one of the "facts" cited in the article - “Phones are not tested in the way they’re used,” Davis said. “They’re tested 5 millimeters from the body.” That distance is Less Than 0.2 inches. Even at that distance the equivalent volumetric power density in the human body would be very low. The total power available from a battery powered cell phone is very low. The duty cycle (time of usage) is far below 100% and the position of the transmitter is not constant. Everything is working against a large exposure level. The power density falls off very fast with distance from the transmission source so the few hundred feet to the school cited at the beginning of the story yields a very low RF Field and resulting low Power Density.

There is so much hyperbole in this article it would take days to try to explain what is being said and to answer the claims. Just remember the old comment about early computers, "Garbage in - Garbage Out"

Bob Culver, BSEE, PE (Ret)

Welcome to the discussion.

Please note: Online comments may also run in our print publications.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.
No personal attacks. Discuss issues & opinions rather than denigrating someone with an opposing view.
No political attacks. Refrain from using negative slang when identifying political parties.
Be truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the “Report” link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts or history behind an article.
Use your real name: Anonymous commenting is not allowed.
The News&Guide welcomes comments from our paid subscribers. Tell us what you think. Thanks for engaging in the conversation!

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.