Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sha

APPLETON PHONE MAST. Objections needed by 23rd June

Recommended Posts

It?d be interesting to do a poll to establish if the people in Appleton are actually opposed to mobile phone technology or whether this is just a case of a very vocal minority intent to impose it?s wishes onto the majority?

 

But why should a minority (as you call them) who are probably the one's mostly affected by the application have to just put up with it just because it benefits others. What is the span of coverage from one of these masts anyway, any idea. Not sure how they work myself.

 

Just out of interest I did try and look at the online planning application myself tonight to see if it is 'under-cover lamp post style' one or the more ugly intrusive ones and it's location to houses and childrens areas. But as usual the council's online planning portal couldn't find it so I gave up.

 

In my experience of public objections, most have little or no understanding of the facts and rely instead on a few loud-mouthed individuals to shout down and heckle at any reasoned logic.

 

Got your grumpy head on today Bill :lol: Not all peasants are loud mouthed factless dim witts :lol: Have you ever objected to anything :shock::lol:

 

Why don't they just put the phone masts away from built up residential areas and then people wouldn't bother complaining..... although the health implications still haven't been fully identified. :wink::shock::roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dismayed

 

I?m not saying they are a minority that?s why I said it would be interesting to have a poll to establish if that is or isn?t the case. I can understand people?s objections if a mast were to be planted in their garden but these things aren?t as visually obtrusive as millions of wooden poles with wires strung between them so I don?t really see the issue.

 

As for the location, well clearly they need to be in the local area where people are using their phones because that?s the way the cellular system works. It?s not that much different to a home wireless network in so much as there is limited capacity over a short range. In theory if I put my router on a mast, just about everyone in Paddington could use the Internet via my system but the service would rubbish to say the least and it?s no different with mobile phones.

 

The more access points you have the greater the capacity and more importantly, the less power that?s needed to communicate. The amount of RF radiation from a mobile just millimetres from the brain is drastically reduced when each mast is installed so there is a very good argument for more rather than less of them.

 

As for the Mr Grumpy, well sorry about that, must be that time of the month. I have objected to planning applications in the past but as I say, such events are usually rowdy affairs where reason and logic take second stage.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dismayed

 

As for the Mr Grumpy, well sorry about that, must be that time of the month. I have objected to planning applications in the past but as I say, such events are usually rowdy affairs where reason and logic take second stage.

 

Bill :)

 

:lol::lol: Question is 'which side' often loses their sense of reason and logic first :shock::wink:

 

Thanks for the other info though... interesting stuff :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you that the range of a mobile phone can be as much as 30 miles (we use mobile phones on our ships and, depending on the local coverage, we can usually get a signal at least in sight of land and often much further). As Bill points out, the more coverage there is the less energy the individual mobile needs to emit to work. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comes from spending the best part of my life working with radio related technology. It?s not easy to get you?re head how things work and the implications so it?s understandable to see such objections from the public.

 

As for the range, the mobile coverage out to sea could well be 30 odd miles, but only because there aren?t huge amounts of users out there. In a highly congested area such as a city centre, the range of a mobile mast might be measured in tens of metres but the power output will be milliwatts so as not to interfere with other nearby cells. Again the home mobile network analogy holds true.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:roll:

 

The signal gets weaker the more obstacles are in the way, eg buildings and how many peoples signal is trying to use the mast :!::!:

 

typo :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loo, remind me never to go out with you on a singles night, we will be giving out the wrong signals. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have miscomprehended my post.

 

The reasons I think it is worth objecting to this mast are mainly because it is unnecessary,[/] there is already one mast just metres away which this company could share.

 

I don't think that there's any evidence that they don't already have sufficient coverage of the area and suspect that they are merely trying to ensure a lions share of the market when the destruction of Appleton's green fields commences.

It will have an extremely damaging effect on the character and setting of the area.

Also, another point which I think is extremely important is that the people living in the immediate vicinity are very much opposed to another mast.

To me this proposal is a conflict between people and greed, I choose to support the people.

 

The objectors are not against phone masts in general, this mast is opposed due to the fact that there is already a mast in close proximity which could be shared.

I believe the technological aspects regarding adequate coverage have been studied by relevant professionals and one shared mast would suffice. It is therefore felt that littering up the skyline with unnecessary constructions, especially in close proximity to an area of ancient woodland and natural beauty should be opposed.

 

As for the objectors being a 'vocal few', more than 70 local residents objected at a parish council meeting and there are probably more,who like myself couldn't attend this meeting but who are also opposed to this proposal.

 

Thankyou for all the reasoned, intelligent, profound and polite comments re this thread. :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
although the health implications still haven't been fully identified. :wink::shock::roll:

 

I think you make a very good point, not only the masts but mabe more importantly the mobile phones that people have clamped to their heads. Interestingly when I go near a portable radio with the mobile I have, there is a lot of interference on the radio, not all of the time just sometimes, is that caused by the mobile communicating with the mast....or am I being monitored. :?:shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MI6 have you down as a potential threat so you?re monitored 24/7 mate :wink:

 

The mobile contains a lot of active circuitry that will be detectable by a radio even when it?s not actually transmitting; similar to how TV detector vans used to detect unlicensed TVs.

 

As for sharing masts, well sometimes that?s technically possible and other times it isn?t but without knowing the facts it?s impossible to say. For certain, the mobile companies don?t spend money erecting masts where there?s no need and in that area, the coverage maps show Appleton as one of the worst areas of the town.

 

Sha wrote

I don't think that there's any evidence that they don't already have sufficient coverage of the area

vodaphone.jpg

The facts say otherwise!

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bill...I thought I might be. :wink::)

 

Also for technical info.

 

With regards to Appleton, I can concur, I get poor performance from Vodafone & Virgin when I'm at home, although my home has a lot of large trees around it, so maybe that is the reason why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trees, houses and just about everything blocks signals at these frequencies. If the basic mobile phone coverage is marginal then its guaranteed that emerging technologies such as mobile broadband will be none existent and Appleton will become a technological backwater rather like certain areas of Penketh.

 

I wonder how many of the people objecting to the appearance of a mobile mast have a satellite dish bolted to the side of their house or have telephone wires connected to wooden poles or TV aerials on their roofs? The accumulative impact of such clutter has to be far greater than any mobile mast.

 

In the past I?ve had some sympathy with anti mast campaigners where the fear of the unknown was the their prime objection but in this case it has all the hallmarks of straight forward nimbyism.

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can put a mast in my back garden so long as they pay enough rent. Won't help Appleton mobile users much though :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can put a mast in my back garden so long as they pay enough rent. Won't help Appleton mobile users much though :lol::lol:

 

Wouldn't that depend on the height?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, what makes you think that possssible health risks is not a great concern of objectors? it is certainly a great concern of mine!

(It's not a particularly stong point to argue with regard to planning

guidelines though :x )

 

You say;

"As for sharing masts, well sometimes that?s technically possible and other times it isn?t but without knowing the facts it?s impossible to say."

 

As you say, you don't know the facts so why are you arguing the toss?

 

I don't think there would have been any sugestions to share masts if this was not felt to be a viable alternative.

I am not technically qualified in this field and by your own admission neither are you, but I am sure there are those in Appleton who are either qualified themselves or who have sought the advice of a professional who is.

 

I started this thread merely as a reminder of the last date for objections, that date has passed, so maybe we should now just leave the professionals to sort it out. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sha,

It's always (mostly) interesting to here what other people think. There is a fairly broad cross-section of views on here.

Bill is our resident expert on radio waves etc. and normally gives us information on things like this that the layman is normally ignorant of.

 

(Bill, put the cheque in the post. Same address.) :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sha

 

The point I was making was that previous objections generally focus on potential health issues but until now you made no mention of this. Without being a mind reader, I can only comment on what you actually post.

 

As for the mast sharing issue, it?s an extremely difficult thing to do for a multitude of technical reasons well beyond what the general public could be expected to understand. Trying to explain this is only my attempt to add some balance and understanding into the equation rather than ?ague the toss? as you put it.

 

And by the way, me not knowing anything about a certain phone mast in Appleton doesn?t make me technically unqualified. For my sins I?m a professional communications engineer and a former member of Ofcom?s technical advisory panel reporting directly to the Department of Trade and Industry on such matters. But by all means, call me Mr Thicko if you like, I don?t sell phone masts so it doesn?t bother me one little bit. :wink:

 

Bill :)

 

Same amount as last time Pete :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try to explain the situation as I see it in lay terms that forum users should understand.

 

Imagine a road where the street lighting is poor and several dark shadowy areas exist. The council offers to erect more lampposts to solve the problem but some residents object and suggest putting more or brighter bulbs on existing lampposts. It doesn?t really work does it? :roll:

 

The analogy to the cellular system here holds good comparing illumination with signal strength and explains why it?s better to have smaller local areas of RF illumination rather than just one large distant source. What it doesn?t show though is the channel capacity and for this we need yet another analogy so bear with me.

 

Each mast is like a radio station broadcasting all the programs on your FM radio at the same time but there?s a limit to just how many it can squeeze onto the space on your dial though and this is called the bandwidth limit. You can?t put a quart in a pint pot and neither can you put two radio signals on the same frequency in the same area (or mast) without them interfering with one another. The only way round this problem is to have more local stations each with full channel capacity but with reduced power and enough physical separation so that they don?t interfere with one another.

 

Ultimately, at some point in the future we'll end up with myriad?s of micro masts all using about the same power as your home wireless router. So they'll be safer and less obtrusive but installation costs and public objections are always going to factor in this. :?

 

Hope that clarifies things!

 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Bill, I have misinterpreted your words;

"without knowing the facts". :oops:

 

Thankyou for your explaination 'in layman's terms'

But this seems to be backing what the objectors are saying, that 2 masts so close together are not necessary. As they will only provide coverage for the same area. So I can't see what benefit it would be to the mobiles companies.

 

There will obviously be an increasing number of these masts going up in the near future and this will cause a lot of concern to many members of the general public.

Is there no independent 'body' to assess coverage needs and plan sites to ensure that we will not be overrun with these masts merely for commercial profit making.

 

I remain sympathetic to the objectors, mainly because I am concerned about health risks and the siting of this mast so close to a children's play area. I wouldn't live so close to one and so can understand the concerns of people faced with that possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 masts so close together are not necessary. As they will only provide coverage for the same area. So I can't see what benefit it would be to the mobiles companies.

 

 

Different mobile companies I guess, with each "doing its own thing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different mobile companies I guess, with each "doing its own thing".

 

Yes Paul, that is one of the points I am concerned about.

The question is, Is it necessary that they each 'do their own thing'?

because if they do we'll end up with clusters of these masts littering up the landscape.

 

Bill, would you know if just one shared, mast could provide sufficient coverage for an area, if it was high enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...