Phone masts

menamestom

xinkai said:

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

Correct and good post!  I'd also add, non ionising means the radiation does not have enough energy to ionise, or change the state of atoms by messing with their electrons.  So although if you were close enough to the source the waves could heat up the temperature of the water in your body, it would not have enough energy to cause molecular damage. 

menamestom

thomasross20 said:

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!

They do Thomas, but since it is in the air right next to the mast, nobody has access to it.  The shroud has stickers on to warn anybody that may access the antenna from a cherry picker or similar.  By the time you are at ground level you are well out of it, out friend the inverse square law see's to that.  To get in the invisible perimeter, you'd need to be hovering in the air right in front of it.

On some rooftop sites there are exclusion zones, where walkways may lead people away from the front faces of antennas, but otherwise they are not of sufficient energy to erect perimeters around the whole site, the only reason they have fences in fields is for security.

The radio/TV transmitters that have large exclusion zones are in the 10's of kilowatt range, the mast near you is probably the sale as a light bulb.

Rocker

menamestom said:

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.

Nobody really knows if home wi-fi, microwave oven and all the items you listed are harmless or dangerous to human health. Who knows what thirty or more years exposure to these might do. And that is the problem. Nobody knows for sure. 

menamestom

Rocker said:

menamestom said:

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.

Nobody really knows if home wi-fi, microwave oven and all the items you listed are harmless or dangerous to human health. Who knows what thirty or more years exposure to these might do. And that is the problem. Nobody knows for sure. 

Well my point is it is a sliding scale, phone masts should be lower on the list that some of the items nobody worries about that they sit next to in the home, that's my point. 

Microwaves have been around for 40 years, so I think you will be okay, I would say the shit meals most people put in them will kill them first.

Also, when you say 'nobody really knows', I'm not so sure. If you look at the science it's fairly clear on most of these things and there are very strict guidelines with RF.  I've spent more time near antennas than most people will in a lifetime and it doesn't worry me in the slightest.

Unfortunately like many subjects people that know absolutely nothing on the science seem to spread more  of the 'knowledge' than anybody else.   It's a bit like the MMR /  autism link on that score, there's nothing anybody can say even though the link has proven false.

xinkai

thomasross20 said:

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? 

Well i don't blame you. Given how so few working adults understand radiation, i don't think it was taught very much in school. 

I'm studying Aeronautical Engineering; so actually nothing on radiation, but i did learn all of those stuff during 'A' Levels. 

I think oftentimes people are scared off by some structure emitting stuff they can't see. Then because that fear has consumed them so much, when scientists tell them that there's really no danger, they don't believe them.

My dad works in the government's radiation agency back in Singapore. He received a phonecall from someone suggesting to the government to build public housing away from any masts, satellite dish or petrol station. My dad told him to live in a forest.

Sporky

Rocker said:

Nobody really knows if home wi-fi, microwave oven and all the items you listed are harmless or dangerous to human health. Who knows what thirty or more years exposure to these might do. And that is the problem. Nobody knows for sure. 

Ah! I see what's happening here.

I can assure you that just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean no-one understands it. Quite the contrary in fact; these are all very well understood and you can even look them up if you want to learn.

Fretwired

Entertainment time .. Sheena is a punk rocker ..

snakemanStoo

Sporky said:

Rocker said:

Nobody really knows if home wi-fi, microwave oven and all the items you listed are harmless or dangerous to human health. Who knows what thirty or more years exposure to these might do. And that is the problem. Nobody knows for sure. 

Ah! I see what's happening here.

I can assure you that just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean no-one understands it. Quite the contrary in fact; these are all very well understood and you can even look them up if you want to learn.

Lol or wisdom?

Wisdom.  But closely fought.

thomasross20

Barratt told me to ask solicitor about the mast. Solicitor told me to ask Barratt. So Barratt said I can pay solicitor £100 or so to check something like that out. They said site wouldn't have gone ahead without council planning and to meet regulations etc but that if it was some sort of issue they would gather information and worst-case get it moved but I think that's doubtful. They say there have been "stranger" questions and those who are nearer the mast would probably ask as well. They are going to get pics, find the exact distance to the houses etc.. somebody bought the big house right next to it!

Rocker

Sporky said:

Rocker said:

Nobody really knows if home wi-fi, microwave oven and all the items you listed are harmless or dangerous to human health. Who knows what thirty or more years exposure to these might do. And that is the problem. Nobody knows for sure. 

Ah! I see what's happening here.

I can assure you that just because you don't understand something, it doesn't mean no-one understands it. Quite the contrary in fact; these are all very well understood and you can even look them up if you want to learn.

The traditional 'shoot the messenger' / 'play the man' answer.  Sadly, you @Sporky missed my point completely.  Whether I understand these technologies or not is irrelevant to this discussion.  What I don't know and neither do you is the (possible) long term effects of exposure to these technologies.  I use them and understand as much about them as I need to know but they might be killing me s-l-o-w-l-y.

Sporky

Rocker said:

 Sadly, you @Sporky missed my point completely.  Whether I understand these technologies or not is irrelevant to this discussion.  What I don't know and neither do you is the (possible) long term effects of exposure to these technologies.  I use them and understand as much about them as I need to know but they might be killing me s-l-o-w-l-y.

Clearly I didn't miss your point, but sadly you did miss mine. "No-one knows" is the war-cry of the cowering, dishonest, ignorant fear-merchant.

These are all very well understood, no matter how many times you claim they aren't. Much as you claim in hifi threads that electricity is some arcane mystery beyond the comprehension of man - and you're utterly, demonstrably wrong there too. Do, as I suggested, some research, and stop lying to yourself and others.

Stop trying to spread fear, it's beneath you.

p90fool

Sporky said:

Clearly I didn't miss your point, but sadly you did miss mine. "No-one knows" is the war-cry of the cowering, dishonest, ignorant fear-merchant.

And Russ Andrews' marketing dept. 

menamestom

;I use them and understand as much about them as I need to know but they might be killing me s-l-o-w-l-y.

They are killing you slowly, over about 90 years they can make you quite wrinkly and forgetful

I think honestly if you really think they could be killing you, you should try understanding them more.   If your position was from knowledge you could at least present an argument as to why you think they are killing you slowly.  But if you really understood them I don't think you would.   I don't think a stance from ignorance is ever a good one.  I've had strong opinions on things I didn't know much about and unfortunately the only solution was to go and understand the subject more, or suspend judgement until I could do so.   

Obviously everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but I have an issue with statements like this as it spreads to other uninformed people causing needless worry (which incedentally can be harmful to health).  It's the same thing with anti vaxxers, something we don't understand could be killing us.   The real danger is when people take these things to the next level and set out to prove them to be harmful, before even undertsanding them in the first place. I call that the 'siraxe' level.

p90fool

You're forgetting we're in 2017, where "my ignorance is as valid as your expertise" is the new catchphrase. 

Rocker

Simple questions. How does anyone know that the mobile in their pocket is not doing them any harm? How can anyone be sure that a mobile in a bag which is in the net behind or under a baby in a buggy will not harm the child?

ICBM

That's exactly the question. There isn't any evidence yet - aside from some anecdotal examples in the early years when transmitters were more powerful - but mobile phones have only really been in mass usage for about twenty years. Whether that's long enough to rule out even more long-term effects, I have no idea. Given the intensity with which some people use them, it *probably* is enough to rule out any really direct cause of serious harm, but that's not quite the same thing.

As I said earlier I've found definite evidence of skin irritation at a few millimetres distance over only a few days, so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

That's still a much higher signal intensity than you would get from a transmitter mast unless you're right next to it though.

vasselmeyer

@Rocker  You should start here:

Here's a paper from the United States National Cancer  Institute on "Cell Phones and Cancer Risk":
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet#q4

Here's a fact sheet from the World Health Organisation entitled "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones"
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/

When you have read those, go to the citations on this WIkipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

Sporky

Rocker said:

Simple questions. How does anyone know that the mobile in their pocket is not doing them any harm? How can anyone be sure that a mobile in a bag which is in the net behind or under a baby in a buggy will not harm the child?

How do you know there isn't an invisible chocolate teapot orbiting Saturn?

It is impossible to prove a negative.

Where is your evidence that they're harmful?

thomasross20

I contacted my council to ask about this as I keep getting ping-ponged between the builder and the solicitor. 

ICBM

Sporky said:

It is impossible to prove a negative.

Where is your evidence that they're harmful?

The problem is that without wanting to join the tinfoil hat brigade, no evidence (yet) that they're harmful is not the same as evidence that they're not harmful. Sometimes it takes decades for evidence of long-term harm to emerge.

I agree that we're probably getting close to the point where it can be ruled out as a serious risk, but we're not there yet, and I don't think it's crazy to want to err on the side of caution until we can. I'm certainly not going to panic and give up using my phone - and my kids all have them too - it's just a fact of life nowadays.

But I have been able to prove that there is *some* effect on my body - only minor admittedly, but it happened quickly and was entirely repeatable (I didn't just swap pockets once, I did it several times and each time the skin irritation followed the phone, consistently) so at that point I have to wonder whether it could be doing other things that aren't so obvious.