mobile phone mast

[Howard]

May I refer you to my (much) earlier post on this subject which is below and here http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=786.msg5549#msg5549 where I referenced the inverse square law. Good to see someone else who understands it...

[Neil Smith]

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......."

[Victor M]

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.

[Lisa Oldham]

ofcom site is not generally considered up to date.. no legal requirement now for operators to inform ofcom.. also a lot of antennae are being upgraded with out prior consent.  All those near goyt are i think the ones ON goyt mill.. not noticed any on the streets near there.
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.

[Howard]

It's been a long time since this topic was raised on this forum, but here's an interesting OFCOM site:
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.

[Lisa Oldham]

well we could argue about the 24/7 opposed to the higher power or in addition to it
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 ....

[Howard]

I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. However, if I was very worried about the mobile phone network being a danger to health - which actually could well turn out to be the case, I just don't believe the evidence shows it yet - the first thing I would do is campaign to make my own mobile phone operator erect their mast as close to my house as possible.

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.

[Dave]

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!    '>

[Lisa Oldham]

Im sure Dave has a personal knowledge of the individuals involved in the campaign in Mellor in order to write them all off like that

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…

[Dave]

A good post, Howard, although what we now know about the effect of carbon emissions on global warming suggests that some of those early opponents of railways and air travel may have had a point after all!   '>

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!

[Howard]

In 1825, when a bill to build a railway between Liverpool and Manchester was introduced to the British parliament, pamphlets were written and newspapers were hired to criticise the railway.  They said trains would prevent cows grazing and hens laying.  The poisoned air from the locomotives would kill birds as they flew. Homeowners were told their houses would be burned to the ground by the embers that flew from rail engine chimneys. The smoke would kill the horses and farmers would see their crops fail. Trains...dangerous things.

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.

[Lisa Oldham]

Actually you totally misunderstand ES if you think they can cope with the rest.   masts are such a very small part of this

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.

[Howard]

The individuals who claim that they are sensitive to mobile mast emmissions seem to display, should their claims be true, a remarkable ability to biologically filter EM fields depending on their intended use, completely ignoring the TV, radio, and other bits of the spectrum which swamp our atmosphere whilst being affected negatively only by EM waves intended for mobile phones.

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.

[Lisa Oldham]

I agree absolutely no amount of peer reviewed studies will convince people who dont want to see the problems with this invasive technology.. unfortunately far too many people believe what they read in the newspapers... personally I always go and find out both sides of the argument and look in depth at the studies and how those studies have been set up

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

[Dave]

Trouble is, Howard, that this is one of those emotive issues on which some people have made their minds up, and no amount of research findings will make any difference - their minds are closed.