In my (seemingly) never-ending search for a new home in the Dorset/Devon area since the start of the year, I’ve just been notified about a potential house which satisfies my search criteria…BUT…having ‘visited’ the property on Google Streetview, I can see that it is overshadowed (within 50m) by a 45m tall Digital, National and Local TV and Radio aerial mast.
(Image from the mb21 Transmission website)
Apart from the obvious aesthetic short-comings, does anyone know if this type of installation is likely to cause any issues for a nearby Linn/Naim system?
It can do, although usually in countries where the permitted transmission strength is much higher than here in the UK.
Most susceptible are usually things like phono stages and kit that uses a Burndy lead. In really bad cases I’ve experienced it causing operational issues, which was rather alarming!
I could not live next to that mast even if the hifi was unaffected…….best of luck with your search, i know it can be difficult to find the house you want.
It may be that it satisfies your price criterion because it has that mast there likely it would be a much higher price without!
Aside from potential interference with electronic items, you may find TV reception needs an attenuator to avoid overload of the antenna input (or no aerial at all!)!
However, a lot will depend on the radiation pattern, which if well designed might mean no greater signal strength at that house position than, several miles away. @Simon-in-Suffolk ham may have more specific knowledge/guidance.
This looks like Weymouth repeater tower for Radio and TV, as well as a tower for independent local radio. As a repeater tower the power levels are a lot lower than the main TV and national radio transmitters…
The good news is that there are strict field exposure limits for humans and the houses would only have had the planning permission if the fields complied with United Nations health limits (ITU-T K.52)
However from a RF hygiene perspective it is going to be noisy. Almost certainly you will not hear legible breakthrough - but RF coupling into unshielded cables and unshielded electronics and mains cables could affect electronics - not in the sense of the devices not working (unless the devices themselves don’t comply with EMC regulations) but possibly in a subtle way affecting sensitive audio circuitry, the same way that some say poor switch mode power supplies or LED lighting does.
If it was me I would give it a miss… certainly if I was looking at one of those new houses near the base of the transmitter - which were apparently allotments when the tower was built.
Well radio transmitter masts have been around for hundred years or so, and FM TV and Radio transmitters been around since the 1950s / 60s… so I doubt there is likely to be much new gained from these.
Now if we are talking holding and using mobile phones - I agree - and there have been affects shown from using these devices - the debate is whether these are harmful or not.
Yes indeed, in terms of exposure to rf radiation, holding/using/carrying a mobile phone is likely more significant than phone masts, even if right underneath one, due to the radiation pattern required for mast approval. People worry about masts but not what they love using!
I only mention as I’m interested in radio etc and know that some miles from me the main transmitter puts out 250 KW
I know that output radiation is being reduced with the newer low wattage digital services but using a much higher frequency I’d be very unwilling to live in close proximity.
Especially regarding emissions from phone masts etc.
After all the dangers of old high power analogue signals was unknown to general public for many years.
Until 2011 the same transmitter was outputting 500kw for analogue TV.
A friend of mine lives on a small holding/farm property thats over looked (aprx 3/400 metres) by the big mast at Beckley (the Oxford region main TV transmitter)
His grandfather had lived there all his life & died aged over 100.
Nothing to fear re health issues from transmitters IMO, but for sure they are a blot on the landscape.
With the transmitter in question at Weybridge. - the BBC Mux puts out 400 W ERP at around 470 MHz (that frequency is an assumption for Weybridge DVB BBC Mux) - and at that power and frequency the radiating antenna would be safe at 6 to 7 metres, if it was 2kW the safe distance would be about 14metres - so a mile or so it becomes irrelevant… compared to using mobiles or domestic wifi etc. The field strength falls away inverse exponentially with distance proportionally to the wavelength. The higher the frequency/shorter the wavelength, the faster the field strength falls away with distance.
Its the RF noise / pollution that becomes of more relevance - IMO
Thanks guys, for all the input. Some useful points made. @Richard.Dane My biggest fear (apart from potential health issues of course) was any issue with the signal from the LP12 through the Olive 52/SCap/250. @Gazza I broadly agree with your stance on living near such a monstrosity. As you say, it has been a difficult and lengthy process and I’m now considering options I wouldn’t have entertained a few months ago. @AJK My system is packed away in two storage locations in different parts of the country (and has been since the start of the year), so it wouldn’t be something I could easily arrange at this early stage. Planning to make my first viewing tomorrow. @Hollow Good points, and the same fears for future additions had occurred to me. @Simon-in-Suffolk Quite correct, it is the Weymouth tower, and yes the building is close to those shown. The technicalities of these installations are way beyond my knowledge or experience, but your comments have usefully confirmed some of my suspicions. @Mike-B Yes, it’s such a shame that the property has such polarised aspects to the front and rear; views of Chesil Beach and The Fleet lagoon at the front, and possibly this monstrosity at the rear. I guess I’ll have to take a view on that during tomorrow’s visit.
Thank you very much for that very interesting information.
I used to play with shortwave etc and had very large antenna so that follows as you say the higher frequencies need much smaller antenna for matching.
But with lower power the need for repeaters is more apparent it’s a more in-depth infrastructure but much less damaging by way of spurious radiation.
Very interesting thank you.
Concerned because of the TV mast EM radiation, because of its appearance, or (given its greater of EM radiation intensity at the user’s head/body) concerned about using a mobile phone?
I’d be most concerned because the mast looks bloody awful. Who’d want to live next to that monstrosity? Think of the challenges of selling it later on. There must be much better options available. I wouldn’t even bother looking round. You know what they say; location, location, location. If it’s cheap it’s because nobody wants it, which isn’t surprising.
Whilst I, too, wouldn’t buy it, the location, location, location thing works both ways - you buy cheap because of the mast - and future value will always be low (unless the mast is later removed), though what could be significant is ease of selling (at any price). Of course, far better than buying somewhere with a wondrous view then someone erects a mast, or a block of flats blocking the view…
on that during tomorrow’s visit.