[GLLUG] What have BT done to our nearest cabinet?

[JLMS]

On 31 July 2013 20:45, Christopher Hunter <cehunter at gb-x.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 10:31 +0100, JLMS wrote:
> > On 31 July 2013 01:09, Nix <nix at esperi.org.uk> wrote:
> >         On 30 Jul 2013, Alain Williams told this:
> >
> >         > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 09:36:44PM +0100, Jacob Mansfield
> >         wrote:
> >         >
> >         >> Upsell the fibre
> >         >> "to keep you safe, we only send light down the wires, not
> >         dangerous electricity"
> >         >
> >         > Better not mention that is laser light, everyone knows what
> >         it almost did to
> >         > James Bond! :-)
> >
> >
> >         And certainly don't mention that it is electromagnetic
> >         radiation!
> >
> >
> > You jest, but there is a serious point to be made.
> >
> >
> > Recently there was an application for a mobile phone mast in the part
> > of town where I live. The coverage is pretty patchy, so such
> > infrastructure is badly needed.
> >
> > Needless to say the usual suspects came forth. In all the local
> > community's forums there seemed to be complete unanimity about how bad
> > for people's health these "monstrosities" *may* be (think of the
> > children kind of outcry).
> >
> >
> > I decided to send all the regular information available about this
> > technology and compared the strength of the e.m.r. of normal household
> > appliances vs a mobile phone mast.
> >
> >
> > That was enough to prompt other people wanting wider mobile phone
> > coverage to come out of under their stones and show that the NIMBYs
> > weren't a de facto majority.
> >
> >
> > As it is , instead of an outright rejection of the proposal the
> > application was sent back to the council for "further consideration",
> > which I suppose means actually investigating more about the topic
> > instead of siding with a vocal uninformed group.
> >
> >
> > So don't keep your facts to yourself, let them out to see the
> > daylight :-)
> >
>
> Unfortunately your average NIMBY is scared of technology and science,
> and no amount of even the most reasonable and simplified explanation is
> going to mollify the morons.
>
> It's no use trying to explain that they get more irradiated by going
> outside on a sunny day than they do by sitting right next to a mobile
> phone base station!
>
> It's no use explaining that they're getting many thousand times the dose
> by holding a phone to their ear!
>
> Inverse-square law is rocket science to the average British (or
> American) "educated" person.
>
> I like the French attitude:  "That's the right place to put it, so we'll
> put it there, and no, you can't complain about it!"  This applies to
> everything from power plants and radio transmitting stations to roads
> and railways.  They don't mess about. If you're stupid enough to be
> scared of the installation of a mobile phone base in the vicinity of
> your house, move house!
>
> Then the poor deluded dears believe that "wind energy" is going to keep
> the lights on.......
>
> C.
>



I think I wasn't clear, in such a discussion there is an inertia to stick
to the facile position, no matter how misinformed.

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".

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20130731/31b8ceaf/attachment.html>