Subject: Antenna Siting Fights (Carollin).
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 125545 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------
.......From EMF-L.......
Bonnie Carollin has very well stated (BELOW) the problems that many
of you are encountering "out there" against the $$$$$$$$. Can you
improve your capabilities by combining and sharing resources (lawyers,
expert witnesses, etc.) -- as well as information???
Before leaving this subject, allow me (once again) to make the point
that I think is most important in these situations -- it is NOT the
one tower with a few dipoles and a transponder that is going up NOW
... that is the real problem......!!!
The REAL problem is what will be **added** in the future!!! And what
technological changes (like the more dangerous pulsed and/or digital
transmissions) that will come in the future...... All of which you
will have no control over -- once the tower is up......
By now you must have realized that the telecom companies like to
present evidence and DEBATE about that ONE "teeny weeny" low-powered
transponder that they are wanting to put up now.....!!! If you allow
them to control the debate on that basis, you are wasting your money
and the expertise of your expert witnesses..... You MUST make the courts ...
and the press ... and the public ... understand that this is a THING
THAT GROWS AND CHANGES ITS CHARACTER!!!!!!
Ask the folks at Lookout Mountain ... or at Sutro Tower.....
It is difficult to make a strong case against one little "teeny weeny"
transponder...... But that **is not** the issue..... The issue is:
WHAT ARE YOU OPENING THE DOOR TO??? (EVEN THE COMPANY CAN'T SAY FOR
CERTAIN ABOUT THAT!!!)
Cheerio.......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFIT$$$$
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Antenna Siting Fights
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:12:39 EST
From: Katnip364@aol.com
To: guru@emfguru.com
Roy,
As our group enters its 8th month in fighting an antenna site in the church
steeple next door to my home, I find that we need to have in our arsenal
expert witnesses.
I am sure that everyone on this board who is facing or will face (and we all
will -sometime) a fight at our local zoning boards has found the plethora of
expert witnesses that the Telco's put forth as "gospel". In every case I
have read or experienced the difference in winning is the strength and
credentials of the "expert witnesses".
These witnesses are extremely expensive for most of us. The telco's
vehemently object to anything submitted from web sites since they cannot
cross examine them. However they continue to submit affidavits without
production of the witness.
For example, most of us know about the Chicago area devaluation of property
values. But we cannot or do not know where to get the case information, an
affidavit from the property appraiser, etc. This also holds true for the
"Houston" case. And many, many others.
How about an Insurance expert whose affidavit will show that these property
owners do not generally have insurance that will cover the surrounding
property from damages from equipment falling or lightening strike damage. Or
from the coming health cases. I have tried unsuccessfully to find any
insurance coverage specifically for my family's health protection against MR
effects.
We all know that antenna angle, fluctuating power outputs at peak times, the
number of surrounding antenna sites, types of antennas, etc. all add up to
exposures above the FCC guidelines. But we are unable to produce a radio
frequency engineer witness on our behalf. For example we currently have 5
proprietary antenna sites within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the one proposed at the
church. This has a cumulative affect and level exposure. The current FCC
publication "Local Official's Guide to RF" states "Nonetheless, it is
recognized that any instance of non compliance with the guidelines is
potentially very serious.....At the same time, state and local governments
may wish to verify compliance with the FCC's exposure limits in order to
protect their own citizens." and "as a practical matter, state and local
governments have a role to play in ensuring compliance with the FCC's (
exposure) limits".
The above, to me a lay person, is a clear indemnifying clause for the Feds.
Telling zoning authorities that they have responsibility to ensure exposure
compliance and not site these facilities everywhere. I don't know about
other communities, but in Orlando, the City has stated that they have NO
knowledge on any of these issues. Has no one on staff who is. They don't
even know where all the sites are and do not take into effect any site
outside their boundaries. They are also collecting revenue from every tower
sited. So the city has no incentive to stop the siting.
I would think there is a legal case here against the City.
Are there any cases pending or registered on suits against property owners
who site towers, etc.
We need expert witness affidavits that can be presented. We need the case
law references, especially on the property devaluation. We need legal eagles
input.
I would welcome any expert witness information available. Any specifics on
property devaluation, equipment failure and subsequent property damage, etc.
case law, etc. Any expert witness who would sign affidavits.
These sites are only going to increase. The only way we have held them off
for 8 months is we are reducing our attorney's fees by our time and research.
Using our limited funds and stretching them. We all will be more successful
in the fight against these sites if we can stretch our resources.
Bonnie
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com