News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 165 of 165 

Marcy-Holmes cell phone tower encounters a negative reception
USA Created: 26 Jul 2007
A historic building and a cell phone tower have created a controversy in the Marcy-Holmes neighborhood.

An ongoing dispute between residents and T-Mobile, a cell phone and wireless Internet provider, has left a nearly completed cell phone tower sitting on the Andrews House, which is located in the Fifth Street Southeast Historic District.

Currently, discussions are underway to resolve the issue, and a July 12 meeting before the Zoning and Planning Committee fueled the controversy.

T-Mobile, the sixth-largest mobile network operator in the world, began construction in September 2005 on a new cell phone tower on a fifth-story roof of the Andrews House.

Tom Lincoln, Marcy-Holmes safety and livability committee chairman, said residents started contacting city council representatives and the Heritage Preservation Commission immediately. In October 2005, construction halted.

Lincoln said there might have been some confusion with the application T-Mobile made to the Zoning and Planning Committee. He said the address listed on this application was 414 Seventh St., not 708 Fifth St., which he said is not an official U.S. Postal Service Address, but is where the tower now actually stands.

Lincoln also said he was confused as to why certain lines on the application were left blank.

Peter Coyle, attorney for T-Mobile, said any trouble over the address was never raised as an issue. He said lines left blank on the application did not apply to T-Mobile's request.

Coyle also said the company contacted the city and the HPC prior to construction but were not told to stop the project.

Gary Schiff, Ward 9 councilman and chairman of the Zoning and Planning Committee, said an error was made by Minneapolis planning staff when they reviewed the application.

Since the staff did not realize the proposal was in a historic district, it was not brought to the HPC, Schiff said.

He said the city receives more than 10,000 building applications a year, but only one or two errors typically occur.

"Frankly, it's surprising we don't have more permits issued in error," Schiff said. "(But) we have the ability to fix errors."

By the time construction stopped in October 2005, the only uncompleted part of the tower was a protective screen, Lincoln said. He said the tower was otherwise fully operational.

Lincoln said residents pressured T-Mobile into applying for a certificate of appropriateness with the HPC.

In May 2007, the HPC granted a certificate with conditions. The conditions stated that T-Mobile would have to move the tower to an adjacent third-story roof.

Coyle said a cell phone tower that low would not be able to operate properly, and that T-Mobile did nothing wrong and should not have to pay to rebuild the tower.

T-Mobile appealed the conditions July 12, but the Zoning and Planning Committee denied the appeal.

Since then, the two sides have been working on a compromise.

Lincoln said the proposed compromise states that unobtrusive antennas are acceptable where they currently stand, but the rest of the device - a large metal structure with equipment inside - would have to be moved to a remote location.

Coyle said the proposal would work, but the city and the neighborhood should pay for moving the equipment, which he estimated to cost $100,000.

Lincoln said he would like to reach an agreement by the next full city council meeting Aug. 3. Coyle said the two sides are working in "good faith."

Diane Hofstede, Ward 3 councilwoman, said the sides are discussing where the device is physically able to be moved and who will pay for it. She said she disliked the tower's current location.

"It's an inappropriate place," Hofstede said. "We just need to work it out."

Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Association Executive Director Melissa Bean said the neighborhood's official stance is that the device should be removed.

"It doesn't belong in a historic district," Bean said. "It sets a bad precedent."

Dan Ott, a history senior who lives on Seventh Street and Seventh Avenue in Marcy-Holmes, said he felt historical preservation efforts by the neighborhood have political motivations, but he said he agreed with its stance.

"I think preservation should come before technological progress," Ott said.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Minnesota Daily, Mike Rose, 25 Jul 2007

Church May Erect Cross-Shaped Cell Phone Tower
USA Created: 26 Jul 2007
A local church along with the help of Verizon Wireless may take cell phone tower development to a new and technologically divine level.

You've likely seen them erected somewhere along the side of the road or hidden with a grouping of trees, but it's hard to miss those tall cell phone towers, usually identifiable by their triangle-shaped platforms, planted among our communities. And it's definitely not often that a town is forced to balance its respect for a religious symbol against a cell phone company's reliability, but that's exactly what's happening in Pequannock Township.

At Bible Christian Fellowship Church, there is a proposal to develop a 100-foot cell phone tower that would be disguised as a cross and provided by Verizon. Not everyone in the town has dialed into the idea.

"As a Christian, I wouldn't want to do anything that would denigrate the idea of a cross," said Pequannock resident Walt Coyne.

Whether it's offensive or functional, the fact is the township is well aware the tower would most certainly stick out on a residential block.

"There's a big difference between a man made structure such as this and natural vegetation such as trees," said Pequannock Township Councilman Eddie Englebart.

Church officials tell CBS 2 HD that while they are taking into consideration whether their neighbors will approve of the 100-foot cell phone tower on the property, they are ultimately concerned about whether it's the right decision for the church, and the members who attend services here. They would not, however, disclose how much money they stand to make from the Verizon proposal.

As for the tower itself, Verizon Wireless spokesman David Samberg tells CBS 2 HD that their locations are not chosen randomly, but are specific to network coverage needs. In his statement, he says cross-like towers don't "happen that often, and it's not a growing trend. In fact, stealth antennae are more expensive to build. But it's something we always consider when it makes sense."

In the end, that's exactly what the future of the cross-tower rests on: dollars and sense.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: WCBS-TV New York. Jay Dow, 25 Jul 2007

Celltower goes up in flames
USA Created: 25 Jul 2007
HOWELL, Michigan - A 200-foot cell phone tower was on fire near M-59 in Howell Monday morning, according to the Howell Fire Department.

Local 4 learned that work crews were using a cutting tool at the base of the tower when they ignited the cables inside the hollow tower.

Witnesses said a cloud of black smoke filled the air.

“The fire was at the bottom, so everything that burned started at the bottom and worked its way up, so it was really smoking,” Howell School operator director Mike Peterson.

Michigan State Police said they thought the AT&T tower was severely leaning and could possibly fall over.

The smoking tower overlooks the school bus area at Howell High School.

Witnesses in the bus area were frightened at the site of the smoking tower. “Mary Jo said it scared her to death. She left her purse and ran,” said Marion Hudson, who works in the area.

School officials have evacuated everyone from the immediate areas of the school complex.

The Howell fire chief said the fire was extinguished after power was cut from the tower.

Several cell phone companies lease space from the tower, including AT&T.

“AT&T is currently cooperating with local officials and working with the vendor of the structure as they assess the safety of the tower,” said AT&T Spokesperson Meghan Roskopf.

AT&T said that customers in the area would experience only minimal service interruption.

The tower also contains the equipment for the Howell Schools Internet services, said Howell School officials.

If the tower has to be replaced it could take up to several weeks before the school's Internet connection is restored.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: WDIV, 24 Jul 2007

Residents take cell-tower appeal back to court
USA Created: 25 Jul 2007
LINCOLNVILLE (July 24): Characterizing the Lincolnville Board of Appeals deliberations over GridCom’s application as marked by a surprising lack of familiarity with the record, a group of local residents is asking Waldo County Superior Court to overturn a decision allowing the wireless infrastructure company to build a cell tower below Bald Rock Mountain.

The residents asking the court to reverse the appeals board 3 to 2 vote allowing National Grid Communications (GridCom) to build include Lorraine Davis, Daniel Henry, Will Brown, Susan Gage, Whitney Oppersdorf, Tony Oppersdorf, Cindy Dunham, Jim Dunham, Cheryl Cassidy, Ron Pinkham and Rob Stenger III.

Their attorney, Lori Londis Dwyer of the Portland-based Bernstein Shur firm, also asked the court to consolidate this most recent complaint, filed July 20, with an earlier case filed in the same court by the same group. That Jan. 2 appeal asked the court to overturn the Lincolnville Board of Appeals November decision to grant GridCom permission to build its 190-foot monopole.

GridCom submitted an application in the summer of 2005 to construct a 190-foot monopole on land belonging to James Munroe and abutting Camden Hills State Park. Almost immediately, debate ensued over the monopole’s aesthetic effect on the area, in particular on a view shed originating from the summit of Bald Rock and identified on the town’s scenic view map.

The planning board denied GridCom permission to build there under the town’s wireless communications ordinance, and the appeals board overturned that decision. The application returned to the planning board under the town’s site plan review ordinance and the planning board subsequently denied a permit, a decision overturned last month by the appeals board.

Now that matter goes back to Superior Court. Meanwhile, the case filed against Lincolnville in U.S. District Court by GridCom has been dismissed.

In the most recent appeal to Waldo County, the residents ask for a reversal of the appeals board decision under Section 18 of the town’s land use ordinance, saying:

# The Board of Appeals erred in overturning the planning board’s decision, as the planning board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record, contained no error of law, was rational and was not arbitrary.

# That the evidence in the record demonstrates that Bald Rock and its view shed are designated scenic resources in the Lincolnville Comprehensive Plan.

# The cell tower would rise on average 120 feet above the surrounding tree cover.

# The tower would be located in the middle of an otherwise pristine, panoramic view from Bald Rock across Penobscot Bay.

# GridCom’s visual impact assessment was inconclusive and contained poor-quality photographs.

# A report submitted by a consultant lacked reliability.

# GridCom failed to demonstrate that mitigation strategies, including design modifications (shorter tower, tower in a different location, or a series of shorter towers) or alternative technologies would not work to achieve cell-phone coverage.

The appeal said the overall deliberations by the appeals board "were marked by a surprising lack of familiarity with the record by a majority of the board of appeals members, which was even more remarkable given the number of times this application had been before the board of appeals already – a disregard for evidence in the record that supported the planning board’s decision by a majority of the members, a misunderstanding of the appellate standard of review, and an unlawful reliance on personal opinion to support positions in opposition to the planning board’s decision."

The appeal also said an appeals board alternate asked to participate in the board deliberations in June but the board voted "in contravention of the town charter, not to permit the alternate to speak during the meeting. The alternate left the meeting in protest, highlighting the general acrimony among board members that characterized the proceedings."

And the appeal said one appeals board member was hostile to the planning board’s decision and claimed to speak for the town’s silent majority when expressing personal approval of the cell-tower project and the benefits it would provide to the town.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: VillageSoup Belfast, Lynda Clancy, 24 Jul 2007

BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
USA Created: 24 Jul 2007
An international working group composed of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative) has joined together to document the information that needs to be considered in the international debate about the adequacy (or inadequacy) of existing public exposure standards for extra-low frequency (ELF-EMF) and radiofrequency (RF-EMF). In August of 2007, the BioInitiative will present a science-based assessment of the research and public health policy issues which argue for new, biologically-based exposure standards. ELF-EMF information will address electromagnetic radiation from such sources as electric power lines, interior wiring and grounding of buildings and appliances. RF-EMF recommendations will address radiofrequency and microwave radiation from such sources as cell phones, cell towers, WI-FI and other wireless technologies.

This report is being written to document the body of evidence supporting the conclusion that current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation do not adequately protect public health. The report will provide ten chapters of detailed scientific information and references documenting what kinds of effects have been established to occur when people are exposed to electromagnetic radiation below limits currently established by the Federal Communications Commission (US) and International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). It will describe existing exposure standards, and how some international governmental bodies are already responding to this scientific and public health policy evidence by strengthening standards. It also will address the question of what level of scientific evidence is sufficient to take preventive measures now, based on prudent public health policies. It will document scientific research reporting bioeffects and adverse health effects occurring at exposure levels below the public safety limits which, with chronic exposure, may present risks to health and wellbeing.


Objectives

Recognizing that other bodies in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, many European Union countries and the World Health Organization are actively debating this topic, the BioInitiative has adopted the following objectives:

1. Review and assessment of the scientific literature reviews done by IEEE [1] and WHO [2] in their respective work on standards that have resulted (or are expected to result) in thermally-based limits only.

2. Documentation of systematic screening-out techniques that consequently under-report, omit or overlook results of scientific studies reporting low-intensity bioeffects and/or potential health effects.

3. Characterization of limitations and inadequacies of IEEE SC-4 proposed C95.1 revisions that occur as a consequence.

4. Ten chapters documenting key scientific studies and reviews that identify low-intensity effects for which any new human exposure standards should provide new non-thermal safety limits.

5. To identify “next steps” in advancing biologically-based exposure standards that are (a) protective of public health and (b) derived using traditional public health approaches.


[1]. IEEE Std C95.1TM-2005 (Revision of IEEE Std C95.1-1991) IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. I E E E 3 Park Avenue New York, NY10016-5997, USA Sponsored by the IEEE International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (SCC39); 19 April 2006

[2]. World Health Organization EMF Program Report on EMF 0 Hz to 300 GHz (static fields, ELF and radiofrequency to 300 GHz) that will produce a Monograph on Environmental Health Criteria on Extremely Low Frequency Fields (expected June 2007)
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Collaborative on Health and Environment, 24 Jul 2007

Residents oppose cell phone tower
USA Created: 24 Jul 2007
HILLSBOROUGH — Got a problem with the cell phone tower that's being constructed in your neighborhood? You may be out of luck.

Hillsborough residents are learning about the limits the federal government places on local jurisdictions when it comes to the infrastructure underpinning the nation's cell phone networks.

The city has received a steady stream of complaints from people who are opposed to wireless provider T-Mobile's plan to build a 100-foot antenna disguised as a pine tree in Vista Park.

The complaints were vehement enough that the City Council postponed a ruling on the issue at a meeting July 9. In an effort to find alternative sites, the city plans to hold a meeting of mobile phone service providers in late August.

But the city can't force T-Mobile to put the tower elsewhere, said Martha DeBry, Hillsborough's public works director. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 puts strict constraints on the ability of local authorities to ban antenna towers or affect where they're put.

"The (Federal Communications Commission) specifically barred a local jurisdiction from making judgments relating to environmental or health effects of radio frequency emissions," DeBry said.

Residents opposed to the tower claim the long-term effects of human exposure to radio frequencies have not been studied adequately. The city has gotten e-mails from individuals worried about the health impacts on children who frequent Vista Park.

The radio frequencies emitted by the tower would be well below the maximum level mandated by the FCC, according to T-Mobile. But some residents don't trust the agency's safety guidelines, DeBry said.

The city also has heard from those who dislike the proposed tower's appearance. The Monopole tower, built by CellXion, a Louisiana-based manufacturer, is a "stealth" device that is meant to blend in with surrounding trees.

T-Mobile uses similar towers in Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto and Rohnert Park. Rod De La Rosa, a T-Mobile zoning and compliance manager, said people often hear the word "tower" and assume the worst.

"Until they really see one or go visit one, they may not know what they really look like," De La Rosa said. "We drive by them every day and we don't notice them."

De La Rosa said he understands residents' concerns, which are "part of the process."

City Councilman Paul Regan said T-Mobile has been cooperative. The company examined nearly two dozen sites to see if they were suitable alternatives for the tower.

Regan said the goal of the meeting in August is to determine the long-range plans that network providers have for Hillsborough and to explore opportunities for the companies to "co-locate" or share towers.

That may not do much to keep Vista Park tower-free, since there are no towers in the area that T-Mobile could share, according to DeBry. Thecompany settled on the site because it is well-suited to fill in gaps in existing coverage.

Under the proposed lease agreement, T-Mobile would rent the Vista Park site for at least 10 years and pay the city $2,500 a month. The company is considering a second tower on Fir Court. The city is handling that application separately.

Public sentiment regarding the tower is hardly uniform. James Jungroth, who lives a block and a half from Vista Park, said he's more concerned about parking and safety in the park than about radio waves.

Jerry Kaplan, who lives about a half-mile away, likes the fact that the tower would boost city revenues without raising taxes. He said concerns about public health amount to "hysteria."

"I worry about this less than a leaky microwave oven in my neighbor's house," said Kaplan, 55. "I wish they would do it in my backyard."
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Inside Bay Area, Aaron Kinney, 23 Jul 2007

Suspected fungus not 'smoking gun' in Bee Collapse Emergency
USA Created: 23 Jul 2007
Strong pointers towards electromagnetic radiation having impaired immune system of bees allowing fungus to infest.

“Nosema ceranae certainly is a stressor, but it doesn’t seem to be the smoking gun that we were looking for.”
- Jerry Hayes, Apiary Chief, Florida Dept. of Agriculture

May 4, 2007 Gainesville, Florida - In the last week of April 2007, media headlined that University of California-San Francisco biochemists had “tracked down suspect in honey bee disappearances.”

The culprit? The news media called it a fungus. But it’s a one-celled protozoan called Nosema ceranae. The problem with that suspect? Nosema ceranae had been identified long before in Spain, other European countries and the United States – in both healthy, normal honey bees, as well as bee bodies found around empty hives where Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has been reported. In CCD, the bees have disappeared in the billions in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres since the fall of 2006.

Five months ago in December 2006, scientists in the CCD Working Group publicly reported that whatever was causing the massive honey bee disappearances was also severely suppressing honey bee immune systems – leaving the bees vulnerable to all sorts of pathogens, including the Nosema protozoan.

The fragility of the honey bee immune system was confirmed by the genome project last October, which for the first time mapped all the genes in honey bees. DNA researchers found that there weren’t many genes to deal with poisons or to fight off disease. The conclusion was that honey bees might be especially vulnerable to attacks by pathogens and pesticides and other toxins.

The University of Montana’s Bee Alert group recently surveyed more than 500 American beekeepers to find out how many have had bees disappear. The statistic now is: 38% of beekeepers have reported hive disappearances, some losing 75% or more of all their bees. One bee colony in California went from thriving to disappearance in only two days.

That’s why the late April 2007 UC-San Francisco announcement that Nosema ceranae was most likely the cause of CCD was surprising and confusing. The protozoan was already on the growing list of hypotheses that more than a hundred American scientists have been trying to study for half a year in an effort to solve the honey bee mystery. This week I asked Jerry Hayes, Chief of the Apiary Section, at Florida’s Dept. of Agriculture in Gainesville, Florida, about the Nosema news release and the spread of Colony Collapse Disorder into China, Taiwan, Guatemala and Brazil.

Interview:

Jerry Hayes, Chief, Apiary Section, Florida Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, Florida: “That was kind of an awkward situation because the CCD Working Group (of scientists) had already identified Nosema ceranae, which is a one-celled protozoan that can live in the honey bee’s intestine. The lab in California (UC-San Francisco) did not contact us. But it was good that they did the work because it confirmed what we had already known.

But Nosema ceranae does not seem to be a major player at this time because all of the samples we have taken from all bees seem to have Nosema ceranae in them. So it’s not something that appears to be a brand new pathogen.

WELL, THEN WHY DID THIS HIT THE HEADLINES WITH THAT PROFESSOR SEEMING TO SAY THIS IS THE ANSWER?

You’ve got me, Linda.

I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I HAD TALKED WITH YOU AND PROF. COX-FOSTER AND ALL OF THESE PEOPLE IN THE TWO WEEKS LEADING UP TO WHEN YOU AND I HAD TALKED.

Right.

AND NOBODY WAS FOCUSING ON NOSEMA, BUT I KNEW IT HAD COME UP BACK IN FEBRUARY BECAUSE THEY HAD FOUND IT IN SPAIN.

Yes. And there was separate diagnosis of that at the USDA lab in Beltsville, Maryland, probably a month ago. So, this was not something new to us and then to have this kind of blurted out we thought was kind of interesting.

IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THE SAN FRANCISCO RESEARCHERS WHO PUT OUT THE INFORMATION ABOUT NOSEMA CERANAE POSSIBLY BEING THE EXPLANATION FOR THE COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER NOT HAVING CHECKED WITH THE COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER SCIENTISTS BEFORE RELEASING THE INFORMATION?

It certainly seems to be a disconnect in the communication process and we hope in the future our other colleagues in other realms and expertise will be able to work more closely with us. These guys (UC-San Francisco) kind of charged ahead and identified something we already knew about. This Nosema has been widely identified in Europe, including Spain and France, for several years. So there are treatments and controls for it and it’s something that beekeepers are addressing already.

WHY DID THE COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER SCIENCE GROUP DISMISS NOSEMA CERANAE AS NOT BEING THE CAUSE FOR THE GENERAL DISAPPEARANCE OF HONEY BEES?

Because beekeepers were already in many cases treating with the antibiotic for Nosema in the samples that we took. So, some of the samples the beekeepers had been treating and did not have Nosema. Some of the samples, the beekeepers had not been treating. So, there didn’t seem to be a connection. CCD appeared whether the beekeepers were treating for Nosema or not.

Read further at: http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1239&category=Environment
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EMFacts, Don Maisch, 23 Jul 2007

Supervisors OK cell tower ordinance
USA Created: 23 Jul 2007
North Lebanon residents might soon see something new in their skyline.

The North Lebanon Twp. supervisors has passed a cell phone tower ordinance.

The ordinance, which passed unanimously after a public hearing attended by about 15 residents, requires that any cell tower be at least 500 feet from houses and be no higher than 200 feet.

A tower must be surrounded by a fence and have anti-climbing devices on it. The ordinance also regulates noise levels and landscaping.

T-Mobile is expected to be the first company to apply under the ordinance. According to the Lebanon County planning office, T-Mobile is interested in building a 93-foot tower on commercially zoned property at 1610 N. 7th St.

A cell phone tower could bring an additional $700 to $1,500 per month to the township, said Dawn Hawkins, chairwoman of the supervisors.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Patriot-News, ROGER SANDS, 22 Jul 2007

Navajo Government Slows Cell Tower Construction
USA Created: 23 Jul 2007
Nearly eight years after the creation of plans to bring phone and Internet service to the Navajo reservation, thousands of households still lack access to phone service.

The reservation has one of the lowest rates of telephone connectivity in the country. Cell phones have helped bridge some of that gap, but service is still spotty.

Efforts to build cell phone towers across the reservation have been stymied by the tribal government.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: NPR, Daniel Kraker, 22 Jul 2007

Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed San Francisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network
USA Created: 21 Jul 2007
With the advent of this proposal, San Francisco is considering converting the city into a wireless zone - Whatever decision is made should be based on the best available scientific evidence. Wi-Fi simply has not been around long enough to know how these particular frequencies and intensities are likely to affect people who are exposed to them on a daily basis for years at a time.

San Francisco is on the forefront of a large population study with some unwilling participants.
The following pages present guidelines for radio frequency radiation in various countries; scientific studies that document the adverse effects of living near cell phone antennas (it is the closest we have to Wi-Fi antennas) for both humans and animals; and laboratory studies that demonstrate the harmful effects of radio frequency radiation. The levels showing adverse biological/health effects are compared to FCC guidelines and to calculations of likely exposure in San Francisco attributed to the Earthlink Wi-Fi Network as discussed in “Earthlink-Proposed San Francisco-Wide Wi-Fi Network: Observations and Calculations for Relation to Exposure Limits” prepared by Mitch Maifeld of Zenzic Research.

Many jurisdictions have had to deal with this issue and some of their recommendations regarding placement of radio frequency transmitters are also presented. While these apply to cell phone antennas they are relevant to Wi-Fi antennas. Physicians and scientists from around the world are asking governments to review the existing guidelines and to revisit the use of this technology to ensure its safety. These resolutions are summarized in the text and are presented in full in the Appendix.

Read the entire document (PDF format, 51 pages) at the source link below.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: SNAFU, 17 Jul 2007

«First  ‹Previous   Page 165 of 165 
 News item: