NO Cell Tower in Downtown Forestville!!

Verizon submitted an application with Sonoma County on November 10th for construction of a 75' cell tower with 12 antennas to be built on the Empire Mini Storage property in downtown Forestville. This is within one quarter mile (the area most at risk for adverse health effects) of many private residences, local businesses and schools. There is limited time for responses (December 1 deadline). Please let your friends and neighbors know and send comments/concerns to [email protected] regarding File Number UPE-14-0084.

https://www.forestvillefpa.org/post/...wn-forestville

*You have the right to fight against sustaining a loss to the value of your property as a result of the installation of a Cell Tower in close proximity.

*You have the right to protect yourself, your family, friends and neighbors against the dangers of Cell Tower collapse, which occurs more often than the average person realizes.

*You have the right to fight against having the installation of a Cell Tower adversely affect the character or aesthetics of your neighborhood.

*You also have a right to protect yourself, your family, friends and neighbors against the potential adverse health impacts associated with continued exposure to RF emissions from Cell Towers.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Nancy:

Verizon submitted an application with Sonoma County on November 10th for construction of a 75' cell tower .

---

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I think everyone in the west county should write the Sonoma county supervisors asking them to demand that ATT provide at least adequate service. If Verizon can put a cell tower in Forestville, why can't ATT service the West County. I have a house on a hill and would be happy, even pleased, to host a cell site from ATT (with appropriate rent of course). It seems that for some reason ATT has for years gotten away with substandard service in the West County. Why don't I switch? Company provided phone is ATT.

So, again, I applaud Verizon for fulfilling their obligation to ensure that the scarce bandwidth which they are allowed to exclusively use, is properly used for the benefit of their customers.

Oh, and if you are concerned about towers falling and RF radiation, how do you really even get out of bed, drive to the store, or work in an office or go trick-or-treating. All of these things are much more hazardous, but I know it is hopeless to challenge your religion. Unless you can get your god to talk directly to you cell phone, you can't get coverage without a cell tower.

P.S. Just wait till google puts cell towers on solar power drones! (no, really!).

Thanks for your response, but I think you (like most of the population) are unaware of the negative health effects of living and working near a cell tower. There are many residences, local businesses and a school in this area. According to studies done in Germany, Israel & Austria, the cancer rates increase 300% to 400% within a 1/4 mile radius. Not to mention the aesthetic impact and reduced property values. I'm not against cell towers, just against placing them in close proximity to homes, businesses and schools.

I think everyone in the county should write the Sonoma County supervisors asking them to regulate the placement of cell towers so that they have minimal impact on residents.

As for "getting out of bed, driving to the store, working in an office and going trick-or-treating", those are risks that people CHOOSE to take. This is not a risk that I have chosen. Where did you get your information that these things are "much more hazardous"?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by spam1:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I think everyone in the west county should write the Sonoma county supervisors asking them to demand that ATT provide at least adequate service. ...

---

Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Nancy:

Thanks for your response, but I think you (like most of the population) are unaware of the negative health effects of living and working near a cell tower... Where did you get your information that these things are "much more hazardous"?

---

No, I don't think I am unaware of the risks, in fact, I think I understand the risks very well, and that they are very low indeed. Where do I get my information: national cancer institute, for example: ( https://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/ne...maCellPhoneUse )
which says: U.S. population data show no increase in brain cancer rates during period of expanding cell phone use

And the rate of the main brain cancer cited as having a possible link to cell phones (that is, cell phone usage cannot be excluded as a possible cause, which is not the same as saying it is a probable cause of cancer) is on the order of 10,000 per 65 million (UK statistic that was easy to find) or 15 per 100k. That's cancer rate, not death rate. And it hasn't substantially changed.

The death rate for automobiles in the us is 33,000 / 300,000,000 or 11/100k; that's death rate. So you say "well they choose to drive, different case". OK, how about injury and death rates of pedestrians 22/100k and 1.5/100k. They just chose to leave their house!

--by your logic, we should ban all autos because they are dangerous to non-auto uses (and in fact they are).

You say "I don't want a cell phone, so I don't want a tower, and I don't care that no one else gets cell phone coverage either". You have the right to say that, but I also have the right to show that your reasoning is ridiculous. I know, it sounds pejorative, but in fact it is ridiculous in the literal sense: subject to ridicule.

I will grant you there has been several (3 that I found) tower collapses but there have also been building collapses, bridge collapses (remember Minnesota?) that no one asked for either. That I could find, there has been only 1 death of a non-tower worker (who I guess would know the risks) which was a first responder to a collapse. Firemen die in fires caused by candles: should all candles be banned to protect firefighters? If not them , then why cell towers?

Just out of curiosity: do you use homeopathic remedies?

1) I'm not talking about cell phone use, but cell phone towers, and living and working in close proximity to them.

2) I never said: "I don't want a cell phone, so I don't want a tower, and I don't care that no one else gets cell phone coverage either" as you quoted me. I own a cell phone.

What I actually said (if you go back and re-read my reply) was: “I'm not against cell towers, just against placing them in close proximity to homes, businesses and schools.” I never mentioned banning them as you suggest I did. Relocating to a less densely populated area would be preferable.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Nancy:

1) I'm not talking about cell phone use, but cell phone towers, and living and working in close proximity to them.

---

Cell phones transmit at 2W, fields decrease as R squared, so at 1 foot distance the field strength is 22W/M^2
Cell towers transmit at 50W, times twelve for antenna gain for an effective radiated power (ERP) of 600 W. At a distance of 30 feet, the field strength is 6W/M^2, about 1/4 of cell phone power. If you're not afraid of cell phones, how is a lower strength tower signal any worse? Except, of course, if the tower falls on you (so just don't walk next to the tower).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Nancy:

2) I never said: "I don't ..either" as you quoted me. I own a cell phone.
What I actually said (if you go back and re-read my reply) was: “I'm not against cell towers, just against placing them in close proximity to homes, businesses and schools.” I never mentioned banning them as you suggest I did. Relocating to a less densely populated area would be preferable.

---

sounds to me like you just don't want to look at one. Understandable, but they aren't that noticeable (drive by H&M landscape to see theirs). If it's hidden in a church steeple, you wouldn't even see it.

If you own a cell phone, and use it, then what logical reason can you be against a tower? You are either hypocritical or duplicitous in posting links to kook science claiming adverse health effects when you don't believe it (or you wouldn't use a cell phone). Unless you are truly afraid of tower falling on someone.

Most likely I guess you just don't want a change in your view. Or, do you own some land that you wanted to have a cell tower put on, but the phone company chose a different parcel and now you're losing out on rent? Something really doesn't add up in your attempt to block improving the cell phone infrastructure in the west county.

Quote:

---

Most likely I guess you just don't want a change in your view. Or, do you own some land that you wanted to have a cell tower put on, but the phone company chose a different parcel and now you're losing out on rent? Something really doesn't add up in your attempt to block improving the cell phone infrastructure in the west county.

---

I don't see why that inference is necessary. There are plenty of people who balance the risks differently; not necessarily consistently or rigorously but that's not what you're saying here.

There are rational arguments against accepting the risks of emf, even without going so far as believing that there are electro-sensitive people who can feel immediate effects of emf fields. Personally, I'm not impressed by them, but they're not ridiculously far-fetched. Not like the idea that the moon's going to suck all the water out from underneath boats moored too near shore, leaving them stranded. As if that ever happens.

Thank you.
I use my cell phone infrequently and take additional precautions to minimize my exposure when I do. No other wireless devices in my home -- telephone landline/no cordless phone, cable internet connection, no satellite dish.

There are experts in this field all around the globe. Here is one international source for scientific information:
https://www.bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Nancy:

Thank you.
I use my cell phone infrequently and take additional precautions to minimize my exposure when I do. No other wireless devices in my home -- telephone landline/no cordless phone, cable internet connection, no satellite dish.

There are experts in this field all around the globe. Here is one international source for scientific information:
https://www.bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/

---

You might take the time to read some of the papers, and even better, read the papers that cite the papers in the list as I have just done (hint: use scholar.google.com). The results are not what you might expect as in a paper from Tokyo Univ which concludes a study of EHS with:

"The MPRS group did not differ from the controls in their ability to detect exposure to EMF; nevertheless they consistently experienced more discomfort, regardless of whether or not they were actually exposed to EMF, and despite the lack of significant changes in their autonomic functions. Thus, the two groups did not differ in their responses to real or sham EMF exposure according to any psychological, cognitive or autonomic assessment. In conclusion, we found no evidence of any causal link between hypersensitivity symptoms and exposure to EMF from base stations."

There aren't a lot of double blind studies, but every one I reviewed (perhaps half a dozen from your reference list) shows the same results; no relation to symptoms of EHS whether with sham or real RF signals.

Indeed, one of your references makes the proposal that the largest experiment in history is going on with 6.9Billion subjects, which I would agree with. And if there was even a tenuous link to negative effects (other than distracted walking, driving etc), some evidence of it would have appeared. Yet it hasn't.

Further, since handheld cell phones produce much higher fields than base stations, it seems clear that worrying about base station RF radiation (or smart meters) in the face of so many much higher risks in life, is not very rational.