Stating the obvious.

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Phil Pascoe

Established Member
Joined
29 Jan 2012
Messages
28,908
Reaction score
8,536
Location
Shaft City, Mid Cornish Desert
I've just heard on the news that a government advisory group (undoubtedly very well paid) have come up with the idea that hospitals and schools shouldn't be sited near busy roads because of the poor air quality. It didn't seem to dawn on them that it was the hospitals and schools would make the roads busy even if they weren't before. :roll: I read somewhere else that the government's advisors and consultants wage bill is half a billion pounds per annum, which I find appalling. Pay someone £100,000 p. a. (or more) for being (supposedly)at the top of their game - and they immediately need advisors? Nice work if you can get it.

:evil: There. That's my whinge for the morning. Have a nice day.
 
And yet schools and hospitals SHOULD be located near good infrastructure, so they're easy to get to.

Nothing is ever simple.

BugBear
 
Yes. Our main hospital is approached by a what is often a two mile traffic hold up. That doesn't stop the council giving permission for thousands of houses virtually next door to it, though.
 
The solution - locate them on the upwind side of the busy road then everyone is happy - where do I send my invoice for that piece of advice?

Brian
 
So schools and hospitals should be sited away from areas of high traffic density to stop the kiddies being exposed to pollution from traffic. What about the fact that the school run is just about the busiest time of day for traffic pollution around towns and cities. It's well known that kids don't know what their legs are for anymore!!

And also, its' obviously still ok to site mobile phone masts on school and hospital premises despite their alledged link with cancer causing brain tumours!!!
 
ardenwoodcraft":1fc1vw3h said:
So schools and hospitals should be sited away from areas of high traffic density to stop the kiddies being exposed to pollution from traffic. What about the fact that the school run is just about the busiest time of day for traffic pollution around towns and cities. It's well known that kids don't know what their legs are for anymore!!

And also, its' obviously still ok to site mobile phone masts on school and hospital premises despite their alledged link with cancer causing brain tumours!!!

I have it on good authority, (O2 and Vodaphone) that these masts do NOT cause cancer. So there! 8)
 
phil.p":34kpbv5v said:
Yes. Our main hospital is approached by a what is often a two mile traffic hold up. That doesn't stop the council giving permission for thousands of houses virtually next door to it, though.

like wise our nospital in Norwich is approached from one direction down a country road B1108 from the norwich bypass and from another past the university with all the ensuing traffic
 
phil.p":3uy3ob3i said:
They would say that, wouldn't they? :)

They erected one 30 yards from my home. So there!

But that's another story and thread, about a Council that made an error when they refused permission. They sent the refusal by email, Vodaphone said they never got the message, so were entitled to put up the mast.
There was only ever going to be one outcome.

As for the initial thread, I was treated at a private hospital, for a replacement knee. I note that quite often, private hospitals are located in pleasant surroundings, off the beaten track so to speak. Apart from the bruises and other discomfort, being hospitalised there was a pleasant experience; waking up to the sound of birdsong, and a view of a gorgeous lake!

:D
 
Perhaps they should be positioned on top of Ben Nevis. That will cut down the hospital waiting times. School truancy might go up a little but the kids that do make it will be very healthy.
 
MIG,

Perhaps I should add, I didn't request to be treated at that particular hospital. The surgeon decided that was where the operation would be done. I had to wait in the queue just like anyone else, and it was an NHS arrangement. I am retired now, but I started work in 1954, and I have never been 'on the dole'. So I think over the years I paid my dues.
 
Benchwayze":151lnip3 said:
ardenwoodcraft":151lnip3 said:
...
And also, its' obviously still ok to site mobile phone masts on school and hospital premises despite their alledged link with cancer causing brain tumours!!!

I have it on good authority, (O2 and Vodaphone) that these masts do NOT cause cancer. So there! 8)

phil.p":151lnip3 said:
They would say that, wouldn't they? :)

How about Cancer Research UK?

No link between childhood cancer and mobile phone base stations or masts

Mobile phone base stations do not increase the risk of childhood cancer, even if a child’s mother lived close to a mast when pregnant. That’s the message from the largest study looking at the health effects of mobile phone base stations in the UK.

The new research, published in the British Medical Journal, should provide reassurance to parents, especially expectant mothers, who are worried about living close to such stations.

The authors concluded:

“In summary, we found no association between risk of childhood cancers and mobile phone base station exposures during pregnancy. The results of our study should help to place any future reports of cancer clusters near mobile phone base stations in a wider public health context.”
...
Yes. As we have said before, there is no strong evidence that mobile phone radiation can increase the risk of cancer. The majority of studies in people have not found a link between mobile phones and brain cancer, although weaknesses in these studies mean that more research needs to be done.

National trends also argue against such a link. The incidence of brain cancers in countries around the world has not significantly increased, despite the skyrocketing rise in mobile phone use over the last few decades. However, brain cancers can take many years to develop, so it is possible that such trends would only start rising after more time.

Most importantly, there is still no consistent or convincing explanation for how mobile phones or their base stations could actually increase the risk of cancer. The ‘radiofrequency radiation’ that they emit does not have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Many other possible explanations have been investigated but no consistent pattern has emerged.

Base station exposures are even less likely to affect our health than phones themselves as their emissions are many times weaker. These extremely low emissions are between 1,000 and 10,000 times lower than values set in international guidelines.
...
 
Well, there is a clear and proven link between air quality and health, there is no proven link between mobile phones and health (at least not due to radio signals, being run over while crossing the road and texting or playing angry birds is another matter)

Back in the days of Leaded petrol, there was a school near my home in Sussex that was found to have very high levels of lead in the outside areas, so much that I recall they jet washed all the areas they could to clean it up. So the issues of placing schools, hospitals, any any other habitable building near busy roads are not new. I guess the removal of lead did have a significant beneficial effect at the time.
 
Back
Top