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.

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

thank you Janis, I hope our parent will click your link for concerns we did not even think of!

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.

(Sorry -- had to repost because of a typo).

Some comments on the petition state that the radiation is dangerous. As discussed on other posts in

http://tucker.patch.com/blog_posts/credible-research-supports-cell-tower-health-risks

additional towers actually reduce aggregate radiation.

This counter-intuitive phenomena occurs because the towers can transmit with lower power. For those with imagination, consider a network of infinite towers -- everywhere you want to use a phone. These all would transmit with the lowest possible energy at which the phone would operate and their would be no "hotspots." The phones would transmit with lower energy as well. While an infinite array of antennae is impossible, it should be clear that more antennae lead to less radiation.

Contrary to what internet fearmongering groups might say, this is not phone company propaganda, just basic electromagnetic theory from physics.

The school board should invite a professor from Georgia Tech, an engineer from Lockheed Martin or some other professional not linked to the telecom industry to explain this at the July 11 meeting.

Fear of radiation and property values will be elephants in the room on July 11 - fear can be extinguished, and perhaps by doing that, the property value issue will be alleviated as well.

Cell phone reception near Brockett Road is horrendous, they can build the antenna on the roof of my house if they like.

Mobile data traffic is skyrocketing. With budget shortfalls everywhere due to property taxes cratering, local school systems are probably being pitched on hosting telecom equipment to make up for budget shortfalls. If there's legitimate hard data about this being potentially harmful, i've yet to see it. I need more than "Won't someone think of the children" rhetoric to convince me this is a bad idea for my neighborhood.

Hi Scott, just curious... what carrier do you have for your coverage? I had Metro PCS for a while because the rates were low and I didn't have to sign a contract. But, my phone didn't work inside my home (or outside metro Atlanta without roaming charges). We switched to AT&T GoPhone and we don't have any problems, even in the basement of an all brick home.

If the cell tower proposed was for a smaller carrier with poor service in our area, I might see where the "need" for better coverage would be a valid reason for some people to want the tower built. But, because it is T-mobile which is just doing the dirty work for AT&T by trying to force their way into neighborhoods via the school system, this particular effort will only help them form more of a monopoly, increase rates and put the smaller, more affordable guys out of business.

Here’s a look at the U.S. market as it stands today, in terms of revenues:

•Verizon: 35 percent
•AT&T: 32 percent
•Sprint: 15 percent
•T-Mobile: 12 percent
Already, Verizon and AT&T occupy more than two-thirds (67 percent) of the market. That leaves just 6 percent of market revenues for super-regional carriers such as MetroPCS, U.S. Cellular, Leap Wireless (Cricket), Alltel and others.

“The safety of RF has not been established, nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it.”
– Elizabeth Jacobsen, Deputy Director, US Department of Health (aka, NOT a part of an "internet fearmongering group" as depicted by an earlier post.

For more information, refer to a well-written and researched report that is easy to understand by Karen J. Rogers: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone-Tower-Radiation

And Scott, while I appreciate your comment was made in jest, I do hope you realize that a cell tower on top of your house would mean HAZMAT materials on your roof. If a cell tower is within sight from your home, your property value could drop up to 20% or more. Can't you just use a land line so we can all keep the little equity we have left around here?

In a recent test of a cell antenna near a school the RF radiation from the antenna was found to be 7/10 of one percent of the total RF radiation. The radiation from other sources was 130 times that of the radiation from the antenna under test. About 1/4 of the total radiation was from FM radio and another quarter from broadcast TV. Much of the rest of the radiation came from the cell phones of the people witnessing the test. Both FM and TV each produced about 35 times as much radiation as the cell antenna under test. If a cell antenna was placed on the roof of a private house the family in the house would get between 10 and 100 times as much radiation from the router on the modem of each computer than they would get from that cell antenna. They would also get 10 to 100 times as much radiation from any cordless phone system in the house. People in a "wireless ready" facility, like a library, get 100 to 200 times as much radiation from the hidden antennas that make the place "wireless ready" than they would get from a cell tower on the roof. And, of course, the radiation exposure people get from a cell phone in use is about 1000 times the radiation from the antenna with which it is connecting. If all cell towers would disappear the RF radiation exposure from all sources except the phones themselves would hardly change. Of course, the total exposure would dramatically increase as the phones put out more radiation to try to find an antenna with which to connect.

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

Tucker Residents: This issue may be added to the July 11 school board vote in DeKalb County. For details "like" the Facebook page for "Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter." To be added to the email update list, send an email request to sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.

The school board meeting begins at 6 p.m. and will be held at the Administrative and Instructional Complex, 1701 Mountain Industrial Boulevard, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Brockett Petition is still at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Stop-Brockett-Cell-Towers/

Were is the petition if we want the tower?
Were is the petition if we want the tower?
Do cellular phone towers cause cancer?
Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer.
First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.
A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.

Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low -- well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different than the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.
For these reasons, most scientists agree that cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers

Dude, what exactly would your petition say as far as what benefits you think would come from allowing a cell tower on school property? Because, there are a lot of reasons they should not be allowed. The health debate is ongoing and the statements you used have not been updated to reflect the recent big announcement that the WHO has changed its postion and has upgraded RF emissions to possibly carcinigenic. But, if we agree to make that a non-issue, I still don't think a corporate entity should have leased property at an elementary school for any purpose, especially if they have full access to the grounds and HAZMAT materials stored on site. And, don't worry about signing a petition for T-mobile/AT&T. If you sign your checks, that is all the help they need. They have a big PR and advertising department so you will not have to worry about them being unfairly represented. But, if what they were doing was so noble, why are they doing it in such an underhanded, sneaky way? No notification, no discussions, no public input, no advance notice. Most of these things go up in the middle of the night and the people putting them up or maintaining them often carry weapons. Sounds like a great new tennant for the neighborhood.

Hi Dude,

Thanks for jumping into this argument with scientific reality. Unfortunately, you are arguing against people with a very specific political agenda that scientific reality will not be able to change. WHO has not changed any position in this matter. An agency of WHO, based on an unscientific study that is being challenged by just about every responsible agency in the western world, wants to put RF radiation from prolonged cell phone use (not from wireless base stations) in the same category as things like alcohol, coffee, and working the night shift. People like Cheryl Miller and Doctor DeKalb, out of inability to understand the literature, or worse, have chosen to misinterpreted that to suppor their case. They rely on the lack of adequate scientific background of the public to hoodwink them, and, unfortunately, they all-too-often succeed.

"The Dude:"

Nice going with the research. The ACS has a sterling reputation and has a history taking on big corporations including the tobacco industry.

Some people on this board would prefer that we accept the research from papers such as the one produced by Karen Rodgers. Yes, that paper is readable, probably because it contains a lot of rhetoric and not much science. It includes advice from Dr. George Carlo, noted for his involvement in the Biopro Multi-Level-Marketing scheme. While Dr. Carlo later *refudiated* Biopro, but one must still ask why a scientist would so readily accept the specious claims of an MLM.

* Yes -- I mean "refudiate!"

Just to be clear -- Dr. Carlo did not say "redudiate" -- I'm using that word

I did some calculations that I think might apply to this tower. I'll show the work so it can be reviewed by an RF engineer.

The power density of this tower can be calculated as follows:

Pd = (Pt / (4 * pi * D^2)) * G

Pd = Power density
Pt = Total transmitted power
D = Distance from the antenna
G = Gain of the antenna in the direction of the measurement.

This equation measures the power per unit area. It divides the transmitted power by the surface area of a sphere at a given distance. Since the surface area is proportianal to the square of the distance, the power density falls proportianate to the square of the distance.

Here are the values:

1) Height of the tower - 150' according to Dr. Dekalb.
2) Distance of the tower from the school - 150' (guess).
3) Distance at ground level - 212' from pythagorean theorem.
4) Gain of the antennae towards the school - 10db - This means the power is concentrated 10 times as it would be if it passed uniformly through the imaginary sphere's surface.
5) Power - 100 Watts -- just a guess.

The power density is approximately 2 microwatts per cm-sq.

The power may be attenuated by a factor of 10 inside the school so we have approximately 0.2 microwatts / cm-sq.

The amount of radiation a child gets in the classroom from the tower is roughly equivalent to the amount he/she gets sitting 20' away from someone on a cell phone at 1W.

The 10db gain that I added is probably highter than reality. Given that the nearest tower is .5 miles away, the gain is probably at its maximum 600'-1000' away, not 150'.

If the gain were only 3db, you would get 1/5th the power in the classroom, the amount you would get sitting 45' from someone on a 1W phone.

Here is another hard calculation to inspire some critical thinking to counter the weak and/or alarmist studies that others present:

The Interphone study with its **disputed** report of increased cancer incidence among the **highest** (e.g not ALL) users is the basis for much of the alarmism regarding cell towers. This increase is reported cause the particular cancer rate to jump from 6.5 /100000 to 9/100000. That's 2.5 incidents per 100,000 difference.

Let's go worst case -- the increase applies to the entire USA populace and not just the highest users. Some simple division:

(300 million / 100,000) * 2.5/100000/yr = 7500 cases in the USA per year.

This disputed, worst case estimate is tragic no doubt.

Let's compare this disputed, worst case calculation that to another well-measured statistic - vehicular accidents -- 37000 in 2008. Of those, 5300 were non-occupant deaths (passive). Can you imagine some pedestrian bringing this statistic to town hall demanding a halt to driving because of passive automobile deaths?

No rigorous study shows any link between cell towers and cancer or any other harm.

So for the torch and pitchfork crew assembling for the July 11 meeting, what other conveniences of civilization would you like to tear down?

No, but I could imagine laws in place that required shoulder harness seat belts, required people to wear seatbelts, required safety testing of infant car seats, required air bags, required car seats to face backwards and be placed in the backseat, added teather harnesses and height/weight requirements, required booster seats, required speed limits, required turn signals, required traffic lights, stop signs, driver's education, a driver's license, an eye exam, emissions inspections and made it illegal to text while driving plus an entire department of law enforcement dedicated to looking for any violations. And, no parent is required by law to subject their child to drive around all day every day with a careless driver who shows no respect for the other around him, is only concerned about themselves, thinks they are above the law and has announced that he is skipping town in a few months.

Good base station coverage educes net radiation exposure. This has been repeatedly explained.

To the editor:

It appears that you deleted some of Cheryl's comments that attacked either Neil or me with statements such as "misleading" or "flat out lies."

I am speaking for myself and not for Neil. As an editor, you are doing your readers a disservice. I am not offended by these remarks and they should be part of the debate. If someone wishes to call me a liar, say that I "mislead," or that I don't care about children or do not respect women, let them say so.

If they want to accuse me of industry cronyism that's fine as well. I can choose to respond to these remarks if I wish.

Everything should be tolerated except racial epithets and threats.

Is advertising professional services, e.g. legal representation, permissible?

Please let Cheryl voice her opinion.

No base station and cell phone in the off position reduces exposure even more.

The Empire State building in Manhattan has several stations that transmitting with hundreds of Kilowatts (e.g. WCBS TV can transmit 350KW). This exceeds the power of any cellular tower by a factor of more than a thousand, if not several thousand. The transmitter has been active for decades.

There is a residential building, 325 Fifth Ave, across the street and one block south, some 300' from the ESB with its extremely powerful antennae. Several other luxury residences are nearby.

If any of the fearmongering about the health effects of radiation from base stations were true, these residential buildings would be morgues. Everyone working near the ESB would be suffering from fatigue, nausea and dizziness before developing cancer. One could only imagine the affliction of those working on the top floors of the ESB.

Instead, it is one of the most vibrant areas of Manhattan, there are no adverse health effects and condos in 325 Fifth Ave, with terraces facing the ESB antennae, sell for two million dollars.

It should be obvious to everyone that the anti-wireless fearmongerers are promoting a "science" that is utterly divorced from reality.

You should move there.

Vote is tonight at 6 p.m. News coverage today: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/28507682/detail.html And, petition is located at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Stop-Brockett-Cell-Towers/

Family members have a right to voice their opinion about the children they love just as much as the people who have commented in these blogs from other states have the right to chime in and object.

The media in Hempstead allied itself with the junk science clan. Looks like the same thing is going on here.

The fact that every fearmongering argument has been thoroughly trashed makes no difference to the press nor to the fearmongerers who are not the least bit interested in the truth wireless technology and health.

Getting media attention is the goal, not the well being of the community nor its children.

I am not responding to Brian, but just letting everyone know that the school board decided to take three schools off the list and approved nine to receive towers. Brockett was one of the three. Medlock and Meadowview were the other two.

If anyone in DeKalb County is concerned about cell towers being placed at their local school, please email sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com for more information.