| Author |
Message |
    
Carrie A. Higby
Citizen
Username: Fernwood
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 12:14 pm: |     |
Has there been much discussion regarrding the cancer causing possibilty that the electro magnetic waves from the cell tower have the possibility of causing? I know that there are many reports out there that prove or disprove this concern, but I was wondering if anyone did the appropriate research into the issue before agreeing to installing this celltower. The bottom line is, they still do not know for sure whether or not the Electromagnetic waves cause cancer, and regardless of the large amount of money that cell tower contracts tend to offer, no amount of money is worth communities discovering that they have large amounts of persons developing cancers 5 or 10 years down the road. Specifically for this reason I am privy to more than a couple of co-op Boards in NYC that turned down very lucrative looking cell tower contracts to place cell towers on thier buildings' roofs for these reasons. It is just not worth it. And the fallout could be catastrophic. Has this all been thouroughly looked into? |
Carrie A. Higby
Citizen
Username: Fernwood
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Has there been much discussion regarding the cancer causing possibilty that the electro magnetic waves from the cell tower can have the possibility of causing? I know that there are many reports out there that prove or disprove this concern, but I was wondering if anyone did the appropriate research into the issue before agreeing to installing this celltower. The bottom line is, they still do not know for sure whether or not the Electromagnetic waves cause cancer, and regardless of the large amount of money that cell tower contracts tend to offer, no amount of money is worth communities discovering that they have large amounts of persons developing cancers 5 or 10 years down the road. Specifically for this reason I am privy to more than a couple of co-op Boards in NYC that turned down very lucrative looking cell tower contracts to place cell towers on thier buildings' roofs for these reasons. It is just not worth it. And the fallout could be catastrophic. Once again, has this all been thoroughly looked into? |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 4003
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 4, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
There is still no proof of health risks. But that does not mean we shouldn't be cautious.
Another reason coops turn down the offers to host towers is that the laws governing coops forbid coops from making too much money on anything. So the financial gain from hosting isn't that great anyway.
One important fact that field strength is proportional to the SQUARE of the distance from the source of energy. That's techy talk which means that as you get farther from the antenna, the strength (and its effects) lessen very quickly. A very tall tower that stands on the ground probably poses little threat. However, a small tower on top of an apartment building has a much better chance at posing a health risk to the people who live very near it. |
Jgberkeley
Citizen
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 4100
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:55 pm: | |
Humm,
Has anyone other than me notice the new tower on top of the apartment building on Springfield Ave.?
Just off Prospect above Primo Pizza.
A T-Mobile tower was installed and went active last month. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 4064
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 12:48 am: | |
jgberkeley, where is that apartment building? I'd like to check it out.
I am dismayed that my T-Mobile service has not improved on my block, though (Plymouth Ave). It's still pretty bad here, though it's good in the rest of Maplewood. |
Jgberkeley
Citizen
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 4104
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
From our store look across and up. On top of Primo Pizza.
The Beaded Path
1877 Springfield Ave.
3 doors East of Prospect. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 6335
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:14 am: | |
It has been a year since this started so my memory may be a little hazy, but I remember that the telecommunications law that basically views cell service as a public good prohibits denying towers for health reasons since there is no proof that the elcectromagnetic waves are harmful. |
filmboy
Citizen
Username: Filmboy
Post Number: 51
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
bobk -
that's basically it...the rub is that the electomagnetic waves are below a federally mandated level that has been decided to not pose a health risk. But, does that mean there is no health risk...no. It simply means that that towers are limited to the amount of energy emitted as to be below this standard. Our history is littered with lots of "safe" technologies that later proved to be quite harmful. As a resident and opposer of this tower plan with a direct line of sight from my home to it I am greatly concerned about the long term health risks on my family. Unfortunately, the law removes this arguement from the table. Our successful opposition to this plan has been based on land use issues and the overall negative impact on property values that this plan presents.
The case is presently in appeal and lets all hope that the Board of Adjustment denial stands. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 4112
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:48 am: | |
Well, watcha gonna do? Make laws based on an unproven danger? I realize that there might be dangers, but we haven't found them yet. What should the laws be based on? |
filmboy
Citizen
Username: Filmboy
Post Number: 52
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Agreed...but its wrong to have a law that removes that aspect of the proposal from even being discussed and explored. I've said a thousand times..we all want better service but not at the expense of our communities health and individual property values. In the Verizon / Country Club tower proposal there are other solutions to the alledged gap in service. This tower is not about improving service its about a business plan to own a tower, lease out space and generate revenue. All are worthy commmercial endeavors...that do not belong in a zoned residential neighborhood.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 4115
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
Thank you for the clarification. Those are excellent points I hadn't considered. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page