<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 31 July 2013 20:45, Christopher Hunter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cehunter@gb-x.org" target="_blank">cehunter@gb-x.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 10:31 +0100, JLMS wrote:<br>
> On 31 July 2013 01:09, Nix <<a href="mailto:nix@esperi.org.uk">nix@esperi.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 30 Jul 2013, Alain Williams told this:<br>
><br>
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:36:44PM +0100, Jacob Mansfield<br>
> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> Upsell the fibre<br>
> >> "to keep you safe, we only send light down the wires, not<br>
> dangerous electricity"<br>
> ><br>
> > Better not mention that is laser light, everyone knows what<br>
> it almost did to<br>
> > James Bond! :-)<br>
><br>
><br>
> And certainly don't mention that it is electromagnetic<br>
> radiation!<br>
><br>
><br>
> You jest, but there is a serious point to be made.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Recently there was an application for a mobile phone mast in the part<br>
> of town where I live. The coverage is pretty patchy, so such<br>
> infrastructure is badly needed.<br>
><br>
> Needless to say the usual suspects came forth. In all the local<br>
> community's forums there seemed to be complete unanimity about how bad<br>
> for people's health these "monstrosities" *may* be (think of the<br>
> children kind of outcry).<br>
><br>
><br>
> I decided to send all the regular information available about this<br>
> technology and compared the strength of the e.m.r. of normal household<br>
> appliances vs a mobile phone mast.<br>
><br>
><br>
> That was enough to prompt other people wanting wider mobile phone<br>
> coverage to come out of under their stones and show that the NIMBYs<br>
> weren't a de facto majority.<br>
><br>
><br>
> As it is , instead of an outright rejection of the proposal the<br>
> application was sent back to the council for "further consideration",<br>
> which I suppose means actually investigating more about the topic<br>
> instead of siding with a vocal uninformed group.<br>
><br>
><br>
> So don't keep your facts to yourself, let them out to see the<br>
> daylight :-)<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>Unfortunately your average NIMBY is scared of technology and science,<br>
and no amount of even the most reasonable and simplified explanation is<br>
going to mollify the morons.<br>
<br>
It's no use trying to explain that they get more irradiated by going<br>
outside on a sunny day than they do by sitting right next to a mobile<br>
phone base station!<br>
<br>
It's no use explaining that they're getting many thousand times the dose<br>
by holding a phone to their ear!<br>
<br>
Inverse-square law is rocket science to the average British (or<br>
American) "educated" person.<br>
<br>
I like the French attitude: "That's the right place to put it, so we'll<br>
put it there, and no, you can't complain about it!" This applies to<br>
everything from power plants and radio transmitting stations to roads<br>
and railways. They don't mess about. If you're stupid enough to be<br>
scared of the installation of a mobile phone base in the vicinity of<br>
your house, move house!<br>
<br>
Then the poor deluded dears believe that "wind energy" is going to keep<br>
the lights on.......<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
C.</font></span><br></blockquote><div><br><br><br></div><div>I think I wasn't clear, in such a discussion there is an inertia to stick to the facile position, no matter how misinformed.<br><br></div><div>As soon as somebody opposes the common wisdom other people, equally convinced but less willing to enter the fray, may be nudged to say "you know, actually I too think what the NIMBYs are saying is nonsense".<br>
<br></div><div>Social pressure can be quite intimidating, so it is important that one provides information so the converted actually let it be known they are there.<br></div></div></div></div>