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

No. It's different to an electrical burn.

It's called "RF Burn". The RF causes the water in your cells to vibrate which in turn causes the cells to heat up and you get burned.

sPoNix

Um, yes, because you get better coverage and need fewer cell sites if you choose high, open spaces.

The consideration is entirely financial; nothing to do with alleged safety concerns.

Dave

sPoNiX wrote: ... snipped

The acceptance and risk of RF burns has been known and accepted since the dawning of RF techniques, this is entirely different from the athermal effects that you believe exist.

| In uk.d-i-y sPoNiX wrote: | > On 26 Oct 2004 11:47:54 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@isbd.co.uk wrote: | > | > >... 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. | > | > So *if* the RF given off by a mobile phone is dangerous then there is | > surely a *theoretical* risk from masts? | > | Yes, and the way to get rid of the masts is to stop using the (much | more dangerous) mobile phones.

Correct. But I *need* my mobile phone. ;-)

| sPoNiX wrote: | > Obviously if something is in higher concentration it *could* impose an | > increased risk to health. | | Not "obviously" at all.

A higher concentration of water vapor in the air only makes you wet.

The cumulative risk of the mast may be (and probably is) negative. Having the mobile phone mast nearby causes your own phone (and those of people near you) to transmit on a much lower power.

Christian.

I don't recall the source of the particular study that I read, although it sounds like a different one since I recall no mention of the granite/radon connection. The study I saw was looking at the electrostatic attraction of particulates (in particular soot and ordinary "dust"), and effects that may have on VDU operators with regard to exacerbating asthma etc.

First thing you need to do is throw your mobile away. Secondly - realise that you'd have been more at risk from the handset than the base station had it not been for you throwing it away in the first place.

your assertions?

Aye .. RF burns hurt like hell :o/ But not many member of public go up an antena tower on a regular basis. If they are, they desreve all they get

department?

Some of us have worked in the industry far longer than three years without the need for writting pages of ill-informed rubbish in a students union bar.

The church across the road has a mobile base in it, thank goodness.

Since when have the Church Commissioners been experts in this (or any) scientific field?

They were good at losing squillions on property gambling^H^H^H speculation a few years back, though.

I don't know of a second paper but there's so much tosh published in this area that it's hard to catch everything. However, the expulsion of dust with ESF field reversal has already been discredited, regardless of whether it's picked-up some Radon along the way (although I didn't do the sums myself and can't recall the assumed mass of the particles). There are generally more important things to worry about in life.

I feel there is also a problem when discussions of matters of "RF" or "Radiation" take place without qualifying the frequency range or type.

Some of the many biological effects of exposure to EM radiation are well known understood and documented (i.e. we "see" 500nm, and get our water molecules jiggled by 2.4GHz etc) - by logical extension there may be many subtle effects that we are not as yet aware of.

Hence power level and density comparisons made between exposure to solar radiation, and that from a TV mast, or an that of an X-ray machine seem to be somewhat pointless.

I would agree with the general consensus that _if_ there is a health risk associated with close proximity to transmitters in the 900MHz to

Having said that, I can also see that there may be many reasons people could legitimately object to the sighting of a mast near their property

- not for reasons of risk caused by the technology, but for consequential effects like that on aesthetics, and property value.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@chaplehouse.demon.co.uk writes

Not all, of them appear to have done this some such as the big cathedrals ,positively encourage the income.

Keeps 'em well stocked with communion wine;))

He'd still suffer no ill effects.

If it was "refuted" in the last post there is no way that you can change that, maybe you mean "disputed".

Speak for yourself. Duckie. ;-)

Please don't feed the troll.

Err, drink no water at all and you'll die. Drink too much and you'll die. Same with many things. Just because a high dose of RF can be shown to cause damage doesn't prove anything about low doses.