Jump to content

Talk:PAVE PAWS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

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!

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

Recent edits on environmental / Health concerns.

[edit]

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 AlfadorTalk|@ 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yeah, but you wouldn't believe the BS some frightened-into-ignorance anti radio campaigners like to spread. Nice one in my local newspaper on the subject of cellphone masts last week... "the school is located just 120 metres from the transmitter, where the signal is naturally strongest". WTF? Well done local rag, you've discovered a whole new section of electromagnetic physics that no-one else had yet realised. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 AlfadorTalk|@ 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we maybe get some NUMBERS, then, and some more supporting facts, so we can make up our own minds? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There may be no real "cause" at all. Apart from some obvious, stark-effect carcinogens, the occurrence of cancer is a purely random event. Probably more down to cosmic rays and sunspots than anything else, if you live a reasonably healthy lifestyle. Though too many long distance flights and sitting too close to a CRT monitor/TV won't do you any favours. So any apparent clusters can actually be nothing more than tragic co-incidence. Unfortunately it's part of the human condition to look for patterns that aren't there, and then reasons or things to blame for the occurrence of these naturally occurring, random, non-pattern coincidences. Like a road junction that suddenly has six deaths in a year rather than three will have people decrying it as "dangerous" and asking for all kinds of alterations and restrictions on and around it - asking "why has the rate doubled? why is the council not doing anything to fix it?". Answer: because the one drunk-driver accident that occurred this year, with the at-fault driver blowing through and ignoring all existant signs and safety measures, involved two cars with three people in. Last year where there was one drunk, and one blowout, first with two cars that had only the drivers onboard, and the other leading to a pedestrian being knocked down and killed. (Not an actual example, but I've seen some pretty similar ones). Trust me... i'm an ex-nuclear medicine technician. The amount of technetium stained stuff that i've handled is easily equivalent to the entire lifecycle output of a mobile phone, and is still a lot safer than a typical X-ray set, or the innards of an old TV; no one seems too bothered about the risk of either of the latter, though, and luckily the general public remains largely ignorant about isotopes & tracers until such things become rather vital to their own survival... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coverage - contradictory images

[edit]

Compare the coverage shown for PAVE PAWS on this page vs the one on the BMEWS page... which is correct, the one with a large gap over all of Mexico (as here), or the one with a small region of coverage overlap (as there)? I'm hoping the latter, but then the BMEWS diagram has it's own flaws e.g. the signals that overlap the north pole just disappear into some kind of off-the-map hinterland rather than coming back down onto parts of Russia and Scandinavia... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing from the current coverage map is the area covered by the AN/FPQ-16 PARCS at Cavalier Air Force Station which could perhaps be indicated in yellow or green.Graham1973 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The curvature of the earth and the map projection make a coverage drawing difficult. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARE WE SHOUTING

[edit]

What is the justification for capitalizing the name of this article? As mentioned in the article, "Pave" (not PAVE) was a 1970s era first part code name assigned to Air Force Systems Command for use in its two named projects (like Corona for Hq USAF or Busy for Strategic Air Command). AFSC used it for electronics projects. Although PAWS was made an acronym, the assignment of project names required the use of nouns and Paws is one. This article should be moved to Pave Paws. I'm open for comments before I take action. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on PAVE PAWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on PAVE PAWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PAVE PAWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PAVE PAWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PAVE_PAWS&oldid=1209666848"