From the Queens Gazette:Continuing his fight against the placement of cellphone towers in residential neighborhoods, City Councilmember Peter Vallone Jr. has proposed legislation requiring homeowners with cell towers on their buildings to notify the cell company when the Department of Buildings schedules an inspection.
The bill would apply only to buildings six stories or more in height and is aimed at protecting DOB inspectors and building residents from certain equipment that would otherwise remain in operation during the inspection.
“If a property owner enters into an agreement with a cell carrier, then it should also be his or her responsibility to notify the carrier when the equipment must be turned off temporarily for city inspections,” Vallone said (D–Astoria).
Why is the equipment more dangerous for the people living there only when the inspector comes?
26 comments:
These towers will do serious damage to folks down the road. do some research, quite scary...
Right! But many many want their cell phones to work in all locations. Of course some are located in places where building owner greed is at play.
BUT, because the landline services are often overpriced and always heavily taxed, many people are abandoning the landline in favor of the cell phone because they have one anyway --so all the more reason why people demand that the cell phones have good reception etc.
(Me, I have kept my landline and a simple phone in case the power goes out--I do live in Queens after all! )
If the DoB inspector needs to inspect an area in close proximity to the tip of the transmitter tower (where radiation is at its highest concentration), he could be exposed to danger. The base of the tower, by FCC standards, is supposed to emit a safe level of radiation exposure.
Cell phone towers use low power radio waves. It's the same frequency band as CB radios. The City has been using radio waves as a primary source of emergency communications for Transit, Police, Firefighters, Military, etc. for many many years. The use of the technology is almost as old as the City itself.
hey if you don't like someone just knock every idea they have. It's easier then actually doing work.
I understand wanting to protect the inspector. But Pete makes it seem like the residents are in danger when he's inspecting it but not at other times.
If he's concerned about the proliferation of cell towers as a public safety issue, then how would this legislation protect the public?
If he is concerned for the health of the community why is he trying to double the community population?
Powerplants, idling cars, building oil burners.
The only reason they make an interest in the public wellfare is becuase there is something for them in it. If you strictly regulate this, will there not be license fees (and campaign donations) from the cell companies?
Mr Public Safety did a lousy job during the blackout as Con Ed had to cruise up and down the streets to figure out where the problems were cause no one in the community was to be found to work with them.
Junior is full of shit.
Vallone is a typical politician, QC. He is just like the rest of them using a highly charged subject to win his constituencies votes under the guise of public safety.
The science behind heated ELF exposure is old and tested. The science behind non-heated ELF exposure is still in it's infancy. This is where high speculation, scare tactics and junk science abounds. And it's also where politicians and environmental activists can gain the most attention through manipulation of an uninformed populace.
And it's also where politicians and environmental activists can gain the most attention through manipulation of an uninformed populace.
Troll much? Are you a scientist? Are you saying that this technology is safe? Please provide data to support your statement. If it is safe, why should the towers be shut down for DOB inspections only? I smell a rat...AND A TROLL!
Now, now. Klink is not a troll. Just not a believer in the hypothesis. He is always welcome to comment.
"manipulation of an uninformed populace."
good phrase, I am going to remember that nugget.
Troll much? Are you a scientist? Are you saying that this technology is safe? Please provide data to support your statement. If it is safe, why should the towers be shut down for DOB inspections only? I smell a rat...AND A TROLL!
--
This aint astorians.com sonny. People can actually view their opinions here.
How about opinions supported by some type of legitimate info? For example:
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/09/28/
what_are_the_dangers_of_living_near_cell_phone
_towers.htm
If the concerns about the towers prove true, who is going to explain to the parents of children diagnosed with leukemia or a brain tumor what happened? Personally, I would rather err on the side of caution but the decision is obviously not up to the people who may be most impacted by hazardous radiation leaking from the towers?
Anonymous wrote:
Troll much? Are you a scientist?"
======================
I don't troll or feel the need to. And I stand behind my comments and opinions, which is more than can be said for you, Anonymous.
I'm not a scientist and nor does one need to be to speak about a specific subject with some degree of intelligence. I'm a technical engineer with 20 years of experience and have studied technical subjects such as radio waves and electromagnetic fields. That gives my words more weight and validity than yours or your aspersions.
"Are you saying that this technology is safe?"
I've made my comments and stated some well known general scientific facts. Use your own judgment to determine what is safe or not.
"Please provide data to support your statement."
I've spent a good portion of my time and treasure learning and mastering technologies to be able to make a living. The time I spend to analyze a particular subject of interest is for me, if not for my profession. Not for your gain, elucidation or to quell your neurotic tendencies. In other words, do the research yourself! I'm not going to debate the merits of junk science with a person of your ilk. Who I suspect is some environmental enthusiast, some individual with a chip on his shoulder or with a personal axe to grind.
And yes, you hit a particular nerve with me. When it comes to technical facts and subjects, I'm sensitive. I've never seen science and research to have been so utterly corrupted by politics in my lifetime. It disgusts me and I loathe any who are involved to corrupt it.
If the DoB inspector needs to inspect an area in close proximity to the tip of the transmitter tower (where radiation is at its highest concentration), he could be exposed to danger. The base of the tower, by FCC standards, is supposed to emit a safe level of radiation exposure.
-------------------------------------------
I guess the key words here are "supposed to". No guarantees, right? What about politics being corrupted by science and technology? Who are we supposed to trust anymore? It seems that the science behind Al Gore's "global warming" concerns are being challenged. What next?
Just pay off the DOB Inspector and he won't even go up to roof. Safer all around.
Thank you, a person that has mastered reading comprehension! Supposed and could were important qualifiers I used for very specific reasons which you picked up on.
Supposed & could qualifiers: If we're talking about the base of an antennae structure for cell towers, we're merely speaking about a supportive structure which should be of a certain height (by FCC standards) above where people would normally occupy. If a tower is properly maintained, harmful electromagnetic wave exposure is not an issue. Electromagnetic waves don't "leak" like say, uranium infused water in a nuclear reactor. Distance from the emitter (the head of the transmitter where power is concentrated) is key. The further away you are from the emitter, the lower the dosage of electromagnetic waves (EMW) to your person. At these frequencies, roughly 800MHz to 2GHz, what's dangerous is, at high output levels, it can literally cook your tissue. Like a microwave oven does to food. However, I mentioned cell towers are low output transmitters, so the dangers of harmful exposure is relatively low unless you plant yourself right up against the emitter for a certain period of time. The FCC has specific regulations for what is an acceptable dosage over time for a person to bear before it can be dangerous. What's at controversy with EMW is the effect of low power dosages on human tissue and DNA. That's were the science and research is at its infancy. Tie in the cancer "science" and you have an excellent propaganda tool all based on projection, questionable statistics and flawed meta-studies (research based on statistics and other studies instead of a proper scientific study). There is quite a lot of junk science about it. Specially on the internet. And there's even more supposed research centers out there with no other aims but to a) gain and assure future funding by political activist group and governing bodies to further their aims b) for personal profit with the absence of science in its classic Ionian heritage.
"Who are we supposed to trust anymore? It seems that the science behind Al Gore's "global warming" concerns are being challenged. What next?"
Climategate is about to explode here in the US. Mark my words. NOAA and NASA are caught up in it up to their necks. There're a couple of investigative engineers that are trying to bring this to light through articles, but the issue is so entrenched (at least 30 years) and so politicized to the highest levels of government and business, it's become very hard to make much headway.
So who do we trust?: I've handled it by scrutinizing the source of information to understand the motive behind the research and science. Then try to inform myself about the subject. Which invariably leads to some in depth form of research. And let me say the internet is the last place where you'll find good information. Real information costs money. Period. Often times the best you'll do on the internet is attain research abstracts or a general outline of the subject. Which will tell you almost nothing. If you're very lucky you can find an institution that will open up their library of old research or studies that have expired patents, copyrights, is no longer viable for profit, etc.
Ever wonder why the cash starved city doesn't allow these transmitters on city buildings? Seems to me that the Queens Midtown Expressway or Gowanus Expressway would make wonderful platforms.
And as a note, I've enjoyed a few comment thread discussions with the ever interesting Klink and look forward to more in the future. Klink is contentious, but smart, and that's the best kind of conversation.
I don't understand why he is concerned on cell towers, but has no interest in commenting on building high-rises on brownfields.
Maybe some one can ask him about that when he mentions cell towers.
Or how about sharply higher pollution levels after Astoria gets 'downzoned' and it experiences the tender mercies of 'planned development that maintains its unique charm.'
He is lucky.
Only Astoria will senselessly swallow such crap.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100251510&page=1
research |ˈrēˌsər ch; riˈsər ch |
noun
the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions
“Go, Ah say go away, boy, you bother me!”
- Foghorn Leghorn
Klink Cannoli said...
“Go, Ah say go away, boy, you bother me!”
- Foghorn Leghorn
I guess Klink can dish it out but can't take it! What a douche!
You're right, I'm a douche for flipping you off. I'll take that tit for tat as just deserts for insulting you and your recent effort. But understand I still have no respect for your efforts on this subject. It's marked by laziness, ignorance and a slight whiff of environmental protectionism. The fact you don't identify yourself only strengthens my distrust for your motives and person.
You obviously don't understand my frustration with this subject or my rant about today's science in general. I don't think you ever will, which is why I don't spend the time to address you or what you've brought forth.
This medium is not the place for an in-depth analysis. However, if you'd like to pay me the going rate of an Analysts, we can pick one of the stronger studies in that hatchet article(s) you posted and I'll give you an education in interpreting statistical data, its meaning and pitfalls, how a proper scientific study should look like, what does the data set prove, expose the motive behind such studies and maybe give you enough knowledge in how to use critical thinking to further your own investigations.
What do you say?
You're still a douche...and an asshole to boot. Your "holier than thou" attitude doesn't score any points with me. Also, why are you any less anonymous than I am? Klink Cannoli is a made up name, just like your 'facts' perhaps?
Aren't you brilliant. And why do you think this is about you? Or even scoring?
Whenever I post with a fictitious moniker like Klink Cannoli, I'm building a reference of my words to a name. Establishing a type of credibility and identity. It's up to frequent readers of Queens Crap to give me either crap or validity in their eyes. That's as much identity a careful internet user should give in my opinion when dealing with controversial subjects on blogs like this. It gives you a certain amount of freedom yet also holds a certain amount of responsibility.
Aren't you brilliant. And why do you think this is about you? Or even scoring?
Pot calling the kettle black?
Establishing a type of credibility and identity. It's up to frequent readers of Queens Crap to give me either crap or validity in their eyes.
Credibility? HA HA HA HA Thanks for the laugh.
Post a Comment