dom Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 personally I wouldn't want to live next to a mast. when I lived in London C&W managed to steamroller through planning permission to put up a mast (dressed up as a tree!) about 100 yards from my house. aside from the potential health problems (as with global warming, there are scientists on both sides of the argument but would you really want to risk it) it had an immediate negative impact on the property value of the surrounding houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 dom I quite agree I wouldn't want to live next to one or my house devalued by one but (generalisations coming) the anti scientific arguments are a bit suspect. You are always going to find scientists who take an opposing view of the rest of the scientific community. There may be many reasons for this such as ego trip, need for fame/recognition, being reactionary etc etc. For example there is a Professor somebody in dental research that said most fillings were totally unnecessary. Its what people want to hear of course, but obvious total bollocks. If you ask to see the research papers that these oddball nutty professors base their views on they are usually from suspect sources using suspect data. So back to the real world: No electromagnetic radiation is better than some = fact We are surrounded by it in modern homes = fact Is the mast down the road pumping out relatively low power UHF emissions subject by distance to the inverse square law a problem? I doubt it. I am more concerned about transmitters close to me where the inverse square law does not have a chance to get going. At the moment, my mobile is on in my pocket, my laptop is a foot away is connected to the router wirelessly and I'm sat with my head 6" from a CRT tube. Is the low power mast down the road (or even on the roof) killing me? - nah! Are these three closer devices doing me any good - most likely probably not. You still see people talking for hours on end with a mobile stuck to their ear apparently not worrying about electromagnetic radiation but say a mast is going to be put up down the street and there's uproar. Just to confirm, I still wouldn't want one on aesthetic grounds but that would never win an argument. Suggest it causes cancer and again there's uproar. It pays in life to be sceptical - even with the above! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 5 bloody masts and the reception 100 yards down the road is still shite. I take it they have actually remembered to switch them on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 What's it like 200 yards down the road Terry? Try it and report back..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Resurrecting the thread because of THIS STORY A man who believed that his health had been damaged by mobile phone signals led a convoy of police cars and onlookers across western suburbs of Sydney as he used a 15-tonne armoured personnel carrier (APC) to flatten seven phone towers. John Patterson, a former employee of Telstra, Australia’s largest telecommunications company, took the former British Army Trojan APC from its owner’s tow company in western Sydney. He drove the Rolls-Royce-powered vehicle – which resembles a tracked tank and has a replica cannon – on a rampage across six suburbs, which left a large part of Sydney temporarily without a mobile-phone signal. Police said that they had no option but to tail the APC in a low-speed pursuit as they were powerless to bring it to a halt as it travelled at its maximum speed of 52km/h (32mph). Police vehicles were forced into evasive action several times when the driver swung the 17ft (5 metre) vehicle toward them. The APC rammed a police car at one point during the chase, after officers confronted it as it emerged from a hospital car park. Now that's what I call a protest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 It's all in their mind then. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6914492.stm Mobile phone masts are not responsible for the symptoms of ill health some blame them for, a major UK study says.Dozens of people who believed the masts triggered symptoms such as anxiety, nausea and tiredness could not detect if signals were on or off in trials. Attention seekers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.