7

According to the article satellite jamming in Iran, a war over airwaves:

Satellite jamming is a form of censorship akin to Internet censorship, whereby the Iranian government prohibits access to and inhibits the free flow of information. Referred to as ‘intentional interference’ in technical literature, satellite jamming is a violation of Article 15 of the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunications Union.

Satellite Jamming

Anecdotal evidence claims that some Iranians are feeling the effects of jamming. As an article published in the reformist newspaper Mardom Salari in 2009 stated:

While no officials are responding to questions posed about satellite jamming, civilians are suffering from the negative health impacts caused by jamming: dizziness, chronic deafness, different kinds of cancer such as skin cancer, blood cancer, and marrow cancer. These interfering signals can also impact human hormones and lead to infertility for both men and women.41

Is there any research about a similar matter in the other parts of the world to prove these kinds of waves can effect on health and cause disease?

  • 2
    The answer to this may be the same as the answer to Are Wifi waves harmful? – ChrisW May 7 '13 at 21:41
  • It cannot be because they are different. – Persian Cat May 7 '13 at 22:44
  • 3
    @PersianCat it's quite the same. Both are electromagnetic field emissions at roughly equivalent frequency ranges. – jwenting May 8 '13 at 8:26
  • They have very different frequency bands and it is the point.The Iranian authorities have never divulged the exact strength of the frequencies used to jam signals, so because of it, it is hard to answer the question. I asked to find if there is a similar research in the world. – Persian Cat May 8 '13 at 9:25
  • 3
    @PersianCat To jam a signal you have to swamp it with another signal at the same frequency, or close to it. The satellite, WiFi and the jammers all use GHz frequencies, so they are all roughly equivalent - and harmless to anyone. – hdhondt May 9 '13 at 1:18
9

Maybe

The jammers described in your source, are standard ones manufactured by Chinese manufacturer WLT

Established in 2002 with Chinese government shareholdings, WLT is a high-tech Chinese manufacturer and exporter that specialises in security and ‘protection projects’. http://tiny.cc/nr4zmw

The offer 3 types of satellite jammers, C-band, Ku -band and dual C- & Ku-band. The dual-band one is most powerful of the 3. It's output is:

  • Frequency: 3.7-4.2GHz(C Band) and 11.7–12.2Ghz(Ku Band)
  • Output power: 10Watt each band(20Watt optional)

If low-intensity microwave radiation causes any health problems is an open issue. It has been addressed here for example in this question: Are WiFi waves harmful?

There are studies suggesting biological effects beyond thermal effect. See for example: Biological Effects of Microwaves and Mobile Telephony, however later studies did not confirm that, rather the opposite, found this to be nocebo effect (for example: Does Short-Term Exposure to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals Increase Symptoms in Individuals Who Report Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields? A Double-Blind Randomized Provocation Study)

Two 20W antennas might be a health risk, while standing next to it, just from the thermal effects alone. This kind of output power is in line with typical cell phone tower.

Conclusion: satellite jamming might be unhealthy, but most likely not any more than exposure to cell phone towers. On the other hand, since it's done in secrecy, there is no way of knowing if the placement of antennas conforms to any safety guidelines.

  • Are there any real safety guidelines related to antenna placement of that power? For example in Ontario it's legal to use the roof of a residential apartment building as a cell phone tower. – ChrisW Jul 12 '13 at 21:34
  • @ChrisW: on top of residential building isn't the problem, as these antennas radiate hardly any power vertically up or down. Guidelines state that the antennas should not be placed directly in front of residential buildings, eg. on roof of 2-level building in front of 5-level building. – vartec Jul 22 '13 at 8:08
  • 2
    Should the answer be "no, unless in special cases"? The only study which found a potential effect turned out to be due to the nocebo effect, as you mention. – ChrisR Oct 12 '14 at 0:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .