Huntington phone mast site defended (From York Press)

They complain if it's in a built up area, they complain if it's in a rural area. How many of these people not have mobile phones? Nimby, nimby, nimbt

sj61 wrote:
They complain if it's in a built up area, they complain if it's in a rural area. How many of these people not have mobile phones? Nimby, nimby, nimbt

FYI - there's no such thing as "nimbyism" - it’s a term made up by newspapers and perpetuated by suckers like you.

FY (further) I - in this country the individual has a right to object to any development they feel might impact on quality of life. The theory being that if you don’t speak up for yourself then no-one else will.

It’s a right enjoyed by everyone lucky enough to live in a civilised democracy and - who knows? - perhaps one day, once you've finished off venting more heat than light, you might come to understand that it might be very useful for you one day.

I tended to agree with the ideas raised in the first half of Soothsayer's first post, but he/she then proved that they are in fact a complete imbicile with the remaining comments!

There is indeed a term nimbyism, it has been around since 1980 and is included in the Oxford English dictionary.

akuma wrote:
You notice its a bunch of old giffers that are complaining. The VAST majority of people will be delighted with the improved phone signal.

I think you hit a nerve there my friend!!!

I'm not ageist but it does seem to be the 50+ers who are overse to change of any sort.

There has been much research done to prove that these masts are of no danger at all. In fact, you are more likely to suffer more contamination from a computer screen or TV if used too closely.

Vodafone can insist all it wants that there are no health hazards from masts but that won't change the science. 10 out of the 14 existing studies on people living near masts show short-term adverse health effects like headaches, nausea, neurological diseases and long-term effects like cancer. Cancer clusters around masts become detectable after 5-8 years whereas usually it takes 15-20 years for cancer to show up due to an environmental stressor (the mast) in the area. Around-the-clock radiation from masts impairs the immune systems natural cancer-fighting abilities thus helping carcinogens in attacking cells of the body. It's a catalytic cancer effect.

The guidelines from the "International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection" take only tissue-heating from radiation into account and ignore the 2000+ scientific evidence reports documenting adverse health effects occuring at sub-thermal intensities (fx. mast radiation).
Those guidelines are dangerously out of date and need to be scrapped. Look up the BioInitiative report on this.

A user wrote:

akuma wrote: You notice its a bunch of old giffers that are complaining. The VAST majority of people will be delighted with the improved phone signal.

I think you hit a nerve there my friend!!! I'm not ageist but it does seem to be the 50+ers who are overse to change of any sort. There has been much research done to prove that these masts are of no danger at all. In fact, you are more likely to suffer more contamination from a computer screen or TV if used too closely.

Thank Goodness you quoted me.

Seems one of the MIMBY's complained and got my orginal comment removed.

Sometimes, NIMBY's the truth hurts!!!!

Henrik Eiriksson - Care to post your sources?

The reason masts like this are no threat to humans is that the wave length is too long. The waves are simply too big to interfere with human DNA.

akuma wrote:

A user wrote:

akuma wrote: You notice its a bunch of old giffers that are complaining. The VAST majority of people will be delighted with the improved phone signal.

I think you hit a nerve there my friend!!! I'm not ageist but it does seem to be the 50+ers who are overse to change of any sort. There has been much research done to prove that these masts are of no danger at all. In fact, you are more likely to suffer more contamination from a computer screen or TV if used too closely.

Thank Goodness you quoted me. Seems one of the MIMBY's complained and got my orginal comment removed. Sometimes, NIMBY's the truth hurts!!!!

Your a barman, aren't you?

If sweeping generalisations are yr bag then I dub you "thick," "sub-educated" and "low paid."

Enjoy!

why is it that these people are so quick to moan about mobile masts, yet non of them complain about tv ariels radio masts sky tv or even the radio feild given of by cars, yes car ignition systems also give radio waves, or even key fobs for the cental locking on cars, why dont we just ban everything and go back to the dark ages

Soothsayer426897-A wrote:

akuma wrote:

A user wrote:

akuma wrote: You notice its a bunch of old giffers that are complaining. The VAST majority of people will be delighted with the improved phone signal.

I think you hit a nerve there my friend!!! I'm not ageist but it does seem to be the 50+ers who are overse to change of any sort. There has been much research done to prove that these masts are of no danger at all. In fact, you are more likely to suffer more contamination from a computer screen or TV if used too closely.

Thank Goodness you quoted me. Seems one of the MIMBY's complained and got my orginal comment removed. Sometimes, NIMBY's the truth hurts!!!!

Your a barman, aren't you? If sweeping generalisations are yr bag then I dub you "thick," "sub-educated" and "low paid." Enjoy!

About time Rust went to sleep again.

YorkSEO wrote:
Henrik Eiriksson - Care to post your sources? The reason masts like this are no threat to humans is that the wave length is too long. The waves are simply too big to interfere with human DNA.

He's not suggesting that it does - he's pointing out that such non-ionising radiation, with frequencies (and therefore photon energy) too low to mutate human DNA might be having a different effect - on the human immune response to carcinogens. I don't know much about the subject, and after reading his comment I would like to know more, but I can imagine that this electromagnetic radiation could have at least some effect on the human system, perhaps by inducing spurious alternating electrical currents in the nervous system that controls a lot of our bodily functions.

(Why do you think dogs wee on phone masts when they walk past! ;-)

YorkSEO wrote:
Henrik Eiriksson - Care to post your sources?

The reason masts like this are no threat to humans is that the wave length is too long. The waves are simply too big to interfere with human DNA.

YorkSEO: sure. My primary source is the WHO EMF research database. The WHO doesn't seem to keep its database properly up to date so PowerWatch has a very complete list of existing studies here:
http://www.powerwatc
h.org.uk/science/stu
dies.asp
(see under "Mobile Phone Masts").
You write that masts are no threat because of the wavelength being too long for DNA damage. Correct that the waves themselves don't have enough energy to damage the DNA directly and you will arrive at that conclusion if you only think physics and sheer energy. But, as I said it's a catalytic effect. Cells react to microwaves by producing free-radicals and they do the actual damage to DNA. There are a number of mechanisms at play. Another catalytic cancer mechanism is that low intensity microwaves can switch off the pineal glands melatonin production in the brain. Melatonin is a super anti-oxidant (to combat free-radicals). It's known to kill off cancerous cells and is also a sleep regulating hormone.

Soothsayer426897-A wrote:

akuma wrote:

A user wrote:

akuma wrote: You notice its a bunch of old giffers that are complaining. The VAST majority of people will be delighted with the improved phone signal.

I think you hit a nerve there my friend!!! I'm not ageist but it does seem to be the 50+ers who are overse to change of any sort. There has been much research done to prove that these masts are of no danger at all. In fact, you are more likely to suffer more contamination from a computer screen or TV if used too closely.

Thank Goodness you quoted me. Seems one of the MIMBY's complained and got my orginal comment removed. Sometimes, NIMBY's the truth hurts!!!!

Your a barman, aren't you? If sweeping generalisations are yr bag then I dub you "thick," "sub-educated" and "low paid." Enjoy!

Once more in English for the thick people please.

And I'm also a bar man!

I know that area and the views are rubbish. The vale of York is as flat as a pancake. Nothing to see.

Why can't we comment on the real stories like the gypsy and pervert story below?