Comments on NOPNA: Cellular Phone Antenna for Fulton/Masonic (Propose...

I have deleted the comments on this post which we ...

2006-08-09T10:29:00.000-07:00

I have deleted the comments on this post which we considered personal attacks between two anonymous users.

Well someone is trying to do their homework. Howev...

2006-08-01T12:38:00.000-07:00

Well someone is trying to do their homework. However, citing multiple references doesn't make your conclusion any more right or wrong. Almost any topic (artificial sweeteners to nuclear power plants) can be debated to the benefit of EITHER side in an emotional argument. You can always find a study or data to support your case.

The real debate, is that after decades of cellular implementation and usage, there is no "smoking gun" to show that any miniscule detriment outweighs the benefits of mobile communication. And lets not forget the benefits of mobile communications in disasters/ emergencies (e.g. earthquake/ flood/ hurricane).

Let's face it - cellular technology is a good thing and here to stay. So is "broadcast" radio, television, shortwave, emergency, police, and satellites.

And don't forget the electromagnetic emissions of the electronics in your home: microwave, wireless phone, computers, wireless routers, PDA, cable converters, garage door openers, printers, CD player, dimmers for your lights, Playstation, IPOD, speakers, and any motorized device (and let's not forget the RADON in your basement leaching up in your home as well as natural radiation from the sky).

ALL these devices emit electromagnetic radiation. Add them all up and see what your exposure is across the spectrum of frequencies.

So should we be scared? I for one (again as an electrical engineer) am more scared of radical people trying to push their agenda of politics, religion, and style of living on those of us who are doing just fine without them telling us how to live.

Viva la cell phone and its towers.

To Anonymous:Take a look at IEEE Transactions on M...

2006-07-31T20:49:00.000-07:00

To Anonymous:

Take a look at IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Technique, Vol. 44, No. 10, Oct. 1996, "1990-1995 Advances in Investigating the Interaction of Microwave Fields with the Nervous System," by Andre Vander Vorst, IEEE, and Fabienne Duhamel. The Introdution includes the following statement: "An increasing amount of evidence, derived from in vitro and in vivo studies, now indicates that microwave fields directly affects [sic] living systems. . . ." The studies cited are not referencing thermal (i.e., heating) effects, but effects from low-intensity microwave radiation.

In the almost 10 years since this article appeared, the body of evidence for such effects has substantially grown, not diminished.

If you add the word 'conclusive' to your statement 'there is no proof,' you are correct. Scientists still do not understand the mechanisms producing the biological effects of low-intensity microwave radiation and conclusive proof of its harm to humans does not exist at present. The evidence, however, does exist, which is why we advocate a precautionary approach to wireless technologies like cellular phones and their base stations.

To Dan:

Contemporary science defines 'ionizing' radiation as electromagnetic radiation (EMR) at frequencies from ultraviolet light on up. It's called 'ionizing' because EMR at these frequencies can break chemical bonds. Ultraviolet light, for example, can cause skin cancer, and within the past 2 years, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) classified x-rays as a human carcinogen, even though science has know this for decades.

The debate at present is whether so-called 'non-ionizing' radiation, i.e., EMR from infrared frequencies down through microwaves to AM radio and beyond, may in fact also be ionizing and potentially harmful (see the IEEE article cited above).

To Lynn:

One reason your cell phone reception may not be great inside your home is because the materials in your house's walls, pipes, etc. may be interfering with the microwave radiation from your phone and the nearest cell site. Wireless technology is inherently imperfect in this regard. The radiation is, however, going through you, and when you use your cell phone, you're putting a microwave transmitter directly against your head. To put it diplomatically, you might want to consider using a conventional, wired phone in your apartment.

To David:

Keep up the good work!

Sorry, the links in my previous entry got chopped....

2006-07-31T14:09:00.000-07:00

Sorry, the links in my previous entry got chopped. Here they are again:

Current Radiation Protection Standards Inadequate.
http://www.protectschools.org/epa%20letter.pdf

Fire Fighters Call for Cellular Antenna Moratorium.
http://www.iaff.org/safe/content/celltower/celltowerfinal.htm

Children Advised Not to Use Cell Phones.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/default.htm

Irish Doctors Call for Stronger Regulations.
http://www.protectschools.org/IDEA%20emr.pdf

Regarding the health studies, please see the follo...

2006-07-31T14:04:00.000-07:00

Regarding the health studies, please see the following (compiled by SNAFU):

• Cellular Phones and Brain Tumor Risk. Since 1999, a Swedish research team
has consistently found that the longer one is exposed to cellular phones and the
younger the user, the greater the risk of developing brain tumors. See, e.g., Hardell
et al., Cellular and cordless telephone use and the association with brain tumors in
different age groups, Arch Environ Health, 2004 Mar; 59(3):132-7.

• Current Radiation Protection Standards Inadequate. In a July 16, 2002 letter to
Janet Newton of the EMR Network, Norbert Hankin of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)’s Center for Science and Risk Assessment Radiation Protection
Division wrote: “The FCC’s exposure guideline [for radiofrequency radiation] is
considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all
possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines
protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.” See
http://www.protectschools.org/epa%20letter.pdf

• Fire Fighters Call for Cellular Antenna Moratorium. In August 2004, the
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the union representing fire fighters
in the U.S. and Canada, called for a moratorium on the placement of cellular
antennas on fire stations “until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity
on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF [radiofrequency]/ MW [microwave]
radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the
health of our members.”
See http://www.iaff.org/safe/content/celltower/celltowerfinal.htm

• Children Advised Not to Use Cell Phones. In January 2005, the United
Kingdom’s National Radiation Protection Board issued a warning that young
children should not use cell phones, citing growing scientific evidence that exposure
to radiofrequency radiation poses a health risk. Its report also cautioned about the
health risks of exposure to cell phone base station antennas. See
http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/default.htm

• Irish Doctors Call for Stronger Regulations. In February 2005, the Irish Doctors
Environmental Association (IDEA) issued a statement urging that “the strictest
possible safety regulations be established for the installation of masts and
transmitters, and for the acceptable levels of potential exposure of individuals to
electromagnetic radiation.” See http://www.protectschools.org/IDEA%20emr.pdf

• Berkeley Health Commission Endorses Precautionary Principle. In January
2006, the City of Berkeley’s Community Health Commission recommended that the
City “require the installation of cell phone base stations to meet the highest standard
of human health and safety requirements that exists anywhere in the world (e.g.
1/100 of current U.S. standards)” and “should apply the Precautionary Principle
when considering applications for installation of equipment.”
Prepared by San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU).

For more information, visit www.antennafreeunion.org and www.protectschools.org.

I for one get pretty terrible cellphone reception ...

2006-07-29T13:07:00.000-07:00

I for one get pretty terrible cellphone reception at home. If this would help, I'm for it. Plus, I share Dan's skepticism that such a tower would doom us all to cancer-ridden life (more so than we are already doomed to)

OK - not to put anyone down.. but this is the craz...

2006-07-29T13:05:00.000-07:00

OK - not to put anyone down.. but this is the crazy stuff that uniformed/uneducated people like to grab onto and run with. As an electrical engineer who has been in the communications field for a couple of decades, there IS NO PROOF that cell phone towers or cell phones do anything in the short or long term to humans. Read IEEE Spectrum Magazine's articles and reporting on this topic before you protest. Become educated please. BTW - IEEE is not industry funded nor biased.. just good independent reporting... My only input: don't make the tower ugly. Put it in a church steeple.

P.S. yes if you put your head in a microwave oven, it is still SAFE (unless you turn it on somehow..).

I'd like to see support for the comment that "It i...

2006-07-29T12:35:00.000-07:00

I'd like to see support for the comment that "It is well known that high frequency "ionizing" electro-magnetic (EMF) radiation causes cancer." That's news to me and if it's true I'd definitely like to know more about it. I can only imagine that such towers are all around us and we are all doomed to have cancer.

If it's not true, then I don't have a problem with the tower, presuming it's not an eyesore.

-dan

www.nopaslist.com

Personally, I support the addition of the cell pho...

2006-07-28T13:47:00.000-07:00

Personally, I support the addition of the cell phone antenna.

From the American Cancer Society...
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phones.asp?sitearea=PED

From the World Health Organization...
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/en/