This is the basis of all of this radio scaremongering. It is impossible to prove that something dangerous does not exist. On top of that there have been numerous lop sided studies; each side "proving" what supports their agenda. However, there is absolutely no neutral evidence of health risks that are specific to TETRA. Most of the allegations against TETRA seem to stem from a certain company that lost out on a major TETRA contract.
They're also substantially larger (electrostatic attraction), which generally speaking reduces the health risk.
-- Chris Malcolm snipped-for-privacy@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
It's not a cloud, they don't get attracted except *extremely* locally, they get aggregated. Generally considered to reduce the problem.
-- Chris Malcolm snipped-for-privacy@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
What you will have to do is to find evidence that the mast might be harmful. It is extremely difficult to find such evidence. It is also extremely difficult to escape from the logical consequence, due to the inverse sqaure law, that if radiation from the mast is dangerous, then using a mobile phone is *hugely* more dangerous.
All you have to do is to find evidence that masts are dangerous and you will be taken very seriously. You might even close down the mobile phone industry.
-- Chris Malcolm snipped-for-privacy@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
So do the sums! Work out how close you'd have to stand to the mast to suffer the same radiation exposure!
-- Chris Malcolm snipped-for-privacy@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
Wouldn't an angle grinder be overkill when used on a mobile handset?
Best save it to use on badly sited speed cameras ;-)
-- Andy.
of course we've seen effects of radiation by now! haven't you heard of radiation poisoning? ;-)
but seriously, it's well-known that long-term exposure to high levels of rf radiation can cause leukaemia.
if high levels cause leukaemia, there's a good chance that low levels will cause some sort of health problems for some people.
will
Why are you objecting..? Do you have a mobile phone..? Do you not realise that masts have to go *somewhere* if phones are to work..? What reason do you have for it not going where proposed..?
Surely you don't believe all the hype about the dreaded "radiation" do you..? You get far more dangerous exposure from a few minutes in full sunlight.
Why not offer to have it in your back garden, then they'll pay you for the privilege ;-)
Ivor
Only if (a) you go climbing up one while it's still transmitting or (b) it falls over and lands on your head.
(a) Show the results of your research and (b) learn capitalisation, punctuation and spelling.
Ivor
Yes but most people don't go climbing phone masts to touch the aerials..! Plus they only run a few watts, hardly the same as 1kW ;-)
Ivor G6URP
What drivel...Humph' did say that.
Whatever did happen to R.F. Byrne..?!
Ivor G6URP
Not in the film he didn't.
Ivor
| snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (sPoNiX) writes: | | >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? | | So do the sums! Work out how close you'd have to stand to the mast to | suffer the same radiation exposure!
They can not do simple math, which is why they talk such a load of rubbish.
No-one's saying it's zero risk, but is it significant enough to worry about..? You get more RF (not that god-awful term "radiation" please..!) from a phone held against your head than from a mast several hundred yards away.
Also bear in mind the nearer you are to a mast the lower will be the output power of your phone.
You didn't before they were invented..!
Ivor
By Tetra I assume you mean the "Airwave" system currently being introduced for the emergency services' use..? What are the grounds for your concern..?
They use the 400 MHz UHF band which is far less of a problem than the
900/1800 MHz bands used for mobile phones. Radio amateurs have been using 144 MHz and 430 MHz for donkey's years, there are numerous repeater stations up on tall buildings and masts for both, did you even know that they were there..? Why aren't you objecting to them and to the thousands of licensed amateurs who transmit from their houses and cars..?Not to mention the many thousands of PMR users such as taxis, bus companies etc.
Radio is all around you, go and lock yourself in a Faraday cage if you're that paranoid...
Ivor
I suggest you drive down the M5 and look at tha big antenna near Droitwich. It emits 500KW at 198 Khz which trips daintily along, dragging its feet in the ground.
Yep, I'd say that air in a 100% concentration is safer than air in a 0% concentration ;-)
Ivor
It depends on the installation, but its generally more than £5.5K a year !!
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.