Has anyone on got one near them and how do they feel about it? There seems to be more and more upraor everytime one of these things goes up and if the information about them is correct rightly so but, some people think the best way to stop these things is to protest by not using or buying mobile phones, do you think this would work? does anyonr have any better solutions?

Yes I have noticed more and more of these things appearing and they are really ugly. I personally can't believe that people can shout off about wind turbines ruining the landscape when phone masts are mushrooming up all over the shop. I do use a mobile phone though and wouldn't be without it so some compromise needs to be made. For a start would we need so many if more mast sharing was done? Couldn't something be done to make them blend in more with the environment? I really do think each one should have to apply for planning permission. At the moment I think that permission is needed only if the mast exceeds a certain height. As for living near to them well I don't think that anybody should have to until more research is done into the possible harmful effects.

4 are on my old school, and to be honest, it didnt bother me at all, being a budding physist i knew the dangers and so did the school.

you only really see a third of all the masts, as the rest of them are hidden in things like fake chimneys or church spires

I could well be wrong, but I think that the statement about not needing planning permission is a myth. You can't just build something without having permission!

I don't know how true this is, but I've heard that BT hide mobile phone receivers/transmitters in the tops of their phone booths.

That rumour would have originated internally from a BT engineer so could hold some truth. After all there the guys that fit them.

They sometimes hide them inside the signs outside petrol stations.

Mobile phone mast's are a health hazard, and so are mobile phones because they emit micro radiation which is harmfull to health just the same as microwave oven's.

However, one cannot uninvent these invention's so we have to live with them, just as we have to live with the nuclear bomb. I use a mobile phone, but only for emergency's, being disabled I carry it with me at all times, also when driving the car.

Some people I have seen use their mobile phone's all the time, just the same as an ordinary phone well, they are asking for trouble to hold them close to their head for long period's, it will fry their brain's eventually.

It is laughable to see them harming their bodies all the time mobile phone's, boozing, smoking, Illegal drug's, staying up half the night, sex with anyone anytime, exposing themselves to illness and disease, Don't they want to live?

Originally posted by "halevan"

Mobile phone mast's are a health hazard,
There has been no evidence to support this - there's a good article here (http://www.nrpb.org/publications/bulletin/no3/article3.htm)

Originally posted by "halevan"

...it will fry their brain's eventually.
Again, there's no actual evidence to support this theory.

Originally posted by "halevan"

...harming their bodies all the time mobile phone's, boozing, smoking, Illegal drug's, staying up half the night, sex with anyone anytime, exposing themselves to illness and disease, Don't they want to live?

Yeah, perhaps they are living - it's called having fun, something perhaps you've forgotten about.

Don't make me laugh! having fun? Living? you must be joking. I have more fun than a lot much younger than me but I don't sit in smokey room's that choke me, call that fun? I haven't forgotten mate, no way, I am just as alert as you are.

Well anyway, it's up to the individual, isn't it - there's lots of things that people do for fun, that I wouldn't enjoy at all, but if that's what they want to do then that's fine.

I still don't see what your moral outburst has to do with phones though - are you sayin that "them", ie those who use mobiles a lot, also all drink, smoke and have casual sex?

Not sure how you make that connection.

There's a mast out near Dore (not entirely sure it's a mobile phone mast) which is disguised as a tree. I never noticed it despite driving past it countless times until a mate pointed it out - much better on the eyes.

I can remember several months ago being referred to a website which tells you where your nearest phone mast is. There was some hype about them being in petrol station signs. Sadly I can't remember the website.

Originally posted by "Classic Rock"

I can remember several months ago being referred to a website which tells you where your nearest phone mast is. There was some hype about them being in petrol station signs. Sadly I can't remember the website.

Was it this site?

http://www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk

yay! Well done!

Residents set for legal fight on phone mast

FURIOUS residents are mounting a legal challenge against Sheffield Council after it allowed a mobile phone company to erect a mast in their neighbourhood.

Neighbours in Fulwood have opened a bank account to raise thousands of pounds in an attempt to hold a judicial review against the council.

The residents say the electrical boxes of the mast are just 15m from one house in Slayleigh Lane on the junction with Hallamshire Road.

Despite 134 letters of protest, they are furious that council officers used delegated powers to approve the mast.

Gillian Hume, of the Hallam Mast Appeal action group, said: "The mast is directly in front of someone's house and we want to know how this was allowed.

"We were originally told it would be 12.5m high and objected. It was lowered to 10m and again we objected but council officers allowed it through on delegated powers.

More of the story here (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/viewarticle.aspx?ArticleID=780094&SectionID=58&Search=mast&Searchtype=any&SearchSection=58&DateFrom=011995&DateTo=042004&Page=1&ReturnPage=Results.aspx)

On the topic of phone masts I read that they were being desguised as flag poles, I forgot which paper I read it in but a coucillor was quoted saying " If they put a flag on the pole it may look a bit patriotic" I wasn't sure wether he was for or against it with that comment. How many other ways will people think of disguising them??

Yes I am aware of this situation myself - I am buying a house in the Handsworth area at the moment and was very saddened to hear that O2 planned to erect a mobile phone mast about half a mile from our house. I read about it in the Star on the Friday and it said there would be a planning meeting on the Monday (last week) so I took time off to join in and say my piece. There's been loads of letters of complaint from local residents including the handsworth community forum but the government is recommending that councils approve all applications (it states this on the website and on the planning docs) so despite the letters and high level council support - guess what, it went ahead.

Sadly, the local forum had not been invited to the planning meeting (surprise surprise) and so I was the only person there to make a final plea. A councillor spoke to me at the end to tell me that she had not been allowed to speak at the planning meeting because she had voted against the move. It sucks basically, I would encourage everyone to make as much fuss as possible because they are now going ahead with the one in handsworth and the gov will obviously encourage further applications elsewhere :(

by the way, its the health impact that bothers me not whether or not it looks like a flag pole or not! but the health implications can't be considered at planning meetings as according to the gov, there are no negative side effects from living in close quarters to high levels of electro magnetic radiation.

The Government has made a vast sum of money from the licensing of wavebands to cell phone networks. Having done so they can hardly obstruct the development of these networks. The council will be quite happy to make a few quid from siting masts on "their" property. Money talks.

On a separate matter I'd be interested to know what percentage of anti-mast protestors own and use mobiles themselves?
My sympathy is definately with anyone with a mast near their house but particularly with those that don't posess a mobile of their own.

I take it the people who object to mobile phone masts are people who do not use mobile phones... as using mobile phones = using mobile phone masts.

well, i support the fulwood mast. it means i might get a signal at my house!

must say the positioning was a bit surprising though- it is right outside someone's house- but they should have done something about it *before* they started to put it up!

Originally posted by daver
well, i support the fulwood mast. it means i might get a signal at my house!

must say the positioning was a bit surprising though- it is right outside someone's house- but they should have done something about it *before* they started to put it up!

Why would you want to use your mobile in the house anyway? Would it not be easier, and probably cheaper, to use the landline to ring people or for people to ring you?

isnt there some ruling about not needing planning permission if they are under a certain height,i may be wrong,probably am.

having read the plans i think they got the handsworth mast reduced from 15ft to 8ft and 'disguised' as a tree (lol) - may as well have disguised it as a pink elephant or something. what a load of cobblers!

they also disguise them by using petrol station signs!!! so much for not using your mobile whilst filling up with juice,and before anyone kicks off I know it's dangerous.But one law for one and another for them that pay the bills.

Originally posted by ladybee
Yes I am aware of this situation myself - I am buying a house in the Handsworth area at the moment and was very saddened to hear that O2 planned to erect a mobile phone mast about half a mile from our house.

I've heard about the propsed mast at Handsworth, as I understand its supposed to be erected on the Fast Lane Super Bowl. I think theres more to it, like financial gain involved. As the Super Bowl is slap bang on top of the hill its a good potential site, so the owners of the Super Bowl building will no doubt be getting financial gain / reward from O2 so its in their interest.

What I dont understand is that theres already a Mast further along the road next to the Peugeot Garage, also as a customer of O2 I find my mobile works well with strong signal all over Handsworth as it is so why the need for another mast? The only other explaination I can think of is financial gain.

As you say the mast is half a mile away from your house, I wouldnt get over worried, I understand your concerns, but i doubt it will cause you any ill effect from that distance, maybe if it was next to your house or few yards away would be of greater concern.

I had a note pushed through my letterbox at 11pm last night warning that the transmitter mast will be installed at 8.30 this morning (ie right now) and to get along there to protest, etc.

The residents seem to have got the press, TV, radio interested, and whilst I have mixed feelings about it all I am very impresssed with the organisation and commitment.

Maybe it's too late, maybe we will see people chained to the mast on the TV later

news here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/3698093.stm

was on look north too!

still not up, well wasn't around 5pm... (i live very nearby)

everyone has parked the cars around it so they can't get too the site to put it up!

worst thing is, its for video calling... :(

who the **** needs that? just another fad... pathetic.

Originally posted by daevh
worst thing is, its for video calling... :(

who the **** needs that? just another fad... pathetic.

No, thats typical media laymanship. Its a Third Generation mast, almost as daft as 5 years ago saying "Its a digital GSM mast, just another fad, pathetic"

Mobile phone masts dont bother me in the slighest, anyone who knows the physics behind it should be equally un-bothered.

People should be more concerned about possible health affects from holding said mobile about 3cm from your brain.

And for the record, I own a mobile phone but use it more for its PDA type features than making calls

But realistically, how many people will use video phone calls?

And what about the aesthetic implications of a 10m phone mast in the heart of Fulwood?

Originally posted by t020
But realistically, how many people will use video phone calls? Loads. That's why they are spending such huge amounts of money on creating a network.

Originally posted by t020
And what about the aesthetic implications of a 10m phone mast in the heart of Fulwood? I'm not certain, but I would imagine that the mast is a single dipole type arrangement (like a lampost without a lamp) that you wouldn't notice is you drove past it.


They are still there! The engineers were turned away on Sunday. I wonder what will happen today. There is a 24hr vigil to make sure the mast doesn't sneak up while people are in bed :)

I have this funny feeling that this is going to become a big news story. The residents really have the bit between their teeth and they are highly motivated, articulate, and with enough time and money to keep it it.

Interestingly, they have raised some health issues that I wasn't aware of, related to childrens growing bodies, and the effects of this particular type of radiation.

They have my full support... It'd be terible to have a mast put up across from your house. What if the people who lived there tried to sell their house? I certainly wouldn't want to live across from a mast and I'm sure I'm not the only one!

Maybe the residents of Fulwood can show their objections are justified by each of them proving they don't use a mobile phone

I find this very "not in my back yard" mentality and doubt it would have got the same coverage if it hadn't been in leafy affluent Fulwood and in an area such as Firth Park?

Am I just cynical?

Wondered why my signal had been better recently.

Originally posted by boyface
Maybe the residents of Fulwood can show their objections are justified by each of them proving they don't use a mobile phone

I find this very "not in my back yard" mentality and doubt it would have got the same coverage if it hadn't been in leafy affluent Fulwood and in an area such as Firth Park?

Don't get me started on that

The new Bernard Road incinerator - over 1200 letters of protest against it, but permission still went through (Thank you Bob Kerslake) :roll:

All the people who moan about mobile masts,should do the decent thing and not use a mobile.

Originally posted by unners
All the people who moan about mobile masts,should do the decent thing and not use a mobile.

Maybe none of the protesters do own mobiles. I own and use one, hence I won't be protesting if they try to put up a mast near where I live.

Originally posted by Patchy
Maybe none of the protesters do own mobiles. I own and use one, hence I won't be protesting if they try to put up a mast near where I live.

*ahem* *cough*...er...yeah right....of course none of them own one, sheeesh, deluded or what?

Looks like they got what they wanted: http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=788419

Owning a mobile phone and having the choice to use it is a completely different thing from having a transmitter mast that affects EVERYONE regardless.

One of the big issues is the proximity to the local primary school. As for the location, it's not in a field or a main road, but in the normal grass verge outside peoples houses. The control gear box is actually positioned right up to a houses front garden wall!

I have a mobile, but I sure as heck wouldn't want that right in front of my living room and bedroom window.

Would you want it right in front of your house????

Don't get Abdul started on Bernard Rd... AGAIN. :rolleyes: I know it doesn't take much.

Tony - I've heard that G3 is/ is going to be a huge flop, so maybe the mast isn't really needed. Lets face it, most of the uptake will be for kids' Xmas presents and once the novelty has worn off they will never use their mobile ideo conferencing.

Maybe you're right, but what tends to happen is that technologies mature over time. Videophones may not be the killer app', but maybe something else will be.

SMS started out as a minor, almost forgotten add-on, and it's HUUUGE now.

The networks are covering bases. It still doesn't change what's already got permission at Fulwood though. That's what the fuss is about.

Originally posted by t020
Don't get Abdul started on Bernard Rd... AGAIN. :rolleyes: I know it doesn't take much.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that :blush: but I only do it because I care.

Think thats the term for the protesters. They wouldnt give a s..t about possible health problems if it were placed on the Arbourthorne or Manor. Same as the people at Dore protested about the young peoples correctional facility which is based there now, they reckoned it should be put in a working class area ha ha ha. Some of these people are like monty python characters.

Altogether now lying down in Slayleigh Lane types..MY BRAIN HURTS.

You forgot the noteys (Not Over There Either)

and the bananas (Build Absolutely Nothing ANywhere Again)

Originally posted by dragonsoup
Nimbys. Think thats the term for the protesters. They wouldnt give a s..t about possible health problems if it were placed on the Arbourthorne or Manor.
Of course not, that's for the people in Arbourthorne and Manor to deal with, just as Abdul is rightly concerned with the incinerator that affects him.

These people in Fulwood aren't global health eco' warriors. They are normal everday people concerned for their area and their children. They are articulate and organised. I think that you should respect them for taking a stand.

Here's the acid test... If a mast was going right outside YOUR house or school would you just stand by and watch it go up?

Originally posted by Tony

Would YOU want one right outside your house?

You're happy to clamp a mobile phone (some indication that this may cause cancer) to your ear but not to have a mast outside your home (no proof of any harm, yet)? :loopy:

I'm sure all the same arguments were given when streetlights were mooted. Of course, people wanted streelights on their street but not outside their own homes. I can just hear the arguments: "All the escaping gases, what affect will they have on people's health?"

To answer your question, no I wouldn't WANT one outside my home but I wouldn't object as long as it didn't block my view or make funny noises. Unlike the streetlight outside my house.

Originally posted by max
You're happy to clamp a mobile phone (some indication that this may cause cancer) to your ear but not to have a mast outside your home (no proof of any harm, yet)? Max, that misses the point about CHOICE. There is none with a mast.

As to proof, well the governments own adviser has said that he can't state that there is no danger to health... despite the Government wanting him to.

I'm suprised the Lib Dems haven't suggested placing them only in the poor areas, like they did with the wind turbines. As people in these areas don't mind living amongst eyesores do they?

Originally posted by Tony
Max, that misses the point about CHOICE. There is none with a mast.

As to proof, well the governments own adviser has said that he can't state that there is no danger to health... despite the Government wanting him to.

I agree about the choice thing. I would defend anybody's right to choose not to have a mast outside their home. I was merely putting forward my reasons for not being bothered about having a mast outside my home.

However, as with the wind thingies, where would the residents of Fulwood choose to have the phone mast sited in order for them to enjoy the benefits of said mast? (You understand, I'm asking you to speak on behalf of all the residents of Fulwood:D )

Hehe.. well as a resident of Fulwood, I have perfectly good reception now. And, notwithstanding other residents feelings, I would suggest that existing mast sites are exploited to the full first.

Originally posted by Tony
Of course not, that's for the people in Arbourthorne and Manor to deal with, just as Abdul is rightly concerned with the incinerator that affects him.

Sadly, it's a common misconception that the incinerator only affects peasants in North East Sheffield.

Although the unfortunates that live near to the incinerator enjoy a mortality rate 28% higher than normal, the truth is that due to the location of the incinerator and the special (toxic) waste dump at Shirecliffe being so close to the centre of town, they should be a concern for all Sheffielders.

Those of you who've witnessed the incinerator blowing toxins towards all four corners of Sheffield will know.

Chemical weapons, anyone?

It is quite suprising how many kids and staff at Lydgate school on Lydgate Lane are being affected by cancer at the minute, and there is a big mast next door to it. Coincidence??????

I'm pretty sure that's a police radio mast though, don't think it's used for mobile phone signals but I have been wrong before...

If the kids really are getting ill at Lydgate School I'm sure the mast won't be up there for much longer!!! Do you know how big a problem it is?

I'd heard about that too, but I can't remember where. There are 2 masts incidently, and I think they carry all sorts including BBC, Police, Phones, etc.

They all have different things on now. It is definatly a TV and Radio mast but what else there is i don't know. There are definatly a lot of bits on it.

I know of 2 girls with brain tumours, and the last head died of breast cancer, and i am sure if you ask about there is more. These are just the ones i know of. Will try and find out if there are more, one of the teachers i work with, her daughter is affected.

So not all the kids are affected but it does seem to be a larger number than normal that are appearing in one area.

All those parents who made a fuss about getting their kids into Lydgate must be feeling a bit miffed.

I'd be interested to see something backing up these claims about increased cancer at Lydgate though. I'm not saying it's not true, just that I'm interested.

I think its just the residents of Fulwood getting caught up in mast hysteria (Groan here).

If the mast is under 15 meters the developer (vodaphone orange etc) have Permitted Development Rights - i.e they do not require a planning permission but must seek 'prior approval' from the Council who can they reject the scheme if the developer has not examined all other alternative sites or that the mast will prove aesthetically detrimental to the area. In such instances the Council need not take the publics concerns into account if they choose not to, although the public do have an opportunity to comment they are not statatory consultees

If over 15 metres high then a full planning application is required - the publics concerns then become a 'material consideration' which have to be taken into account by the Council in determnining the application - in each of these cases the Council can reject an application on grounds relating to visual amenity - there is however an opportunity to refuse an application based on the potential harm caused by a particular mast NOT on account of any 'straight forward' concerns of residents' health (as this has not been proved) but on residents health relating to concerns about the PERCEIVED health implications of masts - i.e Mrs Brown becomes very worried about an imposing mast erected at the bottom of her garden and considers that this will affect her health - very difficult to argue this but this has recently been argued successfully (Combe Down Rugby Club - Bath - 15th May 2003)

(Government Document) - PPG8 para 29: 'Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case' SO IN OTHER WORDS PEOPLE - ENOUGH OF YOU OFFER RATIONAL PLANNING BASED ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY A MAST SHOULDN'T GO IN A PARTICULAR PLACE THEN YOU MAY HAVE A CHANCE! and get Mrs Brown to present a case related to a worry - a perceived health risk which could potentially send her under!

this has been a non party polictial broadcast by moi :thumbsup:

Originally posted by bulldog D
I'm suprised the Lib Dems haven't suggested placing them only in the poor areas, like they did with the wind turbines. As people in these areas don't mind living amongst eyesores do they?

What a good idea. :thumbsup:

Despite the fact that there are 400 million mobile phome users worldwide, there isn't one single recorded incident of anyone being damaged by radiation from a mast.

Originally posted by Bushbaby
Despite the fact that there are 400 million mobile phome users worldwide, there isn't one single recorded incident of anyone being damaged by radiation from a mast.

exactly

The trouble is that proving effects will take some time (just like it did with asbestos) and we have only really seen the explosion in mobiles in the last 5 years or so.

There is growing evidence of cancer clusters around them though, and various experts are refusing to be drawn on denying risk.

I remain open minded, but I have this horrible feeling that there will be a big issue about this in a few years time.

operators are getting very good with disguising their masts - on top of school buildings are a particular favourite

the relevant bodies suggest a 'precautionary approach' to mast sites with regards to health risks - i agree that it doesn't exactly instil someone with confidence in arguing the case for them

I wouldn't be surprised if just about everyone in Fulwood has a mobile. If they couldn't get a signal they would be writing to Vodafone / Orange / O2, et al complaining about the lousy signal and asking what they were paying their money for. (The people of Totley weren't happy until a mast was put up behind the Shepley Spitfire to give them a signal).

The more mobiles phones there are the more masts you need. The latest transmission technology, I am told, means you can have lots of very low power masts providing a service to all those in the locality with a mobile - or you can have a very high power mast covering the whole area.

It seems to me that a low power mast with minimal radiation emission is the best compromise - it gives all those nice people in Fulwood the phone signal they want, with minimal emissions.

If they don't want it, they should all hand their mobiles back - they won't need a mast then.

Originally posted by fuzzy
It is quite suprising how many kids and staff at Lydgate school on Lydgate Lane are being affected by cancer at the minute, and there is a big mast next door to it. Coincidence??????

even if this is more than coincidence, I doubt the govt would take any action. i went to hinde house school, played in the barrels of foul smelling stuff at the bottom of the playing field and chased the asbestos down the school fields.....the number of deaths from cancer in the area amongst a particular year of school peers is much higher than the norm...but the govt refuse to investigate it and deny a link.
Great.
sounds like theyre doing the same thing with masts.

:)

I have something of a feel for the Physics behind mobile phone masts - 20 years playing around with VHF and UHF radio as a radio amateur and also on some contracts.

You'll be exposed to a higher signal strength if you're living next to the mast than from your own phone - that's a given due to the fact that the reason the mast is going up is to provide signal coverage. Also, the mast signal will be there 24/7.

Despite what HMG tells us about the effects of low level EM radiation, the jury is still out. In the past there has been some indication of memory loss, loss of concentration, etc in people exposed to higher than normal levels of low power digitally modulated signals (like current phone signals) but the work has proved hard to repeat.

Many of the issues are related to pulse repetition rates and of digital signals (more of an issue with TETRA than with the phone network) and the effects of lowe level RF on cell membrane transport systems in the cells.

You're right to suggest that people should be more concerned about having long conversations on their mobiles, but if that's the case then it would be worth considering what the field strengths are in the houses around the mast compared with the field strengths near an active phone, and hence the power density. For example, if the field strength in someone's house is 10 tiems less than that they get when making a call, they'll still be exposed to a higher power density over the whoe day than they would normally, unless they're making a lot of calls.

I'm not an expert, but have enough respect for microwave-frequency RF radiation to want to keep it away from me as much as I can. Just as my phone stays off much of the day and I make very few calls on it, I'd not want a mast within about 50 metres of my house.

Joe

If you want to know the long term effects of mobile use look at the scandinavian countries, they took on mobile phones waaaaaaaay before anyone else did.

"I had a note pushed through my letterbox"

Happened to me yesterday, different area though. A new one is planned near the church on Blackbrook Rd, Lodge Moor.
Must admit that it doesn't bother me too much. I often wonder if the people who protest are the same people who give phones to their 6 and 7 year old kids.

i once heard that bill yates wanted to introduce satalite mobile phones, so it dident matter where you were throughout the world you would have gr8 transmission,
this would mean a lot of money creating satalites to do the job
but would work out cheaper than poping masts up everywhere.
i think his plans were foild by the already existing phone companys and US government who are not too hapy about the whole thing as it would ultimatly put all other networks worldwide out of buissness.

hes a cleaver man is that bill yates, respek!!

My dad told me that there was talk of erecting mobile phone masts near Fulwood village and disguising them on tall flag poles.
Anyone else heard this? He said Fulwood Church was a possible location.

RESIDENTS hoisted up a 14 metre high pole to protest against plans to erect a mobile phone mast in a leafy Sheffield suburb.

Councillors were today due to consider an application to put up a 'Third Generation' (3G) mast on a residential street in Fulwood.
People who live near the proposed site, at the junction of Crimicar Lane and Brooklands Avenue, say the tall mast would ruin their view over Mayfield Valley.

Fulwood Against Masts (FAM) claim 3G masts - which process picture and video texts - pose more of a health risk than normal masts as they say they emit more radiation.

The application by Hutchisons was originally due to be decided by planning officers, but will now be heard by Sheffield's South planning committee because of the strength of opposition.
More than 880 people have signed a petition against the proposal and 185 residents have written to Sheffield Council to personally object.

Full story here (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=802832)


All that Hutchinson could come up with was "People have to understand that if they want mobile phone technology, then they have to have masts somewhere – they've got to be in someone's backyard.
"I would suspect a great number of these campaigners actually own a mobile phone."

That's the whole point of course.They already have mobiles that work just fine without the extra masts, and there doesn't seem to be a great deal of demand for 3G services seeing as 3 have not yet managed 100,000 susbscribers since launching early last year.

I was a bit suspicious of joining in with this
"Nimby" campaign, but have changed my mind for the following reasons:

1. I am very impressed with the community
campaign, and how well it has been organised, and how well it is supported. As an old CND/anti-war campaigner, it is great to see old ladies of Fulwood waving walking sticks with banners attached.

2. Though I use a mobile phone, masts are an eyesore, especially if they land up right in front of your house. Though there is no threat to my front garden, I fully support anyone who objects to having their local environment destroyed, even at the expense of "a good signal".
Some of the posters on this site sound like they would be happy with a mast in their garden - no problem then, my future mobile use is safeguarded.

3. The way that this government (i.e. John Prescott) can over-ride the local council to look after their big business mates is a disgrace.

4. Everyone who wants to be a Nimby should be one. That is how communities can learn to defend themselves. I am all for local direct action in a worthwhile cause.

My only criticism of the campaign is on the "safety" issue. I have seen no evidence that there is any health risk from mobile phones or masts (apart from driving while using the phone). As pointed out by others, few seem to object to handing their children phones to "fry their brains".
I think they would be better advised to stick to environmental and local democracy issues.

Originally posted by t020
What a good idea. :thumbsup:

Perhaps goes to show why the libs and cons are the same under the shallow surface! :rolleyes:

Communities adjacent to Fulwood can look forward to being lumbered with "their" mast. ;) I remain curious as to how many of these protestors have a mobile of their own or have bought one for their kids?
However to those mobile-less protestors, "Well done", these things are a pestilencial eyesore! To the others, shame on your hypocrisy.
There is no doubt that the mobile itself presents a greater hazard than the mast and that the safest place in proximity to a mast is right underneath it.
I suspect that there may be some harmful effects for certain susceptible individuals. After all, cosmic radiation and background radiation cause a number of cancer deaths every year so it would be no surprise if other continuous low level radiations could do the same.
We shouldn't forget that the Government, the industry and their pet scientists pooh-poohed the suggestion from a minority of experts that there was a connection between overhead power lines and the incidence of cancer and ill health in people living in the proximity. It's taken 30 years to prove this link beyond doubt.
As a Sheffielder though I'd be more concerned about living near Parkwood springs than Fulwood

Nedd, if you check back through the thread you will see that the new masts are 3G masts that are in addition to the existing ones.

The existing phones work just fine. It's not at all hypocritical to not want that additional masts.

I agree with the comments about the community mobilising itself so effectively- it fair brings a tear to your eye! :thumbsup:

Anyway, here is the latest twist

It turns out that Hutchinson have admitted that they already have perfectly adequate coverage in the area but that is achieved by sharing with another telco, which is a little more expensive for them. The new masts are a cost cutting excercise and not a requirement for the network!!!!!.

Originally posted by Tony
The new masts are a cost cutting excercise and not a requirement for the network!!!!!.

Wow Capitalism at work. Whatever next?:rolleyes: :D :thumbsup:

Capitalism isn't perfect and does need controls, and Tony hasn't claimed otherwise. It is still the best economic model we have.

I just wonder how many protester have mobile phones?

about those masts afriend of mine once complaining about wind turbines said "Things like that should be put undrground"


Any protester suggested that yet?

Originally posted by max
Wow Capitalism at work. Whatever next?:rolleyes: :D :thumbsup: There is such a thing as responsible , ethical and respectful corporate behaviour. :P

But the point is that it's democracy in action surely? Even if the locals are having to force the Council's decisions against the Council. I know that the Plannign Dpt are fed up of being piggy in the middle though.

You've got to take your hat off to the locals haven't you?

There was a street march and another site protest last night so todays news will be interesting. It looks like the media are starting to take a big interest in it, and no doubt the latest revelation from Hutchinson won't gain them a deal of sympathy.

Of course I take my hat off to the locals. We had the same issue in Walkley last year and while not actually marching with banners I did support the action against the mast.

I'll have to take your word that there is such a thing as responsible , ethical and respectful corporate behaviour. :D

Originally posted by max
I'll have to take your word that there is such a thing as responsible , ethical and respectful corporate behaviour. :D Well our firm tries hard to do it ;)

Originally posted by Tony

The existing phones work just fine. It's not at all hypocritical to not want that additional masts.

I don't think that any owner of a mobile phone can make a case against the siting of masts and carry the moral high ground.
As to the duplication of masts countrywide, the government should enforce the sharing of masts so that the numbers can be reduced.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
I don't think that any owner of a mobile phone can make a case against the siting of masts and carry the moral high ground.
That's total cobblers Nedd. Try having one proposed for the grass verge in front of YOUR house.

The Fulwood one is literally in the grass verge, right next to (as in 6 inches from) the garden wall of an ordinary house, not in the middle of a field. It is about 10 yards from bedroom windows.

Can you see what this particular fuss is about? This is not a suis-general situation, it might as well be in the front gardens of the people living around it.

I understand that one is being put up in Archer Road. I'm concerned because its near my baby daughters nursery called Kids unlimited and if these do any harm it is babes that are most at risk.

Anyone know about this or have a phone numberfor protestor groups

Cheers

David

I do feel sorry for anyone who has a phone mask next to their house, but come on, the people of Fulwood wouldn't actually be happy if they didn't have something to campaign against.

Well I hardly think that's fair. What other things do they moan about?

Originally posted by davew
I understand that one is being put up in Archer Road. I'm concerned because its near my baby daughters nursery called Kids unlimited and if these do any harm it is babes that are most at risk.

Anyone know about this or have a phone numberfor protestor groups

Cheers

David


too solve this problem, simply construct a small dish shaped hat for your child made out of tin foil and put it on when it goes to the nursery.

Well supertram is one that comes to mind.

I think that you will find that was Ranmoor and Broomhill, not Fulwood. :P

However, I know many, many people that would welcome the tram in Fulwood. Travelling into town from Fulwood means that we have to do every bit of congestion going, and trams would be a boon!

You've clearly no experience of 18 month old babies - the dish would be pulled off immediately and probably put in her mouth - result Aluminium poisoning

Ah... but that's much more humane than gradual frying of the brain ;)

to be honest phone mast's dont bother me, health wise any way,
because i smoke and drink any way

oops, my bad.:D

News: New phone mast ban call

LIB DEMS in Sheffield are calling for a return of a ban on mobile phone masts on all council owned land.

Full story here (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=829032)

Apparently, the Labour Party lifted the ban on masts that the Lib Dems put in place whilst in power. Shame on them!! :nono:

this one goes out to daver!!
i live on that road so i will put you straight, i think if you have a 3 contract then you will get a better signal if not you wont!! ok!
the reason it is outside someones house is because when rules changed it allowed masts to go up on council ground not private land as before.. come and have a look at the tiny bit of grass they intend to put it on.. its about 6 by 6 foot!! and in front of someones kitchen window. cheers for the helpful and considerate post though!

Hi Folks

It amazes me that people are so concerned about their health, all of a sudden!

I would love to take a good look at the people windging about these masts!

I wonder what percentage of them smoke,Drink, are obese, don't do any exercise?

I could equally complain about this, for this does indeed bear some weight on health issues that has scientific proof to substatiate the damage smoking, been overweight ,drinking, lack of exercise can do!

Yet, these masts have no evidence, neither has mobile phones!

You could say, that maybe its none of my business wether people smoke, drink, are obese, dont do any exercise, but as a question of money it is, I have to subsidise the national health service to support these morons, who ironically pay the same amonut of revenue as me, yet I look after myself!

What these ignorant people fail to see, is that electro magnetic waves are all around us, there is more generated in the home of a higher magnitude, than from a mast half a mile away, even tens of yards away!

Its because they can see the obvious source!

It would help people like this, if they investigated the damage that could be possibly caused by these masts, measure the power emitted from them and compare it with what is produced in the home, they may be surprised!

Always back up with evidence, otherwise your story is weak and feeble.

Heres a few links for you to digest, whilst on that exercise bike>

How EMF's, Mobile Phones and their transmission Masts DO affect our health
Compiled by Steve Gamble
http://www.equilibra.uk.com/emfnewinfo.shtml
- Here is a more detailed article on effects of cell phone radiation
on the body, though I find this article a bit biased toward the
anti-mobile phone side.

Mobile phone radiation evidence "inconclusive" - January 14, 2004
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040114/36/ejemb.html

University of Bath - Public Relations - Press releases
http://www.bath.ac.uk/pr/releases/cellphones-book

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Mobile masts 'not harmful' - January 15, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1123220,00.html

Darlington - Mobile phone masts
http://www.darlingtontown.co.uk/newsfile/mobile_phone_masts.shtml

FADER - Mobile phone mast radiation health - Dr Hyland report, Nov. 2000
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/faderuk/Health/Reports/Dr_Hyland/dr_hyland.html

Are radio masts in schools a health risk?
http://www.sep.org.uk/downloads/rad_env_act3.pdf


Regards

Mark. .

PS, although I do believe you have a point of an asthetic nature, they should not be placed in the paths of peoples views from their homes. .

I read in the paper yesterday that the further you are away from a mobile phone mast the more your phone has to boost it's signal, by upto 600%, meaning more microwaves are beamed straight into your head.

The article said that this was far more dangerous than living next to the mast.

I know people are against these masts but I don't think they realise that the phone is also dangerous, to the person using it.

I don't have a mobile phone BTW.

What annoys me is how people blindly assume that masts are a danger when they have little or no understanding of the science behind them.

Where would you place a Mast? Ontop of a school or 500m from a village?

Now the Anti-Mast brigade will instantly say 500m from a village, but if there is a danger from masts putting it ontop of a school would be the safest for the kids. (because of how microwaves are transmitted)

I have very little (actually no) understanding of how mobile phones work but it seems to make sense to me that if you are near the mast then your signal won't need to be as strong, and your ear won't eventually mutate into some hiddeous monster (which I'm convinced will hapen to everyone who uses a mobile phone).

I have to be honest now - long after starting the thread. I'm not convinced either way by the science or the rhetoric, and I live within 500m of that mast proposal.

What amazes me is the depth of commitment of the community. Something that is often sadly lacking. Right or wrong, I applaud them.

They have MADE the powers that be sit up and listen to their fears.

I agree with Tony (well it was bound to happen one of these days :D ), what has impressed me was the community commitment and campaigning skills. If only communities would expend this amount of energy on some of the other issues that we have rather than the flood of apathy that seems to be the norm

Originally posted by nick2
I have very little (actually no) understanding of how mobile phones work but it seems to make sense to me that if you are near the mast then your signal won't need to be as strong, and your ear won't eventually mutate into some hiddeous monster (which I'm convinced will hapen to everyone who uses a mobile phone).

and you are closer to the apparent "dangerous" masts, so its a lose-lose situation apparently!

The science says there is "little to no risk", if you want to see any "long term" effects look at the people of sweden and finland, they look normal and theyve been using microwave technology for comms. longer than any developed country in the world!!

I take it the result of this thread resurrection is because of the BBC programme on Thursday evening?

What I found bad was that the phone companies refused to co-operate and the phone dealers couldn't be bothered dishing out the safety leaflets.

Originally posted by Tony
I have to be honest now - long after starting the thread. I'm not convinced either way by the science or the rhetoric, and I live within 500m of that mast proposal.

What amazes me is the depth of commitment of the community. Something that is often sadly lacking. Right or wrong, I applaud them.

They have MADE the powers that be sit up and listen to their fears.

I'm not sure about the science either... but I've written my letter against the appeal because I just don't really want it to be there! I haven't been able to get signal on my mobile since I moved here and I've actually got used to not using it anymore!

Incidentally, whereabouts are you Tony? I'm relatively new to the area and I live within 10m of the proposed site.

[i]

You could say, that maybe its none of my business wether people smoke, drink, are obese, dont do any exercise, but as a question of money it is, I have to subsidise the national health service to support these morons, who ironically pay the same amonut of revenue as me, yet I look after myself!

[/B]

Rubbish.

If you don't smoke, drink, overeat, or drive everywhere, then you don't pay anything like the tax that I do.

Maybe we could tax smug self satisfaction, then you could get near to the tax burden that us "morons" bear.

benn working in that area today and noticed a few banners and people handing out flyers etc..objecting to a phone mast being errected i just wonderd how many of these protesters own a moblie phone..my guess..all of them..bit hypotrical don't ya think?

Maybe if protesters succeed in blocking the installation of a mobile phone mast it should be replaced by a mobile phone jammer instead?

It really is daft though, don't the protesters realise that the signal output from these masts is miniscule. Why don't they go and protest at Crosspool - look at the size of that transmitter!

- MJP

christsakes! The signal strength is bad enough round gleadless! Wheres this protest exactly? I fancy going down and talking loudly into my mobile

I ahave a mobile but hate them.Only carry it around with me coz our lass moans a me.

i might go upto emly moor and protest about the tv mast......my gran died of cancer and she watched yorkshire tv all the time..i'm sure they must be a connection

Is this going to be like the Fulwood Mast protest all over again ?

If you have a mobile I don't see how you have just cause to complain :suspect:

Originally posted by kirky
benn working in that area today and noticed a few banners and people handing out flyers etc..objecting to a phone mast being errected i just wonderd how many of these protesters own a moblie phone..my guess..all of them..bit hypotrical don't ya think?

Obviously lots of them will have mobile phones and guess what......they all work perfectly well without any more masts.

These are being introduced because of the upgraded phones they want us to buy so they can justify the huge amounts they paid for licences.

as i work in the area regular i can assure you they don't work perfectly..infact its a pain in the arse working around the plowright/spotswood area in the dip..no signal at all

It drives me mad that so much effort is expended by phone mast protesters in Sheffield about an issue that is almost certainly non-existant (the health risk aspects that is) when the potential health risks posed by the waste incinerator at Bernard Road and the Parkwood landfill site are many and obvious.

If you climbed a phone mast and stuck your face against an antenna, you may get burnt (you may possibly have to wait a while too). This heating is the only known effect of radio waves on human tissue found after decades of research and use of radio, and to say "radio waves have unkown effects on humans" (a slogan I've seen around recently) at least makes me smile with its stupidity. Must remember to use that in everyday situations - "Toast has unknown effects on humans!". You should be much more worried over skin cancer from exposure to sunlight, "ooh, look at my lovely tan...." you mean "look at my obvious exposure to UV radiation generated by that big nuclear reactor up there" don't you?

I'm not going to go into the full reasoning why I believe phone masts are not dangerous to health, but I do know what I'm talking about with radio (I'm a licenced station an regularly calculate exposure limits). I think the only way a radio mast could hurt you is if you climbed it and snogged the antennas, fell off one or it fell on you. Or worried yourself to death over it.

Incinerators and landfills though - there is an easy one.
Lead, cadmium, arsenic, dioxins, all manner of chlorinated toxins, microscopic dust particles that lodge in your lungs, fires, explosions. All without exception KNOWN risks to human health and all at an incinerator or landfill near you, and there are both in the heart of Sheffield.

Of course there are safeguards that are supposed to keep these nasty things away from us or at safe levels, but safeguards can and often do fail. The current incinerator broke emission limits over a hundred times one year after 'improved' safeguards were fitted. The new one is supposed to be cleaner, but then so was the old one. I guess what I'm getting at is that the danger is there and incontrovertible. It only takes an accident to unleash it, and these accidents happen all the time.

Stop whining about the masts nimby's, start shouting about the real killers in your city.

'radio waves?' tis sorcery i tells yee!!

I think theres one at the top of Barrie Crescent in shirecliffe and i lived there for years and never had any problems, even my third arm was fine 'twitch' 'twitch'

All the gossip in London recently is that one Mr. Guglielmo Marconi has succeeded in his experiments to pass telegraphic messages between remote sites without the use of wires! He calls his miraculous invention "Radio".

Why, it can surely only be a matter of time before we can expect each person to own their own portable "Radio Set" by which means they will be able to send and receive messages across many miles!

All of course with the assumption that there will be no ill effects from using the aforementioned device... only time will tell!!

- MJP

Originally posted by kirky
as i work in the area regular i can assure you they don't work perfectly..infact its a pain in the arse working around the plowright/spotswood area in the dip..no signal at all

Yup, I have friends down there and even Orange have claimed that its not working properly

Originally posted by kirky
as i work in the area regular i can assure you they don't work perfectly..infact its a pain in the arse working around the plowright/spotswood area in the dip..no signal at all

I am sitting there right now as I do several days a week and my phone works perfectly well.

These mobile phone masts are great. I hope they don't stop until there is 100% mobile phone coverage. I wouldn't mind living next to a mast.

And here's something that proves that you can't educate pork, there's just been some idiot on the TV going on about how she doesn't want a mobile phone mast building across the road from her saying how they cause cancer and her children will get cancer due to the mobile phone mast ...

... in her hand ... packet of 20 B&H's, now if and when the kids end up with cancer due to passive smoking, guess who's going to get the blame ... got it in one, the mobile phone mast. Chances are the mast will have contributed nothing to their case, but their mother's dirty habit will (and that is fact, as opposed to the phone mast theory which sounds dodgy)

Originally posted by halevan

It is laughable to see them harming their bodies all the time mobile phone's, boozing, smoking, Illegal drug's, staying up half the night, sex with anyone anytime, exposing themselves to illness and disease, Don't they want to live? [/B]

I agree with u on some of this but living is exactly hat thy(me)are doing!

some quote from Wilde springs to mind about everyone is born but only some of us really live :help:

Originally posted by halevan
Don't make me laugh! having fun? Living? you must be joking. I have more fun than a lot much younger than me but I don't sit in smokey room's that choke me, call that fun? I haven't forgotten mate, no way, I am just as alert as you are.

sound a little defensive there Hal :confused:

Originally posted by J_Horizontal



... in her hand ... packet of 20 B&H's,

Puts me in mind of a woman on local news the other day harping on about how her little angel had been unfairly kicked out of school for some reason. Sitting there on the sofa, little teeny yob sitting snuggled up to her looking all innocent, her pleading about how his welfare was her main concern..........fag in hand and smoke floating straight into his face. ON TELLY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!

Wonderful mum.:loopy:

That was that 10 year old from Bradford wasn't it (kid not the mother)!

It made me laugh too :)

There was an interesting talk about electrosmog on at Cafe Scientifique last week pointing out that your mobile phone uses radio waves (yes radio not microwaves!) in the same sort of frequency as TV transmissions and the average TV transmitter is in the 5KW power region where the average mobile phone transmitter is in the 0.5 KW region - so why the sudden uproar about mobile phone masts and not about the much more powerfull TV transmitters???

i'm a journalism student and am doing a piece on the 3G pylon being put up on ecclesall road. i'd like to know if anybody has any strong opinions on the topic they'd like to share. there was a big protest there yesterday so obviously a lot of people aren't happy about it!
thanks, charlotte

I'll be in a minority I guess, but I'm all for it. Mobile signals in general round that area are poor and working nearby and with a (non-"3" network) 3G phone, I could do with a better signal. And before anyone says it, no - I wouldn't mind if one were erected at end of MY road either.

What are people protesting about? Is it the miniscule radio emissions or the potential affect on property prices of a nearby aerial?

I think a lot of people are concerned about the lack of scientific evidence to say that they are safe. There isn't any concise, hard evidence to suggest that they are safe OR dangerous and this is causing public concern. There are scientists who believe that EMFs can cause cancer and childhood leukemia (their research has provided evidence to suggest links). EMFs are widely regarded as carcinogenic.

People are right to protest until their minds have been set at ease which isn't going to happen at the moment because there is too much conflicting evidence.

Surely it's better to er on the side of caution with matters of public safety?

Is having a strong signal on your mobile phone really that important that we should throw caution to the wind and stick masts up all over without considering the long term health effects not only for mobile phone users, but for everyone who lives close to masts?

i think the minority are against
the protest has been hijacked by politicians who if they were not in opposition would be keeping quiet
if people want a real health concern on ecclesall road they should protect about traffic

"if people want a real health concern on ecclesall road they should protect about traffic"

What consitutes a "real" health concern? While I agree that the traffic on Ecclesall Road is bad and does need addressing, you can't dismiss people's concerns about phone masts as not being "real".

People are genuinely concerned about the health risks and the lack of evidence to suggest that phone masts are safe.

I read somewhere that having a poor signal on your mobile is more harmfull to you as the mobile tries to boost it's signal to compensate, meaning your brain gets more radiation.

I totally agree with people protesting...If the don't own a mobile phone!

Re-reading my earlier post I look like a bit of a selfish git, I'm not really. The subsequent posts seem to sum it up - without any proof of any ill-effects (and I believe research has been done(?)) I'm curious on the reasons behind protesting against the mast.

Originally posted by nick2
I read somewhere that having a poor signal on your mobile is more harmfull to you as the mobile tries to boost it's signal to compensate, meaning your brain gets more radiation.

Any links to support this?

Originally posted by hotphil
Re-reading my earlier post I look like a bit of a selfish git, I'm not really. The subsequent posts seem to sum it up - without any proof of any ill-effects (and I believe research has been done(?)) I'm curious on the reasons behind protesting against the mast.

People are protesting because there is no proof to say that masts are safe either and when people are concerned about their and their families health, surely it is better to wait until there has been full research and information made available to the public.

Scientists have already found links between EMFs and cancer so it would make sense to further this research because at the moment, it's inconclusive.

"At present four major studies are being carried out into the dangers from the masts, including the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study and the World Health Organisation EMF Project."

If the people who protested about masts didn't own phones, which undoubtedly carry a greater risk than masts, I'd be a bit more sympathetic.
My objection is that they are a b****y horrible blot on the landscape and I suspect that if most of the protestors were honest they would admit the same.
However to the pro-mast lobby I would say: absence of evidence is not the same as absence of risk. I'm sure that John Gummer would belatedly agree with this reasoning!

It's easy to be reminded of politicians previous ***** ups and bad information in regards to the public's health. BSE, thalidomide, MMR etc etc, although I'm definately not trying to compare these to mobile phone masts.

I have no issues with people protesting at all. however I did find it a bit annoying that the protesters were making a lot of noise involving drums last weekend at 4am when people were trying to sleep. the only people in the area they had to protest at were the contractors and possibly the police. Both were standing right next to them, so couldn't they have had a quiet chat and waved some banners?

If the good people of Fulwood are so health conscious, why don't they start with things that they can directly affect, like leaving their 4x4s at home instead of taking little Reginald or Britney the 50 yards to school.

There is evidence thaht walking is good for you and I hereby propose that if you walk past a mobile phone mast, the net health effect would be positive - remember you heard it here first!

Why was there no outcry from the people of Fulwood when the masts went up in other parts of Sheffield?

NIMBLG
(Not in my Big Leafy Garden)

Litotes

Arguments like that just don't hold water. Peoples concerns about mobile phone masts are not unacceptable just because they drive a car. :loopy: Maybe they shouldn't object because they don't like cheese either?

As for other parts of Sheffield, well isn't the answer blindingly obvious? The people of Fulwood live in Fulwood. :shakes:

BTW, I see quite a few 'walking buses' around these parts, and an awful lot of the cars coming in are from other parts of the city because Fulwood / Ranmoor / Broomhill is where the good schools are.

There are genuine concerns on (at least) 2 counts.

Firstly the lack of evidence that they are safe. This may seem strange, but at the moment there seems to be no real evidence that there is no problem, and people draw parallels with other things that were thought to be OK until it hit the fan. Thalidomide springs to mind.

Secondly, there is accepted practice in much of Europe that masts are sited something like a minimum of 500m from schools etc.



Would you support peoples right to protest if it wasn't Fulwood? I don't see many complaints about the folk in Foxhill and their protests. Jealousy perhaps?

There was a woman outside my workplace yesterday morning, trying to get people to sign a petition against a proposed mobile phone mast near Manor Top. She was speaking on her mobile as I approached, so when she asked me to sign I told her I couldn't as I have a mobile myself and so I thought it would be rather hypocritical of me to sign it. She said Ok and looked a bit embarrassed lol

Originally posted by fyybj
Any links to support this?

No, just something I read, I'm not claiming it's a scientific fact.

But I'm sure the mobile manufacturers can confirm or deny their phone increase the output to compensate for a lack of signal or not and obviously that extra radiation is going to go through the users head.

As usual people have no idea of perspective, sorry if this is going to upset anyone (it isn't personal).

Safety - masts up right next to someone's house or by a school isn't sensible IMHO, and I can understand complaints. However your mobile phone is far, far more dangerous if you are worried about EM radiation. Moving the phone just an extra centremetre away from your head will massively reduce the risks. A small distance has a big effect, and the same goes for the masts themselves.

Much more to the point tho. If there is an effect, of your mobile phone let alone of a mast (all unproven), it's massively insignificant compared with the risks of bad diet, fast food, lack of exercise, smoking, drinking, even driving, etc.

I do wish people would have some perspective sometimes.

Since most complaining use mobiles, its the NIMBY effect - Not In My Back Yard.

Am willing to bet most complaining have little or no idea of the science involved and are following the current trend of "believe anything other than what the vast majority of scientists/doctors say". This probably goes back to the govt's BSE stance which also lead to the disgraceful MMR research.

Tony, our esteemed moderator wrote

"Arguments like that just don't hold water. Peoples concerns about mobile phone masts are not unacceptable just because they drive a car. Maybe they shouldn't object because they don't like cheese either?"

If he has the time, or inclination to review the posting to which (I presume) he was referring, he would have seen that what I proposed was not in fact an argument, just a suggestion that people could have an immediate proven health benefit by walking, rather than complaining about a perceived health threat which is, as yet, unproven.

As for his comments about Fulwood, at least there he is transparent in accepting that he is a NIMBY.

Originally posted by Tony

There are genuine concerns on (at least) 2 counts.

Firstly the lack of evidence that they are safe. This may seem strange, but at the moment there seems to be no real evidence that there is no problem, and people draw parallels with other things that were thought to be OK until it hit the fan. Thalidomide springs to mind.







To be fair there is just as much a lack of evidence to say they are unsafe!!!
I would question many of the protestors actual reason for protesting. Methinks the majority just don't want a large lampost near their house.
Any worries over mobile phone masts should surely run parallel with any worries over the actual use of mobile phones. Again evidence to confirm 100% safety or not doesn't exist but people are still happy to use the phones.

"To be fair there is just as much a lack of evidence to say they are unsafe!!!"

That's exactly the point, there's no evidence to suggest either way so surely it's better to wait until there is concrete proof that they are indeed safe before we start sticking them up all over the place? A bit too late now anyway.

I don't own a mobile phone btw, and it's not a concern regarding my personal health but the health of everyone that COULD be affected and it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a public health enquiry was made when it was already too late.

It's a shame that people are labeled whingers when they express concern, everyone has the right to protest about things they feel strongly about. We should be praising the fact that a community have got of their arses and stood up to something they feel is wrong.

Originally posted by fyybj
"To be fair there is just as much a lack of evidence to say they are unsafe!!!"

That's exactly the point, there's no evidence to suggest either way so surely it's better to wait until there is concrete proof that they are indeed safe before we start sticking them up all over the place? A bit too late now anyway.

I don't own a mobile phone btw, and it's not a concern regarding my personal health but the health of everyone that COULD be affected and it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a public health enquiry was made when it was already too late.

It's a shame that people are labeled whingers when they express concern, everyone has the right to protest about things they feel strongly about. We should be praising the fact that a community have got of their arses and stood up to something they feel is wrong.
There's health concerns about a lot of things but we don't wait for proof..especially if it's for our convenience. I don't see protests about the actual use of mobile phones and people saying "lets wait and ban them until there is conclusive evidence that they don't fry our brain"
People only protest when it suits them and they think their house price may suffer.
Its typical of peoples attitude nowadays. We are whingers.
We all want more coverage for our phones but we don't want the masts.
We all want eco friendly energy but we don't want the wind turbines where we can see them.
We all want more recycling but we don't want too many bins clogging our precious gardens.
Its a f****d up world we live in.

fyybj - you say we should wait for conclusive evidence.

The only conclusive evidence, if it will ever exist, will be in 100 years time. Thats the nature of the beast.

You have to make use of past research, present research, and knowledge of physics, chemisty and biology. From there scientists and people should make an educated decision.

Originally posted by Litotes
As for his comments about Fulwood, at least there he is transparent in accepting that he is a NIMBY.
I think you should review what 'our esteemed moderator' said because I'm certainly not a NIMBY. I do applaud the protesters for their stance and for making an effort, and I'm personally not convinced of science of either the 'pro' or 'anti' argument on mobile masts.

I still don't see any correlation with walking and mobiles though. :loopy:

This hutchinson mast is only going to be put up so that people in this area can send video messages,pictures etc.
the plans have been met with disapproval by our town councillors who are writing to object.
and totally dislike the idea of maybe putting little childrens lives at risk so people can take pictures with their phones.

I shall definately be writing to complain to sheffield city council.
we have only been given till november 3rd to send in objections.
isnt there any other worried parents in the deepcar area ?
what at the moment is being done by ordinary people to at least try and prevent this.
If there is an action group for this in this area will someone let me know.
this is the first ive read about this.
the local paper have interviewed someone who has the 3 mobile
and he was complaining he could only use the phone and text part of his phone and had to move to another area to take pictures with his phone.
(POOR HIM)

Maybe they should put the mast in his front garden then.

do you own a mobile?

As ive already stated this mast is not being put up for mobile phone calls as the people with the 3 mobiles can already recieve calls in this area.
its just simply to allow them to take pictures.
the other masts near my area are miles up in the countryside -not near junior schools.where my phone would transmit to.
this is not an ordinary mast from the looks of it it must be more powerful or the councillors wouldnt object.
and all for the sake of taking pictures.
Is there anyone who knows anything about 3G MASTS.?
as im very worried.
Yes we can all own up to having a mobile but the masts should not be put within a mile of a school.
for taking pictures or otherwise.
and if i lived in the other areas id protest too.

Have you got one of these 3G's near your childs school kirky.?

The 3G network relies on having stronger signal strength to support the wider bandwidth applications - like video messaging, and eventually stuff like viewing video clips online and such.

When a 3G phone can't get a strong enough signal it drops back to the normal 2G network for sending and receiving standard voice calls and texts.

The radiation issues with regard to a 3G are different to GSM and '2.5G' emissions. The GSM and 2.5G emissions are pulsed waveforms, and the 3G stuff is continuous. There are suggestions that pulsed waveforms are more likely to have an effect of living cells than a continuous waveform, but the jury is out on the whole issue of long term effects from cellular phone masts.

I'd like to go back to having a pager and a good network of BT landline phone boxes....

Joe

Originally posted by tara
As ive already stated this mast is not being put up for mobile phone calls as the people with the 3 mobiles can already recieve calls in this area.
its just simply to allow them to take pictures.
the other masts near my area are miles up in the countryside -not near junior schools.where my phone would transmit to.
this is not an ordinary mast from the looks of it it must be more powerful or the councillors wouldnt object.
and all for the sake of taking pictures.
Is there anyone who knows anything about 3G MASTS.?
as im very worried.
Yes we can all own up to having a mobile but the masts should not be put within a mile of a school.
for taking pictures or otherwise.
and if i lived in the other areas id protest too.

Have you got one of these 3G's near your childs school kirky.?

there is a mast near the school but i'm not sure if its 3g but i'm sure every net work must have a mast near schools or other public buildings

Sorry, I couldn't let this one go.

tara, you're complaining to the council regarding something you know nothing about? A complaint based on unproven/unfinished research and news hysteria?

Mobile phone masts are absolutely everywhere some noticeable, some not. Ever wondered what those street light poles are that look like no one has ever got around to putting the light on top? Mobile companies even utilise the empty space in the top of public phone boxes to house transmitters. The list is endless. You're probably alot nearer to mobile masts than you think.

As to the health risks, well lets face it everything makes you ill. Eating, sleeping, walking through town, driving etc etc. Where do you draw the line? If you're driving on the motorway and your child has the window open do you warn them of the carcinogens and tell them to close it? You can't even lock yourself in a room and never go out because someone somewhere will do some research to suggest that, I don't know, carpets give you cancer.

I'm not having a go but I just think the whole subject is ridiculous.

I knew I'd find this in the end http://www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk/

Have a little wander around Sheffield and see what you find.

I'll be looking at the price board at the Shell station on Ecclesall Road very closely tomorrow!

well said rich,i agree with everything you said but i couldn't be arsed to type it:)

i remember years ago a simlar scare about microwave ovens:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Besides, your kid is probably already hankering after a mobile, so he'll be glad of gettting decent reception.

Whats a little microwaves going to do to the little beggers?

Stop worrying about masts and start worrying about other things like the amount of cr*p you feed the kids at Mcdonalds everyweek.

PS. Do you drive a 4x4? like a tank?

Tara, I'm with some of the others on here. There are far, far more significant things to worry about that definately affect children's health.

Also 3G is not about being able to take or send pictures, you can do that anyway.

Incidentally having a microwave at home, sitting in front of a tv, sitting in front of a computer (or particularly behind someone else's monitor) - all nice sources of em radiation for you.

Every now and then parents get all hyped up usually by something in the media and feel they have to protect their child from some horrible thing. The latest thing is the dreaded mobile phone mast that do seem to be springing up everywhere. Top of the christmas present list for an awful lot of children though is the latest phone, stop buying the pesky things and then there wont be the same demand for more and more masts and phones able to do more and more.

I agree about the media putting the frighteners on parents...

For instance the 'news' was flooded today with stories about how a large percentage of parents never let their kids play out.

Considering that back in my day, perverts couldn't get their rocks-off by just sitting at home and happily clicking away, á la Glitter, surely we were in far more danger, yet we weren't being kept in, and neither were we in constant danger of being abducted.

The mind boggles.

Its like walking/driving to work People are paranoid about abductions (6 a year according to the Indie yesterday) but driving your child to work is actually statistically more dangerous, not to mention the pollutants spewing out everywhere, especially near the school - proven to be harmful.

Mention radiation and people go all funny in the head.

Shoud add that I totally understand being protective of family, young and old, and nothing wrong with tara (etc) asking questions here.

Originally posted by miggy
Mention radiation and people go all funny in the head.

Maybe it's due to all the mobile phone radiation ;)

Originally posted by rinty
Maybe it's due to all the mobile phone radiation ;)

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

i was waiting for that:)

Originally posted by kirky
:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

i was waiting for that:)

Glad to oblige :)

Thanks joepritchard very informative.

oh rich1068 i can think of a lot of threads a lot more pointless than this.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=183884#post183884

just for the record im not the sort of parent who drives her child to school because she thinks he'll be safer. are you? evildrneil.
my child walks to school and is allowed to play out ,even in woods.
i am not paranoid.
I know where the masts are as ive seen website. I was worried about this certain 3g mast .
which only joepritchard has been able to inform me about.
How many of you give your children the freedom they should have.
I happen to believe theres more danger from certain idiot car drivers on the roads than on playing fields or woods.
so dont call me a paranoid mother.
oh and as for radiation from indoors perhaps people who never let their kids out should be more worried .

Erm I didn't mention anything about people driving their children nor did I call anyone a paranoid mother - did you actually read the link? It was pointing out the simple fact that a mobile phone transmitter operates on a very similar frequency to TV transmitters (i.e. well into the non ionising part of the EM spectrum) but is typically around one tenth to one twentieth of the power. Television transmitters have been around for many years without any problem so why the sudden concern with these much less powerfull transmitters?

I suppose part of the difference between TV transmitters and mobile phone transmitters is that people see the latter around them. The power output is much less, though, and you do indeed get a higher 'spot' exposure to RF from the handset than from the base stations.

The other issue with mobile base station transmissions is that they're digital, and pulsed waveforms do have more capability for dumping energy in to biological systems due to the rapid rise and fall times of the signals.

BUT....the power levels from the base stations are very low and, as I've said, the jury is still out. But the fact that there IS a lack of definitive information on the subject does make people nervous.

With many technological issues the perceived dangers are often more of a problem than the real dangers.

Joe

We had a cat that was in constant danger of being attack when a man moved into the area with a lot of dogs. There was nothing we could do, so in the end we had to have the cat put down.

Just a suggestion.

Originally posted by smedley
We had a cat that was in constant danger of being attack when a man moved into the area with a lot of dogs. There was nothing we could do, so in the end we had to have the cat put down.

Just a suggestion.

so if evryone kills their cats the problem will be solved......nice one i hate cats:D

Originally posted by smedley
We had a cat that was in constant danger of being attack when a man moved into the area with a lot of dogs. There was nothing we could do, so in the end we had to have the cat put down.

Just a suggestion.

I like the relevancy of this post......

Assuming you're not trolling, why not give the cat to a rehoming organisation?

Joe

My point is I obviously didn't or wouldn't ahve had my cat put down. Likewise, I am not going to worry about my kids playing in the woods, walking past pylons, eating junk, or whatever.

They're kids. Playing out, climbing trees, building dens and generally 'tear-arsing' around gives them the essential exercise they need to burn off the junk they eat.

The stuff I most enjoyed as a kid was being given that bit of freedom by my parents to go off and explore.

You can't wrap them up in cotton wool or they'll not learn life-lessons as they're developing, then when you release them into the big, wide world, they'll ahve to learn everything all at once, more than likely not be able to handle it, start self-harming, vomiting-up every meal they eat, before moving on to killing squirrels, and who knows...

They may then become (gulp)... Lorry drivers!!!

Originally posted by smedley


They may then become (gulp)... Lorry drivers!!!

or worse still bus drivers:shocked:

I know a kid who got three months for hitting a bus driver...

Should've been knighted.

Originally posted by JoePritchard


I'd like to go back to having a pager and a good network of BT landline phone boxes....

Joe

You're not serious?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
You're not serious?

hehehe.....

Semi-serious. I work in many places where cell-phones don't always work terribly well, but the older pager signals always got through.

Pagers were less intrusive - I didn't have to answer immediately and felt more in control of my time. Of course, I can do the same with my mobile by leaving the little blighter turned off and pick messages up a couple of tiems a day, which is what I do when working in some places.

Of course, if there WAS an immediate need to repond and you weren't near a phone it was a bit awkward, but even in my days as an 'on call' tech support bod that rarely happened.

Pagers are passive - they're not constantly sending a radio signal to let the network know where they are. In some environments in which I've worked a pulsed RF signal every 5 minutes or so from a phone used to cause engineers to have a fit until they realised what it was. Of course, you can turn a cell phone off, but with a pager, no need...:)

So...semi-serious. Just depends what you want to use the technology for. I've got a very basic cell phone and effectively use it as a pager, for returning messages and for emergencies.

I have no wish to text, send videos, watch the news or play games on my phone!

Joe

I haven't got as mobile and my mates can't understand how I manage to live in the modern world without one.

The thing is that people managed ok before they were invented.

I don't think they are as essential as people think they are.

Originally posted by nick2
I haven't got as mobile and my mates can't understand how I manage to live in the modern world without one.

The thing is that people managed ok before they were invented.

I don't think they are as essential as people think they are.

ive got 4 and couldn't run my buisness the way i do without them....it would cost me a fortune in petrol.....

Originally posted by kirky
ive got 4 and couldn't run my buisness the way i do without them....it would cost me a fortune in petrol.....

I'm trying to think of a job where having a mobile would involve less driving, but I can't. What do you do.

Originally posted by nick2
I'm trying to think of a job where having a mobile would involve less driving, but I can't. What do you do.

visual pannel cleansing technition......i have 6 lads that work in pairs..i drop them off in a morning...collect stuff off them at dinner time..and again when we finish as we work all over sheffield it would be difficult to do this if i couldn't find them....

I don't really think of it as a phone anymore, more of a combined comms computer with a handy phone app. You can switch off the RF for use in hospitals, aircraft etc if required, but still have all the rest of the PDA type stuff active. It's handy, but not essential, although, like the internet, it would take me a few weeks to adjust to living without.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I don't really think of it as a phone anymore, more of a combined comms computer with a handy phone app. You can switch off the RF for use in hospitals, aircraft etc if required, but still have all the rest of the PDA type stuff active. It's handy, but not essential, although, like the internet, it would take me a few weeks to adjust to living without.

Being equally Luddite in that respect, I have an ancient Palm Pilot for a PDA and a paper notebook!

:)

ive just seen them putting up a mast on skyedge..right beside the pigeon lofts........poor pigeons i bet they don't win any races next season..all that radiation will play havoc on their homming devices

It might cook the poor little buggers.

Originally posted by kirky
visual pannel cleansing technition :confused:

You're a window cleaner then!

Thing is, I bet a good percentage of the children at the school own mobiles and their parents don't seem to batter an eyelid with regards to the effect it's having on their health, but as soon as a big steel structure goes up the same parents are up in arms. :loopy:

Im sorry but im not convinced.
I still dont think there is any need for a 3g mast .
ive searched the mobile phone base station site and actually there are very few masts in this area,so why when weve got good signals anyway, slap a pointless 3g mast near a school just for video messaging.
the mobile 3 user who was interviewed stated,"I have to leave the area to make FULL use of it,I CAN ONLY PHONE AND TEXT HERE."
So contrary to your belief miggy,it IS only about video messaging
and picture sending. .
this fact was also seconded by councillor
martin brelsford .
I own a mobile phone but, well put it this way £10 will last me weeks and weeks so thats how much i use mine.
Yes the danger element evidence is not conclusive either way
so how can anyone say i dont know what im talking about.
time will tell.

And tvs have been around for years and probably not done much harm but whose to say these 3g masts are gonna be the same.

the whole point of this post was to protest about 3g masts being put up for the use of video messaging and picture taking.
some have missed the point.
yes there may be lots of masts around but where will it all end if nobody has the guts to make a stand.
just because they are already there doesnt mean we cant protest at more and more going up.


oh and my son isnt having one for christmas.

Tara, I'm a mobile developer so I know it isn't just about sending your mate a picture - you can do this anyway. Someone being a councillor doesn't make them right unfortunately.

Sorry, but I still think the reaction generally is way OTT [not aimed at you!]. There is simply no scientific reason or evidence why 3g masts should be a significant danger to people.

As has been pointed out, there are many far greater proven risk factors that do affect people and kid's health that merit far more attention and that its much easier to do something about.
Therefore I don't see how this can't be part of the discussion given the completely unfounded risks attached to 3g masts!

As something of an environmentalist I could point out endless things of much more worry that you probably don't know about, people just have a thing about radiation of any kind without actually understanding what it is.

theres a new one a mobile phone developer being an enviromentalist.

i didnt say that because a councillor said it it must be so ,i said he seconded the statement made by the mobile phone user.
surely the mobile phone user would know or not if he couldnt use the picture and messaging in this area .
he said he couldnt.

so theres every reason for you to dispute my protests, as with no mobiles you,d be out of a job.

You don't really know what you're protesting about though. No evidence either way to back up anything you think and very valid points have been made about other household items which you are more than happy to expose your children to. Seems like you're just jumping on the whole mobile phone mast bandwagon and believing the hype.
There is as much evidence to back up dangers of mobile phone masts as there is for mobile phones but because it would inconvenience you , you only choose to protest against the masts.I bet you lots of money that in the near future your children will own mobile phones and you will be more than happy to let them. Sort out exactly why you are protesting then maybe we'll take your views seriously.

It makes no difference to whether I have a job or not so I'm certainly not biased, but it does mean I know a bit about phones. In fact 3g will make my life harder!

And what's any of that got to do with being a bit of an environmentalist? Next thing you'll be saying that a scientist can't be an environmentalist. People who care about the rubbish going on in the world, environmentally and otherwise, don't have to be mother earth types (nothing against them either, I'm just not one).

You're view is that noone has shown it's safe so we shouldn't use it, my view is that in those cases common sense and existing science has to prevail, or nothing would ever get done!

You can never prove something is completely safe - even water isn't - but you always query whether something isn't safe. So you go on evidence, science, and precident.

Car pollution is definately NOT 100% safe and could be made less dangerous. Its more than likely to cause more health affects per 1000 children than a whole bunch of 3g masts. School meals, fast food, lack of exercise, overuse of cleaning chemicals, hormones in water, the stuff in the supermarket food you eat, the air you breath, alcohol, smoking, drugs legal and illegal, the list is endless.

3g masts are extremely unlikely to have any noticeable effect in comparison with all these factors.

I'm saying this as someone who gets annoyed at what large corporations and govts get away with so if anything I should be on your side. This is the wrong thing to be worrying about.

i have only 1 thing to say to people who dont want phone masts
you all want to use a mobile phone but you are all


N.I.M.B.Y

Actually there is far more evidence about mobile phone use having an affect on people.

The affect can be positive as well as negative, but just the fact that there is an affect after approx 30 mins useage is not a good thing.

A few sensible guidelines should negate the risk - short calls, swap ears frequently, phone a couple of cm's from your ear.

It does worry me how much kids use phones because at that age they may have increased suspeptability to problems that wil show up later in life. It's still too early to tell.

Originally posted by RoyalRegular
:confused:

You're a window cleaner then!

allegedly:thumbsup:

Originally posted by tara
Im sorry but im not convinced.
I still dont think there is any need for a 3g mast .
ive searched the mobile phone base station site and actually there are very few masts in this area,so why when weve got good signals anyway, slap a pointless 3g mast near a school just for video messaging.
the mobile 3 user who was interviewed stated,"I have to leave the area to make FULL use of it,I CAN ONLY PHONE AND TEXT HERE."
So contrary to your belief miggy,it IS only about video messaging
and picture sending. .
this fact was also seconded by councillor
martin brelsford .
I own a mobile phone but, well put it this way £10 will last me weeks and weeks so thats how much i use mine.
Yes the danger element evidence is not conclusive either way
so how can anyone say i dont know what im talking about.
time will tell.

And tvs have been around for years and probably not done much harm but whose to say these 3g masts are gonna be the same.

the whole point of this post was to protest about 3g masts being put up for the use of video messaging and picture taking.
some have missed the point.
yes there may be lots of masts around but where will it all end if nobody has the guts to make a stand.
just because they are already there doesnt mean we cant protest at more and more going up.


oh and my son isnt having one for christmas.

stop whinning:rolleyes:

Originally posted by rich1068
I'll be looking at the price board at the Shell station on Ecclesall Road very closely tomorrow!

Hah! After all that spuff about how terrifyingly dangerous it is to fill up while yakking on a mobile? Some stations in the USA have a neat sign depicting a fat American and his SUV blowing up as hemakes a call at the pump. Hypocritical beggars. Still, brings new meaning to the expression 'having a word in yer shell', dun't it?

As far as I'm aware there has never been a case of a mobile phone causing an explosion in a filling station - or even any evidence put forward that it can do!

kirky just face the fact that you are a

N.I.M.B.Y

Originally posted by craigmason
kirky just face the fact that you are a

N.I.M.B.Y

I KNOW YOU ARE DYING FOR SOMEONE TO ASK WHAT IT MEANS..BUT I DON'T WANT TO KNOW OK:rolleyes:

Yes wibbles but why slap a 3g up near a school just for video messages etc.
theres loads and loads of country and open spaces not near any housing where they can put them up.
theres very few masts here anyway.
no one has trouble with signals.
so whats the point.
I didnt see you giving any of your views on the last post about mobile phone masts when the fulwood protesters were mentioned.
why should i be slammed down for my beliefs whats the difference between them and me.
as this mast is only going up to help video messaging i should
think weve more of a point to protest here in stocksbridge.
and im not jumping on any bandwagon i dont follow like a sheep .
and as far as the point you mentioned about convenience is concerned well my son leaves that school in less than a year but id still protest.
my mobile hardly gets used as i said.
anyway im gonna leave this post now so shall we just say youre all entitled to your views and so am I.

Oh and kirky ill stop whinning if you stop bitching.

Originally posted by tara
Yes wibbles but why slap a 3g up near a school just for video messages etc.
theres loads and loads of country and open spaces not near any housing where they can put them up.
theres very few masts here anyway.
no one has trouble with signals.
so whats the point.
I didnt see you giving any of your views on the last post about mobile phone masts when the fulwood protesters were mentioned.
why should i be slammed down for my beliefs whats the difference between them and me.
as this mast is only going up to help video messaging i should
think weve more of a point to protest here in stocksbridge.
and im not jumping on any bandwagon i dont follow like a sheep .
and as far as the point you mentioned about convenience is concerned well my son leaves that school in less than a year but id still protest.
my mobile hardly gets used as i said.
anyway im gonna leave this post now so shall we just say youre all entitled to your views and so am I.

Oh and kirky ill stop whinning if you stop bitching.

Why not slap it up???Give me some 100% confirmed reason why it shouldn't go up...you can't. Its all heresay and nonsense. No proof or evidence.

Why mess up the country side when a mast in a school makes so much sense - a school is in use for less than 50% the year, generally fairly central. I think that all school should be made to have a mast.

They could also be given a certain amount of money depending on the usage of that particular mast.

AND, I think that wind farms are aesthetically pleasing.


Litotes

why deface the countryside with unsightly masts, stick them in the city with people who "need" them, don't see many sheep with mobile phones. If you want to think of a suitable protest, get all the residents in your area to cancel their mobile contracts and return their phones as protest. Have never had a mobile myself and don't particularly want one, used to have a pager which was quite handy but lost the number for it, and as said beofre with the diminishing payphones and increasing costs (30p minimum call now!!!!!) its not very practical anymore. How about make it compulsary for every mobile phone user to have a small transmiter in their backgarden or on their roof, people might think twice then.

Originally posted by tara
Yes wibbles but why slap a 3g up near a school just for video messages etc.
theres loads and loads of country and open spaces not near any housing where they can put them up.
there.

anyone how don't want a phone mast near them are just N.I.M.B.Ys :loopy: they cause (No health problems)

Originally posted by craigmason
anyone how don't want a phone mast near them are just N.I.M.B.Ys :loopy: they cause (No health problems)

have you not realised no ones going to ask:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

numpty

Originally posted by craigmason
anyone how don't want a phone mast near them are just N.I.M.B.Ys :loopy: they cause (No health problems)


What about people that don't own mobile phones? Can they still be accused of being NIMBY? And can you provide evidence that proves they cause no health problems?

Nice grammar btw ;)

Originally posted by kirky
have you not realised no ones going to ask

numpty

I assume, judging by his posts, that NIMBY stands for "Now In My Backside, You."

How times have changed.

You never know, there may be unforeseen benefits to mast proximity. All those microwaves might well help keep yer heating bills down, and the money saved spent on books for the kiddies.

Originally posted by smedley
I assume, judging by his posts, that NIMBY stands for "Now In My Backside, You."

How times have changed.

when he finally posts what it stands for don't forget to roar with laughter...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by fyybj
What about people that don't own mobile phones? Can they still be accused of being NIMBY? And can you provide evidence that proves they cause no health problems?

Nice grammar btw ;)
Well there is no proof that they do cause health problems so until there is then what's the problem???
My mother used to tell me knocking one off makes you blind but it never stopped me!!
Is there any proof that mobiles fry your brain?? But you still use them!!

Originally posted by wibbles

My mother used to tell me knocking one off makes you blind but it never stopped me!!


Top quality comment... But truth be told, if you'd ahve found out that there was 100% chance of going blind, you still couldn't stop.

red rag to a bull, eh?!

Go on then, I'll do it, I'm not proud. Anyway, maybe he'll stop once we get it out of the way.....?

Erm, Craigmason, pray tell, whats a NIMBY?

Originally posted by wibbles
Well there is no proof that they do cause health problems so until there is then what's the problem???
My mother used to tell me knocking one off makes you blind but it never stopped me!!
Is there any proof that mobiles fry your brain?? But you still use them!!

Hahaha good analogy, however I don't own or use a mobile phone but I do see the usefulness of them in certain situations, I do not see the use in the general public being able to send picture and video messages however, but that's beside the point.

The simple answer to stop people "whining" and "moaning" is to have a proper public health enquiry, as I've said before it would be a real shame to have another BSE, F&M, thalidomide type health scare on our hands or does everyone trust their health to the government and telecom companies?

Yep, there's no evidence to say they're dangerous or safe, but a bit of information wouldn't go amis. Perhaps people could have a decent discussion about it then without having to base their opinions on hearsay and rumour.

And to steal that tw@t's thunder, NIMBY stands for Not In My Backyard.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
whats a NIMBY?

Not In My Back Yard.

Originally posted by ptigga
Not In My Back Yard.

Ta for that. And ta even more for stealing his thunder!

Still thought mine was better suited

"why deface the countryside with unsightly masts, stick them in the city with people who "need" them"

I'm from the countryside and mobiles are much more useful there than in towns!!!

"prove they have no health problems"

More a case of proving they aren't safe in fact.

Much easier to do this than prove otherwise, and thus far no evidence. Majority scientific opinion is that they shouldn't be unsafe in any way.

Next time you pop a vitamin pill, something many of us do, consider the evidence on them first - its not as simple as vitamin C is good for you (to say the least).

Just another example of people getting their science confused (its a vitamin, it must be good, load me up!).

I know I know, it's all about choice.

Guess what people were saying many years ago about radio, and tv, and electricity (some amazing stuff!).

"BSE, F&M, thalidomide" etc

Not sure I'd even trust a public enquiry these days, doesn't say much does it! And no don't trust mobile companies to do the research, quite rightly.

Very off topic this, but an example of how people get priorities somewhat wrong...IMHO

The amount spent on "the war on terror" [which I'm not commenting on, not on this thread] far, far exceeds the amount required to prevent most of the otherwise curable deaths across the world, including starvation.

A simple body count shows the crazyness of it all. And bizarrely, it might also have a positive affect on keeping the peace in many places, thus helping combat one of the root causes of terrorism.

However, people like war and revenge. It's easier, more popular, makes arms companies richer, and doesn't involve much rational long term thought.

It has been proven that too much Vitamin C can be bad for you...

Sorry to dredge this one up again but I notice that some of the residents of Crookes are protesting about the siting of a mast on top of the 'Horse and Rider' shop. Petitions all over the place and articles in The Telegraph. One of our esteemed council members is huffing and puffing to anyone who will listen about how O2 didn't get planning permission and that the people of Crookes should be protected from corporate high handedness.

So what is the problem?

Is it the still unfounded claims of health risks?

Is it that it's unsightly? You have to be the sort of person who still points at aeroplanes to see it. And it's just a pole. No more offensive to look at than the thousands of examples of unnecessary street 'furniture' that litter every city.

Is it that O2 didn't get planning permission? They say they don't need it. And they're probably right. There's been one stuck on the side of the Crookes Co-op for at least a couple of years and no one bats an eyelid.

Shame it's not Vodafone because my phone reception is shocking at home.

Stay safe and warm this winter, become a NIMBY.

In the year 2030, the gogglebox(holographic of course) will be showing programs on the History Channel showing how fools in the 1990`s used microwaves to cook food. They even let their little children in the kitchen when they did it! Then, as if that wasn`t bad enough, they held mobile phones, which emitted similar radiation, near their heads! Even children were allowed to do it! Didn`t they realise what they were doing? Of course, in 2015, all this stuff was made illegal, but it`s too late now for the poor sods that have to live with the after effects.:loopy:

Or not...

just look at the Scandinavian countries, they've been using mobiles a hell of a lot longer than us with no serious effects...

Unless you know the physics behind mobile technology (and I do) then people shouldnt comment.

If someone said this already I apollogise ('cos I couldn't be bovvered to read ALL the replies) but... Do you know how much radiation your TV set gives off? & you willingly put your kids in front of that for hours...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
smugly signs out

Hi Don,

I guess that the difference between a TV and a mobile is that, at least in this house, we don't have the TV strapped to our heads...:)

The radiation given off by a TV is the usual 50Hz mains EM, 15-25kHz pulse emissions from the flyback transformer and various spurious emissions in the low short wave bands between 3 and 6Mhz generated by the reception and processing of the signal. And some harmonics of all these - but all at low levels.

Potentially, in a badly designed and maladjusted set there's the potential of low levels of soft X rays emitted from within the TV tube, but these are screened by the tube itself and never get in to the world.

Seriously, though, part of the issue with modern mobile phones is that the signals given off are of higher intensity, at a frequency that has a wavelength that is small enough to allow a human body to act resonantly towards it and using a modulation method (pulsed code modulation and similar) that has steep rise and fall times in the signal. The result is that potentially a mobile can dump significant amounts of energy in biological systems - cell membranes, etc. That's the theory at the moment, anyway, although not yet confirmed or fully denied independently.

I probably worry more about using the darn things than having an aerial near by, and so only use my mobile when I have to.

Joe

I'm looking for information on the proposed O2 mast at Foxhill. I know that protesters have stopped building work, but my searches on the internet have only brought up the protest in July. Anyone know how many times construction has been stopped?

Also, any links to relevant sites would be much appreciated!

you have to laugh at these sorts they have all got phones but its a not my back yard attitude you have to have these things for them to work .. and the oh its next to a school with our children in ?? what the hell do they think that thing is strapped on top of the halifax site of chaucer ?? its an orange phone mast i never heared them complain about that one so why this one

pure nimbyism.

People like complaining for the sake of complaining. And its sickening more often than not.

Just been to Fulwood to meet some friends. Saw many houses with boards saying "No mast". Could someone clarify where this proposed mast was to be and which company it was from? Have the residents succeeded in avoiding the mast? Happy New year to all!

Did you see the mobile bonfire?

I assume all of these residents held a ritual burning of theirs since they object to the equipment required to run them?

A mast is proposed for the top of Slayleigh Lane in Fulwood. Residents have been fighting it for a while because, they say, it is close to Hallam Junior School and bang outside somebody's house on the grass verge, so all that poor sod would see from their window is a mobile mast.
The mast is one of the 'next generation' phone masts for camera phones.

Locals have so far seen off the phone company contractors who have had to take the mast away because residents blocked off the site and wouldn't let them get near it.

I'd like to see the mast protestors treated like the miners at Orgreave. Bring in the MET I say, then lets see hypocritical, f***wits complaining.


Mat:loopy:

Hmmm, not sure I'd be happy with it so near the school.

It should be placed on the School buildings if anywhere

Originally posted by Strix
Hmmm, not sure I'd be happy with it so near the school.

Why?? There has been one next our local school for a number of years. Before it was erected there was alot of independent research commisioned by the LEA/Council to find what if any risks are associated. They concluded that the amount of Radiation emmiting from the mast falls well below guideline levels - in some areas, the natural background radiation measures higher than that in the proximity of the mast. Also levels of radiation from Mobile phones are FAR higher than those from the mast.

Mat:)

Originally posted by RPG
It should be placed on the School buildings if anywhere

What's that all about?? You cannot be serious!! Do you have children??:o :rant:

Originally posted by chez26
What's that all about?? You cannot be serious!! Do you have children??:o :rant:

Um, No, But I have a Physics qualification...

You might want to look up just how Microwave transmitters work

Originally posted by RPG
Um, No, But I have a Physics qualification...

You might want to look up just how Microwave transmitters work Hmmm, microwaved children :confused: . Don't they taste better roasted?

Closing - This thread is all about this subject (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10234&highlight=fulwood+mobile) so please feel free to use it.

It's good news about Slayleigh Lane - that there's no mast there yet I mean.

I heard a rumour a few days ago that there might be plans to put a mast close to the Layby on Redmires Road, near to the path down to Hallam School. Does anyone know anything about this ?

Bill.

Hope not - I live near some privately owned open space up on a hill which must be a prime candidate site for a mast.

We all ought to boycot 3G phones, coz this is why the extra masts are required in the first place.

Don't you honestly think that we all have an element of NIMBYism in us, if not lot me ask you these questions.

Do you ever drive on or use a motorway? If the answer is yes would you like one beside your house?

Do you ever go to the toilet? If the answer is yes then would you like a sewage farm beside your house?

Personally speaking I never use a toilet and I walk everywhere, even to get abroad.

I'm so perfect, muahahahaha!

Quote:
Originally posted by bulldog D
I'm suprised the Lib Dems haven't suggested placing them only in the poor areas, like they did with the wind turbines. As people in these areas don't mind living amongst eyesores do they?


What a good idea.

I hope you're joking..


Anyway, people shouldn't complain about mobile phone masts if they own a mobile phone. What else can be done?They are needed to run the networks which nearly all people use. I hate the "not in my backyard" attitude that people always seem to have.

Anybody know whats happening at the mast site. Fencing has gone, grass tidied up but cabinet still there. Is it too early to celebrate? No news on the SHAM site.

Hopefully it will be going up so the signal strength for 3G will be improved.