Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

New 4G Mobile data may kill your free view TV

JackAllTog Plus
9 5.0k 58 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 10:07AM
Completely of topic but if you live near a mobile phone mast you may not get TV transmissions - thought this may be of interest to some epz members though.


With Analogue TV signal now gone, you may also now find your Digital TV signal goes too - for example if you live under a Mobile phone mast transmitting the new 4G signals.
You may have no alternative but to use Cable TV or Freesat.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 10:22AM
I read about that just a few days ago. Apparently the advice to 'move your mobile phone away from the TV set' may not be enough and in some cases even having the phone in the same room will affect TV services.
I wonder what it will do to wireless streaming?
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 10:37AM
A quote from Ed Vaizey (the minister responsible for this ****-up)

Quote:However, Vaizey also revealed the [£180million] funding put aside to help households fix the issue would only cover those using Freeview for their primary television, meaning anyone who has satellite or cable, but uses Freeview elsewhere in the house, will have to pay upwards of £150 for a filter and installation.

“We have taken the position to cover main television sets,” he said. “Some will say all sets should be covered, but we haven’t taken that position,” he added.

John Whittingdale, Conservative MP and chairman of the committee, debated this position with Vaizey, claiming those with more than one television could be left without a signal “through no fault of their own”, and if they need to have a filter installed might face a bill upwards of £150 or need to pay out even more for extra cable and satellite boxes across their homes.


What is ieven more suspect is that the compensation arrangements will be managed by the mobile ocmpanies themselves - as if they have an incentive to pay out money to compensate the public for problems due to their own technology.
Kako 11 159
11 Jul 2012 11:01AM
If introduction of new technology causes problems for people then the companies selling this new tech should be required to completely compensate financially anyone affected. We all got ripped off with the introduction of digital tv, having to buy new tvs and/or set-top boxes etc.

Financial considerations aside, if you live under a mobile phone mast your health is almost certainly being adversely affected as your DNA is being damaged and your immune system degraded. Can't put a price on that.
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 11:39AM

Quote: if you live under a mobile phone mast your health is almost certainly being adversely affected as your DNA is being damaged and your immune system degraded. Can't put a price on that.

ianrobinson Plus
8 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 12:04PM
it can also cause cancer too.
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 12:44PM

Quote:It can also cause cancer too.

Kako 11 159
11 Jul 2012 12:55PM
mikehit, Yes really...did you not know? I thought just about everyone was aware of this by now despite the best efforts of industry to convince people otherwise.

For those people who are still completely clueless I can recommend downloading the BioInitiative Report 2007, plus various updates since then. Its a large document of over 600 pages but a relatively small 30+Mb file size, only takes a few seconds. The information in it could save your life or the life of someone close to you because it completely shatters the myth still propagated by this corrupt government and previous ones, that radiation does you no harm. Other more enlightened countries around the world who care about the health of their citizens are reducing the 'safe' limits of exposure to radiation to levels substantially below that allowed in this country.
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 1:11PM
Let's see. The Bioinitiative report is a report published by lobbyists (who by definition have their own agenda), witout peer-reviewed evidence and which seems to cherry-pick data.
Even the cancer.org site discusses the link as 'unproven' - I know which I would prefer to believe.

I'm afraid that just because the government and companies disagree with your view does not make them 'corrupt'.

If you believe in balance and a fair view then have a look at this page:

for example:

Quote:Ollie Johansson, another author of the Bio-Initiative Report, suggested in a paper (see P 255) that lung cancer is not caused by smoking alone. He actually suggested that lung cancer only started to increase after the introduction of FM radio broadcasting in the 1950's.

I am not saying you wrong, I am just saying that there is no evidence on which to base a certainty that 'radio masts cause cancer'. If you believe in the precautionary principle then fine - but don't make assertions based on dodgy science.
Carabosse 15 41.1k 270 England
11 Jul 2012 1:13PM
The great majority of studies have shown no evidence whatever of harmful effects despite mobile phones/masts being in use for about 30 years now - quite long enough for an assessment to be made.

Added to that, people are not, in general, keeling over because of the alleged "radiation". You're probably thousands of times more likely to die crossing a road.... so do we ban all motor vehicles? Wink

I'm much more concerned about my telly reception being affected though.
MikeRC Plus
13 3.6k United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 2:03PM
Having said all that, I wouldn't want to live adjacent to one.
...any more than I would wish to live close to and under the wires of one of the huge electricity pylons.
keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 2:46PM

Quote:mobile phones/masts being in use for about 30 years now - quite long enough for an assessment to be made.
Have there really been that many studies ? There was a study of mobile phone users that suggested an increased likelihood of brain tumour, but that has been disputed as the methods were unreliable.
There has been a 10 year international study of mobile phone users which finds no real evidence for tumours, but the methodology and the statistical analysis is not straightforward so it could be argued this is inconclusive.
In addition, the study has not enough data for the effects on children who are probably more susceptible.

(I think this article is publicly available at http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103693 )

What does seem odd is that people protest against the masts, but not the phones, when, if there is a risk, the risk from using the phone would be much greater, considering it is held against the head, than from the mast, where the transmitter is way up in the air.

There is an article "Contesting the New Irrational Actor Model: A Case Study of Mobile Phone Mast Protest" by Alex Law in Sociology Jun2007, Vol. 41 Issue 3, p439-456, which I think has to be paid for, so I can't just link to it, but a one paragraph quote should be OK.

"Base stations generally emit radio waves in an even pattern well below safety levels set by international guidelines and any concentrated pocket of radiation emission is likely to be at a safe distance from ground level. Mobile handsets, in contrast, may have
higher emissions of radiated energy, which can have a thermal effect, heating body tissue, or biological effects such as tumours or cell breakdown (Edwards, 2001). Despite the apparent lower health risks the public seems to be more anxious about base stations than about using mobile handsets. In the words of one US commentator, ‘simply put, many people love wireless convenience … but no
one loves the towers or antenna arrays that accompany the technology’ (Blake-Levitt, 1998)."

I don't think the material at Bio Initiative contradicts this view, but I did only scan that report briefly and it would require some time and some technical knowledge to make any sense of it.
Carabosse 15 41.1k 270 England
11 Jul 2012 2:52PM
I hardly use my mobile phone to actually make calls - I suspect I'm not alone! Wink

What has been said about masts is similar to what has been said about living near electricity pylons. I too wouldn't want to.
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2012 3:00PM

Quote:Have there really been that many studies ?

Not huge numbers but many of those that have been done have looked at data from large populations. Plus experimental evidence for electromagnetic radiation from experiments where they blast cells and living creatures (from worms to rats) with radiowaves and damage seems to occur at far higher levels than seen in proximity to towers.

Quote:I don't think the material at Bio Initiative contradicts this view,

The material doesn't but criticism of the report stems from the emotive language, selecting data that supports the expressed view and extrapolating data way beyond what any scientific report would do.

I liken the radio mast issue to that of nuclear power - people get so emotive about it but forget that in the London underground (granite rock), on holiday in Cornwall (radon and granite rock) or on a flight to US (solar radiation) the radiation you get you get is hundreds of times higher than the 'safe' levels permitted in a nuclear power station. Yet no-one bats an eyelid.
Kako 11 159
11 Jul 2012 4:35PM

Most of the reports out there on this issue are as a result of research paid for by industry. They are NOT independent. The people paying for the 'research' have a commercial vested interest in certain conclusions being reached. In contrast, the 'lobbyists' as you called them behind the BioInitiative Report have the interests of mankind at heart. They are not doing it for money.

One of the most startling findings from this report plus from other research since, is that damage is caused by the radiation from cell towers at far lower intensities than previously realised. The government and the International body overseeing radiation limits believe that the body can only be damaged thermally by radiation. They set their recommended levels accordingly. This has been shown to be false, the body can be affected biologically from radiation levels hundreds of times lower than current 'safe levels'. Even China and Russia which are not generally considered by western media to have the interests of their citizens at heart, have set much lower 'safe' levels than the UK. Several countries have gone even lower...why?


Your point about the 30 year thing is misleading. Most of the expansion in the industry has been in the past 15-20 years and from the point of view of people actually using digital handsets it is only really in the past 10-15 years that ownership became widespread. Cancers normally take longer than 10 years to manifest. Virtually all of the early research in the formative years of the industry was done by the people selling the product. It was also so scientific that to represent a human head they filled a human head shaped glass or plastic 'bowl' with water and then held a phone next to this head and measured any thermal heating effects! The head was based on a six foot male sizewise. What we now know is that phones heat different parts of the brain to a greater or lesser extent dependent on the type of tissue encountered. Some of the highest levels of heating is on some of the most inaccessible parts of the brain, not those parts closest to the phone. Also children (until about 14 years old or so) have much thinner skulls than adults...they are much more affected.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.