Subject: Local cell antenna bylaws (Berland)..
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 032424 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
......Here is another call for help on writing the local regulations....
Having won the fight for local control, it behooves us to provide some
solid basis for local regulation.....
The issue raised below is frequently asked. Is one better-off to
be "near" the antennas (thus 'below' the main lobe of the transmission
signal) ... or is it better to be farther from the antenna, but running
the risk that the signal strength will be beamed more directly at you???
There is a third choice, you know: No antennas within 3 miles of
residents.... The three mile delineation having been derived from the
Hocking study in Australia..... Until SOMEBODY INDEPENDENT (not the
industry/government) does the proper research -- we are mostly guessing.
Only the Hocking study (done on TV towers) came up with any kind of a
"distance" estimate..... Admittedly, that TV study may not "translate"
directly to the cell phone situation ... but, until the cell phone
research is done, it is all we have..... (The Hocking study, by the way,
was mentioned in the John Goldsmith paper, which is now posted in the
cell phone file on guru's website.)
Also, when the "company" tells you that you get less exposure "right
under" the antenna -- that SHOULD be true, but only if the antenna
propagation is designed to emit ALL of its energy outward (in a direct
line), with no 'nearby' leakage of the signal.....
Cheerio..... (Sorry that there seem to be now "black and white" answers
to any of this..... That is mainly because "we" -- the guinea pigs --
are being experimented upon, rather than in control of the situation ...
as "we" ... the public ... should be!!!)
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website
...................People are more important than profits.................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 22:15:36 EST
From: Lteitelbm@aol.com
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Cc: Zzw@aol.com, TGoodhue@aol.com, azul@flash.net, eapeck@hotmail.com,
Pamagast@aol.com, EOSystems@aol.com
Subject: local cell antenna bylaws
Dear Roy:
We need help. As you probably know, the Lexington Coaltion on Cellular
Communications Impacts expended much effort last year trying to amend the
Lexington Mass bylaws to include a 750 foot setback from schools, daycare
centers, nursing homes andd hospitals. We failed, but the climate seems more
receptive this year; most likely because there has been a lot of publicity
around the Follen Church antenna. Also, many of the surrounding towns have
instituted setbacks or established antennas "farms." We now have a parent
from the Waldorf school, who is an attorney and former employee of a telecom
co., on the Lexington Cable TV cmte, which is the town's advisory group on
wireless matters. The prevailing belief on the cmte is that an antenna's
radiation tends to be at its maximum aaround 700 to 1,000 feet-- a donut
-type pattern of radiation. Thus, the feeling is that setbacks are nothing
more than"feel-good" legislation. The members are looking for some other
way to address this issue. So we are looking for localities that could have
approached controlling emf radiation from cell antennas in another way. Does
a computer model exist to help towns site antennas? Are there new
technologies that can reduce the need for antennas, such as repeaters or
receivers that hook into existing telephone lines? Is there a way of framing
legislation that would address maximum increases in ambient emf levels?
Any advice and resources would be greatly appreciated. Thankyou .
Lisa Berland
Lexington Coaltion on Cellular Communications Impacts
lteitelbm@aol.com
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com