Ozankoy - New GSM Base Station

asliaker


Joined: 07/12/2011
Posts: 2

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 14:19

There is a new GSM Base Station in Ozankoy. It has been operating since 05/12/2011. It is located on top of Erol's Restaurant, and disguised as a water tank with solar panels. There was a public protest yesterday at 4:30pm which appeared on 7pm news on Kanal T. People of Ozankoy want it removed because of the obvious health risk. I wanted to inform the English-speaking residents as well. Now you know.

Geoff


Joined: 25/06/2008
Posts: 1370

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 16:14

What absolute rubbish. There is no such health risk from mobile fone masts.

There IS a risk from mobile phones used next to your head. Especially by kids.

Geoff

Chartered Radio Engineer.

Famagusta City.

Donaldson


Joined: 13/05/2011
Posts: 86

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 16:48

I agree with Geoff;

After a lifetime working in radio, I would far rather my (grand)kids had a mast on top of their school than keeping it a couple of kilometres (a "safe distance") away. That way the handset a couple of centimetres away from their brain is transmitting less energy and if there is any risk of damage from non-ionising radiation at GSM frequencies (not proven after 20 years of research), they will be less susceptible to it. Remember the inverse-square law and do the maths.

Donaldson


Joined: 13/05/2011
Posts: 86

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 16:54

Asliaker, you posted "People of Ozankoy want it removed because of the obvious health risk". What risk is that?

And no, I'm not shooting the messenger, just wondering what evidence the local press used to show the "obvious risk".

kbasat



Joined: 28/07/2011
Posts: 481

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 17:20

I have already posted about this in another thread:



http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/80863.asp



I strongly suggest you click and read the report published by World Health Organization.



The intensity of the radio signals are inversely proportional with the distance travelled. (simply put, there is 4 times less signal at 2 meters that it was at 1 meter).



That being said, IF(and this is a big if) there is any health risk from mobile system, it is with the mobile phones that you put at 0(zero) distance to your brain and not with a mast that is several meters away.



Kemal

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 18:50

Nonetheless it was good of Asliaker to let us know about it in case it is not reported in the English language papers, As she says now we know and thus have the opportunity to make up our own minds about the risk.

Donaldson


Joined: 13/05/2011
Posts: 86

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 19:04

I think a lot of the problem relates to the fact that we use the same word for two different - although related - phenomena. As a legacy of being brought up in the shadow of The Bomb, we associate radiation with A-bombs, H-bombs, radiation poisoning (cancer) and all the other horrific effects of thermonuclear war. But radiation is also the name for the process of getting a radio signal from transmitter to receiver. Think of it in the same way as "good" cholesterol, and "bad" cholesterol. One you want, the other you don't.

The radiation from a mobile phone mast is "good" radiation - there is absolutely no evidence that it is harmful.

And no - I have no links whatsoever to the mobile phone industry any more. It's just that 30 years as a radio engineer have taught me a little more about it than the average man in the street.

kbasat



Joined: 28/07/2011
Posts: 481

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 19:33

In addition to Donaldson's analogy, I would like to make a list of things that are and can be MORE HARMFUL to your health than a Mobile Phone basestation.



(In no particular order, not a complete risk, just for reference)



1. Staying under the sun (UV radiation)

2. Walking in the street (accident hazard)

3. Eating foods with high fat content

4. Eating too much sugar

5. Eating vegetables that you do not know where they are grown

6. Driving a car (accident hazard)

7. Gardening (natural radioactive elements in soil)

8. Smoking

9. Staying in your house (Radon buildup http://www.radonseal.com/radon-indoor.htm )

10. Keeping pets in your houses



the list can go on... and for BizziLizzi, there is no such thing about 'make up our own minds about the risk'. Fortunately for us, the technology is there that can measure all the elements and conclude on the risks by analysis and comparison. We do not need to make up anything, we only need to educate ourselves.



Kemal

BlueButterfly


Joined: 03/11/2011
Posts: 160

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 22:48

With respect Kemal, given your occupation, you are hardly going to speak out against basestations.



The harmful risks that you list are risks which people can choose whether or not to take.



Geoff. message2, how rude of you to dismiss bizzie lizzie,s worries as, 'utter rubbish' without giving any facts to substantiate.



I agree that we should educate ourselves by using analysis and comparison and then make up our minds about any risks.



I found the site, chronicexposure.org very informative and unbiased.



Asliaker, I posted last night re the mast and protest but did not name the restaurant as the owner said he was going to have the mast removed, at a public meeting tonight he said that 'the mast will be removed within the next 2 days'.

Donaldson


Joined: 13/05/2011
Posts: 86

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 23:03

I've just had a look at the link you gave, and I'd hardly call it unbiased. Where are the (many) case studies that conclude that non-ionising radiation within the WHO limits is harmless?

It starts, as do many such websites, with the premise that RF radiation is harmful and then collects evidence to prove the premise. It does not balance the argument with evidence to refute the premise.

I am not saying that such radiation is harmless, but that there is no evidence to prove it is. This seems to work on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent".

The only way to reduce the number of mobile phone masts is to reduce the user base. Will you be the first to throw away your mobile phone?

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 23:30

asliaker

First and only post no further comment !

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
07/12/2011 23:58

Just to get the facts straight. It was asliaker who was the orignal poster and gave the information about the position of the mast and the protest and was rudely accused of "utter rubbish". I sugggested in a later post that she was being helpful . It is appalling that someone who posts informative fact (particularly as in this case where most of us might have been unaware of it because of our lack of fluency in the language of the country we live in) instead of thanked. No wonder the lady hasnt posted again.



I suggested it was helpful to know about this so we could make up our own minds. Which I stand by. I may not be very technically knowledgeable but I am not untelligent and am capable of reviewing the evidence and deciding on the level of risk - and whether or not it exists and if it exists whether it is negligable in comparison with others and/or justifiable - for myself. I am NOTimpressed by people who try to dictate to me what I should believe

BlueButterfly


Joined: 03/11/2011
Posts: 160

Message Posted:
08/12/2011 00:05

'I am not saying that such radiation is harmless'. THAT IS THE POINT. The people who are protesting are, like myself, everyday people, without the benefit of Bscs and what have you. I am not concerned for myself, to be honest with you, I consider, at my age to have had a 'good innings' but if there is even the smallest chance that this mast is a danger to the children in the vicinity then it should be removed. Yes, guilty until proved innocent.

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
08/12/2011 00:14

Blue Butterfly makes a very valid point. The risks listed by Kemal are ones we are aware of and at least a degee of control over. What is really disturbing about this is that it appears that whoever sited this mast (and by the way who was it?) actually tried to disguise it and prevent others making their own judgement Why was this considered necessary?



AS for message 10 - no I would not be the first to throw away my mobile phone . BUT I only use it for emergencies. I do not carry on long conversations on it in private , let alone in public. As with so many things that we consider essential to modern life but which may carry a real or perceived risk it is simply a matter of common sense restraint and consideration for others to reduce the risk to an acceptable level,

BizziLizzi


Joined: 02/08/2011
Posts: 855

Message Posted:
08/12/2011 00:27

Just to get the facts straight. It was asliaker who was the orignal poster and gave the information about the position of the mast and the protest and was rudely accused of "utter rubbish". I sugggested in a later post that she was being helpful . It is appalling that someone who posts informative fact (particularly as in this case where most of us might have been unaware of it because of our lack of fluency in the language of the country we live in) instead of thanked. No wonder the lady hasnt posted again.



I suggested it was helpful to know about this so we could make up our own minds. Which I stand by. I may not be very technically knowledgeable but I am not untelligent and am capable of reviewing the evidence and deciding on the level of risk - and whether or not it exists and if it exists whether it is negligable in comparison with others and/or justifiable - for myself. I am NOTimpressed by people who try to dictate to me what I should believe

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
08/12/2011 08:52

"If Mobile Phones Were a Type of Food, They Simply Would Not be Licensed"

This statement was not uttered by some uneducated anti-technology activist, but rather was written by British physicist Dr. Gerald Hyland and was printed in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet.



A base-station antenna typically radiates 60 W and a handset between 1 and 2 W (peak). The antenna of a handset radiates equally in all directions but a base-station produces a beam that is much more directional. In addition, the stations have subsidiary beams called side-lobes, into which a small fraction of the emitted power is channelled



http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/12/17/mobile-phones-part-five.aspx

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
08/12/2011 08:52

A base-station antenna typically radiates 60 W and a handset between 1 and 2 W (peak). The antenna of a handset radiates equally in all directions but a base-station produces a beam that is much more directional. In addition, the stations have subsidiary beams called side-lobes, into which a small fraction of the emitted power is channelled

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
08/12/2011 08:54

ALWAYS Remember How Truth Evolves



I think it is important to stop and remind you how nearly every scientific advance evolves through the system: change is inevitable, and truth generally wins out in the end.



I believe Arthur Schopenhauer said it best when he declared that all truths go through three phases:



First, it is ridiculed

Second, it is violently opposed

Finally, it is accepted as self-evident

So it is not at all surprising that most all “experts” refute the increasing evidence that is coming forth. Please remember that they also did this with cigarettes.

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
08/12/2011 08:55

Cell Phone Dangers -- What They Don't Want You to See



http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/26/cell-phone-dangers-what-they-don-t-want-you-to-see.aspx

asliaker


Joined: 07/12/2011
Posts: 2

Message Posted:
09/12/2011 10:27

Guys, it's up to you to decide how you feel about the situation. I appreciate it when somebody goes out of his way to provide me with info I would otherwise have a hard time obtaining. This is called communication. Please don't expect me to try to force my views on anyone regarding cell phones, base stations and such. That is not communication, it is something else, and I'm not interested in it. Regards, Asli Aker

Salamisboy


Joined: 20/03/2011
Posts: 54

Message Posted:
09/12/2011 11:47

What a load of old codswallop is being written here!



If you have concerns and own a mobile then throw it away or else shut up!



There are zillions of mobiles been operating throughout the world for many years now so there would be multiple medical evidence of harmful effects by this time.



If you do not own a mobile and have concerns be assured that base stations are low power devices with several thousand per cent less (if any) radiation entering your body than that phone held to your ear which in itself has yet to be proved harmful.



In short - relax - there are far more important things to worry about.



Sb.