Subject: (Elena) Roanoke Tower Update (fwd)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 091939 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
Elena:
Two quick thoughts about your very interesting message:
1) I told you (everybody!!) -- MAXIMIZE PUBLICITY IN THESE CASES!!!
2) The friendly advice you got (to approach it only from the "legal"
aspect) -- is NOT good advise..... That advice isself-serving for
those who want the "health" issue kept out of sight, out of the
papers, etc.....
Whether your other citizens there are "comfortable" with the health issue
or not -- is totally irrelevant.
You are getting the attention you are getting because of the health issue.
AND THAT IS THE ISSUE THE COMPANIES fear most!!!! (Don't forget to make
your towns people aware of the action now pending in the European
Parliament!!!)
Good luck!! Don't give an inch...... MOTHER NATURE is on your side.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org................
...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
.................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:55:30 EST
From: Light540@aol.com
To: rbeavers@llion.org, thistle@sover.net
Subject: Roanoke Tower Update
Just minutes before last night's Board of Supervisors meeting AT&T's lawyer
asked for a 30 day continuance and was granted it. After a lengthy commentary
printed in the Roanoke Times edition yesterday by Triton PCS regarding "their
desire to be good neighbors and stop all the bad press they've been getting",
they expressed their wish to hold a community meeting to address our fears. I
should note that in the newspaper article absolutely nothing was mentioned
about the health concerns or that they're trying to place it right behind an
elementary school! Rather they compared their monopole to a flagpole!
When's the last time you saw a light blinking atop a flag while emitting
radiation? The Bd. of Supvrs suggested that a "electromagnetc wave expert" be
brought in to meet with us. The question then becomes, after all the spin
they put on it my opinion of the dangers is not going to change and when push
comes to shove AT&T is just going to cite the FCC 704 as they already have. I
have over 257 signatures opposing this and had a respectable turnout (not as
much as I would have liked) so I believe Triton/AT&T is just trying to derail
the growing interest and defuse the situation and mostly get me (their
mosquito) sick and tired of it all and just quit. I feel the Bd is just
trying to placate us. They expressed their wish not to be sued by AT&T! The
church supposedly wants to get out of the contract but they're afraid of being
sued as well.
I plan to write a letter to the Bd of Supvrs today trying to lift the veil of
secrecy of the technical emissions this tower will have...if AT&T wants us to
ask questions then they should be free in giving out the info. After the
meeting the Planning Comm. pulled me aside and told me the only way we're
going to win is to focus on the legal aspects of this. I have the VA Beach
ruling and will do a search on others. In our County's ordinance it states
that the provider should offer space for co-locators. AT&T claims they will
have up to 3 places for them but what I don't understand is how the co-
location works. Is each at a different height? ie. If AT&T absolutely needs
l20' due to the terrain of this valley how could any other provider co-locate
there? By granting AT&T the permit wouldn't it then open the door for other
providers to be allowed permits as well as AT&T already has one? Or if they
could co-locate on it what about the 4th company that comes along? They too
will then demand a tower! The only way is to stop this one from going up.
Meanwhile if anyone has any thoughts on what type of questions I should
present at this community meeting please advise.
Regards,
Elena
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