I was reading a copy (not mine) of that pathetic excuse for a newspaper, The Sun, today and they were whinging that T-Mobile have base stations 'hidden' in signs at petrol stations.
And exactly what is their problem with this? People complain that masts (which don't need planning permission) are errected everywhere [and I would to if a structure like a mast/pylon/etc was built next to my house] - so they conceal them inside exsisting structures and people complain. Ehh???
Or is it that people are worried about this non-existant risk of getting their brain fried by all the 'radiation'. This is all crap. Do people not realise that if there are more base staions they don't need to be so powerfull - and if your phone is closer to a base station it uses power - so is less likely to fry your brain (not that that can happen anyway).

What is the problem that everyone is complaining about?

Just another typical Sun ill informed rant

There are so many people in the world that think there is a hidden agenda in every part of life and the world is out to get them.

I would have thought that it would be illegal to use a petrol station sign for a mobile mast. After all, it is illegal to use a mobile at a petrol station. Also, on another note, petrol stations that are too close to a transmitter mast have special rules imposed on them about the state of their canopy and paintwork (special shielded paint), and are checked once a week for any damage to the paintwork. The petrol station on the A1 near Lisburn in Northern Ireland that is almost directly beneath the AM radio transmitters is subjected to even tougher rules than this!

This whole paranoia about mobile phone masts started when some people didn't like to look at them. Government regs meant they couldn't do anything about them because of what they look like, so they invented the fear of radiation to give a more valid reason for objection.

So now we have a group of mis-informed do gooders, not bothered about what phone masts look like, but objecting about radiation, not wanting anything that emits radio waves anywhere near kids! The same protesters are often campaigning for radar speed cameras to be located outside schools, but I guess it's OK to have a radio emitter at head hight so long as the media haven't got them all stirred up.

The reason petrol stations object to mobile phones is not because of any safety fears. In the late 1970's it was discovered that using a radio transmitter near a petrol pump caused it to under-measure the amount of petrol dispensed, their concern is purely financial. After all, if they didn't have anything on the forecourt that could cause a spark, they wouldn't sell much petrol would they!

mobile phones use microwaves, not radio waves ya dummy!

And the power of the radar gun is insignificant compared to a mobile phone tower.

Oh No! not The Great Mast Debate again. Can't you lot stop thinking about your local erections for a little while
Oops!

[quote]Originally posted by Nutty
[b]mobile phones use microwaves, not radio waves ya dummy!

Mobile phones are on 900 MHz and 1800MHz. These ARE radio waves. It is RF (Radio Frequency) that is emitted. But these frequencies are close the the microwave band.

Garry.

You'd be suprised how many innocent looking features can hold Mobile Antennas.

I know of a town hall clock face that has one built into it.
There are even plastic tree with them in - i kid you not.

I would be horrified if i found out there was a hidden, high power microwave broadcast antenna situated near to me.

'Tis all.

LM

Totally agree...what's all the fuss about?....first the nimby's complain that the masts are eyesores...so....the mobile networks devise a way of hiding them and people are angry because they think there's some sinister plot to toast our brains with evil radiowaves.

Seems to me that the petrol station idea is an excellent way of deploying the masts....and surely there can't be much harm unless you spend all day standing next to the signs.
If, and it's a BIG IF...these masts are harmful then surely the Sun's reporters would be better employed investigating the array of mobile phone aerials on the top of council tower blocks everywhere...I certainly wouldn't like to be on the top floor living under them...would you?

The church in the next village over from where I live at home (no, not in Bradford!) actually has one installed in the spire The vicar (who's the vicar for our church which is only about 200 yards away!) managed to persuade one of the phone companies to put one in and pay the church rent for using it!

Not that their is any risk anyway, but if you have more masts each one doesn't have to be as powerfull - so less chance of any risk. And if your phone is closer to a base station it also uses less power (so less likely to fry your brain) and saves its battery.

Also these GSM base staions only use a few watts - compare that to a UHF TV TX - do you see the population of Crystal Palace all with brain tumors caused by that 1MW TX in their back gardens?

These same idiots who complain about base stations being there would kick up a fuss if they weren't there and their phones didn't work.

If only I could persuade Orange to put one in my garden so I could get a decent signal and I would use them again - I would offer very reasonable rates.

And why is there nothing said about TV Masts? These masts have 4 or 5 channels being broadcast on a frequency also very close to mobile phone frequencys. My local Brighton TV transmitters each transmit 20,000 watts. Thats just for TV, there are lots of point to point microwave links.... Broadcast radio etc etc. all pushing out a lot more power than the 10-30 watts of a mobile phone transmitter.

Garry

I had a paranoia about these masts, which I don't have now.

I have noticed one thing though. Near where I live there is a whole row of pylons, 20kv i think. I was under them one day, and I felt quite odd. After i moved away from them I felt fine.

In my opinion there is more risk from things like this.