Mast Protest

by We the People Fri Jul 27, 2007 07:53

Most important is to Register post your complaint to a PERSON in D.C.C. Planning enforcement rather than a 'title'.Or , better still , the Law agent Terence O'Keeffe. He cannot deny he received the complaint, it's on the record.The book stops with him. All decisions or lack of , always have to be green lighted by the legal mob.

What is his legal Department doing about this. How did his Department allow this to happen. Someone is obviously not doing their well paid job. Register post the complaint to the man with the biggest pair of shoes.

Reverse the headache. .

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:39

I don't know if it's a coincidence, but the growing mobilisation in Iveagh Gdns comes in the wake of a similar popular mobilisation in Clondalkin [see the other thread in Indymedia].

The debate re:Clondalkin continues to be quite active. There are two sides....on the one stand local residents, political and environmental activists who're saying that the community has the DO have a very disturbing effect of peoples lives and health.

Have just been reading an article by Prof G J HYland - of the Dpt of Physics - University of Warwickshire. He says "Since the advent of this [cell mast ] technology, an ever-increasing number of people in many different countries have been reporting an array of adverse health symptoms of a predominantly neurological kind, such as sleep disturbance, headache, inability to focus and concentrate, impaired memory, confusion, and sensation of pressure in the head. The severity of these symptoms displays a wide range of subjective variation, ranging from mild discomfort to great distress - so great, in some cases, that those affected have been forced to sell their houses at financial loss and move to areas that are less electromagnetically polluted in this way. " For the entire article and for a useful website and more info pls go to:
www.mast-victims.org/index.php.

For a more sedate site that looks at the more processual aspects of this development, the need for strict regulations and social control you can also visit the site
www.land-sbg.gv.at/celltower

And there is another side. It's a combination of individuals who basically argue a line that moves from the masts being entirely or almost benign and extends to the local people who are objecting being defined as an ignorant and easily-manipulable lot. And many positions in between. The objective invariably is to stop local people objecting to what is defined as 'technological advances'......

Although significantly diverse, this debate, methinks, is a precursor to a coming stage where the FF/PD/Green 'new' government, and their scientific accolytes in the ESB and some in the TU Movement, are going to try to push nuclear power stations on us. Having lost the battle in the streets and the fields of Ireland back in the 1977- 1982 period by the powerful growth of a mass movement that objected, they are now regrouping and are preparing the ground for a new frontal offensive. I may be worng and unnecessarily paranoid about this.....I hope I am. But we should be prepared. Our opposition today will make us more able to resist when the really big battle begins, Some of the arguments against the local people mobilising are exact replicas and clones of the arguments put forward by the Workers Party people of the time - of how nuclear power is good for you, has no harmful effects and economic expansion needs energy anyway. The example they were giving then was nuke stations in the USSR....then Chernobyl happened and they shut up. Some of those individuals are sitting pretty in the leadership of the Labour Party today.

Good luck and solidarity with the people of Iveagh Gdns.

by Chekov Fri Jul 27, 2007 13:48

"The objective invariably is to stop local people objecting to what is defined as 'technological advances'......"

Michael is, as usual, reporting inaccurately. Neither I, nor anybody else, argued in favour of technological advances. The one, single, matter for debate is whether mobile phone masts are a risk to health.

They aren't a health risk. They are, in fact, one of the least likely things in our environment to cause health problems. Although there is never any certainty in science (nobody can definitively rule out the possibility that any given action won't cause the universe to implode either), they are one of the best studied health factors and all the research suggests that there is no evidence of any health risk.

Considering the fact that we also know that there is a common psychological reaction, called EHS, to 'radiation' scares which cause people to have real and debilitating sicknesses, it is very irresponsible to hype up the non-existant health risks. It's part of the campaign by scare-mongering newspapers such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express to make people generally afraid of the world.

Of course, however, people should have every right to be consulted and to veto these things if they want. The people of Iveagh Garderns are to be commended for standing up to the typical abuse of the planning laws by the telecoms companies. But, they should think long and hard before becoming part of the health-scare. It's the scare-mongering that creates the health problems and by spreading it, you will just make people sick for no good reason at all.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Jul 27, 2007 14:36

The Irish Times today ( Adam Harvey July 27 p.2) reports that Vodafone removed a mobile mast from the fields of John Ryan, a Tipp farmer who lives in Golden, near Cashel.
Mr Ryan said: "The mast really affected me - headaches, pressure in the head...my wife had severe pressure on top of the head and my grandson suffered severely - he got four to five nosebleeds a week while the mast was operational".
Now, my good friend Chekov says :"it is very irresponsible to hype up the non-existant health risks". Can I suggest, seeing that Chek dabbles in journalism, that he goes and talks to John Ryan and tells us, reporting accurately, the level of irresponsibility the latter suffers from.
And before you ask what did Vodafone say? "We are confident that there is no scientific data to prove any connection between EMF (electromagnetic fields for you and I) and adverse health effects.
They removed the mast however.....end of story

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jul 27, 2007 15:31

Whats your point? The farmer produced no proof that the mast was causing him or his favourite ewe any harm.

Vodafone removed the mast because it was the end of their 5 year lease. Thats in the IT story.

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Fri Jul 27, 2007 15:41

Agree with most of what you say Chekov but.... "the typical abuse of the planning laws by the telecoms companies" Shouldnt that be "POSSIBLE abuse of planning law."

I dont claim to have any expertise in regard to planing law but I understand it mobile phone transmitters are under some circumstances exempted from planning permission particularly where the antennae are mounted on an existing structure (as judging by the photographs appears to be the case for at least one of the "masts" here)

It may well be the case here that the telecom companies have done nothing wrong. Time and the legal process will tell.........

by Seán Ryan Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:01

Normally I'd stay out of a debate like this one, particularly one that is being argued across threads.

Chekov points out in many places that he is not an expert in this subject and proves it conclusively in practically everything he has to say on the subject.

The verdict is indeed out on whether mobile phone masts can produce adverse health effects in the human body. However, to argue that because this is the case, that these masts are safe, is to say that it is therefore fine to experiment on a group of residents. This is neither fine nor ethical.

And Chekov is quite right when he speaks of psychosomatic illness being a factor. After all, mainstream drugs, before they can be unleashed onto the public, must marginally better the placebo effect in blind tests. The placebo effect itself is a psychosomatic effect, be it a positive one. Very little is known about why the placebo effect works, otherwise it would be a major part of mainstream treatment and healthcare. In the same way, negative psychosomatic health effects are not fully understood, at a rudimentary level, we understand that fear is bad for us, and that our thoughts can instate and reinforce illness. Our knowledge of this subject is itself rudimentary, after all, if mere though can cure etc. there'd be little money in prescribing it. What I'm saying here is that firing psychosomatic illnesses into the picture when the picture itself is not understood, is but to confuse the picture. It most certainly plays a part, but how large a part is unknown.

All said and done with psychosomatic illnesses, it can be argued (logically) that members of the animal kingdom should not be prone to similar effects as human beings as they should not be aware of what a mobile phone mast is or what it does. Any adverse health reactions in animals, should all but rule out psychosomatic effects (this is only to a degree of course as the mere observance of illness in another can to a degree effect the health of an observer). There have been many studies done, that show that mobile phone masts can have an adverse effect on animal health. Of course big business has a lot of money to chuck at scientists willing to produce evidence to the contrary too. All in all, it's very difficult to discern decent material from indecent. Because of this, I tend to look at studies produced, that show these masts in a negative light more favourably.

One of the studies I speak of can be found at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?art...53668 This study was done by a very reputable group. So, to say that these mobile phone masts etc., have no negative health effects is both vapid and unsubstantiated. Whilst this study is mostly vague it does say there is reason for concern, for example, check out what is has to say with regard to the effect on semen. Fair enough this study was published in 2004. If have seen little or anything since that refutes it.

Another Study can be found at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a72568...b=all This study, first published in 2005, is an interesting study. It studies the effects that phone masts can have on fertility, with regard to white stork populations nesting close to cellular phone base stations. The link I've given just gives a synopsis, one would have to buy the whole article to read it. The synopsis however is more that adequate with regard to the point being made.

Before Chekov or anyone else starts calling me a non expert in this field (eventhough they are non experts themselves) allow me to point out that most of my working life has been spent working on transformers etc., both on paper and physically, I am very familiar with electromagnetism and the mathematics and indeed of the effects involved in it.

I spose all that remains for me to say, is that this article has only focussed on these masts with the view that they are violating the planning laws, and since electromagnetism is not a topic for speculators and the uneducated it might be an idea to keep the speculation for the other thread, and the legal ramifications for this thread.

Well I'm off for the week end in the woods. I'll happily quell dissent on what I've said when I return.

by Chekov Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:04

"Now, my good friend Chekov says :"it is very irresponsible to hype up the non-existant health risks". Can I suggest, seeing that Chek dabbles in journalism, that he goes and talks to John Ryan and tells us, reporting accurately, the level of irresponsibility the latter suffers from."

1. What on earth makes you think I'm your friend? You're about the most dishonest, untrustworthy person I've ever come across. If your friends think so lowly of you, I wouldn't like to meet your enemies.

2. EHF is real, it is a psychological reaction to the scaremongering of cynical bodies such as the Daily Mail, the various snake-oil salespeople and now the SWP. Surveys have shown that something like 3% of the population will develop real symptoms when they have anxiety about the effects of such radiation. A huge number of high quality scientific studies have proved that it is the anxiety and not the radiation that causes the problems. I have nothing but sympathy for the very real plight of the people who suffer these symptoms.

I have, on the other hand, absolute contempt for people such as yourself who are consciously and cynically helping to make them sick by grossly manipulating the evidence by selectively cherry-picking factoids from surveys. I simply don't believe that you are stupid enough to believe the crap that you're dropping here.

by moi Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:22

Sean Ryan: "Before Chekov or anyone else starts calling me a non expert in this field (eventhough they are non experts themselves) allow me to point out that most of my working life has been spent working on transformers etc., both on paper and physically."

Sean, is this your attempt to portray yourself as an expert? Those of us who know you are aware that you're nothing of the sort in this field, so please just stand with the rest and accept your status as another "non-expert".

I've worked with manys the transformer as well, but that doesn't make an expert on phone masts.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:40

Hard to fathom some of Chekov's and DGs points:

(1) John Ryan said "The mast really affected me - headaches, pressure in the head...my wife had severe pressure on top of the head and my grandson suffered severely - he got four to five nosebleeds a week while the mast was operational". And DG says he produced "no evidence"!!! The mast comes in everybody gets sick, the mast stops operating after social pressure two years back, the symptoms cease...No evidence? What would an impartial jury of fair people conclude? Prey tell. Unless perhaps somebody suggests that John was under the influence of the SWP!! Lol.

(2) Chekov, I called you a friend, because in the other thread I made it clear to you that I didn't consider you an enemy. I accept - OK you're not a friend!! However, your comments about trust, honesty and so on are not relevant. You said :"it is very irresponsible to hype up the non-existant health risks". I ask you again, go and talk to John Ryan, find out if he's irresponsible, if his family are telling lies, if he is delusional, if he's suffering from Daily Mail or SWP induced "psychological reaction to the scaremongering of cynical bodies". Examine if there is any oither 'evidence' to satisfy DG.....Golden in Carlow is not the other side of the world!!

(3) Go to site http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php and do a bit of research. All those people suffering from EHF as well?

And please, do us a favour, and let some of the comments you don't like survive. You know what I mean.

by moi Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:52

MichaelY: "Golden in Carlow is not the other side of the world"

Dear me, more sloppy use of 'facts'. Golden is in Tipperary, Michael.

by Watcher Fri Jul 27, 2007 17:29

"Whats your point? The farmer produced no proof that the mast was causing him or his favourite ewe any harm."

This is the level to which this debate has now been dragged. If you check elsewhere you will find the exact same tactic employed. Name calling and offensive inuendo. Will those that do not wish to deabte the subject go play with their toys.

by Chekov Fri Jul 27, 2007 18:11

"Chekov points out in many places that he is not an expert in this subject and proves it conclusively in practically everything he has to say on the subject."

That's snide and completely unsubstantiated. I am not an expert in any of this. However, I am quite confident that every single thing that I've written is basically correct. To attempt to put me down in such a manner is just pathetic. If you disagree with anything I say, do so, and I will back it up.

"Before Chekov or anyone else starts calling me a non expert in this field (eventhough they are non experts themselves) allow me to point out that most of my working life has been spent working on transformers etc., both on paper and physically."

Sean, since you've now attempted to play the 'expert' or 'argument by authority' card against me (since you can't actually argue), let me point out the following facts:

1. I've worked for much of the last 10 years, on and off, as a research scientist in telecoms research.
2. I had two papers published in this year's IEEE dynamic spectrum access networks conference. http://www.ieee-dyspan.org/ (which is pretty much the frontier for research in wireless coms).
3. This stuff requires me to understand RF to the extent that I can encode the various laws in computers.

Despite this, I do not claim to be an expert, because I'm not an expert on electro-magnetism. I just basically encode the work of experts. But, it does mean that I know enough about the area to spot an expert and to spot a total bullshitter. You live in category B. I'm not an expert, but I know a zillion times more than you do as is immediately obvious to anybody who has the slightest clue what they're talking about.

"One of the studies I speak of can be found at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?art...53668 This study was done by a very reputable group. So, to say that these mobile phone masts etc., have no negative health effects is both vapid and unsubstantiated."

Bwaaaaahahhahaha. You total plank, you didn't even read the effing abstract. From that paper:

"Results of these studies to date give no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF exposure and any adverse health effect."

Is this vapid and unsubstantiated? Or are you going to embarrass yourself further by going for the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" line of bullshit argument?

by Chekov Fri Jul 27, 2007 18:14

"And please, do us a favour, and let some of the comments you don't like survive. You know what I mean."

I know exactly what you mean. You are trying to imply that I am censoring comments that disagree with me. As usual, your slur is complete fantasy. I haven't removed a single comment from a single thread on this. I never edit debates that I'm involved in.

You could have checked this, but oh no, you chose to spread an untrue and malicious insinuation.

by Seán Ryan Fri Jul 27, 2007 18:37

Nothing wrong with being snide about the thoughless claptrap of a goon who'd prefer to attack a person rather than their argument.

As for your knowledge about me and what I know and or don't know, cite something substantive rather than your puny lack of reasoning.

As for the study, and the link I provided to it, I read a whole lot more than the abstract on this, you maggot ridden plank.

Allow me to quote: "Most research has focused on brain tumors and to some extent on leukemia. However, because the RF research questions are not driven by a specific biophysical hypothesis but rather by a general concern that there are unknown or misunderstood effects of RFs, studies on other health effects may be equally justified. Examples are eye diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and cognitive function. Given the increase in new mobile phone technologies, it is essential to follow various possible health effects from the very beginning and for long periods, because such effects may be detected only after a long duration, because of the prolonged latency period of many chronic diseases. Thus, research is needed to address long-term exposure, as well as diseases other than those included in the ongoing case–control studies.

Another gap in the research is children. No study population to date has included children, with the exception of studies of people living near radio and TV antennas. Children are increasingly heavy users of mobile phones. They may be particularly susceptible to harmful effects (although there is no evidence of this), and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives."

Try reading the whole fucking thing, no wonder your drivel appears as clueless as it does, seeing that you only bother to read the abstract and glean from it any lifeline than you can to support your exercise in navel-gazing.

My point is that research has not covered long term effects and that it hasn't even begun to look at the issue. Research is mostly focussed, looking at singular areas. Many reports disagree with each other. The report I have highlighted is one of the best and most honest to date. And it is unafraid to assert that research is far from complete in this field.

Now if you don't mind, I've a bus to catch and cannot afford the time to help cure your blinkered view of reality at present. Will do all that I can to help after the weekend.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Jul 27, 2007 18:38

Oh I know I know. A whole set of comments from PatC, Falco and me simply vanished from the Clondalkin debate. Puff! Gone. It made PatC write that he was suffering from hallucinations - like the people who think their health is impaired by the benign masts.
I believe you. No problem. You had nothing to do with it.
However, one final point. Nobody ever called me Mickey before - not since I was 6!! is this an opening friendly gambit or is it some very perceptive sneer that people, like me, miss Chekov?

by Chekov Fri Jul 27, 2007 19:05

"As for your knowledge about me and what I know and or don't know, cite something substantive rather than your puny lack of reasoning."

I've had the displeasure of reading your writings on this site about
a) smart / pixie dust
b) quantum physics
I was genuinely stunned to find somebody who knew so little willing to make such an idiot of themselves in public by pretending to know stuff about science.

You also don't understand the way that science works at all. I have persistently claimed that there is no evidence for health impacts of RF. You published a link to a paper which agreed with me, explicitly, in its abstract and used that to call my claims "vapid and unsubstantiated". You have followed this up by posting completely irrelevant further bits from the paper that basically say "we haven't looked at every possible problem and we might find something in the future". Well d'uh.

"My point is that research has not covered long term effects and that it hasn't even begun to look at the issue. Research is mostly focussed, looking at singular areas. Many reports disagree with each other. The report I have highlighted is one of the best and most honest to date. And it is unafraid to assert that research is far from complete in this field."

If you can find me any medical paper, about anything at all, which claims that research in any field is complete, and no uncertainty remains, then you win a prize. The paper says "no evidence, but we haven't looked at everything". The important part is "no evidence" - that's the finding, the bottom line, the money-maker.

Incidentally, if you take any arbitrary substance, and attempt to insert it into the conclusion:

"no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between X exposure and any adverse health effect."

Do you know how few things you could validly put in there?

Dairy products - no
Flowers - no
Having a Lawn - no
Using washing detergent - no
Eating lots of fruit - no

The WHO reports that 25,000 studies have been done on the health impacts of RF. They point out that it's one of the best studied things there is, much better researched than many household chemicals. For all this research to have been done and to find "no consistent or convincing evidence" qualifies RF as one of the things least likely to be dangerous that exist in our environment.

by Watcher Fri Jul 27, 2007 19:21

Chekov tells us,

"If you can find me any medical paper, about anything at all, which claims that research in any field is complete, and no uncertainty remains, then you win a prize"

At last we agree. There could be danger or there could not be danger. So why should people expose their families to the possible danger that you now agree could exist?

And regarding your reading on the subject remember the Law of Research: "Enough research will tend to support your theory".

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jul 27, 2007 19:34

We cannot be sure what is causing the problems. I reckon its certain breeds of dog. So lets get rid of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. I reckon exposure to them causes cancer.

You cant prove that I'm wrong.

by Watcher Fri Jul 27, 2007 20:43

"We cannot be sure what is causing the problems."

Glad to see that you agree too Dorothy. And no doubt you can also understand the concerns that parents have for their children in the absence of proof either way. Which brings us back to the real issue.
The phone companies are creaming it as we speak. Surely we are correct to demand from them a) As much evidence that it is possible to gather to show the extent of the risk involved and b) In the event that future proof shows that emissions have caused harm, then the phone companies must take full responsibility. That should concentrate the minds of the money lovers that have been given control of this business.

by chekov Fri Jul 27, 2007 21:10

"So why should people expose their families to the possible danger that you now agree could exist?"

This is the nub of the problem, the basic thing that impedes the public understanding of science. It's all about risk.

No competent scientist will ever say anything is certain. For example, every time that the particle acceleration people manage to set up another experiment in search of the Higgs boson or whatever, they can't rule out the fact that the never-seen-before reaction will cause the universe to implode - and some idiot media outlet normally runs with the scare: "scientists toying with fabric of universe will kill us all".

But, in reality, the risk of universal implosion is constantly present. Every time somebody does something new, it could, possibly, trigger a chain reaction of events causing the universe to collapse.

Unsurprisingly, nobody sensible worries about such stuff because it is so improbable and so impossible to accurately predict, that there's just no point. There's only so many things you can worry about, so you might as well save it for the ones that are more probable and more dangerous.

In the domain of health, virtually every single substance that you come into contact has some known potential health problem associated with it. Peanuts, pets, lawns, bees, sport, etc, etc. These, and almost everything else in the world, are associated with health problems, that are backed up by hard evidence. There really are very few things in the world that you could honestly say have no evidence for any adverse health effect.

Therefore, to answer your question, if people are worried about exposing themselves and their families to possible health dangers, they should start off by doing something about getting rid of the things that are known to have a universally negative and serious health impact:

* smoking
* drinking
* insufficient exercise
* stress
* air pollution
* excessive use of cars
* swimming
* adventure sports

Then, after those, they would move onto some less dangerous risks, but still ones that are backed up by solid evidence:
* flowers
* grass
* peanuts
* noise
* dairy products
* fish
* medicine
* walking outdoors

Once they have eradicated all of these from their environments, time to move onto the things that there is some (albeit weak) evidence for correlation with negative health impacts:

* the power system
* the road network
* aeroplanes

and so on.

After you'd gone through virtually every single thing on the planet, eradicating it, you'd then switch your attention to those rare things that have been studied in serious detail over decades without finding any solid evidence of any adverse health outcomes, such as non-ionising radiation.

You'd start by eliminating all the ones that emit relatively high frequency radiation - cathode ray tubes, the sun, lightbulbs and so on.

Then you'd move down the spectrum, and start rooting out the lower-frequency lower-energy particles (even though there's no evidence of them doing anything other than warming us slightly when they are concentrated massively)

Start with really powerful stuff (television broadcasts, radio, microwave ovens, analogue communication systems like the garda radios), then move onto the less powerful, but still noticeable stuff - mobile phone handsets, cordless phones and so on.

By this stage you've eliminated almost everything from the world. One of the few things left is mobile phone masts. They sit so far down the hierarchy of risk, that there really aren't that many things still around.

* 25,000 studies done - no convincing evidence for any health impact.
* No known mechanism by which such puny particles in such puny fields could have any noticeable impact on our health. Remember phone base-stations radiate from 1W to about 100W - compare that to a lightbulb and then think that the radiation emitted by the lightbulb is many orders of magnitude more energetic than the radiation emitted by the phone mast. Yet nobody thinks twice about sitting a metre away from a lightbulb.
* A health history which has seen no impact upon the engineers who work with them (in fact these studies show overall improvements!) Contrast this with stuff like X-Rays, where the engineers and scientists were the first to get sick, as would be expected if there was a real danger, and if lots of engineers started getting sick from something, you would hear all about it very fast.
* A history of their proliferation which has coincided with huge improvements in public health, longeivity, etc. If they're killing people, they're doing a very bad job.

In sum, based on the current evidence, they are one of the unriskiest things in the world. Although this assessment may change as new evidence emerges, we can be virtually certain that any impact is bound to be extremely small and far less risky than, say, having a lawn, or sleeping under a synthetic blanket.

by moi Sat Jul 28, 2007 01:39

Chekov's convincing demolition of MichaelY aside, what about Neilstown etc.? I totally agree that this mast panic nonsense is utter shite, but, nonetheless, it appears that cancer clusters exist ( or so it seems). I stand by my earlier suggestion: "Don't start with the 'solution'. Look for and demand the reason with an open mind."

by Watcher Sat Jul 28, 2007 07:59

So there is a risk, all that is wrong is that we don't understsnd it .according to Chekov.

But is it not strange that scientists repeatedly express concerns regarding emissions and only a couple of weeks ago a chief advisor to the British government repeated his concerns. Around the world communities express their concerns and wish not to live in close preximity to masts. Yet Chekov chides us for our inability to understand and wrote a rambling post to emphasis our fraility in this regard.

It may be an opportune moment to remind Chekov of Manley's maxim:

"Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence."

And of course it's easy to understate risk when you are not the one being asked to take it.

by Watcher Sat Jul 28, 2007 08:42

Just another point of view in this tangled web of opinions that I thought you might like to digest with your corn flakes.

"All biochemical functions (processes) are activated and regulated by our body’s own electromagnetic fields. The fact that magnetic fields enter our body’s own energy fields is well documented by biophysicists and can easily be measured. Electromagnetic frequencies are man-made and therefore unnatural, chaotic and disordered and biophysics has established that ‘Every kind of frequency combination which is not in order produces disease.’ Disease occurs through a disturbance of the electromagnetic field in the cells: they become disordered and incoherent.
It is very apparent that when we are subjected to man-made unnatural and chaotic frequencies, such as microwaves, then our body can and does store this unbalanced information in its energy fields which can lead to a weakening of our defence mechanism and ultimately illness and disease as our cells begin to reproduce in the likeness of the unbalanced information it has taken on board. This is a result of the body expending too much energy - more than it is capable of producing - whilst attempting to restore balance to energy fields that have been compromised by EMF pollution, ultimately leading to a breakdown in homeostasis.
Depending upon where there may already be a weakness in an individual’s energy structure, may well determine where the effects of this type of EMF Radiation will first manifest as a physical problem. This is what makes the etiological study of the effects of EMF’s on the biological system so difficult and so controversial at times."

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:23

Dear moi (toi and vous as well because you're slowly coming out as a Chekov supporter, among a very unsavoury lot)

Whatever your or Chekov's thoughts on the subject, you're slowly and surely losing the argument with the local people who will continue to fight until they get rid of the masts near their homes. Check comments in the other thread pls.
Some of v o u s may think this is a "pile of crap", others in the cabal may define local people in all kinds of depreciating and condescending names [see some of DG comments in the Clondalkin thread], Chekov may be searching in Thesaurus for further epithets to qualify and call people....
Reality is simple. Communities will fight, people will struggle and activists will, as they always do, divide...there will be those who will support and side with popular struggles and there will be some who will side with capital - for a variety of reasons.
That's what Irish and world history teaches me sunshine!!
In the meantime, the debate on the 'benign' nature of masts will continue though - the world over.
Watch this space.

by James Sat Jul 28, 2007 13:28

Michael, nobody is saying that local people are thick. They’re obviously not. The problem is people like you are dishonest. You haven’t even attempted to rebut the results of the reports’ investigations and you insist on misleading people as to the effect of mobile phone masts. What’s worse you do so under the guise of siding with the people against capital.

In reality you’re taking concerned folks for a ride in a pathetic bid to ingratiate yourselves as well undermining a genuine scientific approach and an interest in truth. Like an Orwellian character truth appears to be just another tool to be manipulated for your political goals. In the longer term this will only hurt science and socialism, and therefore working people.

Part of really siding with people, even just helping one’s friends, is telling them when they’ve got something wrong. If you’re genuinely concerned about people’s health you’d be focusing on socio-economic inequalities and other known *causes* - not statistically insignificant *correlations* - of ill health.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sat Jul 28, 2007 17:00

James,

You write: "Nobody is saying that local people are thick. They’re obviously not. " Cheers. Great perceptive comment from James, a new kid on this block.
However, if one looks at the other thread, if one reads Mel's, Anne Marie's, Caroline's, Watcher's comments - how are they treated? They're referred to as "mass hysteria", one intelligent mast advocate goes as far as to define the activity as akin to "mobs storming labs", "witchhunt of scientists" and basically mindless people suffering from "cheap, dishonest, misleading manipulation".

James summarizes: "In reality you’re taking concerned folks for a ride in a pathetic bid to ingratiate yourselves as well as undermining a genuine scientific approach and an interest in truth." Tell you what - if you applied your suave political babble to those who have been trying to tell people for a few days now that 'masts are good for them', you may be much closer to the truth.

Bottom line: Precisely because local people are not thick, nor fools, they are not taken in by the babble. They will continue their opposition and will get rid of the masts. despite what the Orwellian cabal says or does.....One more thing - do you see the parallels between this debate and Shell's attempt in Rossport to convince local people that capital's plans are good for them and that there is no danger......or BENE's and the ESB's increasing panic to convince Irish people that a nuclear plant is exactly what we all need and those opposing it are Luddites and anti-scientifc yobs?

Pray tell.

by El Loco Sat Jul 28, 2007 17:58

After following this thread closely, I can safely say that the arguments of Michael Y and the so-called ‘Watcher’ have been thoroughly and totally demolished. Michael Y can now only appeal to a vague populism of the most sinister character. His argument now consists of the simple premise that ‘local people will struggle and we, good activists, will support (and prosper from) their struggle’. This is despite the knowledge anybody could glean from reading easily available information that the struggle has the wrong focus and will not benefit the community in the long run. I suppose the justification for those who align themselves with his point of view is that they are raising consciousness, bringing cohesion and perhaps even radicalising local communities. But one must ask where is the value to the community or to the activists in chasing a lie. I further suppose that ‘Gino’ will accrue votes for the next elections. The redundancy of localism in Irish politics writ large. These are the sort of entryist tactics that all watchers of Irish politics have come to expect from the SWP. I know on previous IAWM threads Michael has sought to underline his independence in from the SWP in that organisation (to try to convince us that the organisation is something other than a SWP front). It now appears that he will defend the party line despite the facts.

On the other side, we have ‘Watcher’, who is obviously a basket-case and can’t compute simple information. Watcher my advice to you is to reread Chekov’s ‘rambling post’, it provides a simple and enormously compelling attack on your point of view. Stop your infantile tactic of saying ‘there is a risk, you admitted it’ and try to think through the issue.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sat Jul 28, 2007 18:38

We now have a new entrant to the pro-mast cabal - El Loco!! Lol.
Our "dishonest, misleading and manipulative" points of view have now acquired a couple of new characteristics: they've become populist and SINISTER!!
Leaving aside the nonsense of my 'following the SWP line' , which I have no idea what it is and if it exists (apart from Gino's hard work in the community with local people which I fully respect and support), I am beginning to think this matter through and ask the question:
What exactly is it that worries the pro-mast/pro-technology/pro-capital cabal?
(1) Is it the fact that left activists are working with local people in a mobilisation that may effect profits?
(2) Their attitude to local people is quite obvious - they think they are dumbheads manipulated by activists - do they care about local peoples questions, worries? 'Localism' according to the loco scribbler is "redundant"!! Where have you heard so much head-the-ball nonsense? In the Clondalkin thread a number of local people have written and mentioned their worries and their experience. The only answer they got was they talked shi (or shite) and that their lived experience did not constitute 'evidence'....wow!!
(3) Over the past month, since the elections, mobilisations have taken place in Clondalkin, in Iveagh Gds, in Rathmines/Terenure, in Dun Laoghaire, in Crumlin Rd.....also in Galway, in Derry, in Tralee and in Cork. In all of those, issues in question were local, it was health, it was services, it was privatisation, it was war production. It was local people organising WITH activists. It was very much left activists, some members of the SWP, some anarchists, and few non-aligned left wingers organising with local people. Is this new situation that's worrying and frightening the Loco cabal? Mobilisations of which their ilk is totally absent?
(4) At the beginning of this debate, my view was that a few 'modernists' like Chekov and Risible, and a few head bangers on their trail, were riding an anti-SWP horse. As the debate matured, and local people got involved, as the incidents in Golden Co. Tipp and Iveagh Gdns added themselves to the mobilisation in Clondalkin/Neilstown, positions became clearer.
So keep on writing James, El Loco and all the rest of you...tell us more why Chek was right and all the local people and activists wrong!!
Pray tell.

by El Loco Sun Jul 29, 2007 02:50

What exactly is it that worries the pro-mast/pro-technology/pro-capital cabal?

Disingenuous caricature rubbish.

(1) Is it the fact that left activists are working with local people in a mobilisation that may effect profits?

No. Rather the concern appears to be that you are furthering a lie (mobile phone masts cause ill health) for short term political gain.

(2) Their attitude to local people is quite obvious - they think they are dumbheads manipulated by activists - do they care about local peoples questions, worries? 'Localism' according to the loco scribbler is "redundant"!! Where have you heard so much head-the-ball nonsense? In the Clondalkin thread a number of local people have written and mentioned their worries and their experience. The only answer they got was they talked shi (or shite) and that their lived experience did not constitute 'evidence'....wow!!

As you know well, the localism I referred to is the localism of Finna Fail, the localism of vote seeking populism. As I said earlier, stoking unfounded local fears so you can prosper in future elections. It is a time honoured tactic in Irish politics. You are no better than those you oppose as warmongers and thieves.

(3) Over the past month, since the elections, mobilisations have taken place in Clondalkin, in Iveagh Gds, in Rathmines/Terenure, in Dun Laoghaire, in Crumlin Rd.....also in Galway, in Derry, in Tralee and in Cork. In all of those, issues in question were local, it was health, it was services, it was privatisation, it was war production. It was local people organising WITH activists. It was very much left activists, some members of the SWP, some anarchists, and few non-aligned left wingers organising with local people. Is this new situation that's worrying and frightening the Loco cabal? Mobilisations of which their ilk is totally absent?

Attempting to cloud the issue by broadening the subject under protest. Of course communities have valid concerns about the issues you list and they rightly oppose them and protest against them.

You, Mr. Y, seem to have no interest in engaging in rational debate and thus resort to ad hominin argumentation and clouding the issue at the first opportunity. In my opinion, you are lying to the people of Clondakin and elsewhere for your, and you party’s, gain. By all appearances you have no interest in the communities you claim to serve; you simply want to advance your entryist position through scaremongering. Given this, you cannot be considered (as you so self righteously do) a friend of the working class. You are no better than the capitalist rags that spread fear to sell papers for the bosses and cement their influence in the centres of power.

by Watcher Sun Jul 29, 2007 09:39

El Loco wades in with profound and deep arguement as follows,

"After following this thread closely, I can safely say that the arguments of Michael Y and the so-called ‘Watcher’ have been thoroughly and totally demolished."

El Loco said it, so it must be true

And theres more where that came from,

"Michael Y can now only appeal to a vague populism of the most sinister character."

Michael Y is big and ugly enough to look after himself, so I'll leave him to it. But you have to admit that this sentence is straight from the backrooms of the cigarette moguls of the 50's

And to close, the coupe de grace,

"On the other side, we have ‘Watcher’, who is obviously a basket-case and can’t compute simple information. Watcher my advice to you is to reread Chekov’s ‘rambling post’, it provides a simple and enormously compelling attack on your point of view. Stop your infantile tactic of saying ‘there is a risk, you admitted it’ and try to think through the issue."

This is from the "If you call them names they might go away and take their truth with them" school of debate. Well, go suck a lemon. In Chekov's rambling he introduced enough red herrings to sink a battleship. So lets take one, the aforementioned cigarettes.

Question: How long did it take to get the truth, that cigarettes were actually killing people, into the public domain?

Answer: Close to three quarters of a century.

And why was that prey tell?

Simple really, the companies were so rich and powerful that they bought everyone, professors, doctors, media moguls, journalists (yes, journalists too), politicians, governments, the lot. Those that tried to tell the truth were ridiculed and in some cases destroyed. Hell, there was even advertisements that claimed that smoking was good for health, helped asthmatics breathe easier was one of the more outragious lies delivered from the silky vocal chords of a medical doctor no less. All that was required was to pay the price and these guys parroted any old lie.
And now we have a similiar scenario. Powerful business interests with limitless cash and influence and a honey pot dripping and oozing soft money. Do you think that these guys would let a little thing like a health risk get in the way of this harvest? (Would you like a side wager that if FF open their hospitality tent at this weeks Galway races that at some stage during the week, these same powerful figures who have their hands in the mobile phone honey pot, won't be seen emerging after an audiance with our lillie white,"never even dreamed of saying an untruth" taoiseach. And I'm not referring to Paddy the Plasterer. He's mickey mouse by comparison.) Can you keep up with it so far?

And now some simple truths. Although I have not got the intellectual range and scope that Chekov, R.isible. El Loco etc undoubtedly have, what I do have is a family and concern for their well being. I understand the way of this world and know that as we here struggle to beat each other over the head, the powerful ones are sunning themselves on tropical beaches far from masts and the likes, content that Bertie and friends are at home watching the bacon and pompous dickheads are attacking parents who dare to express concern and say that they don't want their children exposed to danger. And why should they expose their children to any risk, regardless of the odds? Has Tony or Denis got a mast stuck on the side of any of their mansions? Has Bertie? Simple computing going on here.

Parents of children may not be the brightest stars in the sky but they can compute on a basic level. They have to. They simply have no time for all this high brow theorising. And what they hear and see is powerful interests, PD's, FFer's, cute hoors from Drumcondra, wannabe scientists and wannabe smart alecs all saying that mobile phone masts are as cuddly as new born tigers and that tends to raise an eyebrow. Such reactions are the result of conclusions not arrived at "a priori" but rather they are gleaned from the hard soil of lifes little experiences. You see El Loco the most profound truth of all is still 1+1=2.

If you wanna hug a mast, off you go. I choose not to.

by Lefty Sun Jul 29, 2007 09:44

The so-called 'Pro-mast' brigade have a very simple agenda. They want to discredit those who would lead an anti mast demonstration from WITHIN the community. It is clear that they imply those who support the residents in their action against these masts are idiots and dishonest attention seekers.
It seems to me this is more about personalities and the SWP than anything else.

El Loco claims that arguements have been demolished blah de blah de blah.

I have heard this tripe before. I have heard it from established lazy politicians who accuse anyone of rocking the apple cart as being alarmist and scaremongering. It is usually a reactionary position adopted in the wake of their ineptitude/corruption/ineffectiveness/bone idle laziness being exposed.

Whether these masts are hazardous to human health is really irrelevant. There is evidence to suggest they are and there is evidence that concludes their EM emissions are well within regulated safety levels.All arguements of this nature have had their scientific benefactors since the dawn of time.

What is important is that the local residents do not want this mast in their midst. They are not willing to take a chance with the health of their children simply because their is disagreement about the scientific evidence.

Local democracy is local democracy. If they want this mast removed then it is not anyones place to rubbish their efforts or their concerns.

by worker Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:29

El loco sez of MichaelY: "You are no better than the capitalist rags that spread fear to sell papers for the bosses and cement their influence in the centres of power. " And he also claims MichaelY is a member of the SWP.

Some confusion here.

Firstly, where does MichaelY stand with regard to the relations of production? How close is he to the Clondalkin working class? Not very. He is managing director of one firm and founder/technical director of another that provides software services to the financial and insurance sectors. MichaelY is, in fact, a business owner. He's a capitalist.

Secondly, he is not a member of the SWP. I doubt if they'd have him.

by Lefty Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:35

So I was right.

This is all about discrediting Michael Y more so than the actual mast and the wishes of the local residents.

At least this is cleared up.

by worker Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:40

Not at all, but as MichaelY has waded in, he's open for critique like anybody else.

I think the people of Clondalkin are right to mobilise about the mast. I don't know if they are correct about its effects, but perhaps their mobilisation is one way of finding out.

I'm not sure about the motives of certain lefties that are involved because I'm fairly certain some of them do not believe that the mast actually poses a health danger. I doubt if the SWP actually believes that mobile phone masts are a health risk. Maybe I'm wrong about that but I doubt it.

by Mike - Judean Peoples Popular Front Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:53

"The so-called 'Pro-mast' brigade have a very simple agenda. They want to discredit those who would lead an anti mast demonstration from WITHIN the community."

And what exactly is wrong with that ?

If they want to build a mast in my street and my next door neighbour comes out with all this "anti-mast" hysteria Im going to do my damndest to discredit him.

After all is discrediting not what one does to people who are wrong ?

And it is pure nonsense to suggest in these communities dont want masts. If they really felt so strongly about it they would stop using their mobile phones (which in any case are exposing them to a thousands of times more radiation than ANY mast) then the mobile companies wouldnt bother building masts there because there would be niether the need for them nor money to be made from them.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:34

My contribution to this debate, and the parallel thread re:the Clondalkin /Neilstown mobilisation [the 'wadng in' that is referred to as by the 'WORKER']has focussed on the following points:

1. The local community, the people who feel that their health and the health of their families and children are being effected / may be effected by the cell masts are right to mobilise and they should be supported. Local struggles about health issues linked to multinational profiting off the peoples back have always contributed enormously to clarity and the gradual unmasking of reality. The example given above re: the link between nicotine/smoking and cancer is an excellent one. It took three generations and massive class action suits for the link to be accepted and for the companies to pay up a tiny percentage of their profits.
2. My specific contribution on the debate re: facts was to advise people to go to the site http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php and do a bit of research.
I did not buy the line, coming primarily from Chek, that all those people were suffering from EHF - see paranoia and mass hysteria!!
3. A third contribution was to outline the results of a major Conference that took place in 2000 in Salzburg that focussed on the more processual issues re:regulation etc.

Nothing has come back in the debate re:points 2 and 3.

I note three disturbing elements:
1. The pro-mast /masts are benign people, often hiding behind their 'anonymity', resort continuously to personalised attacks, to name calling which would not be tolerated in any other social environment, workplace, social or political organisation.. Indymedia, with all the positive aspects it incorporates, gives an outlet to that repressive attitude. Which leads many good people, good activists, to avoid taking part, to stay away.
2. The same dismissive and condescending attitude reflects itself to attitudes to local people...and that divides further the 'Left' from its heart constituency.
3. And, finally, while the anti-SWP fixation is laughable both in its conception but also in the way it expresses itself, for me looking at it from the outside, is a sign of a very deep-seated malaise in sections of the Left. It's one thing to argue against pro-Zionist, pro-war, pro-US, pro-capitalist posters who jump at every occasion and litter the place. It's another to have to come to terms with nonsense peddled by individuals that we may have shared pickets, took part in demonstrations, sat shoulder to shoulder in meetings.

This pitiful attitude is well exemplified by that 'cowboy' statement above. All I can say good friend is that while my answer to you is 'Neither' I sincerely suggest you go and have your head examined - or, perhaps, let go of your favourite intake. It shows and it's not a pretty picture. As for the final post re:my attitude to the means of production......words fail me!! I know it's a Sunday morning and grey clouds are covering the sky.....but I am speechless.

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:57

"people who feel that their health and the health of their families and children are being effected / may be effected by the cell masts are right to mobilise and they should be supported"

But only if they are actually correct in their belief that the mast is affecting their healh or is likely to do so in the future

Which is not the case.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sun Jul 29, 2007 13:45

Mike,

I am delighted to acknowledge your certainty about this subject. It must arise from your involvement in the JPPF (or whatever) an obviously new arrival in the complex web of political organisations in this country. However, I don't share your cerainty and would like you to consider some of the facts outlined below.:

(1) One important policy approach that acknowledges the limit of scientific information is the precautionary principle, which is particularly relevant to the environment and health issues (Sand, 2000). The most commonly quoted definition of the precautionary principle is from the 1992 Rio declaration [Mike et al pls note carefully] : “Where there are threats of serious irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (UNCED, 1992). Adopted from early German studies of the environment, the precautionary principle would appear to me, to be a common sense tool that should be applied in this case.

(2) A company, such as O2 or Voda, whose primary stakeholders are usually shareholders,
without which a corporation would not survive, are confronted in such cases by secondary stakeholders who are not essential to a business’s survival (Clarkson, 1995). Thus, protest groups are usually considered secondary stakeholders. Nonetheless, they can wield significant influence over the successful implementation of innovative technologies by companies. It is claimed that
the failure of Monsanto to engage with key secondary stakeholders led to the rejection in Europe of GM foods (Hall and Vredenburg, 2003). Mitchell et al. (1997) argue that whether managers, or politicians, or journalists, listen to stakeholders depends on a combination of three attributes: power, legitimacy and urgency.

(3) Power is the ability of one social actor, in this case the Clondalkin/Neilstown protestors and their supporters, to force another to do something they do not wish to do. Legitimacy is the perception that an action is desirable, even morally right. Urgency is the need for an issue to be addressed quickly. Latent stakeholders possessing only one attribute are likely to be ignored by managers. The
definitive stakeholder possessing all three attributes is assured of attention, as is the dominant stakeholder with power and legitimacy.

(4)Struggle attributes, however, are dynamic. This means that less powerful groups, lacking legitimacy or power, can move into a definitive stakeholder position. Attributes are also socially constructed , therefore, even weak protest movements can become potent forces should their attributes change. A small explanation why some activists are involved in this supporting the local people.

(5) Finally, some facts you seem to ignore, or lets say o v e r l o o k
Radio waves at some frequencies can penetrate the human body by a few centimeters. The water in the body then absorbs the energy and this causes heating. The amount of heating that takes place is dependent on the intensity (or power density) of the radiation (Hyland, 2000; NRPB, 2004b). The body can cope with a certain amount of heating but above 1°C detrimental health effects can occur (Hyland, 2000). Many health concerns focus on the possibility of malignant tumors, which may be a result of the known effects of ionizing radiation rather than radio frequency exposure (Rothman, 2000; Burgess, 2004). The balance of scientific evidence is that such thermal effects of radiation pose no
health risk to the general public (IEGMP, 2000; NRPB, 2003; Rothman, 2000).

(6) And before you say 'I told you so' pls read on:
There are claims, however, that adverse health effects may result from the interaction between
microwave radio frequencies and the electrical oscillations to be found within living beings rather than through the heating of body tissue (De Pomerai et al., 2002; Hyland, 2000, 2003). The typical analogy used is that of epileptic seizures induced by flashing lights. Thus, a variety of possible health problems including headaches, sleep disturbance, epileptic fits and tumors have been linked to mobile phone technology.

Now, it may very well be accidental, or circumstancial, but these were precisely the symptoms described by the Golden Co. Tipp farmer who managed to force Vodafone to move the mast from his land. And these are the symptoms described by a number oif people in Clondalkin. So please Mike, do me a favour and discuss the above with the leadership of the JPPF. Then pls bring the resullts of your deliberations back to this thread.

Freternally

Michael

by Watcher Sun Jul 29, 2007 13:52

Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front reply to,

"people who feel that their health and the health of their families and children are being effected / may be effected by the cell masts are right to mobilise and they should be supported"

is this classic,

"But only if they are actually correct in their belief that the mast is affecting their healh or is likely to do so in the future
Which is not the case"

Such aplmob, such certainty. I too am speechless.
Please write back Mike and tell me that my 20 a day habit ain't going to kill me. I could do with a lift.

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Sun Jul 29, 2007 15:25

Watcher
Your 20 a day habit (assuming any attempts you might to give up are unsuccesful or too late) has a probability of aproximately 40 percent of eventually killing you. Consequently the probablity of something else (Hopefully old age) getting you first is aproximately 60 percent.

The probablity of a mobile phone mast killing you really depends on how likely you are to climb up one and fall off. (Hopefully aproximately 0 percent)

Michael Y
"There are claims, however, that adverse health effects may result ........"

Of course there are claims. People claim all sorts of things. It doesnt necessairly make them right. And even if the claim that "adverse health effects may result from the interaction between microwave radio frequencies" are true (which at very high levels they very well may be) it doesnt imply that a mobile phone mast is going to harm ones health. The levels of RF from a mobile mast are way too low and as more masts are built the levels will become even smaller as each mast (and more importantly the phones connecting to them) will have less distance to cover and consequently will operate at lower power.

by Watcher Sun Jul 29, 2007 16:05

"The probablity of a mobile phone mast killing you really depends on how likely you are to climb up one and fall off."

The problem Mike is of course that this is your opinion with which many do not concur, including well qualified experts.

Your assertion that my smoking will kill me is of course true. The point here is that many knew that as early as the 1930's however the cigarette companies simply denied any such claims, ridiculed those that made them and to ensure that their view would take preminence, they bought everyone. The denial continued until and only until the body count got in the way of the spin. Lets all hope history does not repeat itself with mobile phone masts.
(Your not taking brown paper envelopes, are you?)

by Indybuff Sun Jul 29, 2007 17:02

Watcher,

Have you got any evidence that a similar lie is currently being disseminated by the mobile phone companies?

Have you got evidence that the scientists carrying out the 25,000 studies are in the pocket of the phone companies?

Is there any possible study that could dissuade you from your point of view?

Unfortunately, I will not accept the reverse of these questions as answers.

by R. Isible Sun Jul 29, 2007 17:20

Your assertion that my smoking will kill me is of course true.

That's not what s/he said and if s/he had it wouldn't be true. I refer you to Chekov's excellent comment on the problem of understanding risk.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83596&comment_limit=0&c...02893

I also refer you to my 94 year old grandmother who smoked like a chimney all her life and died for reasons that had nothing to do with smoking. This anecdote does nothing to disprove the accumulated statistical probability that smoking will cause cancer and heart disease. In exactly the same manner the accumulated statistical probabilities that have been revealed from studying people living near mobile phone masts do nothing to disprove the hypothesis that mobile phone masts will NOT cause cancer.

It's very clear that the evidence all points against mobile phone masts causing cancer. That is born out by the majority of the studies released and unless MichaelY's paranoid belief that all the doctors are in the pay of the telecoms is true then a reasonable person would conclude that the energy going into this would be better going into other areas. On this note well done to the Socialist Party for mobilising around the genuine issue of stopping the slashing of A&Es around the country:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83608

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sun Jul 29, 2007 17:32

Dear indybuff

Could you pls have a look at the following studies mentioned above:

Adverse health effects may result from the interaction between microwave radio frequencies and the electrical oscillations to be found within living beings rather than through the heating of body tissue (De Pomerai et al., 2002; Hyland, 2000, 2003). The typical analogy used is that of epileptic seizures induced by flashing lights. Thus, a variety of possible health problems including headaches, sleep disturbance, epileptic fits and tumors have been linked to mobile phone technology.

When you read the conclusions of those studies and compare them to what many many people are saying across the globe
http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php
then come back, read again what irish people are sying about these effects, and lets discuss this further.
Btw did you know that the origins of the word 'buff' are rooted in the enthusiasts who went to watch fires, from the buff-coloured uniforms once worn by volunteer New York firemen?

by Indybuff Sun Jul 29, 2007 17:46

”Adverse health effects may result from the interaction between microwave radio frequencies and the electrical oscillations to be found within living beings rather than through the heating of body tissue (De Pomerai et al., 2002; Hyland, 2000, 2003). The typical analogy used is that of epileptic seizures induced by flashing lights. Thus, a variety of possible health problems including headaches, sleep disturbance, epileptic fits and tumors have been linked to mobile phone technology.”

This may be true, I couldn’t possibly say. However, the fact remains that the vast majority of studies (24,997 out of 25,000) find no link with adverse health effects. My question to Watcher, therefore, remains valid. Do you have evidence to suggest that these renowned scientists and doctors are in the pay of mobile telecom concerns? And further, that they are actively disseminating lies for their own gain? If not, this has to be considered a conspiracy theory and treated as such.

”Btw did you know that the origins of the word 'buff' are rooted in the enthusiasts who went to watch fires, from the buff-coloured uniforms once worn by volunteer New York firemen?”

Did you know that the name Michael comes from the ancient Hebrew, meaning ‘Who is like God?’? You’ve come a long way since then…

by Supporter of Phone mast removal - n/a Sun Jul 29, 2007 18:41

Hi Ive seen you have mentioned your page in relation to your protest in clondalkin.I wanted to add some comments thismorning but could not get by the block.Have you a new page set up elsewhere for this?

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Sun Jul 29, 2007 18:44 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

Yes we are in the process of setting up a new page,it should be done in the next day or two.If you like send me your email address and i will keep you informed when it is up and running.Thanks for your concerns.

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Sun Jul 29, 2007 19:13 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

To the supporter of the Mast campaigns we have set up a new page it is called mastactionclondalkin.blogs.ie
So for anybody who wishes to make a comment can do so on that site.

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Sun Jul 29, 2007 19:17 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

To the Crumlin Campaigners,I wish you all the best with your Campaign.We are campaigning against three masts here in clondalkin.We would like to offer you our support if need be.you can contact me through my email address if you wish or through our bebo site.We are in the process of helping out other campaigners in Finglas.

by Firefox Sun Jul 29, 2007 22:44

>To the people who say that there are no health
> effects from phone masts and that it is all in
> the mind. John Ryan a farmer from Golden,
> Daingan, Co. Tipperary, had no preconceived
> ideas or fears when he signed a contract with
> a phone company to erect a mast on his land.
> A few weeks into the contract, himself, wife
> and grandchild had to move out of their house
> because of nosebleeds, blinding headaches,
.> heart palpatations and many other symptoms
.> He has a letter from the chief medical
> advisor to the government stating that
> HIS HEALTH SYMPTOMS ARE DUE TO THE
> NON IONIZING RADIATION FROM THE
> SAID MAST ON HIS LAND. THE MAST WAS
> TURNED OFF LONG BEFORE THE
> CONTRACT ENDED

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Sun Jul 29, 2007 22:52

God help john ryan and his family,i really hope there health improves now.

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Sun Jul 29, 2007 23:01

It is very hard to explain how it feels to live in a house close to a mobile phone mast,it is also very hard to see a member of your family struggling to deal with there illness.Countries all over the world discribe there symptoms,and i have read many stories and i can defintely relate to how they are feeling.Dead limbs is an awful one i have to admit,waking during the night to exercise your leg or arm.Then theres the headaches and mood swings! I moved from my mothers house for one year and i was free of these symptoms,but now that i am back living at home,they have started back up again.Nobody should have to experience this.All mobile phone masts should be located in a field,and not in a residental area,not near schools or work places!

by Firefox Sun Jul 29, 2007 23:33

> I recall a mast in Sligo town being removed
> because the phone company was caught
> exceeding their emission licence. Perhaps
> this is the crux of the whole problem.
> EMISSIONS. Who says that they don't
> exceed the emissions and then take action
> when people get ill. The mast in Clondalkin
> had more than the TWELVE antennae
> permitted under exempted planning.
> The phone company removed several
> antennae a few days after the story broke
> on the cancer cluster. They left behind the
> brackets( sorry lads hope you dont get into
> trouble) Why do the phone companies hide
> masts in some communities, like the one
> on the roof of the school at st. Mary's at
> the Black church, Dorset street and the
> cinema in Whitehall? They are assisted by
> County councils to circumvent the planning
> process. Councils mislay files and insert
> applications when people discover that
> some masts were not applied for, not all
> councils do this but some of them do.
> The emission levels were checked by
> Comreg who's only reason to exist was to
> licence as many of these masts as the phone
> companies needed. SELF POLICING.
> What a Joke.

by Firefox Mon Jul 30, 2007 00:31

> Clarins Research
> For your information Clarins cosmetics
> company have revealed the link between
> accelerated skin ageing and exposure to
> artificial electromagnetic waves. They have
> developed a product called expertise3Ptm.
> This product was the subject of a scientific
> research paper. In-vetro tests and was peer
> reviewed. Government agencies tell us that
> there are no effects to any part of your body,
> yet the advertising standards office allow
> Clarins to issue a statement that there are
> effects to the skin. Someone is not giving
> us the true picture

by buddhist Mon Jul 30, 2007 00:46

How can I have a job without a mobile phone?

by Joe P. Mon Jul 30, 2007 02:21

It is possible that radiation from mobile phone masts could cause some adverse health effects. This can never be conclusively disproved as there will always be the possibility of some yet undiscovered effect no matter how many studies fail to find anything. But if the radiation from mobile phone masts is dangerous, then you cannot escape the canclusion that radiation from mobile phones themselves is equally dangerous. The frequencies emitted are all but identical, the power levels emitted are not too dissimilar. But it gets worse. Because the mast is tens to hundreds of metres away (typically) its power density is dispersed over a wide area. But what do we typically do with the mobile itself when it's active and emitting radiation? Yes, we stick it right beside the ear, just centimetres from the brain. Therefore radiation from a mobile phone will penetrate the user far more readily than radiation from a mast. Plus what about all the other mobile phones around you emitting radiation? Each phone is, in effect, a mini radiation transmitter just like a mast. Even if you live miles from a mast you are being bombarded with radiation from your own and other peoples mobile phones. I can't see the logic in opposing radiation from masts while tolerating (possibly many multiples of) that same radiation when produced by phones. (Although obviously any individual or community has an absolute right to do so - I'm just highlighting the inconsistency of it.) And anyone who genuinely believes in the health risks from mast radiation and still actually uses a mobile phone him/herself is a fool beyond measure for willingly causing self-exposure to that same radiation they think so harmful.

by Firefox Mon Jul 30, 2007 03:30

I didn't intend the Clarins article to be funny!
Anybody who wants to can varify it with the
Irish Times who ran the article in their health
supplement some months ago.
I agree with Joe up to a point, it is madness
to put a mobile phone to your head and
some scientists say that your limit for
exposure is THREE minutes per day.
We get the choice to use or not use a phone
but we dont get the same choice regarding
having or not having a mast beside us.
We are already getting feelers from the
phone companies that something is wrong
with this technology. IE. When you bought a
mobile phone a few years back there was no
mention of SARS. Specific absorbation
rates, now we are being drip fed the down side
of the mobile phone. Few more years and they
will tell us another little gem. THROW YOUR
PHONE IN THE BIN!

by Watcher Mon Jul 30, 2007 08:13

Having established that masts do present a risk to health, R.Isible pops up with this beaut,

"I also refer you to my 94 year old grandmother who smoked like a chimney all her life and died for reasons that had nothing to do with smoking"

This type of nonsense was widely used by cigarette companies trying to off set the mounting evidence that smoking killed people. (I think we are now at the bottom of the barrel.)

The fact is that the human body reacts differently to stimulai depending on several factors and it's general disposition. But the fact remains that smoking kills people. Are we now about to have further long winded theorising challanging that statement too?

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Mon Jul 30, 2007 08:38

Tut tut shouldnt that be RECYCLE your mobile phone ???

Joe has hit the nail on the head (at last someone gets it) If theres anything to worry about its the PHONES not the masts. Besides if nobody in these areas had phones there would be no point in building masts (or profit to be made) If you really believe masts are dangerous get rid of your phones and the masts will go away.

The radiation one gets exposed to from using a mobile (even for a couple of minutes) is THOUSANDS of times more than any mast. but people in their scientific ignorance think mast = BIG = bad

"Even if you live miles from a mast you are being bombarded with radiation from your own and other peoples mobile phones."

It gets worse. If you live miles from the nearest mast your phone switches to higher power (in order to be able to get its signal to reach the mast) therfore user gets exposed to MORE not less radiation.

"anyone who genuinely believes in the health risks from mast radiation and still actually uses a mobile phone him/herself is a fool beyond measure for willingly causing self-exposure to that same radiation they think so harmful."

Funny thing is in all these anti-mast threads only ONE user has come out and said s/he doesnt use a mobile. Another while admitting to a twenty a day habit (and openly acknowledging the PROVEN risks of same) appears to be more worried about the UNPROVEN risks from a mast ?

by Watcher Mon Jul 30, 2007 09:24

"Another while admitting to a twenty a day habit (and openly acknowledging the PROVEN risks of same) appears to be more worried about the UNPROVEN risks from a mast ?"

The point is Mike, and for some reason you are having great difficulty grasping it, it took decades for the truth about the dangers of smoking to be admitted. Indeed, the companies involved actually ran campaigns which stated that smoking was good for you while at the same time they knew well from their own experiments that smoking was a serious hazard to health. And that is the issue here. There is uncertainty and some might say deliberate confusion as to what level of risk masts pose.

People can choose to have a mobile phone, but what is happening with the erection of these masts is that people are not being given a choice. People have set up home and then find some morning a mast being erected next door without any information or consultation.

Surely you won't condemn people for erring on the side of caution when it comes to the health and well being of their children?

by Cynic Mon Jul 30, 2007 09:53

.> He has a letter from the chief medical
> advisor to the government stating that
> HIS HEALTH SYMPTOMS ARE DUE TO THE
> NON IONIZING RADIATION FROM THE
> SAID MAST ON HIS LAND. THE MAST WAS
> TURNED OFF LONG BEFORE THE
> CONTRACT ENDED

Firstly there is no "chief medical advisor to the government ". Maybe yopu mean the CMA of the Dept of Health. I very much doubt if any such document was sent. But you can prove me wrong: produce this document. Scan it and put it up here or even just get the CMA to confirm that he issued such advice.

I wont hold my breath.

by caroline Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:33

there are three phone masts in out area,and quite a few pylons...they were put in place without any conformation from the local people..do you think this is right because i certainly dont.i once read (community members have a right to be involved in planning or implementing development initiatives that directly impact upon them),but in clondalkin this was not the case.
In the last few years more and more people are becoming ill,and these are people that live beside the mast and pylons,and just to let you no alot of these people lived a healthy lifestyle most of them were non smokers.i am aware clondalkin and many other communities are running campaigns against these pylons and mast..arnt communities seen to serve practial functions??therefore any one who is running a campign has realised there are problems that now need to be addressed..clondalkin are looking for a simple survey to be done by mary harney is that to much to ask for,i think not..

by Cynic Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:40

"clondalkin are looking for a simple survey to be done by mary harney is that to much to ask for,i think not.."

Thousands of tests have been carried out. You just dont accept the results.

by Watcher Mon Jul 30, 2007 13:06

"Thousands of tests have been carried out. You just dont accept the results."

Any theories as to why so many people are opposed to the siting of these masts adjacent to family homes if as you are implying they are proven to be harmless?

by Caroline Mon Jul 30, 2007 13:07

Thousands of tests have been carried out. You just dont accept the results.

Cynic
you say thousands of tests have been carried out??
well then were are the results?? coz we the residents of clondalkin have seen no proof that our health is not at risk?

So if you have the results i would be grateful for you to post them so that we can all see them.

by Firefox Mon Jul 30, 2007 13:07

Where were the thousands of tests carried
out? They were not carried out in Clondalkin.
Dont nit pick, I will get the letter for you from the
chief medical advisor to the government .
What about the Clarins research? Would
you care to check the validity of that research
also? I note that there are no comments about that. Why's that now?

by Local Resident of Clondalkin Mon Jul 30, 2007 13:13

Cynic : "Thousands of tests have been carried out. You just dont accept the results"????

So if these tests were carried out then why havnt they shown them to us the community of clondalkin ?? and crumlin ???

we have done so much on this subject and no-one has came across with any results of a health survey been done from the likes of mary harney? because i know from living in the area that this group have carried out their own..
and thats just not good enough

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Mon Jul 30, 2007 13:26

HUNDREDS of persons, from the very young to the elderly, living in and around cell-towers are unknowingly living with death as both local and international medical research indicate radiation from these towers may cause major diseases, sometimes with fatal consequences.

This was the view expressed by several professors, researchers and public health scientists during a health symposium yesterday, Dec 2 2006, at the University of the West Indies (UWI) Faculty of Medical Sciences, Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex (EWMSC) in Mt Hope.

The symposium entitled “Cell Tower Radiation: Is it safe?” saw a disappointing turnout from the mobile phone companies especially since the health concern surrounding cell-towers was raised locally and internationally within recent time.

Members of the panel found that brain tumours, memory loss, a reduced sperm count and leukaemia were some of the effects caused by constant exposure to cell-tower radiation.

Noticeably absent from yesterday’s symposium were representatives of the country’s two cellular providers — TSTT and Digicel. The absence was noted by symposium chairman Keith Clifford.

Did you see DIGICEL? Digicel - doesn't the name tell us a whole story?

For more reading pls go to the link:
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,48646.html

by R. Isible Mon Jul 30, 2007 13:47

Having established that masts do present a risk to health, R.Isible pops up with this beaut,

"I also refer you to my 94 year old grandmother who smoked like a chimney all her life and died for reasons that had nothing to do with smoking"

This type of nonsense was widely used by cigarette companies trying to off set the mounting evidence that smoking killed people.

My grandmother died from a fall. What does that have to do with her smoking? Or was one of our family in the pay of the cigarette companies to push her?

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Mon Jul 30, 2007 16:35

At last a bit of sanity...wd leftie.
With so many 'demolition' experts crowding this gig, one gets completely deafened and gobsmacked by the explosive and thunderous strength of the 'pro-mast/masts are benign' group.
However, there is one fact that is slowly emerging underneath the mayhem created by the demolishers.. While it is true that a number of studies have been carried out that show that there is no direct link between the cell masts and 'cancer clusters', AS YET, the very well known fact that some cancers have a gestation period of years, if not tens of years, throws quite a lot of questions to any definite conclusion on this end. Despite the babble.
On the other hand, there is a lot of emerging evidence that cell masts, as much as the cell phones themselves, have a serious impact on the nervous and muscular systems as well as on the psychological set up of those close to the sources of radiation - especially depending on their make-up.. To dismiss this fact as 'mass hysteria', and to blame the media [or the SWP!!!!] as some have done, is a very dangerous trend - especially for people who think of themselves, and presumably are, "of the Left"!
To take a current example from a parallel thread, a number of Socialist Party comrades have taken on the HSE and mobilising on A&E closures. Should people not particularly enamoured with SP politics start arguing that they're creating hysteria because Mary Harney has a couple of "scientific studies" showing that the two-tier system is exactly what Ireland needs?
Finally, with a couple of exceptions, the pro-mast lobby has tried consistently to personalise the debate and attack individuals they don't agree with. This is not very helpful to their argument. People who come to this debate with an open mind see this/feel this...and, as a result, take sides and are energised based on attitudes and presentation rather than and above from facts.....to treat people you disagree with consistently as 'ignorant', 'silly' and 'manipulative' rebounds on you big time. Ask Monsanto, ask the cigarette lobby, ask the pro-incineration lobby, ask the nuclear lobby back here in the late '70s and early '80s.
Watch this space for more. Facts I hope

by Watcher Mon Jul 30, 2007 17:54

R. Isible's last post may well just be an attempt at wit, however given the seriousness of the matters to hand, particularly to those communities that are having these masts foisted upon them, I will try again to make the relevent point as clear as possible.

"My grandmother died from a fall. What does that have to do with her smoking? Or was one of our family in the pay of the cigarette companies to push her?"

(This can hardly be an attempt to make a case that cigarettes are not potentially lethal, can it?)

There are 4 facts regarding smoking that are relevent to this debate,
1) Smoking causes premature death in people over a period of three decades(mean)
2) This fact was well known by companies decades before it was finally admitted.
3) The companies not only witheld information put spent millions placing false information into the public domain
4) Had the correct information been placed in the public domain millions of people would have had a healthier and longer life.

People have repeatedly infered that because a study was interpreted as indicating that masts are harmless, those that remain suspicious are in some way lacking,or bloody minded, or luddites or worse. The exact same claims that were thrown at the good people who tried to alert the public to the dangers of cigarettes in the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's.

All that the people of Clondalkin and elsewhere are trying to do is protect themselves and their families from harm and they are having great difficulty believing what the phone companies are saying.

Given the behaviour of the cigarette companies that have gone before, who repeatedly and aggressively stated that their products were safe and indeed "good for you",who could blame them?

By the way your granny was one of the lucky few whose body could cope with the toxins in the cigarettes. Different people will cope differently to the emissions from masts too.

by Annmarie Mon Jul 30, 2007 18:15

So many communities, countries and people fighting for their right to live in a safe environment???
if what people are saying about these masts that they are safe???
how come nobody has any paper work or anything to prove it,,,

some research i had done today,
Dabate Parliament in the Dail on masts,
A highly skilled Professor carried out some test on certain mast's , after people becoming sick.
and on the day of examining the mast he said that the levels were turned down lowest level, because they knew this man had been coming out ,, go to the website u all will see so many people's stories,

the minutes of this meeting in the Dail are avail, so go have a look everyone!! and then come back and tell me it doesnt harm our health

by Chekov Mon Jul 30, 2007 18:22

You've more than proved that you are both either unwilling or incapable of understanding the basic concept of risk and how to honestly evaluate evidence. You think that because there are some newspaper reports about an anti-mast conference in Trinidad and some published speculation about 'non-thermal' health effects to go alongside the reports by the WHO, IEEE and dozens of meta-analyses, taking in tens of thousands of studies, which find no evidence of any health impact, that the evidence is mixed. Fair enough. When it comes to alien abductions, whether Elvis is alive and the existance of the tooth fairy, the evidence is far more mixed, I think you'll find.

BUT, even if you choose to evaluate evidence in this unorthodox way, you still haven't explained how the masts can be more dangerous than the phones themselves. Remember, according to the basic laws of physics, and all experimental evidence, we absorb thousands of times more radiation from the phone than from the masts.

If you can't, or won't, answer this objection, everybody can safely conclude that you are simply spin-doctoring.

by Watcher Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:01

Chekov, obviously the well of the souls, returns with this,

"You've more than proved that you are both either unwilling or incapable of understanding the basic concept of risk and how to honestly evaluate evidence."

This Is bull. The facts are that there is a credibility gap regarding what informatiion is being made available and the conclusions that are being drawn from statistics. On the six one news this very day, there was a report which stated that a group have studied weather patterns and conclude that hurricannes will become more numerous and severe in coming years and this they conclude is down to human activity.If we moderate our activity, the weather will also moderate. However at the end of the same report we were informed that another expert group have concluded that the phenomenon is natural and human activity has nothing to do with it and the cycle of events will take their course. Both these groups are experts in their field. Couple this type of failure for experts to agree with the well known tendancy of Companies to tell porkies regarding their products and it is very easy to see why people are concerned and uneasy.

And more,

"Fair enough. When it comes to alien abductions, whether Elvis is alive and the existance of the tooth fairy, the evidence is far more mixed, I think you'll find."

This stuff is school boy like and flies on the face of the statements from your admirers that you have a larger capacity than the rest of us when it comes to assessing risk and evaluating data.

And the final flourish,

"BUT, even if you choose to evaluate evidence in this unorthodox way, you still haven't explained how the masts can be more dangerous than the phones themselves. Remember, according to the basic laws of physics, and all experimental evidence, we absorb thousands of times more radiation from the phone than from the masts."

Firstly you are not evaluating evidence. You are evaluating somebody else's evaluation of data. And that is the precise nature of what is happening here. You believe the evaluations of those that are pro-mast and have decided to ignore the evaluations of those that see dangers.

"If you can't, or won't, answer this objection, everybody can safely conclude that you are simply spin-doctoring"

The phone-v-the mast issue has been addressed. People can choose to have a phone, they are being denied that right when it comes to masts. These masts are being located within their communities without any consultation or discussion. In addition to this point, once a mast is established these companies continue to locate additional equipment on them and this is impossible for communities to monitor. Regarding the accusation of "spin-doctoring", why?

by caroline Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:06

BUT, even if you choose to evaluate evidence in this unorthodox way, you still haven't explained how the masts can be more dangerous than the phones themselves. Remember, according to the basic laws of physics, and all experimental evidence, we absorb thousands of times more radiation from the phone than from the masts.

i would say people have taking your point on board,but what you need to understand is that every person has the choice as to wether or not they want to have a mobile phone,,,,,but the fact of the matter is they have no choice as to wether or not they want phone mast in there area???

Therefore this is the problem....that needs to be addressed..

by Chekov Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:18

Okay, watcher, so you think the World Health Organisation is completely lying when they say:

"Conclusions from scientific research

In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research."

This is not an 'expert' opinion, it is the international scientific consensus, a condensation of the opinions of all experts. If there was any controversy or disagreement with this conclusion, the WHO would mention it, unless they were consciously suppressing it. Due to the nature of the WHO, this would require a vast conspiracy, taking in most of the world's medical scientists. That's not remotely credible.

by Watcher Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:30

"However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research."

You still don't get it, do you?. This add on means that there is no conclusive evidence/proof that masts are harmless.

by Chekov Mon Jul 30, 2007 19:37

"You still don't get it, do you?. This add on means that there is no conclusive evidence/proof that masts are harmless."

One of the first rules of science is that "you can't prove a negative". Repeatedly proclaiming that a negative hasn't been proved conveys no information other than the fact that you are engaged in an argument in a domain in which you do not understand the most basic ground rules.

by Watcher Mon Jul 30, 2007 20:17

"One of the first rules of science is that "you can't prove a negative". Repeatedly proclaiming that a negative hasn't been proved conveys no information other than the fact that you are engaged in an argument in a domain in which you do not understand the most basic ground rules."

Pompus gobblegook .How dare us mere mortals question your theories and opinions.

Of course it is we how are being asked to take the risk, not the super novas that cobble together words as above.
As said before, nobody is denying you the right to a mast-in your bedroom if you want. I'm sure Tony or Denis would be glad to oblige. We choose to err on the side of caution because the health and well being of our families is at stake and we are not convinced that there is no danger. It's that simple really and no amount of jaw breakers will diminish our sense of responsibility to our children.

And a final point, do you not think it odd that given the huge money that these companies are creaming they cannot,

1) Provide verified proof that the masts are harmless
2) Pledge to take full responibility for any harm that might occur in the future owing to the "gaps in knowledge" regarding emissions.

by Firefox Mon Jul 30, 2007 20:23

The EMF project at the W H O was compromised by the fact that it had Michael
Repacholi heading it. He was scathed for many
years by his peers who knew he was also
working for the telecom industry. Don't be
misled by the people who are putting down
the people of your communities on this site.
They too work for the industry. They will be
back on to attack me and give their spin on
behalf of the companies. They do this as a
profession. Nobody is contesting the Clarins
research! WHY WHY WHY?
No takers on the emissions either,
That's because they know this happens. They nit pick and attack people to take the discussion away from the real issue.
Phone masts are Dangerous !

by Chekov Mon Jul 30, 2007 21:18

Watcher: if you think that "you can't prove a negative" is pompous gobbledygook, could you please provide me with proof that you won't, at some stage in the future, develop a taste for human flesh and consume several dozen babies?

[If not, I think you'll agree that you should have your liberty restricted to protect the community]

Sean Ryan: my apologies for mistakenly attributing the smart-dust expertise to you. I confused you with your collaborator in expertise on Irish constitutional matters, who goes by the name of "me" or "no6." or something similar (I was sort of hoping that you were all one person to be honest - misguided optimism in human nature I suppose). Anyway, your expertise in constitutional matters gets the very same review - laughably non-existant.

I warmly accept your pity too.

Firefox: the Clarins research does not exist. As part of their marketing during the launch of their product, they claimed that they would publish a study in 2008. I assume that it's total bullshit, like 100% of the scientific content of cosmetics companies. Now if there is one thing that really is thoroughly dishonest, it's cosmetics advertising. Personally, I think that bodies like the WHO and IEEE are vastly more trustworthy sources of scientific information than cosmetics ads.

Incidentally, it doesn't really matter that much who the chair of the WHO committee is. They just coordinate the work of all the various affiliated bodies (54 countries and the scientific committees of several dozen international organisations like the EC, the ILO and many more). The chairman can't just write whatever report he wants, there has to be fairly broad international agreement before findings are published. If there is disagreement and all the bodies can't agree on a finding, the WHO will report: "opinion is divided over this issue." Such bodies tend to be conservative and cautious in their findings and recommendations.

by Firefox Mon Jul 30, 2007 22:49

Why do you assume that the Clarins research
is just a marketing ploy? Is that because it
disagrees with the closed mind that you have
on the effects of microwave radiation from
masts. You are telling people not to presume
that masts are a danger to their health but it
is ok for you to presume that Clarins are
lying regarding their research. Double standards there Chekov! Repacholi is quoted by every mobile company as being the leading
authority on emissions of Non Ionizing
Radiation, thats because they pay him to say
that they meet the ICNIRP guidelines. The
WHO do what governments tell them otherwise
they don't get money. Google REPACHOLI
and see how he is reviled by his peers in
the scientific world .

by Watcher Tue Jul 31, 2007 08:24

Chekov wonders off again with this really deep thought/question.

"Watcher: if you think that "you can't prove a negative" is pompous gobbledygook, could you please provide me with proof that you won't, at some stage in the future, develop a taste for human flesh and consume several dozen babies?
[If not, I think you'll agree that you should have your liberty restricted to protect the community)"

Once again for the blind with 20/20 vision. The truth is that we simply do not know what lurks within emissions. The fact is that we won't know until a reasonable time has passed and we can assess from expreience the effects rather than relying on prediction. However, people are being asked, sorry forced, to expose themselves and their families to these emissions without any consultation or permission and people are understandably, whether you like it or not, questioning this whole process. They want reassurance/answers, not theories. Remember the people in charge of these masts are privateers who's only concern is profit. In their eyes, people are a mere means to that profit.

And perhaps this quote, from a certified genius, will help to explain peoples fears and spotlight the core issue,

"Facts are unavoidably contaminated by the theories devised to explain them. Scientists, in practice, have no choice but to look for data under the street lamps of theory. The problem is particularly acute with experimental apparati, (new technology) the design and operation of which may themselves depend upon theory, sometimes upon the very theory being tested.
If facts are theory-laden, then, contra the traditional image, they cannot serve as a neutral court in which rival theories are tried (Kuhn)."

by Raymond McInerney - Global Country of World Peace Tue Jul 31, 2007 15:08 raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie Limerick 00353860638611

ALFONSO BALMORI
Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León,
Valladolid, Spain

Monitoring of a white stork population in Valladolid (Spain) in the vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations was carried out, with the objective of detecting possible effects. The total productivity, in the nests located within 200meters of antennae, was 0.86 ± 0.16. For those located further than 300m, the result was practically doubled, with an average of 1.6 ± 0.14. Very significant differences among the total productivity were found (U = 240; p = 0.001, Mann-Whitney test). In partial productivity, an average of 1.44 ± 0.16 was obtained for the first group (within 200m of antennae) and of 1.65 ± 0.13 for the second (further than 300m of antennae), respectively. The difference between both groups of nests in this case were not statistically significant (U = 216; P = 0.26, Mann-Whitney Test U). Twelve nests (40%) located within than 200m of antennae never had chicks, while only one (3.3%) located further than 300m had no chicks. The electric field intensity was higher on nests within 200m (2.36 ± 0.82V/m) than on nests further than 300m (0.53 ± 0.82V/m). Interesting behavioral observations of the white stork nesting sites located within 100m of one or several cellsite antennae were carried out. These results are compatible with the possibility that microwaves are interfering with the reproduction of white storks and would corroborate the results of laboratory research by other authors.

by anon Tue Jul 31, 2007 15:29

Watcher leans on a quote from Hans Kuhn to contradict Chekov, calling Kuhn a "certified genius".

Really? Who 'certified' him?

Kuhn an authority on facts? Pleeze! Kuhn is a Godist, a Catholic theologian who writes apologetics for religion. A believer in the supernatural is enlisted as back up by Watcher...umm, makes sense, actually.

by Lefty Tue Jul 31, 2007 16:30

Discredit the man not the argument, hmmmm, convincing?

I don’t think so.

But we could do this all day but it won’t change the fact that the people of Clondalkin have the right to protest against this masts installation and no amount of high-brow pseudo-intellectual sophism posing as opinion will change that.

This thread is now nothing more than an ongoing ideological argument between the usual suspects pursued through other means.

Very little that has been posted here lately has its sole intention or consideration in the people of Clondalkin.

by Watcher Tue Jul 31, 2007 17:20

anon, please read the posts if you wish to contribute.

"Watcher leans on a quote from Hans Kuhn to contradict Chekov, calling Kuhn a "certified genius".

1) The Kuhn that I quoted is one of the most highly regarded thinkers of modern times
2) What I said was that the quote might help to bring the discussion back to the core issue. I lean on nobody on this issue. Read posts.

"Kuhn an authority on facts? Pleeze! Kuhn is a Godist, a Catholic theologian who writes apologetics for religion."

I thought we had reached the neder regions and had begun to rise again. Now we are being told that any individual who believes in a God is somehow to be gagged, excluded, ignored. Explain please. The quote by the way, is from Thomas S. Kuhn, US teacher and thinker and I haven't the faintest idea what his private beliefs were. I do have a slight feeling though that you are mixing up Kuhns, along a with a few other things no doubt.

"A believer in the supernatural is enlisted as back up by Watcher...umm, makes sense, actually"

Gobblegook rears it's head again. This wink, wink, nod ,nod stuff masquarading as argument is thoroughly depressing.

And yes Leftie I agree. The people of Clondalkin and Crumlin and Derry and Sligo etc etc are at the coalface and must be supported. They are perfectly entitled to ensure that their families are not exposed to any harm. And they must feel aneven greater sense of alarm having read some of the arguements posted here defending the prediction/forecast that these masts are harmless.

by is this guy for real? Tue Jul 31, 2007 23:55

Raymond McInerney,

If you knew the slightest thing about electric fields you would not be reporting as a "finding" even worthy of comment that electric field strength was lower at distances over 300m from a transmitter than at distances less than 200m from a transmitter. THAT'S WHAT ELECTRIC FIELDS DO FOR FUCKS SAKE!! They decrease in intensity in accordance with the laws of physics as you get further away from the transmitter. D'oh.

by ANNMARIE Wed Aug 01, 2007 07:49

these mast have been tested on short term basis,,meanning if someone has live beside them for 8 years nobody knows the effects!!!
so how can u say they are not putting us a risk???

people can choose to have a mobile phone , we didnt get a choice as to weather or not we would want one of these sorry i mean three, that we know of, in our community,,

my question is why hide these and make them look like flood lights and in between trees? and all sorts, if they are not harmful??????

back to my point above .. any body that has commented on this go look and tell me tha they have studie long term....because they havent in ireland.

by Joe P Wed Aug 01, 2007 14:17

I did point out the inconsistency in objecting to masts while using phones. Thought I was on to something there. But Watcher has it all sussed: "The phone-v-the mast issue has been addressed. People can choose to have a phone, they are being denied that right when it comes to masts." Well, that's ok then isn't it. Well, yes, if your concerns are selfishly restricted to yourself it's addressed - you can happily choose whether or not to accept the "risks" from bathing yourself in the radiation from your own phone while having no choice in accepting the risks from the mast down the road.

Ah, but what about the effects of YOUR phone on OTHER people? Use your phone in any public place and you are subjecting your fellow citizens to levels of radiation much higher than they will receive from a mast 50 yards away. Use it on the bus and the unfortunate next to you might as well stick his head within literal spitting distance of a mast. Not so nice is it?

I would have the height of respect for mast objectors if they never use a mobile phone themselves. Otherwise they are subjecting their neighbours to exactly what they are objecting to for themselves. Either out of ignorance or hypocrisy. Take your pick.

by Lefty Wed Aug 01, 2007 15:08

Your whataboutery, either/or argument addresses nothing.

The point stands. You have the choice to use a mobile phone. You do not have a choice when one of these masts is erected in close proximity to your home.

You have the right to protest about any perceived hypocrisy you imagine exists within this protest just as much as those in Clondalkin have the right to protest against the unsolicited erection of a possible health hazard in their midst.

Will we see on the streets soon?

by Watcher Wed Aug 01, 2007 20:19

"I did point out the inconsistency in objecting to masts while using phones. Thought I was on to something there. But Watcher has it all sussed:"

Wrong Joe, I never claimed to have anything sussed. I merely pointed out that the repeated citing of evaluations of data by scientists and experts was inapropriate as these could only be regarded as predictions/ forecasts. The fact is it will take many decades to determine the true level of danger that emissions pose.

In addition, I also sought to point out the frailties of scientsts and experts. They are mortals as we are, capable of error and other failings such as vanity etc. I quoted Kuhn to make the point regarding theorising and there is another quote, this time from Lakatos, that underpins the humanity of scientists and experts,

"Popper’s [demarcation] criterion ignores the remarkable tenacity of
scientific theories. Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a
theory merely because facts contradict it. They normally invent some
rescue hypothesis to explain what they then call a mere anomaly or, if they
cannot explain the anomaly, they ignore it . . ."

So all in all Joe if you are a family person being forced to live beside a mast things are, as you say yourself "Not so nice"

by Joe P. Wed Aug 01, 2007 20:35

Lefty, you're missing the point, whether accidentally or deliberately, I can't tell.

"You have the choice to use a mobile phone. You do not have a choice when one of these masts is erected in close proximity to your home."

So far, so true. But you do NOT have a choice when someone else uses a mobile phone, particularly in close proximity to you. What's the difference between a mobile phone propagating radio waves and a mast-mounted base station propagating the same frequency, similarly powered radio waves? None whatsoever. Except you're likely to be a lot closer to the phone than the mast so the radiation from the phone(s) will be stronger, if anything. So mobile phone users are imposing their radio waves on the population at large as much as the phone company masts are. And if you're against the imposition of microwave radiation on communities without permission, then you have got to be against phones as much as masts. Surely it is rank hypocrisy to protest against a wrong while committing the same wrong against other people yourself???

Or to use an analogy, what would you think of a anti-incinerator protester who burned dangerous chemicals in the back garden? Or a global warming protester who drove an SUV and used a outdoor patio heater? Do you not think they would lack a little credibility? Just a teeny weeny bit, huh?

by paul Thu Aug 02, 2007 00:58

Hyland isn't a professor, he's an Associate Fellow of theoretical physics, retired from a reputable university. Although his paper on mast-victims.org is just speculation, he has published a paper in the Lancet (a reputable medical journal) speculating on links between electromagnetic radiation and biological effects.

However, if you read the Lancet paper (available here : http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/lancet_hyland_physics_an...y.pdf ) you'll find some gems.
How about this:
Although the power density of the radiation used in
these experiments is typical of that found at the head
when a mobile handset is used, and thus much higher
than that close to a base-station, the information content
of the radiation emitted by base-stations is the same.
Accordingly—apart from near/far field differences (ie,
localised exposure to the near field during handset use
and whole body exposure to the far field from a basestation)—
these results are not irrelevant to any
consideration of potential adverse health effects
associated with chronic exposure to base-station
radiation.
Apart from being speculative and deliberately obfuscated ("not irrelevant"? Come on! Is it relevant or not?), the argument doesn't stand up to any analysis. If I'm understanding correctly, he's saying that even though the exposure from handsets is much higher than from masts, we should still be worried about mast exposure because "the information content is the same". So now, exposure to "information" is to blame?
The Lancet peer reviewers shouldn't have let him get away with this. However, I'd guess that the reason he got away with it is because he knew it would be reviewed by medical experts, not physicists, so he thought he could fool them with some physics talk . This paper is not an epidemiological study, it is speculation, backed up by some unverified theory. It does not prove or disprove anything. It also contains a single (one!) piece of anecdotal evidence which really has no place in a scientific journal. It's a poor piece of writing in my opinion, but I'm not an expert in the actual field.

To sum up, neither the Hyland's Lancet paper nor the mast-victims.org paper can be used to support (or deny) the existence of a causative link between mast radiation and disease.

by Lefty Thu Aug 02, 2007 08:15

First of all we are told that the use of mobile phones in proximity to your person is a danger out of your control (despite the fact that you can simply move away and that the exposure level is intermittent and variable- the same cannot be said of these masts).
Now we have lay people rubbishing published papers by recognised experts.

If those protesting this mast did the same the outcry from the pro-mast people would be deafening.

There is still an inescapable fact here. The people of Clondalkin are entitled to protest about the erection of a potential health hazard in their midst.

All the evidence wrt long term exposure is inconclusive because there has been no long term study done. Until there is and the health hazards thoroughly discounted I do not think it unreasonable for concerned parents to act in what they feel is the best interest of their children.

It took a while but the usual muffled chant of NIMBY has raised its head. We are now entering the arena of the ridiculous and desperate.

I still fully support the effort of the people of Clondalkin but more importantly they are unaware of and in no way distracted by anything posted in this thread.

As I have said, this thread is not about the safety implications of mobile phone masts. It is a personalised dispute between two sections of the left attempting to undermine each others credibility.

The subject matter here is irrelevant. You might as well be arguing over the price of bread.

by Watcher Thu Aug 02, 2007 08:35

Joe P. this is a non agrument in the context of this discussion. By all means you should open another post arguing the point that in your view people who own mobile phones cannot protest if a mast is located beside their home. That is not the point at issue here, rather the issue is, are these masts dangerous. The argument is slightly disengenuis in as much as if it were required that people concerned about an issue must refrain from using any by-product associated with it, that would require a complete halt to living. What do people do in the modern world who consider the burning of fossil fuels to be dangerous and life threatening? Your logic requires them to either stop living or shut up. My guess is that your argument is a construct to allow you call people names and not a serious attempt to engage.

Paul, I agree that the "Hyland papers are not evidence" and I also agree that his "paper is not an epidemiological study, it is speculation, backed up by some unverified theory." This is precisely what lies at the core of this debate. We simply will not know for sure or with any degree of acceptable certainty until many decades have passed, at least a life time, what the dangers from emissions are.

You Finish with,

"To sum up, neither the Hyland's Lancet paper nor the mast-victims.org paper can be used to support (or deny) the existence of a causative link between mast radiation and disease."

The point is of course that nobody can prove the opposite either. If they could the privateers that are in charge of this stuff would have placed this into the public domain and would have voluntarily underwritten any risk to those exposed to the emissions from masts. They have done neither.
Emissions from phones is a different matter as the person has chosen to own one, unless that is, the seller specifically and categorically claims that phones are in every respect harmless, knowing that to be uncertain or false.

by Joe P. Thu Aug 02, 2007 19:38

Emissions from phones is NOT different, it is voluntary for the user but imposed on his/her neighbours. The neighbour of a mobile phone user has no choice in the matter and is forced to suffer the consequences of exposure to a mini-transmitter.

Your analogy with fossil fuels is flawed. Firstly, the evidence is now overwhelming (to all but the most wilful) that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing hugely to greenhouse gases and climate change. Therefore I would expect someone who is concerned about that (which should be all of us) to at the very least take all practical steps to minimize their own fossil fuel consumption. Fair enough? I would certainly not expect them to deliberately and consciously make unnecessary use of fossil fuels. I would of course have to admit that even someone who does grossly abuse fossil fuels is still entitled to protest at the use of fossil fuel by others or by society in general. Such muppets and hypocrites still have the right to protest. However while they certainly have the RIGHT to protest I would not give them much credibility.

Now back to the masts and phones. There is no widely accepted scientific consensus that any harmful effects can be shown. Every last barrel is having its bottom scraped to no better effect than a general proposition that, well, there MIGHT be something harmful as yet undiscovered. Which could be said about ANY substance or activity so that doesn't really help us in any way. So, yes, of course any community/individual has the right to protest despite the lack of evidence. And if they're doing so from good anti-profiteering principles, fair play to them. But, if they truly believe masts are harmful, then they should remember their own phones are mini masts and they are doing to their neighbours what the phone companies are doing to them. That's hypocrisy in my book.

BTW microwave radiation is not new to mobile phones; it's been around in telecommunications since the 1950's. A whole generation of telecomms technicians have spent their entire careers working in close proximity to microwave radio generators, waveguides and antennas. (in places like the eircom Dame Court/Exchequer St. complex, for instance) The earliest of these are now retired and there are NO health concerns among these guys about their exposure. It's just not an issue. As my friends in the Communications Workers Union confirm to me - if there was any problem, these guys would be in the forefront and they're not.

by Watcher Thu Aug 02, 2007 20:40

"Emissions from phones is NOT different, it is voluntary for the user but imposed on his/her neighbours. The neighbour of a mobile phone user has no choice in the matter and is forced to suffer the consequences of exposure to a mini-transmitter."

Joe, what posts are you reading?

"Your analogy with fossil fuels is flawed. Firstly, the evidence is now overwhelming (to all but the most wilful) that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing hugely to greenhouse gases and climate change"

How long Joe were we burning fossil fuels before we realised that there was a problem?

."Therefore I would expect someone who is concerned about that (which should be all of us) to at the very least take all practical steps to minimize their own fossil fuel consumption. Fair enough? I would certainly not expect them to deliberately and consciously make unnecessary use of fossil fuels. I would of course have to admit that even someone who does grossly abuse fossil fuels is still entitled to protest at the use of fossil fuel by others or by society in general. Such muppets and hypocrites still have the right to protest. However while they certainly have the RIGHT to protest I would not give them much credibility."

Is this some kind of test? The point here is that it is impossible to live in the modern world and not burn, or cause to be burned, fossil fuels.

"Now back to the masts and phones. There is no widely accepted scientific consensus that any harmful effects can be shown."

True, nor have we such proof that they are safe. Remember the fossil fuels?

" So, yes, of course any community/individual has the right to protest despite the lack of evidence. And if they're doing so from good anti-profiteering principles, fair play to them."

It is the "lack of evidence" that has triggered the concern that has triggered the protests. And please remember that the cigarette companies knew for decades that smoking could be fatal but simply neglected to share that info with the rest of us. Are you suggesting that the people of Clondalkin are protesting for profit? Their motive is simple-they don't want their kids used as guinea pigs to prove or disprove your theories regarding masts.

"But, if they truly believe masts are harmful,"

Wrong again Joe, they are fearful that they might be harmful to their children. Surly you must accept that it is up to those individuals who are making uncountable fortunes out of this business to satisfy them that they are wrong and to state clearly and unambiguously that they will take full responsibiltiy should they be proved wrong in the future. They are not doing or saying anything remotely like that. They are waffling and publishing evalutions of data that implies that emissions are harmeless.

"BTW microwave radiation is not new to mobile phones;"

The amount of emissions were until recently minute. Usage is now widespread and therefore emissions are off the scale by comparison.

by Joe P. Thu Aug 02, 2007 21:12

Watcher: "Wrong again Joe, they are fearful that they might be harmful to their children."

I find it hard to take seriously anyone who is fearful that masts might harm their children and yet uses a mobile phone in close proximity to the same children.

Watcher:"The amount of emissions were until recently minute. Usage is now widespread and therefore emissions are off the scale by comparison."

Again, you are (wilfully?) misunderstanding what I said. Yes the amount of emissions impacting on the general public was relatively minute until recent times. But not so for the radiation levels WITHIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTRES. In such centres, radiation from mobile phone technology is a small fraction of the radiation from other microwave radio apparatus. And this radiation has been around since the 50's. And as I said, an entire generation of telecoms technicians has worked in such centres and is now happily retired. And their union has no issue whatsoever with any adverse health effect.

But maybe they're all part of the conspiracy too????? Heaves a weary sigh...........

by Watcher Fri Aug 03, 2007 09:03

Despite the many very cogent points raised in this discussion, we are down to skin and bone.

Joe P. struggles to grasp the protective nature of responsible parenthood with this,

"I find it hard to take seriously anyone who is fearful that masts might harm their children and yet uses a mobile phone in close proximity to the same children. "

Theres a touch of ethnocentrism emerging here. It's like the cover that people in an other bit of the mobile phone business use to excuse the exploitation of people . The infamous "subscription service" scam. "Sure who in their right mind would fall for that stuff and if they do sure they deserve to be mugged."
And it does not matter what you do or do not find "hard to take seriuosly" What you cannot do is reassure us that these masts are not harmfull and you are not alone in this failing, yet you would browbeat us into accepting a position that masts are benign servants of humanity. And the tendency to name call those that challange this autocratic view has only served to heightened concerns.

And the enevitable retreat into victimhood,

"Again, you are (wilfully?) misunderstanding what I said."

Not so. What you said you said and it is there for all to see as is my response.

From victimhood to agreeing the point of reply made which was the basis of the claim.

"Yes the amount of emissions impacting on the general public was relatively minute until recent times."

Progress at last. And a very important one. We all know that pollutants can take a very long time to show what damage they are doing and volume or intensity are crucial. The fossil burning point made earlier is as good as any to establish this. If humanity consisted of a few million people, fossil burning would have taken immeasurable longer to show it's hand. In fact if the intensity was very low, nature may well have coped with the pollution and negated any dangerous pollutants. Similarily, each human body copes with exposure to pollution differently and time taken to do lethal damage can range from months to decades. It is a fact for example that a smoker will take time off their lives. Even the 94 year old granny who smoked like a chimney would probably have lived into her 100's if she had not smoked. However the truth is that smoking kills prematuirely and also causes very distressing diseases on the journey to death..

And this,

"But not so for the radiation levels WITHIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTRES. In such centres, radiation from mobile phone technology is a small fraction of the radiation from other microwave radio apparatus. And this radiation has been around since the 50's. And as I said, an entire generation of telecoms technicians has worked in such centres and is now happily retired. And their union has no issue whatsoever with any adverse health effect."

Is this observation being put forward as proof that masts,radiation etc are harmless? Has Joe tripped across a piece of evidence that all the pro-mast experts up to now missed. Why has this observation not appeared in the field work of those that are putting forward evaluations trying to prove that masts are safe.? Could it be it's as about as relevent as a lighthouse in a bog?
And the obvious questions, were children in these centres, what was exposure times, was it constant etc etc. For example if exposure to constant radiation takes thirty years to kill, then given that workers were exposed for 40 hrs per week, it would take a couple of lifetimes for the radiation's impact to become clearly seen. And what is this about the Union's being happy. Joe, the Unions are so far up the asses of the bosses nowaday that it would not surprise me if Tony O'Reilly was made honorary president for life of the ICTU.

And a last refuge,

"But maybe they're all part of the conspiracy too????? Heaves a weary sigh..........."

Maybe they are Joe. But it is profoundly sad that having showed that it is impossible to establish that masts are harmless you went to now condemn those that are questioning the present frenzy of activity in this area by implying that they are merely conspirancy theorists. The old pigeonhole'em trick. It won't wash Joe because people are rightfully concerned and questioning what is going on.We are of a generation that could read and understand the world. We have seen it all before. Now we don't sit back and assume that the lord of the manor must be right. With awareness comes curiosity. Long may it continue.