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

[David Marshall]

Usually theories are formed to account for observations. I can find no reputable *observations*, never mind proof, that "particles of pollution" congregate around mobile phone masts.

Dave

[sPoNiX]

So *if* the RF given off by a mobile phone is dangerous then there is surely a *theoretical* risk from masts?

sPoNiX

[sPoNiX]

I agree that it's not worth worrying about.

LOL!

sPoNiX

[sPoNiX]

It's simple electrostatics and has been known about since 1850 or so.

Whether these particles affect humans is entirely open to question.

sPoNiX

[David Marshall]

No, we know that moving charge has an electromagnetic effect - not that this effect will necessarily effect particles the size of "polluting particles".

Well they haven't magically appeared - they must've already been in the atmosphere. So either they're dangerous pollution (that was already in the air anyway) or they're harmless. Either way, not a problem for the *mast*.

Dave

[Tristán White]

I've been following this discussion with interest.

I think there's an important issue here. It's not that the mast is dangerous... it probably isn't.

But the public's perception of the mast is that it is. Which means that a house with a great big mast nearby is NOT going to sell as easily.

The fact that public opinion erroneously stigmatises these masts to such an extent is unfortunate. But when this results in house prices going down in value because of ther paranoid people, then the original poster has a valid reason why she should want to object to this mast.

Incidentally, how much compensation do they give in the UK for them to put a mast on your property? In Spain they give as I said the equivalent of about £5,500 per annum in compensation (rent). What do you get here, if anything?

[Jacque]

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.

[Jacque]

Many masts are erected on hills, or grass-land, in which children DON'T play as a rule-of-thumb; that's for a reason.

I'll wait for the 2.5 years, in which you'll have the UK's interim post-report analysis on the risks of masts, ie: having one beside your house.

You'll swallow your words.

[Jacque]

I can't disclose the number of UK cases, but there's been a large amount of brain-tumours linked to the person's proximity to a BTS. As i've said, you'll find out soon enough.

[David Marshall]

I assume you know the difference between correlation and causality?

If you're going to go against all of the scientific evidence so far you're going to need a bit more credibility than "I know stuff, you'll find out soon enough".

Dave

[Mark Carver]

Fair enough, can you provide links to documentary evidence that back up your assertions?

[tony sayer]

How do you *know* that for certain?....

[tony sayer]

A bit more than that for a lot of locations. The poor old hard up farmers sometimes make more from aerial sites then what they do farming..

So some have told me in offhand drunken moments;)

But that "how much" has a lot to do with where they ARE sited;((

[Andrew Gabriel]

The tissue damage caused by three years at university was a well known phenomena long before mobile masts were around...

[Rob Morley]

That relates to phone use - masts require different consideration.

A quick Google came up with this

seems pretty reasonable to me.

[Huge]

Indeed it is. After all, a moose may fall from the mast and land on you.

[Peter Corlett]

David Marshall wrote: [...]

Well, air ionisers draw dust out of the air, which then collects on and around the device. They're generally considered good things as they clean the air up.

Surely if mobile phone masts do the same air-cleaning, they're also beneficial? Indeed, it's kind of the mobile phone companies to provide this environmental service for free ;)

[Dave Fawthrop]

| Many masts are erected on hills, or grass-land, in which children DON'T play | as a rule-of-thumb; that's for a reason.

Hills and grass land give better coverage for both transmission and reception.

[Dave Fawthrop]

| 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? | >

| | One of the many theories is that the RF from masts isn't a risk in | itself. What is potentially a problem is that the electro-magnetic | field around a transmitter

Which obeys the inverse square law

| 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.

[Rob Morley]

Only if you walk around with one in your pocket or against your ear.