Subject: Re Response on lobbying for more EMF $$$$$$ (fwd)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 152358 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:14:38 EST
From: Jeannine
To: rbeavers@llion.org, emfguru@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Response on lobbying for more EMF $$$$$$
What we need is more research AND more interest on the part of the press.
They are certainly interested in sniffing out every aspect of Clinton's sexual
life -- is that because it sells papers? Well we know the power of the press
so why don't they take the EMF pollution problem to their bossom and run with
it? Maybe because they don't think the issue would be popular. Most people
think cell phones are the best thing to come alone since Mom's apple pie --
even better since it makes them feel cozy without the calories.
Our local paper represents two towns which are both juggling numerous
applications for cell towers. Both towns have put moratoriums into place
while they try to figure out how to handle this mandated invasion. The paper
reports on the fact that federal law makes it illegal for towns to reject
phone towers on the basis of health risks, and they talk about the federal
mandate for "seamless" coverage, but they do not do any investigative
reporting to report what those health risks are, otherwise I'm sure the outcry
at Town Board meetings would be much louder. Eventually the outcry would
reach the county, state, federal level. Let's face it, getting re elected is
not only based on deep pocket campaign donations -- it's also based on
popularity. If the public is made to realize that their health is being sold
down the river by the FCC's lust for an ever greater chunk of the Gross
Domestic Product pie, I don't think this fight would be fought by so few of
us.
I have been given the charge of coming up with some legislation for our town
to put into place to "control" cell tower placement and type. The current
applicant wants to place a second tower on the sam4 property which already has
one which carries the signals of two providers. The applicant is already in
sublease negotiations for a second preovider on this second tower.
If one frequency deteriorates one part of human the cell structure, is it not
probable that another frequency would deteriorate another part of the cell
structure? Perhaps combining these providers frequencies within a small is
more harmful than spreading them out. But of course that would mean more
geographical area contaminated?
Does any one have access to an effective ordinance? I would certainly
appreciate seeing it. Thanks so much.
And let's get the press involved!
Jeannine Karlsson: jeannine@aol.com
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html