Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
a) Who will actually guarantee the tetra thingy is safe? ( answer - No-one is willing to confirm that categorically in writing)
b) If no one will do it and you have to site one, and you have alternative sites instead of siting it next to a nursery, use one of the alternatives.
What is the problem with that?
Incidentally I gotta dash.. post for the day is finished and I am on dinner duty.
And, by the way, don't you get 1000 times the dose from your own phone held next to your head, versus from the mast?
(Had to chuckle, my dad is in Hospital at the moment, and all over the place there are signs saying turn your phone off..... But every ward has a laptop computer, connected via WiFi !!! and before our Techie department get on my case, yes I know about frequency and power differences !)
If there is no conclusive evidence that the masts may affect health then I'm interested in where the objection due to duty of care comes in ?? If at the time of installation no evidence exsists to say they are harmful to health then you have complied with your duty of care and therefore do not need to object on health and safety grounds.
Some of our products emit radiation much more harmful than a mast. We have performed required testing etc. and currently can prove its not harmful to health if the user directions are followed. Therefore have performed duty of care. However, if in a number of years it proved to be harmful we are still not liable as we used, at the time, state of the art techniques to prove its safety. The law excepts that testing techniques improve over time.
Science/goverment has done your duty of care for you care for you. They have said they are safe to site in residential areas.
Rocks - no i don't have kids. why?
"you should do X"
and
"the law should force you to do X"
are not the same thing.
Tesco using radio waves to track products round their stores..... Will make you go blind I tell you (I shop at Kwick Save anyway)
Looks to be about half metre and metre above ground level !!!
In 1880, 2% of all deaths were by cancer, now it's around the 45% mark - and heading to plateau at around 80% of us actually *getting* cancer, if some reports are to be believed. Now, obviously people living longer (and control of certain infectious diseases) is a huge factor in this, but the main difference has been, to account for so many new cases, the amount of toxins, chemicals and unnatural crap we surround ourselves with. It is not going to bother people masts being around the elderly as much as children, because children are developing, have many years ahead of them, etc. Harsh, but true. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if people are liable or not if something is proven harmful years later. What is going to matter is that the damage might already have been done. Saying they are safe is different than them actually being safe!
At the end of the day, I wouldn't want to be near a mast - I probably am for all I know - and I wouldn't bother to complain about it as I have enough on my plate at the moment. However, I can understand why people are bothered, if there is a possible health risk.
The point about the liability is that it would make companies think very hard before putting these things in the midst of high population areas if there was even the remotest chance that they would have to pay out.
I absolutely agree - who gives a t0ss about the money if you've lost a family member, but the preventative mechanisms could potentially avoid that eventuality.
's an ugly house anyway, and I wouldn't have to look at it.
:op
A mate of mine says the best place to see Paris is from the Eiffel Tower.... That way you can't see the bl**dy tower ! (and she's from Paris !!)