How many of these protesters own a mobile phone or may one day need to ring the emergency services to save the life of a loved one. (not in my back yard ) but ok in someone elses
Bob: the protests are about the current implementation of mobile-telephony being based on biologically hazardous microwaves.
I don’t think many object to the CONCEPT of being able to carry a phone around everywhere, so your NIMBY claims aren’t valid. It’s about it being harmful to health. Unfortunatly the wireless industry has completely messed up by basing their entire existence on something that was shown to be harmful 50 years ago: chronic exposure to microwaves, even at weak levels of exposure.
Fact: 80% of W.H.O acknowleged studies on people living near mobile phone masts show harm to health.
I would like to draw the Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski’s attention to the following important event and suggest he considers attending this important conference.
1st Radiation Research Trust Conference
Bringing both sides of the debate together from the highest level in the world
EMF & Health a Global Issue
Exploring the appropriate precautionary approaches
8th & 9th September, 2008
Attendance is possible by personal invitation due to the limited places available.
Conference details are available on the Radiation Research Trust website radiationresearch.org
Public concern is growing about the possible adverse health effects of being exposed to powerlines, mobile phone masts, phones and WiFi. Current reports suggest that these may well result in health problems. More good research is necessary to discover the truth. In the meantime, people, especially parents, young people and those with environmental sensitivities need appropriate precautionary advice.
The right level of advice should be debated urgently by scientists, politicians and government regulators. The Radiation Research Trust has taken the initiative by organising this meeting for a debate to take place, with the outcome to influence official advice and future research.
It is now seen as a world-class event and is due to take place at the Royal Society, London. We chose this venue as the Royal Society is the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth and is at the cutting edge of scientific progress.
The conference is mainly, but not exclusively, based around the microwave/mobile phone communications and health and is bringing both sides of the debate together from the highest level in the world for the first time. Chairman for the UK Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart has agreed to speak along with many other world leaders from the EU, WHO, ICNIRP and the scientific leaders throughout the world voicing the precautionary approach.
Can I ask – how many of the protesters USE mobile phones?
If they do – then- lets have some basic facts on the subject for them and us to think about.
First – if a mobile phone is to work (i.e provide two way communication), it must RECEIVE signals from the “mast”, ie ” the mast is firstly a transmitting” aerial, and ……
SECONDLY, …the mast must RECEIVE a signal from your phone, to provide two way communication.
So, what this means is that:
“Your phone” must transmit a signal “strong” enough to reach the mast, and the mast conversly transmit a signal “strong” enough to reach your phone.
Now – can you now see that if the mast can be described as “dangerous” then your phone is equally so, if not MANY times more so, as you are closer to it. (see “square law” below)
There is, in radio terms, NO essential “difference” between the “mast” and your “phone”. They are both, in simple terms, “radio transmitters and receivers”
They BOTH have to communicate with each other -i.e … just like trying to talk to somebody using your voice across a wide room, you BOTH have to HEAR each other !! so… we can conclude that:
- The mast and the phone are, in essence, one and the same thing !!
So ..
Bearing in mind that “you” are much closer to your phone than the mast, how much stronger does that make the radiation “hitting you” from your phone than the mast??
So, basic physics..
The strength of a radiating signal /field, (electromagnetic in this case, at approx 1800 Mhz), falls off in proportion to the square of the distance from the radiating source
- now –
… a little difficult to comprehend for some at this stage …. but,…. thinking about HOW FAR away you are from the mast, and HOW NEAR you are to your phone. – now apply the square law to that! (moving TOWARD the “phone’s” radiation source, not away from it!!) so …
what conclsuion do you draw?……
……which one is the much Stronger signal/field/radiation? “hitting you”, the one from the the phone, or the Mast??
EVEN IF the mast “radiates” a higher ” total overall power” of signal to provide an “all round” signal to the “service area”, your phone STILL has to “do the same”!! – it STILL has to radiate a signal strong enough to get back to the mast!!
So .. can we see that if you complain about the mast, then you “can’t use the phone either” (or complain about it) for the same reasons” !!
(that is, if we accept that there ARE dangers in the effect of microwave radiation upon the human body, then the effect is also applicable to the “phone” (if not more so) and so we can’t have either !!)
if they dont like it – turn their mobile phones off – they are only building to demand, these hypocritical nimby idiots would happily have a mast in someone elses village so they get a signal!
sily man there is no science to link micro waves (at this low level) to cancer… However no mobile phones mean lots of lives will be lost as the comments above suggest they are essential in rural areas often used in emergencies etc
eric: your mobilephone does not transmit all the time at full power. It only goes up to maximum when you’re actually speaking. The mast on thew other hand will transmit at full power all the time.
this reminds me of the debate on smoking. for so many years the industry presented one story. or of asbestos that was regarded as safe. or of red food colouring. people claiming to know ‘the truth’ when at best we can only ever know an aproximation of it.
once again people are proudly protecting their immediate environment and taking a stand and voicing their own opinions on local issues. well done to the community for coming together like this!
and once again we have the bystanders shrieking ‘nimby’ as if to say that people should just roll over and listen to their masters.
Not In My Back Yard – but of course I still want electricity, running water, a phone signal and good transport links and a prosperous economy please !!! The petit mindedness of some folk is staggering
People should do their reseach a bit better. This is for the police services who have a black spot in the bicton heath area. The prefered site is in Gains park, well away from homes and schools. The calcott lane site will not give the correct coverage but is an easy option (cheap)The police federations report by Barrie Trower said that TETRA was dangerous and the use of it should be stop.
Danny P you should speak to people who have lived near masts and by the way TETRA masts are far worse thatn mobile phone masts. Their experiences are frightening and to top it off would you want something by your house that made it unsaleable, when a perfectly good site out of everyones way was available.
I don’t want to enter into a full scientific debate on how mobile phones work, (which I could do, as a professionally qualifed electronics and radio engineer of 40+ years experience)
I KNOW the phone doesn’t transmit at full power all the time, whereas the mast HAS to transmit all the time, in order to “communicate at any time” with users !!
What I wanted to put across is that there is NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between the radio frequency energy being radiated from the “mast”, and that from your phone.
The fact that your phone doesn’t radiate all the time, or doesn’t radiate at full power all the time is of course a contrbutory factor in the equation, but the fact is the field strength from your phone is going to be a lot greater than that from the mast, due to the close proximity of your body to the radiating element inside the phone.
As to how the body may respond to “continous” lower power radiation from “the mast”, as opposed to shorter and interupted periods of stronger radiation from your phone, I will leave to more informed contributors to comment on.
It is my belief that people in general are talking about “masts” as if they are some kind of
“different” radiation source – when in fact they are essentially the same as your phone !
I had testicular cancer last year – in my left gonad, I always kept my phone in my left pocket and we lived in a low phone signal area, meaning my phone, following Eric’s logic, would have been constantly transmitting at full strength, trying to maintain contact with the nearest mast.
Now, I’m not saying this caused the cancer, but I do wonder if it might have had a detrimental effect upon the genetic structure of my organ. Whose to say if low level microwaves have an effect on the body or not? I’m not sure any studies lasting 10 years or more have been done!
eric: I take your point in that you are trying to educate people that its the same radiation – from the mast and the phone.
The length of exposure is different, and relevant. A couple of minutes exposure to the stronger signal a day (including the microsecond bursts as Rpt pointed out) is not the same as a continous exposure non stop 24 hours a day, thats all! They cannot be directly equated in terms of their harmful effects!
A large dose of flouride will kill you, a small dose will not. Based only on those facts you cannot know what will happen where a small dose is administered hourly over 20, 20 or 30 years!
They operate on 900Mhz for GSM or 2.4 Ghz I believe for the new 3G models – both frequencies are less harmful than the 380MHz used by TETRA. This is not NIMBY-ism unless you regard defending your country in the second world war as nimby-ism ? My children are at extremely high risk of severe/ terminal illness from this technology, why should I allow it ?
Look at the Stewart Report, the Trower report (for the police federation) and countless other studies – we are not stupid luddites, we are informed and fearful of the global expansion of a potentially lethal technology.
Why has the Vatican just lost it’s battle to use TETRA, opening the flood gates for those who have suffered to try for compensation?
I spent several years developing interferential therapy equipment for physiotherapists, which relies on “beating” two slightly differing “medium frequency currents” (at about 2,4, or 8Khz ***)together to produce a relatively *low frequency “intermodulation” “current” at about 25 – 125 Hz*, which is ***effectively “injected” into the body via electrodes to produce a “therapetic effect
(called “interferential therapy”) .
(* The conductive “body tissues” exhibit non-linear conduction characteristics which “demodulate” the “medium frequency” componenents of the “modulated” waveform due to the intermodulation of two closely matched frequencies, eg. 4Khz and 4.1 Khz.), and thus produce within the body, the desired “low” frequency currents for a Therapeutic” effect.
(*** The medium frequencies are used to overcome the capacitive reactance of the skin which would otherwise prevent the direct injection of low frequency currents via the “electrodes” )
Now – …. where does this fit in ??
My thoughts are, IF the modulation envelope of the radio frequency signal from the mast contains “low frequency” elements, then ….. is the human body responding by “demodulating” these “low frequencies” (with reference to exposure to overhead power line fields at 50Hz) rather than a “direct” effect from the 1.8Ghz carrier wave (in the case of a mobile phone transmission?)
In other words, is there more to this than just being exposed to RF energy at “microwave2 frequencies
Serious comments
Do we really need mobile phones if they are that harmful
Perhaps the Government could ban them in the same way they have banned smoking in public places?
Wait a minute – silly me, The government makes bucket load of money in Vat on new mobile phones, call charges etc they would never do that would they?
At least this seems to have got some more “serious” discussion going!
And stinkyfive …. whatever frequencies are applicable, 380Mhz, 900 Mhz, 1.8GHz, 2.4Ghz and beyond, I cannot as a “radio” engineer state which are more harmful than others, or indeed what difference the “type of transmission makes”, be it TETRA, or otherwise.
What I’ve tried to do here is to get people really thinking about it, and, for the record, you will note that I have NOT anywhere in my communications above, said or implied that any of this technology is “safe”.
In fact, i have serious misgivings about it, and I actually agree with you, that I would not particlarly want my children exposed to it, and …
Marco ..
I also agree with you, that length of exposure to lower intensity fields is also a significant contributory factor.
I am the first person to admit, I don’t really know what the real answer is here, but my “gut” feel is there is more than enough reason to be concerned !
It is NOT an mobile phone mast! It is a TETRA mast and is more harmful so please stop going on about mobile phones!! And when someone decides to put one in your backyard then you’d protest.
The point really is as someone pointed out they had a perfectly good place with no people in Gains Park then they want to put it in Bicton because it’s cheaper.
No-one has really seen the long term effects because these are quite new so no-one has the right to say it does/doesn’t effect people’s health but why risk it?
But please try to see it of the people in the village point of view before people start making nasty comments!!
eric: that is fascinating and thank you for mentioning it. I have heard of using audio signals in this way to produce a third beat frequency (binaural beats) that can cause altered states of mind (entrainment). It makes sense that the same concept would apply to radio waves. Different frequencies in combination could have effects that would not be noticed testing them in isolation!
For those who want to find out more about this issue, Dr Caroline Lucas MEP has written many letters on this subject.
Just put ‘Correspondence about Mobile Phones and Electromagentic Fields’ into the search engine on her site.
Dr Lucas’ letters and responses from the Health Protection Agency, ICNIRP, the British Medical Association, the UK Children’s Commissioner, the European Commission and the UK Planning Minister are all published there for those researching this issue.
Caroline Lucas was voted Politician of the Year in the Observer newspaper’s Ethical Awards in 2007.
I’m well aware of the fact that this is a TETRA mast!!
TETRA = TErrestial Trunked RAdio
But, the fact is: it uses electromagnetic waves or Radiofrequency waves (RF) to function, and most people can relate this to the most common device(s) using RF, which is a mobile phone.
You will also note, maisy, that I have introduced the concept of “interferential therapy”, much used by physios, to achieve a “therapeutic affect” and, if you look at the following website regarding TETRA, you will notice some interesting facts, which do seem correlate regarding low frequency content.
tetrawatch.net/tetra/
I will cut and paste a relevant section below
<>
The fundamental issue that worries most people (apart from use of our taxes and doubts about the way the Home Office contract was awarded) is that the system uses pulsed microwave radiation, at a pulse frequency of 17.6Hz, which is very close to a key frequency of electrical activity in the human brain at 16Hz (our beta brain waves are around 13Hz to 20Hz). The defence from anyone with a vested interest in TETRA/Airwave (the brand name) is usually that either there is no pulse (remember in history at school Nelson and ‘I see no ships!’?), or that the intensity of the radiation is too low to matter.
<>
NOTE the issue with LOW frequency content.
At least mentioning mobile phones has got everyone thinking about it !!
Since this plan to build a tetra mast at bicton came about, all our lives have been turned upside down. We are frightened of the unknown. What will happen 5 years down the line. No body should have this on their doorstep. If i want to move away from the area i won’t be able to sell my home as it looks out onto the mast site. Would you buy a house next to one? There are plenty of people talking about their experiences, check out mast sanity (just google it). People have lost their homes and even their lives to these masts.
I want to ask those crying NIMBY, how happy you would be to lose £100 000 of the price of your house over night. How happy you would be to risk your life and the lives of your children? The governments own reports condemned this technology. Again google the trower report.
Remember the dome in London. The Government new it wasn’t working and costing not making money. What did they do? They threw more money at it. Same here, they bought TETRA, then had the reports saying it was unsafe. 2.9 billion in tax payers money (should have gone to more police officers) At the moment they are throwing money at a problem, thrying to make it work.
I just hope that I’ve managed to get people really thinking about this.
From a “technical” point of view, I see no need to build any sort of mast anywhere near built up areas.
The same reasoning should apply to power lines.
If there is the slightest doubt about the “risk” of this type of construction, (which as I’ve said earlier, I think there IS cause for concern), then really there is NO EXCUSE for building this sort of construction near any sort of built up area, either commercial, or particularly residential.
I hope in this case this mast is built elsewhere in open countryside well away from any close contact.
Demonstrators at the site of the proposed mast in Bicton.
Vigil for stricken cat 
Painting shows panorama of town in 1630s 
Region’s dogs collar top awards at Crufts 
Great turnout for soldiers’ parade 
Decision due over town development 
28 Comments
How many of these protesters own a mobile phone or may one day need to ring the emergency services to save the life of a loved one. (not in my back yard ) but ok in someone elses
Report abuse
Bob: the protests are about the current implementation of mobile-telephony being based on biologically hazardous microwaves.
I don’t think many object to the CONCEPT of being able to carry a phone around everywhere, so your NIMBY claims aren’t valid. It’s about it being harmful to health. Unfortunatly the wireless industry has completely messed up by basing their entire existence on something that was shown to be harmful 50 years ago: chronic exposure to microwaves, even at weak levels of exposure.
Fact: 80% of W.H.O acknowleged studies on people living near mobile phone masts show harm to health.
Report abuse
I would like to draw the Shrewsbury MP Daniel Kawczynski’s attention to the following important event and suggest he considers attending this important conference.
1st Radiation Research Trust Conference
Bringing both sides of the debate together from the highest level in the world
EMF & Health a Global Issue
Exploring the appropriate precautionary approaches
8th & 9th September, 2008
Attendance is possible by personal invitation due to the limited places available.
Conference details are available on the Radiation Research Trust website radiationresearch.org
Public concern is growing about the possible adverse health effects of being exposed to powerlines, mobile phone masts, phones and WiFi. Current reports suggest that these may well result in health problems. More good research is necessary to discover the truth. In the meantime, people, especially parents, young people and those with environmental sensitivities need appropriate precautionary advice.
The right level of advice should be debated urgently by scientists, politicians and government regulators. The Radiation Research Trust has taken the initiative by organising this meeting for a debate to take place, with the outcome to influence official advice and future research.
It is now seen as a world-class event and is due to take place at the Royal Society, London. We chose this venue as the Royal Society is the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth and is at the cutting edge of scientific progress.
The conference is mainly, but not exclusively, based around the microwave/mobile phone communications and health and is bringing both sides of the debate together from the highest level in the world for the first time. Chairman for the UK Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart has agreed to speak along with many other world leaders from the EU, WHO, ICNIRP and the scientific leaders throughout the world voicing the precautionary approach.
Kind Regards,
Eileen O’Connor, Radiation Research Trustee
Report abuse
Can I ask – how many of the protesters USE mobile phones?
If they do – then- lets have some basic facts on the subject for them and us to think about.
First – if a mobile phone is to work (i.e provide two way communication), it must RECEIVE signals from the “mast”, ie ” the mast is firstly a transmitting” aerial, and ……
SECONDLY, …the mast must RECEIVE a signal from your phone, to provide two way communication.
So, what this means is that:
“Your phone” must transmit a signal “strong” enough to reach the mast, and the mast conversly transmit a signal “strong” enough to reach your phone.
Now – can you now see that if the mast can be described as “dangerous” then your phone is equally so, if not MANY times more so, as you are closer to it. (see “square law” below)
There is, in radio terms, NO essential “difference” between the “mast” and your “phone”. They are both, in simple terms, “radio transmitters and receivers”
They BOTH have to communicate with each other -i.e … just like trying to talk to somebody using your voice across a wide room, you BOTH have to HEAR each other !! so… we can conclude that:
- The mast and the phone are, in essence, one and the same thing !!
So ..
Bearing in mind that “you” are much closer to your phone than the mast, how much stronger does that make the radiation “hitting you” from your phone than the mast??
So, basic physics..
The strength of a radiating signal /field, (electromagnetic in this case, at approx 1800 Mhz), falls off in proportion to the square of the distance from the radiating source
- now –
… a little difficult to comprehend for some at this stage …. but,…. thinking about HOW FAR away you are from the mast, and HOW NEAR you are to your phone. – now apply the square law to that! (moving TOWARD the “phone’s” radiation source, not away from it!!) so …
what conclsuion do you draw?……
……which one is the much Stronger signal/field/radiation? “hitting you”, the one from the the phone, or the Mast??
EVEN IF the mast “radiates” a higher ” total overall power” of signal to provide an “all round” signal to the “service area”, your phone STILL has to “do the same”!! – it STILL has to radiate a signal strong enough to get back to the mast!!
So .. can we see that if you complain about the mast, then you “can’t use the phone either” (or complain about it) for the same reasons” !!
(that is, if we accept that there ARE dangers in the effect of microwave radiation upon the human body, then the effect is also applicable to the “phone” (if not more so) and so we can’t have either !!)
regards
Askeric dotcom
Report abuse
if they dont like it – turn their mobile phones off – they are only building to demand, these hypocritical nimby idiots would happily have a mast in someone elses village so they get a signal!
Report abuse
sily man there is no science to link micro waves (at this low level) to cancer… However no mobile phones mean lots of lives will be lost as the comments above suggest they are essential in rural areas often used in emergencies etc
Report abuse
eric: your mobilephone does not transmit all the time at full power. It only goes up to maximum when you’re actually speaking. The mast on thew other hand will transmit at full power all the time.
this reminds me of the debate on smoking. for so many years the industry presented one story. or of asbestos that was regarded as safe. or of red food colouring. people claiming to know ‘the truth’ when at best we can only ever know an aproximation of it.
Report abuse
once again people are proudly protecting their immediate environment and taking a stand and voicing their own opinions on local issues. well done to the community for coming together like this!
and once again we have the bystanders shrieking ‘nimby’ as if to say that people should just roll over and listen to their masters.
Report abuse
Not In My Back Yard – but of course I still want electricity, running water, a phone signal and good transport links and a prosperous economy please !!! The petit mindedness of some folk is staggering
Report abuse
People should do their reseach a bit better. This is for the police services who have a black spot in the bicton heath area. The prefered site is in Gains park, well away from homes and schools. The calcott lane site will not give the correct coverage but is an easy option (cheap)The police federations report by Barrie Trower said that TETRA was dangerous and the use of it should be stop.
Report abuse
Danny P you should speak to people who have lived near masts and by the way TETRA masts are far worse thatn mobile phone masts. Their experiences are frightening and to top it off would you want something by your house that made it unsaleable, when a perfectly good site out of everyones way was available.
Report abuse
Marco.
I don’t want to enter into a full scientific debate on how mobile phones work, (which I could do, as a professionally qualifed electronics and radio engineer of 40+ years experience)
I KNOW the phone doesn’t transmit at full power all the time, whereas the mast HAS to transmit all the time, in order to “communicate at any time” with users !!
What I wanted to put across is that there is NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between the radio frequency energy being radiated from the “mast”, and that from your phone.
The fact that your phone doesn’t radiate all the time, or doesn’t radiate at full power all the time is of course a contrbutory factor in the equation, but the fact is the field strength from your phone is going to be a lot greater than that from the mast, due to the close proximity of your body to the radiating element inside the phone.
As to how the body may respond to “continous” lower power radiation from “the mast”, as opposed to shorter and interupted periods of stronger radiation from your phone, I will leave to more informed contributors to comment on.
It is my belief that people in general are talking about “masts” as if they are some kind of
“different” radiation source – when in fact they are essentially the same as your phone !
Report abuse
to add to what Eric says,
whilst a phone does not transmit all the time, it does respond to frequent requests from the masts to let it know where it is.
Phone calls are only routed to mobiles because the mobile frequently puts out a signal saying “here I am”.
if there is any danger from radio waves, you are at greater danger with the phone in your pocket than from the mast next door
Report abuse
total NIMBY’s – just ignore them and build it anyway
Report abuse
I had testicular cancer last year – in my left gonad, I always kept my phone in my left pocket and we lived in a low phone signal area, meaning my phone, following Eric’s logic, would have been constantly transmitting at full strength, trying to maintain contact with the nearest mast.
Now, I’m not saying this caused the cancer, but I do wonder if it might have had a detrimental effect upon the genetic structure of my organ. Whose to say if low level microwaves have an effect on the body or not? I’m not sure any studies lasting 10 years or more have been done!
I keep my phone in the other pocket now …
Report abuse
eric: I take your point in that you are trying to educate people that its the same radiation – from the mast and the phone.
The length of exposure is different, and relevant. A couple of minutes exposure to the stronger signal a day (including the microsecond bursts as Rpt pointed out) is not the same as a continous exposure non stop 24 hours a day, thats all! They cannot be directly equated in terms of their harmful effects!
A large dose of flouride will kill you, a small dose will not. Based only on those facts you cannot know what will happen where a small dose is administered hourly over 20, 20 or 30 years!
Report abuse
Can we please stop talking about mobile phones…
They operate on 900Mhz for GSM or 2.4 Ghz I believe for the new 3G models – both frequencies are less harmful than the 380MHz used by TETRA. This is not NIMBY-ism unless you regard defending your country in the second world war as nimby-ism ? My children are at extremely high risk of severe/ terminal illness from this technology, why should I allow it ?
Look at the Stewart Report, the Trower report (for the police federation) and countless other studies – we are not stupid luddites, we are informed and fearful of the global expansion of a potentially lethal technology.
Why has the Vatican just lost it’s battle to use TETRA, opening the flood gates for those who have suffered to try for compensation?
Report abuse
As an interesting alternative view to this …
I spent several years developing interferential therapy equipment for physiotherapists, which relies on “beating” two slightly differing “medium frequency currents” (at about 2,4, or 8Khz ***)together to produce a relatively *low frequency “intermodulation” “current” at about 25 – 125 Hz*, which is ***effectively “injected” into the body via electrodes to produce a “therapetic effect
(called “interferential therapy”) .
(* The conductive “body tissues” exhibit non-linear conduction characteristics which “demodulate” the “medium frequency” componenents of the “modulated” waveform due to the intermodulation of two closely matched frequencies, eg. 4Khz and 4.1 Khz.), and thus produce within the body, the desired “low” frequency currents for a Therapeutic” effect.
(*** The medium frequencies are used to overcome the capacitive reactance of the skin which would otherwise prevent the direct injection of low frequency currents via the “electrodes” )
Now – …. where does this fit in ??
My thoughts are, IF the modulation envelope of the radio frequency signal from the mast contains “low frequency” elements, then ….. is the human body responding by “demodulating” these “low frequencies” (with reference to exposure to overhead power line fields at 50Hz) rather than a “direct” effect from the 1.8Ghz carrier wave (in the case of a mobile phone transmission?)
In other words, is there more to this than just being exposed to RF energy at “microwave2 frequencies
any serious comments??
regards
askeric dotcom
Report abuse
Serious comments
Do we really need mobile phones if they are that harmful
Perhaps the Government could ban them in the same way they have banned smoking in public places?
Wait a minute – silly me, The government makes bucket load of money in Vat on new mobile phones, call charges etc they would never do that would they?
Report abuse
At least this seems to have got some more “serious” discussion going!
And stinkyfive …. whatever frequencies are applicable, 380Mhz, 900 Mhz, 1.8GHz, 2.4Ghz and beyond, I cannot as a “radio” engineer state which are more harmful than others, or indeed what difference the “type of transmission makes”, be it TETRA, or otherwise.
What I’ve tried to do here is to get people really thinking about it, and, for the record, you will note that I have NOT anywhere in my communications above, said or implied that any of this technology is “safe”.
In fact, i have serious misgivings about it, and I actually agree with you, that I would not particlarly want my children exposed to it, and …
Marco ..
I also agree with you, that length of exposure to lower intensity fields is also a significant contributory factor.
I am the first person to admit, I don’t really know what the real answer is here, but my “gut” feel is there is more than enough reason to be concerned !
Report abuse
It is NOT an mobile phone mast! It is a TETRA mast and is more harmful so please stop going on about mobile phones!! And when someone decides to put one in your backyard then you’d protest.
The point really is as someone pointed out they had a perfectly good place with no people in Gains Park then they want to put it in Bicton because it’s cheaper.
No-one has really seen the long term effects because these are quite new so no-one has the right to say it does/doesn’t effect people’s health but why risk it?
But please try to see it of the people in the village point of view before people start making nasty comments!!
Report abuse
eric: that is fascinating and thank you for mentioning it. I have heard of using audio signals in this way to produce a third beat frequency (binaural beats) that can cause altered states of mind (entrainment). It makes sense that the same concept would apply to radio waves. Different frequencies in combination could have effects that would not be noticed testing them in isolation!
Report abuse
For those who want to find out more about this issue, Dr Caroline Lucas MEP has written many letters on this subject.
Just put ‘Correspondence about Mobile Phones and Electromagentic Fields’ into the search engine on her site.
Dr Lucas’ letters and responses from the Health Protection Agency, ICNIRP, the British Medical Association, the UK Children’s Commissioner, the European Commission and the UK Planning Minister are all published there for those researching this issue.
Caroline Lucas was voted Politician of the Year in the Observer newspaper’s Ethical Awards in 2007.
Report abuse
Maisy 1119
Look …
I’m well aware of the fact that this is a TETRA mast!!
TETRA = TErrestial Trunked RAdio
But, the fact is: it uses electromagnetic waves or Radiofrequency waves (RF) to function, and most people can relate this to the most common device(s) using RF, which is a mobile phone.
You will also note, maisy, that I have introduced the concept of “interferential therapy”, much used by physios, to achieve a “therapeutic affect” and, if you look at the following website regarding TETRA, you will notice some interesting facts, which do seem correlate regarding low frequency content.
tetrawatch.net/tetra/
I will cut and paste a relevant section below
<>
The fundamental issue that worries most people (apart from use of our taxes and doubts about the way the Home Office contract was awarded) is that the system uses pulsed microwave radiation, at a pulse frequency of 17.6Hz, which is very close to a key frequency of electrical activity in the human brain at 16Hz (our beta brain waves are around 13Hz to 20Hz). The defence from anyone with a vested interest in TETRA/Airwave (the brand name) is usually that either there is no pulse (remember in history at school Nelson and ‘I see no ships!’?), or that the intensity of the radiation is too low to matter.
<>
NOTE the issue with LOW frequency content.
At least mentioning mobile phones has got everyone thinking about it !!
Report abuse
Since this plan to build a tetra mast at bicton came about, all our lives have been turned upside down. We are frightened of the unknown. What will happen 5 years down the line. No body should have this on their doorstep. If i want to move away from the area i won’t be able to sell my home as it looks out onto the mast site. Would you buy a house next to one? There are plenty of people talking about their experiences, check out mast sanity (just google it). People have lost their homes and even their lives to these masts.
I want to ask those crying NIMBY, how happy you would be to lose £100 000 of the price of your house over night. How happy you would be to risk your life and the lives of your children? The governments own reports condemned this technology. Again google the trower report.
Report abuse
Remember the dome in London. The Government new it wasn’t working and costing not making money. What did they do? They threw more money at it. Same here, they bought TETRA, then had the reports saying it was unsafe. 2.9 billion in tax payers money (should have gone to more police officers) At the moment they are throwing money at a problem, thrying to make it work.
Report abuse
Hi Sarah.
I just hope that I’ve managed to get people really thinking about this.
From a “technical” point of view, I see no need to build any sort of mast anywhere near built up areas.
The same reasoning should apply to power lines.
If there is the slightest doubt about the “risk” of this type of construction, (which as I’ve said earlier, I think there IS cause for concern), then really there is NO EXCUSE for building this sort of construction near any sort of built up area, either commercial, or particularly residential.
I hope in this case this mast is built elsewhere in open countryside well away from any close contact.
Report abuse
jean le roux would you be happy with this mast in your back garden, when there is a perfectly good spot miles away from anyone?
Protecting your childrens health is hardly nimby-ism!
Report abuse