News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 172 of 172 

Champlin rejects cell phone tower
USA Created: 13 Jun 2007
The City Council turned down a request to build a tower in Andrews Park after citizens protested the proposal.

A group of Champlin residents who were opposed to T-Mobile building a cell phone tower in Andrews Park got their wish when the City Council denied a conditional use permit for the project.
Residents spoke out against a proposed 100-foot monopole tower in the city park at the May 30 City Council meeting.

Cindy Schmalz, who has lived next to Andrews Park for seven years, said she and her husband did not want to see a cell tower there.

"It's a really, really busy park," she said. "It wouldn't be a safe thing for kids to have it in the park."

While several City Council members expressed concern over the location of the proposed tower, they ultimately voted against it because T-Mobile had not presented a proper lease agreement.

Champlin Mayor Mark Uglem said the decision was based on making sure proper procedure was followed but that he was aware that several residents opposed the idea.

"I'm not so sure that parks are the best spot to put those," he said, adding, "(Cities) need to find a compatible land use area for cell phone towers."

He said city officials will start looking into where the best locations are for cell towers.

Schmalz said she hopes the city creates an ordinance that makes it more difficult for cell phone towers to be located in city parks.

T-Mobile officials did take into consideration how a tower would affect the park but they thought it would blend in with the existing 70-foot-light poles, said Eric Engen, a development manager for the company.

"We have to locate these wireless communication facilities in the areas they serve," he said. "We have great coverage in the area, and we're just trying to stay ahead of the curve."

Engen said the company will begin to look at other options for a cell tower in the area.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Star Tribune, Lora Pabst, 12 Jun 2007

Cell tower debate stalls
USA Created: 13 Jun 2007
EDMOND — This time it was a case of "Not In My Front Yard" Opponents and backers of a proposed 135-foot tall cell tower near Edmond Memorial High School squared off Monday during Edmond City Council’s meeting.

Attorney Dennis Box, representing T-Mobile, said his client was proposing a tower be built west of the school on property owned by Le Hien Nguyen at 1501 Edgewood Drive. Box introduced a radio frequency engineer, a property appraiser and a real estate manager for T-Mobile to explain why placing the tower there is the most reasonable option.

“It’s the only site that works for us,” Box said. He told the council the Edmond Public Schools would not work with his client on placing the tower closer to Edmond Memorial High School or Central Middle School. He also said he was not able to convince the YMCA to work with T-Mobile.

But Nguyen’s neighbors came prepared to make their own presentation against the tower.

Jim Forsythe, who lives 138 feet from the proposed tower location, said he had two main reasons for objecting to the tower. “It’s ugly and you might have heard the urban legend about cell towers and sub-stations causing cancer. I don’t have to be convinced that it’s not true. But the person that is going to buy my house will have to be convinced.”

Dana Holden, a manager of T-Mobile, said the tower would provide better service. “This is the most requested location for improved service,” she said.

But Forsythe said he has had T-Mobile service for eight years and has not had trouble with dropped calls.

Jennifer Gilliland said she would be stuck looking out her backyard and seeing a tower if the council approved the plan.

Box said if the council turned down the request, the federal telecommunications law allows a state or federal court to overturn a local zoning decision to reject a tower if the decision has the effect of prohibiting the provision of cell phone service. He said if the council turned the plan away it would have to state its reasons in writing to the FCC.

The Special Use Permit was received March 1, prior to the effective date of the city’s completely revamped Title 22 Zoning Ordinance. Under the new Title 22, a cell tower only can be placed on property zoned E-O Commercial or higher, City Planner Bob Schiermeyer said.

Under the advice of Mayor Dan O’Neil, Box will work with city staff to find alternative locations for the tower and bring a proposal back to council on July 23.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Edmond Sun, John A. Williams, 11 Jun 2007

Letter from Dr George Carlo to the UK press
USA Created: 13 Jun 2007
Dear Sirs,
The row that has erupted over the well-done Panorama documentary [1] entitled "WiFi: A Warning Signal" leaves me appalled by the insensitive, mean-spirited and factually incorrect responses that have been put forth by various industry apologists. The premise that patients suffering from symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity are misinformed hypochondriacs, reeks of the adage: "Those who are saying don't know; and those who know, aren't saying."? The industry apologists do not know. It is time for those who know to speak up.

For the past five years, through our Safe Wireless Initiative project, we have operated the only post-market surveillance database in the world systematically collecting symptom information from thousands of patients suffering from the effects of various forms of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). In addition, we coordinate a network of clinicians who regularly share information about their experiences treating patients with these conditions, another important and unique resource. Thus, we do not rely solely on self-reported information but have corroboration from treating doctors. It is noteworthy that our health concerns registry will open in the UK through a new local Safe Wireless Initiative branch within the month. This is an important public health step because in the UK, there are absolutely no reliable data on the incidence and prevalence of EMR-related conditions. Thus, speculations are all the more misinformed, but clarity is forthcoming.

In the Safe Wireless Initiative, we have a number of scientific papers in various stages of the peer-review process expected to be published by year'€™s end addressing this emerging medical problem. However, in the interim we continue to share summary information from our registry database in various fora around the world, including a February 2007 presentation at the House of Commons, for the benefit of clinicians and patients alike.

Overall, our data show the following:
There are symptom and pathology similarities among patients suffering from electro-hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivities, alcohol-related disease as well as neuro-behavioral and learning disorders. We refer to the symptom constellations as Membrane Sensitivity Syndrome (MSS) and the increase in reports of symptoms consistent with MSS associated by patients with various EMR exposures has dramatically increased over the past 24 months. It is noteworthy that concurrently in the past 24 months, the penetration of mobile phones has tripled globally, from one billion to three billion. WiFi has reached the highest penetration in history. Satellite radio is not far behind. All of these technologies rely on information-carrying radio waves, the trigger for non-thermal adverse biological responses and the cascade toward MSS. In a majority of MSS cases, when EMR is removed from the patient'€™s environment, their acute symptoms subside. This is an important observation and indeed represents one of the Koch-Henle postulates for causation: If when the exposure is removed, the effect is diminished, there is evidence for cause and effect. Pathology and experimental findings support a mechanistic underpinning: an environmentally induced genetic change that renders daughter cells to carry membrane sensitivity characteristics with most symptoms directly or indirectly the result of consequent disrupt of intercellular communication. Therapeutic intervention regimens designed around known EMR mechanisms of harm have positively shown varying degrees of clinical symptom amelioration, another support for the causal hypothesis, but more importantly, a ray of hope for those afflicted and debilitated by these conditions.

It is a fact that every serious public health problem man has faced has first been identified through clinical observations, the historically confirmed first line of evidence for preventing epidemic spread of disease. It is a disservice to the public when uninformed speculation serves to lessen the acuity with which important early signs that can save lives are seen and heeded.

[1] BBC 21-5-07 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6683969.stm

Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
http://www.sppionline.org
http://www.safewireless.org
202-756-7744
Source: Dr. George Carlo, Safe Wireless Initiative, 12 Jun 2007, info from w-a-r-t

Qwest encourages landline phones for emergencies
USA Created: 10 Jun 2007
High-tech debate: Company, some emergency services say land phones more reliable; cell providers disagree

BOISE — Qwest Communications will bring its “Connect for Safety” campaign, which encourages people to own corded landline phones for emergencies, to the Treasure Valley during Emergency Preparedness Week.

At the end of the week, on June 23 and 24, Qwest representatives will give away 500 free corded landline phones to area residents at the Qwest Solutions Center in the Boise Towne Square mall. Qwest is the main provider of landline telephone service in Southwest Idaho.

Qwest spokesman Bob Gravely said corded landline phones are better for emergencies than cordless, cellular and Internet phones because they usually continue functioning during power outages and make it easier for emergency services personnel to locate the caller.

But Verizon Wireless spokesman Bob Kelley argued that cell phones are also important safety tools because people are more likely to have them on hand in case of emergency, emergency services can easily locate newer models with GPS coordinates regardless of where the caller is, and in some cases disaster-stricken areas will recover cellular service long before they recover landline service.
Additionally, 911 can be dialed from any cell phone in range of a tower regardless of whether or not it is activated, whereas landlines can only be used to call 911 if phone service has been purchased.

According to a study released in April by consumer researchers at Telephia, 49 percent of households that have moved within the past year have chosen something other than traditional landline service as have 27 percent of those that have not moved recently.

A large number of those who do still subscribe to landlines have switched to cordless phones, Gravely said.
Gravely said Qwest launched the safety campaign, which began last year and has included a telephone giveaway at an Idaho Steelheads playoff ice hockey game, because of these trends in the market.

“What we’ve found,” Gravely said, “is that so many people now either have a cordless phone or they have moved to using a cell phone only that they have forgotten that a regular old corded phone that plugs into your wall is still the best way to make calls from your home when there is a power outage. ... If you have a cordless phone and the power goes out, you’re out of luck.”

Power poses problems
Gravely added that if a cellular phone’s battery runs out, it would be difficult to charge during a power outage, but Verizon’s Kelley suggested that most users have phone adapters in their cars which provide them with a sort of ad-hoc emergency generator.

Brandi Creamer with Ada County Paramedics agreed that a landline might be preferable during a power outage, as did Lorraine Elfering, Canyon County sheriff’s dispatch communications manager.

Creamer also said it would be easier to locate people calling from a landline, because the address the call is coming from automatically pops up on the enhanced 911 system used by most services in the valley.
Phase 2 of the Enhanced 911 system allows emergency services to pinpoint newer cell phones using GPS and other techniques.

Ada County already has such a system and, according to Elfering, Canyon County hopes to have one in place later this summer.

Even with the new system, Creamer said customers should probably keep a landline phone handy because “GPS has its limitations with accuracy” and in rural areas enhanced technology may not always be available.
“For security purposes alone, just to ensure that their call makes it through and they’re located,” she said, “I’d have to say that (having a landline) is very important.”

Elfering agreed.

“I would still recommend that a landline be available,” she said. “It’s important that you have backup systems.”
Responders join effort

Ada County Paramedics and the National Emergency Number Association, which works to improve the 911 system, both support Qwest’s campaign.

Gravely said he was not suggesting that anybody abandon their cellular or Internet phone — Qwest is one of many providers for both services — but that they should just not abandon their landline phone.
Kelley extolled the virtues of mobile phones — especially those of his company, Verizon Wireless — in emergencies.

“We have a stellar record of staying on the air,” he said. “Oftentimes in case of power loss, especially in cases of big storms or hurricanes or tornadoes ... wireless technology remains the most reliable form of communication that is still on the air.”

He said that Verizon cellular towers, much like Qwest landlines, are supported by backup power from batteries or generators. He added that Verizon also has mobile cellular towers that can be moved into an area hours after disaster strikes.
According to Kelley, “virtually all” Verizon devices now in use work with the second phase Enhanced 911 systems for easy GPS caller location.

“Any wireless handset that we’ve sold since December 2003 is equipped to with a GPS chip,” he said. Other cell phone providers couldn’t be reached for comment.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Idaho press, Andrew Van Dam, 09 Jun 2007

Community opposes cell tower
USA Created: 10 Jun 2007
BENSALEM - T-Mobile said it is reconsidering plans for a cell tower and generators in Neshaminy Valley after fierce opposition from surrounding homeowners.

The cell phone company was scheduled to appear at Thursday night's Bensalem Zoning Hearing Board meeting. At least 80 people from the neighborhood packed the meeting hall. But the developer wasn't there. The company has its eye on a property off Declaration Drive near the Neshaminy Creek. Neighbors said that was too close to their homes, a day care center and summer camp.

“We don't want a large tower in our backyards, nor can I imagine anyone would want one — including the parents whose children go to the Cherokee Day Camp,” said Susan Berger of Alden Court.

In a letter read at the start of the meeting, T-Mobile's attorney William Benner asked for a “general extension” so that T-Mobile might try to find another location for its tower and generators.

The zoning hearing board awarded the developer a 60-day extension. If T-Mobile can't find another location, it will have to come back before the zoning board on Aug. 6.

Board members ordered T-Mobile to send notices to all adjoining property owners giving them at least 30 days notice of any hearing. Zoning board meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. in the town hall, 2400 Byberry Road.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Bucks County Courier Times, JAMES MCGINNIS, 08 Jun 2007

Community fights plan for phone tower at school
USA Created: 10 Jun 2007
Lawmakers, activists upset they weren't consulted

Angry about a decision they say was made without community consultation, local legislators and advocates are pressing the Baltimore County school board to scrap plans for a cell phone tower to be built at Randallstown High School -- a project that would pump an estimated $450,000 into the school system.

State Sen. Bobby A. Zirkin said he plans to submit legislation designed to ban cell phone towers from school properties in the county and will file an injunction, if necessary, to stop construction of the 110-foot tower at Randallstown High on Offutt Road.

"Please be advised that I hope to make any plans related to your cell phone tower project at Randallstown High School illegal," Zirkin wrote in a June 1 letter to county schools Superintendent Joe A. Hairston. "I will be doing everything in my power to stop this project."

Community advocates say they are worried about health risks and safety hazards -- concerns they say they were unable to express to the school board.

"The way they went about it was hush-hush," community activist Ella White Campbell said. "I was not aware that it came before the planning board and the school board."

County Councilman Kenneth N. Oliver, whose 4th District includes Randallstown, said yesterday that he would support Zirkin's legislation to prohibit similar projects. He added that while the council has no procedural recourse to stop the Randallstown project, he hopes the school board will reconsider its plans.

"They should stop this process and talk to the community," Oliver said. "I hope the school system itself will cancel the contract, or try to cancel it, and not put any cell towers on any county properties, especially schools."

Resident Aaron Plymouth's appeal of the county zoning board's decision to permit the tower is pending after a hearing last month. Both sides are expected to file legal briefs by next Friday, according to Plymouth, former president of the Parent Teacher Student Association at Randallstown High.

State Sen. Delores G. Kelley and Campbell plan to meet, perhaps as early as next week, with Hairston to discuss their concerns.

"We want to make sure this never happens again," Campbell, executive director of the Liberty Road Community Council, an umbrella organization of community groups in the Liberty Road corridor, said yesterday.

Through a school system spokeswoman, Hairston said yesterday that he "is interested in listening to multiple voices in the community."

Some in the community are concerned about the possible effects of the electrical energy emitted from a tower.

In the Baltimore area, neither Harford nor Anne Arundel County has cell phone towers on school properties. Carroll County's director of facilities, Ray Prokop, said that to the best of his knowledge, the school system has no towers, but the local municipalities are permitted to place them atop water towers that are on school grounds.

In Baltimore County, at least one school, Fullerton Elementary, has a cell phone tower on its property, according to community leaders. But schools spokeswoman Kara Calder said yesterday that school officials could not confirm this.

In September 2005, the county school board agreed to lease property at Randallstown High to T-Mobile so the company could build the cell phone tower near the school's tennis court. The 25-year lease agreement requires T-Mobile to pay the school system $1,500 a month. The tower would be mounted atop an existing light stand and would be surrounded by fencing, though not an electrified fence as some community leaders had been told, according to T-Mobile spokeswoman Jane Builder. She added that the tower could be built within two weeks of the resolution of the legal issues.

Minutes from an August 2004 school board meeting -- when members agreed to allow T-Mobile to conduct a feasibility study, which included soil testing -- indicate that the board did not plan to seek community opinion.

When school board member Joy Shillman asked whether the community would be consulted, Don Krempel, who was then executive director for Physical Facilities for the school system, "responded since the cell tower would be on school property, the community would not have input," according to the minutes from the meeting Aug. 10, 2004.

Campbell said residents are worried because the tower is expected to be built near the school's tennis court, baseball field and parking lot. She said that because area residents often visit the school for recreational purposes, people could be injured if they climb into the fenced-in area to chase after balls near the tower.

Zirkin, who said he testified at last month's appeal before the zoning board, added that the school board's action illustrates his concerns that the panel is unresponsive to the community.

"They believe the schools belong to the school system, not the community," he said. "There was no public notice whatsoever. If they had done so, they would know that the community was opposed."
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Balitmore Sun, Gina Davis, 08 Jun 2007

If Tower Arrives, Washington Could Be Part of a Key Study
USA Created: 8 Jun 2007
WASHINGTON-The town may soon become one of the first communities in America to take part in a groundbreaking epidemiology study researching the effect of cell towers on human health.

The study is being coordinated by the EMR Policy Institute, a national nonprofit environmental advocacy group, and Dr. Chris Busby, director of the United Kingdom-based independent scientific research group Green Audit, and a fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology.
The study hinges on a controversial proposal to build a freestanding cell tower in town being approved. Washington currently does not have a freestanding cell tower within its borders.
Verizon Wireless proposed erecting a tower this spring on one of two possible sites in the Marbledale section of town. Both of the sites are privately owned.

According to Verizon, the cell tower would bring Verizon Wireless service to the heavily-traveled Route 202 corridor and cover an area of approximately one-and-a-half miles.
Verizon's proposal is scheduled to go before the Connecticut Siting Council, the entity that has sole authority over cell tower placement, on June 21 at Washington's Bryan Memorial Town Hall. A test balloon to simulate the visual impact the proposed 157-foot-tall tower, will also take place June 21.
Although the state Siting Council has ultimate authority over cell tower placement, which is not subject to local land-use regulations, the town has filed as an intervenor in the case. The town has hired attorney Stephen Smart to represent it at the Siting Council's hearings, and has commissioned radio frequency engineer Walter Cooper.

The town's Conservation Commission and its Cell Tower Committee have also enlisted noted radio frequency radiation (RF) consultant and former New York Times medical and science journalist, B. Blake Levitt, who is also a Warren resident. In addition, the town recently conducted a town-wide survey, asking residents their thoughts on the cell tower issue.
After the Siting Council's hearing, it may take several months before a final decision is reached by the authority.
If the tower is approved, the study will commence, surveying residents who live both near the tower and those who live within lateral exposure of the tower, meaning at the same elevation as the cellular transmitters.
These residents will be asked to voluntarily participate in the confidential study. Participants will be surveyed both before the tower is built and after the tower is in operation. They will be asked questions like, "In the last few weeks have you suffered from any of the following: headache, memory changes, depression, blurred vision, sleep disturbance ... " etc.

It is the first study of its kind in the United States and researchers say the data collected will be invaluable to the overall research on cell towers and human health. They hope to conduct similar surveys in other communities. In fact, running concurrently to the planned Washington study, communities in Pennsylvania and New York are also partaking in the study.
Cell towers and other wireless transmitters emit certain amounts of radiation. Because radiation is hazardous to living organisms, based on frequency, intensity and other factors, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets limits on how much radiation can be emitted from cell towers. The FCC's standards are based on the thermal effects of radiation, or, in basic terms, how much radiation the human body can sustain before it begins to "cook."
But some scientists and opponents of the guidelines argue that the FCC's standards are incomplete, obsolete and may potentially be endangering public health. They contend radiation's non-thermal effects also need to be considered. Some claim the constant, low level, non-thermal radiation emitted by transmitters like cell towers, causes a variety of health issues-everything from sleep disorders, depression and memory loss to more serious disorders like autism, cancers, stunted brain development in children, infertility problems, Alzheimer's disease and DNA breakdown.
In addition to the human health effects, some scientists also note that this radiation is having a deeply disturbing effect on wildlife. Some scientists have blamed non-thermal radiation and the proliferation of cellular transmitters over the last decade for the decline in certain species of birds and frogs, for example.

Critics of the FCC's policy say the agency's oversight is riddled with holes. First of all, the FCC is not a human health or environmental agency, and therefore, some argue, the FCC cannot, and should not, solely oversee radiation issues. They also claim the FCC's guidelines are based on outdated research and do not take into account any health impact studies conducted past the mid-1980s. Nor has there been any federal funding for non-thermal radiation studies for years.
Once a transmitter is in place, there is "essentially no oversight" to ensure wireless companies are complying with the federal guidelines, said Ms. Levitt. "It's an honor system," she said. "Broadcast companies are constantly found out of compliance and are fined. Basically, it's one big free-for-all."
Further complicating the issue is the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which prohibits state and local governments from denying a cell tower application based on health concerns. "There is a regulatory void," said Janet Newton, president of the Vermont-based EMR Policy Institute. "The federal government took away state and local rights to consider the health effects ... and yet they're not doing it themselves ... you can't find what you're not looking for."
"[Wireless companies] will say cell towers and cell phones have not been proven unsafe, but they haven't been proven safe either," said Debra Avery, a Washington resident and secretary/treasurer of the EMR Policy Institute. She noted that even big insurance companies, notably Lloyds of London, have refused to insure cell companies, presumably because the health effects are yet unknown.
Ms. Avery joined the cell tower debate several years ago, after a telecommunication company proposed placing equipment within the steeple of a church near her home in New Preston. The proposal prompted her to research the possible effects wireless communication equipment might have on her family, specifically her children. What she discovered astounded her, and led her to become a public health and policy advocate. The cell tower at the church was later defeated on a technicality.
"Scientists all over the world are coming to the same conclusion," she said in reference to the Benevento Resolution, created when a number of the world's leading scientists met in Benevento, Italy, in 2006 to sign a resolution calling for a slowdown of the wireless build-out until the health effects of wireless radiation can be fully researched.
According to experts in the field, Europe is far ahead of America in wireless research and policy, and many European nations have much stricter guidelines for radiation emissions. However, a number of school systems and universities across the nation have put a moratorium on erecting cell towers on school property.
In addition, The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), the largest professional first-responder organization in the U.S. and Canada, called for a moratorium on cell towers in firehouses. In a press release issued by the IAFF, Lieut. Ron Cronin of the Brookline, Mass., Fire Department stated, "Some firefighters with cell towers currently located on their stations are experiencing symptoms that put our first responders at risk. It is important to be sure we understand what effects these towers may have on the firefighters living in these stations ... ."
Part of the EMR Policy Institute's mission is to foster research on the effects of wireless transmitters on human and environmental health, as well as advocate for responsible governmental policy. The organization has brought two cases the U.S. Supreme Court and last month held a congressional staff briefing in Washington D.C.

People all over the country contact the EMR Policy Institute for information and support in fighting cell tower applications in their neighborhoods. "The problem is," said Ms. Avery, "people living near these towers are being exposed to this without their consent. It's like second-hand smoke-you can't control where it's going. We are essentially sacrificing a portion of the world's population for convenience, so people can have their cell service."
Exposure without consent is one of the biggest issues in this debate. According to Ms. Levitt, a few cases have been brought before the U.S. courts over "electronic trespassing."
On Verizon Wireless' Web site regarding RF radiation, the company states, "Scientific research on the subject of wireless phones and radio frequency ("RF") energy has been conducted worldwide for many years, and continues. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") set policies and procedures for wireless phones. The FDA and the FCC have created a joint Web site, "Cell Phone Facts-Consumer Information on Wireless Phones," which states that "[t]he available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones," while noting that "[t]here is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe."
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Litchfield County Times, Rebecca Ransom, 07 Jun 2007

Dr. George Carlo on Bee Colony Collapse Disorder
USA Created: 5 Jun 2007
A question to Dr Carlo on electromagnetic radiation and Bee Colony Collapse Disorder.

Dear Dr. Carlo:

I have read recently in Salon.com that the theory that bees are disappearing because of exposure to EMR is not supported by any science. You were on Good Morning America supporting that theory. Who is correct?

Carol H
Amherst, MA

Dear Carol:

Unfortunately, the situation with the bees is a page out of the playbook that we deal with all the time with the mobile phone industry. When the bee story first broke, it was based on a German study that showed information carrying radio waves disrupted the ability of bees to make it back to their hives. That work was made public about two months ago. There were other data to support it as well. You can see some of that on our SWI website - note especially an exceptionally insightful article by Milt Bowling posted there.

The news media ran with the story, bolstered a great deal by a quote attributed to Albert Einstein something along these lines: 'watch the bees. when they disappear, man will disappear within four years'......The mobile phone industry was caught off-guard by the widespread media attention the story garnered.

After the first news cycle, the mobile phone industry 'hit squad' went into action.
First, they planted stories that cast doubt on the Einstein quote.
Never before have I seen such a desperate attempt to distance a quote from a figure as revered as Albert Einstein. In the process, his name was besmerched. Very sad.
Next, they conscripted scientists from a number of universities to begin going public with other explanations...viruses, bacteria, pesticides etc., etc., etc..
These alternatives have been making the rounds over the past month.
The mobile phone industry is putting quite a bit of money into the pockets of these scientists by supporting their work regarding viruses and alternative explanations.
The industry is dealing with it as a politics and public relations problem....thus, manipulation of the public perception is the appropriate remedy for them. Sadly, this is business as usual for the mobile phone industry.

Most people in the public don't know the back story, so they do not see the manipulation coming or have the necessary bases for skepticism to see through it. But here is the bottom line:

The Colony Collapse Disorder has occurred concurrently on four continents within a very short time frame.
If the reason was biological or chemical, there would be a pattern of epidemic spread....we would be able to trace the spread of bee disappearance or Colony Collapse Disorder from a source similar to the spread of SARS a few years ago. That is not the case. The condition has hit each continent at roughly the same time. That would mean the cause has to have hit the continents at the same time as well. Mobile phones meet that criterion.

None of the biological or chemical hypotheses actually have a mechanistic explanation that is plausible. The science for the biological and chemical alternatives is far thinner than the science supporting the EMR connection. A case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The disruption of intercellular communication hypothesis that we now know effects cell membranes in most species is biologically plausible...and no other theory has that support.

The basis for a biological mechanism, coupled with the saturation in information carrying radio waves we have globally in the past 14 months, provides the underpinning. In 2004, we had the first billion cell phone users globally, the accumulation over 20 years; by mid 2006, we had the second billion; today we have surpassed three billion. That suggests we are near a saturation point of these waves in the ambient environment. The bees are likely the harbinger or the proverbial 'canaries in the coal mine'.

Taken together, EMR is the only explanation that makes sense regarding the disappearing bees: the timing is correct -- the problem has occurred primarily within the past two years....when we have nearly tripled the background level of information carrying radio waves; the pattern is global so that suggests a cause that is globally present; there is at least one peer-reviewed study that supports it, and there is a mechanism documented that lends biological plausibility.

In our view, this is a serious 'red flag' of risk that should be heeded. This is yet another example of mobile phone industry orchestration aimed at distracting the public from data that can save lives.

___________________
Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
www.sppionline.org
202-756-7744
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Dr .George Carlo, safewireless initiative, info from Prof. Paul Doyon

Cell tower plan sparks concerns
USA Created: 2 Jun 2007
Verizon Wireless wants to build a 150-foot cell phone tower in Hilltown to correct gaps in the company's service area, but the plan caused some residents to ring in with concerns.

Several residents near the proposed site at Hilltown Pike and Route 152 attended a hearing Thursday night on the plans to ask questions about the need for a new tower, visual aesthetics and the effect on neighboring land, including an equestrian facility on the property.

The tower, which would be built on a 19-acre property off Hilltown Pike and placed between two barns, would be erected in a wooded area within a 50-by-30-foot fenced-in compound. On top of the tower would be a 10-foot lightning rod and next to the pole would be a 12-by-30-foot equipment shelter.

Verizon consultant Jim Rogers said at the hearing before township supervisors that the telecommunications company identifies problem areas within its system and found a gap in coverage in the Leidytown section of Hilltown.

“We're doing a lot of infill sites now because of capacity issues and coverage issues,” he said.

The company considered placing an antenna on a nearby water tank used by Nextel, but it did not correct the problem. Additionally, a Peco Energy Co. tower was ruled out because Verizon would have no control over correcting problems there.

“We're not in the business to try to build towers,” said Rogers, who said it's a costly proposition.

The tower would be built on a property that houses an equestrian academy and one resident expressed concern the lightning rod would increase the lightning strikes and spook the animals.

Bill Stahl, who lives on Hilltown Pike, asked if the tower could be painted to help it blend better into the background. “I'm the guy sitting on my deck seeing a 150-foot tower.”

Besides Verizon, the tower could support antennas from up to three other service providers.

John Levy, who lives on Route 152 near the proposed site, seemed to favor the idea, saying “I want better service from my company. So put it up.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Intelligencer, HILARY BENTMAN, 01 Jun 2007

Trees and steeples doing double duty
USA Created: 1 Jun 2007
Service providers disguise cell phone towers
The next time you're in the hunt for a cell phone connection, don't look for a tower - Search for a tree - Or church steeple - Or flag rod - Or a pole that looks like street or stadium lights.

They're all covers for cell phone towers -- and examples of these "stealth towers" prevalent in the southern Mecklenburg region.

At N.C. 51 near the Cedarwood Golf Course in the Arboretum area, a pole with canisters around it looks like a light post.

Off Interstate 485 and Lawyers Road, a faux tree soars above its real peers within view of the Stevens Mill Crossing shopping center in Stallings.

Even the bell tower at Sharon Baptist Church came with the assist of a cell phone company, which offered the structure to place its antenna there.

It's all spurred by the boom in cell phone users in recent years. More than 25 million joined the wireless ranks in just the last year, according to CTIA-The Wireless Association, a nonprofit industry group.

As more carriers sought to put up towers, Charlotte city planners changed the ordinance around 2002 to change standards for new towers, said city planner Keith MacVean.

The ordinance notes that a tower should be integrated so that "it no longer appears to be a wireless communication tower." It could be located in other towers on buildings, in steeples, or disguised as trees, reads the ordinance.

Carriers also want to try to fit in with growing suburban and rural areas, said Anand Gandhi, director of network system performance for Verizon Wireless, which has examples of the tree and light poles around town.

"The further you get away from an urban setting, it's more beneficial to do these other types of towers," Gandhi said. "You can go higher with them and they fit in more with the area."

Stealth towers aren't cheap.

While traditional towers built on grassy fields can run about $225,000, a camouflaged tower of a different design could cost 20 to 40 percent more, said Rose Cummings, spokesperson for SunCom Wireless.

Stealth towers are spurring debate around the country on their different variations -- like palm trees in warmer climates; clock towers; even the shape of a cross on church buildings.

Their look launches talk that the masks don't fool everyone. Among the jabs on tree towers found in a quick Internet search: "Frankenpines," "sham shrubs," "mascara brush."

One of Charlotte's newest stealth towers is SunCom's pine tree off East Mallard Creek Church Road in north Charlotte, which went up in 2006 without much attention in a style dictated by the city, Cummings said.

The trick, said Cummings, is fitting in with the environment as much as possible.

Not, "Oak tree, oak tree, oak tree, gigantic pine tree, oak tree ..."

Why Towers Are Rising

Here are numbers from CTIA-The Wireless Association, an international nonprofit group that represents all forms of wireless communication. Figures are based on U.S. providers as of December 2006:

The number of estimated wireless subscribers, up more than 25 million from the year before:
233,040,781

The number of cell sites in the U.S. (Multiple sites could be on one tower):
195,613

Average monthly bill:
$50.56
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Charlotte Observer, CELESTE SMITH, 31 May 2007

«First  ‹Previous   Page 172 of 172 
 News item: