The objections to TETRA masts are, like those to mobile 'phone masts, just scaremongering. There is no difference in any safety between the two and, in any case, some masts will host both transmitters.
They don't tend to be on top of near every tall building, though. And the better ones, like Crystal Palace, perhaps a thing of some beauty?
A normal life as in being avoided by sane people? ;-)
Why would protecting the brain over other organs be necessary?
You bet. Stick to how ugly it is.
Nice to see my original rough calculation has made it into the public domain, however my original statement was: -
1 year 100m from a BTS (at full power) ~= 7 seconds in the sun.OTOH if the mast is at 3-400m your assertion is broadly correct.
[ refined calculationSun energy incident at earth ~= 1.367kWm-2
BTS 25/4pi100**2~=0.2mWm**-2 ~= 0.1989mWm-2
For a 25W BTS at 100m
So the ratio of incident radiation is: -
6871291:1 ~= 1 year : 4.5s, however some of the sun's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, and the BTS radiation is not evenly spherical.In practice a peak value of 0.1 microwatts per square centimetre is actually likely from a 25m high 60W macrocell directional BTS at full power at coincidentally 100m.
This is equivalent to 1mWm**-2 so the worst case is that a year's exposure to a BTS is equivalent to ~20 to 30s in the sun. ]
I would object to a TETRA transmitter, not because of safety concerns, but simply their capacity to ruin TV reception
Duh! Because that's how THEY control you - via the brain. They can't do the same via any other organ.
You are probably not going to get a balanced opinion from UTM I am afraid... we like mobile phones and probably would encourage a mast in our street because it would mean five bars on our mobile 24-7.
So your concerns are a going to be brushed aside.
If you are really concerned, as is your prerrogative, you'll get more sympathy from people such as Mast Sanity, see
I don't know how much they give you in the UK... if anything!
That's like arguing that a CB radio causes the same damage as a microwave oven!
We're not brushing aside concerns because we *like* mobile phones. We're brushing them aside because we understand the physics involved and how masts compare to other sources of radiation.
Of all the things to worry about, masts should be about four millionth on your list.
Dave
| On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:11:40 +0100, "Simon Ough" | wrote: | | >What makes me laugh the most is that people don't object to TV and radio | >masts, some of which have a power of 1,000,000Watts! | >
| >BTS stations are a MINISCULE % of that, I dunno the exact amount of power, | >but I'm presuming 5-10W? | | That's like arguing that a CB radio causes the same damage as a | microwave oven!
The handset in your pocket or against your ear is more dangerous than anything on a mast. Haven't you heard of the Inverse Square Law?
Agreed. Browse to
... snipped
This was a small retrospective epidemiological study with many of the usual epi problems, not independently replicated (although there was a similar Danish(?) study a couple of years ago), based on old technology and not relevant to masts. There is also no recognised (widely-accepted) feasible biological mechanism.
Life is all about risk-benefit decisions; the user needs to decide whether the use of a mobile phone brings tangible benefits that outweigh any intangible risks that may (or may not) exist. In a previous life I worked in this area and have a fair grasp of the research; I and my family use mobiles without concern when they bring benefit but use landlines in preference (mainly because it's cheaper). Driving and sun-bathing are probably MUCH more dangerous.
Exactly.
But to say the risk from a mast is zero, as some posters have done, is rather foolish imho.
sPoNiX
You understand how the RF is emitted and how it drops off over distance.
However, what you don't understand are the (possible) biological effects. Even scientists currently disagree on the effects!
That's why more research is needed in order to come to a definitive conclusion.
sPoNiX
follow that masts are completely safe, does it?
*If* there is a danger from handsets then it follows that a mast would be less dangerous. However, only a fool would argue that they are safe in this scenario.sPoNiX
If we haven't seen any effects by now (humans have been exposed to radiation of all kinds for a very long time), and don't have any plausible explanation for any biological effects from masts, it's definitely not worth worrying about.
Yes, we should always keep looking, but there are many more dangerous things to worry about before you start worrying about radio sources.
Hell, you're more likely to be damaged by a mast falling on you than by its emissions...
Dave
itself. What is potentially a problem is that the electro-magnetic field around a transmitter attracts particles of pollution.
The unproven part of this theory is that this increase in particles around tx's go on to cause disease.
If this were the case then the direct effect of RF (and therefore the inverse square law) become irrelevent.
sPoNiX
| On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:02:56 +0100, Dave Fawthrop | wrote: | | >The handset in your pocket or against your ear is more dangerous than | >anything on a mast. Haven't you heard of the Inverse Square Law? | >
Nothing is completely safe. Getting up, staying in bed, eating breakfast, going to work/supermarket, all involve some risk.
Anyone who asks for *anything* to be completely safe is a fool of the first water.
... er, yes, but this relates to the use of a mobile phone next to your ear, not the presence of a mobile phone cell transmitter at the end of the street.
I was talking about phones. The field strength at accessible positions around masts is significantly lower than the field strength at user-distances from the mobiles themselves, it's also lower than the field strengths from other "accepted" sources. There was a good government report at the end of last year giving survey data, 'can't remember the reference.
Despite humungous amounts of money going into research (that might have gone into more worthwhile research!) a plausible/feasible interaction mechanism has not been demonstrated. IF there is an adverse interaction it could be frequency sensitive, amplitude sensitive, B field or E field sensitive, etc, etc. Maybe exposure either side of a "window" (eg amplitude) is OK (or beneficial, even) but within the window it's not. BUT if there was a significant risk (relative to those that we accept when driving, etc) an interaction would presumably have been found by now or people would be falling like flies from EM exposure to all the sources that are around - it hasn't and they aren't.
There are several social difficulties: the man on the Clapham omnibus typically does not have a grasp of relative risk and doesn't generally understand that science cannot prove a negative, newspapers report bad news and sensationalist stories but rarely publish the scientific rebuttals or the "nothing found" stories. Because of this some people become convinced that something is bad for them without due cause.
Mild rant over, with apologies for all the "brackets"
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.