mobile masts and stupid cnuts
Regularly there will be some complaint from a bunch of uneducated inbreds who don't want a mobile phone mast near them, even had some in the paper who tried to take down a mast that was going up at the end of their street and steel the digger laying the foundations.


When will they understand the concept of supply and demand, if you don't want a mast or to complain about getting less than a full signal, STOP USING YOUR FUCKING PHONES, they all walk or drive round with one glued to your ear sending invisible mind worms in to try and eat that remaning braincell.
(bluehamster, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:30, 5 replies)

AAAAAAAAAAGH
They all need to die.

I had a colleague who was asked, after a site-survey, to come and speak to "a few people" about the operator's new mast, and was then waylaid into a village hall, filled to the rafters with baying yokels, all screaming that she was killing their kids with radiation, old maggie down the road has just suffered an inexplicable brain tumor, etc etc - run of the mill, ill-educated, village idiot nonsense.

The tumult dies down, and she asks anyone who doesn't have a mobile phone to put their hand up - not one person does - at which juncture, she walks out.

Utter, utter fuckwits.

These *same* wankers will complain about TETRA masts and use random terms they've heard in passing ("pulsed radiation" is a hot favourite right now with those fucking idiots) but complain vociferously to one and all any time there's any indication that police / ambulance / fire services can't be reached or can't liase with each other.

There is quite simply _no_reasoning_ with these fucking spastics. If it were to get down to the nuts and bolts of the situation, you'd be well placed to illustrate to them the vast gulf in transmisson power between, oooooh say, domestic TV and something like, hrmmm, cellphone masts:

Avg. TV mast : 10Kw
Avg. GSM mast : up to around 20watts (if that)

But no - apparently cellphone masts are evil. Why? Apparently because they use (in some cases) microwave band signals. NEWSFLASH: All radio waves will cook you, it just depends how powerful they are and the proximity for exposure: www.rfsafetysolutions.com/tower%20climbing.htm

Guess what you fucking mong - you're putting a transmitter next to your gonads *and* your temple every time you use that phone. If nothing else, the *less* base stations there are in your locale, the harder the transmission stage in that phone has to work to ensure you can continue to rabbit shit to your idiot friends and family. So, your righteous reward for being a hooting luddite will indeed be the very thing you're supposedly campaigning against (localised heat damage and associated ailments thereof).

I hate those fuckers.
(mymilkshakebringsallthemongstotheyard poison hearts, poison minds - joining hate, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:04, closed)

Actually...
I was under the impression that all mobile phone signals utilised microwave radiation? Just that companies use "radio waves" because it would take too long to explain to the general public that "microwaves" and "radiation" are not inherently bad things. Incidentally had a rather nice question in an Electromagentism problems class the other day (I'm a Physics Student at Durham) about EM waves, skin depth, conductivity etc., to work out the electric field 1cm inside your brain due to a mobile phone placed next to the skin. Funnily enough, it's harmless.

On a related note, one of my aunts refuses to allow my uncle to get a wireless router, which of course actually *is* of radio frequencies. Fears that it'll melt her brain, or make her children like rock and/or roll music or somesuch...
(icassu, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:49, closed)

Nah

Question of definition I suppose.

I don't have a spectrum map to hand, so saying that 800-1Ghz isn't (legally & technically) microwave would likely be me talking shit without sufficient evidence. Likely (from memory) they're all in the same band class though - I usually demarc 1Ghz as Joe Soap definition of microwave. Meh.

And yes, you're right - we do tend to use "radio wave" or "directional antenna" as opposed to "microwave" and "focused beam aperture". The resistance you meet when installing even small links or networks is ridiculous if you're not careful about how you speak to the locals.

Harmless is also bang on the nail - I've worked around the stuff for years now, and not once had any ill effect. The worst I've experienced was a mild tingling in my hand when I stuck it in front of a high-power dish (Automatic TX Power Control coming on-line and increasing power when decreased RSSI is shown).

In actuality, the nastiest injuries I've heard of from working in radio have come from guys working on AM transmitters and broadcast stages - high field strengths, bad earthing, localised heating etc. But then most of them have arisen from some situ like someone sticking their thumb on a grounding stub, or shorting a TX line.

Strikes me you'd have a field day in my line of work..
(mymilkshakebringsallthemongstotheyard poison hearts, poison minds - joining hate, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 19:21, closed)

^^^ THIS ^^^
(click furiously)

I use radio as a hobby (Amateur Radio) and all the scare tactics are utter cobblers. I really couldn't agree more.
(Panteneman Isn't entirely sure why he bothered on, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 10:42, closed)

I don't have a problem with the technology
It's the aesthetics and greed that *sometimes* annoys me. Now, I'm not an expert in telecomms, but here are my thoughts:

Rather than have one common mast covering a given area, each operator seems hell-bent on having their own tower. I struggle to believe that it's consistently unfeasible to share - they can do it when they're made to (eg. 999/911/112 calls), and they can do it when they want to (effectively subletting to a subsidiary brand). It might even make it cheaper to cover otherwise-marginal areas; if you're considering all-mobile user-numbers rather than just your-network user-numbers.

I've been in situations where I have clear line-of sight to a mast, but not one of "my" network's masts; so I have to struggle with a poor and drop-prone connection. Awkward for trivial information, but alarming for important information.

Case study: Out on a hire boat, some distance from hire depot. Need to call boat company to let them know OK but delayed return - clearly NOT worthy of clogging 999 system. Struggled to get through (1bar reception on my network but 5bar reception on an unusable rival network), yet if I hadn't been able to; I'd possibly have been booked overdue and search/rescue initiated.

And then there's a related problem: So you have 4-5 towers covering a given relatively remote hilly area, but they're sited on the highest and most visually-intrusive spots, usally as plain masts. Surely the same (or even better) coverage could be achieved with 4-5 shared towers spread out, maybe added to existing structures or less-prominent locations. Credit where it's due, I've seen power pylons retro-fitted with transmitters; adding extra functionality to a long-established feature; but this seems to be the exception rather than the norm.

/rant
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 5:23, closed)