Phone Masts At Petrol Stations
Discussion
quote:
Phone Masts At Petrol Stations
An oil company and a fast food chain have confirmed that mobile phone transmitters are being placed on their premises.But Shell and McDonald's insist the antennas do not pose a risk to safety.Campaigners fear the masts - placed in forecourts - could release radiation which causes cancer.Shell said 200 mobile phone antennae concealed inside forecourt price signs at its stations were safe and were not secret.
Obligation
The Sun newspaper, however, said Shell would not reveal which of its garages have masts and asked: "If the masts are so safe, why can't we know where they are?"
McDonald's also insisted that mobile phone transmitters fixed to the walls of 120 of its restaurants were safe.
A Shell spokesman said: "When we are approached by a phone operator who would like to use one of our sites for a phone antenna, we have a legal obligation to inform the local authority.
"We also have to meet stringent EU and UK safety guidelines and we also have to satisfy the local petroleum officer.
Listening devices
"We would not do anything in our sites that we did not believe was safe."
A McDonald's spokesman said: "On the actual frequency, we are talking about power less than 10 to 20 times baby listening devices that many people have at home."
A spokesman for T Mobile, which has placed the 200 antennae with Shell, said the locations of all its radio masts were available from the Radio Communications Agency.
"You get more of a field from your own PC than you do from these masts," he said.
FFS! - these people want to use mobiles, yet don't want the masts... jeez
Classic was on the news last night - some woman was being interviewed, protesting it might harm her child (yawn) and guess what - SHE WAS STANDING NEXT TO A MAST! :sigh:
'king hate these types..
Don't get me started. 
Do these types spend their lives trying to avoid phone masts? Do they really demand to know where every mast is in the UK?
Oh, and do they then avoid power transmission lines, TV transmitters, radio antennae, wireless LAN coverage areas and large radioactive granite outcrops?
Come to think of it, I hope they do: then all of the tree-huggers will be huddled together in some godforsaken corner of the planet with absolutely nothing there.
Thanks - I feel better now.
Do these types spend their lives trying to avoid phone masts? Do they really demand to know where every mast is in the UK?
Oh, and do they then avoid power transmission lines, TV transmitters, radio antennae, wireless LAN coverage areas and large radioactive granite outcrops?
Come to think of it, I hope they do: then all of the tree-huggers will be huddled together in some godforsaken corner of the planet with absolutely nothing there.
Thanks - I feel better now.
One word for them: Nobends.
I'm pig sick of having shit reception at home, because the NIMBY time-wasters have been fighting the erection of an aeriel near us.. it's had 3 proposed locations in the last 18 months.
They've just completely refurbished the Sainsbury's near me & I really can't see why they didn't put it on that site. It could b positioned so that it's not within about 400yds from anyones house..
But no, because there are far many people who believe the bullshit in teh papers and haven't the mental capacity to understand and realistically weigh risks in any meaningful way against benefits..
Ignorance of technology and physics breeds fear and distrust. Exactly the same psychology as 'speed kills'. Those who understand the intricacies and seek to debunk common misnomers are thought of as heretics...
What they should consider is that the further from a mast they are, the more power the HANDSET NEXT TO THEIR LUGHOLE has to emit to compensate. But no. Why don't the mobile providers point that out?
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 9th October 11:36
I'm pig sick of having shit reception at home, because the NIMBY time-wasters have been fighting the erection of an aeriel near us.. it's had 3 proposed locations in the last 18 months.
They've just completely refurbished the Sainsbury's near me & I really can't see why they didn't put it on that site. It could b positioned so that it's not within about 400yds from anyones house..
But no, because there are far many people who believe the bullshit in teh papers and haven't the mental capacity to understand and realistically weigh risks in any meaningful way against benefits..
Ignorance of technology and physics breeds fear and distrust. Exactly the same psychology as 'speed kills'. Those who understand the intricacies and seek to debunk common misnomers are thought of as heretics...
What they should consider is that the further from a mast they are, the more power the HANDSET NEXT TO THEIR LUGHOLE has to emit to compensate. But no. Why don't the mobile providers point that out?
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 9th October 11:36
- all comes back to Ted's rant about sensationalist journalism... :grrrr:So hang on a minute. For years we've been told to switch off all transmitting devices including mobile phones on garage forecourts due to an insubstantiated fear of explosion, and then they install 
mobile phone masts at them?? 
I hope they are now going to allow the use of mobile phones on forecourts!
>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 9th October 11:35
mobile phone masts at them?? I hope they are now going to allow the use of mobile phones on forecourts!
>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 9th October 11:35
quote:
So hang on a minute. For years we've been told to switch off all transmitting devices including mobile phones on garage forecourts due to an insubstantiated fear of explosion, and then they install
I hope they are now going to allow the use of mobile phones on forecourts!
>> Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 9th October 11:35
It's not for risk of explosion... it's because the phones interfere with the pumping mechanism IIRC...
Hmmmm, and yet they have signs at petrol stations saying not to use mobiles. If a mobile phone is dangerous, then the mast is gonna be loads more dangerous!
I'm not risk averse, but where's the fun in being slowly fried by microwaves? I don't get an adrenaline buzz every time I stand next to a mast. The risk / reward quotient isn't that attractive to me. Sure the risk is probably far less than if you smoke, but it is there.
quote:Well, erm, yes I do actually, at least for any length of time. I wouldn't live under a pylon or near a transmitter if you paid me. Filling up with petrol aint gonna hurt, but working at the till every day a few feet from an aerial is going to be a risk.
Do these types spend their lives trying to avoid phone masts? Do they really demand to know where every mast is in the UK?
Oh, and do they then avoid power transmission lines, TV transmitters, radio antennae, wireless LAN coverage areas and large radioactive granite outcrops?
I'm not risk averse, but where's the fun in being slowly fried by microwaves? I don't get an adrenaline buzz every time I stand next to a mast. The risk / reward quotient isn't that attractive to me. Sure the risk is probably far less than if you smoke, but it is there.
quote:Why not forward your mobile phone to your landline when you are at home? Pretty easy to do & gives you a far better connection.
One word for them: Nobends.
I'm pig sick of having shit reception at home, because the NIMBY time-wasters have been fighting the erection of an aeriel near us.. it's had 3 proposed locations in the last 18 months.
quote:400yds seems OK - wouldn't want it any closer though
They've just completely refurbished the Sainsbury's near me & I really can't see why they didn't put it on that site. It could b positioned so that it's not within about 400yds from anyones house..
quote:Not necessarily - I don't tend to believe the bullshit in the papers & have come to my conclusion separately - it is subject to change as more data becomes available. For the record, I am in general a technophile & studied Physics at Uni (amongst other things)
But no, because there are far many people who believe the bullshit in teh papers and haven't the mental capacity to understand and realistically weigh risks in any meaningful way against benefits..
quote:I disagree - what has bred fear & distrust is the fact that "Experts" & "Scientists" fronting commercial concerns have lied & misrepresented things to the public in the past. Because the general public doesn't understand such things, they now distrust all scientific assurances. I mean look at how long Cigarette companies used "science" to show that smoking was safe, and yet people still knew that it was bad for them, so it just added to the mistrust of "science"
Ignorance of technology and physics breeds fear and distrust. Exactly the same psychology as 'speed kills'.
quote:Not a problem if you use the right headset/handsfree kit.
Those who understand the intricacies and seek to debunk common misnomers are thought of as heretics...
What they should consider is that the further from a mast they are, the more power the HANDSET NEXT TO THEIR LUGHOLE has to emit to compensate. But no. Why don't the mobile providers point that out?
quote:Sure, we're surrounded by microwaves & radiation, but it is at a completely different power level to that we are exposed to when we are close to high power aerials & power pylons. Not wanting to be close to a transmitter isn't the same as wanting radio banned. I love cars, but I wouldn't choose to have the exhausts of my car pumped into the house for me to breath it.
We're surrounded by microwaves, radiation... all sorts of stuff anyway. What do you want to do next? Ban radio in case you "catch" something from it?
As per usual, everyone wants the benefits, without the cost... "there's no such thing as a free lunch"
With a little more development, the power of mobile phones/masts can be dropped, thus dropping the risk dramatically...
quote:
With a little more development, the power of mobile phones/masts can be dropped, thus dropping the risk dramatically...
If you can find any evidence prooving that these transmitters are harmful, then I would be very interested to read it.
No one seems to have cottoned on to the fact that these smaller transmitters (like the ones in petrol stations masts) are significantly less powerful that the huge "obvious" ones.
You are probably at greater risk being run over, than "catching" something from a phone mast. Ona slight tanget - it appears that every new piece of research shows that something is bad for you (and the press go mental) only to be contracdicted by a later study, that shows it's not (which is never mentioned in the media as it's not "news").
>> Edited by Podie on Wednesday 9th October 12:24
quote:
quote:Very likely, but the point I was making is that they TELL you its due to the risk of explosion, yet are now putting up these masts!
It's not for risk of explosion... it's because the phones interfere with the pumping mechanism IIRC.
Yeah right, and starting a car doesn't even stir even the tiniest spark ?
Nimbyism in extremis.quote:Because I then pick up the tab for the forwarded calls (or at least the forwarding feature).
Why not forward your mobile phone to your landline when you are at home? Pretty easy to do & gives you a far better connection.
Also, like Podie said, I need the land-line other things (my wife to talk nonsense to her mates mostly
) - Internet service not affected though 
Besides, the other problem is that I can't use my phone at the supermarket or from the local pub.
quote:You think that's why Gallileo was so persecuted?quote:I disagree - what has bred fear & distrust is the fact that "Experts" & "Scientists" fronting commercial concerns have lied & misrepresented things to the public in the past.
Ignorance of technology and physics breeds fear and distrust. Exactly the same psychology as 'speed kills'.
I accept what you say about trust being stunted by such debacles as the cigarette industry, but human history is littered with pre-industrial examples of scientists being mistrusted - misunderstanding & ignorance breed fear in man. Fear breeds hostility. It's at the core of why to many people all change is bad.
quote:Not a problem if you've got a mast within a mile or so either.quote:Not a problem if you use the right headset/handsfree kit.
What they should consider is that the further from a mast they are, the more power the HANDSET NEXT TO THEIR LUGHOLE has to emit to compensate. But no. Why don't the mobile providers point that out?
And there was a lot of 'hoo-hah' a year or so ago about wired handsfree headsets (from the likes of Nokia and Ericsson) actually exposing the cranium tom more radiation than simply using the handset..
Where's the evidence that there are safe personal hands free sets? Bluetooth ones maybe? well they have their own two-way wireless element, so potentially as bad as the phones if not worse..
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 9th October 12:37
On a slightly different tangent regarding safety of phone masts.
My son was born premature and spent his first ten weeks in the special care baby unit at Lincoln county hospital. This is on the top floor of the building, and you'll never guess whats above that!! Two of the big masts.
If you dared to leave your phone switched on whilst in there, you got a more than severe talking to, about how they affected the delicate equipment in there. It seemed to have slipped thier attention that someone had come along and bolted two huge ariels to the roof, less than ten feet above them.
The cooling plant blocking two of the windows should have been a give away!
My son was born premature and spent his first ten weeks in the special care baby unit at Lincoln county hospital. This is on the top floor of the building, and you'll never guess whats above that!! Two of the big masts.
If you dared to leave your phone switched on whilst in there, you got a more than severe talking to, about how they affected the delicate equipment in there. It seemed to have slipped thier attention that someone had come along and bolted two huge ariels to the roof, less than ten feet above them.
The cooling plant blocking two of the windows should have been a give away!
Speed Matters | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff