Mobile-mast danger is all in your head

From The Register:

http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/

"Harry" <Harrysnot@home.com> wrote in message
news:j36fa3hjevpf8s7b4tl8f35a959b4qaapl@4ax.com
> From The Register:
>
> http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/

That was on the BBC 6 o'clock news this evening as well.

I wonder what Lenny thinks..?


Ivor

(Apologies for posting on uk.t.b as well, didn't realise it was here as
well at the time)

On Jul 25, 8:29 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Harry" <Harrys...@home.com> wrote in message
>
> news:j36fa3hjevpf8s7b4tl8f35a959b4qaapl@4ax.com
>
> > From The Register:
>
> >http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...unaffected_by_...
>
> That was on the BBC 6 o'clock news this evening as well.
>
> I wonder what Lenny thinks..?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6914492.stm

Perhaps his head has overheated from all that tin foil? You can't
convince an anti-science kook with science. It just proves you're part
of the conspiracy, or a `sheeple`, or something.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Harry <Harrysnot@home.com> wrote:

> From The Register:
>
> http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/

Quote: "The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health
Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry and
government." Unquote.

That being the case, what would you *expect* the conclusion to be?!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Poldie" <Poldie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185392383.625310.11690@22g2000hsm.googlegrou ps.com
> On Jul 25, 8:29 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid>
> wrote:
> > "Harry" <Harrys...@home.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:j36fa3hjevpf8s7b4tl8f35a959b4qaapl@4ax.com
> >
> > > From The Register:
> >
> > > http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...unaffected_by_...
> >
> > That was on the BBC 6 o'clock news this evening as well.
> >
> > I wonder what Lenny thinks..?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6914492.stm
>
> Perhaps his head has overheated from all that tin foil?
> You can't convince an anti-science kook with science. It
> just proves you're part of the conspiracy, or a
> `sheeple`, or something.

The BBC news reporter interviewed a woman wearing a mesh veil. She was
convinced that her headaches etc. were due to RF.

Ivor

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5gpr2qF3ffraoU1@mid.individual.net
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Harry <Harrysnot@home.com> wrote:
>
> > From The Register:
> >
> > http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/
>
> Quote: "The study was funded by the Mobile
> Telecommunications and Health Research programme, a body
> which is itself funded by industry and government."
> Unquote.
> That being the case, what would you *expect* the
> conclusion to be?!

If it was done using genuine double blind techniques, it would be
irrelevant who conducted the study.

Ivor

In message <5gq2r5F3hcn17U1@mid.individual.net>, Ivor Jones
<ivor@despammed.invalid> writes
>"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:5gpr2qF3ffraoU1@mid.individual.net
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Harry <Harrysnot@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> > From The Register:
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/
>>
>> Quote: "The study was funded by the Mobile
>> Telecommunications and Health Research programme, a body
>> which is itself funded by industry and government."
>> Unquote.
>> That being the case, what would you *expect* the
>> conclusion to be?!
>
>If it was done using genuine double blind techniques, it would be
>irrelevant who conducted the study.
>
there are more ways skin a cat Ivor...

--
dave @ stejonda

watt.tyler@googlemail.com declared for all the world to hear...
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Harry <Harrysnot@home.com> wrote:
>
> > From The Register:
> >
> > http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/
>
> Quote: "The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health
> Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry and
> government." Unquote.
>
> That being the case, what would you *expect* the conclusion to be?!

Did you actually read it? Theconclusion said that masts can make people
ill, but it was nothing to do with the RF!
--
Regards
Jon

On 25/7/07 23:55, Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Poldie" <Poldie@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1185392383.625310.11690@22g2000hsm.googlegrou ps.com
>> On Jul 25, 8:29 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> "Harry" <Harrys...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:j36fa3hjevpf8s7b4tl8f35a959b4qaapl@4ax.com
>>>
>>>> From The Register:
>>>> http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...unaffected_by_...
>>> That was on the BBC 6 o'clock news this evening as well.
>>>
>>> I wonder what Lenny thinks..?
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6914492.stm
>>
>> Perhaps his head has overheated from all that tin foil?
>> You can't convince an anti-science kook with science. It
>> just proves you're part of the conspiracy, or a
>> `sheeple`, or something.
>
> The BBC news reporter interviewed a woman wearing a mesh veil. She was
> convinced that her headaches etc. were due to RF.

It must be true then.


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:27:38 +0100, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com>
wrote:

>watt.tyler@googlemail.com declared for all the world to hear...
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Harry <Harrysnot@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> > From The Register:
>> >
>> > http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/
>>
>> Quote: "The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health
>> Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry and
>> government." Unquote.
>>
>> That being the case, what would you *expect* the conclusion to be?!
>
>Did you actually read it? Theconclusion said that masts can make people
>ill, but it was nothing to do with the RF!

RF has always been a problem in concentration and the higher the
frequency, the more invasive the nature of it. I worked as an engineer
in the government radio service some years ago and occasionally came
into contact with radar equipment. This radio emission was capable of
burning straight through flesh if you put any part of your body in the
path of the radiated signal. I know this was close proximity but it
does make you think twice about being close to a higher frequency RF
radiation source.

Ian

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:27:38 +0100, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com>
wrote:

>
>Did you actually read it? Theconclusion said that masts can make people
>ill, but it was nothing to do with the RF!

There was a quite well reported case a few years ago where shortly
after a Tetra mast was erected some local residents started to
complain of various ailments they attributed to it. After a few
months the mast operator pointed out it had actually not been
commissioned as yet and was simply empty equipment cabinets and the
antenna.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Ian Pollard" <m0flc@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2jpga3p0gqvsfsqqrqel8poee0ak9opv8h@4ax.com

[snip]

> RF has always been a problem in concentration and the
> higher the frequency, the more invasive the nature of it.
> I worked as an engineer in the government radio service
> some years ago and occasionally came into contact with
> radar equipment. This radio emission was capable of
> burning straight through flesh if you put any part of
> your body in the path of the radiated signal. I know this
> was close proximity but it does make you think twice
> about being close to a higher frequency RF radiation
> source.

But nothing to do with the power levels..? Radar does tend to use somewhat
higher transmit power than mobile phone base stations..!

Ivor

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:

> watt.tyler@googlemail.com declared for all the world to hear...
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Harry <Harrysnot@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From The Register:
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/
>>
>> Quote: "The study was funded by the Mobile Telecommunications and
>> Health Research programme, a body which is itself funded by industry
>> and government." Unquote.
>>
>> That being the case, what would you *expect* the conclusion to be?!
>
> Did you actually read it? Theconclusion said that masts can make
> people ill, but it was nothing to do with the RF!

Yes I did - some of it, at any rate. The conclusion seems to be that people
are made ill by the *belief* that the mast will make them ill - rather than
by the mast per se. This was based on the fact that some people exhibited
symptoms even when the mast was switched off. However, I'm not aware that
they properly evaluated the effects of any possible delayed reaction.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:5gpr2qF3ffraoU1@mid.individual.net
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Harry <Harrysnot@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From The Register:
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/2...rning_kit_off/
>>
>> Quote: "The study was funded by the Mobile
>> Telecommunications and Health Research programme, a body
>> which is itself funded by industry and government."
>> Unquote.
>> That being the case, what would you *expect* the
>> conclusion to be?!
>
> If it was done using genuine double blind techniques, it would be
> irrelevant who conducted the study.
>
> Ivor

Call me cynical if you like (dodgy dosier, mad cow disease, MMR vaccine,
etc.) but I believe in the old adage which says "He who pays the piper calls
the tune"!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:54:18 +0100, "Roger Mills"
<watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>Call me cynical if you like (dodgy dosier, mad cow disease, MMR vaccine,

Ah yes, MMR; wasn't it Wakefield, the one who falsely started the
whole dishonest scare, who collected nearly half a million pounds for
doing so and is now far wealthier than he would have been had he
stayed here?

>but I believe in the old adage which says "He who pays the piper calls
>the tune"!

Who do you think funds all the quacks used by the various "pressure
groups"?

The major difference between the snake oil salesmen and real
scientists is that in the case of real science you can look at all
the figures yourself, you can read the paper, look at the results and
see how they were processed. So can anyone else. For some odd
reason that never seems to happen with the camp followers of the
single issue complainers.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/