Posted by Splatfly on Monday, 05 March 2007 16:08:08

Simple, the more masts placed closer to each other the less powerful the microwaves are needed to cover the smaller range, meaning that even if the microwave do fry peoples brains the reduced power would mean less frying would be happening.

We live in a magnetic field, so magnetism is likely not going to cause you any problem,(if it does then your stuffed really) Microwaves work by reacting with water molecules to produce infra-red radiation, that is how they cook things, you are taught this in GCSE Science (I believe), but like every other GCSE subject it is dumbed down, so you are not told that there is a range of microwave wave lengths and that only a small very specific range of those microwave wavelengths are the one that react with water. Mobile phones do not use those wave lengths purely because they are dangerous.

Posted by DEECAN on Tuesday, 06 March 2007 00:15:17

Regrading the planning rules, we have one system for England and a different one for Scotland and Northern Ireland and recently the Welsh Assembly voted unanimously to bring their planning rules more into line with Scotland. Yet in England we have three categories, namely - masts taller than 15m require full planning consent, masts 15m and below are classed as prior approval and those antennae fitted to an existing structure are classified as permitted development.
Prior Approval incorporates the 56 day rule, such that if an LPA does not provide an operator a decision within 56 days, then approval is taken as allowed, even if the LPA is against the application. Some councils are proposing to make all prior approval applications to be delegated decisions, as this 56 day time constraint often makes it difficult to place the application before the elected Development Control Committee. For Permitted Development no planning consent at all is required.
The so called traffic light system seems to be left to the operator to determine what colour should apply. You will realise that the colour chosen determines the degree of public consultation that would be necessary. Green means no public consultation up to Red that means full public consultation. As the concerns of the public usually revolve around health aspects, you will realise how frustrated and helpless people feel, when they only seem to be able to object on aesthetic grounds. There is compelling scientific evidence that adverse health effetcs occur at much lower power levels than those currently allowed here in the UK, { No Country has a higher allowable power level, but many have very much lower upper limits } There are many UK citizens caliming to be suffering due to the exposure to pulsating mocrowave radiation, as emitted by phone masts, I personally know of many, yet no studies of such people in their home environment has ever been undertaken by the Government. Rather the scientific studies showing no recorded effect, usually financed by the phone operators. The situation is much more complex than that. All studies currently used to infer safety relate to a single source of radiation , usually in a laboratory, whereas in the real world exposure is through multiple sources of varying frequencies and pulsations out of phase with each other..
Further we have the 3G system with it's much shorter range requiring masts to be plaved closer to homes etc:- Operators always claim that a mast is necessary to provide better coverage for their customers. Yet we have the anomaly that the ODPM, when granting 3G licences gave the operators until the end of 2007 to provide 80% coverage to the UK, with severe finacial penalties if they failed to achieve this target. We thus have the possibility of an operator seeking planning consent for a mast purely to meet the above deadline rather than meeting their commercial needs.
We need politicians and a Government that can be transparent in it's efforts to protect it's citizens.
DEECAN

Posted by PeteP on Tuesday, 06 March 2007 08:44:33

Yes, this is a disgrace - our community (like many is having a mast forced upon them).
- no mobile operator will say they are definitely 100% safe
- the government says all masts are safe as they confirm to ICNIRP guidelines. These are deal only with the heating effect of microwave radiation, not with long-term exposure to low levels of pulsed radiation and as such are utterly inadequate and misleading for the general public.
- there are people who are electrosensitive who exhibit demonstrable symptoms when a mast starts radiating nearby. In some cases they are forced to move homes, as they have no rights to protest on health grounds (as the government claims conformance with ICNIRP mean they are safe). If this is happening to some people, what is the radiation donig to the rest of us. If this radiaiton could be seen and/or had a smell and drifted through our homes 24X7 it would not be allowed, but because it is invisible, the government is getting away with saying its all safe. It is not. Other countries (Belgium, and Sweden for example are starting to see this).
- the government has made a special case of masts under 15m in height, so that they need absolutely no planning permission.
- the government sold the licenses for 24 billion pounds and makes 10 billion annually off the operators.

In short, this is a clear case of the government being in the pockets of the mobile operators. Rather pathetic for a Labour government to have sold its principles so short. It is receiving cash while gambling the nation's health.

Posted by maz on Tuesday, 06 March 2007 08:59:52

My local council , in response to concerned constituents 18 month ago attempted to bring masts back into the full planning procedure and were blocked by the government. The government says that planning is not the place for discussion of health concerns. Up and down the country unprecedented numbers of groups of people are fighting the placement of mobile masts near to their schools and homes, mostly to no avail.
If planning is not the place for such a discussion about our health concerns, will the government NOW make this issue a priority and DISCUSS it? PLEASE

Posted by Marre on Wednesday, 07 March 2007 09:01:32

Phone Operators abuse their position and take full advantage of loop-holes in the current system, ICNIRP compliance is a joke supplied as an after-thought if pushed, but of little value in "protecting" the publick's health.

Re: Telecommunications developments on shared structures.



I would be most grateful if answers could be given to the following
questions:



1) How does an LPA achieve correct up to date as-built plans in a situation
where several operators on an existing shared structure alter existing
telecommunications development as PDR, and therefore only submit a license
notification, without detailed plans nor an ICNIRP certificate? I refer to
alterations such as swapping existing antennae on a like for like basis but
adding 3G and for instance reducing the number of antennae, but not
submitting a new drawing / updated plans showing these alterations, nor
including an up-to-date ICNIRP certificate, although the frequency and
modulation characteristics and details of power output will have changed?



Re:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061010/text/61010w0001.htm#06101336000337

10 Oct 2006 : Column 643W

Meg Munn: -With every application, the operators now have to include a
statement that self-certifies to the effect that the mobile phone base
stations, when operational, will meet the guidelines. In line with the
Group's recommendations the mobile network operator should also provide to
the local authority a statement for each site indicating its location, the
height of the antenna, the frequency and modulation characteristics and
details of power output. Where a mobile phone base station is added to an
existing mast or site, the operator should confirm that the cumulative
exposure will-not exceed the ICNIRP guidelines. However, should operators
not submit a certificate of compliance with ICNIRP, the local authority
would be able to refuse planning permission".

2) What remedy is there for a LPA to achieve up-to-date correct details of
what has actually been built, instead of what has been proposed, on an
existing structure used by several different operators, where not all dishes
proposed have been built and other operators have added further dishes as
PDR, claiming the restriction on accumulative size of dishes has not
actually been used, although should previous proposed dish developments
proceed, the accumulation will far exceed the PDR of 3.50cm.



What would be proper procedures to be followed in a situation where
development proposed as a license notification, PDR, say of one 30 cm dish,
actually results in the installation of a cluster of 3 dishes on an existing
shared structure, or a 60 cm dish visually existing on site does not on file
appear to belong to any operator, the LPA has no specific details/ plans
relating to a 3 dish cluster, nor details of ownership of an existing 60cm
dish.



Re: Part 24 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development)
(Amendment)(England) Order 2001



Class A1(h)(i) states that development is not permitted on buildings 15m or
more in height if the size of any dish would exceed 1.3m or the aggregate
size of all of the dishes on the building would exceed 3.5m when measured in
any dimension.



It seems that without accurate details of what is exactly built on an
existing shared telecomm structure there can be neither planning control nor
enforcement; what would be the correct procedures to correct such
situations?

Posted by IAmNoOne on Wednesday, 07 March 2007 18:54:16

Sorry, ain't gonna happen. No politician or member of the "power-elite" that matters is going to live under a mast, so whether they are harmful or not is entirely beside the point. There's money to be made, and they don't care about you. End of story. They could be killing hundreds of people every day, and they still wouldn't care! Come on, we've all seen it before - no matter how obvious it is that harm is being caused, they'll slither and slime their way out of answering any pointed questions, deny scientific evidence, and one way and another refuse to act - so that the "someone" can carry on making their money. That's what it's all about, money; it makes the world go round, it't the root of all evil, and people will do literally anything (including kill each other and trample on the bodies) for it.

Once again, the only solution is political reform. Otherwise the status quo will remain in place, and more of the same will ensue.

Posted by Roverdc on Monday, 12 March 2007 15:29:44

If you believe phone mast are dangerous then remember that the signal strength when using a mobile phone is about a thousand times greater when using the phone and is still insignificant. Forget the platitudes and do the maths for dissipated energy remembering that even if no energy is lost on the way the signal strength is one over the cube of the distance from the signal source simply because the enclosed volume the energy is contained in is that of a sphere.
If you think masts are a health hazard then never ever use a mobile phone.

Posted by DEECAN on Friday, 23 March 2007 15:59:00

Dear David,
I listened intently to your comments regarding the mast issue. Firstly I was pleased to hear that you intend to review the health concerns , if elected. However, I do NOT believe that the health issue is being investigated properly. The spin which the current government apply to this matter is disgraceful and the amount of money actually spent, since it was first promised in 2000 is a pittance, further half of it is being provided by the phone industry. There are so many cases of scientists only providing answers which satisfy their paymasters that it is obvious that people, cannot trust such results and the powerful publicity associated with them.This clearly produces " health concerns ", which are in people's minds and do not require subjective scientific proof. The stress resulting from this does infact produce illness and suffering for the people who are NOT convinced as to their safety. We only need to look at the power limits that apply in other countries. Here in the UK we have the highest permitted power levels anywhere in the world. If we look at Russia and China and the Toronto Health Board, there untis of say 9 would compare with our units in excess of 2000. Would it be right have a 9mph speed limit on those other countries and allow in excess of 2000mph here ?
You also mentioned having shared masts, which is the policy of New Labour., in this case we would have certain individuals subjected to multiple exposure of radiation to save someone else from having a single exposure. Have you seen the monstrosities of tall masts with multiple sets of antennae ? It is not simply a matter of adding the power outputs together, because they will be out of phase with each other.
What is needed is properly conducted scientific epidemiological studies of people currently living close to mastts , who are complaining about illnesses that they attribute to the PULSED microwave radiation. One recent study at the University Hospital at Graz in Austria, used such people and measured their brain patterns when they were exposed to radiation from a single mast.They were also questioned about their symptoms after the tests. These tests were, of course done blind and the patients had no prior knowledge or current knowledge as to whether they were being exposed or not. They ALL replicated the symptoms that they had suffered in their homes from an adjacent mast. It is not satisfactory for politicians to ignore such facts and try to explain them away by quoting some " facts " from the Health Protection Agency stating that there is no evidence of a connection between exposure to such radiation and their illnesses.
Unnfortunately, due to the Deputy Prime Minister's insisitence when they accepted the 3G licence fees in 2004 that a requirement of 80% coverage of the UK had to be achieved within 3 years and failure to meet that target would result in substancial financial penalties for the operator. This means that by the end of this year we will have 80% coverage and so beyond that date the Government can afford to be more stringent in their planning regulations and appear more sympathetic to health sufferers. However, this will not mean the removal of existing masts and so the public can continue to suffer.
This is another reason why the 3 Private Members Bills, which would make the planning application for masts more stringent and bring them in line with Scotland and N. Ireland, were talked out by the Government Minister.
Remember these effects are cumulative and, as Dr. John Walker has proved in his study, cancers occur in great abundance where the beams of greatest intensity strike the ground after 10 years exposure.
masts more stringent We need to see at least one party who will really do something effective to proptect our population from the results of this tremendous biological experiment. So many people would then know who to vote for.

Posted by nada8 on Friday, 23 March 2007 19:53:34

Hi there,

This is absolutely true. On the top of that the cancer industry grubbing people to butcher them, burn, fry them with radiation, chimo "therapy", injecting people on operaton table when they are under total anesthesia without their knowledge and consent with heavy chemicals in order to shorten their lives i.e. kill them.

Particularly women, older people, poor people in order to reduce population even though the UK is not overpopulated but these people can not be exploated any more, therefore make them mentally or phisically ill and kill them.


This is common practice in cancer industry, Royal Marsden Hospital. Also, this hospital, I am sure other hospitals as well, bring psychiatrists to "support" mentally these "ill" people. If they are ill, have cancer at all they are not crazy. Who needs psychiatrists, crazy, banana themselves with the highest suicidal rate among all profession on the planet Earth.

These methods have been used in US and UK which means the most dangerous goverment and those who control goverment and believe the most dangerous environment, atmospher for human mind and body in Europe is UK.

We wised people have responsability, if we know something, to do something about that. That is the law of this Universe. To do nothing is wrong.

Posted by timbill on Saturday, 24 March 2007 00:06:31

what?????

Posted by Roverdc on Saturday, 24 March 2007 15:19:34

Oh dear. The comments by the antis get sadder and more bizarre by the minute. All we need now is to have it a conspiracy by the aliens wanting to fry the population and take over the world. Most of the evidence that mobiles are a health hazard comes from the earlier models which used considerably higher powers and even then the results were statistically questionable. The radiation fron the aerials at the top of a 15ft mast is about 100 times further from the user and so is about 100 X 100 X 100 less significant. Also the one area covered very poorly by any mast is directly below it because the tower itself becomes a partial ground plane. This effect is often pronounced enough to show on the signal strength indicator of the phone. Sharing masts is aesthetically desirable but if you are concerned about the supposed health hazard this is the worst possible thing to do as it concentrates the transmission rather that distributes it.
Finally, no I don't work for a mobile phone company or aerial manufacturer or installer I just do my own studies and don't just go along with what the herd think.