Minimum distance from mast
PPG8 is a problem, yes, as it does not insist that public exposure from base stations is kept as low as practicable as Stewart (IEGMP) requested. The Annex to PPG8 states that there was no need to require this as the Operators already do it in order to run an efficient system - haha, what a joke!
However, mobile phone users are by far the main problem.
A 100 metre ban would not work because too many people are using their mobile phones from home. Most masts are now much nearer than 100 metres from homes in residential areas. There are places where they are only about 5 metres from bedroom windows on lamp-posts - that is far too close, in my opinion.
However, to get adequate call capacity it is necessary to have multiple masts in residential areas to cope with all the mobile calls people make and receive from their homes. One multi-channel base-station can only handle about 127 simultaneous calls - and many only have 4 channels and handle 63 or 64 calls. That is the way the cellular system works.
The vast numbers of calls made by people from home when they could use their land-lines drives me mad with frustration.
That is by far the main reason for all the masts close to houses. Each base-station / mast costs at least £30,000 and up to £90,000 to put up. They certainly don't do it for fun or charity. Mobile phone call taxes and Operator taxes now provide over £10,000,000,000 (£10bn) per year of UK Government income.
That comes directly from mobile phone users. Period. That is why we have so many masts near to houses. The users (unthinkingly) pay for the masts to be put there.
Think about it the next time you use your mobile phone. There are currently over 60 million active registered mobile phones operating in the UK. A 100 metre ring around masts is just not possible in many residential areas now until and unless people stop using their mobiles at home.
Alasdair
--------
Well, there actaully is another reason not to use a cellphone. The exposure of the body even exceeds the limits for thermal effects (limits are from 2 to 10 W/m2 (2 to 10 million microWatt/m2), mobile phone exposure goes up to 13,5 Watt/m2, scientifically proven thermal effects start from 100 Watt/m2). All known non-thermal effects may happen (while in the vicinity of a mast few non-thermal effects may happen). These are the increased risks:
Consistent indications: cell stress, DNA-damage, central nerve system disorders, cancer. DNA-damage in cell phone users 40%, while in non-users 10%.
Strong indications: hormone system disorders.
Indications: infertility, immune system disorders, cell process disturbance, blood brain barrier permeability.
Weak indications: 'electrosensitivity'.
Source: Risiken durch elektromagnetische Felder, die Grenzwertfrage im NF- und HF-Bereich, Mainz, 22 april 2006. Dr. H.-Peter Neitzke, Ecologi Institut, Hannover, Germany. Page 16.
This is the most urgent argument against cellphones.
Tell them, go on using your cellphone! As much as you can, x times a day! And put it next to your head when you go to sleep .... the mast is just a
24-hour 7-days a week extra exposure ...
Even people who know this still use a cellphone (e.g. with a bluetooth headset, adding insult to injury) and a wireless laptop, etcetera.
Frans
However, mobile phone users are by far the main problem.
A 100 metre ban would not work because too many people are using their mobile phones from home. Most masts are now much nearer than 100 metres from homes in residential areas. There are places where they are only about 5 metres from bedroom windows on lamp-posts - that is far too close, in my opinion.
However, to get adequate call capacity it is necessary to have multiple masts in residential areas to cope with all the mobile calls people make and receive from their homes. One multi-channel base-station can only handle about 127 simultaneous calls - and many only have 4 channels and handle 63 or 64 calls. That is the way the cellular system works.
The vast numbers of calls made by people from home when they could use their land-lines drives me mad with frustration.
That is by far the main reason for all the masts close to houses. Each base-station / mast costs at least £30,000 and up to £90,000 to put up. They certainly don't do it for fun or charity. Mobile phone call taxes and Operator taxes now provide over £10,000,000,000 (£10bn) per year of UK Government income.
That comes directly from mobile phone users. Period. That is why we have so many masts near to houses. The users (unthinkingly) pay for the masts to be put there.
Think about it the next time you use your mobile phone. There are currently over 60 million active registered mobile phones operating in the UK. A 100 metre ring around masts is just not possible in many residential areas now until and unless people stop using their mobiles at home.
Alasdair
--------
Well, there actaully is another reason not to use a cellphone. The exposure of the body even exceeds the limits for thermal effects (limits are from 2 to 10 W/m2 (2 to 10 million microWatt/m2), mobile phone exposure goes up to 13,5 Watt/m2, scientifically proven thermal effects start from 100 Watt/m2). All known non-thermal effects may happen (while in the vicinity of a mast few non-thermal effects may happen). These are the increased risks:
Consistent indications: cell stress, DNA-damage, central nerve system disorders, cancer. DNA-damage in cell phone users 40%, while in non-users 10%.
Strong indications: hormone system disorders.
Indications: infertility, immune system disorders, cell process disturbance, blood brain barrier permeability.
Weak indications: 'electrosensitivity'.
Source: Risiken durch elektromagnetische Felder, die Grenzwertfrage im NF- und HF-Bereich, Mainz, 22 april 2006. Dr. H.-Peter Neitzke, Ecologi Institut, Hannover, Germany. Page 16.
This is the most urgent argument against cellphones.
Tell them, go on using your cellphone! As much as you can, x times a day! And put it next to your head when you go to sleep .... the mast is just a
24-hour 7-days a week extra exposure ...
Even people who know this still use a cellphone (e.g. with a bluetooth headset, adding insult to injury) and a wireless laptop, etcetera.
Frans
rudkla - 2. Aug, 00:02
