Finally an answer to the Arthur Balfour mystery - thanks to Peter for the link! I am a bit disappointed to find that it was only a research exercise, but I suppose it does demonstrate the effectiveness of some forms of advertising..

The Masts scrutiny committee met again on Friday. We heard evidence from the National Radiological Protection Board, SCRAM (formerly Sutton Coldfield Residents Against Masts, now apparently Seriously Concerned Residents Against Masts), North Birmingham PCT and Dr Gerard Hyland. It was a fascinating meeting, and I feel like I've got a better grip on some of the scientific issues we've come across, but it is an issue that we could spend years on in scrutiny, and obviously we don't have that long.

One of the things that concerns me is that the campaigners focus on masts is not getting through to the public at large. When we spoke to the Operators last month, we were told that about 55 million people in Britain have mobiles - I've seen figures saying 80% of the population have them, and in some age groups, it is almost 100%. We choose to use mobile phones, though most of us wouldn't choose to have a mast near our house - I've only started noticing the number of masts near me since I've been on this committee. If you use a mobile phone, you've got an expectation of a level of service (or more accurately a level of signal that will allow you to use it where you choose). If we can't start addressing the expectations of phone users, how can we make an impact on the issues around masts? The only reason we have masts and base stations is because people are using mobile phones. We've talked around the issue - whether the mobile operators need the level of signal generated, whether they could operate on different frequencies, the need for much more research on the effects - but it's not a straightforward issue when there is such huge demand for the service. Once again I've got a list of references from the meeting to look up - more scientists next month..