> No, nor does it mean it is truth

Exactly, this is why I had said agree to dissagree ;-)

Fine, but then you said people were naive if they did not agree with your point of view which rather opened up the discussion again :-)
I never really understand this agree to disagree thing, nobody is obliged to join a discussion if they do not wish to.

Oops, after re-reading my post it does seem that I am calling people naive that don't agree with me- this wasn't my intention, just a bad choice of words :-)

Don't get me wrong I think that debate is healthy and it would be very boring if we all had the same opinions but I felt that Denese's posts were being picked to pieces and it makes her seem that she has raised this thread to scare people which I don't believe was her intention at all. In fact I believe that she was actually raising the post as a nice gesture, whether we take her points on board is up to us as individuals.

:-)

I have no doubt at all her motives were good but, albeit innocently, this sort of stuff leads to difficulty to others, namely the poor souls who live in houses whose values are blighted or those that have suffered illnesses and may now feel something they have done has contributed to it.  So I think it is always worth putting forward what we may understand about the subject from a different point of view particularly when it has been put forward in such definate terms.

i'd suggest since you feel so strongly that you contact your MP (or have your daughter contact hers, i don't know if your local to her). if the councillor was blocked by those above him go to those above him and find out why.

personally i think that while there is a corrolation in cancer rates to the location of these masts there is not sufficient proof yet to ban them etc- there are also correlations between cancer frequency and burnt toast, cherries and various other seemingly odd things. there are numerous research projects that are on going in this area as you are certainly not the only one concerned but the change comes from people speaking out, if you are determined to see them gone then pursue those who can do it!

btw not all councillors and mp's don't care about the 'little people', where i used to live my mp was the mighty Ming the merciless :) (Menzies Campbell) who was a wonderful mp and fought strongly for his constituents issues, including changes to legislation on stalking after my parents saw him about it. some politicians are not just in it for power but for doing the right thing :)

Isabel,
The mast has been placed 100 foot from my daughters house. Half way up the exterial wall of middle aged peoples low rise flats. 50foot from the other houses. Sinced the four masts have been boosted 8 people that we know of are very unwell. The morgaged houses round can not get sold. This is within 12 months. As my daughter said when I told her of comments made. "ask them to come and live here there are beauifull 4 bedroom houses large gardens backing on to the park that are cheap as they can't sell because of the radiation."

Denese

I do sympathise with your daughter, but it has also happened to those who have no such beliefs about "radiation" from transmitters because this sort of stuff has gone through the media.

Astarte,
We have tried to go above him, he has a very rude secretary, he refuses to discuss it in any way. We have not finished with him yet, But!! he will not come out and see with  his own eyes and make judgment. The council own the block of flates. It brings in quite a large revenue from the phone companies.
They should not be in built up areas. It is our local cons. M.P. that has helped video the rays before and after. the local lab. did not want to know.
So she lost all or votes this year.
They are Suposed to represent us !!
My daughter did conpaign to get the mast stopped and did, it was in all our local papers. But! they found a clause, if they put a little of the masts up over 3 months they can erect them with councils help obviously. They told the people in the flats they would give them £400.00 to spend on there property. (Council property) None have recieved it yet.
Besides cancer, some have had mental break downs. some are under going medical check are not well but! do not know what is causing it.
You can choose if you take drugs or eat items, or drink. You are NOT given that chose with a mast. It does invade our human rights, our country are so ready to knock other countries that invade other peoples human rights to live in a safe environment. The U.N. treaty on a childrens rights also say this, but! our goverment has turn blind. Where financal gain is at stake.  An old saying "Charity starts at home"

Denese

> It does invade our human rights, our country are so ready to knock other countries that invade other peoples human rights to live in a safe environment. The U.N. treaty on a childrens rights also say this, but! our goverment has turn blind. Where financal gain is at stake.  An old saying "Charity starts at home"
>

if you are refering to the UNHR's:

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

Article 25: 1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

or the convention on the rights of the child

article 3: States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures. 

article 6: States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

or various others that depends on the issue being proved a dangerous one- a Tutsi child being attakced by Hutu mobs with macheties is having its rights abused, as is a girl child being forced to have FGM, as yet it is unproven if these masts are an active danger nor are they forced to live there (though i appreciate upping sticks is difficult)

i can fully sympathise with your concerns but its not classed as a human rights violation.

as to the selling the house- its not just them, my parents gorgeous house has been taken off the market as it couldn'r be sold in this economy

Astarte,
The houses have been on the market the week after the mast was erected. They all see how near the masts are and are not intrested. The price is approx £8000.00 less than the 4 bed room houses in the area.
as you have put!  everyone has the right to a standard of living!  Health and well being for himself and family! ensure a child is protected and cared for as necessary for his or her well-being!
But! the council and mobile phone companies can violate these quite legally. Law for every-one or no-one.
Every-one has the rights to medical care! Human rights! explain the post code lottery on cancer care then!
when enough people have died and hopfully there families take the matter up, if they can legally afford to, as the council and the mobile phone companies will have made billions by then. The likes of ordinary people will not be able to prove there case as they could not afford to fight these companies. As is happening now.
I have a copy of the UN treaty.
As I worked for the S.Services for a good number of years in childcare.

Denese

> Every-one has the rights to medical care!

Indeed and we all have the right to see that money spent on an evidence supported basis.

the thing is your situation does not fall under either the convention on the rights of the child or under the universal declaration.

> everyone has the right to a standard of living!

first of all there is not definative proof about the damage these cause so would not be controlled under any legislation as yet. secondly, whats a standard of living? i bet people living in huts in drought ridden countries would jump for your daughters house- their human rights are not being violated. a standard of living means the ability to freely function in your home, people living in sunny places can;t then say their rights are being violated by getting skin cancer. i know that your problem is not one from nature but unless something in your surroundings can be absolutely proven to be a danger then its not classed as one.

> Health and well being for himself and family!

adequate for the health of his family, that is a very fluid concept