TETRA news

In article , Ian.2
wrote:
[snip]

Since I've only seen "anti" websites and the like, my view so far has
been rather biased. What's the technical consensus here on the
feasability or otherwise of TETRA being harmful to health? Or TETRA
chat in general?

I did not know anything about 'TETRA' until I read in our local newspaper
about a public meeting in town. This was billed as a 'debate' where both
sides would be putting their points using 'experts' to give a balanced
view. Out of curiousity I therefore attended.

The actual meeting was one-sided. It consisted of a steam of people who
'knew' that TETRA was dangerous, and a talk by an 'expert' who presented
himself as being knowledgeable on the relevant areas of radio, EM, etc.

However, said expert proceeded to make a series of statements that were
contentious, unfounded, or simply incorrect. No one presented the views of
those who propose or install TETRA. They were repeatedly called 'liars' by
those on the platform - often on the basis of clear failures to understand
what the (absent) TETRA supporters might actually be saying, and why.

The result was a meeting that was more like a 'religeous revivial' than a
considered debate.

Being concerned by this I did some simple investigations myself, and some
elementary calculations. The results I then summarised in an article
published in "Living With Technology" magazine[1]. I have also put up the
contents of the article at

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/temp/tetra.html

for anyone who may be interested.

I am not a biologist, not do I have any specialist knowledge of medical
matters or epidemiology. Just a physicist/engineer. Hence I can't say if
TETRA is 'safe'. However I can note that the arguments presented at the
meeting I attended were shot through with holes, ignorance, and technical
misunderstandings. More details on the above webpage.

Must admit I found the meeting quite depressing for what it said about the
low levels of technical understanding of the general public, and the ease
with which they can be paniced on what may be no more than a "here be
witches!" basis. :-/

Amusing in a wry way, though, that some of the people at the meeting were
having conversations on their mobile phones whilst getting into a tizzy
about TETRA masts. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

[1] I recommend this magazine. It covers many technical topics in
a clear and well-informed way. If you're interested, have a look
at their website at http://www.livtech.co.uk :-)

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 23:39:29 +0100, "Dan Wood"
wrote:


The answer is in the article:
"He had none of the pre-conditions for that type of cancer, the chance of
him getting it was one in 100,000"
"Airwave is available in 38 forces and has over 60,000 police users."

The chances of 'him' getting it were one in 100,000. The chance of
somebody
using Tetra would be this divided by the users of Tetra (60,000).
So this works out at 1 in 1.66, so somebody in the Police force are likely
to develope this form of cancer every year.
Since most people in the Police would be classed as 'fit and healthy' this
makes a good story.


Aren't you assuming that Tetra has an effect?
Surely if the chance is 1 in 100,000 for the general population, then it
will remain 1 in 100,000 for users of Tetra, provided that Tetra has no
effect.

I think that if you expect to see one case in 100,000 people, then you would
expect to see 0.6 cases in 60, 000 people.

I do agree that this case is not statistically significant though.

That's the way I see it, that 0.6 members of the Police force will
develop this form of cancer.

However, if they have more than one case then it starts to become
statistically significant.

sPoNiX

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 13:02:32 +0100, "Ian.2"
wrote:

Might be of passing interest to a few people here.

It's not just TV reception it messes up, suggests this news report :

[snip]

The report says:

"A study over the next 15 years has been commissioned by the Home
Office to determine whether the systems do have any ill health
effects."

The Government keep telling us that TETRA is safe...yet they are
planning tests to see if there are any affects to health!

Why..?

If it IS safe and if they KNOW it is safe then there is no need to
carry out expensive tests..

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they DON'T KNOW whether
TETRA is safe and can only be sure after 15 years of tests.

sPoNiX

In article , Bill
wrote:
I've been in North Walsham, Norfolk, recently. The police station has a
new TETRA mast. It is in the middle of the very posh part of town. The
residents are going nuts. There's a big poster campaign, etc.

Any sign that anyone involved has any actual understanding or *evidence*?

My suspicion is that this is simply a case of one panic leading to another.
Once a few people hear that there are protests and worries elsewhere then
they may react on a "no smoke without fire" basis. "They are frightened, so
we should be, too!"

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html