Subject: An Open Letter to political candidates......
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 030621 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
I forward the following letter, written by one of our group, because
I think it is an excellent example of what we need much more of ...
everywhere!!! In you community and mine......
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 11:00:35 EDT
From: Jeannine
To: thistle@plainfield.bypass.com, rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Re cell towers you are mentioned in this open letter
From: Jeannine Sudaka Karlsson, 117 Buxton Road, Bedford Hills, N.Y. 10507
May 1, 1998
An Open Letter to Democratic Nominee Hopefuls and the Voters
If you were one of the Democratic hopefuls who visited us in Bedford last
Sunday, thank you for coming. Everyone's presentation of their qualifications
was interesting, but because of time limitations, there wasn't opportunity for
most of the speakers to listen to voter concerns. I therefore ask each of you
three questions about issues which affect us all, and ask where you stand on
these issues..
My first concern is directed to both federal and state hopefuls, and regards
the multiple impacts resulting from the passage of the 1996 Federal
Telecommunications Act, which mandates a nationwide, seemless network for cell
phone communication, thus implementing a limitless proliferation of cell
towers throughout this country. It overlooks citizen objections regarding
their health and property values, as well as research, which indicates caution
regarding numerous health issues relating the electromagnetic emissions from
these towers, as well as the phones they support.
But the act declares that health concerns may not be taken into consideration
when municipalities consider applications for tower citings from cellular
communications providers. Furthermore all applicants must be accommodated, it
says, and with as many tower locations as they feel they need; and basically,
wherever they feel they need them; although the possibility of a degradated
viewscape still may give rise for concern, but not for long if the FCC has
it's way.
This booming industry adds a lot to our nation's Gross Domestic Product; the
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association declares themselves to be a
$20-billion-a-year industry, not including the undetermined amount of health
care costs it generates, (which, interestingly, also adds to the GDP). The
precise extent to which this Act undermines the human condition is unknown,
but what is obvious is that it usurps our first amendment rights and needs a
significant amount of amending to re-establish the importance of the
individual.
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) has introduced S. 1354 which would reinstate some control to
local authority. After asking our federal legislators to support the bill,
only Sen. Moynihan responded, saying he appreciates hearing about his
constituents' positions regarding this bill and will keep my opinion in mind.
For more information about the bill contact ,
or for more information on this issue, contact the EMR Alliance (EMR stands
for electromagnetic radiation) in New York City at 212-554-4073; or on the
internet contact Roy L. Beavers, .
Regarding this issue on the state level, our hopeful candidates should know
that Vermont's Governor Dean just signed a bill to expressly give Vermont more
latitude in selecting sites for it's cell towers. It may not be a solution to
the problem but at least is a recognition of it. Would our Governor do the
same with pressure from New York State government?
I address voters for a moment to say that our state and federal officials
would be more inclined to take the part of the people in this cell-tower
issue, if they know that it is important to their constituency. It is not
enough for citizens to go Town Board meeting and complain about the pending
arrival of a near-by tower; as these complaints are not forwarded to a higher
level where a forceful appeal can be wielded. Voters must write and phone
their state and federal officials expressing their concern. And they must
write their city or town officials asking them to be pro-active, and to
forward your concerns to Albany and to their affiliate groups such as the
Association of Towns or the Association of Mayors. In order to make sure that
your letter is heard, when communicating with local officials, be sure to ask
that your communication be put on the agenda for the upcoming Town meeting,
keep the letter short so it can be easily read, and then attend that meeting.)
The second issue I would like our elected hopefuls to consider relates to
environmental pollution created by the aviation industry, which represents the
fastest growing form of transportation in the country. It also produces air,
surface water run-off, and noise pollution, equal to or greater than many of
the most polluting industries in this country; and yet aviation is exempt from
the standard environmental controls which is mandated for other industries.
With most of our nation's major airports sitting adjacent to large populations
and important water bodies, if the reckless lack of environmental concern
continues, eventual costs to our nation's health and economy will be
inevitable and dramatic.
At the federal level, political hopefuls must recognize that more than half of
the nations busiest airports are currently addressing expansion needs, but
already back in 1993, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(Nox) air emissions, were estimated at 350 million pounds annually from take-
off and landing operations, and had more than doubled the 1970 measurement.
Though, as I've mentioned, many of our airports are adjacent to bodies of
water, de-icing operations, which, at a single, busy, airport will use
millions of gallons of anti-freeze annually, are exempt from proper collection
and disposal procedures for the deadly, ethylene glycol substance. The need
for the aviation industry to be brought within EPA guidelines is obvious.
At the state (and county) level, Democratic hopefuls as well as all our
legislators must realize that it is far cheaper to have New York airports
implement voluntary controls now, even before EPA mandates are in place, than
to attempt clean-up of land and water bodies once the pollutants have over-
infiltrated them.
Noise pollution is also a significant concern. Our legislators need to listen
to the voters and to their own conscience with regard to making our airports
more neighbor-friendly as well as globally friendly.
My last concern I direct to state hopefuls and to those already in power in
state and local government. It relates to controlling dramatic increases in
New York residents' real estate taxes, by allowing municipalities the right to
levy impact fees on new development. Giving municipalities this authority
would help to protect affordability and quality of life, by distributing some
of the costs of growth to those who create the growth and profit from it.
Ever-spiraling school tax and municipal tax increases cause stress to many
families, and even force some to leave the state. Currently the impacts of
development are born solely by the taxpayers. Developers who create the
growth and take the profit do not pay for the burden that they place on the
existing community. If municipalities were allowed to tax developers for the
a part of costs they create, as they are in many other states, real estate
taxes here would not have to increase so dramatically.
There are currently two bills in their second year before the Assembly
addressing this issue. One is A502 sponsored by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky,
Tel. 518-455-5753; the other is A2337 sponsored by Assemblywoman Nancy
Calhoun, Tel. 518-455-5441. Neither has a co-sponsor in the Senate at this
time. They are both in the Local Governments' Committee (Chaired by A. Samuel
Colman, Tel. 518-455-5118) and were not discussed in 1997, but will be
discussed in committee1998. They will either die in committee or go to the
Assembly floor for a vote. The voters' voice, or lack of it, will have a lot
to do with the outcome of these bills, since local governments don't seem to
lobby at the State level. But having our state legislators represent the
people on this issue would certainly help.
The three questions have a common thread. Do you stand for big business and
the status quo, or do you stand for the people whom you are hoping will put
you into the office you seek?
Respectfully submitted by
Jeannine S. Karlsson
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