Phone masts proven to damage health...

....according to today's Manchester Evening News: "FAMILIES living close
to THREE mobile phone masts want action after a survey revealed living
within 400ft of just one can damage health."

Full story:

<http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...._families_trip
le_phone_mast_fears.html>

I know where these masts are and at least 2 of them have been there for
a few years so if they "can damage health" as this so-called reporter
states where are all the local residents who have been struck down by
the death rays?

I'd write to the paper but having spent years laughing at the idiotic
comments on the MEN letters page, I thought better of it. The online
comments (4 to date) are typical.

news@leuty.me.uk declared for all the world to hear...
> ...according to today's Manchester Evening News: "FAMILIES living close
> to THREE mobile phone masts want action after a survey revealed living
> within 400ft of just one can damage health."
>
> Full story:
>
> <http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...._families_trip
> le_phone_mast_fears.html>
>
> I know where these masts are and at least 2 of them have been there for
> a few years so if they "can damage health" as this so-called reporter
> states where are all the local residents who have been struck down by
> the death rays?
>
> I'd write to the paper but having spent years laughing at the idiotic
> comments on the MEN letters page, I thought better of it. The online
> comments (4 to date) are typical.

7 in 30 staff at a nearby school have developed some form of cancer -
national average is 1 in 3 is it not?

31 cancers in one street? Shame we don't get told how many houses are on
that street. Probably a hundred? With an average of 3 people living in
each one? That's 300 people and 31 cancers - quite low.

I liked Aces comments, apparently he has proof that phone companys (sic)
have been hiding masts for years, disguising them as flagpoles, lamp-
posts etc.

I hope nobody points him to the sitefinder website.
--
Regards
Jon

"Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20bd85447a9798ec98aa03@text.usenet.plus.n et...
> news@leuty.me.uk declared for all the world to hear...
>> ...according to today's Manchester Evening News: "FAMILIES living close
>> to THREE mobile phone masts want action after a survey revealed living
>> within 400ft of just one can damage health."
>>
>> Full story:
>>
>> <http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...._families_trip
>> le_phone_mast_fears.html>
>>
>> I know where these masts are and at least 2 of them have been there for
>> a few years so if they "can damage health" as this so-called reporter
>> states where are all the local residents who have been struck down by
>> the death rays?
>>
>> I'd write to the paper but having spent years laughing at the idiotic
>> comments on the MEN letters page, I thought better of it. The online
>> comments (4 to date) are typical.
>
> 7 in 30 staff at a nearby school have developed some form of cancer -
> national average is 1 in 3 is it not?
>
> 31 cancers in one street? Shame we don't get told how many houses are on
> that street. Probably a hundred? With an average of 3 people living in
> each one? That's 300 people and 31 cancers - quite low.
>
> I liked Aces comments, apparently he has proof that phone companys (sic)
> have been hiding masts for years, disguising them as flagpoles, lamp-
> posts etc.
>
> I hope nobody points him to the sitefinder website.
> --
> Regards
> Jon
>
>
It's a shame someone doesn't explain the inverse square law to these people.
A mast at 400 metres gives a lot less field strength than a mobile phone at
the side of your head. Plus less masts equals weaker signals for mobile
users which causes the power of the mobile to be upped which makes matters
even worse not better. Even if mobile phones are bad for you which I don't
believe they are, then less masts means more radiation for mobile users.

"Phil" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4653aab4$0$19235$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> "Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20bd85447a9798ec98aa03@text.usenet.plus.n et...
>> news@leuty.me.uk declared for all the world to hear...
>>> ...according to today's Manchester Evening News: "FAMILIES living close
>>> to THREE mobile phone masts want action after a survey revealed living
>>> within 400ft of just one can damage health."
>>>
>>> Full story:
>>>
>>> <http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...._families_trip
>>> le_phone_mast_fears.html>
>>>
>>> I know where these masts are and at least 2 of them have been there for
>>> a few years so if they "can damage health" as this so-called reporter
>>> states where are all the local residents who have been struck down by
>>> the death rays?
>>>
>>> I'd write to the paper but having spent years laughing at the idiotic
>>> comments on the MEN letters page, I thought better of it. The online
>>> comments (4 to date) are typical.
>>
>> 7 in 30 staff at a nearby school have developed some form of cancer -
>> national average is 1 in 3 is it not?
>>
>> 31 cancers in one street? Shame we don't get told how many houses are on
>> that street. Probably a hundred? With an average of 3 people living in
>> each one? That's 300 people and 31 cancers - quite low.
>>
>> I liked Aces comments, apparently he has proof that phone companys (sic)
>> have been hiding masts for years, disguising them as flagpoles, lamp-
>> posts etc.
>>
>> I hope nobody points him to the sitefinder website.
>> --
>> Regards
>> Jon
>>
>>
> It's a shame someone doesn't explain the inverse square law to these
> people. A mast at 400 metres gives a lot less field strength than a mobile
> phone at the side of your head. Plus less masts equals weaker signals for
> mobile users which causes the power of the mobile to be upped which makes
> matters even worse not better. Even if mobile phones are bad for you which
> I don't believe they are, then less masts means more radiation for mobile
> users.

The really scary thing is the low standard of literacy in the submitted
comments - misspellings, malapropisms and so on! Perhaps it's an effect of
reading the Manchester Evening News.

Roger

"Roger" <rfm@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1179905706.829907@leri.aber.ac.uk
> "Phil" <nospam@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4653aab4$0$19235$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

[snip]

> > It's a shame someone doesn't explain the inverse square
> > law to these people. A mast at 400 metres gives a lot
> > less field strength than a mobile phone at the side of
> > your head. Plus less masts equals weaker signals for
> > mobile users which causes the power of the mobile to be
> > upped which makes matters even worse not better. Even
> > if mobile phones are bad for you which I don't believe
> > they are, then less masts means more radiation for
> > mobile users.
>
> The really scary thing is the low standard of literacy in
> the submitted comments - misspellings, malapropisms and
> so on! Perhaps it's an effect of reading the Manchester
> Evening News.

What got me in the Panorama programme the other day was the so-called
"expert" with his signal strength meter out in the school playground. He
then went into a wi-fi-equipped classroom and wondered that the field
strength was higher than that from the mast outside. Of course it was, he
was closer to the transmitting aerials..! No mention *at all* was given to
the fact that wi-fi uses power levels *far* lower than the mobile phones
that kids clamp to the sides of their heads.

Journalism....

Ivor

On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:27:07 GMT, Chris Leuty <news@leuty.me.uk>
wrote:

>...according to today's Manchester Evening News: "FAMILIES living close
>to THREE mobile phone masts want action after a survey revealed living
>within 400ft of just one can damage health."
>
>Full story:
>
><http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...._families_trip
>le_phone_mast_fears.html>
>
>I know where these masts are and at least 2 of them have been there for
>a few years so if they "can damage health" as this so-called reporter
>states where are all the local residents who have been struck down by
>the death rays?
>
>I'd write to the paper but having spent years laughing at the idiotic
>comments on the MEN letters page, I thought better of it. The online
>comments (4 to date) are typical.

According to the article, people in Warwickshire have been affected by
these masts in Manchester - is no one safe?
--
Cheers

Peter

Please remove the invalid to reply