Brian, thank you for keeping tabs on our community here in Tucker all the way from Hempstead, Long Island. Unlike what you have mentioned is the case for your area, we do not have a lack of cell coverage. In fact, within a 4 mile radius of my child's elementary school, which is one of the sites being considered by the school board, we have 86 cell towers. One is about .5 miles away. This is not a question of NEED. It is an issue of GREED.

The solution to eliminate all cell towers was not mentioned and would be ridiculous. However, keeping anything that emits radiation away from our bodies is a good idea. Confining cell towers to commercial areas or freeways allows the technology to be used for its intended purpose - MOBILE communications.

To place a cell tower in the middle of a residential community where the residents and especially the young children (as young as at the start of pre-K) at the school is not necessary. Exposure to 24/7 radiation has not been fully tested as I am sure you would admit since this has never ocurred in history. Why should we allow our children to be guinea pigs?

I'm hearing the same arguments that the ignoramuses in my town used in their successful bid to destroy our cellular network.

Exactly what does "fully tested" mean to you? Nobody has ever been able to associate cell towers with cancer. How would something of this sort be "fully tested?"

Why do you think the technology is safer if it's farther away? What studies support that idea? The more distant towers will simply broadcast with more power. That is a fundamental concept of engineering with which you need to come to terms.

The "Chicago report of Kindergarten cases." is actually about Bayville NY, again, not far from me. There was a tragic cancer cluster but it is not linked to the towers. Clusters are statiscally bound to happen. Cancer is a cruel disease for which we are in constant search of villain to complete the narrative. But to date, the most brilliant minds have been unable to pin down its precise causes. Why would anyone believe that your epiphany trumps decades of research?

The most inane statement above, however is the cliche "GREED NOT NEED." Please explain why a greedy corporation would spend the hundred of thousands to build a tower that is not needed without insulting our intelligence!

As far as piping in to your neighborhood, there were plenty of outsiders meddling in ours that led to the ruin of our network. I'll continue to speak out against misinformation and junk science wherever found.

I will answer your question about "why" by refering you to my other blog post: http://tucker.patch.com/blog_posts/why-does-t-mobile-want-cell-towers-at-our-schools

Ignoramus is a very big word. I think you can figure out what I meant by "fully tested" all by yourself.

No, I cannot read your mind and I do not know what you mean by fully tested. Generally, among the anti-wireless activists, it means test it until an anomolous result hints at some remotely possible link. It rarely means anything else. Please correct me.

I guess that this is what you mean by NEED NOT GREED:

"Their motivation is clearly to 'hog up the airwaves' so that they can lease space to other smaller competitors in an effort to monopolize the industry. "

I'm lost here. How does your speculation, even in the unlikely event of being correct, indicate that there is no need? Clearly someone is going to NEED that bandwidth if they are going to lease it. Or are you suggesting that a smaller company will lease bandwidth it does not need?

Surely you can concoct a less ridiculous argument for T-Mobile building unneeded towers.

There are two studies to note regarding cancer and cell towers: A study in Germany that showed a 3X cancer risk. It can be viewed here: http://www.emf-health.com/PDFreports/Germanreport_celltower.pdf. And, there was a study in Isreal that showed a 4X cancer risk: http://www.emf-health.com/PDFreports/Israelstudy_celltower.pdf.

There are no studies that show that ANY level of radiation exposure is safe.

The tower is not needed in my area as our coverage is fine with AT&T. We had Metro PCS and couldn't get reception in one part of the house so we switched. I think she makes a valid point that the smaller companies might need better coverage, but AT&T does not. That's why they can't apply for new towers themselves in our area.

Why would T-mobile need towers if they will no longer be in operation?

Issue is on the agenda for tomorrow, June 13 at 6 p.m.

Anyone can attend. You may also sign a petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Stop-Brockett-Cell-Towers/

and include the name of your specific school with your e-signature.

My town, Hempstead NY, is on the list "Defeated Cell Towers." Our service continues to deteriorate. Many residents are furious with the town and realize that the anti-wireless activists are idiots. The activists presented many ridiculous arguments similar to those above and made up facts as needed.

I doubt the activists have contacted any RF engineers nor epidemiologists. You will need more towers to create a scalable bandwidth. In fact, for any given capacity, the more towers the lower the aggregate radiation.

Look how rude and childish the Hempstead activists were in this Patch video:

http://merrick.patch.com/articles/cell-antenna-debate-stirs-emotions-at-civic-meeting#video-582731

At 1:00 someone presents a report debunking links between cancer and cell tower from the British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the world's leading medical publications.

He is shouted down "didn't they say that (not dangerous) about cigarettes?" and then appluse. Listen carefully at 1:10 - 1:13, to the taunt "Capitalist Pig! Capitalist Pig!"

These activists fabricate their facts -- per wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMJ#cite_note-6

"The journal (BMJ) also carried the seminal papers on the causal effects of smoking on health and lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking."

This is just a sample of the ignorance, stupidity, conceit and deceit of the anti-wireless activists.

THESE IGNORAMUSES WILL DESTROY YOUR CELL SERVICE.

Hey Brian, thought you might like to read this from a CNN report:http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/03/21/att.buys.tmobile.mashable/index.html

"AT&T simply can't build towers fast enough, and the approval process to build the unsightly things acts as a major roadblock to the company's efforts to boost its network reliability.

So if you can't build towers fast enough, what's the next best way to get them? That's right: You acquire them.

"At closing, AT&T will immediately gain cell sites equivalent to what would have taken on average five years to build without the transaction, and double that in some markets," AT&T notes in its press release. "The combination will increase AT&T's network density by approximately 30 percent in some of its most populated areas, while avoiding the need to construct additional cell towers."

$39 billion is a lot of money to buy some towers, but because T-Mobile USA utilizes GSM technology (rather than the CDMA technology employed by Verizon), it can immediately use them to boost its network. "

If the deal is approved, expect AT&T to quickly offload some of its mobile data traffic on T-Mobile's infrastructure

How was yesterday's meeting?

I happen to live in the same Town as Brian, Hempstead, New York. I am not easily convinced of anything. It took five (5) years of being sent research from around the word to finally convince me how dangerous cell towers actually are. That, and a case in Bayville New York where 50 cell antennas were placed 50 feet from an elementary school, at which 30% of the staff got sick, 5 children developed lukemia, and 3 of them died. If anyone wants to obtain true information about the "actual" adverse impacts of Cell Towers, from adverse health impacts upon children, to reducing property values, go to AntiCellTowerLawyers.com, and click on the "Questions and Answers" page, or the "Links" page. There is a wealth of information on that site. Read the info, then decide for yourself what you believe.
A. Campanelli

On the "dontcellout" web site is the claim that the American Academy of Pediatrics fears cell antennas. Here is their rercommendation:

From the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Regarding the long-term health effects of mobile-phone use, the paucity of data, particularly for children, suggests that low-cost precautionary measures are appropriate, especially because some of the exposures are close to guideline limits. Physicians could advise parents that their children's RF exposure can be reduced by restricting the length of calls or by using hands-free devices to keep mobile phones away from the head and body. On the other hand, exposure levels from mobile-phone base stations are extremely low, and therefore precautionary measures do not need to be recommended.

Does that sound like they fear cell antennas?

Unfortunately, too many people do not understand what they are reading. Although the study Cheryl cites is considered non scientific by many responsible agencies, reaction should be based on scientific reality. The "study" speaks of cell phones, not cell antennas (the active part of cell towers). There is a difference. It is common knowledge among scientists working in this area that the radiation exposure effect from cell phones on cell phone users (the subject of the study) is order of magnitude about a thousand times that of the effect of the antennas with which they connect. It is also common knowledge that when cell antenna coverage decreases the phones will emit more radaition to try to connect. For cell phone users, the basis of the study Cheryl cites, skimping on cell system base station capacity will increase (yes, INCREASE) the radiation exposure effect since the decrese in radiation exposure effect from the base station will be trivial compared to the much larger increase from the phones themselves. Of course this only applies to cell phone users and anybody near them. Since that is just about all of us the way to decrease radiation is to increase antennas coverage. This is a counterintuitive technical reality that has been kept from the public for reasons upon which I choose not to speculate.

While I appreciate the healthy debate on this subject, I want to clarify a few points that I think are being missed here. First of all, my daughter's life is much more important to me than "better coverage." If I don't have a problem with elementary kids smoking crack, is it then OK to assume you feel the same? Lets let drug dealers set up shop outside your grade schools. After all, there's money to be made. There are not scientific studies that show elementary age children will die from drug use. Duh... therefore it must be OK. Do you know why studies with children are not done? Because no one would have the gall to suggest to parents they put their childrens lives at stake for research. If you feel different, have at it. I for one would rather be wrong in fifteen years than have a conversation like this: "I'm sorry you got cancer, but at the time I really thought I was more important. My friends really needed to know everything I was doing 24/7. I also thought thatt while you were in school trying to recieve an education, You would rather talk to your friends, text, take pictures, download movies and videos and more. Isn"t life great? Look at the great success our heros have had in the past. You know, the corporations that look out for us. Ones like Phillip Morris. I would still be smoking if I still had a lung. That was coincidence.

Oh, and look how our soldiers benefited from Agent Orange and Methanphetimines. Really great stuff. But you probably didn't listen to you history teacher did you? No problem, you my dear had clear wireless access. I wish you were older then to make decisions for yourself, but there was no time to wait. I NEEED a clear signal like a heroin addict needs another fix. Don't worry though. Your life helped others advance. After all look how much better Big Brother can keep tabs on us. I am happier now that our property value is so low that our phone bill exceeds our mortgage payments. Ha, take that bank. There are companies with more money to push us around. What are you going to do? Add additional costs to hold my money. Ha Ha oil companies. You thought you were the only people who deserved our money and could put a country at war. Telephone companies can cause us to have a second civil war. I can't wait for that one. I may try for a son and enlist him as soon as mom gets pregnant, except the cell towers cause miscarraiges, too. Life is great in America. Land of freedom. Land of the right to die for big business. Now try to get some sleep. You have chemo tomorrow."

I'm not certain what arguments Dr. DeKalb makes above, but some of the elements are much like arguments made in Hempstead.

There is a very slippery slope when people make unscientific arguments based on fear and history shows that there has been much cruelty do to ignorance of science. This is really an ad hominem attack in disguise, because it depicts those who think critically as child murderers even though the evidence is clearly against that.

These arguments are quite disturbing and the cause of much hatred. They were used with some success in Hempstead.

Brian, et. al. This will be my last reply regarding this topic because I no longer wish to engage in conversation that is pointless and irrelevant to the situation in our area. I do, however, want to thank you for your continous postings as it has kept my blog at the top of the list in popularity. Therefore you have assisted me with my goal which was simply to inform the people in my community about the fact that this proposal is being considered (and likely already signed) since the people who should have informed that have not given them a chance to even form an opinion, much less speak out about it so that their voices will be heard, regardless of what side of the debate they choose. (cont. in next comment)

(cont. from previous reply)... I knew little to nothing on this topic myself until my child brought home a flyer that was clearly written in an attempt to discourage participation in a meeting that would later be used to satisfy their legal requirements for public notification. I was offended that my school system would be sol blatant in its disreagrd for the opinions of the parents and surrounding community on an issue that would clearly affect us and can, at the very least, be described as controversial. They were the fearful ones in this case, Brian, not us. They were afaid of opposition because they clearly have something they are trying to hide.

Our school system has no superintendent and our previous one has been indicted on charges that include running a criminal organization within the county school system and diverting funds for his and others own personal gains. This cell tower issue for us is largely about our rights to open disclouse of records, open meetings and the fact that officials cannot represent a community they refuse to consider before rendering decisions. The over-inflated salaries of the school board administration has been the driving force behind many decisions, not just this one. (cont. in next comment)

(cont. from previous reply) I am sorry that your local goverment did not listen to you or others on your side of the debate in Hemstead. That may be the only thing we have in common. We don't want policies made that reflect the voices of a few, but rather they should reflect the true opinions of the majority. If we would have been addressed with respect and allowed to discuss the pro's and con's and render a decision based on the needs of our school and the willingness of the parents to assume the risks associated, this blog would have never existed.

You see, Brian, you and I will never see eye to eye so this conversation is pointless. You clearly value your gagets and other non-animate objects that you see as a lifestyle choice that should not been impeded. I value relationships and people more than metal and antennaes. I am speaking out because I do not want big businesses focing themselves into a residential area with shady disclosure of their true intentions or the tems of contract that has brought them here. I am a parent, not an activist. And, I care about protecting all children as well as the neighbors in my community and the future generations of children that will hopefully live here on day.

(cont. in next comment)

(cont. from previous) And, I am old enough and wise enough to realize that there are many forms of technology that can rise and fall as it the true and natural lifecycle of industry. If you have become overly dependent or attached to your wireless devices that you are compelled to believe in the expansion of it regardless of the potential harm it can cause others, then perhaps you should try to self-analyze for a while rather than attack others for their beliefs. In fact, recent reports have stated that cell towers will soon be obsolete, just like T-mobile will soon be AT&T.

I am not anti-anything except I am against government that does not represent the people and that makes decisions for personal gain at the expense of others. Your area has spoken out more convincingly than you, so therefore you have rules that reflect how they feel. Those of us who live here do not have that same luxury of actually being able to influence our corrupt run-away train of officials. This is the GREED factor I was speaking about.

I do not wish to engage in further discussion with you, but I have enjoyed learning your point of view and I am thankful that you have led me to be in contact with the attorney who may be able to help us further.

<cont.>

Please don't panic over cell towers for anything other than they are often visually ugly. The hair dryer the teenage girls use emit more electro-magnetic field strength than a cell tower 100 feet in the air. Additionally, the antenna system is designed to radiate their signal outward so there's typically a cone of poor signal strength from the bottom of the tower.

There are many more dangerous things that our children are exposed to daily that are just accused of being bad but are know to cause health issues: car exhaust, car accidents, most school cafeteria food, disease propagation through the close contacts in a school setting, etc. In other words, bigger things to worry about. Maybe the schools can use the tower money, that should be FULLY disclosed, to improve the school's food quality.

The actual WHO paper is here: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

The debate in this Patch forum has been helpful. Unfortunately, what happens next may not be so orderly.

I believe Cheryl exited this debate because alarmism and faulty science are easily exposed. Here are some attributes of a junk science campaign that may follow:

The activists will cocoon and probably create one of these websites with a catchy phrase that will spout discredited science. The website will be closed to debate because the anti-science movement cannot answer to principled debate. They counter real science with accusations of harming children and platitudes about tobacco and money.

In my school district the activists and their attorney went right to the board of ed asking to allow the school to send mail on their behalf. They definitely has one letter mailed to parents, I'm not sure what followed.

They may even try legislate tower placement by proposing arbitrary buffer zones of 500-1500'. There will be no justification or science behind this limits. This provides opportunities for consultants to get rich. The town, lobbied by landlords and agents ownling prospective sites, will choose where the antennae go.

Nobody will be safer, phone service will decrease, insiders will get very rich and sanctimonious activists will brag how they saved the children ... from nothing!

For those of you out there who want to use these sites to show how intelligent you are, GREAT... I respect everyone's extensive knowledge on any subject. What I do not respect is the callous means by which you choose to deliver your messages. Why try to defend the companies who are sneaking their way into our neighborhoods? How are any of you benefitting from this?

We have not been given sufficient notice to undertake any type of campaign here. There are very few people here who are even aware that this proposal is even being considered. Those of us who have recently learned about it have not had sufficient time to sort through the incredible amount of information out there in order to form solid opinions one way or the other. Neither the costs/risks nor the benefits are being disclosed. When a transaction is taking place where the participant are behaving as though they have something to hide and you are aware that this same group has been charged with criminal activity in the very recent past, it is outright absurd to do anything other than object. It is not a case of one side vs. another here as far as the opinions of the community. The vast majority of the community has no idea that this tower project even exists. We have all been blindsided in a very deceptive manner while those who are supposed to represent their districts have been aware of this proposal for close to a year.

It doesn't seem that the people in this community really understand what a cell tower on school property means. It means a commercial entity on public school land. It means 24/7 access by company workers. It means the placement of a HAZMAT (hazardous materials) site on playgrounds. It means trucks driving over school grounds (can mess up football fields, playgrounds, trucks arrive DURING recess) and it means maintenance of the grounds issues as the compound becomes overgrown.

Cell tower and stranger danger: http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/01/stranger-danger-cell-towers-on-school.html

Look at the dirt road created by all the truck traffic to the cell tower on the playground at this elementary school: http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/01/weast-puts-strangers-on-playground.html

Read about the HAZMAT issue and T-Mobile response to comply with county law: http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/03/weast-puts-hazmat-on-playgrounds.htmld

Here is what the base of the cell tower looks like at one school. Maintenance of site: http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/01/weasts-cell-tower-jungle-gym-for-kids.html

Janis, the HAZMAT link is not working. Can you repost? This is very good for our parents to see!

Sorry! Here is corrected link on information about Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) designation of compound at base of cell towers:

http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/03/weast-puts-hazmat-on-playgrounds.html

Anyone interested in reviewing ALL the issues currently listed as community objections to placing a cell tower at the Brockett Elementary School in Tucker, GA, as well as 11 other schools in DeKalb County, please go to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Stop-Brockett-Cell-Towers/ and click on the tab that says "petition" to read the full text.

This petition urges the DeKalb County school board to turn down the proposal based on several factors, includiing:
1) Non-compliance with the DeKalb County Board of Education Administrative Rule O.C.G.A. 20-2-1160 which requires "public forums from time to time, especially when dealing with controversial issues or matters of deep community concern, to receive input from citizens on policy issues, the educational program, and school administration."
2) Recognition of potential long term health effects due to exposure to low-level, non-cellular heating EMFs, particularly the risks posed to children.
3) Consideration of the impact on property owners. The Federal Communications Act of 1996 states that property values and aesthetics are valid reasons for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna.
4) There is not a need for better coverage by T-mobile in this area, as stated by their own coverage maps and as evidenced by the fact that there are currently 86 cell towers and 2 pending within a 4-mile radius of the proposed site, the closest being just .5 miles away.

This article was only intended to cover one of the topics of controversy due to the relevence it had to the recent announcement by the World Health Organization, the world's leading health organization.

The actual WHO paper is here: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

First paragraph reads "Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use."

Here's what the Montgomery County Executive had to say about cell phone towers in neighborhoods:
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2011/03/leggett-cell-towers-adversely-affect.html

Here's what happened when one Montgomery County, Maryland neighborhood spoke up about a cell phone tower to be placed on school property and on the edge of a park. This post also has a nice close up picture of what the base of a cell phone tower on PUBLIC SCHOOL LAND looks like up close. The placement of this tower was to include the removal of the edge of this forest area. Placement of a cell phone tower requires access by truck to the pole. This placement would have included a 12 foot wide road over the playground at this school.
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2011/06/t-mobile-withdraws-petition-for-sligo.html

What is meant by the fall zone around a cell phone tower:
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/04/cell-towers-do-fall-over.html

I agree 100% with Jeff Patch. Thank you for chiming in. This Brian guy is making the rest of us go nuts!

In Tucker, to sign the Brockett Elementary petition to stop the cell tower, go to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Stop-Brockett-Cell-Towers/.

For more information about the potential cell tower vote July 11, visit “Get the Cell Out of Here - Atlanta Chapter” on Facebook, or send an email sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com to sign up for E-blast alerts and updates.

Just occurred to me that Brian may be attempting to keep the focus on this blog rather than the other one I posted around the same time...
http://tucker.patch.com/blog_posts/why-does-t-mobile-want-cell-towers-at-our-schools

which is all about alterior motives for T-mobile and the fact that AT&T is attempting to form a monopoly in the telecommunications industry. If you have been following these comments, please take a moment to read the other blog which is another issue important for the residents and school board in our area to consider. Thanks!

Science - fire burns, structures melt, gravity pulls, cell towers fall over.
Hence, the need to determine the FALL ZONE for the installation of a cell phone tower. At a public school site the FALL ZONE is especially important because you would not want a cell phone tower to fall on a school.
Video of a cell tower falling over:
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/04/cell-towers-do-fall-over.html

Patch reserves the right to delete any comments it deems offensive and abusive.

My cell coverage sucks and i live right next to brockett elem, i would love a new tower.

This is page 627-1

There are many issues in this dialogue. Some people clearly oppose wireless base stations because they make money doing so and/or they want to look like heroes to those who fear them. Others genuinely fear the base stations. If they knew the facts they wouldn't. For example, I witnessed a test of a cell antenna placed near a school. The radiation from the antenna under test was 7/10 of one percent of the total RF radiation at the point on the school grounds nearest the antenna; that is, the total RF radiation was about 130 times that of the antenna under test. About 1/4 of the total radiation, that is, about 35 times that of the antenna, was from FM radio transmissions. Another 1/4 of the total radiation was from broadcast TV transmissions. Much of the rest was from the cell phones of the people witnessing the test. In a house where there is a single router on a computer modem the RF radiation in the house from that router alone would be from 10 to 100 times the radiation from an antennas placed on top of the house. A cell tower placed on top of a library that was "wireless ready" would deliver radiation that was less than one percent of that delivered by the hidden antennas that made the library "wireless ready." A cordless phone system inside a house would deliver to people in the house between 10 and 100 times the radiation of a properly place base station antenna atop the house.

Continued on page 627-2

Wmac, What carrier do you have? Unless it is T-mobile, the tower will not benefit you. If you do have T-mobile, you will soon be the new customer of AT&T once the merger goes through as it is predicted to do so by the end of this year, or early 2012. So, you can switch now or wait 6 months and they will make the switch for you. Either way, AT&T coverage is fine in the Brockett area. They own roughly a third of the 87 towers in the vicinity. If you are next to the school, then you are closer to the nearest cell tower than we are and we get AT&T cell reception without problem. Our AT&T land line works fine, too. As does our AT&T DSL service. As does the digital cable system through AT&T.

Neil, I've been trying to be polite about this subject, but you seem to want to keep me in this conversation. From what I read, no one has said anything about being afraid except you and Brian. Fraudean slips perhaps. Besides who do you think you are to point out what others may be afraid of? Fear often defies logic, yet it does not make it any less real to the person experiencing it. Would you like to make fun of my daughter? After all, she is afraid of the dark. I fear the day she learns the world isn't a safe place or that I am no longer around to protect her. My fears are none of your concern. They are about something you do not understand... human nature and love. Do you want to make fun of me for that? There is nothing scientific about not liking a friggin 150ft tower outside your kitchen window. How can you spin that into junk science? Personally, I am a great believer in science. Science tells me you will soon be crippled with arthritis. You'll need a knee replacement. A hip replacement. Is it fair to say chances of your health care coverage will increase over time. That's money in my pocket. Should I advocate insurance hikes immediately? Will you defend the insurance companies also? Does science allow us to take advantage of you, just because we can?

Wouldn't it be great if our school board meeting on July 11 went something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFbCRW93k_s&feature=related

To Doctor Dekalb,

I am talking only one issue here: pubic health and safety. Inadequate cell system coverage reduces pubic safety. Cell phones become less reliable in emergency situations. Although the science tells us that it is extremely unlikely that RF radiation within legal limits has any ill effect on us, the only remorely possible source of any ill effects would be the phones themselves, and their radiation output is increased by poor coverage. I never said cell towers weren't ugly. They are. I well understand why people do not want to see them. The other issues raised here range from the less important to the downright silly. Yes, your fears are none of my concern, but when your actions support the reduction of public safety they should be the concern of all of us. We should all try to reduce unnecessary fear by better education. On this issue people need to understand the science to counter the self serving generation of baseless fear as promoted by people who have found a way to make money from that baseless fear and/or are doing so for some other personal motive. I am sure that you would like to reduce your daughter's fear of the dark, and would do so if there was an easy way. For the baseless fear of RF radaition there is a way, and it would be easy if all responsible parties agreed to do it. There is only so much that can be done via a blog like this.

Public school children have the right to be safe at school. Especially when they are mandated by law to attend public school. They have the right to have a school free from commercial vendors and their employees. They have the right to have a school free from Hazardous Materials compounds.
What's down right silly is to pretend that public school students don't exist and have no right to safety when attending public schools.

Neil, Funny you should mention public health and safety. Now you have shown your hand. I spoke with a friend of mine yesterday, who just happens to work for AT&T. We discussed their new marketing campaign. It was reported that 911 calls were being directed to Savanah, GA, secondary to poor coverage. It was an obvious and intentional move to put unnecessary fear into consumers. Sickening. He agreed and informed there were more to come. He stated it was a fool proof plan. "Surely nobody can deny the fact that in an emergency you want help ASAP." This is their way of convincing parents that kids should carry cell phones for that reason. What a joke. Are we supposed to believe that in an emergency situation, a child is going to think more rationally than an adult, especially in a school? I would hope that the first call I recieved from my child's school would be from a teacher or staff member, not my kid! If an incident occurs, it is better to be on a land line so paramedics can trace your call if proper information cannot be obtained. I suppose the point you are trying to make is the fact that by putting a 150 foot anything with HAZMAT associated with it near children, you are creating an emergency situation.

Why would anyone believe AT&T is trying to be the good guy here? Fortunately we are smarter than that. If that is the motive, then why not put the towers up at schools in the more poverty-stricken parts of town so they can be safe, too? If the cell coverage needs to improve, I am sure they will find a way to do it that will not be so offensive and unwanted as this choice. Besides, do YOU really think AT&T doesn't already have another way? No Plan B? Of course they do, however the alternative would cost THEM more money.

And, if it is OUR business they are so wanting to ensure, why would they be so deceptive in the way they chose to let the community know about it? Obviously, it is not our money that is relevant to them. It is the co-location income they are seeking and perhaps securing locations for future demand as voice and data become further integrated. The school is not even central to their stated geographic area of need. There is another tower about .7 of a mile away from Brockett. And what emergency are you anticipating that would render the land line in the teacher's classroom useless? Should children ignore fire alarms to locate their cell phones and call for help? What did you do in an emergency when you were in school?

Hey, why don't you suggest our soldiers overseas all carry cell phones and then AT&T can put them up every 50 feet? That's a national emergency. You guys could really help out! Oh yeah I forgot, it's not about emergencies. It's about profit. Be safe Neil. Keep your phone charged and with you at all times. Get the most expensive plan otherwise your family will never be safe. I may push the idea that schools train each student to become EMTs. Just in case AT&T drops the call. Or God forbid, that unlucky soul who just cannot afford an extra $100 a month for a cell phone because his home is in foreclosure and he has to feed his family. Are you going to suggest his family is not safe? Oh yeah Neil another bit of information from my source...Comcast is forming a partnership with Skype soon. Do you think it's still about safety? Really? I must go for now, my friend, I'm going to put together a proposition to open a strip club near your golf course. After all, it's all about the money!

And, just to make sure we are all following your logic, Neil... let me summarize it for you... Towers emit radiation. Fear of tower radiation is ridiculous and should not be tolerated. Science should tell us that our phones (the ones that the adults carry around near the local school when they should be at work) are far worse for us unless we build more towers. We should not be afraid of towers at schools. Instead we should buy more phones and a bigger cell plan so that our children who currently do not carry phones but will soon have a tower will finally have the very thing (the phone) that you just said was the more dangerous of the two. Now, once we have the right amount of phones and towers, if that state of balance will ever be something we can obtain, then we will rejoice because we will finally be permitted to fear them both equally. And, most importantly, there are other threats that we should fear more and we should teach our children how to respond in these non-specific emergencies in a way that is contrary to the emergency procedures they practice at school. And, while the cell tower radiation is the least thing to fear, we should be reassured that if it falls over or catches on fire that our children will be able to make a call for help. Ooops, that's right, they probably will not be able to make a call if the tower has fallen over.

The only point that I am trying to make is the radiation from wireless base stations is nothing about which to worry. The science is very clear on that. If people do not want to believe the science, preferring to get their technical information from lawyers, politicians, Erin Brockovich wannabes, and others who benefit by fear mongering, so be it. Most of the other issues raised in these dialogues are obfuscation.

Oh, and BTW, the study that Cheryl cited to start all this classifies cell phones with respect to cancer in the same category as coffee, alcohol, and working the night shift.

Please read the resolution that the International Association of Fire Fighters published stating that they do not want cell towers at their firestations. If healthy, strong, brave fire fighters think that a cell tower is unsafe, then why would I want it at my child's school? http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp

I started reading the IAFF resolution through footnote 4. It is another very sorry, poorly conceived document that contains errors that are outright laughable. It's yet another example of the low quality "research" that we have come to expect in this junk science campaign.

I do not know what scientific evidence Cheryl found in here to support her case. I will dismantle this report thoroughly in following comments -- but first...

We all have tremendous respect for Fire Fighters, especially those of us who were in NYC during 9/11. The report that was presented betrays the high level of training and skill of these individuals. The gross errors and misinterpretations of the research in this report should not reflect of fire fighters in general. Frankly, as many Fire Departments in my town have antennae, it's quite clear that they are not particularly impressed with this resolution either.

The IAFF report is a discussion of the alleged health hazards of microwave communication. It covers some of the antennae types deployed and an overview of its take on the health issues. The actual resolution and the supporting science are described in the footnotes.

Footnote 1 contains the IAFF resolution. The resolution is a series of statements, most of which are truisms, demands for negative proof, unsubstantiated claims of general malaise and other obscure studies. There are no statements or research from well established organizations.

Footnote 2:

"An international blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as 'possible human carcinogens'"

The only reference to this finding is a an article in Microwave News, which I found here:

http://www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a98issue.pdf

There is a short article about this panel, but the possible carcinogen is attributed to Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radiation, which typically comprises frequencies less than 600Hz. These frequencies are lower than typical GSM phones by a factor of more than 1 million. In other words, the IAFF included results that have nothing to do with transmissions from cellular towers. This is extraordinarily sloppy research.

Footnote 3:

"World Health Organization; International Agency for Research on Cancer; IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans; Volume 80 Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields; 2002; 429 pages; ISBN 92 832 1280 0; See http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol80/80. This IARC Monograph provides the rationale for its designation of ELF/EMF as a possible human carcinogen."

Here again, the possible carcinogen is identified as ELF, 600 MHZ or less. As stated previously, this has nothing to do with cellular transmission. ELF frequencies are generally associated with power lines and common appliances.

Footnote 4, on the other hand contains information consistent with consensus science:

" In contrast, non-thermal effects are not well established and currently do not form a scientifically acceptable basis for restricting human exposure for frequencies used by hand-held radiotelephones and base stations."

This effectively says that at levels lower than those which cause heating there are no known issues with cellular transmissions.

I've read enough of the IAFF report to conclude that its authors are alarmists and activists who cannot even comprehend the differences of signals separated in frequency by six orders of magnitude. It's nothing more than a rehashing of the junk science that so many here and elsewhere have discredited.

I was in Manhattan last night. My wife and I were returning from a meeting and walking north on 5th Ave. There were several luxurious modern condomoniums and landmark coops along the root as we approached 34th st. Surely the apartments in this building approach millions of dollars. How would these residents act if there was a transmitter near them?

Do any of you know what else is in that area, 5th Ave, and 34th street amidst those toney residences? Answer: The Empire State Building.

On top of the Empire State Building rests a transmission tower that broacasts a dozen or more FM and Digital TV stations. One of those stations alone, WCBS, broadcasts at 349KW at a frequency in the hundreds of MHz, not terribly different from that of cell phones. And that's just one station.

So there we have a tower transmitting with more than a thousand times the power of anything they will place at the school. It's in an extremely dense residential and commercial neighborhood. Nobody is panic selling and there is no holocaust from radio waves which have been transmitted for decades.

Look at the prices of these condos:
http://newconstructionmanhattan.com/nyc-apartments-by-landmark/empire-state-building

People are living healthy, vibrant lives and real estate is booming in the shadow of the extremely powerful Empire State Building transmitter.

Let's get real people, this entire campaign agains the tower, with its so-called "Credible Risks," is a complete farce.

Here are three links below.

1) A picture of 325 5th Ave, between 32&33 st. showing the side facing the Empire State Building. Note the terraces in direct view of the antennae. (There is also another cell tower to the left of the building).

2) Aerial view of 325 5th and ESB. They are one block apart on opposite sides of 5th Ave -- perhaps 300' apart.

3) Real estate prices and recent sales from the NY Times of 325 5th.

WHERE ARE THE ACTIVISTS???.

1)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=325+5th+Ave,+New+York,+NY+10001&hl=en&ll=40.747383,-73.985308&spn=0,0.002757&sll=40.747338,-73.985088&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&layer=c&cbp=13,116.4,,0,-43.88&cbll=40.747476,-73.985239&z=19&panoid=w0s7Dik6NwAELc9VTVMyxA

2)
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=5th+Ave&daddr=5th+Ave&hl=en&sll=40.747741,-73.985045&sspn=0.002548,0.005515&geocode=FSPEbQId2BSX-w%3BFcbBbQIdGxOX-w&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=18&t=h&z=18

3)
http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/2958-2278173/325-Fifth-Avenue-NEW-YORK-NY-10016

The transmitters atop the Empire State Building send out RF signals that can be picked up over a hundred miles away. The typical cell antenna has a range of about a mile and a half. If there was anything reasonable to fear about that kind of signal at the levels of cell antennas then the people living and/or working near the ESB would be dead after a few years. They obviously aren't.

Topics like this can be very uncomfortable. One never knows the motives people have. There are people who make money spreading fear. Those motives are easy to detect. Others spread unnecessary fear just to publicize themselves and it is hard to separate them from those who spread baseless fear in an attempt to warn others of what they incorrectly perceive as a danger. Too often fear closes minds. Fearful people too often reject even listening to anything that might ameliorate that fear. That's too bad. By opening a couple of minds to scientific reality I have helped people make informed decisions about some important choices they had to make. It is not easy for people without the proper background to evaluate technical concepts. What is pretty straight forward to a technologist can be very confusing to people without technical savvy. Too often they accept the conclusions of people not qualified to reach those conclusions because those people are popular for some other reason. Too often people with baseless fear will react with hostility to those who try to help them by supplying valid information. Attempts to educate are perceived as ridicule. Because of this too few technical people get involved and the public loses the valuable input the technical community could provide.

Very poetic and a nice ending to a report you plan to hand to your boss when you collect your commission check. I hope he/she does not have a rule in place that says you must have the final word in a blog before you can be paid.

I am a retired engineer, and an officer of my local civic association. About 2-1/2 years ago the cell antenna issue came to our community and I decided that, being the only technologist in the leadership of the civic, I needed to learn about the subject. This is outside my specialty so I had to learn most of what any other lay person would have to learn. My advantage was experience in dealing with technical matters, including proven scientific methodology, and a stronger science background than most people. I put a lot of work into learning, as any professional engineer would, including seeking literature that challenged the conclusions toward which I was moving. It would be very hard for a legitimate technologist using appropriate scientific methodology to reach conclusions that differ much from the ones I reached. The science is just too clear to those who seek to understand it with a totally open mind. There is a lot of phony science out there that can easily fool the public, and it is doing so. A blog is not a good vehicle for dealing with phony science. Anybody interested in learning more can do so by posting their e-mail address and I will initiate a more productive dialogue.

I am not a poet; I receive nothing for writing messages such as those posted other than the good feeling associated with doing the right thing; and my boss, my wife of 50+ years, has taught me never to expect to get the last word.

Decisions are made by both what we know and how we feel. I went to look at the cell towers in our area and it does not feel right to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEXY8DaKv0I

Neil, please take a look at the new photos I uploaded and attached. After reveiwing, please explain how you would think we need more towers in our area.

Cheryl, I agree with you about making decisions on how one feels, but only if they are totally personal decisions and affect nobody else other than the decision maker. If the decisions affect others then their feelings also need to be taken into consideration. Just don't spread misinformation and disinformation to try to influence how others feel. Tell them the truth, or encourage those who understand the subject to tell them the truth, and let their feelings be based on reality.

I do not know how to access your uploaded photos, but it really doesn't matter. Wireless communications needs are not based on how visible base stations are. Wireless suppliers respond to the needs of their customers, including projections of future needs. Wireless traffic is expanding exponentially. To accommodate that traffic more base station capacity is needed. It is as simple as that. Only qualified professionals can determine how much. I am not qualified to do so, and I doubt that you are any more qualified than me. Of one thing we can be sure, that is, that the suppliers will not spend money on base stations that they do not think they will need.

Cheryl:

You seek to interfere in a business decision that affect a company's ability to service its customers and in doing so argue that this decision imperils the health of children.

Those responsible should not change their decision based on "feelings" if they are the reaction of someone grossly misinformed.

Neil and I have formal engineering training and those rigors, while not making us experts, do allow us to spot the really bad science that we have seen here.

The IAFF report which you presented contained glaring errors that any person with a background in physics or electromagnetism would catch quickly on a cursory reading. Did you actually read that report and understand it?

Brian,

To fully read the IAFF position paper, seek out the references, and analyze them, would take anyboy who tries a great deal of time, and knowledge most of us do not have. Lay readers, people like Cheryl and myself, must first determine if the author is credible. That is not always easy. A huge amount of "information," or maybe rhetoric, is thrown at the reader, and the best any casual reader can do is look for obvious errors, inconsistencies, omissions, or other faults. Even if none are found the author may not be credible. With the IAFF position paper it is pretty easy. The author clearly doesn't understand the basics. He or she is asking that something be proven safe, which is lmpossible, since a negative cannot be proven. The second obvious fault is the failure to recognize the importance of the directionality of the antenna signals. From the point of view of the occupants of the fire station, if there was a hazard they would be far less at risk than people a quarter mile away. It would make more sense, if one really feared the radiation, to take a position against locating a firestation at the point of maximum radiation, which is not immediately below the tower.

People admire fire fighters, so the IAFF is trusted to know the subject matter upon which it is taking a position. Unfortunarely, whoever prepared the position paper di not have the technological background to do it right.

I have not spread anything that I believe to be misinformation. I have only cited credible sources and quoted them exactly.

The vote will take place Monday, July 11, at 6 p.m. Anyone in DeKalb County who would like to attend may do so. The address is: 1701 Mountain Industrial Boulevard
Stone Mountain, GA

Quoting grossly flawed studies, charlatans and opportunists, however unintentional, is not a pursuit in which to take pride.

No studies have shown conclusive evidence that radio-frequency emissions are harmful at levels allowed by the Federal Communications Commission. As a result, the law prohibits rejection of a tower based on health risk.

Cell sites can be a financial boon to those who provide space for them. Cell companies won't discuss rent, but Donohue said companies typically pay $800 to $2,000 per month, depending on location, the size of the tower or antenna, and other factors. That can be a significant amount for a struggling school district or a church with stagnant or declining membership.

When talks failed, residents turned to zoning officials who ruled against T-Mobile. The city's Board of Adjustment agreed, ruling the antenna could have "a negative impact on the health of children and residents" and would cause property values to decrease.

T-Mobile sued. U.S. Magistrate Judge Frederick Buckles ruled in favor of the company in July. Debbie Barrett, a spokeswoman for suburban Seattle-based T-Mobile, said the company is doing everything it can to make the site blend in. But she said the antenna is needed.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/news/2005/08/68600

Zoning officials cannot use health to deny zoning. We are not at that phase, yet, but believe me, we are prepared. School officials who are paid by residents in the community to educate their children. They have a stated goal to provide a "safe and healthy learning environment." What is safe or healthy about a cell tower? Health is absolutely relevent to this audience. And, why do cell sites or school officials not discuss rent? What exactly is being kept from us? If this is such a great idea, then someone needs to step forth and tell us exactly how our school will benefit. The reason they haven't is because there will be very little, if any, of this money that will ever see the inside of the classroom. Show me one school that has a cell tower in the U.S. where the parents are thrilled because of how much it has helped their children. I can likely find you 100 examples where the parents are upset because the cell tower has done nothing except contribute to the corruption of our educational system. And that is something we should all be concerned about because the future of our country is what is at stake when children are cheated out of a good education.

Dude,

Not only is there no "conclusive evidence," there is no credible evidence at all that RF radiation at legal limit has any effect on health. There have been about 25,000 legitimate studies published on the subject and not one has shown a causal link between RF radiation within legal limits and any negative effect on human health.

Cheryl,

Children are being cheated out of a good education when they see a denial of technological reality by adults. They are cheated when they see that some parents (and other adults) feel that the laws of physics and the laws of nature can be overruled by petitions or protests or politicans. They are cheated when they see that some people feel that by repeating a lie enough times it become something else. They are cheated when the see ignorance triumph over knowledge. The future of our country does, indeed, depend on the education of the children, but teaching them to trash scientific reality is not the kind of education that will make this country better.

It is not up to our school system to solve the issues of the telecommunications industry. A 30 year lease for school property to a company that has not been upfront about its intentions is not in the best interest of the school. The terms of the agreement were released only 24 hours before the vote. This is not about education; it is about money. http://tucker.patch.com/articles/school-board-knocks-down-brockett-elementary-cell-tower-proposal# I'm glad to say that our school was one of three taken off the list. Our cell coverage is fine and we could not afford another hit on our property values. There are still 9 other schools that were approved, so the people who wanted to get paid for this proposal will still do very well for themselves.

You do not live at my house, do not tell me my coverage is fine, I am one block from the school, it sucks no bars period. Maybe one of the churches on the street can pick of the slack.

I do not know what cell plan you have. If you have AT&T then it should be fine. There is a cell tower just on the other side of the railroad tracks on Brockett Rd., just .7 miles from the school. The T-mobile cell tower will not help unless you have t-mobile or AT&T, so that is what I was referring to. There is also a tower at Cooledge and 78. Not sure why you would have no bars, unless it is Metro PCS which does suck. We dropped that plan for that reason.

I am sure they will go to the churches next and then to commercial areas if they really need the coverage. That's the pattern anyway.

Message for Robert Hartford who recently commented here but his note may have been deleted. This comment thread will be closing so it is not a good manner for us to communicate. I definitely have some information that may help you. I am not sure if you are in DeKalb County, or elsewhere, but I can definitely share what I know and put you in touch with some other people who can help. To start, please send an email to sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com. You can also "Like" the group called Get the Cell Out of Here - Atlanta Chapter on Facebook. I am very interested to talk with you further!

August 9, 2012 update: More than 75,000 voters turned out to vote NO to cell towers on school grounds (62% of the total votes cast) during the July 31 ballot referendum. Still no towers going up at our schools! Let's hope it stays that way!

According to every scientific source, including the one referenced by Cheryl Miller in the article she wrote, the radiation exposure from a cell phone, because of its proximity to the body, is typically three orders of magnitude (i.e., about 1000 times) greater than the radiation exposure from the cell tower with which the phone connects. Why then does almost every opponent of cell towers, which I am sure includes Cheryl and every other anti cell tower contributor to this blog, own and use cell phones? Why do they all use cordless phones in their homes when the radiation exposure from such a system in the home is typically two orders of magnitude (i.e., about 100 times) greater than the exposure of any cell tower outside the home, even when no cordless phone is in use? The same is true with regard to almost any WiFi system to which these people so freely and comfortably expose themselves.
Do not these people know that cell towers project in a general horizontal direction and that the radiation at ground level is greatest at the the "touch down point" which is typically about a quarter mile away?

I suspect that nobody other than Cheryl Miller will read either of my messages, but if anybody else does and they have questions or want more information feel free to contact me at kslatxpe@yahoo.com. This is not my field of specailty but I have done a fair amount of investigation and would be more than willing to share what I have learnt.

You must have missed the 75,000+ part of my earlier comment. So, your suspicions, just like your assumptions are dead wrong.

voters, Neil. 75,000 voters figured out the misleading ballot question was really about putting cell towers at schools and they said "NO." 62% of one of the largest school districts in the nation.