North Clondalkin protest against Mobile Phone Mast

by Informer Thu Jul 19, 2007 13:15

Just in case people in Neilstown don't know: Gino Kenny is a member of the Socialist Workers' Party but he ran as a Non-Party candidate in the last General Election.

by BETTER INFORMED Thu Jul 19, 2007 18:39

Is'nt it wonderfull to be a member of a political party and isn't it wonderfull to see people from different political backgrounds with a common purpose.... The protection of their children!

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Thu Jul 19, 2007 20:26

Of course we know hes part of that party,his poster was plastered all over clondalkin.Hes stuck with us before and after the elections,we would be lost without him....i'd give Gino my vote anyday.....Hes dedicated to our campaign one hundred percent

by political polly Thu Jul 19, 2007 22:52

>> I didnt see one single politician from any party
>> out marching with the people of Clondalkin.
>> Whatever party Gino is a member of, they are
>> giving their support to the people who are
>> suffering and getting ill from the mast.
>> Someone is worried about your LEADERSHIP
>> Qualities Gino, so you must be doing everything
>> right.

by Michael Martin Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:18

Some years ago I attended one of those anti-mobile phone mast meetings in Co. Wicklow. I asked the attending people one simple question, "How many of you own a cell phone?" Every single person present, apart from myself, raised his/her hand. And here you have the root of the problem. Get rid of your cell phone and the masts will then vanish as well. YOU are creating those problems yourself by buying these phones. I never bought a cell phone in my life, and will never get one.

by Informer Fri Jul 20, 2007 13:20

I was just giving information. I never said a positive or negative word about Mr. Kenny. He is a member of the Socialist Workers' Party and he ran in the Dáil General Election of last May as a "Non Party" candidate. Mr. Kenny's posters did not refer to his party membership. These are all facts and you can make your own minds up about it. I'm not giving my personal opinion.

by Chekov Fri Jul 20, 2007 15:12

While I sympathise and understand the concerns of communities when electronic communications equipment is located in their communities without consultation or consent, I'd be fairly concerned by the fact that the protest seems to be based on bad science and acceptance of the various bits of media scaremongering about electromagnetic radiation. A few facts, as I understand them:

1. There is no evidence that mobile phone masts have any health implications.
2. If they do, then it's pretty much irrelevant since our handsets will have fried us long before the masts get us - the amount of radiation absorbed from the radio-transponder in your mobile phone handset is much greater than that absorbed from masts.
3. All the scientific studies show that there is no correlation between symptoms of electrical-sensitivity and the presence of electromagnetic radiation. While the symptoms are real and traumatic, they aren't cause by electromagnetic radiation.

by Joe (Mayfield) Fri Jul 20, 2007 16:16

"There are citizens who suffer ill health from the use of mobile phone handsets or because they reside near a mast" - Chairman's preface to official Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (June 2005).

by anon Fri Jul 20, 2007 16:20

Who is the 'chairman'? A TD who doesn't wish to lose votes?

by Chekov Fri Jul 20, 2007 17:09

It's a terrible idea to depend on politicians for scientific evidence. There are a whole load of published, peer-reviewed studies which show virtually no evidence of any danger to humans from exposure to the sorts of radiation that is emitted by mobile phone masts or handsets - and there's just no way that masts could possibly cause health problems if handsets don't - the radiated power drops off with the square of the distance - only telecoms workers ever get close enough to get a dose that's bigger than that of a handset.

The wikipedia page below is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and...ealth

by Mike - Judean Popular People's Front Fri Jul 20, 2007 18:40

Forget about the masts. The real danger (assuming there is any) from non ionising radiation comes not from the big bad scary mast hundreds of metres away put from the little phone three centimetres from your skull. its a damming indictment of the Irish education "system" that the general public are completly ignorant of concepts such as "inverse square law" (google it) or the distinction between ionising (Chernobyl, Hiroshima etc) radiation and non-ionising radiation (light, heat, mobile phone and TV signals).

Incidently the biggest sourse of electromagnetic radiation from the mast in the photos comes not from the mobile phone signals but from the police two way radio system which is tens (sometimes hundreds) of times more powerful but when did you last hear anyone complain about "deadly radiation" from police radios.

The computer screen you are staring into right now is delivering a damn sight more radiation (And If its a CRT monitor some of it will be ionising radiation) than any mobile phone mast.

The worst thing about this kind of ignorant scaremongering is that it diverts attention from the REAL causes of health problems in communities like Nielstown namely Poverty, inadequete medical services, poor food and bad housing

by political polly Fri Jul 20, 2007 19:58

>> Yes Clondalkin is a community left behind by
>> the celtic tiger and lifestyle plays a large part in
>> our health but why then in more affluent parts of
>> Ireland are we seeing the same symptons as
>> the people in Clondalkin have. Clusters are all
>> over Ireland and the massive profits by the
>> phone companies and the government have
>> blinded them to the symptoms. Once you cant
>> see the radiation then you cant be harmed by it!
>> Didnt that come back to haunt the government
>> when our water became polluted and the
>> mounds of toxic waste was discovered due
>> to illegal dumping practices. The claptrap
>> peddled by the government and the phone
>> companies regarding the health implications of
>> mobile phone masts is ONE BIG LIE!

by Mike - Judean Popular People's Front Fri Jul 20, 2007 20:28

Should one ever require the services of the fire brigade, an ambulance crew or even the police in an emergency it can be quite handy to have a phone mast nearby so that they can be sure of a reliable signal on their mobile !

by political polly Fri Jul 20, 2007 23:43

>> You could call the emergency services long
>> before there were PHONE MASTS AND MOBILE
>> PHONES. It is only scientists who have the
>> telecommunications companies as their
>> paymasters who say that this technology is
>> safe.

by Mike - Judean Popular People's Front Sat Jul 21, 2007 17:06

Yep no problem ringing the emergency services if were at home, could afford a landline and werent on the P&T waiting list.

Otherwise you had to search for a phonebox that hadnt been trashed by the local scum (good luck) before your house burned down/grandmother died of a cardiac.

Not everyone with an understanding of basic scienctific concepts like inverse square law and the difference between different forms of electromagic radiation is in the pay of those big evil corporations (Unfortunately ?)

Plenty of good grounds for having a go at phone companies:

-The way they promote unnecessary handset replacment/upgrading through subsidies
-The enviornmental effects of some of the materials used in batteries and phones (lead, cadmium, and mercury are being phased out but theres still nickel, palladium, silver, tantalum, zinc and wotnot)
- Labour conditions where these materials are mined and the factories where most phones and accessories are manufactured.
- Promoting dangerous driving by overcharging for handsfree kits

But the construction and operation of masts aint one of them.

by political polly Sat Jul 21, 2007 20:08

Thats right Mike, no point having a go at the phone
companies for manufacturing and erecting masts.
The are just the structure that the phone companies hang their cancer giving ANTENNAE
on. People refere to them as masts. You dont need a PHD to see people dying of cancer
Newton planetary motion.gravitional force is inversely proportional to the square of distance,
bigger the distance, the less gravitational pull.
Explain that to someone dying of cancer.
DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD CARE.

by Dorothy Gale Sat Jul 21, 2007 20:29

"You dont need a PHD to see people dying of cancer"

No. But you do need to do some research to find out why they are dying.

"Newton planetary motion.gravitional force is inversely proportional to the square of distance,
bigger the distance, the less gravitational pull.
Explain that to someone dying of cancer."

What do you tell them? That rays which you obviously do not understand are causing the cancer?

"DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD CARE"

I think they would care to hear the truth. Otherwise you are no different from the snake oil salemen who try to con people with their fake cures.

What part of no evidence do you fail to grasp?

The politician above is a laugh. He claims that the masts cause canmcer. But hes a member of FF. If he really belueves it why doesnt he get the masts banned? Hes just a con man. I'm not sure if you are charlatan or an innocent but the SWP are just conning people.

The SWP might have some naive members who believe this nonsense but the SWP leadership are not stupid. They are cynically misleading people to try and gain a few members.

Members of the SWP like Dr Peadar O'Grady know that this is nonsense. I challenge him to either back up the SWP stance or disown it.

by Mike - Judean Popular People's Front Sat Jul 21, 2007 20:36

Antennae are just bits of metal encased in plastic or fibreglass they are no more capable of "giving" cancer than the structures ("masts") which support them. They dont even radiate until a signal of sufficient voltage in the design frequency range is applied to them so it’s no good blaming the antennae. In any case you still haven’t explained why antennae hundreds of metres away atop are somehow worse than antennae (or computer monitors) a few centimetres from ones brain

And as for your hypothetical cancer patient no I don’t think they would care seeing antennae on "mobile phone masts" would have about as much relevance to their condition as butterflies in China flapping their wings.

by Mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Sun Jul 22, 2007 20:55 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

Thanks To political polly,Noreen and everyone else who came to support us with our campaign here in clondalkin,can i just say something our campaign is to have our mobile phone mast moved away from our homes & Schools here in clondalkin and to be put in a field which is not in use,there is alot of them close by so why no use them?? Also to anybody that does not support us and who has left a not so nice comment,if you are certain that there is no danger from the mast.I would like to see what affects you would have living in our home forthy feet from the mast.Believe me you would leave quicker than you came in with Headaches/Migraines and lack of sleep with numbness in the limbs.And how about the Tin-foil on our windows see how weird and afraid you would feel when you see holes burning through getting bigger day by day.......And see can you answer this question why the holes in the tinfoil in the back windows and not in the front?? ill answer that one for you...because theres no phone mast at the front of our home its to the rear of the house.

by Supporter of Phone mast removal Sun Jul 22, 2007 21:06

Hi all i am a supporter of the Clondalkin group which is fighting to have a Health survey done on our area. Ive read all comments here on the site and i was wondering the people who dont believe there is harm from these ugly things that are not seen in upper class areas, have they to live close to phone masts? have there children to attend school near a phone mast?? Also i read that it has never been scientifically proven that phone masts are harmful, but also it has never been scientifically proven that phone masts are NOT HARMFUL. So for now dont you think until it is proven one way or the other they should remove them until we are 100 percent certain that they are safe? SO IF IN DOUBT TAKE IT OUT....

by Annmarie Mon Jul 23, 2007 17:44

Well to you Mr Informer or watever ur name is... ye thats a good name,part of mary harneys office are ye is that why ur picking on Gino???
FACTS!! why dont you start coming with real facts instead of telling us about a person we already know.
If these were not harmful mary harney would just do the survey,,
In Ireland we have poor Health compared to other european countries, and you know why that is?? because our politics want to spend money on stupid things like the spire in dublin city centre, and then fork out to clean the stupid thing every year,, this is our money the tax payers money and they wont even consider our health,, a simple survey ,,

we want the masts moved to fields were they should be.not in a housing estate where our kids play and where we live and work,, ever read the story about the TD that had a mast removed from his sons school? well see our money again they can use it and waste it on themselfs,but dont care about the rest of population, so come back with real facts and then we'll start talking MASTS AND PYLONS!!! GET THEM OUT OF HERE.. and another little bit of information for YOU , we'v only just started and wont be giving up, until we get answers!!

by Caroline Mon Jul 23, 2007 18:54

Hi All,
i totally agree with what the people of clondalkin are fighting for,in recent decades a great deal has been achieved by those who have supported their community, equality is needed here and it means that no person counts more than another,what ever their social position maybe.people must have the right to life in a healthy and safe environment therefor any questions they may have should be answered.
FACTS NEEDED :
(1) equality is what is needed here not exclusion.

(2) Answers

(3) Health Survey

all the promises they made before elections? where are they now, all they want are votes. but dont carry put their promises,
Clondalkin is labelled as a disavantaged area,,i see this as taking adavantage of the disadavantage...i feel they put so many masts and pylons here, thinking clondalkin would sit back and allow this.
NEWS FLASH>>>>WE ARE NOT
and we refuse to give up until we get some answers.OUR HEALTH SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED.and should never be at risk and most of all it should not be because of anyone's WEALTH.masts action are raising awareness to their community.and i say well done to all those who support them. social-justice and solidarity will hopefully gain some answers.

by Bryan - Tumour Victim Mon Jul 23, 2007 19:27 bryanrussellwwe9 at hotmail dot com

I have recently being diagnosed with a brain tumour,my home is attached to the Gardai station in Ronanstown.I would never have taught that my illness was down to a phone mast,until i read a press release from a Gardai who had suspicions due to three gardai in Ronanstown suffering with brain tumours too.For anybody that doesnt believe that a phone mast can cause such thing,just to let you know i probably felt the same before i got my tumour.If it has never been proven that it is and isnt HARMFUL,then why take the chance and leave it were it is,i once read that masts are ok to have for short term,but this mast is here since 1997(isnt that long term??) and i wake up to it every morning,and i wake to tinfoil on my window,watching holes appear bigger daily.The holes couldnt be from the heat cause the weather isnt great,and even if it was from the weather why would the tinfoil in the front windows remain the same.I would challenge anybody who believes that this cannot be related to come to my home and investigate,and for anybody who thinks that we havent had anybody to our home to investigate already,well we have and were told its a complete HOTSPOT.

by MIchaelY - iawm - per cap Mon Jul 23, 2007 19:59

First, and above all, well done to Gino and his comrades for organising the demo, for Paula and the other friends who took the pictures, and to all the participants. Clondalkin and particularly Neilstown are very close to my heart - having worked there with the local people for over 4 years.

Secondly, any time local people take action about their living conditions, the situation around health or the environment, there is an immediate response from a cabal of 'experts' to tell us that our worries have no "scientific base", that we are "being taken for a ride by the media" or by the "Left".....it's the same story in Tara, the same in Rossport, the same in Rathmines/Terenure where there is a mobilisation growing stronger and stronger around the proposed closures of St Lukes Hospital and the Rathmines pool, in Irishtown around the incinerator, in DunLaoghaire around the closure of St Michaels Hospital...it was the same story when we were fighting around the proposed nuke station at Carnsore or Uranium mining in Donegal....and it's the very same story in Clondalkin. Cell masts, we are told, are almost good for us...no harm....the same radiation levels as our watches.....and if there are a few cancers etc "they are unrelated"!!

And there come Chekov, our resident 'leftie' scientific expert, supported by Dorothy Gale, our resident SWP basher, to tell you, us, all, you have no need to worry!! You are being conned by Gino and his friends!!

For starters, let us all look at the results of an international Conference that took place in Salzburg on June 7-8 2000:

Link to www.land-sbg.gv.at/celltower for further info

It is recommended that development rights for the erection and for operation of a base station should be subject to a permission procedure. The protocol should include the following aspects:

Information ahead and active involvement of the local public
Inspection of alternative locations for the siting
Protection of health and wellbeing
Considerations on conservation of land- and townscape
Computation and measurement of exposure
Considerations on existing sources of HF-EMF exposure
Inspection and monitoring after installation.
It is recommended that a national database be set up on a governmental level giving details of all base stations and their emissions.
It is recommended for existing and new base stations to exploit all technical possibilities to ensure exposure is as low as achievable (ALATA-principle) and that new base stations are planned to guarantee that the exposure at places where people spend longer periods of time is as low as possible, but within the strict public health guidelines.
Presently the assessment of biological effects of exposures from base stations in the low-dose range is difficult but indispensable for protection of public health. There is at present evidence of no threshold for adverse health effects.
Recommendations of specific exposure limits are prone to considerable uncertainties and should be considered preliminary. For the total of all highfrequency irradiation a limit value of 100 mW/m² (10 µW/cm²) is recommended.

For preventive public health protection a preliminary guideline level for the sum total of exposures from all ELF pulse modulated high-frequency facilities such as GSM base stations of 1 mW/m² (0.1 µW/cm²) is recommended.

How many of these recommendations [pls read them again] were followed or satisfied by those responsible in the Clondalkin case?
1, 2 , 5 or possibly none ?

To conclude as DG does does that "[the SWP] are cynically misleading people to try and gain a few members..." is irresponsible and, as usual, politically manipulative...it's playing football, or hurling if u wish, with working peoples health.

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Mon Jul 23, 2007 21:52 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

Hi Mike i was very impressed by what you wrote. I was just wondering can i ask you how you know so much?

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Mon Jul 23, 2007 21:56 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

Sorry that last question was for michael,who has a positive atitude,and not mike who left not so nice comments!!

by Chekov Mon Jul 23, 2007 22:26

"And there come Chekov, our resident 'leftie' scientific expert, supported by Dorothy Gale, our resident SWP basher, to tell you, us, all, you have no need to worry!! You are being conned by Gino and his friends!!"

Michael, that's an obvious distortion of what I said. Why on earth do you feel the need to launch an unprincipled and dishonest attack on me in such a way?

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Mon Jul 23, 2007 22:47

Dear Chekov

Leaving the epithets aside, you wrote above:"There are a whole load of published, peer-reviewed studies which show virtually no evidence of any danger to humans from exposure to the sorts of radiation that is emitted by mobile phone masts or handsets - and there's just no way that masts could possibly cause health problems".....anybody can read the above few lines and draw their own conclusions! I don't see where the 'unprincipled' and the 'dishonest' come from - do you?

Dear Mel,

I would not say, I have never said, I know a lot about scientific matters. I don't pretend to be a scientist or an expert of masts of any kind. However, I do have a bit of experience on politics however, apart from PCs which is my job, and I do know that every time local people mobilise and fight on an issue to do with health, or the environment, or energy, we are immediately attacked by so-called 'experts', of the Left and Right, who tell us we are wrong! I gave a few examples above and I can give a few more if requested. As for the Salzburg Conference, I remembered it because the very same issue of cell masts arose both in Italy, France and Greece about 4-5 years ago. And yes, my attitude to local communities organising and controlling their environment is EXTREMELY positive. It's the only hope we have in this world whose rulers get to be more barbaric by the day.

by me (having migrated from another thread) Tue Jul 24, 2007 01:17

In defence of Chekov...

MichealY, you wonder why Chekov should feel that his contribution was...umm...put upon and not taken as a constructive intervention. Well, let's look at your comment on Chekov's comments:

"our resident 'leftie' scientific expert, supported by Dorothy Gale, our resident SWP basher"

well holy god...t'wouldn't take much for me to see that as a sneer. Clearly, we have different standards when it comes to debating issues of contention.

by Chekov Tue Jul 24, 2007 01:25

Firstly, I never claimed to be an expert and I'm not an expert on electro-magnetic radiation. Secondly, I never claimed that Gino Kenny was leading anybody anywhere. It was dishonest of you to intimate otherwise. Now you compound your dishonesty further.

"Leaving the epithets aside, you wrote above:"There are a whole load of published, peer-reviewed studies which show virtually no evidence of any danger to humans from exposure to the sorts of radiation that is emitted by mobile phone masts or handsets - and there's just no way that masts could possibly cause health problems".....anybody can read the above few lines and draw their own conclusions! I don't see where the 'unprincipled' and the 'dishonest' come from - do you?"

You cut my sentense in half and changed it's meaning - not exactly a subtle way to be dishonest. I wrote: "there's just no way that masts could possibly cause health problems if handsets don't". You are obviously intelligent enough to understand the simple point that I was making, yet you have chosen again to attempt to distort it. The fact that you repeatedly use such approaches to argument is why I observed that you are unprincipled.

The simple fact is that according to all known physical principles, much, much more radiation is absorbed from handsets than is absorbed from masts. Do you contest this fact? If so, with what evidence to the contrary (there's an awful lot of supporting evidence btw)?

"I would not say, I have never said, I know a lot about scientific matters. I don't pretend to be a scientist or an expert of masts of any kind. However, I do have a bit of experience on politics however, apart from PCs which is my job, and I do know that every time local people mobilise and fight on an issue to do with health, or the environment, or energy, we are immediately attacked by so-called 'experts', of the Left and Right, who tell us we are wrong!"

So, anybody who disagrees with you about anything can be grouped into a big box called "the enemy". I think that's a particularly silly approach to the world. For a start, as you know well, I am consistently supportive of people fighting on issues to do with health, or the environment, or energy. Even in this case, where I think the campaign has got its focus wrong, I am entirely supportive of the campaign's demands for screening, surveys and better health facilities. I'm even supportive of the idea that mobile phone companies should need a community's consent before erecting masts. My problem is that I'm pretty sure that getting rid of the mast will have zero effect because it couldn't possibly be the source of the problem.

by googler for background Tue Jul 24, 2007 02:17

In April of 2006, local resident Brian Russell, who was 20 years of age at the time, was diagnosed with a cancerous tumour of the brain. The Russell family home is located within 30 metres of the mobile phone mast and there are also high voltage electricity cables passing over the house.Speaking to Southside People, Brian’s sister Imelda said that as well as her brother’s illness there have been unusually high incidences of cancer among both their neighbours and within the Garda station itself. “There are five neighbours living next door to each other that live around the other side of the Garda station and out of those five houses there are nearly two people in each that have either died of cancer or have cancer.
“We have spoken to a Garda in the station and he said there have been a lot of illnesses in the station and he said people just pass out.”

http://www.safewireless.org/SWIGlobalNews/CellPhones/ta....aspx

by political polly Tue Jul 24, 2007 02:54

> Dear Chekov,
> Have you ever heard of the FRIBERGER >APPEAL? This was signed by over 1,000 German
>Doctors and health personnel and sent to the
>Chancellor of Germany to tell him that they could
> no longer make their patients well because of
>their exposure to NIR FROM PHONE MASTS.
> Have you ever read the Santini peer reviewed
> scientific study? Have you read the Vienna EMF
> Resolution. This was signed by Carl Blackman,
> Neil Cherry, G.Kas, Lebrecht von Klitzing,
< Wolfgang Kromp, Michael Kundi, Henry Lai,
> William Leiss, Theadore Litovitz and K. Jell.
> All of these scientists are highly respected.
> All of them say that there are adverse health >effects from Cell phones and masts. Gerd >Oberfield, Olle johannson Both are eminent
> Research Professors in Sweden and they say
> that Non ionising radiation from phones and
> masts give you Cancer. I could go on for ever.
>Difference is Chekov, these men have integrity,
> these scientists can not be bought by the phone
> companies.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:04

Chekov,

I am glad to read that you have consistently supported people fighting for better servicves, for health and related issues. In this case however, epithets aside, your approach could not have been seen as 'supportive' of the people of Clondalkin/Neilstown....it wasn't and see PP's message above this one for further clarification.The arguments you presented were one-sided and not very helpful mehinks.
Be that as it may, I don't think you're the 'enemy' by any stretch of the imagination...working people in this country, and the world over, have enough enemies to contend with, we don't need to include into that basket people, like you, whose heart is in the right place. Right?
There is a point though I want to make: any time people of the Left get criticised for some of their views, particularly those who have access to certain corridors of media power, they invariably resort to name calling....you've accused me of being dishonest, of having distorted your views, now you say I'm nearly drowning because I sank so deep (lol).....these tactics don't suit you dear man.
Your arguments were at best misleading, most likely wrong.....just accept that and leave it at that. What matters in this thread is that the people of Clondalkin are supported with facts and action in their struggle. The rest, the personal stuff, is hogwash!!

by political polly Tue Jul 24, 2007 15:10

> It is sad to see that some people are only taking
> On board the science from the supporters of
> this technology. There are two sides to every
> arguement. It has not been defined if this
> technology is safe and even government
> scientists would concur on this. Why use
> something if you cant guarantee that its safe for
> human beings to be exposed to it. Guinea pig
> springs to mind. By the way, the Frieburger
> appeal now has nearly 3,00 signatures.
>Dont dismiss something just because you
> dont like it!

by Chekov Tue Jul 24, 2007 16:24

"Your arguments were at best misleading, most likely wrong.....just accept that and leave it at that. What matters in this thread is that the people of Clondalkin are supported with facts and action in their struggle. The rest, the personal stuff, is hogwash!!"

Michael, that's just so arrogant. You have not attempted at all to engage with my argument. When you say my arguments were "at best misleading, most likely wrong" what do you base this on?

The simple fact is that the electro-magnetic field emitted by mobile phones is significantly more powerful than the electro-magnetic field emitted by a phone mast at their respective distances. This isn't misleading and it isn't wrong, it's not something that you have to be an expert to understand, it's basic physics. It's not something that the phone companies can make up.

Now, you can choose to continue to ignore this fact and distort my points, but it won't make them go away.

IF, and it's a big IF, low-powered non-ionising electro-magnetic radiation causes health problems, then handsets are the big danger, not masts.

Incidentally, there's an interesting challenge on Ben Goldacre's site today dealing with this very issue:

by Chekov Tue Jul 24, 2007 17:05

I have followed the research into EMF health effects for about the last 10 years. Based on this, I accept the current scientific consensus that there is zero risk from mobile phone masts given their field strengths. If more evidence emerges to the contrary, I'll change my mind, but the current state of research is pretty conclusive about this. In attempting to understand anything, you can't just cherry-pick results that you agree with, you have to look at the whole body or research, assess the quality, sample sizes and methodology of the various studies. For example, you can have a million studies based upon surrogate measures, which suggest that there might be a danger, but as soon as you have a case-control, cohort, randomised control trial or other study from further up the evidence hierarchy which suggests that there is no danger, you do not conclude that the evidence is mixed, you conclude that there is no danger (until further evidence emerges at least).

In this case, there have been various surrogate studies which have done things like bombarding laboratory mice, or cell-cultures with high-powered EMFs and have revealed that this can cause cancer. There have also been various surveys (such as Santorini's) which showed that people who lived within certain distances of mobile phone masts report more symptoms of electrical hyper-sensitivity. Due to these results, researchers thought it was worthwhile to start conducting double-blinded randomized control trials and various large-scale epidemiological studies. Once this evidence was available, the surrogate studies and the self-reporting surveys could be safely ignored. Because once you test for health effects, you don't have to worry about surrogate measures as you can measure the effects themselves. Similarly, once you have proper double-blinded randomized control trials, you can ignore the surveys, since you've got much higher quality data available. Now this isn't to say that it's an entirely formulaic process - you also have to look at the methodology of each study since commercial interests are more than capable of introducing bad-methodology into a high-quality study.

Anyway, the current scientific consensus, based upon the evidence hierarchy is unequivocal in declaring that mobile phone masts do not present a health risk. Incidentally, the evidence about mobile phone handsets and high-voltage electrical power lines is far more mixed. There are, for example, significant epidemiological studies which show a significant correlation (but not causation) between proximity to high-voltage power lines and cancers such as leukemia. Personally, I would not like to live under a high-voltage power line, but amn't at all worried about the mobile phone masts that surround me every day.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Tue Jul 24, 2007 17:27

This is a website dedicated to a international community of people suffering adverse health effects from masts in the vicinity of their homes.

If you are a victim of mast radiation or strongly concerned about the issue, please write your story and share your thoughts on this website! Please click on "Tell your story" in the left hand menu and create an online case history file. You don't need to register with this website to participate and no personal information will be recorded. You only give out as much information as you wish to.

The purpose of this website is to bring together people from all over the world that have become victims of insensitive mast and antenna siting. Telecommunications companies are drowning us in radiation and they are in a state of complete denial on whether these masts and antennas have any negative health impact on the population. Credible scientific research shows that especially mobile phone mast radiation is harmful and people are suffering. Some people have even been forced to abandon their homes after becoming ill from radiation.

For more info and to counteract pseudo-scientific babble pls contact:
http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php

Read for example the story of John K from Limerick posted on July 16th
http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=journal&a...d=113

Or the strory of Amanda Brown
http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=journal&a...d=125

Tell the website what we are being told by some friends here - get more opinions

by BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFER TECHNOLOGY Tue Jul 24, 2007 19:53

>> Please watch BBC 1pm tv news on Wednesday
>> 25th July 2007, for the unveiling of Essex
>> Results on Electro Hyper Sensitivity.
>> There will also be radio coverage on 25th and
>> national print on the 26th. Pauline Keeley.

by Annmarie & Caroline Tue Jul 24, 2007 21:01

HI michael,
thank you ever so much for the information that you have giving us and the websites, we'v read them and will add a comment soon,
the storys are very touching, and these are real live stories effecting poor innocent people, and all because the government refuse to listen and look at the sick people of their country's,

all they have to do is place them in fields where there is no one living ,, and i tell you theres plenty of them around!!
we will do everything in our power as a community to get the answers we deserve.

by :-) Tue Jul 24, 2007 21:03

You're cut and pasting emails which is why the little triangles appear. The Essex report has been in the pipeline for a while now (2004) and has not yet concluded. It is part funded by the British state and Telecommunication industry and was first alluded to on this website during attempts to link up campaign knowledge and groups in Europe - at that point people were tackling overhead high tension electricity in Cork. WE know Electrosensitivity is an issue & it varies from state to state. We also know as Chekov said it's blamed on pylons not masts. "most of the time".

Now you help yourself - if you get methodical. Chekov is correct in much of what he's saying. But he's also a very methodical chap & perhaps doesn't want a subject close to his real world area to be misleading anyone. I too am very methodical but in a much more difficult to see kind of way. "untidy".

I don't like your antenna in Clondalkin. I really like the photos of you walking around saying you don't like it either. & I've been waiting since christmas 2005 for a chance to see a community like yours ask the Gardai how many microtulsas they get exposed to a shift. & yes - I do see links between certain communication masts in cancer clusters but no - I do not see conclusive evidence that all communication masts cause cancer. That's because not all communication masts do the same job, have the same gadgetry in them or even are exactly the sort of mast that they look like.
And most of all I'm keen to see you get the answers to the question you have every right to ask of those who are responsible to give them to you.

So - tips on method -
* link properly to press releases or news or research groups including any information on those sites for media.
* instead of just copying emails to the comment form - try and rewrite them without the capital letters or triangles. They get read better by the punters (our readers) & are more useful.
* try and make sure when you tell people to watch BBC telly tomorrow lunchtime at 1.25pm they're going to be able to see the local region. Give Exeter University a call - make sure it's UK wide broadcast. telephone +44 1206 872400 _This is the report you're talking about :-
http://www.essex.ac.uk/news/2007/nr20070116b.htm

do get a little familiar with the outlaying gobbledeegook. I note on your main mast sites you do have sections "dealing with the Hz and stuff". I'm looking for radiation Polly.
(Q) Is your mast in Clondalkin a tetra mast? (A) quite probably it is, it's in the right place & we've no reason now to think it's doing anything else but being a TETRA. here's your encyclopedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TETRA you'll find links there too to reports on health research & just "stuff".

* network. do not take all criticism as someone taking the piss out of you or stopping you on the way. That's not what we are about. So not only contact the people you have who specialise in masts (whom you're linking to and some of whom volunteered for the Exeter report)- but also contact the people in Cork who did the high tension lines. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73450 Ask someone with Chek's knowledge (and the more skeptic the better) to give you a little of their time and monitor what frequencies are "buzzing" about in Clondalkin and you know you could ask the gardai chaps in the station are they exposed to more than 0.4 microtelsas a shift or indeed if they'd like to know. And then we'll go and ask the good fellows over at the environment department to chew the cud with you & your worries.

Best of luck. That thing is a terrible blight on the landscape and I doubt you trust the health service after the way it's been treated by this government.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73450

by Chekov Tue Jul 24, 2007 22:24

"YOU ARE THE ONE CHERRY PICKING YOUR SCIENTISTS AS IT IS ONLY THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE BEING PAID BY THE PHONE COMPANIES WHO SAY THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY IS SAFE."

Actually, Polly, I went to the trouble of following up all those names that you posted (you spelt many of them wrong, which didn't make my life easier) and reading their research papers, following their references and so on. They didn't change my opinion one bit since they were all describing surrogate studies and low-quality primary survey sort of stuff (e.g. seeking diagnostic criteria based on reported symptoms). In terms of evaluating the evidence, these are essentially valueless when compared to the more recent double blind control-trials and large, population based epidemiological studies.

As BEST points out above, tomorrow will see the publication of another proper study by the university of Essex. It seems to have a reasonable methodology: http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/EHS/pages/phase%202_1.htm and thus, if it reports some statistically significant health findings, I and many others will have to reconsider our opinions (to a certain extent anyway - my first question will be, if masts are dangerous, then just how dangerous are the much-more-dangerous handsets?).

The thing is, you see, I have no vested interest in whether mobile phone masts are dangerous to health or not. I don't work for a phone company, nor do I think that they are any different to your normal profit-driven morality-free corporation. Indeed, if there is any serious evidence that masts are significantly dangerous, I want to know about it and I want to know exactly why they are dangerous, how dangerous they are and what we can do about it. But, the thing is that the scientific consensus currently holds that they aren't a danger and are much less likely to be dangerous than handsets. If evidence to the contrary arrives, I'll change position. For example, depending on the results of the Essex study, I may have a completely different opinion tomorrow. Will you? and if not shouldn't you be a bit worried if your conclusions are not affected by new evidence*?

*note, if the Essex study returns a negative verdict, in line with previous experiments, this does not necessarily contradict the claims of the Clondalkin campaign due to the fact that Essex are testing for health reactions to instantaneous signal presence (i.e. when the signal is on, people feel sick, when it's off they don't). If they find no evidence for this, it does not rule out the possibility that there are long-term cumulative dose-related health implications, something that would require a large-scale case-control study or something similar to identify.

On the other hand, if it returns a positive, this will provide a powerful support of the claims of the Clondalkin campaign, for even though it will not have found any long-term health problems, it will prove a short term ill-health effect and it takes no great leap of faith to assume that a short term symptom can develop into a serious long term condition.

Finally, however, if it does return a negative, although it won't prove them wrong, it would be wise for anti-mast campaigners to consider that there are an awful lot of people who suffer short term health symptoms (electro-hypersensitivity) and believe that these are caused by EMF. If they are proved wrong in their convictions about the cause of their problems, shouldn't you perhaps consider that EMF may not be the cause that you have identified for your problems?

by political polly Tue Jul 24, 2007 23:08

>Did you say epidemiological study. 32% rise in
> cancer in Ballyvolan in Cork , 26% in
> Blakestown Dublin, 31% in areas of Ballymun,
> to name but a few. They tell you that it is all down
> to lifestyle, Irish Government are too stingy to
> spend money on health surveys. By the way,
> sorry for the misspelt scientists names, you
> might be interested to know that the Essex study
> refered to by the B.E.S.T. group is headed by
> many of those very scientists!

by Histrorian Wed Jul 25, 2007 09:52

But polly it's only about 10-15 years ago since the rise in cancer rates in these areas were blamed on the electric pylons that went through both these areas. And there were campaigns by public reps in both areas well before phone masts.

by Chekov Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:13

Essex report returns a total negative!

Will the EHS campaigners accept these results (remember the medics were formerly their heroes) or will they come up with some spurious post-facto methodological dancing to allow them to ignore the results?

My money's on B.

[incidentally, this result is something like the 21st consecutive negative result for provocation studies. Anybody who cares about evidence can conclude not only that EHS is not caused by mobile phone masts, but that this is now one of the best known things in science. There are very few things that have been studied so often with such consistent results.

by Chekov Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:16

From the conclusion:

"Hence the range of symptoms and physiological response does not appear to be related to the presence of either GMS or 3G signals,"

by Chekov Wed Jul 25, 2007 20:24

The reasons for ill-health in relatively poor communities, including elevated incidences of cancers, and so on are well known and backed up by enormous volumes of uncontested evidence. They are the stress, diet, lifestyle and lack of accessible medical facilities that go along with living in poverty. Socio-economic inequality is the major cause of health inequality.

In general, complex soco-economic problems such as health 'blackspots' do not have 'silver bullet' solutions. It would be nice if there was some pill, amulet, treatment, mast-removal or other simple physical thing that we could achieve to solve the problems, but all the evidence suggests that there is no silver bullet and the problems will persist as long as, and to the degree that, poverty persists.

To me, it is actively misleading and mystifying to ignore the simple, easily-understandable socio-economic expalantion above and instead to focus on technological factors that are based on practically no evidence.

It almost makes me cry to see people who call themselves 'scientific socialists' happily going along with easy "silver-bullet" explanations of health inequality - based on no material evidence - rather than emphasising the classic socialist explanation, which is backed up by vast quantities of proper scientific evidence. I just don't like mystifying approaches to science and technology which make no attempt to try to understand what various bits actually do and how the research process works.

Many people have a suspicion towards modern technology, especially stuff that operates on an invisible level such as radio-frequency communications, even more so when the installations are very visible and funny-looking like modern mobile phone masts. This suspicion is justified as governments and corporations have in the past proved themselves more than capable of exposing vulnerable parts of the population to environmental pollutants which carried enormous health risks. The histories of 'invisible' killers such as asbestos particles, or nuclear radiation are obvious cases where there are popular memories of people being poisoned and having to fight against corporate and government denial-scientists.

Clarke's third law states that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and this is true. For most people, stuff like electro-magnetism seems to be just impossibly difficult to understand and might as well just be magic. If you assume that you have to be a genius and expert to understand anything about it, open-ended suspicion is a reasonable position: there is a long and well established history of governments and corporations manipulating 'expert' opinion to their interests. And if the subject is so difficult that you have to trust the experts, and the experts are sometimes misleading, how are you supposed to know what to believe?

The thing is, though, that science and technology aren't impossibly hard to understand, nor are they based on secret knowledge. You don't have to be an expert in anything to understand the most important aspect - how to evaluate evidence. With an understanding of basic statistical concepts such as significance and sampling, and the internet, anybody can come to informed opinions about scientific research without having to blindly reject or accept expert opinion.

You also don't have to have a lot of formal education to do this. There are lots of people with PhDs who don't have a clue how to evaluate stuff properly, and there are lots of people with little or no formal education who have an inate understanding of scientific method and data-analysis. For example, a large proportion of discussions about the relative merits of sports-people involve subtle arguments about statistical significance and sample sizes.

Now, in this case, anybody who took a reasonably open-minded and objective look at the health studies, looking at the sample sizes, methods used and what each study was actually testing for, would have concluded that the evidence for health implications was very weak, and any health impact could only be very minor. You could form a solid and informed conclusion on this just by looking at the health study results, without any knowledge whatsoever of electro-magnetism.

If you were to also seriously enquire into the nature of electro-magnetism, you would also come to a conclusion that health implications of mobile phone masts are very unlikely. Now, I'm not pretending that electro-magnetism is a particularly easy subject to master. It's not. It operates in three orthagonal directions, in such a way that it's essentially impossible to visualise; the maths are horrifically complicated and to get the full picture you need to delve into the hideously hard world of quantum theory, wave-particle duality and so on. It makes my head spin. This is not to say that you need to be a genius to understand it or that you need formal education. Most people are capable of self-educating themselves in it, but it takes a relatively large and concentrated effort.

However, when it comes to the basic health implications it's actually pretty easy. The energy contained in the fields is far, far smaller than many fields that we come across in everyday life without any apparent harm and, better still, the energy contained in each photon (i.e. the bundles of radiation) is several degrees of magnitude less than the energy contained in photons of visible light. Since the total amount of energy in the field, as well as the energy in each photon, is far, far, less than stuff that we are exposed to all the time, the conclusion would be that the physics suggests that such fields will have negligible impact on human health. And this is borne out in the scaled-up real world health studies.

Anyway, the point of all this is that rather than opportunistically jumping on the technology as (black) magic bandwagon, people who actually care about disadvantaged communities and health inequality would be much better advised to critically examine the evidence and when they disagree with certain theories that people may hold about the problems, they should try to engage in debate and popular education about things like health science, technology and the health cost of social inequality. It's only when people have the confidence to evaluate evidence for themselves that they are in a position to make informed decisions without having to put blind faith in experts (on whatever side). You can't blame most people for not educating themselves in this stuff, lacking the time, energy and confidence, but socialist organisations have more than enough resources to ensure that they are aware of the latest scientific understanding of the issues. In particular since all the evidence indicates that socio-economic inequality is the really big problem, there's no point at all in focusing on problems that have such a terribly weak evidence base that most informed people believe that they do not exist.

by wageslave Wed Jul 25, 2007 21:45

while general information on electromagnetism is freely available, specific information on specific models of masts and their exact behaviour / output are subject to secrecy for business reasons. For this reason it is impossible for joe bloggs to fully evaluate a particular installation, no matter how smart he is and it is unreasonable to expect him to. Even if he works for the companies in question, there are still scientific and environmental factors that are unpredictable and difficult to properly assess.

For instance, It is possible that a particular configuration of environment and technology in a particular area may lead to unexpected hotspots with elevated exposure levels. Such is the complexity of the subject that often such environmental factors are not well understood and anticipated even by experts.

I agree we should take a rational approach to scientific and technological endeavours but we should also freely acknowledge that these days often we are deploying very complex technologies in ways that are not comparable to controlled laboratory conditions and often unexpected environmental factors outside our control (and sometimes our understanding) may arise.

As an example of this unpredictability I refer to, there is some scientific evidence to support the theory that the recent spate of hive deaths in the bee population could be attributable in part to the proliferation of mobile phone technology. It turns out bees are sensitive to this. Nobody predicted this.

Such factors will only come to light when a problem surfaces.
It is not unreasonable in the face of such complexity to take a pragmatic approach that precludes any nasty surprises in the future (regarding health) Such an approach does not rely on the soothing words of corrupt scientists or government officials with a vested interest, or the oversights of technology evangelists.

It is a more sensible approach than your one i.e suggesting people should study advanced electromagnetism. Might I humbly suggest that your own love for science has blinded you a little. I love science myself but am under no illusions as to its limitations and the limitations of its practitioners. Nor do I believe such a theoretical course would be of much use when it came to the specifics of a particular practical configuration in the real world.

I'd imagine the (reasonably logical) train of thought of your average joe would go something like this:

"If I don't understand it, and the people putting it up don't fully understand it but they are making lots of money out of it and I am taking the risk but getting nothing in return, then why should I and my developing children be their unpaid guinea pigs, waiting to find out in a few years time that there is a problem or not. I'd prefer it to be located somewhere else where it can't possibly affect my health"

Even as a lover of science with a humble scientific background, I can't say I'd disagree

How important is mobile phone coverage really anyway? we have seen recently that it can be used as a tool of government surveillance on the populations movements and conversations. In so many ways, We are probably better off without the mobile phone and its accompanying environmental damage and infrastructure.

by Non-luddite Wed Jul 25, 2007 22:10

"How important is mobile phone coverage really anyway? we have seen recently that it can be used as a tool of government surveillance on the populations movements and conversations. In so many ways, We are probably better off without the mobile phone and its accompanying environmental damage and infrastructure."

How important are tv, digital, dvds, playstation, etc? But try tell the masses how unimportant it is. Somehow I don't seeing it being a clincher.

by HumansSuck Wed Jul 25, 2007 22:58

bright shiny stuff / ability to exchange inanities freely / flashing lights, buzzing noises

VS

destruction of environment / slavery to capitalist economic model / loss of civil liberties / health damage

"Hmmm....lets see"

"Ok, fuckit, gimme the shiny stuff"

So much for the man in the streets opinion. Thats why he voted FF back in

by R. Isible Wed Jul 25, 2007 23:02

As an example of this unpredictability I refer to, there is some scientific evidence to support the theory that the recent spate of hive deaths in the bee population could be attributable in part to the proliferation of mobile phone technology. It turns out bees are sensitive to this. Nobody predicted this.

It does NOT "turn out bees are sensitive to [electromagnetic radiation]" or that "the recent spate of hive deaths [are attributatble to mobile phones]". If you'd done even a cursory amount of reading instead of grabbing onto tabloid scare stories you'd be aware that there was little evidence of it and that this was one proposed hypothesis which has nearly no evidence to support it compared to many other hypotheses. Colony collapse disorder is recorded as far back as the late C19th and there have been numerous disavowals of the EM linkage including by the mis-cited authors of the original U.Landau-Koblenz report:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070...TIZEN

Honestly, you're just running around shouting wolf and ending up weaking any possible campaign by appearing to be vastly mis-informed and not giving a fig for evidence.

It's just scare-mongering exploitation of people's fears for shallow political ends which in the long term ends up undermining the very possibility of using science and truth to determine social justice.

by wageslave Thu Jul 26, 2007 00:04

there is some scientific evidence to support the theory that the recent spate of hive deaths in the bee population could be attributable in part to the proliferation of mobile phone technology. It turns out bees are sensitive to this

One example.
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/the_big_bee_death.pdf

The main point of this comment was to point out that if you don't have all the info and you stand to gain nothing then it is not irrational to object to projects like this. in fact it is quite rational. I never said i personally thought the mast posed a huge threat to mankind. I don't believe it does.

Their rights are being trodden on for profit and I think they should be compensated with a piece of the pie for being near the thing. thats all.

The bee example was just there as an example of how unanticipated effects can sometimes come from leftfield where complex technology is concerned. I merely stated that there was "some scientific evidence" to support that claim. This is true. How much agreement there is in the scientific community as to the validity of this evidence, well thats another story.

I never claimed that I believed it was the definitive solution to the on going bee situation, just an unexpected possibility with some scientific evidence to back it up (which you may or may not agree with), which came to light after the event.

I'm not crying wolf. just advocating prudence and caution on the part of the downtrodden in poorer areas regarding for profit technological initiatives on their doorstep which they stand to gain little from.

I suspect your disproportionate response to my comment stems from previous engagements on other topics.

by R. Isible Thu Jul 26, 2007 03:26

The bee example was just there as an example of how unanticipated effects can sometimes come from leftfield where complex technology is concerned. I merely stated that there was "some scientific evidence" to support that claim. This is true. How much agreement there is in the scientific community as to the validity of this evidence, well thats another story.

In that weak, bastardised sense of "scientific evidence" then everything has "some scientific evidence", which is not an interesting case. And given that you were explicitly stating something much stronger, namely "It turns out bees are sensitive to this. Nobody predicted this" you're foolishly attempting to rewrite your completely unsupported and inaccurate claims. Just give it up. There's eff all evidence of what you claim and your pet example of "stuff too complicated to explain by science" is patently false.

(P.s. leave out the personal stuff, I'm attacking your pathetic, weak arguments not you -- who could be anybody with ridiculous ideas about synergy and "interactions")

by John Boy Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:28

Interesting that you denigrate mobile phones and technological advancement yet here you are posting on the internet.

So hypocritical it's amusing.

by Gino Kenny Thu Jul 26, 2007 16:10

I think people have lost sight of the argument regarding mobile phone masts and electrical pylons in built up areas. Whether you believe or not, these are facts. 9 GARDA SUFFERING FROM A RANGE OF CANCER RELATED ILLNESSES IN 10 YEARS. 17 CANCERS IN 60 HOUSES, IN THE AREA SURROUNDINGS THE RONANSTOWN GARDA STATION. TO THE DOUBTERS, TRY LIVING HERE, AND MAYBE YOU'LL COME DOWN FROM YOUR SCIENTIFIC IVORY TOWER.

by Dorothy Gale Thu Jul 26, 2007 16:17

These things may well have happened. But theres no evidence that they were caused by mobile masts. Now don't say theres no evidence that it wasnt caused by them either, you cant prove a negative.

SHOUTING doesnt prove anything.

I think the SWP are just using this whole thing to advance "The Party". Gino might believe the twaddle hes spinning but there are members of the SWP leadership who have medical and technical training; they know its nonsense.

Mobile telephone masts 'do not cause illness'
Study finds no evidence of symptoms from electromagnetic waves.
Michael Hopkin

There is no evidence that short-term exposure to signals from mobile telephone masts causes illness, say British researchers who have carried out a trial involving dozens of people who claim to be sensitive to the signals.

Participants in the study could not tell whether or not they were being exposed to an electromagnetic field.

The results suggest that the many health problems attributed to mobile phone transmitters — including nausea, headache and flu-like symptoms — are probably caused by something else, says Elaine Fox, a psychologist at the University of Essex in Colchester, who led the research. She suggests that the problems may well be psychological.

by Watcher Thu Jul 26, 2007 17:05

"But theres no evidence that they were caused by mobile masts."

Maybe Dorothy you'd like to tell us why these masts always seem to be located far from where the wealthy and influential live. Strange socialists that never have a problem creating reasons why not to support communities.

by Dorothy Gale Thu Jul 26, 2007 17:13

Probably because richer people are better at lobbying against unsightly constructions. It didnt stop a mobile mast from being put on top of the National Archives in Bishop Street though. Most of the NA staff would be middle class as would the users of the NA. The NA is close to St Patricks Cathedral DIT Aungier Street and Marshs Library.

But you still have not produced any evidence to back up your theories. The report that you thought was on your side now shows that your theories are unfounded.

by Poshie Thu Jul 26, 2007 17:16

.

Spotted in Donnybrook yesterday...

by Chekov Thu Jul 26, 2007 17:40

Comreg have a feature on their website to allow people to find mobile phone masts.

http://www.askcomreg.ie/mobile/site_viewer.asp

There is one on top of Leinster House.

There are 12 within 200 metres of the Dail.

There are 5 on and around the Burlington hotel, D4.

There are 4 in Ranelagh, D6.

There are 2 on Sachs Hotel, D4.

In general, the more masts, the better the coverage, so places where the rich and powerful live tend to have more.

by Watcher Thu Jul 26, 2007 17:42

"Probably because richer people are better at lobbying against unsightly constructions. "

Precisely my point.

"It didnt stop a mobile mast from being put on top of the National Archives in Bishop Street though. Most of the NA staff would be middle class as would the users of the NA. The NA is close to St Patricks Cathedral DIT Aungier Street and Marshs Library."

I am referring to where people live. There are very few of these masts, countrywide, that are located in or near expensive housing

"But you still have not produced any evidence to back up your theories. "

What theories have I produced?

"The report that you thought was on your side now shows that your theories are unfounded."

What report? Do you live near a mast or something. You seem confused.

by Watcher Thu Jul 26, 2007 17:51

"In general, the more masts, the better the coverage, so places where the rich and powerful live tend to have more"

Not true. To claim this you must publish a complete distribution and, in additon, you will find that masts inverably are located very close to people's homes in the less well off areas.

You will also no doubt note that ComReg use a map that refers to Derry as "Londonderry" They can't even get place names right for christs sake.

by Dorothy Gale Thu Jul 26, 2007 17:52

You seem to be the one who is confused. This thread is about a bunch of people who organised a demo because they fear the health effects of mobile masts. It has now been shown that their fears are unfounded.

If you wish to discuss the merits and demerits of mobile mast design then go and write an article about it. Lets stick to the health aspects here.

One things for sure though: ugly mobile masts do not cause cancer no matter how displeasing they are to the eye.

PS. Clontarf, Donnybrook, Howth, Shankill and Terenure Garda Stations all have mobile masts attached to the buildings.

by Chekov Thu Jul 26, 2007 18:06

Ronanstown Garda station is one of the places that comreg have carried out a detailed spectrum analysis.

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/0705_17_R...n.pdf

Compare it to their analysis in Milltown (Dublin 6)

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/0624_13_M...n.pdf

The average electric field strength in Milltown is about 5 times greater than that in Clondalkin. The mobile phone component of the spectrum was 7 or 8 times greater in Milltown. In Milltown, the levels were still 50 times less than the ICNIRP general public standards.

by Chekov Thu Jul 26, 2007 18:33

"Not true. To claim this you must publish a complete distribution"

Total nonsense.

"in additon, you will find that masts inverably are located very close to people's homes in the less well off areas."

They are invariably located close to people's homes everywhere. As low-powered devices which produce weak radiation which is partially absorbed by solid materials, they have to be fairly close to houses or the people who live in those houses won't have signals.

"You will also no doubt note that ComReg use a map that refers to Derry as "Londonderry" They can't even get place names right for christs sake."

Controlled by MI5 perhaps?

by Watcher Thu Jul 26, 2007 18:36

"You seem to be the one who is confused."

On the contrary, I am not convinced that emmisions from these masts are harmless. A couple of years ago while in discussions with a mobile phone operator, our community asked that they sign a statement that they would take full responsibility for any health problems caused that could in the future be proven to be linked to the mast they wished to erect. They refused. Even they apparently are not so sure when push comes to shove. From where do you get your certainty? Perhaps you will take full responsibility in the Clondalkin case.

"This thread is about a bunch of people who organised a demo because they fear the health effects of mobile masts"

This is not about a "bunch of people". They are a community trying to ensure that the multi-million euro mobile phone business does not harm their children. Attempting to talk down to them suggests an agenda.

" It has now been shown that their fears are unfounded."

This is simply untrue. The best honest opinion on this issue is that "time will tell"

"If you wish to discuss the merits and demerits of mobile mast design then go and write an article about it"

Why should the discussion be on your terms?. You are the one that introduced "mast design".

"Lets stick to the health aspects here"

Lets. Before a pharmacutical company is issued with a licence for a new drug, they must first complete a full test and demonstrate that the drug is safe. You are suggesting that the reverse is ok here. We will look when the body count becomes difficult to explain. I have a higher regard for the lives of my fellows then that.

"One things for sure though: ugly mobile masts do not cause cancer no matter how displeasing they are to the eye"

There you go again, on about ugly masts. Are you trying to establish a red herring?

"PS. Clontarf, Donnybrook, Howth, Shankill and Terenure Garda Stations all have mobile masts attached to the buildings."

So? What is the distribution throughout the State?

by Dorothy Gale Thu Jul 26, 2007 18:52

You & this bunch of misguided prople expected the latest report to prove your case, but it didnt. Now you are looking for all kinds of red herrings.

You have no case. The SWP are misleading these people. I suspect that you might even be in the SWP. But maybe its the radiation making me paranoid.

I'll talk to you again when you have some evidence.

by Watcher Thu Jul 26, 2007 20:15

"I'll talk to you again when you have some evidence"

Communities don't have the wherewithall to conduct indepth scientific experiments to establish a case, so if we talk again on this subject, people will have been harmed. Communities will have already endured the loss and suffering of loved ones.

So I sincerely hope you are right about these masts because one thing is certain, it won't be the phone barons like Tony O'Reilly or Denis O'Brien that will suffer, it will be the children of the "misguided bunch" you refer to that will carry the can, as usual.

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Fri Jul 27, 2007 00:52 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

I totally agree with Gino..Can i just say,how is it that people all over the world are fighting the same fight we are,that is to HAVE MOBILE PHONE MASTS MOVED FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND SCHOOLS?? There is too many illnesses and deaths by cancer,and why is it that the rating is much higher in areas that are living close to mobile phone masts?? There is to many people all over the world concerned about this same issue.THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THERE,IT HAS TO BE THE PHONE MASTS..I have done a bit of research and have found many stories,very sad stories,and one in paticular were there was a phone mast located in a primary school,there was kids sick,the headmaster,some of the teachers and even the lolly pop lady for the school,there is no way that could be a coincidence !! just incase any of you work for the company that i met with with a couple of weeks back to discuss this same problem,(You know who you are) just for your peace of mind,since our meeting,the tinfoil has stopped burning on the windows!!! Lower the mast down did you?? Well your going to have to hire it back up sometime soon,and the tinfoil will remain were it is,until this is dealt with fully.

by R. Isible Fri Jul 27, 2007 02:17

There is too many illnesses and deaths by cancer,and why is it that the rating is much higher in areas that are living close to mobile phone masts??

Mel, with all due respect, that's crap. There is no proof that people living near mobile phone masts get cancer at higher rates. Cancer is an awful, tragic thing to happen to yourself or to someone in your family and people with it should be much more supported, but there's also an awful lot of complete rubbish talked about why it happens: that includes the disgusting ideas about people's "attitude" being responsible for it, and also includes less repulsive but equally unsupported ideas about mobile phone masts.

By all means, communities should be able to decide whehter they get to have mobile phone masts in their neighbourhoods, just the same as they should be able to decide whether they get incinerators or high-volume roads. But decisions about that should be based on sound evidence and not on cheap manipulation and unsupported claims.

ATM there's probably greater evidence to suggest that bad luck in getting genes coupled with the environmental insults from cars and other sources of nanoparticles common in our industrialised, high consumption society. Something that might actually benefit cancer victims would be reduction of car use and replacement by bicycling and and electric powered trams. Mobile phone towers are complete fucking waste of time and an insult to cancer victims.

by Watcher Fri Jul 27, 2007 07:18

"not on cheap manipulation and unsupported claims

who and why?.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:43

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83596&comment_limit=0&c...02823

by swallows & amazons Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:48

Which is why religiousity and funny dvds are so important to people with run-down healthcare systems and deteriorating sense of community. If someone can mobilise areas of working class Dublin to argue a spurious link between deeply buried UFO's in the Tara Skryne valley and cancer and then they take that energy to the department of the environment - I'm thrilled.

You are not seeing the wood for the trees...

Go on you good people! walk your walk & be your communities. There are many reasons for cancer, many related to environmental issues - there is little evidence that the most evident environmental changes capitalism & high technology (other than cars) have brought you are the source. But all the same - you see them all the time & you don't see swallows. And they weren't stuck up there, and you weren't given a cheap offer phone to enjoy the profits and holidays to places without towers and birds of many feathers.

Can one well studied and well employed leftie really say - they believe all the things that help cancer patients? Can they say they only support mobilisation when it suits their expertise? Think about it.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Jul 27, 2007 14:42

I just posted an interesting piece in the parallel thread, that appeared in today's Irish Times, re: Vodafone having been forced to remove a mast from the fields of John Ryan, a Tipp farmer, living in Golden, near Cashel. John, for the last five years, fought and ran a campaign to get the mast removed - he won at the end. To save repetition pls go to:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83596?author_name=Micha...02837

It won't be long before the pro-mast brigade will tell us the same old story....don't worry lads, it's all OK. You're exaggerating. Any bets?

by moi Fri Jul 27, 2007 15:22

People down through history have experienced the sort of mass hysteria we see around phone masts. Nothing new in MichaelY's panic-mongering.

The thing is that rather than blaming masts (contrary to all the scientific evidence), perhaps people should be demanding a serious investigation of cancer clusters. Don't begin with a half-cooked answer; look for it with an open mind. Left groups that encourage hysteria against an umproven source are simply being cynical and unhelpful. Begin by saying "we don't know what the cause is. Let's find it!"

The couple in Golden were interviewed on TV and they didn't impress me. The mast was only moved because the contract expired not because of any proven health risks.

Back in the mid 1980s, people all over this country were similarly convinced that statues of the Virgin Mary were moving. Imagine what the SWP and MichaelY could have done with that social movement :)

by Dorothy Gale Fri Jul 27, 2007 15:28

People blamed Jews and old women for their ills. That sort of hysteria led to the Inquisition and tens of thousands being burned at the stakes.

Now its scientists get the blame. At time some of the left have a lot in common with the far right. Their attitudes would fit in with the christian fundies anti science drive. How long before mobs storm labs and lynch scientists?

by MichaelY - iawm- per cap Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:50

Dear moi,

Vodafone turned off the mast in 2005 and John and his family say the symptoms stopped since. The mast was finally removed a few days ago because, as you state, the 5-year deal was up.
Your comment that you weren't impressed by the Ryan family on TV is, to say the least, rather obscure.....do you mean they weren't polished speakers, do you mean they were not wearing the right fancy clothes, do you mean they didn't have the right accent and looked like culchies? What do you mean? Please tell so that we don't interpret you wrongly and lead the thread astray.

by moi Fri Jul 27, 2007 16:55

I mean, Michael, the 'link' they drew between the mast and health problems was based entirely on assertion and not evidence. They had no evidence whatsoever that the mast directly affected them. Assertion, grounded in fear, is not evidence.

by Watcher Fri Jul 27, 2007 17:20

Is there no lenghts to which Dorothy Gale will not go to distract from the real issue.

"People blamed Jews and old women for their ills. That sort of hysteria led to the Inquisition and tens of thousands being burned at the stakes"

The people, whose only concern is the health of their children recently referred to as the "bunch", are now being likened to the instigators of the Inquisition. Again, as we have seen elsewhere, those that you disagree with must be demonised. Why?
(And if you think that that was the reason for the Inquisition, then you understand little.)

And more guff,

"Now its scientists get the blame."

Who is blaming the scientists?

And this,

"At time some of the left have a lot in common with the far right. Their attitudes would fit in with the christian fundies anti science drive. How long before mobs storm labs and lynch scientists?"

The people concerned for the welfare of their families have moved from being the"bunch" to being the "mob" with murder in their hearts in a few quick posts.There is something very strange afoot indeed. What and who will be labelled next?

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Fri Jul 27, 2007 17:28

Moi,

If an ordinary family says we were healthy, we were OK, this mast came and was imposed on us, we started having headaches, pressures on the head, the kid had nosebleeds....we argued, we pushed, we campaigned, Vodafone finally stopped the operation of the mast and the symptoms disappeared. And now we're OK.
What would, in your opinion, constitute "evidence"? Who would provide this 'evidence'?

The more I read and the more I study and talk to friends about this, the more it reminds me of the UN Reports, drawn after 20 years of the Chernobyl catastrophe, that, couched in a scientific babble, argued that the facts that 2,000 children in the Ukraine succumbed to thyroid cancer, and that 4,000 people is predicted they would be dead by the next 10 years because of a variety of radiation induced illnesses....."these facts cannot all be attributed to radiation exposure" and that there was "a victim mentality" and "persistent myths" about the mayhem (this last word is mine) that occurred!

Pls do me a favour and go through some of the messages above and search for a few words that would remind you of these quotes. Just as an exercise!!

by caroline Fri Jul 27, 2007 21:49

hi mel

funny you should say that you reckon the mast has being LOWER'D DOWN...because i was speaking to a few people today from the clondalkin area,and they were saying the phone net works are down,very strange indeed???but do you no something they also said because of the network being down they decided to visit the people they wanted to contact,It just shows you what phones have kept us from doing,for example(do people still send postcards?or do they just txt...people even break up in a txt,you dont really get to have a normal conversation with people anymore because they are so busy on their phone...I think phones are running some peolples lives,While the mask is also costing them to be in bad health.In time id like to think we can prove that mast are effecting peoples health.
i also understand the values there are with a phone..but there are alot of downfalls too..but we did cope with out them..

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Sat Jul 28, 2007 00:32 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

Why dont you come and stay in my house for a week or so? See for yourself how it feels to get dressed in the back room facing out to the phone mast.See if you have the same symptoms as myself and my family? Then have a sleep in the front room of our house and compare the difference.Behind my mothers home there is a mobile phone mast no more than 40 feet away.There is nothing else round other than the Gardai compound which stands the mast and a few off the road cars and some trees.There is tinfoil burning in our windows! So what should we put this down to then?? My young brother slept in the back room for years right up until he was diagnosed with cancer.So ill say it again why is it that so many people all over the world are fighting the same fight we are?? And why is it that there is always a phone mast / pylon present ? Why is it that before 1997 the cancer rating in Ronanstown was alot lower than it is now?? So what else can you put it down too? Why is it that so many people with cancer illnesses or who have died from cancer in Ronanstown have all suffered from three types of cancer.Why is there so many miscarriages ?

by R. Isible Sat Jul 28, 2007 01:30

My young brother slept in the back room for years right up until he was diagnosed with cancer.

I'm truly sorry to hear about your brother's cancer, but I'm not impressed by your repeated assertions that his, or anyone elses cancer's are due to mobile phone masts. All the evidence indicates otherwise at this stage.

I've lost several family members to cancer and we also have survivors of cancer. None of them live near mobile phone masts. Half of them were smokers, the others lived very healthy lifestyfles.

So ill say it again why is it that so many people all over the world are fighting the same fight we are?? And why is it that there is always a phone mast / pylon present ?

There isn't. When you state that you are stating a complete fucking lie.

by Watcher Sat Jul 28, 2007 07:34

R. Isible, Chekov, Dorothy Gale etc etc. we get the usual bullying tactic at some stage

"I'm truly sorry to hear about your brother's cancer, but I'm not impressed by your repeated assertions that his, or anyone elses cancer's are due to mobile phone masts. All the evidence indicates otherwise at this stage"

It is not necessary to "impress" you regarding evidence. What is concerning people is not that there is proof that masts are causing cancer but rather that there is no proof that they do not. In the absence of this proof why should people be expected to live cheek by jowl with these masts. Nobody is stopping you living near one by the way.

Your reply to the question, why are there people all over the world protesting about the locating of these masts near homes, schools etc descends into bullying and name calling,

"There isn't. When you state that you are stating a complete fucking lie."

There are campaigns in most countries regarding this issue. Are you suggesting that only here in Ireland people are concerned?

by ANNMARIE Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:19

so many comments objecting to what these ppl are doing!!!
i dont see any of you saying u live right beside a mast or pylon,,
i think ur all forgetting that we dont only have ONE MAST WE HAVE THREE AND A NUMBER OF PYLONS CLOSE TO OUR HOMES IN CLONDALKIN...

we dont want them to be wrecked we just want them to be relocated to a field or a place where theres no houses...

i also read about pylons and there no longer allowed to put them up near homes????? we havnt they relocated the ones beside us?????????????? too busy sepnding the tax payers money on CRAP!!!!!

were not only doing this for our own familys but everyone who lives in the area!!!! and other area's too, we just want a health survey done and some test on this piece of shit in ronanstown garda station..

WE WONT BE GIVING UP WITHOUT ANSWERS!!! SO BE PREPARED FOR WATEVER IT TAKES TO GET THEM...

by mel - Mast Action Clondalkin Sat Jul 28, 2007 14:13 melrussell23 at hotmail dot com

Ha Ha God arent you losing the plot?? SO do you think i should put my brothers illness and all of the others here in ronantown down to....EM LETS SEE.....THE TREES??? LISTEN just for your information my brother lived a very healthy life style didnt smoke barely drank only on occasions,and the doctors are puzzled because they havent a clue as to what to put this down too.So unless you have proof on paper to say that these ugly phone masts standing behind my house are not dangerous and dont cause cancer....then i dont want to hear no more from you....We have been to see many doctors and we have told them about the mobile phone mast and how each and every one of us in the house wake up with dead limbs and headaches.Why would so many doctors have concerns and write to the HSE ???? Gardai made many complaints about this in Ronanstown gardai station.DO YOU REALLY NOT THINK ITS A BIT STRANGE THAT SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE STATION (9) IN TOTAL....Have similar illnesses.....I WILL TELL YOU ONE THING YOU ARE ONE HARD PERSON TO CONVINCE,ACTUALLY FOGET TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU.....I NO LONGER WANT TOO....WHY WOULD WE WANT SOMEONE WHO PROBABLY WORKS FOR A PHONE COMPANY,GOVERNMENT OR PROBABLY GETS PAID FOR HAVING A MAST ON HIS HOUSE (GOD ONLY KNOWS) ON OUR SIDE ANYWAY......

by Kes Sat Jul 28, 2007 14:35

It helps with everything you know.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o2hGRQo6H3g
(a little clip of league of gentlemen's Mister Chinnery the vet who is obviously a satire of "all creatures great and small" meets Ken Loach's work.) Of course that's a generational thing. An awful lot of readers won't get it, but they'll laugh all the same, then they'll come back in just over one minute's time & not be so "heavy".

we are all on the same side you know.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sat Jul 28, 2007 17:08

Now that you went and watched the video link above and laughed, or cried as the case may be, pls go to the other thread re:Masts and have a look at some of the more theoretical reasoning on why people should stop fighting the masts.....and why we, you, are all manipulated and taken for a ride.
A packet of laughs. Brought tears to my eyes. Light relief.

by Annmarie Sat Jul 28, 2007 19:04

Mel i strongly agree with u.... all these people that are against this campaign also hav no written proof that the masts are not effecting people's health,,,

why get on here and tell us were not doing the write thing if they have no proof??
and another thing not one of these ppl that disagree with us live in clondalkin!!!
maybe the masts should be relocated in their housing estate!!!

so listen guys if u dnt have anything good to say dont say it at all.....

by Dorothy Sat Jul 28, 2007 19:11

You have no proof that the masts are causing cancer. SHOUTING ON INDYMEDIA does not make your allegations any more convincing. I am sure that yopu and Mel are genuine in your beliefs but you are being cynically used by thw SWP. They will drop this campaign when it suits them just as they have abandoned so many in the past.

by moi Sat Jul 28, 2007 19:14

In fact I have a mobile mast in my housing estate. Not far away at all and I've heard of no similar resultant health problems around here.

by moi Sat Jul 28, 2007 19:21

I live fairly close to a mobile phone mast that has houses almost bang up against it. However, there is no cancer cluster around here. Likewise, there are mobile phone masts the length of this country that are not associated with cancer clusters. Only in a few areas has such a link been claimed. How is this possible? If what is being said here is true, every locality with a mast should have a cancer cluster. They don't. Explain that.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sat Jul 28, 2007 19:44

Ann Marie,

Listen to Dorothy - sometimes known as Dorothy Gale. If she tells you are genuine in your beliefs, then you must be. Dorothy knows. She also knows that you're not that clever, or perhaps a bit gullible, and you're being manipulated by Gino and his friends. Dorothy knows !!
Do you know what I think?
The SWP are using Dorothy Gale in a reverse propaganda role. Everywhere she pops up she attacks the SWP, or people who may be working with them, thus prompting people to say if Dorothy is against them then they cannot be that bad.
That's what she did to me anyway. Lol. I had no idea who Gino was until she started badmouthing. Now I learnt who he is and learnt to respect him for the work he is doing around Clondalkin and Neilstown.
Don't tell Dorothy though - she wouldn't understand!

As for moi above living in an estate with a cell mast close by. It now makes sense. Some of his stuff was so off the wall I was wondering.

by moi Sat Jul 28, 2007 19:57

MichaelY: "As for moi above living in an estate with a cell mast close by. It now makes sense. Some of his stuff was so off the wall I was wondering."

I'd like to be kind and say you are a funny man Michael, but it would be a lie. I see you've slipped into avoidance mode. A poor response to my question. I'm afraid I'll have to give you an NG for that.