This was taken from another web site earlier today.


I was deeply disturbed to see the application for planning permission to erected on top of student accomadation on south road at walkley.
I feel really strongly about this and wonderd if any one had any hints and tips for me, also if any local residents are reading this who feel the same I would love to hear from you..
I have sent a very strong letter of objection, but have the awfull feeling it will end up there anyway

That was me... trying to rally a little support for my cause.. you may all now proceed to rip me to bits again...... :roll:

Originally posted by honeyplanet
That was me... trying to rally a little support for my cause.. you may now proceed to rip me to bits again...... :roll:

Not me honey, I am disgusted that they have the cheek to try to place a mast in such a position, go for it girl :thumbsup:

Aww thankyou, I did put up a thread and it got merged with the mast debate thread !
The majority seemed to disagree with my views but I'll plod on..
:)

Dont worry owdlad, no brains there to damage with radio waves/microwaves. Probably the safest place to put it. The students will be too ****** to notice anything different.

Honeyplanet,

I found myself chatting to a couple of folks on South Road opposite the Chapel last Saturday. They were unaware of the proposals until I pointed to the little posters that had been put up and the Planning Notice from the Council.

I use a 'normal' mobile on occasion in Walkley and reception is OK. I assume that this 3G is to support all the video phones and such that will probably never be bought by the good citizens of Walkley?

Joe

If you use a mobile phone you shouldn't moan about the masts. You can't have it both ways - it's either more masts or no calls, your choice.

Originally posted by PuressenceUK
If you use a mobile phone you shouldn't moan about the masts. You can't have it both ways - it's either more masts or no calls, your choice.

Ermmmmm......

There is a world of difference between GPRS and 3G.

3G requires many more masts to get adequate coverage. The odler GPRS system requires fewer masts. The signals radiated from 3G and GPRS also differ in potential biological effects.

I'm not arguing with the need for masts - just that putting it on a student residence within 30 yards of a pub, a doctor's surgery, some other residential flats, etc. is not that brilliant. I'm not a hypocrite with these things - it's just that it isn't necessary to put the masts in such close proximity to people, and the demand for the 3G network is still, I believe, relatively unproven except for the Operators who must be desperate to get the GBP20 billion back after buying the licenses from HMG!

I would have thought that a 3G mast could be better situated with the existing radio masts up at STannington (higher up).

Joe

Originally posted by PuressenceUK
If you use a mobile phone you shouldn't moan about the masts. You can't have it both ways - it's either more masts or no calls, your choice.

Think I'll go with the no calls option thankyou, although hell would freeze over before I purchace a 3G mobile. Joe if on your travels you come across the person who has started the petition and put up the protest posters I would love to get in touch with them cheers :)

do,do gooders own mobile phones?

Originally posted by JoeP
I'm not arguing with the need for masts - just that putting it on a student residence within 30 yards of a pub, a doctor's surgery, some other residential flats, etc. is not that brilliant. I'm not a hypocrite with these things - it's just that it isn't necessary to put the masts in such close proximity to people,

I guess the masts has to be near the people who will use it. Where in Walkley could you put it where it wouldn't be near someone, it's a very densely populated area ?

I have a 3g phone so im fully in support of more masts, there is no PROVEN reports of them being harmful to health and until there is i will support them :)

You anti mast people need to study physics. There is a law called the inverse square law. Whereby the power of a signal attenuates (reduces) with the square of the distance from the source. This means if you double the distance from it, you quarter the power. What this basically means is unless you actually climb the mast, you won't receive any greater dose of radiation than by glueing a mobile phone to your head.

However, to pick up on what scottf said, there were no PROVEN reports of the damage that smoking did originally, but it turns out that smoking is a killer. Maybe we shouldn't trust everything we DONT read.

Originally posted by tim_rutter
You anti mast people need to study physics. There is a law called the inverse square law. Whereby the power of a signal attenuates (reduces) with the square of the distance from the source. This means if you double the distance from it, you quarter the power. What this basically means is unless you actually climb the mast, you won't receive any greater dose of radiation than by glueing a mobile phone to your head.

However, to pick up on what scottf said, there were no PROVEN reports of the damage that smoking did originally, but it turns out that smoking is a killer. Maybe we shouldn't trust everything we DONT read.

Tim, I'm actually pretty well versed in communications technology - been a radio amateur for 15 years, using HF, VHF and UHF and worked for a company for a while that developed the TETRA system that is similar in protocols and wave form emissions to 3G.

All I would say is that the jury IS out, and there have been quite a few papers done on the subject of TETRA emissions, not all of them positive for the industry.

Also, how many people go around with a phone clamped to their heads all the time? If that's the equivalent radiation exposure 20 or 30 metres from the post (I should actually see if I can get the EIRP power used and work it out) then it's not very re-assuring.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Tim, I'm actually pretty well versed in communications technology - been a radio amateur for 15 years, using HF, VHF and UHF and worked for a company for a while that developed the TETRA system that is similar in protocols and wave form emissions to 3G.

All I would say is that the jury IS out, and there have been quite a few papers done on the subject of TETRA emissions, not all of them positive for the industry.

Also, how many people go around with a phone clamped to their heads all the time? If that's the equivalent radiation exposure 20 or 30 metres from the post (I should actually see if I can get the EIRP power used and work it out) then it's not very re-assuring.

Joe

Ha ha, i stand corrected! Maybe I'm too trusting... :D

Originally posted by tim_rutter
Ha ha, i stand corrected! Maybe I'm too trusting... :D

Trust no-one!

Not even me! Hey, I don't even trust me sometimes! :)

Joe

Originally posted by kirky
do,do gooders own mobile phones?
Dunno Kirky you'll have to ask one.....

Originally posted by nick2
I guess the masts has to be near the people who will use it. Where in Walkley could you put it where it wouldn't be near someone, it's a very densely populated area ?

Yes, part of the problem with 3G is the requirement for a higher density of masts to support the system.

Perhaps a solution would be to run a referendum in the area that would benefit. Then the people who would benefit most (in principle) would be being asked to give permission, and would have awareness of what they would get with and without the mast.

But that does sound like a participative democratic process which rarely goes down well. ;)

There is a nest of aerials up on Crookes / Stannington / Bole Hill View, I think. As the site already exists and is used, I wonder if the service providers have considered that site?

Joe

What I thought cheeky about this is that the only notice local residents had no notice apart from tiny little posters. Surely everyone in the area should be notified of things like this - things that could possibly affect. I know there isnt any evidence to support that these masts are harmful to health but then again there is little evidence that they aren't harmful and this relatively new phenomena of mobile phones could have effects in the long term. Who knows?
But still we should have been notified
Also I was told you could only complain formally by post. surely in this day and age it must be possible to object be email or even a phone call which can be just as formal and 1000 times quicker.

-Mr Purple

I think you can E-mail Les Sturch from the councills website, but I think due to the council's red tape formal objections must go by post. I spoke to Mr Sturch's assistant today by phone, she informed me that the application is a full one due to the hight of the mast so the more objections the better!

Originally posted by JoeP


There is a nest of aerials up on Crookes / Stannington / Bole Hill View, I think. As the site already exists and is used, I wonder if the service providers have considered that site?

Joe

Bit nimbyish for you I think Joe?

Come on - we all know that due to the local geography folk in Walkley can't get TV reception from Crosspool so why would we get mobile phone signals from up the hill.

I'd guess the mast up the heliport / Shirecliffe serves Walkley / Crookes better for mobiles but probably hasn't the range for 3G.

I dunno who'd want 3G but 10 years ago I'd have probably said the same about the internet.

IMHO I'm likely to be doing more damage to myself sat 24" from a CRT.

Originally posted by honeyplanet
I think you can E-mail Les Sturch from the councills website, but I think due to the council's red tape formal objections must go by post. I spoke to Mr Sturch's assistant today by phone, she informed me that the application is a full one due to the hight of the mast so the more objections the better!

I've e-mailed objections to phone masts to the Planning Dept. Just make sure you include your name and address.

It must be very disturbing for the students in Walkley to have this huge erection standing over their heads all day .
It's bound to affect their concentration and thus drag educational standards down still further.

Originally posted by Mr Purple
I know there isnt any evidence to support that these masts are harmful to health but then again there is little evidence that they aren't harmful and this relatively new phenomena of mobile phones could have effects in the long term. Who knows?



Government planning guidance on the erection of phonemasts (known as PG8) specifically forbids councils from considering any objections on health issues when determining an application for a phone mast. Whilst there is public concern about health effects, none have been confirmed by current research. Thus councils are not allowed to consider health issues when considering applications for phone masts.

Originally posted by Longcol
Bit nimbyish for you I think Joe?

Come on - we all know that due to the local geography folk in Walkley can't get TV reception from Crosspool so why would we get mobile phone signals from up the hill.

I'd guess the mast up the heliport / Shirecliffe serves Walkley / Crookes better for mobiles but probably hasn't the range for 3G.

I dunno who'd want 3G but 10 years ago I'd have probably said the same about the internet.

IMHO I'm likely to be doing more damage to myself sat 24" from a CRT.

Quite possibly Nimbyish.

I'm reasonably happy with GPRS signals, UHF and VHF radio within limits. The problems iwth 3G is that there has been less research done.

Whilst it seems safe to say now that a moile phone is getting close to necessary for many people, the extra facilities offered by 3G do seem to be bells and whistles for the most part. 3G will operate '2G' so to say in areas of inadequate coverage, and you might argue that as in residetial areas most people have access to static technology that they can use for their toys, why put large densities of 3G base stations in ANY residential area. :)

And finally, you have a choice of using 3G and sitting 24" from a CRT. The residents of an area which gets these aerials DON'T have that choice.

Joe

Originally posted by redrobbo
Government planning guidance on the erection of phonemasts (known as PG8) specifically forbids councils from considering any objections on health issues when determining an application for a phone mast. Whilst there is public concern about health effects, none have been confirmed by current research. Thus councils are not allowed to consider health issues when considering applications for phone masts.

I guess that having managed to get 20 billion quid out of the operators for licences, even this lot in Government would have looked pretty bad had they then turned around and said 'But we're still going to let people object to your masts on health grounds'.

I guess this was part of the deal.... :)

We're so lucky to have a caring Government.

Joe

Another concern for me is the position of the mast, I know that there are safety checks to high standards but.. with the recent climate change every year we see stronger and stronger winds, if this thing were to say weaken and blow over in the wind it would cause huge amounts of damage, being positioned on top of a two storey building next to a main road and local shops,doctors ect.. All this because some greedy landlord wants a few extra grand a year :rant:

Genuine , value-free question , re-the masts.
Joe points out that people are , "near " the masts , 24 hours a day ,whereas people don't walk round with headphones on 24 hours a day.
However , surely most people don't stand near a mast 24 hours a day ? I have absolutely no idea what sort of protection , if any , buildings provide ?
I'm not being smug about this but you'd have thought with all our advancements in science that they would really be sure about possible harmful effects of things before they go ahead and install masts or at least publicise some basic facts so people can judge. It all seems so vague.
If two experienced blokes like Joe and Tim Ritter can't be sure of the dangers , there's something wrong somewhere. Believe me , I'm not being sarcastic-------I know 'F" -all about it but if I asked two men I trusted and they were sensible , but then they were unsure , I'd perhaps begin to get worried !

Originally posted by Fareast
Genuine , value-free question , re-the masts.
Joe points out that people are , "near " the masts , 24 hours a day ,whereas people don't walk round with headphones on 24 hours a day.
However , surely most people don't stand near a mast 24 hours a day ? I have absolutely no idea what sort of protection , if any , buildings provide ?
I'm not being smug about this but you'd have thought with all our advancements in science that they would really be sure about possible harmful effects of things before they go ahead and install masts or at least publicise some basic facts so people can judge. It all seems so vague.
If two experienced blokes like Joe and Tim Ritter can't be sure of the dangers , there's something wrong somewhere. Believe me , I'm not being sarcastic-------I know 'F" -all about it but if I asked two men I trusted and they were sensible , but then they were unsure , I'd perhaps begin to get worried !

I should say - I am not an expert, but an interested lay person.

Tim's spot on with the inverse square law. The problems with exposure to any radio type signal depends upon the biological effects of the signal when it interacts with living things - typically us. :)

The effects depend upon the frequency, the 'power density' of the signal when it hits the person (i.e. how much energy is available at the point of delivery, which will depend upon shielding, power radiated from the aerial, distance from the aerial, position of person with respect to the aerial, etc.) and the nature of the signal in terms of waveform - what the signal 'looks like'.

There has been concern that the particular type of signal used by 3G might have different biological effects than the signal type used on GPRS phones, etc. The effects are subtle - in soem cases you're looking at stuff like impact on the passage of Calcium through cell membranes, head banging stuff like that. And it's unproven.

Which is why I get concerned. Not worried; just concerned.

When lots of money and vested interests are concerned, it might just be easier to ignore any research that doesn't fit what we want to hear - and that's bad science as well as bad policy.

Joe

Get the mast up and running I say. Keeps the coverage nice and strong.

Hooray :clap: Hooray :clap: they turned it down....

Originally posted by PuressenceUK
If you use a mobile phone you shouldn't moan about the masts. You can't have it both ways - it's either more masts or no calls, your choice. No calls please. Its rare I use my bog standard one. I signed the petition for the one erected at the top of Sky Edge, they already had 500 before I signed. It made no difference. I wish the people who fire bombed the first installation would do it again tbh.

I dont see why we need these video phones before there has been enough time to conduct studies on the effects of the 3g masts, which there clearly hasnt been yet. Or rather I do see why - the government was was to quick to cash in on the licence cow. Disgusting tbh. Probably a few ministers with outside interests or pure back handers involved. :rant:

Originally posted by Trickle
I dont see why we need these video phones before there has been enough time to conduct studies on the effects of the 3g masts

Which would take how long, a year, two years, five years ?

Technology would have moved on by then and the masts would not be needed, it's called "progress" I believe.

Untested masts spouting on every other street corner just so yuppies and school kids can run up big phone bills even quicker playing happy slapping and even more irritating ring tones? This is "progress?"

Originally posted by Trickle
Untested masts spouting on every other street corner just so yuppies and school kids can run up big phone bills even quicker playing happy slapping and even more irritating ring tones? This is "progress?"

Yes, I'm afraid it is, that and electricity, cars, flying machines, dish washers, microwave ovens, computers and loads of other things that make life easier.

Why not join us in the 21st Century ?

Why not go to the effort of making a proper reply rather than a flippant one? :rolleyes:

The household goods you mention are private and to an extent do not affect others bar their use of electricity.

Cars and Electricity production affect others through pollution and the requirement of infrastructure that directly affects the environment. However, unlike 3g they have a direct benefit to societies efficiency and ability to operate. These new masts have questionable productivity benefits imo.

Ermm, I've had this a while... and if it's valid for children, it must be valid but to a lesser degree fro adults, non?

Sunday Mirror, Thursday 27th December 2001

Scientists have discovered that a call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child's brain for up to an hour afterwards.

THE CHILD SCRAMBLER
What a mobile can do to a youngster's brain in 2 mins

THESE are the first images [which I don't have] that show the shocking effect that using a mobile phone has on a child's brain.

Scientists have discovered that a call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child's brain for up to an hour afterwards.

And they also found for the first time how radio waves from mobile phones penetrate deep into the brain and not just around the ear.

The study by Spanish scientists has prompted leading medical experts to question whether it is safe for children to use mobile phones at all.

Doctors fear that disturbed brain activity in children could lead to psychiatric and behavioural problems or impair learning ability.

It was the first time that human guinea pigs were used to measure the effects of mobile phone radiation on children. The tests were carried out on an 11-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl called Jennifer.

Using a CATEEN scanner, linked to a machine measuring brain wave activity, researchers were able to create the images above.

The yellow coloured part of the scan on the right shows how radiation spreads through the centre of the brain and out to the ear on the other side of the skull. The scans found that disturbed brain wave activity lasted for up to an hour after the phone call ended.

Dr Gerald Hyland - a Government adviser on mobiles - says he finds the results "extremely disturbing".

"It makes one wonder whether children, whose brains are still developing, should be using mobile phones," he adds.

"The results show that children's brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use.

"Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period.

"This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance.

"We don't know all the answers yet, but the alteration in brain waves could lead to things like a lack of concentration, memory loss, inability to learn and aggressive behaviour."

Previously it had been thought that interference with brain waves and brain chemistry stopped when a call ended.

The results of the study by the Spanish Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute in Marbella coincide with a new survey that shows 87 per cent of 11- to 16-year-olds own mobile phones and 40 per cent of them spend 15 minutes or more talking each day on them. And disturbingly, 70 per cent said they would not change the use of their phone even if advised to by the Government.

Dr Hyland plans to publish the latest findings in medical journal The Lancet next year.

He said: "This information shows there really isn't a safe amount of mobile phone use. We don't know what lasting damage is being done by this exposure.

"If I were a parent I would now be extremely wary about allowing my children to use a mobile even for a very short period. My advice would be to avoid mobiles."

Dr Michael Klieeisen, who conducted the study, said: "We were able to see in minute detail what was going on in the brain.

"We never expected to see this continuing activity in the brain.

"We are worried that delicate balances that exist - such as the immunity to infection and disease - could be altered by interference with chemical balances in the brain."

A Department of Health spokesman said: "In children mobile phone use should be restricted to very short periods of time."

And also this:

Frequency Chart
New TETRA System 3.5 GHz
Microwave Ovens 2.45 GHz
New WAP mobile phones 1.9 GHz
Cell phones 800 - 900 MHz


Division is at 300 Mega Hertz (300 MHz) from Radio waves to Microwaves
Radio-TV 270MHz
Shortwave radio 27MHz
AM Radio 2.7MHz

Microwave frequencies (MW) 300 MHz to about 30 GHz.

You don’t need to be a scientist to work out that the frequencies used by mobile phones are microwave frequencies; hence they have more in common with microwave ovens than they do radios or televisions in other words "they cook things".

I stopped using my mobile phone as a toy when I began to get pains in my head, eyes (watering), neck, tongue, jaw, throat (sore) and in my teeth when I used it, and the side of my face used to burn up. I went to the doc and he told me to stop using the phone. (incredible) I don't have the pains anymore but as soon as I talk on a phone, the pains come back within about 2 mins. Also, when I text, my throat gets sore and tight and I feel nauseous. That's scienfic proof as you are getting it from this horse's marf.

Spoke to the planning Dept last night and basically it was turned down due to its hight, and the fact that it would look ghastly on top of a grade two listed building.
I am VERY pleased :clap:

Originally posted by honeyplanet
Spoke to the planning Dept last night and basically it was turned down due to its hight, and the fact that it would look ghastly on top of a grade two listed building.
I am VERY pleased :clap:

Why, you wanted it turned down for "health" reasons, they have turned it down for aesthetic reasons.

Does it really matter, its not going up and thats what counts....
And anyway I do seem to remember mentioning in my objection that it would look ugly slapped ontop of the building, as I also mentioned that I thought it was a little too close to a main road in the event of a fall.. infact I pretty much coverd all my options

Originally posted by honeyplanet
Does it really matter, its not going up and thats what counts....

Until they submit a better looking design, or hide it somewhere.

And it does matter as your entire argument was that it should not be built due to health risks, the council obviously don't think that is as important as how it looks.

To be honest as long as its not hanging over my back garden I dont care, Although I could make a few suggestions on where to stick it if you get my drift ......

Originally posted by honeyplanet
Although I could make a few suggestions on where to stick it if you get my drift ......

I can't guess, anything to do with what you talk out of ?

And anyway having never read my objection to the council, you have no rights to assume that I objected solely on health grounds as that would be foolish of me really. I coverd a broad amount of reasons why I did not want to see the thing at the top of the road, ranging from health to the fact that walkley ebeneezer is a grade two listed building, what damage would the thing do if it were to fall..

Originally posted by nick2
I can't guess, anything to do with what you talk out of ?
no more to do with what your head is stuck up mate....

Originally posted by honeyplanet
no more to do with what your head is stuck up mate....

or where you pull your scientific facts from ?

Yeah whatever :loopy:

Shouldn't you be on your way down to the river by now to do your washing ?

Or have you got one of those newfangled washing machine contraptions ?

I heard someone down the mill say they arn't safe so I'm not having one, and don't get me started about that elastic-trickery that comes out of holes in the wall.

God just what is your problem... I seem to recall you have followed me on to a few threads to have a pop, wonder if you would be such a big man from behind that p.c....

Makal da-boom-loo-takle !

(calm down dear, it's only a chat group)

p.s. A sense of humour has not been proven to halm people, so you could get one of those.

Hmmm I think that comment works both ways nick... maybe we could agree to disagree on this one..

Whatever, I'm of to my "being a big man on the internet" class now.

Good O.... not that you need the practise or anything is it

It's the advanced course called "winding people up by not agreeing with them", it's very good, I get a certificate at the end.

Dont lie... you just cant leave me alone cos you love me....

Surely whoever entered the original application will just re-submit either with a different design or actually appeal the original decision?? These things have a habit of being approved eventually as a comprimise is reached...usually with a little financial incentive???!? :heyhey:

Originally posted by honeyplanet
To be honest as long as its not hanging over my back garden I dont care, Although I could make a few suggestions on where to stick it if you get my drift ......

so it's pure nimbyism is it?

Originally posted by Cyclone
so it's pure nimbyism is it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nimbyism

What sort of non word is that then???

it's Nimby, with the suffix ism stuck on the end.
Turning it from a noun into a verb.

Nimby - Not in my back yard.

Nimbyism - as an example what you said. "To be honest as long as its not hanging over my back garden I dont care".

clear?

Hmm yes.. still I stand by my comment I dont want it hanging over my back garden end of..

Originally posted by honeyplanet
Hmm yes.. still I stand by my comment I dont want it hanging over my back garden end of..
I'm confused!! So you DON'T mind the mast being erected as long as its nowhere near your back garden??

No maybe in retospect I should have said somthing along the lines of .. It would be better positioned away from everyones gardens. I have no objections to the masts going up as long as they are not in such a built up residential area....

i used to work for the people that put these masts up - the bottom line is if you want reception you have to have masts - it's a case of if it's not in your back garden it will be in somebody else's i.e. same argument used for prostitutes - you can move the pros to where they can be accessed but if you move the masts you don't get coverage - and then peopel will complain they can't get coverage

Originally posted by honeyplanet
No maybe in retospect I should have said somthing along the lines of .. It would be better positioned away from everyones gardens. I have no objections to the masts going up as long as they are not in such a built up residential area....
I would have thought that if anything they would look more suitable IN built up areas..if you stick a mast up in the middle of a field then it sticks out like a sore thumb but in a built up area with the correct design it could just blend into the background.

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Ermm, I've had this a while... and if it's valid for children, it must be valid but to a lesser degree fro adults, non?

Sunday Mirror, Thursday 27th December 2001

Scientists have discovered that a call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child's brain for up to an hour afterwards.

THE CHILD SCRAMBLER
What a mobile can do to a youngster's brain in 2 mins

THESE are the first images [which I don't have] that show the shocking effect that using a mobile phone has on a child's brain.

Scientists have discovered that a call lasting just two minutes can alter the natural electrical activity of a child's brain for up to an hour afterwards.

And they also found for the first time how radio waves from mobile phones penetrate deep into the brain and not just around the ear.

The study by Spanish scientists has prompted leading medical experts to question whether it is safe for children to use mobile phones at all.

Doctors fear that disturbed brain activity in children could lead to psychiatric and behavioural problems or impair learning ability.

It was the first time that human guinea pigs were used to measure the effects of mobile phone radiation on children. The tests were carried out on an 11-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl called Jennifer.

Using a CATEEN scanner, linked to a machine measuring brain wave activity, researchers were able to create the images above.

The yellow coloured part of the scan on the right shows how radiation spreads through the centre of the brain and out to the ear on the other side of the skull. The scans found that disturbed brain wave activity lasted for up to an hour after the phone call ended.

Dr Gerald Hyland - a Government adviser on mobiles - says he finds the results "extremely disturbing".

"It makes one wonder whether children, whose brains are still developing, should be using mobile phones," he adds.

"The results show that children's brains are affected for long periods even after very short-term use.

"Their brain wave patterns are abnormal and stay like that for a long period.

"This could affect their mood and ability to learn in the classroom if they have been using a phone during break time, for instance.

"We don't know all the answers yet, but the alteration in brain waves could lead to things like a lack of concentration, memory loss, inability to learn and aggressive behaviour."

Previously it had been thought that interference with brain waves and brain chemistry stopped when a call ended.

The results of the study by the Spanish Neuro Diagnostic Research Institute in Marbella coincide with a new survey that shows 87 per cent of 11- to 16-year-olds own mobile phones and 40 per cent of them spend 15 minutes or more talking each day on them. And disturbingly, 70 per cent said they would not change the use of their phone even if advised to by the Government.

Dr Hyland plans to publish the latest findings in medical journal The Lancet next year.

He said: "This information shows there really isn't a safe amount of mobile phone use. We don't know what lasting damage is being done by this exposure.

"If I were a parent I would now be extremely wary about allowing my children to use a mobile even for a very short period. My advice would be to avoid mobiles."

Dr Michael Klieeisen, who conducted the study, said: "We were able to see in minute detail what was going on in the brain.

"We never expected to see this continuing activity in the brain.

"We are worried that delicate balances that exist - such as the immunity to infection and disease - could be altered by interference with chemical balances in the brain."

A Department of Health spokesman said: "In children mobile phone use should be restricted to very short periods of time."

Thats all fair enough but it applies to the use of mobile phones and not the positioning of a mast.
If you want to argue the potential dangers of people using phones then thats a whole other thread/argument altogether.

it's also from the mirror.

and as I explained before, the amount of microwave delivered by your phone is far higher than the amount delivered by the mast, unless you're pressing the mast to your ear.