Post by: tina on September 17, 2005, 10:05:56 AM
I now have a lovely view out of my window. I am so lucky!
I would of thought a letter or something to warn me might of been nice?
Post by: Lisa Oldham on September 29, 2005, 01:40:48 PM
theres been one there for several years which Ive tried to publicise on several occasions
So theyve put a new one up ?
I dont believe theyve requested planning permission recently
Ill check it out then grab a councillor to find out whats gone on
if it hasnt got permission then you should kick up a fuss. if you ring the Mast sanity helpline (I set it up so I know its good) on 08704 322 377 they should be able to point you in hte right direction
Post by: on October 10, 2005, 10:35:18 PM
Post by: tina on October 11, 2005, 02:58:45 PM
I'm all for progress and all that, and yes I own a mobile phone and yes I have a great reception too! but it's the unknown downfall i'm worried about, i have children and it is also very close to 2 primary schools.
But a word of warning Bob, it is illegal to use your mobile whilst driving!
Post by: Howard on October 11, 2005, 03:56:15 PM
Here's a good summary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3251725.stm
Post by: tina on October 11, 2005, 07:15:42 PM
| Quote (Guest @ Oct. 10 2005,22:35) |
| I'm able to have an interference free conversation whilst battling through the hideous rush hour traffic (as long as the local plod dosent stop me). Â |
Howard, If you read the quote, you will see Bob was suggesting he uses his mobile whilst driving. I was just pointing out that (unless this was a hands free, as his comment in brackets backs up my thought that it's not) he is breaking the law by using his phone in rush hour traffic.
Post by: Rachael on October 11, 2005, 11:24:16 PM
Would you still be cheering if you looked out of your window and saw one of these masts?
Why do people protest against these masts, surely its not for the sake of it??
Not starting a debate here by any means, and not mentioning certain locations, BUT before we bought our house in Marple, we nearly bought a house in a location nearby, the house had a pilon probably less than 100 metres away, it was clearly visable from the back garden.
We loved the house, it was in walk in condition, the garden was beautifull, but this pilon niggled us, rather than take pot luck, we got in touch with certain proffesors at certain universities (now dont quote me on what they were or who they were called its nearly 10 years ago), my husband dealt with all the enquiries, and the answer that they came up with then, is, there is not enough evidence to prove they cause leukemia, but there was also not enough evidence to prove they dont, and his reccomendation was to not touch this house with a barge pole.
I think Tina is right to be concerned, I think your remarks are flippant.
Good luck to you running your buisness in the back of your Landrover, It sounds like you are the sort of person who needs a bit of well wishing from the people who are joe public like me, I really mean it, good luck!!! just let me know what buisness it is and I know who to avoid!!
But give me the health of my children and my family any day and sod progress.
Post by: tina on October 12, 2005, 09:12:22 AM
Post by: Rachael on October 12, 2005, 09:26:30 AM
Post by: Tricky on October 13, 2005, 09:27:50 AM
I'm not sure that it would be an arrestable offense?
(not sure about the mast though )
Post by: Dave on October 14, 2005, 04:50:39 PM
Post by: on October 15, 2005, 09:43:25 PM
Post by: tina on October 17, 2005, 06:55:10 PM
ok Bob very funny! had me going! 10 out of 10 for effort But the big lump of metal is still there!
Post by: Lisa Oldham on October 26, 2005, 03:29:24 PM
still cant find any planning details about the thing cant find it on the planning database and havent had a chance to phone stockport up yet.
Rachael.. good on you for not choosing that house .. it HAS been proven and accepted that living near to high power lines can increase the chance of childhood leukemia by up to 50%
Bob.. Marple Bridge IS getting a mast didnt you know ?
I would expect a couple more applications there in the future too If its a coverage hole for one its probably a coverage hole for all and they dont really like to share..
Some people do knock them down.. quite a regular occurrence but it doesnt get reported much understandably.
We ( Mast Sanity I set it up 4 years ago and am now a trustee) tend to recommend the legal route via legal challenge
I presume its 3G mast or combination of 2G and 3G as they rarely put up 2g on their own now.
Having spoken to many hundreds of people across the country who are suffering as well as many many scientists across the world who believe masts (and the phones) cause major ill health I can assure you there are ill health problems related to living near to masts. We even have dogs and cats dropping dead all over the place... so the claim that we are nutters and its all in the mind doesnt really wash there. its interesting (i think) that both animals and people near to masts often have high white blood cell counts
however there are lots of things you can do to minimise those problems. Email me through the board if you want to know more
the existing vodafone mast on the station is 2G and therefore the emmissions from it vary considerably depending on the time of day and the number of phones in its cell however 3 G works very differently and it will be banging it out all the time at the same level and as such there is more likelihood of ill health appearing.
It doesnt appear to be operating at the moment - or wasnt last week (I have a microwave meter ) but once it is watch out for increased severe or constant headaches. .sleep disturbances/problems and skin rashes... these are the most common immediate problems that are occurring
it is almost impossible to get rid of a mast once its up BUT if stockport have cocked up in any way.. which isnt unknown then you could challenge it but you will need to find and have a good look at the planning application.
depending on when the planning app went in you may have a good chance of getting a small amount of compensation if you complain to the local govt ombudsman but you have to show the council cocked up in some major way .
Id recommend you give mast sanity advice line a call on 08704 322 377 and they may be able to help you - Im a bit behind on current planning stuff
id also suggest you have a good look a the health studies on this it really isnt what the media imply just a few studies and lots showing no problem... its actually the other way round most show a big problem. go to www.mastsanity.org and have a look at the research page. If you are a parent to teenagers have a look at the salford study too.... theres also some good stuff at www.starweave.com and emfacts.com
now is that starting a debate?
Post by: Deniseamb on October 31, 2005, 12:43:36 PM
Post by: admin on October 31, 2005, 12:55:11 PM
Post by: sgk on October 31, 2005, 06:58:19 PM
DC021057 Old Hall Farm, Low Lea Road, Marple, Telecom Prior Notice-56 days Minor-All other minor Delegated subject to call up Stockport SK6 5AL develop.
Proposal: Installation of radio base station comprising of 12.5 m (including antenna) 'telegraph pole ' mast plus ancillary Information Office: works. Marple Library, Memorial Park, Marple Agent: L Wright Mba Dip Tp Mrtpi Adams Holmes Associates Ltd, Unit S2 Warrington Business Park, Long Lane, Warrington, Cheshire, WA2 8TX
Applicant: Hutchinson 3 G C/O Agent
GRID REFERENCE IN FULL: SJ96685,88804 PS2_LAND_USE: Minor: Other minor developments
Location can be seen at this URL on streetmap.co.uk
Full details can be seen at this URL on the stockport council website
Post by: Deniseamb on November 01, 2005, 10:34:14 AM
Post by: Dave on November 01, 2005, 01:19:29 PM
Post by: Lisa Oldham on November 01, 2005, 02:13:02 PM
shell garage signs have them (not the marple one but theres one in bramall with one) as do some texaco but dont know where they are.
theres already one passed for on the railway bridge next to the phone box on brabyns brow.
I didnt know about the new one on low lea when i put my message on its just marple bridge and mellor is obviously an area not yet covered by 3G (unlike marple) which needs masts fairly close together to get coverage and of course its in a big dip!
if any one is involved in this id suggest getting on to the landowner it works quite a lot of the time including in hte mellor campaigns. Mast Sanity writes to landowners on campaigns behalf if any wants us to.. the operators rarely tell landowners what to expect from their neighbours and rarely tell them the affects in relation to the health issues and also the insurance problems.
got these details from stockport website - the postocde should bring up the site on a map
DC021057 Old Hall Farm, Low Lea Road, Marple, Telecom Prior Notice-56 days Minor-All other minor Delegated subject to call up
Stockport SK6 5AL develop.
Proposal: Installation of radio base station comprising of 12.5 m (including antenna) 'telegraph pole ' mast plus ancillary Information Office:
works. Marple Library, Memorial
Park, Marple
Agent: L Wright Mba Dip Tp Mrtpi Adams Holmes Associates Ltd, Unit S2 Warrington Business Park, Long Lane,
Warrington, Cheshire, WA2 8TX
Applicant: Hutchinson 3 G C/O Agent
Post by: Lisa Oldham on November 01, 2005, 04:51:20 PM
found out about the mast at rosehill... planning app DC001455 granted in july 2000
Post by: tina on November 01, 2005, 07:33:37 PM
It seems unlikely to me that the one recently erected was from 5 years ago
Post by: Lisa Oldham on November 02, 2005, 09:41:43 AM
BUT
you are right... emailed the planning dept for further details and they said it was the vodafone one.. Im waiting for them to come back to me about the new one
Post by: on November 02, 2005, 02:01:09 PM
Post by: tina on November 02, 2005, 03:50:25 PM
Post by: on November 02, 2005, 08:15:01 PM
and if they were dangerus they bwould not let them put then up.
Anyway were our own worst enemy with mobiles all over the place, shoppers at the tills, people on trains and buses, ring tones, its what people want.
I wont have a mobile phone, its cheaper to use the phone box, anywhere in britain for 30p for 15 minutes.
Get the people from the mast company to put a bush in front of your line of sight.
anyway theres nowt you can do about it cos it been passed i read, thats the Liberals for you
Post by: Lisa Oldham on November 04, 2005, 09:44:01 PM
doubt youll be able to use a box for much longer... have a check how many boxes are being removed all across the uk especially in rural areas
they wouldnt put them up if they hurt us.... lets see... asbestos (still around .. saw some hanging down in a car park in Sheffield a few weeks ago) pylons ( yes they are) BSE !!
its what people want.. yep i agree it seems that way but as very few of them have been informed of the govt stance on mobiles and all the research saying dont touch with a bargepole ( not small nbrs of crackpots but numerous and increasing numbers of highly respected international scientists) i doubt many are making a truly informed choice..
and no i dont and no my kids can leave home before they go anywhere near one.
Post by: Lisa Oldham on November 15, 2005, 09:57:16 AM
however a very successful romiley group have found the rollout plans for telecom masts on the stockport planning wesite
see
www.stockport.gov.uk/planningbuildingpolicy/developmentcontrol1/planinginfo/radiotelecom
and that tells us that
THERES ANOTHER PLANNED FOR THE CRICKET CLUB ON BOWDEN LANE (no planning app yet but its on hte rollouot plan)
Post by: Lisa Oldham on December 30, 2005, 03:52:28 PM
I think theres been a boo boo here as 2 masts in the same location belonging to the same operators should not occur.
Post by: amazon on December 30, 2005, 09:41:37 PM
Post by: tina on February 16, 2006, 08:59:59 PM
Post by: Lisa Oldham on February 20, 2006, 02:18:58 PM
Ive emailed the planning dept numerous time to get this info (about why one operator as 2 masts a tthe same place) and theyve always claimed ignorance - always waiting for Vodafone to get back to them etc the last email they didnt even bother responding to... amazing what a bit of media interest does
Post by: amazon on March 01, 2006, 08:57:40 PM
Mobiles . :
Post by: Lisa Oldham on March 02, 2006, 10:11:57 AM
Alot of other campaigners tend to be using them when they start their campaign but very quickly change the way they use them (ie just for work) or get rid once they realise the huge weight of research showing major future problems backed up by fairly scary statistics showing massive increases in Brain cancers and growths in the last 10 years as well as very alarming increases in early life alzeihmers ( 40 s and 50s)
Post by: Howard on March 02, 2006, 11:57:45 AM
Can you cite the sources you mention?
Post by: amazon on March 02, 2006, 02:26:54 PM
Post by: sgk on March 05, 2006, 12:02:46 PM
Post by: Dave on October 22, 2006, 11:07:11 AM
Personally I'm open minded about this issue - the health hazards are debateable, as this useful Wikipedia article makes clear. And we all use mobiles, don't we, so the masts have got to go somewhere.
But the hysterical tone of this anonymous leaflet, and it's devious suggestion that house prices will fall, could be counter-productive. I for one will probably not object now, because this kind of dishonest campaigning gives objectors a bad name.
Post by: sgk on October 22, 2006, 06:38:00 PM
Unsure whether this website has been mentioned yet, but there's a campaign group opposed to such things, at http://www.mastsanity.org/.
Post by: Mr Mansfield on October 24, 2006, 05:14:55 PM
Its good to talk!
Post by: Belly on October 24, 2006, 09:52:58 PM
| Quote (Mr Mansfield @ Oct. 24 2006,17:14) |
| I am not a member of the Mellor club, or any other local sports club, but it seems to me that if the Mellor club members want to grant a telecoms provider the use of their land then it is their business. I would be surprised if it was not to the clubs financial benefit and why not?. Its good to talk! |
Marple CC recently turned down the option for a mast due to objections from local residents. That decision cost the club a potential £100,000+ windfall over the next 15 years or so, which could have been spent on upgrading the faclities for local people to enjoy
It takes one hell of a whip round to generate that kind of money....
Post by: Lisa Oldham on October 31, 2006, 10:32:39 AM
Yes it is their business.... but business’s like sports clubs depend on neighbour support and to force it on their neighbours for what is usually about 4 thou a year is outrageous and stupid. They will also lose complete control of that piece of land and other antennae often go onto the structure regardless of the landowners opinion. If they do it I for one will not be sending my son to lacrosse there again. It DOES have an effect on prices and saleability of homes. Theres been a number of cases now where the LA ombudsmen has awarded money to residents because of loss of value of homes( not everyone can do this as it depends on the LA cocking up ). Its a simple fact and it happens everywhere – ask an estate agent. The closer to the mast and the more visible the mast is the more chance of an effect on price. If you live near the site and are happy then theres not a problem and you have no reason to object any way, but bear in mind most environmental searchs now automatically report on mobile phone mast location - Why do you think that is? If you have researched the health issue Im surprised that you can come to the conclusion that its harmless and that research suggests it is…. and obviously if you came to the opposite conclusion then you wouldn’t have been put off objecting simply because you disagree with a leaflet surely that really would be cutting off your nose wouldn’t it!!
For the record I am the founder and currently trustee ( though about to “retire” ) of Mast Sanity the national charity advising local people on how to oppose masts in their areas. I have helped thousands of people over the last 5 years and I am totally convinced of the danger of masts. Ive talked to many people whose lives have been ruined some of them initially very sceptical.. many didnt bother to object because they didnt believe there was a problem... others did object got it anyway. They have suffered from numerous problems ( and that’s one of the problems with “proof” as not everyone is affected in the same way due to the fact it initially effects hormones in the body – proven by the way! )
the Hum, headaches, major sleep problems ( often one of the first signs) skin problems cosntant flu. Anything that alters melatonin can have differing effects on the auto immune system
It does effect health and theres is sound science to explain the problems..
as to wikipedia... Have you tried reading anything else? To quote "..the majority of epidemiological studies have not found any clear indication of short and medium term health hazards.." I don’t consider this a true statement.. the majority of epidemiological surveys that have actually been carried out round mobile phone towers DO show problems ( did you notice the lack of long term health hazards! ) You need to look closely at other stuff.. and yes I appreciate theres “2 sides” but have you seen who backs the research for the other side?
check out http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/masts.php?content_type=R
for info on other epidemiological studies. wikipedia quotes one of these only
other interesting sites apart from the mast sanity site are http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/masts.asp
http://www.emfacts.com/
Theres a huge debate going on in science world at mo not specific towards the mobile technology field but ALL science drugs, cancer food everything…. About the “sponsoring” of research and how/why money is offered by industry. The mobile industry (and our govt) has an awful lot to gain and absolutely everything to lose by allowing the constantly emerging research to go unchallenged.
….and before you say what every one says NOPE I havent got one.. no I don’t use one.. and theres no way on this earth I will let me children have one. Considering the huge weight of evidence (that generally goes unreported or wrongly reported) out there and the situation as it is Id prefer my children to smoke than have a mobile phone they stand a better chance of surviving intact to old age with a fully functioning brain.
Post by: Dave on October 31, 2006, 03:05:39 PM
Post by: Lisa Oldham on November 01, 2006, 10:20:04 AM
theres sample leaflets on our website for people to use but people often just nick bits and do their own.
I do know the people involved in this campaign but havent seen the full leaflet so cant comment on how good or bad it is. Only that they are not wrong about the house price issue.
I understand why people write leaflets in this way... its not always intended to scare and alarm its mostly because thats what people believe.. Its a very emotive subject and everyone deals with it in different ways
and this is tame compared to some that Ive seen!
Post by: Howard on December 08, 2006, 08:37:18 AM
| Quote (sgk @ Mar. 05 2006,12:02) |
| Quite a balanced article about it at Wikipedia "Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health" |
And here's a new study from Denmark which gives some reassurance about the supposed risk. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=2702500
Post by: Dave on December 10, 2006, 10:45:41 AM
Post by: Lisa Oldham on January 03, 2007, 03:17:18 PM
FYi anyone in rosehill area there appears to be a planning app for h3G mast on the footpath of stockport road next to railway road
http://www.stockport.gov.uk/content....?a=5441
page 18
Post by: Howard on August 01, 2007, 11:19:36 PM
Another somewhat surprising aspect of this effect is that it only appears to happen in the UK. Perhaps these types of people can also filter out archaic 2.5g tech, and thus are not affected in the United States, where nary a word about masts is spoken?
As far as a solution to this paranoia goes, my only suggestion is this: tell these Luddites that the masts are being cranked up by 30% every day until they keel over from the self-inflicted placebo effect, and then the rest of us can live in peace.
Post by: Lisa Oldham on August 02, 2007, 11:12:58 AM
As in everything there are differing degrees of sensitivity and i know several people mostly where it is NOT a a result of Masts who are sensitive to very many things and different things
Also it is not certainly not confined to the UK Im not sure why you think that and you certainly havent done your homework there It is obviously international ( just look at the names of the scientists and the institutes that are really looking at this) however at present only Sweden accept it as a medical condition along similar lines as ME.
One of the major problems with the Essex study was that it was just looking at ES symptoms from people who claimed masts kicked it off or affected it. it certainly didnt look at the many other things that affect ES sufferers or the vast majority of people round masts who dont become ES.. it was very narrow and "ordinary" sufferers were not allowed to take part you had to claim to be "ES"
Your attitude to people that i help everyday is incredibely ignorant and cruel and harks back to the days when ME was considered all in the mind... along with smoking being harmless.. I remember those days its not very long ago
Masts is the US are different though there is a huge movement over there and the situation is different the carrier signal/system is different and the vast majority of masts are VERY high up so less people are affected en masse
its actually huge everywhere but media is fickle and if orgs are not tremendouosly organised then its a difficult field to get into It happens we have done very well and as a result the debate will continue. We cant convince people like you with closed minds who wont delve deeply into this subject and only believe what they choose to believe but if in raising awareness we continue the debate and continue the pressure to put non industry subsidised research in place ( yes essex was financed by industry and the govt - who of course we all trust implicitlly in everything - then hopefully we will get to a position where you cant ignore this and belittle the many people who do suffer simply because it suits you.
Post by: Howard on August 03, 2007, 10:33:23 PM
The engineering editor of The Times of London made a 1906 attempt to warn the public about the dangers of aviation when he said “all attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to human life, but foredoomed to failure from an engineering standpoint.”. Aeroplanes...curse of the world.
Technophobes are resistant to many kinds of technology which has been proven to work since their original introduction. All the benefits of technology, if taken to this argument's logical conclusion should be banned. I'd rather live to an expected 78 years old with a minuscule extra risk of cancer, than go back to living to be an old man of 35 in a cave in the African Rift Valley with the risk of getting eaten by a leopard. Dying horribly from some awful mobile-phone induced disease lies, on my personal "risk meter", somewhere between accidental poisoning with Polonium-210 and getting hit by an asteroid.
People can can stop using their microwaves, turn off their TVs, make sure that they never use their computers again and then build a Faraday cage around their house. The will kill almost all the EM radiation that they are exposed to. But don't bother with tinfoil hats. They don't work.
Mobile phones and masts are not going away. Penicillin isn't going away. Trains aren't going away. Computers aren't going away. All other useful technologies are not going to go away unless something better comes along. Once a technology has had the impact that EM-based mobile communications has made (radio, television, telephone), and has become part of the fabric of our society you can't do anything about it.
Post by: Dave on August 06, 2007, 07:44:58 AM
However, the overwhelming evidence is that the opposition to mobile phone masts is largely hysterical, and - worse - smacks unpleasantly of nimbyism. All those houses in Mellor displaying posters opposing the proposed mast at the sports club - how many of those people don't use mobiles? A few, no doubt, but presumably the rest just want the masts to be near someone else's house!
Post by: Lisa Oldham on August 09, 2007, 09:33:17 PM
To answer Daves arguments
Nimbyism - It s very common “view” and its usually - in the end - very wrong. I have experienced 100s of campaigns and what I find is that yep that’s generally the initial problem.. they don’t want them next door for lots of reasons. However that changes when they actually bother to read a background to the issue. Its clear that the jury is very out on this… its open BUT when the NRPB ( now called HPA )the govts own protection agency accept that emissions from masts can affect biological beings ( that’s us! ) but that its not been shown to be a negative effect.. then surely that’s a bit of a worry BTW they said in 2000 when I first started that there was NO evidence of ANY effect so its quite a turn around in just a few years – maybe science is moving on – whatever next eh?
People do use mobiles but after campaigns like these they either give them up or use the in a responsible manner That’s all we want people to do. It would make a big difference to the masts map.
Some people are just Nimbys and I’ve told a lot of them where their particular mast should be placed and its not in their back garden! However these are the minority
Also bear in mind TMobile don’t have any problem with phone coverage in Mellor.. the mast is for 3G - video TV etc its for a new market
And Howard
Firstly as someone with a long background in all areas of IT I can hardly be labeled a Technophobe! New technology is fantastic. Mobile technology is a wonderous thing. But we do need to respect technology and be responsible in its use. Its a brilliant invention that has wide positive implications for business and industry but I feel the way the technology is marketed to the general public and in particular children and with them now even trying to replace home lines, its irresponsible. Its just profiteering and they do know that there are potentially serious health implications. The general public do not treat the technology with the respect it deserves neither do the companies that sell them to us. Public do tend to refuse to believe and claim hysterics… considering some of the most renowned internationally respected scientists involved in some of the top institutes in the world are speaking out about it is well I find it hard to believe you can just laugh them off. These are brilliant scientists giving you a warning if you choose not to act – well so be it
If you want to look at history…Try
http://www.intute.ac.uk/cgi-bin....rl=http
to quote a little “In 1930, researchers in Cologne, Germany, made a statistical correlation between cancer and smoking. Eight years later, Dr. Raymond Pearl of Johns Hopkins University reported that smokers do not live as long as non-smokers. By 1944, the American Cancer Society began to warn about possible ill effects of smoking, although it admitted that "no definite evidence exists" linking smoking and lung cancer.
A statistical correlation between smoking and cancer had been demonstrated; but no causal relationship had been shown. More importantly, the general public knew little of the growing body of statistics.
That changed in 1952, when Reader's Digest published "Cancer by the Carton," an article detailing the dangers of smoking. The effect of the article was enormous: Similar reports began appearing in other periodicals, and the smoking public began to take notice. The following year, cigarette sales declined for the first time in over two decades.
The tobacco industry responded swiftly. By 1954 the major U.S. tobacco companies had formed the Tobacco Industry Research Council to counter the growing health concerns. With counsel from TIRC, tobacco companies began mass-marketing filtered cigarettes and low-tar formulations that promised a "healthier" smoke. The public responded, and soon sales were booming again. “
Ooh now lets look closely at this.. smoking is hundreds of years old and only in recent years have we really been told to stop and why but it was in 1944 that cancer was first suggested… but no definite evidence exists.. sounds a bit similar to no conclusive evidence stated in the masts issues ( and others)
1953 was when it was first taken seriously and oh surprise surprise the industry hit back with an official looking org in 1954 a bit of a marketing campaign and woosh everyone ignores the research.. but WE wouldn’t be that daft in this day and age – would we??
Thalidimide?
http://www.thalidomideuk.com/proflenz.htm
Quote “. Chemie Grunenthal ( drug company ) continued to deny the teratogenic effects of thalidomide for years, but there was a growing suspicion that this was not due to honest ignorance but to the purpose of weakening the accusations against the firm."
It was given to pregnant women to stop morning sickness without being fully tested. 40 % of ALL t babies died b4 they reached 1
Even though the world has known about the problems since the 60’s in 1985 ( though it doesn’t feel that long ago) there was a programme on TV showing that thalidomide was still being used in Brazil ( maybe more) and thalidomide babies were still being born…. The people might be 3rd world but the drug companies arnt
What about gulf war syndrome?
How many times have we been told its all in the head?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites....0968383
Quote “ The authors conclude that, in contrast to a previous report, factor analysis did not identify a unique Gulf War syndrome.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites....9923872
Quote “our findings do not support a unique Gulf War syndrome.”
Since then its become accepted that gulf war syndrome is not psychiatric problem but a physical illness.
ME
This if you have the patience to read it is interesting for lots of reasons… it clearly states the history of ME and the big problem in the UK where people still don’t think it exists. It lies some of the blame at Prof Wessley door. Interestingly hes also one of the researchers in the Gulf War Syndrome papers above and hes also a regularly wheeled out critic of the Microwave/ ES / Mast health issue
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm#History
just a few interesting points from this paper:
"The MRC, itself often now funded by partnership schemes with industry, is on record as regularly funding research into "chronic fatigue" by psychiatrists and others who subscribe to Wessely's views (who then claim that their results relate to "CFS"), whilst regularly declining to fund applications for research submitted by suitably qualified non-psychiatrists into the physical basis of ME, claiming of those applications: "none have been of sufficiently high scientific quality to merit funding". (143)
DÉJÀ VU…. Similar reason for ever so respectable MTHR for not funding ANY of the research we supported during the handing out of 7+ million in research funding 3 years ago.
Interesting again is
"despite there being such an extensive worldwide literature on the organic nature of ME / ICD-CFS, a group of UK doctors has come to exert such influence over the rest of the UK medical community to the extent that discussion of the biomarkers of serious organic pathology is rarely published in the UK medical journals, with the result that UK clinicians are effectively being deprived of the opportunity to obtain an informed and balanced over-view of the reality of their patients' suffering, as the literature they are most likely to see reflects only the views of Wessely and his associates."
With ME its an example of even when the jury is NOT out on the research.. the public and the medical profession as well in this case can be hoodwinked into believing otherwise
We cant stop it but we can try with our very meager funds to educate people who have been convinced by firstly the fact it conveniences their lives so much and 2 by the huge amount of very well funded marketing strategies of the numerous very powerful mobile phone companies
Sorry to go on but…
Post by: Dave on August 10, 2007, 07:54:59 AM
| Quote (Lisa Oldham @ Aug. 09 2007,21:33) |
| People do use mobiles but after campaigns like these they either give them up or use the in a responsible manner That’s all we want people to do. Some people are just Nimbys and I’ve told a lot of them where their particular mast should be placed and its not in their back garden! However these are the minority |
1. If anti-mast campaigns like this were to succeed, then people would not be able to use mobiles in any manner, 'responsible' or not!
2. Nimbys in the minority? We can take it you don't use a mobile, Lisa, but if most of the houses in Mellor displaying anti-mast posters have given up their mobiles, I'll eat my Nokia!
Post by: Howard on August 10, 2007, 09:28:45 PM
Now, this only works if you use a mobile phone, as the people in Mellor do that Dave mentions. If you don't use one then this isn't important. The thing that people who use mobile phones but worry about the "health risks" of mobile phone masts tend to forget is the inverse-square law law: that is that the power of the signal falls away extremely rapidly as you move away from the mast. This happens exponentially because the energy is dissipated and spread out in three dimensions in a sphere.
Meanwhile, you are holding a powerful transmitter right up next to your brain in the form of your mobile phone. In fact, because of the inverse square law, the phone gives you a far higher dose of rays than the mast. However, mobile phones preserve their battery life by transmitting a much weaker signal into the air (and consequently your head) when they detect that a mast is very close by.
Therefore, if you have a phone, it's in your interests to have it transmit at the lowest power it can manage, which means a strong signal from the mast, which means the mast should be built in your back garden.
Post by: Lisa Oldham on August 14, 2007, 02:51:14 PM
BUt i expect we would be doing that forever
so Think I ll just say ( Hurray) I agree with one part of what you say Im much more concerned about the Phones and the vast majoritiy of the research that has been carried out is on the phones not the masts
til the next application ....
Post by: Howard on July 02, 2010, 11:10:21 AM
http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/ (http://www.sitefinder.ofcom.org.uk/)
It shows you who owns the all mobile masts in the country and what they are used for. There are eight masts in the immediate Marple area:
Vodafone mast near Rose Hill station
3 mast at the top of Station Road near the old telephone exchange
t-Mobile mast near Links Road, probably on the golf course
Vodafone mast on Milton Close opposite Goyt Mill
Orange and O2 masts on Goyt Mill
3 mast at the far end of Goyt Mill
Orange mast on Brabyns Brow just above the station
There is also another Orange mast out on Hollinwood Lane above Strines by below Ridge Road which could be considered Marple.
Post by: Lisa Oldham on July 05, 2010, 11:09:09 AM
There is more than one system on the BT exchange.. maybe 3 lots? def 2!
and of course it doesnt cover all the planning apps that have gone through over last 5 years and now 3G has been resurrected from the fire Im expecting there may be a few more going up sometime soon.
Theres also a number dotted along the railway lines now too.. eg one by the bridge in Brabyns park.
Theres also a TETRA mast just beyond Ridge road.
Post by: Victor M on July 08, 2010, 05:20:21 PM
The closer the mobile phone is to the base station (mast) the less radiation is emitted.
Therefore the number of masts in a locality actually reduces the radiation levels not increases them.
Post by: Neil Smith on July 09, 2010, 11:48:55 AM
It surprises me no end how emotive and ill informed people are on this subject. There has been no link yet proved between long term health issues and the use of mobile phones. However most people agree that if there was a link it would be with young children and or people who constantly have the phone next to their ear and therefore in very close proximity to their brains.
The closer the mobile phone is to the base station (mast) the less radiation is emitted.
Therefore the number of masts in a locality actually reduces the radiation levels not increases them.
At last someone who speaks sense instead of "well Bill down the road said......."
Post by: Howard on July 09, 2010, 12:27:18 PM