Smart Meters: Low Cell Signal Solutions and RF

[Wagtail]

TL;DR Summary

smart meters without any signal - cell signal booster - radiation - harm or good?

Hi All,
Given: a residential building with smart meters set up on the underground level without any reception there. As a result, the meters cannot transmit any data. Therefore, as far as I understand, they emit much higher RF radiation, right? The solution offered to us is to set up a cell signal booster (repeater) outside of the building to improve signal coverage. But the residents are concerned about the potential health effects of such a booster/antenna. What do you guys say? What emits more radiation: the signal booster or the smart meters themselves because of the low signal? Can such a booster potentially reduce radiation by improving the signal? Thanks a lot!

 

[berkeman]

Welcome to PF.

The answer will likely depend on the country you are in, but in general the meters will be certified to some transmit level (you should be able to request a datasheet that lists the RF standards and levels they are certified to). Their Tx level cannot be boosted in-situ.

Adding a repeater node just outside the building makes sense, and it will also need to be certified to some RF standards and level. I don't think it would be a "booster" per se, but rather just a repeater in a good location to hear the in-building nodes and repeat their traffic outside. Again, you should be able to request a datasheet for the repeater node to look at the RF levels that it will be transmitting. Note also that it may use a directional antenna (for the repeated signal) aimed somewhere to focus its repeated signal, and that would be a good thing for lowering the emissions in the other directions (like back into the building).

 

[Wagtail]

Welcome to PF.

The answer will likely depend on the country you are in, but in general the meters will be certified to some transmit level (you should be able to request a datasheet that lists the RF standards and levels they are certified to). Their Tx level cannot be boosted in-situ.

Adding a repeater node just outside the building makes sense, and it will also need to be certified to some RF standards and level. I don't think it would be a "booster" per se, but rather just a repeater in a good location to hear the in-building nodes and repeat their traffic outside. Again, you should be able to request a datasheet for the repeater node to look at the RF levels that it will be transmitting. Note also that it may use a directional antenna (for the repeated signal) aimed somewhere to focus its repeated signal, and that would be a good thing for lowering the emissions in the other directions (like back into the building).

Thanks a lot for your help. So this is true that currently the meters emit higher levels of RF because of the low signal? Thanks again.

 

[berkeman]

So this is true that currently the meters emit higher levels of RF because of the low signal?

Sorry, I'm not able to parse what you are asking. Can you please re-phrase?

 

[Wagtail]

Sorry, I'm not able to parse what you are asking. Can you please re-phrase?

It is argued that because of the low reception, the meters currently emit much more radiation than they normally would. True?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why? If they have a 1W transmitter (or whatever), they emit one watt, right?

 

[berkeman]

Okay, again, this is something that you would need to check on the datasheet. It is most likely not true*, but you would need to post a technical source for that statement. "It is argued" is not a valid source or reference for PF.

*There is a concept in communication called "Alternate Path" that could result in a somewhat raised average Tx amplitude for a node that is having trouble communicating. If the nodes are using Acknowledged Service where they expect to receive back an "Ack" indicating that the message was received, then they may use a higher Tx amplitude for the last couple attempts at sending a message. A typical node might send a message once with three retries, for example, and use the Alt Path of higher Tx amplitude for the last couple of tries. However, this higher Tx amplitude would only be about 2x the normal Tx amplitude, and the RF testing that was done to certify the node would have included this Alt Path Tx amplitude in its measurements.

 

[Wagtail]

Why? If they have a 1W transmitter (or whatever), they emit one watt, right?

Because they constantly retry transmitting and thus they emit much more frequently. At least this was the tech dep's explanation.

 

[berkeman]

Because they constantly retry transmitting and thus they emit much more frequently. At least this was the tech dep's explanation.

It depends on the protocol. You will have Physical Layer retries (like I mentioned earlier) for each transaction, and you may have Application Layer retries to retry failed transactions. But in a normal meter reading installation, just the traffic for normal communication usually fills up the available bandwidth pretty well, so there is not much of an increase in Tx traffic due to the failed transactions. There is just a loss of information when only a few transactions get through.

See if you can get those datasheets...

 

[Baluncore]

The energy levels and frequencies involved, are no more of a hazard, than a handheld mobile phone, which is considered safe.

A booster for the basement would also improve mobile phone coverage in the basement.

 

[DaveE]

Any RF exposure risk would be insignificant compared to all of the personal cell phones you are surrounded by during the day. Particularly the one you hold up to your ear. I am not aware of any harm that has been found in spite of much worry.

 

[Wagtail]

It depends on the protocol. You will have Physical Layer retries (like I mentioned earlier) for each transaction, and you may have Application Layer retries to retry failed transactions. But in a normal meter reading installation, just the traffic for normal communication usually fills up the available bandwidth pretty well, so there is not much of an increase in Tx traffic due to the failed transactions. There is just a loss of information when only a few transactions get through.

See if you can get those datasheets...

I don't think I can get them. Anyway, there are about 30 meters that do not transmit anything, just "retry" and emit whatever RF, so that's the source of the concern. Thanks again for your help.

 

[Wagtail]

The energy levels and frequencies involved, are no more of a hazard, than a handheld mobile phone, which is considered safe.

A booster for the basement would also improve mobile phone coverage in the basement.

That was the argument - that as a cell phone without reception emits higher levels of radiation, similarly 30 smart meters at the basement without any coverage, also emit more RF than they normally should.

 

[Baluncore]

That was the argument - that as a cell phone without reception emits higher levels of radiation, similarly 30 smart meters at the basement without any coverage, also emit more RF than they normally should.

How can they emit more RF than they should? More or less RF energy is irrelevant, as they are unable to transmit dangerous levels of RF.

Who spends any time in the basement with the meters?

What happens when 15 people get in a lift/elevator, with their 15 mobile phones. Do the phones all light up, drain their batteries, and cook the people?

A little paranoia will keep you safe, but it should be moderated by science, or you will be paralysed by fear.

 

[Averagesupernova]

The anti smart meter crowd seems to be more politically motivated than anything else. I know someone personally that buys into all the bogus claims. Talks about 'dirty electricity' and such nonsense. Meanwhile asks me how to hook two 6 volt batteries to get 12 volts.
-
I don't understand how people can form such strong opinions of something they will readily admit they do not understand and are unwilling to accept what someone they trust tells them who does understand. Or maybe it's an assumption that they trust anything at all.

 

[DaveE]

https://senate.texas.gov/cmtes/82/c510/1009-WaltBaum04.pdf
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...ay-things-emit-radiation/smart-meters.html#a2
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/radiation-exposure/smart-meters.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379585/

 

[Wagtail]

Thanks for all the links, but this is not what the question was about. The concern is not about the smart meters themselves, they already exist in the building. The problem is they cannot transmit any data because of the low signal, they just stand idle. And to improve the signal, we need some repeater/antenna, and most of the residents are reluctant to set up this equipment because of the potential RF-related health concerns. So the counter-argument was that currently the nonfunctional low-signal meters emit even more radiation, so such a repeater/antenna could potentially reduce the RF emission by improving the signal and can do more good than harm.

 

[Wagtail]

How can they emit more RF than they should? More or less RF energy is irrelevant, as they are unable to transmit dangerous levels of RF.

Who spends any time in the basement with the meters?

What happens when 15 people get in a lift/elevator, with their 15 mobile phones. Do the phones all light up, drain their batteries, and cook the people?

A little paranoia will keep you safe, but it should be moderated by science, or you will be paralysed by fear.

The power provider's workers definitely spend some time there reading the 30 meters.

 

[Wagtail]

The anti smart meter crowd seems to be more politically motivated than anything else. I know someone personally that buys into all the bogus claims. Talks about 'dirty electricity' and such nonsense. Meanwhile asks me how to hook two 6 volt batteries to get 12 volts.
-
I don't understand how people can form such strong opinions of something they will readily admit they do not understand and are unwilling to accept what someone they trust tells them who does understand. Or maybe it's an assumption that they trust anything at all.

This was definitely not my point, so if by "anti-smart meter crowd" and "strong opinions" you mean me, I think you should read the question again. Anyway, sounds a bit judgmental.

 

[Baluncore]

And to improve the signal, we need some repeater/antenna, and most of the residents are reluctant to set up this equipment because of the potential RF-related health concerns.

Then they should throw out their mobile phones and Wi-Fi connections, because those affect them more running standard power close by, than the ones in the basement running at maximum power in an attempt to get through.

So the counter-argument was that currently the nonfunctional low-signal meters emit even more radiation, so such a repeater/antenna could potentially reduce the RF emission by improving the signal and can do more good than harm.

That is not true, since it supposes wrongly that the meters could be harmful. A repeater radiates the same RF power as a single mobile phone.

 

[Baluncore]

The power provider's workers definitely spend some time there reading the 30 meters.

Then the power provider should pay for and install the repeater. It will save them from needing to employ the meter readers. What has that got to do with the people who live on the floors above? You don't need the discussion.

 

[Wagtail]

How can they emit more RF than they should? More or less RF energy is irrelevant, as they are unable to transmit dangerous levels of RF.

Who spends any time in the basement with the meters?

What happens when 15 people get in a lift/elevator, with their 15 mobile phones. Do the phones all light up, drain their batteries, and cook the people?

A little paranoia will keep you safe, but it should be moderated by science, or you will be paralysed by fear.

The power provider's workers definitely spend some time there reading the 30 meters.

So you mean you disagree with the common recommendation not to use phones in the elevators?

 

[Wagtail]

Then the power provider should pay for and install the repeater. It will save them from needing to employ the meter readers. What has that got to do with the people who live on the floors above? You don't need the discussion.

That's the point. The provider is willing to pay, but the majority of the residents do not want the repeater because they afraid of the potential RF hazards.

 

[Baluncore]

That's the point. The provider is willing to pay, but the majority of the residents do not want the repeater because they afraid of the potential RF hazards.

Their fear is probably real, but it is a paranoia, not based on reality.
Their personal phones dominate their RF exposure.

Maybe the residents just don't like the power company because they have to pay their bills, so they are going to punish the company by being obstructive.

What legal right, do uneducated residents have, to object to an RF repeater that is approved by the communications authority?

 

[DaveE]

So the counter-argument was that currently the nonfunctional low-signal meters emit even more radiation, so such a repeater/antenna could potentially reduce the RF emission by improving the signal and can do more good than harm.

Aside from the fact that it probably doesn't matter compared to other RF emitters people are exposed to, I think that's a good argument. The problem is it's hard to prove without specific research on the devices and protocols. Alternatively you could buy a cheap spectrum analyzer and do your own measurements. Either way requires some effort and EE knowledge. Otherwise it's just arguing about opinions since they won't accept the guidance of the relevant authorities.

 

[Wagtail]

Their fear is probably real, but it is a paranoia, not based on reality.
Their personal phones dominate their RF exposure.

Maybe the residents just don't like the power company because they have to pay their bills, so they are going to punish the company by being obstructive.

What legal right, do uneducated residents have, to object to an RF repeater that is approved by the communications authority?

Well, this is not a legal forum, but I think nowhere in the world (except maybe some dictatorships, which we aren't) a power provider can force any equipment on the residents, and the law is the same for both educated and uneducated, so here we are...

 

[Baluncore]

So you mean you disagree with the common recommendation not to use phones in the elevators?

Mobile phones usually have poor service in elevators.
Are you saying it is recommended that you put your mobile phone in aircraft mode when you ride in an elevator, to prevent it from receiving a call, or trying to hand-shake with cell sites?

 

[DaveE]

Well, this is not a legal forum, but I think nowhere in the world (except maybe some dictatorships, which we aren't) a power provider can force any equipment on the residents, and the law is the same for both educated and uneducated, so here we are...

No, but the local government can. Building departments do it all the time, at least in California.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Well, this is not a legal forum, but I think nowhere in the world (except maybe some dictatorships, which we aren't) a power provider can force any equipment on the residents, and the law is the same for both educated and uneducated, so here we are...

Oh I think you be wrong. I cannot build a new house and install any old electrical equipment I want. The law says I have to follow current code. Most states are a code cycle or two behind the most current but not because the authorities are reluctant to change. The workers in the industry need time to learn the latest rather than suddenly one day everything on the job fails the inspection because the new rules came out a day before the permit for the job was pulled.
-
Also it is very difficult to build a residence in some places that is NOT served with electricity. Most power companies say tough luck if you don't like their meters. They know it is difficult legally to remain disconnected for long periods of time. Your house will be condemned.
-
I do not mean you referring to the smart meter crowd. You seem a bit defensive though, so I wonder. Just pointing out to you the type of person you are up against.

 

[DaveE]

Honestly, I think you're tilting at windmills here. I doubt the tenants will ever agree, or that many minds will be changed. Surely there are more fun ways to spend your time. Does this really have to be your problem?

 

[Wagtail]

Oh I think you be wrong. I cannot build a new house and install any old electrical equipment I want. The law says I have to follow current code. Most states are a code cycle or two behind the most current but not because the authorities are reluctant to change. The workers in the industry need time to learn the latest rather than suddenly one day everything on the job fails the inspection because the new rules came out a day before the permit for the job was pulled.
-
Also it is very difficult to build a residence in some places that is NOT served with electricity. Most power companies say tough luck if you don't like their meters. They know it is difficult legally to remain disconnected for long periods of time. Your house will be condemned.
-
I do not mean you referring to the smart meter crowd. You seem a bit defensive though, so I wonder. Just pointing out to you the type of person you are up against.

Thanks for your reply, but I am up against no one, and in fact things are a bit different. I did not say the residents oppose the meters. The meters have already been set up, and this is kind of the provider's fault they set up the meters without checking the reception at the basement. Anyway, they can't force their repeater if the tenants don't want it, and they definitely don't mind charging us "by way of estimation" and sending their employees to read the meters once in a while. Anyway, I am not American and we may have different laws.

 

[Wagtail]

Honestly, I think you're tilting at windmills here. I doubt the tenants will ever agree, or that many minds will be changed. Surely there are more fun ways to spend your time. Does this really have to be your problem?

May be, but there are some open-minded tenants too, so we are at least trying. Besides, I have natural curiosity, so it has been pretty educational. Thanks.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Anyway, they can't force their repeater if the tenants don't want it, and they definitely don't mind charging us "by way of estimation" and sending their employees to read the meters once in a while.

It may well be that they are better off estimating and sending the reader now and then. But there is little anyone can do (likely) if the company decides to install a repeater adjacent to the building in question. This would likely solve the signal strength problem. If they are serving one building, they likely have the adjacent one.
-
@DaveE is right. Why does this have to be your problem unless it's just something you enjoy? If left alone the problem will be solved and the paranoid tenants won't realize there is a repeater close by.

 

[Wagtail]

It may well be that they are better off estimating and sending the reader now and then. But there is little anyone can do (likely) if the company decides to install a repeater adjacent to the building in question. This would likely solve the signal strength problem. If they are serving one building, they likely have the adjacent one.
-
@DaveE is right. Why does this have to be your problem unless it's just something you enjoy? If left alone the problem will be solved and the paranoid tenants won't realize there is a repeater close by.

Well, this is our problem too cause we'd rather use something more efficient and pay for consumption precisely rather than by way of evaluation which is usually more expensive, aside from enjoying this of course and I can't count on the adjacent buildings, their tenants may be the same as ours, but this is an issue for another forum.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway, they can't force their repeater if the tenants don't want it, and they definitely don't mind charging us "by way of estimation" and sending their employees to read the meters once in a while.

Hopefully the power company charges extra for manual meter readings. That way the residents can have their paranoia satisfied, the electric company makes more money and everybody wins!