Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 30 October 2007 16:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Lawlor
Can any one tell me if there is any danger of radiation of any kind from these

Our local football club has gone and erected two of these masts

and on any weekend in total there could be 1000 kids playing football at this park

so I was wondering if there is any danger in these

at the moment there is one what looks like a satellite dish on top but knowing this club and the what they can get per dish they won't stop at just one

Thanks
Admin  
#2 Posted : 30 October 2007 16:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Colin Reeves
Article in the electronic SHP just received.

Colin
Admin  
#3 Posted : 30 October 2007 17:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By paul sykes
very vague identification
but the chances of getting radhazed from the mast are at best very slim as it sounds like a vhf/uhf/shf aerial which is low power and even if you where putting a couple of hundred watts out (very very unlikely) the danger area would be only 3-4 feet on the lobes greater on the parabolic pencil beam but you wont have access to that as i asume the aerial cant be accessed

so i would say it is safe its just bad publicity that frieghtens people

ive worked with this type of thing for 25 years on ships covered with aerials and i would rather have a mast near my house than a electricity pylon or a railway line !!!!
Admin  
#4 Posted : 30 October 2007 20:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd
It depends on who you believe.
If you believe the scaremongers then the kids will arrive on the field and leave accompanied by two veg, gravy and a yorkshire pudding.
If you believe the scientists who make a living out of statistics and research, then there is a small but mentionable risk (enough for the grants to keep coming)
If you believe other scientists, then the risk is there but too small to be significant.
According to the NRPB, the risk, if any, isn't.
According to the very many thousands of people who have worked with electromagnetic radiation of the communications kind for many years (without contracting leukaemia or anything else) the risk isn't.
Are the masts guarded ?
If the kids cannot actually shin-up them and stuff their faces into the parabolic antenna then they are not going to get harmed.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 31 October 2007 08:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By W. Findlay
John

A recent report 'MTHR Mobile Telecommunications & Health Response Programme Report 2007' chaired by Prof. Lawrie Challis OBE, whilst a little heavy, will give you an insight into some of the medical research already conducted. You can find the report via the web however, as previously stated, it "depends on who you believe".

Hope this helps.

Regards

Willie
Admin  
#6 Posted : 31 October 2007 10:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Della Pearlman
I did some research on this recently - as others have said, it depends who you believe - but there was a recent report (May 2007) on this - below is my summary on the report - hope this helps: Della

Planning - Power lines
In May 2007, Ministers were told that introducing a ban on the building of new homes and schools within 60 metres of major overhead power lines might reduce the risk of death from childhood leukaemia and possibly other illnesses.
The SAGE report noted the range of views about the science of EMFs, typified by the two views they have described as “WHO/HPA” and “California”. They have therefore considered both. The first leads the report to consider the appropriate precautionary response to the possibility that there is a risk from magnetic fields for childhood leukaemia (the “WHO/HPA” view). The second leads them to consider the appropriate precautionary response to the possibility that EMFs also cause other adverse health effects (the “California” view).
(There is also discussion on wiring and electrical equipment in homes etc. Please note that nowhere in the report is there a 100% assertion that magnetic fields do cause childhood leukaemia, although there is a suppostition of this;)
But the expert advisory group assessing the policy implications of the health impact of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) which power lines and electrical equipment generate could not agree whether such a ban – or the undergrounding of power lines in some locations – could be justified on economic grounds or in terms of the reduction in the number of expected deaths.
Instead the Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) has said that ministers must decide whether such a policy is needed. "We urge Government to make a clear decision on whether to implement this option or not," concluded thereport.
The report suggested that a ban on specific developments within 60m of power lines could be implemented by Communities and Local Government issuing a planning circular on the subject.
In summary, the option is to stop building any new buildings for residential use (and some other uses including schools) within specified distances of overhead power lines, and to stop building new overhead power lines within the same specified distances of existing such buildings.
The group acknowledged that bringing in a new planning regime for power lines would sterilise land, could hamper regeneration in areas like the Thames Gateway and reduce both land and house values. It suggested that introducing new development control measures would cost in the region of one to two billion pounds.
The Sage Report “Precautionary approaches to ELF EMFs” can be seen in full at: http://www.rkpartnership...interim%20assessment.pdf

(note for moderators - all this is copyright free)

Admin  
#7 Posted : 31 October 2007 13:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Dowan

Hi John for good information go to

http://www.hpa.org.uk/
And look at Radio waves and Radio Frequency this give any easy to understand briefing. The hazard from RF will depend on the frequency, the power and the distance so if you are worried then ask the mast owner (their name will be on a sign on the fence)
Hope this helps Dave
Admin  
#8 Posted : 31 October 2007 13:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Lawlor
Thank you all for your responses there is no fence around these mast's you can walk right up to them and also the electrical panel's beside it that is why there is a lot of concern about these two

as to signs and info of the owners non-existent

Admin  
#9 Posted : 31 October 2007 18:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Look at the enclosed cabinet. The name should be on that. If the masts are not enclosed they are probably not yet operating, although they should have some sort of impediment to stop people climbing them. If the antennas are just parabolic dishes then they may just be link masts, since the things have negligable radiation when not directly in line with them there will be virtually nil radiation on the ground.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.