the mast noose tightens

The noose tightens:

Building Top Floors Closed
After Brain Tumor Alert
By Lisa Macnamara
The Australian - UK
5-13-6

The top floors of a Melbourne office building were closed down yesterday
and 100 people evacuated after a seventh worker in as many years was
diagnosed with a brain tumour.

But Telstra insisted the mobile phone towers on the roof of the 17-storey
RMIT University building were not linked to the cancer cluster.

Five academics - who worked on the top floor - and two general staff have
suffered brain tumours since 1999. Six of the seven staff had worked at
the Bourke Street premises for more than a decade. Two of the cases were
malignant.

"We have briefed the staff and suspect further cases will be brought to
our attention," RMIT vice-president of resources Steve Somogyi said
yesterday.

The academics' union has demanded that RMIT pay for medical examinations
of all staff working in the building after learning of a number of
suspected new cases late yesterday.

"We're starting to get anecdotal reports of one or two other people who
have passed away who have worked in the building," said Matthew McGowan,
Victorian branch president of the National Tertiary Education Union.

RMIT recently called in a Melbourne doctor to assess information from the
staff diagnosed with the tumours but he found no obvious link with "any
specific environmental hazard", a university statement said.

Telstra, which along with Optus reportedly has mobile phone equipment on
top of the building, said yesterday it would co-operate with the
university's investigation. "This equipment complies with strict health
and safety standards, and is regularly tested to ensure ongoing
compliance," the phone company said.

While staff were "anxious and concerned", the university was initially
reluctant to close the top floors, Mr McGowan said. "They were reluctant
at first because they didn't want to create a panic."

The university has started notifying students at the building, many of
whom are from overseas.

However, serious concerns were not held for the students.

RMIT investigated radio frequency and air quality after the first two
cases emerged in 1999 and 2001, but all the results were well below the
recommended Australian standards, a university spokeswoman said.

"It was thoroughly tested," she said.

Yesterday's action was prompted after a third case was reported by the
institution's occupational health and safety unit a month ago, when it
emerged that other academics had also fallen ill.

"We're looking at everything around the area," the spokeswoman said.

But Mr McGowan said the university must be accountable for health and
safety checks "across the board" after the initial testing in 2001 was not
followed up.

"These cases have only coincidentally come to people's attention rather
than through some systematic monitoring process," he said.

The results of the RMIT investigation are expected in two weeks.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20 867,19108088
-23289,00.html

---

› See More: the mast noose tightens

[email protected]s declared for all the world to hear...
> "We're starting to get anecdotal reports of one or two other people who
> have passed away who have worked in the building," said Matthew McGowan,
> Victorian branch president of the National Tertiary Education Union.

And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked in
a building have died", what a suprise.
--
Regards
Jon

On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:24:54 +0100, Jon wrote:

> [email protected]s declared for all the world to hear...
>> "We're starting to get anecdotal reports of one or two other people who
>> have passed away who have worked in the building," said Matthew McGowan,
>> Victorian branch president of the National Tertiary Education Union.
>
> And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked in a
> building have died", what a suprise.

Did you mis or forget the rest of the report?
Your problem.

Lenny wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:24:54 +0100, Jon wrote:
>
>> [email protected]s declared for all the world to hear...
>>> "We're starting to get anecdotal reports of one or two other people who
>>> have passed away who have worked in the building," said Matthew McGowan,
>>> Victorian branch president of the National Tertiary Education Union.
>> And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked in a
>> building have died", what a suprise.
>
> Did you mis or forget the rest of the report?
> Your problem.
>

People who know absolutely nothing about radio propagation posting
stupid reports.

--
Dave C

On Sun, 14 May 2006 12:26:08 +0100, Dave C wrote:

> Lenny wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:24:54 +0100, Jon wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected]s declared for all the world to hear...
>>>> "We're starting to get anecdotal reports of one or two other people
>>>> who have passed away who have worked in the building," said Matthew
>>>> McGowan, Victorian branch president of the National Tertiary Education
>>>> Union.
>>> And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked
>>> in a building have died", what a suprise.
>>
>> Did you mis or forget the rest of the report? Your problem.
>>
>>
> People who know absolutely nothing about radio propagation posting stupid
> reports.

Wrong!
How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> Wrong!
> How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
> voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.
>
>

I place voodoo and fear of cell phone masts in a similar category.

It has been known for many years that astronauts and civil aircrew (whose
spend a good deal of their lives six or seven miles up and are therefore
exposed to much more IONISING radiation do suffer slightly more risk of
cancer than the general population.

Lenny wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 12:26:08 +0100, Dave C wrote:
>
>
>>Lenny wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:24:54 +0100, Jon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>>>>
>>>>>"We're starting to get anecdotal reports of one or two other people
>>>>>who have passed away who have worked in the building," said Matthew
>>>>>McGowan, Victorian branch president of the National Tertiary Education
>>>>>Union.
>>>>
>>>>And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked
>>>>in a building have died", what a suprise.
>>>
>>>Did you mis or forget the rest of the report? Your problem.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>People who know absolutely nothing about radio propagation posting stupid
>>reports.
>
>
> Wrong!
> How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
> voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.
>

You're so childish. You're just a victim seeking sympathy.

(sorry, Im just angry and venting stupid comments. been discussing
something on a genealogy newsgroup. after saying I can't get to the post
office after falling down the stairs at work and rupturing my quads
tendon. I've been branded all these, as well as being dismissive of
helpful suggestions (such as "go to the post office") - so I thought I'd
join in with the illogical, non comprehensive, assumptuous, provocative
and just plain wrong flaming- sorry forhijacking the thread)

> And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked in
> a building have died", what a suprise.

It may well be statistically significant if it can be established that
the frequency of occurrence is not the same as in the general
population.

On Sun, 14 May 2006 13:15:02 +0100, Simon Dean wrote:

> Lenny wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 12:26:08 +0100, Dave C wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lenny wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:24:54 +0100, Jon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"We're starting to get anecdotal reports of one or two other people
>>>>>>who have passed away who have worked in the building," said Matthew
>>>>>>McGowan, Victorian branch president of the National Tertiary
>>>>>>Education Union.
>>>>>
>>>>>And is this really statistically significant? "People who have worked
>>>>>in a building have died", what a suprise.
>>>>
>>>>Did you mis or forget the rest of the report? Your problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>People who know absolutely nothing about radio propagation posting
>>>stupid reports.
>>
>>
>> Wrong!
>> How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
>> voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.
>>
>>
> You're so childish. You're just a victim seeking sympathy.
>
> (sorry, Im just angry and venting stupid comments. been discussing
> something on a genealogy newsgroup. after saying I can't get to the post
> office after falling down the stairs at work and rupturing my quads
> tendon. I've been branded all these, as well as being dismissive of
> helpful suggestions (such as "go to the post office") - so I thought I'd
> join in with the illogical, non comprehensive, assumptuous, provocative
> and just plain wrong flaming- sorry forhijacking the thread)

Welcome to the madhouse where they (not I) make it up as they go along.
;-)

On Sun, 14 May 2006 13:14:24 +0100, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>
> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
>> Wrong!
>> How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
>> voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.
>>
>>
>>
> I place voodoo and fear of cell phone masts in a similar category.

Why? More majik or do you have a reason to think that all rf is safe.

> It has been known for many years that astronauts and civil aircrew (whose
> spend a good deal of their lives six or seven miles up and are therefore
> exposed to much more IONISING radiation do suffer slightly more risk of
> cancer than the general population.

What has "IONIZING radiation" got to do with yer actual ornery rf?
Don't you know the difference between the two?
Why should rf and ionizing radiation have any similar modes? That is
what you are implying isn't it?

On Sun, 14 May 2006 12:38:01 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Wrong!
>How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
>voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.

Clearly you must be pretty clueless to believe what you wrote.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Sun, 14 May 2006 13:28:15 +0100, hairydog wrote:

> On Sun, 14 May 2006 12:38:01 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Wrong!
>>How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
>>voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.
>

> Clearly you must be pretty clueless to believe what you wrote.

Are you saying that the report is not true?
What a dummy!

Lenny wrote:
>
>>>
>> People who know absolutely nothing about radio propagation posting stupid
>> reports.
>
> Wrong!
> How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
> voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.
>

I've been working on various types of transmitters since 1963, so I know
that the best place to be is directly under the mast. It's more likely
that these people got brain tumors from overwork, or bad coffee than
from phone masts.

Please go away and throw your mobile in the bin as you pass,the less
mobile we have out there the less need there will be for masts. You just
might save a life!

--
Dave C

> What has "IONIZING radiation" got to do with yer actual ornery rf?
> Don't you know the difference between the two?
> Why should rf and ionizing radiation have any similar modes? That is
> what you are implying isn't it?

So whats your angle Lenny? apart from the [email protected]s and you
posted the qouted article? Do you have an original thought or are you just
here to slag off people who have?

Dave

On Sun, 14 May 2006 13:55:04 +0100, Dave C wrote:

> Lenny wrote:
>>
>>
>>> People who know absolutely nothing about radio propagation posting
>>> stupid reports.
>>
>> Wrong!
>> How silly of you. How do you decide that I am unqualified? Do you employ
>> voodoo or majik of some sort? Typical.
>>
>>
> I've been working on various types of transmitters since 1963, so I know
> that the best place to be is directly under the mast.

Well now that just depends. Have you ever used an rf sniffer?
Do you even know what one is Doctor?

> It's more likely
> that these people got brain tumors from overwork, or bad coffee than from
> phone masts.

And that is your concidered medical opinion?
Laughable.
I doubt there are any recored cases of brain tumour due to over work
or bad coffee anywhere ever in the whole world except from your surgery
or your mates surgery of course. Now doctor, cite some examples.

> Please go away and throw your mobile in the bin as you pass,the less
> mobile we have out there the less need there will be for masts. You just
> might save a life!

Why don't you stick your head in some sand.
Oops!
You already did.