A Peacful Protest?

I really think this guy is a great director with much potential. The point he was trying to make was well portayed and quite interesting.

There's more here than is said. I think that's the idea but it'd be nice if the director laid it out a little more bluntly. Why are these people protesting, really?

I liked this, I felt it was pretty well done. I would like to see more.

Another good production from you. I missed the opportunity to GL the other one (before it was picked for TV), but on the other hand I’m happy, as it has reached its deserved destination. Congrats on your accomplishment, and good luck with this pod as well. GL from me.

When you have a moment, please check out my latest pod <A HREF="http://www.currenttv.com/watch/57173461">BIG BUGS</A> , and let me know what you think. Thanks!

Green Light!

As an interviewee in this film I am disappointed with the dismissal of the scientific evidence by the Director. He could have submitted me to a Paxman-style interrogation – the evidence is strong enough to withstand it. Instead he chose not to challenge me directly but instead to dismiss it out of hand in a voice over. I have spent almost two years involved in campaigns against phone masts, and I have read lots of scientific abstracts and reports written by respectable scientists and published in peer-reviewed internationally recognised journals. Instead the Director rather smugly suggests that as a scientist he knows best – and these things are best left to the government – and don’t you bother your little head about them little man. This is unfair and unjust and I would have liked a right to respond to the Directors assertions - and the four year old quote from the subsequently discredited and disbanded NRPB.

This film could have investigated the disparity between the 800 local residents who signed a petition against this mast and the 15-20 members of the congregation who support it. Most of the congregation live outside of the area, and residents feel that democracy has been undermined as the Church is not subject to normal planning controls. In the area surrounding the Church there is around 90% objection to this – from the housing association flats just 22 feet from the proposed installation to the council houses that surround it - the idea that this is a middle-class protest is a misrepresentation.

In essence the protest was held because local residents have concerns about the risks some scientists have discovered between phone masts and ill-health, and because the local community are exasperated at the Church which having initiated a consultation decided to ignore the opinions of the vast majority of the respondents.

well produced, interesting topic..and I love london.
GREENLIGHT

check out my pod "a window to my world" about my life with an inborn genetic disorder

Digitalis gem, I'd like to know what the conclusion is? Will God's home be able to keep his mast or will it be taken down? A sequel should follow. Digitalis seemed to feel that the emisions from such masts don't emit strong enough frequencies to cause harm to inhabitants as our film maker is a neuron specialist. Personally, I live in a small village which used to have a single mast on my villa roof which I rent. I have been getting headaches and now the landlord have placed a 2nd mast on my roof and I am truly concerned.

Hi Everyone and many, many thanks for the positive feedback and support!

Subjects like this are very rich - they really bring people's feelings and concerns to the fore. They also raise important questions about science: how it - and potential risks to the public - are perceived.

Those involved clearly feel very strongly about the subject matter and demonstrate that - in situations in which a perceived risk is there, great care should be taken to address those concerns... As usual, it seems the government could be doing more...

Did anyone see this in the news?

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6914492.stm">link</a>

Did anyone see this....
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687491.ece">link</a>

Or this
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1690639.ece">link</a>

Or this
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1655012.ece">link</a>

Or this
<a href="http://www.itis.ethz.ch/downloads/REFLEX_Final%20Report_171104.pdf">link</a>

Or this
<a href="http://www.safewireless.org/Portals/2/Documents/Conflict_of_Interest___Don_Mais_...">link</a>

Or this
<a href="http://www.starweave.com/masts/">link</a>

I could go on - there are many many many more reports that indicate a link between Phone Masts and ill health.

80% off all studies specifically investigating Mobile Phone masts and ill health on the WHO and PUBMED databases show a link.

It is perhaps an indication of your bias in this matter that you have chosen to link to a study that has been criticised by some participants and seeks to discredit some short-term effects.

Why did you not see fit to link to the sites showing a correlation between phone masts and cancer ?

As a scientist you may also want to read this:
<a href="http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html">link</a>

A debate is only worthwhile if ALL participants are open to ALL evidence.