That aside, I was always told by my lecturers (to put it simply) that the waves are literally too thick to actually affect you

You are confused, NOT having the tower operating cannot be construed as “experimenting” on you in any possible way.
The fact that you continued to manifest symptoms regardless of the fact that the tower was OFF pretty much proves that whatever you are suffering was not caused by the tower.

The fact they they turned it off at the first complaints shows them to have attempted to alleviate your problems.
The fact that they did not tell you it was off and allowed you continue your hysteria shows them to be genius.

“electrosenesitivity” is purest bull****, you have been proven to be either a hysteric or a liar, take your choice.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there, Gary.

A classic case of NIMBY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimby

For every report that even cellphone levels hare harmful there is a report that it is not.
I even remember seeing that it could be beneficial for certain types of conditions

Basically I think that community has been their own worst enemy. Going overboard with health conditions , where at that level of exposure they would have only seen effects in years if not decades in the future.
To my mind, I think that they do not like the tower as it is an eyesore and lowers their property values.
Sure maybe Iburst and the relevant contractors didnt follow the procedures, but I have yet to see any direct evidence ( and the hypothetical arguments on various forums are not evidence ). I actually agree with Iburst’s stance. In some ways they have been a lot more accommodating than I would have been. Only when it comes to a court battle and they are faced with court orders do they have to supply all the documentation. Until then they just have to bide their time.

So where is the court battle they have been threatening ?

People need to stop pretending that we don’t know what the effects of this kind of technology are – we know a hell of a lot about it. The residents of Craigavon are making the mistake of confusing correlation with causation. They obviously haven’t done much research either.

Having a rash proves nothing. It could be caused by a new plant in the garden, something she ate – or even her toothpaste. It is ridiculous to pin symptoms on any possible factor until there is empirical evidence that proves causation.

i think you’re confusing “ionising” and “non-ionising” radiation. The wireless transmission towers, cellphones and your home microwave produce non-ioniosing radiation. Very different from nuclear radiation which is ionising.

Much of the discussion in this regard suffers from the same misconceptions.

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionising_radiation

I suggest you look at other aspects of your lifestyle to explain your medical conditions.

Radiation exposure will not “suddenly” get better when you leave. That type of exposure leave permanent damage to your skin and dna if it was at the level you are suggesting.

Why not admit you dont like the idea of a mast on your border because it is an eyesore and hits your property value ?

While Van Zyl is no doubt arrogant and abrasive, the basic facts that he has revealed indicate that if the tower wasn’t operational, the health problems were not caused by radiation from it. All these other complaints about honesty in press releases, medical experiments and so forth are merely red herrings meant to distract from evidence that the health claims against the mast are bogus.

Maybe you should separate your dislike for Rudolf Muller and Jannie Van Zyl and their respective companies from the facts in evidence.

The true biggest revelations this week are lodged within the subtext of iburst’s stated “revelations” (as dutifully reported by mybroadband). The real news is in the implications of what iburst is now claiming. Iburst cannot claim the ground they want to claim (the “we have disproved our tower as a cause” claim) without admitting to have breached the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Specifically, i refer to the following section:

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996)
Chapter 2: Bill of rights
12 (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right-
(c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

Further unsavoury implications of iburst’s claims this week are that iburst knowingly issued false statements to the media. I’d be pretty annoyed if i were a journalist and the ceo of a major company admitted to having fed me false information. Again, by implication iburst admits to having knowingly issued false to the media, to having misused and abused their function by making them unwitting co-conspirators in his carrying out of a large-scale, unconstitutional medical experiment. The Star, the Fourways Review, Techcentral, MyBroadband (a known close iburst+vodacom ally), Itweb, Carte Blanche and Primedia have all been issued statements by iburst which the ceo now by implication admits to as being false.

I say all this under threat of legal action from iburst for my speaking out on the matter.