Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Campbell mobile tower going ahead

IBN News 2 November 2006 24

IBN News reports that Greens MLA Deb Foskey isn’t happy today with the news that a Telstra phone tower is still going to be built near two schools in Campbell.

She says the ACT government is failing in its duty of care to protect the children (from electromagnetic radiation, which she says is potentially harmful).

According to IBN Telstra says it tried really hard to move the site somewhere else, but it wasn’t possible because no other locale would give Canberrans the kind of coverage they need and want.

[ED – considering that all the kiddies have a mobile in their pockets the tower would seem to be the least of their worries]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to Campbell mobile tower going ahead
Filter
Order
Meconium Meconium 8:44 pm 04 Nov 06

Pandy, frequency’s everything when it comes to radiation, that’s why watching TV doesn’t give you cancer, and neither does standing in the sun if you’ve got sunscreen on.

I think their concern is warranted, but ill-advised – if high frequency EM radiation has to be put anywhere near people, it is BEST if it is near children, because their DNA repair mechanisms function at a much more reliable level than in adults over 50. I’m not saying we should microwave our offspring, but I think this knee-jerk reaction to “protect the children” is unwarranted, because children get cancer at much lower rates than adults, due to their better biology.

el el 2:39 pm 04 Nov 06

Ah, gotcha… I remember the stretchy Recent Comments box shenanigans now.

But I agree with VG, ‘Use links you prick’ not really called for.

vg vg 1:04 pm 04 Nov 06

And their are better ways for an editor to solve the issue other than to say ‘use links you prick’.

Unless they would like someone to ‘use fists’ next time they meet. I still think an apology from Kerces is warranted

johnboy johnboy 12:45 pm 04 Nov 06

it’s long ones posted before the text which cause trouble with the recent comments box.

so there are two easy ways to avoid trouble and to spare an editor having to go in and fix it.

el el 12:17 pm 04 Nov 06

Hmmm….last time I posted a URL it became a link automatically (I didn’t use any ‘a href=’ tags etc)…. WTF?

http://the-riotact.com/

seepi seepi 10:25 am 04 Nov 06

Well I won’t be leaving any links any time soon.
Trying to make users conform to indiosyncratic complexities of html when they want to leave a simple comment – reminds me of the Taxi Voice System education program….the program has glitches – lets change the users…

vg vg 10:09 am 04 Nov 06

“Use links you prick”

Charming. A ‘friendly, helpful message’??

I think an apology is due

Kerces Kerces 8:50 am 04 Nov 06

Already covered, Mael.

RTFM.

Maelinar Maelinar 8:29 am 04 Nov 06

How about comments above in a helpful document off the main page sometime ?

Apologies if it’s already there, but in that case perhaps a note to make it a little more prominent.

On topic, they are just nimby’s and not worth commenting on.

Kerces Kerces 9:59 pm 03 Nov 06

Hi Vic, just a friendly helpful message:
The admins don’t like un-htmled links early on the the comments cos it fucks up the page layout.

So you have two options when posting links:
1- put half a dozen longish words before the link
2- use html to link some words. Html for linking is [a href=”http://URL.com”]words you want to link[/a] except use angle brackets (SHIFT+, and SHIFT+.) instead of the square brackets.

Have fun!

Vic Bitterman Vic Bitterman 8:51 pm 03 Nov 06

“Use links you prick”??

Cos I post a quite helpful reply, and include a URL and didn’t ‘link’ it, a feature of which I had no idea?

You get to suck my cock, you sad pathetic gutless anonymous wanker whoever you are who wrote that.

Pandy Pandy 10:30 pm 02 Nov 06

I think someone is on the rags.

Vic Bitterman Vic Bitterman 10:13 pm 02 Nov 06

Read this :

[Use links you prick]

Outlines the facts about a lot of the new telstra 3g towers that are sprouting up in our suburbs, including :

– background info
– broken down by suburb
– street maps of where the towers are going
– plans and projected ‘photo’ of the tower in each site
– calculations of radiation density at certain geographic intervals (eg 100m)

Quite interesting reading.

boomacat boomacat 8:51 pm 02 Nov 06

Hmm, it does seem a little hypocritcal that everyone wants to use a mobile phone/high speed internet but noone wants to live near a mobile phone tower

Pandy Pandy 8:39 pm 02 Nov 06

chris Peters from Telstra said the wattage was 1% of the standard. He said that the AM radio signals, admittedly of a lower frequency, is more pervasive in the enviroment.

gurunik gurunik 8:34 pm 02 Nov 06

if you use a mobile phone how can you complain about a phone base station on anything other than asthetic grounds? mobile phones are transmitters that we hold next to our brains at a power of about a 1/3 of a watt at 850Mhz.
i work in an rf enviroment and i’d take a 100w transmitter on a pole 200m away over a low powered transmitter next to my brain any day.
can anyone tell me what the wattage is from the new 3g masts is?

Pandy Pandy 5:20 pm 02 Nov 06

It is like the residents of Fadden who used the kiddee arguement. I personally know that it was because the residents of Bugden Street did not want their view interrupted.

S4anta S4anta 3:22 pm 02 Nov 06

Can anyone tell me if the rumour of Campbell Primary being on the leading edge in terms of IT literacy of their students true?

If so, I think the local neighbourhood not having Broadband could be a slight technical hitch.

Absent Diane Absent Diane 2:20 pm 02 Nov 06

what a bunch of mufftards

Absent Diane Absent Diane 2:20 pm 02 Nov 06

what a bunch of mufftards

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site