Talk:PAVE PAWS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force
	Military technology and engineering task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.stratcom.af.mil/factsheetshtml/pave%20paws.htm
- In PAVE PAWS on Mon Jul 17 14:20:24 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
- In PAVE PAWS on Thu Jul 27 00:26:47 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')

maru (talk) contribs 04:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits on environmental / Health concerns.

I'd just like to point out a few things before you go discounting this as sensationalism as you appear to be doing. Sweeps has nothing to do with it and there's really no reason to be so crass about it. In some areas of the country news stations actually investigate reports in an unbiased manor. As the report points out (and so I have attempted to show in my quoting of it) there is a community outcry regarding the potential hazards. Also, this is not something just being drummed up. The state report has been in the works for over a year now, and if anything, this is all less biased than studies released by the very entity that would be liable should there prove to be a hazard. It also appears from edit summaries that the term PEL is misunderstood. PEL is the permissible exposure limit, a legal established standard, not the actual radiation level in either quantity or rate. Perhaps the user who's edit summaries refer to this actually means the TWA, which is the measured rate of exposure. Not that it directly matters but large area-scanning intercept radar and cell phones are far different pieces of technology that emit their waves in far different manners. Besides, it would be OR to use such comparisons to direct the contents of this article.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And it purely coincidental that this news report happened to occur during sweeps. Later this month when yet another report is released showing no links I wonder if TV news will report that, or will they have moved on looking for something else to scare people with. I'll wait for that report before I believe a TV report during sweeps. RF density decreases with the inverse square of the distance from a transmitter, so yes I'd be more worried about a cell phone next to the head than a radar transmitter several miles away that is pointed 3 degrees above the horizon. That inverse square rule also means that if levels are sufficiently low 15 meters from the array, then there is no way those levels could be any greater miles away at someones house. Especially since they are not even in the main lobe of the radiation unless they are 3 degrees above the array, since in the report it specifies that it radiates from 3 - 85 degrees in elevation. --Dual Freq 05:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything gets more attention during sweeps. Doesn't mean its of less merit. Just means they wait until then to break the story. They'll report it when the report comes out, as they have a stable track record of doing just that. In any case, the air force survey was specifically for the purpose of working hazard. It did not actually examine effects of exposure, nor address differing interaction between children and adults (of specific concern in this case since Ewing's is specifically a children's disease). That the energy density meets a pre-defined PEL established based on work exposure on adults speaks nothing as to whether that PEL is in fact adequate, whether it applies equally to residential exposure which is affected by many other factors, and whether it applies equally to children and adolescents, which as it is widely known react differently to many biological influences. It would be quite a stretch indeed to say that that report mitigates any findings or concerns regarding long-term impact on that level. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. They will be lucky to even pick up the radar on the ground with a power density meter from several miles away. At 3 degrees, the main beam is nearly 300 feet above the ground at 1 mile away, that coupled with the inverse square rule means there won't be significant amounts of RF hitting the ground. These things come up from time to time and this is not the first time this has been studied. I hope they are evaluating other sources so they find the real cause of these cancers. http://www.mass.gov/dph/environmental_health under Environmental Health Investigations has a report from 1999 that found no cause for concern and talks about the low power densities involved because of the distance from the facility. --Dual Freq 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)