I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:
I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

MM

Have a look at http://www.upmystreet.com/

Terry D.

Mike Mitchell wrote in
:

I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

MM

The Environment Agency is good for flood information. Try

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...flood/?lang=_e

and put your postcode into the box at the bottom of the page.


Boris

Mike Mitchell wrote:

I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

MM

This one may be the one you mean, it has the flood and landfill data:
http://www.homecheck.co.uk/

Lee

--
Email address is valid, but is unlikely to be read.

Lee wrote:
Mike Mitchell wrote:

I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient

This one may be the one you mean, it has the flood and landfill data:
http://www.homecheck.co.uk/

And this one has mobile phone mast locations
http://www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk/

Search by town then zoom right in to see the locations, it includes all of
them, not just the masts, so you get to see the ones in McDonalds frontages,
petrol station price towers etc. Just had another go with it, looks like
they have taken off the address details, but the map is still pretty
detailed.

--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:40:21 +0100, Lee wrote:

http://www.homecheck.co.uk/

Bit of laugh for my location. Being post code based it puts us within
250m of a river flood plain. We are about 500m from a river but the
river is about 100m lower... So look at the contors on the OS map
snippet they show for the location given by the Post Code and where
the property actually is. The opposite to our situation could just as
easyly be true.

The "area report" is also obviously geared to densly populated urban
areas. Apparently we have no Amenities or Schools. So the local Co-op,
Police & Fire Stations, Cottage Hospital, two Primary and one
Secondary school, all less than 3 miles away, aren't picked up. Large
pinch of salt required I feel.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:32:13 +0100, "Toby"
wrote:

Lee wrote:
Mike Mitchell wrote:

I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient

This one may be the one you mean, it has the flood and landfill data:
http://www.homecheck.co.uk/

Yep! I think that was the one! I'm just looking at it now.

Cheers, Toby.

MM

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:40:21 +0100, Lee wrote:

http://www.homecheck.co.uk/

Bit of laugh for my location. Being post code based it puts us within
250m of a river flood plain. We are about 500m from a river but the
river is about 100m lower... So look at the contors on the OS map
snippet they show for the location given by the Post Code and where
the property actually is. The opposite to our situation could just as
easyly be true.

The "area report" is also obviously geared to densly populated urban
areas. Apparently we have no Amenities or Schools. So the local Co-op,
Police & Fire Stations, Cottage Hospital, two Primary and one
Secondary school, all less than 3 miles away, aren't picked up. Large
pinch of salt required I feel.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



And most of Scotland does not exist according to them!
A large amount of salt required.
John B

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:40:21 +0100, Lee wrote:


http://www.homecheck.co.uk/


Bit of laugh for my location.
snip
Large pinch of salt required I feel.

Yeah, I'd heard that, but I suspect that's a limitation of all the
"free" services, necessary generalizations.

It's fairly accurate for here, but this is an urban location.

Lee

--
Email address is valid, but is unlikely to be read.

In message , Boris
writes
Mike Mitchell wrote in
:

I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

MM

The Environment Agency is good for flood information. Try

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...flood/?lang=_e

and put your postcode into the box at the bottom of the page.

I think he means the insurance company which did an extensive survey and
made the results available a few months ago

--
geoff

Mike Mitchell wrote:
I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

Don't you want a phone mast nearby then? If you've got a phone mast
nearby and you use a mobile you'll actually be exposed to LESS non
ionising radiation than if the nearest mast was miles away.

"hudsterou" wrote in message
...
Mike Mitchell wrote:
I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

Don't you want a phone mast nearby then? If you've got a phone mast
nearby and you use a mobile you'll actually be exposed to LESS non
ionising radiation than if the nearest mast was miles away.

Quite. A local mother and neighbour heard I was well known in mobile
telecomms and asked me to support their campaign to have a phone mast
removed from their school.

So as to keep the peace, I agreed to go and see it just before lunchtime
even though I was quite sure it would be installed safely, which it was.
Soon after hundreds of kids appeared, at least a quarter of them with phones
to ear or texting rapidly. Pointed her at real cause for concern.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:43:57 +0100, "hudsterou"
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:
I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

Don't you want a phone mast nearby then? If you've got a phone mast
nearby and you use a mobile you'll actually be exposed to LESS non
ionising radiation than if the nearest mast was miles away.

I don't use a mobile. My mobile is for the duration of my house move
only and only for incoming calls when I'm not at home. As soon as I
have moved, my mobile is going to be donated to the steamroller club.
I hate mobiles.

MM

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:12:18 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"hudsterou" wrote in message
...
Mike Mitchell wrote:
I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

Don't you want a phone mast nearby then? If you've got a phone mast
nearby and you use a mobile you'll actually be exposed to LESS non
ionising radiation than if the nearest mast was miles away.

Quite. A local mother and neighbour heard I was well known in mobile
telecomms and asked me to support their campaign to have a phone mast
removed from their school.

So as to keep the peace, I agreed to go and see it just before lunchtime
even though I was quite sure it would be installed safely, which it was.
Soon after hundreds of kids appeared, at least a quarter of them with phones
to ear or texting rapidly. Pointed her at real cause for concern.

If you wish to be bombarded with unnecessary radiation, feel free. But
not I, said the fly.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...

If you wish to be bombarded with unnecessary radiation, feel free. But
not I, said the fly.

Well obviously not having a mobile removes the prime source of radiation.
Unfortunately the second, third and fourth sources of radiation most of us
encounter are a little harder to control, be they the Sun, Earth and
Universe. (or Earth, Sun and Universe if you live in Cornwall)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:41:29 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .

If you wish to be bombarded with unnecessary radiation, feel free. But
not I, said the fly.

Well obviously not having a mobile removes the prime source of radiation.
Unfortunately the second, third and fourth sources of radiation most of us
encounter are a little harder to control, be they the Sun, Earth and
Universe. (or Earth, Sun and Universe if you live in Cornwall)

So you reckon the sun is unnecessary, do you!

MM

In article , Mike Mitchell
writes
I recall a web site I once visited which indicates whether a property
is on a flood plain, or if there is a phone mast or other salient
features nearby. Does anyone know what the web site is called?

MM

http://www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk/
--
Tony Sayer

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
If you wish to be bombarded with unnecessary radiation, feel free. But
not I, said the fly.

Well obviously not having a mobile removes the prime source of radiation.
Unfortunately the second, third and fourth sources of radiation most of
us
encounter are a little harder to control, be they the Sun, Earth and
Universe. (or Earth, Sun and Universe if you live in Cornwall)

So you reckon the sun is unnecessary, do you!

Nope - but with a phone to your ear, the phone just outdoes the incident
radiation on your body once you've allowed for an average 12 hours of night.
Of course you don't phone 24 hours a day (though Italian taxi drivers get
close) but we're getting into semantic then.

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear of
granite.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:29:43 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
If you wish to be bombarded with unnecessary radiation, feel free. But
not I, said the fly.

Well obviously not having a mobile removes the prime source of radiation.
Unfortunately the second, third and fourth sources of radiation most of
us
encounter are a little harder to control, be they the Sun, Earth and
Universe. (or Earth, Sun and Universe if you live in Cornwall)

So you reckon the sun is unnecessary, do you!

Nope - but with a phone to your ear, the phone just outdoes the incident
radiation on your body once you've allowed for an average 12 hours of night.
Of course you don't phone 24 hours a day (though Italian taxi drivers get
close) but we're getting into semantic then.

I don't even phone 1 minute a day. I just play back any message
received because my landline was engaged. I even got BT's free 1571
service so as to depend on the mobile even less.

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear of
granite.

And phone masts.

MM

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:17:33 UTC, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear of
granite.

And phone masts.

Make yourself a foil hat. I am sure it will help.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear
of
granite.

And phone masts.

Well if you propose climbing them, you deserve all the radiation you get.

The rest of us on the ground leave it to the inverse square law to keep us
safe.

On 18 Jul 2004 09:18:11 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:17:33 UTC, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear of
granite.

And phone masts.

Make yourself a foil hat. I am sure it will help.

No, it would act as an aerial.

MM

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:10:28 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear
of
granite.

And phone masts.

Well if you propose climbing them, you deserve all the radiation you get.

Er, where did I suggest I might involve myself in such a mad pursuit?

The rest of us on the ground leave it to the inverse square law to keep us
safe.

Plus, the avoidance of phone masts helps as well.

MM

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:10:28 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
. ..

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear

of

granite.

And phone masts.

Well if you propose climbing them, you deserve all the radiation you get.


Er, where did I suggest I might involve myself in such a mad pursuit?


The rest of us on the ground leave it to the inverse square law to keep us
safe.


Plus, the avoidance of phone masts helps as well.

MM,
Why just 'phone masts? Why not radio, TV, and private mobile radio?
Also, how far away do you have to be from these masts to be safe and how
do you decide this figure?

--
Howard Neil

Mike Mitchell wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 09:18:11 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:17:33 UTC, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear of
granite.

And phone masts.

Make yourself a foil hat. I am sure it will help.

No, it would act as an aerial.

This is true.
The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:42 UTC, Ian Stirling
wrote:

This is true.
The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

I resent that! I meant to add that the foil hat should be earthed by
connecting it (via a 25 sq mm cable) to a large spike driven into the
ground...

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:26:31 GMT, Mike Harrison
strung together this:

The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

..and you really should use copper foil, soldered at the seams, as the oxide layer on aluminium
significantly increases impedance at the join.

But the best solution by far is to position yourself inside a copper
plated airtight lead box. After a short while no amount of radiation
will have any effect on you whatsoever.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

On 19 Jul 2004 16:37:27 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:42 UTC, Ian Stirling
wrote:

This is true.
The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

...and you really should use copper foil, soldered at the seams, as the oxide layer on aluminium
significantly increases impedance at the join.

On 19 Jul 2004 14:51:42 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 09:18:11 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:17:33 UTC, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear of
granite.

And phone masts.

Make yourself a foil hat. I am sure it will help.

No, it would act as an aerial.

This is true.
The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

Whereupon you would drown in your own sweat within a few hours on a
hot day.

MM

On 19 Jul 2004 16:37:27 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:42 UTC, Ian Stirling
wrote:

This is true.
The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

I resent that! I meant to add that the foil hat should be earthed by
connecting it (via a 25 sq mm cable) to a large spike driven into the
ground...

.... sounds like a solution even Milligan would have been wary of.

MM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:26:31 GMT, Mike Harrison
wrote:

On 19 Jul 2004 16:37:27 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:42 UTC, Ian Stirling
wrote:

This is true.
The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

..and you really should use copper foil, soldered at the seams, as the oxide layer on aluminium
significantly increases impedance at the join.

Weathered copper looks so much nicer, though. You'd look like a church
roof. Passers by would tap on your bonce to beg for forgiveness.

MM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:40:49 +0100, Lurch
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:26:31 GMT, Mike Harrison
strung together this:

The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

..and you really should use copper foil, soldered at the seams, as the oxide layer on aluminium
significantly increases impedance at the join.

But the best solution by far is to position yourself inside a copper
plated airtight lead box. After a short while no amount of radiation
will have any effect on you whatsoever.

No, it's far easier to ask in the news groups how to find out whether
a property is near a flood plain, phone mast or other salient features
nearby.

MM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:41:06 +0100, Howard Neil
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:10:28 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear

of

granite.

And phone masts.

Well if you propose climbing them, you deserve all the radiation you get.


Er, where did I suggest I might involve myself in such a mad pursuit?


The rest of us on the ground leave it to the inverse square law to keep us
safe.


Plus, the avoidance of phone masts helps as well.

MM,
Why just 'phone masts? Why not radio, TV, and private mobile radio?
Also, how far away do you have to be from these masts to be safe and how
do you decide this figure?

I look north, south, east and west, and if I can see one of the
offending structures or something potentially disguised as one, like
Jeremy Clarkson, I simply strike the property from my shortlist and
move on.

MM

"Bob Eager" wrote
| I meant to add that the foil hat should be earthed by
| connecting it (via a 25 sq mm cable) to a large spike
| driven into the ground...

I thought 6mm was acceptable for an earth conductor if mechanically
protected?

Owain

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:41:06 +0100, Howard Neil
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote:


On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:10:28 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:



"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
m...


Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear

of


granite.

And phone masts.

Well if you propose climbing them, you deserve all the radiation you get.


Er, where did I suggest I might involve myself in such a mad pursuit?



The rest of us on the ground leave it to the inverse square law to keep us
safe.


Plus, the avoidance of phone masts helps as well.

MM,
Why just 'phone masts? Why not radio, TV, and private mobile radio?
Also, how far away do you have to be from these masts to be safe and how
do you decide this figure?


I look north, south, east and west, and if I can see one of the
offending structures or something potentially disguised as one, like
Jeremy Clarkson, I simply strike the property from my shortlist and
move on.

Is it that you find them ugly or are you worried about the signals?

--
Howard Neil

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:15:59 UTC, "Owain"
wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote
| I meant to add that the foil hat should be earthed by
| connecting it (via a 25 sq mm cable) to a large spike
| driven into the ground...

I thought 6mm was acceptable for an earth conductor if mechanically
protected?

Yes, but that's at 50Hz.... this is RF....!

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:15:59 +0100, Owain wrote:

I meant to add that the foil hat should be earthed by connecting it
(via a 25 sq mm cable) to a large spike driven into the ground...

I thought 6mm was acceptable for an earth conductor if mechanically
protected?

This is for shuntting RF to ground so you need the larger surface area
of 25mm cable because of the skin effect.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
On 19 Jul 2004 14:51:42 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:
On 18 Jul 2004 09:18:11 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:17:33 UTC, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep
well clear of
granite.

And phone masts.

Make yourself a foil hat. I am sure it will help.

No, it would act as an aerial.

This is true.
The advice to make a foil hat is dangerous, and the poster was obviously
an idiot.
The correct solution is to wrap the foil round your entire body, ensuring
an overlap at all the joins, and at least an average of two layers.

Whereupon you would drown in your own sweat within a few hours on a
hot day.

Not if you'd done the job properly, you would have asphyxiated in a
couple of minutes

--
geoff

Mike Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:41:06 +0100, Howard Neil
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:10:28 +0100, "G&M"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
m...

Anyway, radiation from the Earth is the most dangerous so keep well clear

of

granite.

And phone masts.

Well if you propose climbing them, you deserve all the radiation you get.


Er, where did I suggest I might involve myself in such a mad pursuit?


The rest of us on the ground leave it to the inverse square law to keep us
safe.


Plus, the avoidance of phone masts helps as well.

MM,
Why just 'phone masts? Why not radio, TV, and private mobile radio?
Also, how far away do you have to be from these masts to be safe and how
do you decide this figure?

I look north, south, east and west, and if I can see one of the
offending structures or something potentially disguised as one, like
Jeremy Clarkson, I simply strike the property from my shortlist and
move on.

Why do you suspect that Jeremy Clarkson is a disguised mobile mast?

Ian Stirling wrote:

Why do you suspect that Jeremy Clarkson is a disguised mobile mast?

Because he's usually sitting behind a radiator? :-)
--
Howard Neil