Reply to: Real Doom, the return of The Black Death.

[Mich the Tester]

Don't mention David Icke.

He's a splitter!

The councillor has contacted this lot; University of Twente

He is suggesting they carry out a study in the area to find out whether 'earth rays are interacting with mobile phone signals to create negative energy hotspots'. Seriously.

Now just imagine you're a professor at a reputable technical university and you get a phone call asking for that. Where do you start? OK, if you're a really cynical contractor you just might do it for the money, but if you have to consider things like your reputation in the science community, it's a bit different.

[Mich the Tester]

Ah!

Thanks.

My mistake.

I'm not bothered by the fact that she's a loon; I need loons like her as a sort of contrast to make almost sane people look good. What bothers me is that the town councillors are so shoddily edjumacated that they take her seriously instead of telling her where to shove it.

[Mich the Tester]

So, to sum up, Black Death is caused by guiness drinking fleas from Kyrgystan who live in mobile telephonic devices.

I think that's correct.

Wrong! You've left out the earth rays and the negative energy hotspots!

[Mich the Tester]

Who, naturally enough, knows nothing of the inverse square law & doesn't realise she gets far more exposure from her batphone than she ever will from the mast.

I think she has entirely her own understanding of physics, gleaned from such luminaries as David Icke and Samuel Hahnemann.

[darmstadt]

Guinness + Vindaloo = Black Death (or is that Death by Black?)

[mudskipper]

Its one of the more entertaining games to play with your kids on long journeys.

We used to count bridges.

[bobspud]

In the UK, planning officers aren't allowed to deny an application on scientific grounds (let alone bollox like this). If they reject it, then the mobile company will appeal and they will win.

Strictly speaking, if they wanted to, they could build a mast which isn't high enough to require planning consent wherever they wanted to and no-one could stop them.

There was a particularly vicious campaign in my parents village a few years back targeting my dad as "the person who wants to build a phone mast" when in reality he was only involved because they manage the church hall which was a proposed site for the mast. In the end, the church removed their permission to build the mast and a local farmer has it instead. Of course, the £15k a year that they would have given the church is now in the farmer's pocket, and those that were most vociferous in their campaign have donated £0 to the church to make up for the loss.

The question to ask is whether she has a mobile phone herself. If she does, then is she not totally hypocritical and evil for suggesting that it's OK for masts to exist elsewhere but nowhere near her? If you are really worried about there being nasty waves coming off the masts, then we actually need more masts of lower power than fewer masts with higher power.

I don't know if they still do this but when I did some time at three they had a camo unit that used to find ways of sticking antennas in things like petrol station signs and their favorite one church crosses. There are several very unconvincing trees that can be spotted up and down the M4. Its one of the more entertaining games to play with your kids on long journeys.

[Mich the Tester]

In the UK, planning officers aren't allowed to deny an application on scientific grounds (let alone bollox like this). If they reject it, then the mobile company will appeal and they will win.

Strictly speaking, if they wanted to, they could build a mast which isn't high enough to require planning consent wherever they wanted to and no-one could stop them.

There was a particularly vicious campaign in my parents village a few years back targeting my dad as "the person who wants to build a phone mast" when in reality he was only involved because they manage the church hall which was a proposed site for the mast. In the end, the church removed their permission to build the mast and a local farmer has it instead. Of course, the £15k a year that they would have given the church is now in the farmer's pocket, and those that were most vociferous in their campaign have donated £0 to the church to make up for the loss.

The question to ask is whether she has a mobile phone herself. If she does, then is she not totally hypocritical and evil for suggesting that it's OK for masts to exist elsewhere but nowhere near her? If you are really worried about there being nasty waves coming off the masts, then we actually need more masts of lower power than fewer masts with higher power.

Of course she has a mobile phone, including the Congolese coltan. She's a NIMBY. She's just a particularly mental variant of the NIMBY.

[TheFaQQer]

There's a loon near us who's preventing the phone company installing a mobile antenna in the village. She's a pain in the arse with all sorts of mad theories about how special waves can cause brain damage, because they haven't been proven to be safe. Last week she handed out leaflets saying it would interact with the 'earth rays' and cause 'negative energy hot spots' that would cause some kind of catastrophic problem. I asked her to explain this 'energy' in relation to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and she said 'oh you're one of the sciencey types; you lot are destroying the earth'.

Now it would be easy to dismiss a loon like this, but she knows every little way she can use the law to make sure the council prevents the antenna being placed. Sod local businesses that do unimportant stuff like employing people and bringing money into the area; Mrs Loon gets priority with her anti-scientific cack.

In the UK, planning officers aren't allowed to deny an application on scientific grounds (let alone bollox like this). If they reject it, then the mobile company will appeal and they will win.

Strictly speaking, if they wanted to, they could build a mast which isn't high enough to require planning consent wherever they wanted to and no-one could stop them.

There was a particularly vicious campaign in my parents village a few years back targeting my dad as "the person who wants to build a phone mast" when in reality he was only involved because they manage the church hall which was a proposed site for the mast. In the end, the church removed their permission to build the mast and a local farmer has it instead. Of course, the £15k a year that they would have given the church is now in the farmer's pocket, and those that were most vociferous in their campaign have donated £0 to the church to make up for the loss.

The question to ask is whether she has a mobile phone herself. If she does, then is she not totally hypocritical and evil for suggesting that it's OK for masts to exist elsewhere but nowhere near her? If you are really worried about there being nasty waves coming off the masts, then we actually need more masts of lower power than fewer masts with higher power.

[EternalOptimist]

There's a loon near us who's preventing the phone company installing a mobile antenna in the village. She's a pain in the arse with all sorts of mad theories about how special waves can cause brain damage, because they haven't been proven to be safe. Last week she handed out leaflets saying it would interact with the 'earth rays' and cause 'negative energy hot spots' that would cause some kind of catastrophic problem. I asked her to explain this energy in relation to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and she said 'oh you're one of the sciencey types; you lot are destroying the earth'.

Now it would be easy to dismiss a loon like this, but she knows every little way she can use the law to make sure the council prevents the antenna being placed. Sod local businesses that do unimportant stuff like employing people and bringing money into the area; Mrs Loon get priority with her anti-scientific cack.

if she gets hit by a bus, she would be screaming for you to phone for an ambulance, not 'move me to an earth ray energy hot spot'


tell that the antenna is part of Reagans 'earth shield' designed to counter the orbital mind control lasers that the Thetans are deploying. Tell her that you explained it to her twice but the Thetans erased her memory, then wave yer pen in front of her and go 'bzzzzz'. 'No effect! Thank god, you are now immune'

she'll vote for it next time

[Mich the Tester]

<cough>

crystalline silicate = sand
di-hydrogen-monoxide = water



sounds MUCH more dangerous when the greenies say it though.
eco-fascists

There's a loon near us who's preventing the phone company installing a mobile antenna in the village. She's a pain in the arse with all sorts of mad theories about how special waves can cause brain damage, because they haven't been proven to be safe. Last week she handed out leaflets saying it would interact with the 'earth rays' and cause 'negative energy hot spots' that would cause some kind of catastrophic problem. I asked her to explain this 'energy' in relation to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics and she said 'oh you're one of the sciencey types; you lot are destroying the earth'.

Now it would be easy to dismiss a loon like this, but she knows every little way she can use the law to make sure the council prevents the antenna being placed. Sod local businesses that do unimportant stuff like employing people and bringing money into the area; Mrs Loon gets priority with her anti-scientific cack.

[EternalOptimist]

Ring a ring of roses

you are confusing bubonic plague with mnemonic plague

[EternalOptimist]

Presumably in order to get the process past elf and safety they need to prove that any dangerous chemicals are contained. Just as there are many other dangerous chemicals used regularly.

<cough>

crystalline silicate = sand
di-hydrogen-monoxide = water



sounds MUCH more dangerous when the greenies say it though.
eco-fascists

[MarillionFan]

Ring a ring of roses

[Mich the Tester]

Presumably in order to get the process past elf and safety they need to prove that any dangerous chemicals are contained. Just as there are many other dangerous chemicals used regularly.

Yes, there are European regulations and UK regulations about this. REACH - Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals - Chemicals - Enterprise and Industry

Britain's one of the better countries in the world when it comes to managing 'hazardous' chemicals like water and sand, as are NL, Germany and the Scandinavians. So to the environmentalists one could argue that fracking in northern Europe where it will be properly controlled might in time lead to a little less oil being extracted from places like the Niger delta, where people get poisoned and see their fields destroyed for the sake of recieving approximately 0% of the benefits.

As with many environmental or so-called 'social justice' matters, much of this amounts to 'NIMBY'.