Phone masts

Sambostar

Or hammer some copper nails in it, that should do the trick.

Sporky

That's your answer for everything.

Sambostar

Yeah, but I don't have any choice though do I.

TimmyO

ICBM said:

exocet said:

Surely we are back to the question of whether the mobile phone itself is dangerous when it is placed close to your head whilst making a call. The strength if the radiation at that distance is far greater than that received from a mast due to inverse square law? 

Yes.

As I understand it there is a tiny amount of evidence that really constant use might be a risk, but it's still at the anecdotal/few cases level.

Modern phones do seem to genuinely operate at sufficiently low levels that any effect is very very unlikely.

Research *was* done in to this, and this is where it gets a bit scary. It was done back when mobiles had external antennae (either the pull out ones or the stubby internally-coiled ones). The first stage of the planned research was to see if there was any detectable physical effect on the brain.  They were surprised to find significant increases in the temperature of areas of the brain close to the antenna. This was much more of an effect than they were expecting, and the academics got all excited about taking the testing in to the planned further stages. At this point the industry bod funding the research cancelled it and did not publish the results of the early testing.

Inside a year external antennae had all but disappeared from new models, and the next iterations of base stations introduced signal processing features in to the GSM standards that enabled much lower power signals to be used. 

You can't market a new device as 'probably won't kill you now' without implying the old one might, so it was all done on the qt. 

Sporky

TimmyO said:

Research *was* done in to this, and this is where it gets a bit scary. It was done back when mobiles had external antennae (either the pull out ones or the stubby internally-coiled ones). The first stage of the planned research was to see if there was any detectable physical effect on the brain.  They were surprised to find significant increases in the temperature of areas of the brain close to the antenna. This was much more of an effect than they were expecting, and the academics got all excited about taking the testing in to the planned further stages. At this point the industry bod funding the research cancelled it and did not publish the results of the early testing.

Inside a year external antennae had all but disappeared from new models, and the next iterations of base stations introduced signal processing features in to the GSM standards that enabled much lower power signals to be used. 

You can't market a new device as 'probably won't kill you now' without implying the old one might, so it was all done on the qt. 

I hope SirAxeman doesn't read this.

Rocker

vasselmeyer said:

This stuff about the dangers of mobile phones and masts is pretty much nonsense. People don’t even know exactly what they’re worried about apart from "radiation". 

That is exactly the issue @vasselmeyer.  People don't know if there is a danger or not.  So people object to being unwitting guinea pigs in a giant experiment.  There might well be absolutely no danger from phone masts - only time will tell.  It is a disturbing fact that the link between smoking and cancer took so long to establish, too late for a lot of people, that thinking people are commenting on the parallels of phone mast radiation and smoking.  If the phone mast was close to my home I would be concerned at the possibility of a risk.

chrispy108

Rocker said:

vasselmeyer said:

This stuff about the dangers of mobile phones and masts is pretty much nonsense. People don’t even know exactly what they’re worried about apart from "radiation". 

That is exactly the issue @vasselmeyer.  People don't know if there is a danger or not.  So people object to being unwitting guinea pigs in a giant experiment. 

People - man on the street don't know.

Scientists - people with knowledge, do know.

You have a mobile phone mast in your pocket. It's called a mobile phone.

I'm sure I've seen studies that show if you live near a mast your phone puts out less power to send/receive signals, therefore the battery lasts longer and it would actually give off less radiation.

vasselmeyer

@Rocker This anti-tech stance is something that really confuses me. Even though it’s been consistent throughout history. When Guttenburg’s moveable-type press appeared the Church was worried about losing their monopoly on literacy, yet the spread of knowledge through printed material has been arguably the greatest thing to happen to mankind in the last thousand years. It was the same when the first natural philosophers started to understand what we now call science and brought on the Enlightenment.

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 and that poisonous 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. Farmers were warned that the smoke would kill the horses and they would see their crops fail. Now trains are part of the fabric of our society and massively increased population mobility for the entire population of any country that developed a system.

Another example is when 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.” And, as we know aeroplanes are a curse on the human race (sarcasm here, in case it wasn't obvious).

Technophobes are resistant to many kinds of technology which have been proven to work and of huge benefit to society since their original introduction. I’d rather live to a ripe old age even if there is 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 being hit by an asteroid.

 Mobile phones and masts are not going away in the same way that other incredibly useful inventions such as antibiotics aren’t going away. Useful technologies are not going to disappear unless something better comes along. Once a technology has had the impact that EM-based mobile communications has made (radio, television, mobile telephone), and has become part of our society you can’t do anything about it.

Rocker

@chrispy108 @vasselmeyer I am not 'anti technology'.  Far from it but the fears that I wrote about exist.  Those fears are real to some [a lot?] of people.  History has shown and continues to show us that big business tends to walk all over people who, for one reason or another, have little or no say in what happens to their area.  Even for things like railways, which have been shown to be good developments, little respect for people affected by the laying of railway lines was shown by the developers.  Slums were flattened to give right of way to railways.  In Dublin a street housing development was cut in half by railway builders.  I am a railway and canal enthusiast and have read extensively on this subject.  Through time phone masts may be perceived to be a good thing.  What happens if they are not?

chrispy108

Lives have definitely been saved by mobile phones (including my own fathers) by people being able to call 999 straight away. It's impossible to argue that they aren't a good thing.

Baby boomer NIMBYs fuck me right off. You want to use roads, trains, mobile phones, electricity etc etc, but don't want to be able to see any of it from your precious house that's worth a fortune whilst the younger generations can barely afford to rent a shoe box.

I've written your response here for you: "You kids don't know your born, new clothes every week and a flat screen TV".

Bridgehouse

BANANA

Clarky

vasselmeyer said:

@Rocker This anti-tech stance is something that really confuses me. Even though it’s been consistent throughout history. When Guttenburg’s moveable-type press appeared the Church was worried about losing their monopoly on literacy, yet the spread of knowledge through printed material has been arguably the greatest thing to happen to mankind in the last thousand years. It was the same when the first natural philosophers started to understand what we now call science and brought on the Enlightenment.

which in turn lead to "the age of bumping into people in the street cos they are texting someone every second of every day"

CHRISB50

Clarky said:

vasselmeyer said:

@Rocker This anti-tech stance is something that really confuses me. Even though it’s been consistent throughout history. When Guttenburg’s moveable-type press appeared the Church was worried about losing their monopoly on literacy, yet the spread of knowledge through printed material has been arguably the greatest thing to happen to mankind in the last thousand years. It was the same when the first natural philosophers started to understand what we now call science and brought on the Enlightenment.

which in turn lead to "the age of bumping into people in the street cos they are texting someone every second of every day"

The worst place I know for this is Seoul, South Korea. No one looks where they are going. Everyone just stares down at their phone.

WezV

There is a new estate near me where there is no phone signal at all.  There has been uproar about it, people claiming it's ruined their lives etc....

rivercider

I have worked in the same building for 20 years now, it has had various phone masts on the roof for as long as I can remember, different companies/technologies, but always something up there, 50 feet or so, I guess, above my desk. At one point there were four masts on my building's roof along with another four on the adjacent building, 50 feet away.  More phone masts than you can shake a stick at.  I don't like it but not quite enough to have ever changed jobs. My employer obviously gets paid to have these things there and so when they were first installed, we were treated to a presentation by a rep from the phone company wherein he detailed the principle of how it was supposedly safer to be directly beneath the mast than within the downwards-diagonal range of the thing, due to the way it's waves were sent out, or something.....  Not sure anyone really believed this but I'm still alive today. However, due to the amount of time I have to spend beneath the thing in my day job, I'd be reluctant to buy a house that had one nearby too. If I was looking for a house I think I'd wait for one that didn't have that 'issue' - like cars, or guitars, or most things we buy, there's usually another one that's just right if you can be patient enough.  If you aren't 100% sure about it, or if for example you are worried about raising a young family there etc etc, those sorts of concerns may always nag away at you - I'd keep looking until you are truly comfortable with what you buy.  

thomasross20

I would wait and find something else but time isn't on our side. Perhaps in 5 years or whatever I'd consider moving on 

menamestom

Serious question to the people that are worried about masts, do you also worry about any of the following:- your home wifi, microwave oven, mobile phone, cordless phone, baby monitor, radio waves, bluetooth devices,  digital TV signals etc?  If not why, not? I mean I'm typing on my phone, the connection method is wifi, as the wifi signal strength is strong, whereas the mobile signal is weak.  Most of the sources in your home would set of a NARDA alarm but there's no way a nearby mast would.  In fact you can often walk or stand right near antennas without them going off where a handset or microwave may set them off (when right next to the source).   A few people have mentioned the science and the inverse square rule, that explains it completely.  Like I've said before the signals are so weak when you get just a few meters from the antennas the signal has such low energy there's no way it can cause harm.  I'm talking about low power mobile antennas here, Radio and TV transmitters can emit very high energy emissions and I would not like to live too near one if those, though to be fair they have huge exclusion zones.

thomasross20

Agree - you'd think they'd put a perimeter around masts a couple metres in diameter if it's not a great idea to be that close, but hey!

xinkai

Not sure if anyone has gone into detail about the science behind radiation, but i'd like to shed some light in the hope that it'll reduce your worries. 

First, radiation is literally anything that radiates (i.e transmission of energy through particles or waves). In other words, when you're playing guitar, you're creating radiation! Acoustic radiation. That obviously does no harm though. Soundwaves are nothing more than particles in the air vibrating back and forth.

Second, what people are concerned about are radiation that comes from devices and whatever big scary things humans put up and sends out signals. That would be Electromagnetic radiation and Particle radiation. 

Electromagnetic radiation is an entire range of waves including radio waves, microwaves, visible light (yep. radiation is constantly entering your eyes!), UV, X-ray, and gamma waves. 

Particle radiation is the energy emitted when a particle decays. You know about nuclear fusion reactors? That's utilising particle radiation.

Third, and the most important point: the waves that really ARE harmful are ionising radiation. 

Radiation is usually split into ionising and non-ionising radiation, and this is according to their energy levels. UV rays and above (X-ray, gamma, particle radiation) are ionising. Visible light obviously isn't. 

Guess what, the radiowaves emitted from the phone mast isn't ionising either! 

In fact, UV is about where radiation starts to become harmful, and radiowaves are much lower energy than that. If there are any concerns about non-ionising radiation, it would be that prolonged exposure, especially at high intensities, would be extremely hot.

However, as someone above has mentioned, the dissipation of energy follows the inverse square law. So you really don't have to worry about its intensity.

I mean, even if it does affect you, consider it as free heating during winter or something. 

Seriously though, don't be bought in by people who claim they fell sick because they live near a phone mast. More often than not it's placebo because they don't actually know the science behind it (or they reject it). I hope my explanation would cure your placebo. 

Congrats on your new house!

Source: I'm (studying to be) an engineer

thomasross20

Would you believe I got the class prize for electromagnetics? Doesn't cover ionising radiation, though... lol... what sort of engineering are you studying for?