Subject:  (Fichtenberg) Lookout Mountain developments.....
Date:     Sun, 7 Mar 1999 055526 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------


.......Finally got something that makes (a bit) of sense from that
hotbed of activity in Colorado.....  I know they have been doing
something, because I've received some of the messages that were flying
over the past 48 hours or so.....  Looks like some progress.....See
the last paragraph.....

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: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 23:27:37 -0800
From: david fichtenberg 
To: "by way of Newtons at Fruitlands "
     ,
    FIScorp1@aol.com, light504@aol.com
Cc: rbeavers@llion.org, 
Subject: Re: Fwd: (no subject)

Dear R.Fenton,
  
To get control over where a tower is put - try this.

The FCC was given authority by Congress to establish RF emissions
criteria based upon the environmental effects of RF emissions.

However, Congress did not give the FCC authority to ignore existing Federal
statute.  Thus, you and those who oppose the placement of the tower might
consider 47 USC sec. 324 where Congress stated that power output should be
the minimum needed to achieve the desired transmission.  See my note below
to Deb Carney.
  
While I am not a lawyer, this seems to me that those opposing the
placement of a tower can argue that a town council or planning commissison
must follow federal statute, including 47 USC sec. 324.  Can you or others
show that another location for the tower/transmitters would result in
lower RF emissions upon the population and the electronic devices that
they use and which could suffer from Radio Frequency Interference (RFI)?
If so, then you can argue that regardless of FCC agency rules, these rules
cannot supercede Federal statute.  Accordingly, you and others concerned
can argue that another location would result in reduced RF power
exposure to the population and therefore under 47 USC sec. 324 that such
other locations be considered - and to not site the tower at the location
you protest.

This argument is among those raised in a challenge to the FCC rules in
a consolidated case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit (in New York) - consolidated case with lead case #97-4328.  The
EMR Network is familiar with this case.
  
Until it is heard and decided, you may wish to consult with an attorney
about using the above argument to justify finding an alternative place to
put a proposed transmisssion facillity.  Indeed, this may be a way to
overcome the preemptive language of sec. 704 - since the authority given
to the FCC by Congress did not include superceding Federal statute.  FCC
must abide by Federal statute and, in my view, cannot preempt a local
jurisdiction decision that is based upon its following 47 USC sec. 324.

I hope this helps.

 David Fichtenberg
email: davidficht@w-link.net



[.......HERE IS THE NEWS......guru.....]

The Director of the Colo. Dept. of Health endorsed the ALARA standard for us
today.  The Jefferson Co. Director of the Jeffco Bd of Health also has.
The FCC has admitted that this zoning of a broadcast tower is a local matter.
Thank you for all your help.  We have many new volunteers in our community
with much background in varied areas that are lending their support.
(Shirley, this will help us with our rebuttal to the broadcasters argument
that the 200 ...standard has been approved by all the health agencies)





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