Objection to mast - best way to object a Vodafone contractor proposing to erect a mast

[Dave Fawthrop]

| > Out of interest why do you object, you do realise that as a mobile phone | > user you are at more risk with less signal, and also that a mast is not | > dangerous? | >

| > Is it ugly - if so why not ask for one that looks like a tree \ lampost | >

| > personally I would welcome a mast nearby on t-mobile at least. | > Sam | | Masts are well known to be dangerous; i've researched this for the last | three years at university as art of an on-going project. Anyone who thinks | masts don't cause tissue problems within a localised area are illinformed | and incompetant.

And published the results in which Peer Reviewed Journal?

[hairydog]

That would be a reason to campaign to get a base station at the end of your road, not to prevent one.

With a nearby base station, your mobile would transmit with vastly less power.

[hairydog]

No, the converse is true.

Try understanding the physics of it.

[Rick Dipper]

The single most effective way to stop this mast going up, is to remove the need for it, and there will be no cost justification, so they won't put it up.

So how do you remove the need for it? Just make sure everybody within a mile or so of the site does not use voodophone. Swaping to one of the other providers will simply get them to put a mast up, so you had better get people to stop using their mobiles.

Rick

[Rick Dipper]

Those that have TV complain about it, those of us with no signal, get on with a happy life without it ...........

Rick

[Rick Dipper]

You don't share the feminists view of being a man then ........

[sPoNiX]

Which you obviously don't

[usenet]

Yes, and the way to get rid of the masts is to stop using the (much more dangerous) mobile phones.

[sPoNiX]

That's where your argument falls down. There is *some* scientific evidence to suggest there is a danger.

sPoNiX

[usenet]

I've never played "as a rule of thumb", is it a good game?

[sPoNiX]

Harmful particles can be of any size.

It is a fact that these particles are in higher concentrations around masts. Whether it's magic or electrostatics is really neither here nor there.

Obviously if something is in higher concentration it *could* impose an increased risk to health.

sPoNiX

[sPoNiX]

Yes, an ioniser has the same effect. However, the "cloud" of particles etc around an ioniser is far smaller than the cloud around a transmitter, which could quite easily encompass awhole property.

sPoNiX

[sPoNiX]

You obviously haven't touched a transmitting aerial then!

I suffered burns when brushing past an HF antenna running at 1kw!

sPoNix

[Peter Corlett]

sPoNiX wrote: [...]

You mean the property that the mobile phone operators are paying to use and compensating the owner for? Surely that's merely between the two parties involved and no business of the NIMBYs?

[Neil Shaw]

And how many of us brush past mobile phone transmitters? :)

[Mark Carver]

No I haven't (well not one running at 1 kW), nor have I looked down an open waveguide, but those are dangerous things to do....

...and there's the evidence.

I have an open mind on whether exposure to RF (at the levels provided by mobile masts and phones) is harmful. Show me some hard evidence, backed up by experiments with repeatable and consistent results.

I'm not a smoker, but I do use a mobile phone. Presented with appropriate evidence I'll give up the phone.

[Peter Corlett]

sPoNiX wrote: [...]

You seem to be suffering from faulty reasoning here.

The reason you got burned is because you made contact and created an electrical circuit. Nobody can seriously argue that making an electrical connection to a high-power transmitter is safe.

Consider the difference between handling a power cord, a normal, safe, everday activity; and sticking a screwdriver into a mains socket.

[Dave]

Oi Huge! with that snipping you've made it look like I think that masts present a hazard (other than falling mooses (meece?), careful old chap.

[Dave]

This was discredited some time ago, sorry but I no longer have my reference papers so can't point you at the relevant paper.

[Dave]

If I wasn't trying to maintain a professional distance I would call this statement absolute b*llocks - oops, I did! Studies like this (eg the Wertheimer and Leeper power line study in the US - probably spelt that wrongly) can not control for other factors. They are invariably hugely flawed but get published by the press because they are sensational, the subsequent scientific rebuttal is published (if at all) at the bottom left of page 99. The established scientific community do not usually give these studies much credence and they therefore usually have difficulty getting funded. If it's your University epi project I wish you luck with the moderator.