Send pictures to us
Send us your pictures and video by text, email or by uploading. Click here to find out how. »
|
|
|
|
Mast firm ‘keeping residents in dark’
12:24pm Monday 5th May 2008
Comments (28)
PENSIONERS are protesting against a new phone mast being built just outside their windows.
They say they have been kept in the dark about two O2 masts and only found out when they spotted workmen outside.
Southampton City Council confirmed that it had been notified by the company about the plans for the two masts, which will be about seven metres high, but planning permission was not required and therefore no consultation was necessary.
Retired engineer Tony Williams, 68, of Dymott Close, Freemantle, Southampton, was the first to spot workmen on the site and is worried the masts will ruin his view and bring down the value of his home.
He said: "I think it is all wrong that a company can come along and put a mast up by people's windows. Our view looks directly onto where the masts will be going, it will be an eyesore for everyone who has to look at it."
Unhappy He went on to say he felt people should have been consulted as the development is close to several homes.
His neighbour John Bathard added: "I am going to get the full impact of it. Most of the neighbours I have spoken to are very unhappy about these masts going up and the fact we weren't told about them."
The masts will be built on the roof of Freemantle Social Club in Waterloo Road. the club has refused to comment on the issue.
A Southampton City Council spokesman said: "The mast does not need planning permission and therefore there is no public consultation process."
Jim Stevenson, O2 communications manager, said the telecommunications giant had submitted a license notification to Southampton City Council four weeks ago.
He said: "These masts will not spoil the view. We always try to erect masts in a way that will be sympathetic."
The masts will be accompanied by an equipment cabinet and work is expected to be completed within weeks.
Your Say YourThis is Hampshire
hulla, baloo says...
1:23pm Mon 5 May 08
".. Our view looks directly onto where the masts will be going, it will be an eyesore for everyone who has to look at it."
And what part of Freemantle is not an eyesore?
And what part of Freemantle is not an eyesore?
Brainiac, Nursling says...
1:39pm Mon 5 May 08
These stupid hypocritical ignoramuses keep themselves in the dark with their total failure to grasp basic science. Is it any wonder that Government ignores pensioners in decision making?
Gloworm, soton says...
1:45pm Mon 5 May 08
Few years and they will be glowing in the dark !
Bob, Freemantle says...
2:38pm Mon 5 May 08
And what part of Freemantle is not an eyesore?
And where is 'baloo' exactly? Is it nice there?
hulla, baloo says...
2:59pm Mon 5 May 08
Bob wrote:Very nice thanks, but my area is not the topic of conversation, of which you have not attempted to defend.
And what part of Freemantle is not an eyesore?And where is 'baloo' exactly? Is it nice there?
I must be correct.
Ron, Locks heath says...
3:19pm Mon 5 May 08
Erect a seven metre mast in your back garden and see how long it takes for the bastards to come after you because you haven't got planning permission.
As usual it's all about money and no doubt the Social Club wil be well compensated, hence the lack of comment
As usual it's all about money and no doubt the Social Club wil be well compensated, hence the lack of comment
Brainiac, Nursling says...
4:13pm Mon 5 May 08
Ron wrote:They won't because you don;t need planning permission numbnuts. Duh doesn't cover it.
Erect a seven metre mast in your back garden and see how long it takes for the bastards to come after you because you haven't got planning permission.
As usual it's all about money and no doubt the Social Club wil be well compensated, hence the lack of comment
Brainiac, Nursling says...
8:06pm Mon 5 May 08
Touched a nerve did I? The answer, numbnuts is that they didn't apply for planning permission because they didn't need to apply for planning permission. QED. Do you honestly think a mult-billion pound company that does this hundreds of times a year would - oops - not know? or suddenly forget? They use statutory powers, duh. You also don't appear to appreciate the difference between a straight typographical error and grammatical ignorance. Stick to football, it's safer.
J Elliott, Bristol says...
9:23am Tue 6 May 08
There is now a wealth of evidence that mobile phone masts emit radiation at dangerously high levels giving rise to a higher risk of serious illnesses, such as cancers and neurological diseases. Some of these take many years to manifest, but other symptoms, such as impairment of concentration and sleep disturbance can take effect relatively quickly. The risks are greater for children because their skulls are thinner so the radiation penetrates more deeply and they are likely to suffer exposure for longer over their lifetimes. Placing masts near schools is in contravention of the recommendations of the Stewart Report, which advised the government, but which the government is failing to put into practice.
This is a time bomb which the telecoms industry is trying to obscure, just like the tobacco industry did, and unless the public starts to stand up for our health, we will see a lot of deaths before they eventually have to admit the damage the technology is causing. Many of us are minimising our use of mobile and cordless phones, and removing wifi and other wireless technology so as to reduce our risks, despite the inconvenience, because the health risks are so significant.
This is a time bomb which the telecoms industry is trying to obscure, just like the tobacco industry did, and unless the public starts to stand up for our health, we will see a lot of deaths before they eventually have to admit the damage the technology is causing. Many of us are minimising our use of mobile and cordless phones, and removing wifi and other wireless technology so as to reduce our risks, despite the inconvenience, because the health risks are so significant.
Andy, Locks Heath says...
12:26pm Tue 6 May 08
Sorry Mr or Ms Elliott there is not a "wealth of evidence". There is though thanks to the internet, a wealth of anecdote. Apart from being vague and inexact, symptoms like "lack of concentration", laziness, prone to vandalism....whateve
r
trait you care to link - cannot be directly correlated to mast radiation. Bear in mind that radiation bombards your head across the electromagnetic spectrum every second of your life - why do you suppose that the tiny range of frequencies used by cellphones are so special? All this business of waves being on a kind of harmonic with brainwaves is just rubbish - so is the TV! So unless you can prove that your telepathic power is impaired this is a red herring. As for all this nonsense about masts "near" schools, think first about phones in pockets. They are a lot closer for a start but people are not dropping like flies - quite the opposite in fact. We've been through the facile anti-mast arguments on this site before. Unless you have an understanding of the maths and science behind the "evidence" you cite, you should not use it. Simply quoting it does not make you an expert. This time bomb you refer to is the dog that still refuses to bark after 20 years and counting. How long before it explodes because we've been waiting long enough. We should see a nice steady growth curve of ailments directly linked to mast proximity - instead all we get is a mountain of fudged excuses and yet more anecdotes offered up as "evidence".
r
trait you care to link - cannot be directly correlated to mast radiation. Bear in mind that radiation bombards your head across the electromagnetic spectrum every second of your life - why do you suppose that the tiny range of frequencies used by cellphones are so special? All this business of waves being on a kind of harmonic with brainwaves is just rubbish - so is the TV! So unless you can prove that your telepathic power is impaired this is a red herring. As for all this nonsense about masts "near" schools, think first about phones in pockets. They are a lot closer for a start but people are not dropping like flies - quite the opposite in fact. We've been through the facile anti-mast arguments on this site before. Unless you have an understanding of the maths and science behind the "evidence" you cite, you should not use it. Simply quoting it does not make you an expert. This time bomb you refer to is the dog that still refuses to bark after 20 years and counting. How long before it explodes because we've been waiting long enough. We should see a nice steady growth curve of ailments directly linked to mast proximity - instead all we get is a mountain of fudged excuses and yet more anecdotes offered up as "evidence".
J Elliott, Bristol says...
2:20pm Tue 6 May 08
First and probably the most damming research is the ECOLOG report. This was commissioned by one of the operators, T-mobile, in 2000. The report examined 220 peer reviewed and published research papers and after close scrutiny came to several conclusions, some of which are listed below.
1. Cancer initiating and cancer promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology.
2. Disruptions of the endocrine and the immune system.
3. Reduction of the concentration of the hormone melatonin in the blood of exposed animals and humans.
4. Effects on the central nervous system, which reach from neuro-chemical effects to modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain functions.
5. From experiments with volunteers, who were exposed to the fields of mobile telephones, there is clear evidence for influences on certain cognitive functions.
The operator buried this report, as it proved to be a damming indictment of the adverse health effects from phones and masts and would have had disastrous effects on the mobile phone industry if it had been released to the media. The report has now been translated from German and is in the public domain.
Unfortunately there is not room here to list the two thousand other studies linking ill health to electro magnetic fields however I refer you to the international REFLEX STUDY which clearly demonstated damage to the genes! Studies by Eger et al (2004) at Naila, Germany showed about a three-fold increase in cancers living within 350 metres of phone masts after 5 years of exposure. Wolf & Wolf (2004) in Israel found similar results with even higher numbers for female cancers. Recently, independent Swedish researchers looked at a pooled analysis of 11 Interphone studies. They showed at least a doubling of brain tumour risk for over 10 years use on the side of the head where the phone is held.
Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for 10 years by Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg, Fredrik Söderqvist, Kjell Hansson Mild, L. Lloyd Morgan
It is simply untrue to state that there is no proven links between phone masts and ill-health. German, Austrian and Swiss doctors are complaining loudly to their governments about the ill-health and increased cancers that they are seeing as a result of phone masts, DECT phones , and WiFi. In Vienna, posters in doctors' surgeries specifically advise patients to prefer landline connected phones and to avoid cordless internet connections. Here UK doctors are gagged by whistleblowing contracts.
Now I've provided the requested evidence proving this technology is harmful Now you provide INDEPENDANT research, ie not funded by the phone operators, that alleges this technolgy is safe!
1. Cancer initiating and cancer promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology.
2. Disruptions of the endocrine and the immune system.
3. Reduction of the concentration of the hormone melatonin in the blood of exposed animals and humans.
4. Effects on the central nervous system, which reach from neuro-chemical effects to modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain functions.
5. From experiments with volunteers, who were exposed to the fields of mobile telephones, there is clear evidence for influences on certain cognitive functions.
The operator buried this report, as it proved to be a damming indictment of the adverse health effects from phones and masts and would have had disastrous effects on the mobile phone industry if it had been released to the media. The report has now been translated from German and is in the public domain.
Unfortunately there is not room here to list the two thousand other studies linking ill health to electro magnetic fields however I refer you to the international REFLEX STUDY which clearly demonstated damage to the genes! Studies by Eger et al (2004) at Naila, Germany showed about a three-fold increase in cancers living within 350 metres of phone masts after 5 years of exposure. Wolf & Wolf (2004) in Israel found similar results with even higher numbers for female cancers. Recently, independent Swedish researchers looked at a pooled analysis of 11 Interphone studies. They showed at least a doubling of brain tumour risk for over 10 years use on the side of the head where the phone is held.
Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for 10 years by Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg, Fredrik Söderqvist, Kjell Hansson Mild, L. Lloyd Morgan
It is simply untrue to state that there is no proven links between phone masts and ill-health. German, Austrian and Swiss doctors are complaining loudly to their governments about the ill-health and increased cancers that they are seeing as a result of phone masts, DECT phones , and WiFi. In Vienna, posters in doctors' surgeries specifically advise patients to prefer landline connected phones and to avoid cordless internet connections. Here UK doctors are gagged by whistleblowing contracts.
Now I've provided the requested evidence proving this technology is harmful Now you provide INDEPENDANT research, ie not funded by the phone operators, that alleges this technolgy is safe!
Andy, Locks Heath says...
7:22pm Tue 6 May 08
A lot of what you cite as evidence is garbage. Firstly because you filter "evidence" through your own pre-selective judgement. Secondly because so much of what is listed as evidence in your post is npothing of the sort. In many cases huge connections are made by those predisposed to believe the outcome. How can you talk about conclusive evidence of people living within 350 metres of masts when everyone is usually surrounded by other people's mobile phones? I work in an office where I probably have hundreds of individual mobile phones within that range all the time. Same applies in any precinct. In a football ground it is probably thousands! Why are they not considered, if only for their "Noise" value? The reason is because virtually everyone in the country spends most of their time with this amount of exposure most of the time and suffers no ill effects. Furthermore, this "evidence" about the side of the head you most hold the phone to is statistical garbage - how much time do you spend holding the phone compared to the time in your pocket or handbag notwithstanding the presence of other phones as stated? Do you always use the same ear anyway? I don't, and neither do many other people. If your case is true the evidence would be consistent, uniform and universal. It isn't but you will not answer this fundamental point. Your evidence is filtered (several times usually, by other like minded proponents) selective and partial. It appears that the Ecolog report merely collated and republished many partial and inexact reports. It did not validate or vindicate them, yet you regard it as a verification. You don't even need to read the review for this to be blindingly obvious. Any company issuing a report that effectively claims its own product to be carcinogenic is signing its corporate death warrant and indicting its own directors for manslaughter. Did they do this? I think not, and neither should you if you are being objective.
Sandi L, West Sussex says...
8:16am Wed 7 May 08
I am electrosensitive - a functional impairment caused by environmental triggers - and have been for 5 years now. There is no evidence that the Health Protection Agency will accept, yet Canada has recently recognised it as a disability and Sweden did so many years ago.
It is not something anyone would wish to have as you can't use any of these wonderful technologies and you can't go anywhere because they hurt you and make you unwell!
The BioInitiative report challenged the current
guidelines for these technologies by finding cause of harm below the guidelines, which incidently only covers the thermal (heating) effects and not the non-thermal (biological) effects of pulsed microwave radiation. The biological effects were known as "radiation sickness" or "microwave sickness" decades ago and the symptoms were fully documented.
Coincidently, or otherwise, they are the same symptoms that electrosensitive people suffer.
There is enough research on the biological effects to prove harm to all living beings, but much of it is discredited or ignored.
Sceptics need to ask why!
Sensible people who care about their health and the health and well-being of their families, pets and the environment will research to find out what the true state of play is rather than try to belittle someone who quite obviously has seriously researched.
Perhaps they don't want to part with their gadgets at any price? Or maybe the rumour that there is an addicive element in mobile phones
is true?
There are safer ways to have all these useful gadgets but they would cost more money to provide. Your mobile phone provider won't tell you this, though!
If a safer way had been used from the start I wouldn't be electrosensitive and nor would
there be too many others like me; there wouldn't be cancer clusters and ill-health around mobile phone masts,TETRA, WiFi, cordless phones, baby alarms and all the other gadgets powered by pulsed microwave radiation.
Being EHS, I get a warning but non-sensitive people do not. The EHS are your "canaries" and
we care that non-sentive people, children and animals might be harmed. If you all wait for "the science" it may be too late.
Please use your mobiles sparingly, get wired in internet connection and put in place shielding or protection if you begin to suffer any of the known effects of pulsed microwave radiation - but most of all, please research to be absolutely sure you are safe.
It is not something anyone would wish to have as you can't use any of these wonderful technologies and you can't go anywhere because they hurt you and make you unwell!
The BioInitiative report challenged the current
guidelines for these technologies by finding cause of harm below the guidelines, which incidently only covers the thermal (heating) effects and not the non-thermal (biological) effects of pulsed microwave radiation. The biological effects were known as "radiation sickness" or "microwave sickness" decades ago and the symptoms were fully documented.
Coincidently, or otherwise, they are the same symptoms that electrosensitive people suffer.
There is enough research on the biological effects to prove harm to all living beings, but much of it is discredited or ignored.
Sceptics need to ask why!
Sensible people who care about their health and the health and well-being of their families, pets and the environment will research to find out what the true state of play is rather than try to belittle someone who quite obviously has seriously researched.
Perhaps they don't want to part with their gadgets at any price? Or maybe the rumour that there is an addicive element in mobile phones
is true?
There are safer ways to have all these useful gadgets but they would cost more money to provide. Your mobile phone provider won't tell you this, though!
If a safer way had been used from the start I wouldn't be electrosensitive and nor would
there be too many others like me; there wouldn't be cancer clusters and ill-health around mobile phone masts,TETRA, WiFi, cordless phones, baby alarms and all the other gadgets powered by pulsed microwave radiation.
Being EHS, I get a warning but non-sensitive people do not. The EHS are your "canaries" and
we care that non-sentive people, children and animals might be harmed. If you all wait for "the science" it may be too late.
Please use your mobiles sparingly, get wired in internet connection and put in place shielding or protection if you begin to suffer any of the known effects of pulsed microwave radiation - but most of all, please research to be absolutely sure you are safe.
J Elliott, Bristol says...
8:35am Wed 7 May 08
Thanks Andy for agreeing that there is evidence proving this technology is unsafe. You say "A lot of what you cite as evidence is garbage" Therefore at least you agree some of the research provided is valid. So I provide the evidence, you provide none which even remotely suggests that this technolgy is safe.
Simon Densley, London says...
11:07am Wed 7 May 08
J Elliot is right. I have personally seen hundreds of studies that demonstrate biological harm caused directly buy the radiation used by mobile phones, masts, wifi and other related technology. Each one of these pieces of research has been independently peer reviewed and gone on to be published in a scientific journal. Is Andy suggesting that all this research is somehow inferior research that can somehow safely be ignored? If anyone here is exercising there own pre-selective judgement I think Andy is the number one candidate.
Andy, Locks Heath says...
4:30pm Wed 7 May 08
If you produced compelling scientifically and mathematically rigorous evidence I would accept it, which I suspect is more objective than your position, but all you produce is a mountain of spurious data and expect it to be classed as scientific evidence. I don;t think you know what this means. Here is an example; Average life expectancy is higher in countries with high mobile phones usage. There is even a close statistical correlation. Now you and I know that there is not a causal relationship between these two things but nevertheless it is a fact. If you accept other non-causal subjective evidence such as mood or "happiness", and make the connection to mobile phone radiation, you also should take other proven evidence like life expectancy which appears to suggest that mobile radation makes yo9u live longer! You can't have it both ways, but you don't apply objective rigour. When J Elliot asks for "proof" that a technology is safe it illustrates a lack of scientific comptence - it is common knowledge that you cannot prove a negative any more than J Elliot cannot prove that he or she will not commit murder later on today. All you can say is there is no evidence that this will occur. This is an obvious point to anyone who understands science, but not in this debate I am afraid. "Show me the bodies" After 20 years of prolonged use we should have a plague of them. Where are they?
Simon Densley, London says...
6:03pm Wed 7 May 08
Andy you are sounding more and more like you work for the mobile phone industry. I have referred to hundreds of peer reviewed published studies which you seem unable to see as anything other than a mountain of spurious data. You then give an example of an illogical conclusion drawn from factual data one than any scientist and most high school students would see through and suggest that all these studies are as logical as this? As for bodies look at the increases in brain tumours, leukaemia and cancer clusters near phone masts. 8 out of 10 epidemiological studies in the WHO database show an increase in ill health around masts. Please try looking at even a fraction of the scientific evidence before you dismiss it.
Andy, Locks Heath says...
9:26pm Wed 7 May 08
We all live near phone masts Simon! That's why our mobile phones work, and no I don't work for the phone industry, but if you think any opposition to your views is part of some kind of conspiracy I'd go see a therapist. My deliberately facetious example was as spurious as your mast proximity argument except you are apprently incapable of seeing the parallel- there is no difference. You are one of these non scientific people who assumes everyone on the internet is some kind of great authority and every real person you argue with is some kind of fraud. It's a common phenomenon among conspiracy theorists.A lot of these so called "studies" are not worthy of the word - Find authoritative evidence published by New Scientist, Scientific American or a top ten universtity and I'm prepared to be convinced - and you should prepare to be conviced otherwise except you seem to start with your prejudice and work backwards so no chance. You don't understand the science, you merely regurgitate reports that appear to confirm you preexisting fears. I'm not interested in those who cannot justify or explain their "science". I repeat, there should be millions of specific cancers and the pattern should be as causal as, say, asbestosis - only it isn't. It isn't there. and you don't even ask why.
Simon Densley, London says...
3:14pm Thu 8 May 08
Dear Andy,
The reason I think you work for the mobile phone industry is that you ignore the fact that 8 out of 10 epidemiological studies in the WHO database show an increase in ill health around masts as if it was never mentioned. You then try to marginalise my valid arguments by trying to pin the conspiracy theorist label on me and then go on to state that I am non scientific, do not understand science, get my facts from non scientific (spurious internet) sources and form opinions based on those sources. Where as all I have done is try to guide you to some very scientific peer reviewed research published in scientific journals. You said you were prepared to be convinced if I could provide reports published in New Scientist. (Is that because you consider popular science magazines to be more accurate than specialist scientific journals?) However I will indulge you:
New scientist Volume 195, Issue 2619, 1st of September 2007, Page 18 Mobile phones alter cells without heating them - Israeli researchers have identified a mechanism through which low levels of mobile phone radiation could affect the differentiation and division of cells. This was also covered in The Telegraph.
New scientist 16th April 2007: Are cellphones wiping out bees? A similar story appeared in the Scotsman last week detailing how this radiation disrupts the bees ability to communicate the whereabouts of nectar sources to the rest of the colony leading to the collapse of the colony.
Barely two months seem to go by without a national paper or magazine revealing another piece of research linking mobile phone radiation to ill health or biological damage:
On the 13th of March The Ecologist ran an article about the dangers of wifi - and yes the science is explained quite well here.
On the 29th of October 2007 the Daily Mirror ran an article called Mobile phone danger saying we could be sitting on a health time-bomb
On the 30th of August 2007 the Daily Mail ran an article entitled: Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believe
The independent has run several large articles on this issue over the couple of years. (Im sure you can find them if you are interested.)
These are just a few of the articles that you suggest dont exist. And I haven't even begun to direct you to any actual published studies themselves yet. Is this enough to convince you?
Something that all Mobile phone company representatives I have dealt with have in common is that they always ask where is the evidence?, and where are all the articles?, while they are right there in front of their noses. Like some form of absolute denial. This is exactly what you are doing, which is why I am having trouble believing you do not work for the mobile phone industry in some capacity. And your opening sweeping statement We all live near phone masts sounds like the latest piece of propaganda straight from the mobile phone industry. The logic leading to this statement is as skewed as your example from a few comments ago. Its a bit like saying that because we dont all live in the sea we all live on top of mountains.
The reason I think you work for the mobile phone industry is that you ignore the fact that 8 out of 10 epidemiological studies in the WHO database show an increase in ill health around masts as if it was never mentioned. You then try to marginalise my valid arguments by trying to pin the conspiracy theorist label on me and then go on to state that I am non scientific, do not understand science, get my facts from non scientific (spurious internet) sources and form opinions based on those sources. Where as all I have done is try to guide you to some very scientific peer reviewed research published in scientific journals. You said you were prepared to be convinced if I could provide reports published in New Scientist. (Is that because you consider popular science magazines to be more accurate than specialist scientific journals?) However I will indulge you:
New scientist Volume 195, Issue 2619, 1st of September 2007, Page 18 Mobile phones alter cells without heating them - Israeli researchers have identified a mechanism through which low levels of mobile phone radiation could affect the differentiation and division of cells. This was also covered in The Telegraph.
New scientist 16th April 2007: Are cellphones wiping out bees? A similar story appeared in the Scotsman last week detailing how this radiation disrupts the bees ability to communicate the whereabouts of nectar sources to the rest of the colony leading to the collapse of the colony.
Barely two months seem to go by without a national paper or magazine revealing another piece of research linking mobile phone radiation to ill health or biological damage:
On the 13th of March The Ecologist ran an article about the dangers of wifi - and yes the science is explained quite well here.
On the 29th of October 2007 the Daily Mirror ran an article called Mobile phone danger saying we could be sitting on a health time-bomb
On the 30th of August 2007 the Daily Mail ran an article entitled: Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believe
The independent has run several large articles on this issue over the couple of years. (Im sure you can find them if you are interested.)
These are just a few of the articles that you suggest dont exist. And I haven't even begun to direct you to any actual published studies themselves yet. Is this enough to convince you?
Something that all Mobile phone company representatives I have dealt with have in common is that they always ask where is the evidence?, and where are all the articles?, while they are right there in front of their noses. Like some form of absolute denial. This is exactly what you are doing, which is why I am having trouble believing you do not work for the mobile phone industry in some capacity. And your opening sweeping statement We all live near phone masts sounds like the latest piece of propaganda straight from the mobile phone industry. The logic leading to this statement is as skewed as your example from a few comments ago. Its a bit like saying that because we dont all live in the sea we all live on top of mountains.
Andy, Locks Heath says...
6:06pm Thu 8 May 08
Large companies are staffed by ordinary people too. You talk as though large companies are some kind of secret organisation where dark deeds are plotted, conspired and,if necessary, covered up. That James Bond view of evil organisations is silly, immature and unrealistic. Such a conspiracy would be impossible to cover up in any major company - unless you believe in soap opera reality of course. .....So is citing the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror as sources come to think of it. As for the other few sources you have pulled out, where is the one that directly states there is a direct causal link between mobile radiation and cancer? You even join the dots between words like "could", changing them in your head to mean "will". Next you take a totally unrelated piece of speculation surrounding bees! Can't you stick to a single story with a single set of facts that does not involve speculation on your part? We all move among mobile phone masts and other mobile users, and carry mobile phones with us, so it is totally impossible to make any assumptions about the radiation absorbed by an individual based on their "Home" locations yet you are so prepared to believe this bad science that you cannot possibly have any scientific rigour in your argument! Your predisposition to believe rather than think renders you an unreliable witness. Once again I say if there was a direct causal relationship you wouldn't need to hunt out odd pockets of widely differing phenomena, there would a be a single consistent set of symptoms, not a liquorice allsorts of ailments from cancer to depresssion. That's not science, that's speculative Daily Mail journalism. Do you believe in "UFOs" and "voices beyond the grave" as well?
Simon Densley, London says...
7:28pm Thu 8 May 08
Andy,
You are obviously not prepared to either look at or accept the real science. I gave you more than you asked for to convince you but you still dismiss the evidence. You seem to think that it is up to me to prove beyond all doubt that there is a direct causal relationship while taking the position that any doubt represents no risk whatsoever. There is no absolute proof that smoking causes cancer. Does that mean you think there should be no restrictions on smoking? I have seen more than enough evidence (scientific research) to convince me (and many scientists) that biological harm is being caused by this radiation. If you had read the Ecologist report you may have some understanding of the mechanism by which this occurs independently of any heating effects. You would also understand how this leads not to a single consistent set of symptoms but more of a liquorice allsorts of ailments from cancer to depression and also how it can affect bees and other biological systems. But because the word could instead of will appears in the tile of an authoritative and informative article you join the dots in your own head changing could to mean wont. Your own predisposition to believe (that there is no risk) rather than think renders you an unreliable witness. Especially as you choose to ignore certain pieces of research without even acknowledging them. Can I assume you have not even read any of the epidemiological studies in the WHO database? I understand this evidence doesnt suit your already made up mindset. Im guessing you will continue to pretend it doesnt exist. Im also guessing that even if I provide a list of peer reviewed published scientific studies you will continue to pretend that these dont exist or are of marginal relevance for whatever reason comes to mind. Of course such lists do not make particularly interesting reading but I will happily send one to Simon Carr or the editor. Im sure they will be happy to weigh up this research in an unbiased way.
You are obviously not prepared to either look at or accept the real science. I gave you more than you asked for to convince you but you still dismiss the evidence. You seem to think that it is up to me to prove beyond all doubt that there is a direct causal relationship while taking the position that any doubt represents no risk whatsoever. There is no absolute proof that smoking causes cancer. Does that mean you think there should be no restrictions on smoking? I have seen more than enough evidence (scientific research) to convince me (and many scientists) that biological harm is being caused by this radiation. If you had read the Ecologist report you may have some understanding of the mechanism by which this occurs independently of any heating effects. You would also understand how this leads not to a single consistent set of symptoms but more of a liquorice allsorts of ailments from cancer to depression and also how it can affect bees and other biological systems. But because the word could instead of will appears in the tile of an authoritative and informative article you join the dots in your own head changing could to mean wont. Your own predisposition to believe (that there is no risk) rather than think renders you an unreliable witness. Especially as you choose to ignore certain pieces of research without even acknowledging them. Can I assume you have not even read any of the epidemiological studies in the WHO database? I understand this evidence doesnt suit your already made up mindset. Im guessing you will continue to pretend it doesnt exist. Im also guessing that even if I provide a list of peer reviewed published scientific studies you will continue to pretend that these dont exist or are of marginal relevance for whatever reason comes to mind. Of course such lists do not make particularly interesting reading but I will happily send one to Simon Carr or the editor. Im sure they will be happy to weigh up this research in an unbiased way.
Andy, Locks Heath says...
7:37pm Thu 8 May 08
While we are never going to agree I have enjoyed what has developed into a very eloquent and well informed debate with a worthy opponent. Let's shake hands and walk away on good terms?
J Elliott, Bristol says...
8:39am Fri 9 May 08
Yes Andy's complete refusal to even acknowledge the clear evidence provided is the usual tactics of the phone operators.
Having asked for the evidence proving the dangers to health, when it is supplied it is contemptuously dismissed. Andy said earlier that he could also be swayed by evidence from a top ten University. Little point in providing even more proof. However, it reminds me of the comments made last month in the national press by one of the leading experts in radiation effcts on the human body, Professor Denis Henshaw, Head of the Human Radiation Effects Group at Bristol University (yes a top ten University). Prof. Henshaw said, "We are steeped in denial over the safety of mobile phones and related technologies." Aren't we just Andy!
Having asked for the evidence proving the dangers to health, when it is supplied it is contemptuously dismissed. Andy said earlier that he could also be swayed by evidence from a top ten University. Little point in providing even more proof. However, it reminds me of the comments made last month in the national press by one of the leading experts in radiation effcts on the human body, Professor Denis Henshaw, Head of the Human Radiation Effects Group at Bristol University (yes a top ten University). Prof. Henshaw said, "We are steeped in denial over the safety of mobile phones and related technologies." Aren't we just Andy!
Bazz, Bedford Place says...
12:39pm Fri 9 May 08
If these masts go up would it increase my signal to my phone in Bedford Place, I can understand why these people don't want the mast outside there house but they have to go somewhere...
Andy, Locks Heath says...
1:17pm Fri 9 May 08
J Elliott wrote:Look Ms Elliot I tried to bring this to an amicable conclusion but you really need a slap. I have no connection with the mobile companies other than as a user but you are clearly a person who leaps to their own conclusion without any corroboration so you are just digging your own hole with that baseless accusation. Do you want to get rid of mobile phones - yes or no? Assuming the answer is yes are you saying that everyone would then be cheerful and there will be no more problems of mood or mental health anywhere? And are you saying there will be no more brain tumours anywhere? No?? Well in that case how do account for whatever other causes bring about these ailments and where in these "studies" of yours can you show me how all the myriad of external factors were eliminated to remove false positives? This is probably over your head because you don't assimilate information, you just quote it, and frankly a ten year olf child could do that. Really stupid people are those who don't even have the wit to recognise their own stupidity and you are firmly in that category. Points of logic are wasted on you dso why bother with any further pointless and irrelevant reply? Mobile phones save thousands of lives a year by their very mobility.
Yes Andy\'s complete refusal to even acknowledge the clear evidence provided is the usual tactics of the phone operators.
Having asked for the evidence proving the dangers to health, when it is supplied it is contemptuously dismissed. Andy said earlier that he could also be swayed by evidence from a top ten University. Little point in providing even more proof. However, it reminds me of the comments made last month in the national press by one of the leading experts in radiation effcts on the human body, Professor Denis Henshaw, Head of the Human Radiation Effects Group at Bristol University (yes a top ten University). Prof. Henshaw said, \"We are steeped in denial over the safety of mobile phones and related technologies.\" Aren\'t we just Andy!
J Elliott, Bristol says...
4:24pm Fri 9 May 08
Andy,
1. Yes I want rid of mobile phones until they have been made safe to use.
2. Yes people would be a lot healthier.
3. You've completely ignored the evidence you asked people to provide.
4. Where is your evidence for mobile phones saving thousands of lives a year?
5. The research given to you here suggest that this technology will kill millions leaving the 20 or 30 people caught up a mountain every year without an anorak looking like a drop in the ocean.
Perhaps the corresponding enormous increase in the cancer rate to the introduction of this technology should at least get you interested. Try Googling Prof Henshaw at Bristol University. You might learn something about this technology and the link with cancers including childhood leukemia. But quite honestly I dont think you are particularly bothered.
Whilst the research into the harm caused to children by mobile phone use is ignored brain cancers now account for more deaths among children and the under 40 year olds than any other form of cancer.
Five years ago a 2 year old child living near me was diagnosed with leukaemia. The family had no history of any cancers. They moved into their house a few months before the child was born. About a year later 3 mobile phone masts were erected 150 metres away from their house which now became situated in the centre of the electro magnetic field from the 3 masts. Now they managed to cure (so they thought) the leukaemia with chemotherapy but unfortunately, 2 years later, the leukaemia has returned. To see this childs horribly burned skin (that is what chemotherapy does) as he loses his battle with this awful cancer is tragic.
More and more scientists in this particular field agree that there is now more evidence of a link between serious ill health and electro magnetic radiation than there is with the cancer/smoking link. When I see the suffering of children such as the one mentioned above and the total disregard for the health of the most vulnerable in our society I would suggest the phone operators, government and such people who chose to ignore the proven evidence of the harm caused by this dangerous technology, are the ones who perhaps deserve far more than a slap!
1. Yes I want rid of mobile phones until they have been made safe to use.
2. Yes people would be a lot healthier.
3. You've completely ignored the evidence you asked people to provide.
4. Where is your evidence for mobile phones saving thousands of lives a year?
5. The research given to you here suggest that this technology will kill millions leaving the 20 or 30 people caught up a mountain every year without an anorak looking like a drop in the ocean.
Perhaps the corresponding enormous increase in the cancer rate to the introduction of this technology should at least get you interested. Try Googling Prof Henshaw at Bristol University. You might learn something about this technology and the link with cancers including childhood leukemia. But quite honestly I dont think you are particularly bothered.
Whilst the research into the harm caused to children by mobile phone use is ignored brain cancers now account for more deaths among children and the under 40 year olds than any other form of cancer.
Five years ago a 2 year old child living near me was diagnosed with leukaemia. The family had no history of any cancers. They moved into their house a few months before the child was born. About a year later 3 mobile phone masts were erected 150 metres away from their house which now became situated in the centre of the electro magnetic field from the 3 masts. Now they managed to cure (so they thought) the leukaemia with chemotherapy but unfortunately, 2 years later, the leukaemia has returned. To see this childs horribly burned skin (that is what chemotherapy does) as he loses his battle with this awful cancer is tragic.
More and more scientists in this particular field agree that there is now more evidence of a link between serious ill health and electro magnetic radiation than there is with the cancer/smoking link. When I see the suffering of children such as the one mentioned above and the total disregard for the health of the most vulnerable in our society I would suggest the phone operators, government and such people who chose to ignore the proven evidence of the harm caused by this dangerous technology, are the ones who perhaps deserve far more than a slap!
Andy, Locks Heath says...
5:06pm Fri 9 May 08
The evidence for mobiles saving lives is a lot more substantive than your tenuous dot joining. How many calls received by the emrgency services are from mobiles? More than 50% actually, not just a few on mountain tops so you can do the math - if you can do maths that is . You just don't grasp the need for proof do you? Leukaemia is a completely different illness to brain tumours but to you any old illness can go into the causal bucket just because of proximity. Do you realise that the signal from a mobile phone at the side of your head is as strong as that from a mast 50 metres away? Just calculate the cirumferences of the two circles if you don;t believe me. (I bet you don't know how!) So why hasn't every child whose parents have a mobile phone caught leukaemia? You just join the dots with your own ignorance. You don;t actually know what scientific proof is yet you continue to stack up anecdotal evidence which is a totally different thing. I offered to end this on friendly terms but as you insist on digging further I'll just expose you for yet another ill educated ignorant fool out of her depth who thinks google is a substitute for real understanding.
ANGRY: Residents John Bathard, Tony Williams and Pat Holbrook in the shadow of the site for the masts. Echo picture by Joanna Mann. Order no: 6636967.
In this section
- Tower block inferno claims Hampshire designer's life
- M271 closed after lorry jack-knifes into central reservation
- Fury at advertising boards clampdown
- Cannabis factories closed in police raid
- Suspicious car alert to pupils’ parents
- Give our Tigers a hero’s welcome
- Cat mauled to death by dogs
- Shock as pub landlord dies aged 48
- Multi-million pound primary school unveiled
- Woman run over by train
Sponsored Links
|
|
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
paul b, says...
12:29pm Mon 5 May 08
i bet atleast one of them has a mobile, or calls friends/families on theirs
NIMBYS