Following the discussion on "This Morning" on ITV regarding these masts causing cancer, it was quite alarming how T-Mobile seemed as if they didint give a toss. Their attitude towards the matter was unacceptable really.

I wonder what everyone thinkis on this subject as i am quite sceptical about it. I believe they could possibl cause it but im not sure how it would or if it effects everyone, or possibly just people who may be prone to get cancer such as smokers?

All in all though T-Mobile have appalled me by their attitude over this matter.

Its Vodaphone & O2 who do not give a toss. They are the ones who did not turn up to a big meeting held on the matter a few years ago... Orange and T-Mobile turned up..........


Does anybody really give a toss? I mean, if all the masts were to be removed, then what would we do? no mobile phones!

When you look at the figures, 1.53 Billion text messages sent in february, thats a lot of unhappy users if no service available.

<wishs he had remembered source> but 2/3's of all complaints about errecting new masts are made using mobile phones.

If they do cause cancer, i think people rely on them so much now that people will not care... they just want to use there mobile. If you place the masts to far away from houses and stuff then you will get no signal.

I do not see what can be done really??????

I am (or was) a radio ham. My opinion (which is shared by a number of scientists) is that the masts are not a problem, but the PHONES are!

The masts are not very powerful and are located a long way from your brain. Even if it is across the street that is a long way, because the electric field of the signal falls off with the square of the distance. Its called the "inverse square law" So the signal 100 inches away from the mast is 10000 times less powerful than at 1 inch away.

Now the phone is next to your head. Thats up to 2W of almost microwave radiation. I would rather be 100 metres from a mast than have a phone next to my head for half an hour!

Also a male businees aquaintance of mine developed breast cancer, which is quite rare in men. We swears it is because he kept his mobile in his shirt pocket, next to his tit.

Thats quite interesting, i wonder now if the woman tis morning used a phone? She never said!

at my previous work Vodafone were planning to erect a mast opposite our building. as it was a radio station with alot of digital equipment that could have potentially been interfeared with they came and did a test.

I was in the room when they measured the output of the mast, without it hardly registering, then when someones mobile in the room rang, it went off the scale. So I tend to agree with Rog that the problem lies with the phone and not the mast.

Ben.

When Mobile phone masts started appearing some people objected on visual grounds, these objections were dismissed and planning rules were changed to allow all masts below 15m in height without the need for planning permission. The objectors then came up with the idea of objecting on health grounds, which couldn't be dismissed so easily.

We are now in the position of more objectors jumping on the health risk bandwagon. Numerous tests and studies are unable to proove anything either way.

I am more concerned about Radar speed camera's with RF transmitters just above head hight. seems my risky than mobile phone masts to me.

Often the same groups campaigning against mobile phone masts are campaigning for more Speed cameras!

Have to agree with Rog. It's the phones themselves that cause the most problem.

I can remember seeing this covered once on Country File (I think). A bloke was measuring the amount of radiation being emitted by phones and masts. His reccomendation to phone users was to ensure that the signal scale on your phone is always at full when using it to minimise the radiation output from your phone as it varies depending on the amount of signal it recieves from the nearest transmitter.

He also said that although people complain about the masts, the more mosts there are the less radiation everyone will be subjected to.