The launch of the iPhone 4 in June 2010 hit a bit of a rough patch for Apple, when several customers complained about loss of signal strength and dropped calls while touching the lower left edge of the phone.

Soon after the complaints began, Apple made a controversial statement, claiming that while they understood the issue, many of their competitor’s phones had the same problem and initially offered no other resolve for the problem. Once a lawsuit was threatened against the company and their partners at AT&T for fraud, Apple released a five dollar quick patch, a cleverly shaped band-aid with the catch phrase “Apple made a boo-boo.” Later, they released a free bumper casing for iPhone 4 owners in order to put an end to the complaints.

The technical issue and following actions taken by Apple were named by some online tech-bloggers as “Antennagate” and became a black mark on Apple’s mostly stellar cell phone record.

It seems now though; a permanent change has been made to this flaw, as the newly announced iPhone 4S will feature a pair of antennas that should eliminate concerns about a loss of single and dropped calls presented by its predecessor. The announcement of the new tech was made this passed Tuesday, at the unveiling of the iPhone 4S.

Apple says that the two antennas outside the case intelligently switch back and forth between each other to maximize the phone’s ability to transmit and receive data. This system should also minimize the loss of calls caused by the former problem. The antennas are also placed on the top and bottom sections of the phone, so as to minimize them both being covered by its I Phone users while gripping the phone.

This addition has been heralded by some as the long awaited permanent response to the iPhone 4’s issues, though it was said that by some that holding the phone horizontally with both hands to text or type may result in a similar “Death Grip” situation.

Whatever the result of the change, the major issue of calls being dropped due to hand position seems to be a thing of the past for iPhone users.

The police scanner is still one of the most versatile tools in the journalist’s arsenal, sometimes right up there with the No. 8030 Gregg Ruled spiral reporter’s notebook and a pencil (pens are unreliable when it’s -10 degrees or if its raining).

Spot news photographers are famous for their scanners. I once rode along with a photog who had five scanners going in his car at once. Personally, whether I’m on the road or in the office, the scanner is usually clacking and beeping away with potential news from around Boston or the surrounding towns.

The antennas that come with scanners aren’t exactly professional grade, but they get the job done … mostly.

But there exists a whole, eager, dedicated group of hobbyists in the field of scanning. Some of them build their own antennas, and others buy any of a variety of commercially available ones.

Lately, there’s been buzz about a so-called “Snoop” antenna, which is essentially wire inside a PVC pipe. It’s popular on eBay and some other online retailers especially.

So I bought one.

Here is some technical jargon:

The antenna claims to be tuned to 30 – 1200 MHz, but the lower bands, 30-200 MHz come in very poorly compared to the higher end of the spectrum, 450-900 MHz.

The majority of police and fire departments around Boston use 450-490ish MHz, but many still operate on the lower band, 150-162 MHz, and some towns even operate on the 25-50 MHz band.

Technical jargon over.

The Snoop antenna picks up the 400 MHz frequencies very well in my tests, pulling transmissions from Brighton to as far north as Andover, as far west as Framingham, and all the way south to Plymouth. Plymouth and Andover are well more than 20 miles away, but Framingham is much closer, and I believe the reason I’m not picking up many more is because more departments in MetroWest use the lower frequencies that the Snoop isn’t picking up.

I’m not an expert, and I don’t have sophisticated, expensive equipment to compare it to, but if you want one guy’s advice: The Snoop picks up frequencies from farther away and works well on higher frequencies. Overall, it does work better than a stock antenna, but don’t expect miracles.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the impact of all the littering that individuals do, largely from their cars and on highways? What can I do to help clean it up? How can we strengthen laws to prevent it? — Won’t litter in Norwalk, CT

Environmentalists consider litter a nasty side effect of our convenience-oriented disposable culture. Just to highlight the scope of the problem, California alone spends $28 million a year cleaning up and removing litter along its roadways. And once trash gets free, wind and weather move it from streets and highways to parks and waterways. One study found that 18 percent of litter ends up in rivers, streams and oceans.

Cigarette butts, snack wrappers and take-out food and beverage containers are the most commonly littered items. Cigarettes are one of the most insidious forms of litter: Each discarded butt takes 12 years to break down, all the while leaching toxic elements such as cadmium, lead and arsenic into soil and waterways.

The burden of litter cleanup usually falls to local governments or community groups. Some U.S. states, including Alabama, California, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, are taking strong measures to prevent litter through public education campaigns, and are spending millions of dollars yearly to clean up. British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland also have strong anti-litter campaigns.

Keep America Beautiful (KAB), the group known for its "crying Indian" anti-litter TV ads of bygone days, has been organizing litter clean-ups across the U.S. since 1953. KAB has a strong track record of success in litter prevention, though it has been accused of doing the bidding of its industry founders and supporters (which include tobacco and beverage companies) by opposing many mandatory bottle and can recycling initiatives over the years and downplaying the issue of litter from cigarettes. Nonetheless, 2.8 million KAB volunteers picked up 200 million pounds of litter in KAB’s annual Great American Clean-up last year.

A more grassroots-oriented litter prevention group is Auntie Litter, which started in 1990 in Alabama to help educate students there about the importance of a healthy and clean environment. Today the group works internationally to help students, teachers and parents eliminate litter in their communities.

In Canada, the nonprofit Pitch-In Canada (PIC), founded in the late-1960s by some hippies in British Columbia, has since evolved into a professionally run national organization with a tough anti-litter agenda. Last year 3.5 million Canadians volunteered in PIC’s annual nationwide Cleanup Week.

Doing your part to keep litter to a minimum is easy, but it takes vigilance. For starters, never let trash escape from your car, and make sure household garbage bins are sealed tightly so animals can’t get at the contents. Always remember to take your garbage with you upon leaving a park or other public space. And if you’re still smoking, isn’t saving the environment a compelling enough reason to finally quit? Also, if that stretch of roadway you drive everyday to work is a haven for litter, offer to clean it up and keep it clean. Many cities and towns welcome “Adopt-A-Mile” sponsors for particularly litter-prone streets and highways, and your employer might even want to get in on the act by paying you for your volunteer time.

CONTACTS: Keep America Beautiful, Auntie Litter, Pitch-In Canada.

Dear EarthTalk: My uncle worked for over a decade on the top floor of an office building with cell phone towers directly above him. He was recently diagnosed with cancer. Is there any scientific evidence of links between exposure to cell phone tower radiation and cancer? — Jennifer L., Wellesley, MA

No one doubts that cell phone towers give off low-level radio-frequency radiation (similar to the microwave oven in your home), but scientists are still debating the health effects of long-term exposure. Some people are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancers, while others are not (for example, some lifelong smokers get lung cancer while others don’t). And with so many different chemicals, pollutants and other substances around us in our air, food and water, it is very difficult to determine with certainty if a particular environmental influence (such as a cell phone tower) is the culprit when health problems, such as cancer, arise in a particular locale or among certain populations.

But that hasn’t stopped many communities from worrying about this issue and taking cautionary measures. In San Francisco, for instance, concerned individuals and neighborhood groups have formed the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) for the purpose of preventing "the placement of wireless antennas on or near residences, schools, health care centers, day care centers, senior centers, playgrounds, places of worship, and other inappropriate locations…"

SNAFU is worried that San Francisco is “already immersed in a sea of electromagnetic radiation” from, among other sources, some 2,500 licensed cell phone antennas at 530 locations around the city. The group is distributing petitions calling on local public officials to increase “restrictions on the number and location of cellular phone antennas and other wireless transmitters.” Other controversies have erupted in communities in Connecticut and elsewhere over churches renting their rooftops and steeples to cell phone companies for placement of antennas. And parents in Ossining, New York waged an unsuccessful battle in 2000 to ban revenue-generating cell towers from school grounds.

Still, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not seem concerned, stating that limited epidemiological evidence suggests no link between cancers and living or working near a cell phone tower. ACS says that the energy level of radio waves coming off cell towers is too low to cause any noticeable human health impacts, and that a person would have to stand right in front of an antenna to pick up even trace amounts of radiation. And unlike X-rays or gamma rays, radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation is "non-ionizing," meaning it lacks the gusto to break the bonds that hold molecules (like DNA) in cells together.

Still, cell phones and their towers are a fairly new technology, and very few studies of their health effects have yet been conducted. And the bulk of the research cited by the American Cancer Society has focused on direct and prolonged exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation in general, not on cell towers and their effects specifically. SNAFU reports that "no systematic attempt has been made to determine what current cumulative exposures to this radiation are…." Lingering public concerns about the issue surely means that more research on the topic is to come.

CONTACTS: American Cancer Society, San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU).

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.