Microwaves - Fix the Problem
The turnout at Monday night’s meeting was quite impressive and the response on this site has been amazing. Since the meeting approximately 50 new comments have been posted, many from people new to the Bayville Blog, and on Tuesday we set a new record with exactly 500 hits for the day. Most of the posts have expressed legitimate concerns and provided some useful information. Unfortunately, there have also been more than a few instances of sniping, name-calling and other counterproductive behavior. This is extremely disillusioning for me. This site was created with the intention of finding solutions for the issues that face the community by bringing these issues into the public domain for discussion, consensus building and, when necessary, applying some gentle pressure on our elected officials. It was never intended as a tool to for unchecked criticism that doesn’t even offer the pretense of being constructive. It is important for us to remember that the Nassau County Police Department, Mayor Siegel and the Board of Trustees are not the enemy. NCPD is trying to improve the quality of the services that it has been entrusted to provide and Mayor Siegel and the Board of Trustees are merely trying to make an informed decision after hearing the evidence. I have seen no indication that they have already made the decision to allow this installation, yet it appears that many people posting have made the decision to assume that they have. They are not villains.
Just as importantly, no one has offered a solution other than to “just say no”. This kind of rigid response rarely addresses the problem at hand and tends to lead to unnecessary conflict. We need to explore ways to address the needs of all involved and our first step should be to identify the problem. In this case the problem is less than perfect radio communications for the police department vs. increased exposure to radio and microwave radiation. I think everyone will agree that a better communication system for the police, taken at face value, is a good thing.
The second step is to put the problem in perspective. This was pretty well addressed by Bayville Engineer’s fruit roll up comment. If your family is eating more meals out of a box or take out bag than off the top off the stove, or your landscaper is dumping fertilizer, broad leaf weed killer, grub controller and broad spectrum pesticides on the lawn that your kids play on and, in turn, into the water we drink (if you don’t know whether or not he is – he is), then I wouldn’t sweat the radio waves. That being said I have always been an advocate of limiting these emissions as good policy. It is an unknown and I certainly think prudence is warranted. However, the sky is not falling.
Finally, we need to come up with ways to balance the amount of emissions we are subjected to with the realities of modern life. One way to do this is an alternate site. Like most of the people in the audience on Monday night, I have to question the criteria used for picking the Bayville water tower site. It does not appear that population density or proximity to schools were included in that criteria. It does, however, appear that municipal resistance was, and in comparison to Mill Neck, which certainly seems to be a viable alternate site, Bayville became the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, we have little or no control over the decisions made by other municipalities and neither does Nassau County.
Another way to achieve this balance could be to set a limit on the amount of total radiation emitted from this site. By freezing the amount to the level that is currently there (or less), we could require that before NCPD increases their output, an equal amount of radiation producing equipment must come down. This would force us to prioritize what services are most important to the community and force any entity that wants to utilize this site to bid for that right on a per watt basis (or whatever quantitative measurement is used). Limiting the “commodity” in this way will in turn increase revenue per watt, limit exposure and force the users of the site to re-evaluate their needs and reduce output in an effort to reduce costs. All while freezing output at the site at today’s levels.
I welcome any and all other ideas, but let’s keep it constructive. Fix the problem.
Barry E. Lamb
Bayville
Categories: Microwave Satellite Receivers and Sticks aka -Antennas
Barry: Thank you for the smart moderation on the antenna issue.
Reply to this
Barry,
Thank you. Concise and poignant.
Monday night the proximity to the schools was brought up initially by myself and than reitierated by a gentleman in the back that cited other schools and towns nationwide who have prohibited these type of things close to schools. It was also brought up by that man (I do not know his name) that other countries such as New Zealand and the UK have banned cell phone use for children.
The proximity was echoed by many other parents and questions about alternate locations where asked and shot down by the police repeatedly.
IN actuality the only thing that should be up there is the NCPD project because they are our first responders. Almost every person who spoke began by complimenting and thanking the NCPD, we all understand their need for this project but it could not be more clear that it should not be close to a school.
There were so many people there that it was hard to get a word in edge wise.
In Newsday on MOnday (I did not see it until post meeting) there was a public notice that states: Mill Neck Village is being approached by Verizon to construct a new 150 antenna on village property for telecommunication use and the Mill Neck Police.
If that goes up or if that is being considered, why couldn't the NCPD piggy back that project and work off of the tower they are building?
Also, I take great offense to the comments about if you are doing this and that you have no right to complain about these emissions. Barry you do not know the effects of those emmission other than what the information out there is.
Those children are going to be exposed to whatever is currently coming off the tower plus what they are putting up for 7 1/4 hours a day in school, 5 days a week and 182 days a year. IN addition to playing on the playground and fields for recreation.
The experts all agreed that the lower the radiation the more harmful it is and they all sadi we had the lower level emmitting from those towers.
The Village expert also stated we should be more concerned with what is already up there than what is going up there.
Let us not forget, no one is a villain, but the people presenting the facts work for Motorola and the Village.
SOLUTION OPTIONS:
Take down what is up there and put up what is needed for our safety. I for one would live with the decrease in cell service to protect my kids.
Put the NCPD project in Mill Neck. We will still get a significant increase % in police communication.
Margaret
Reply to this
Just trying to make sure we as a group under stand the comment of
“The experts all agreed that the lower the radiation the more harmful it is and they all said we had the lower level emitting from those towers.”
Lets break that up into 4 categories
Frequency
Power
Ability to heat the human Body
Heath effect (Cancer causing ect)
Frequency is the amount of cycles per second.
Lets Call
TV signals vhf Very high frequency (A radio frequency)
Higher than that is
Cell phones Let call it UHF or Ultra High Frequency (A radio frequency)
And even Higher than that is Microwaves (A radio frequency)
Way way above that is Light (Like what we need to see)
And way way above that is Xrays
What they tried to say is as a rule of thumb the higher the Radio frequency the less likely the body will be heated by it.
Heath effect is a different topic. No one did/ nor will commit to the heath affect difference between microwaves and UHF waves. Why because no one really knows yet. The latest study Mr Cotton was talking about involved over 400,000 people. That study showed cell phone users are safe. A hand full of parents found studies that say cell phones are harmful. (who is right ?)
Reply to this
That is my point.If we are not sure why are we even having this discusion. I only pray Mayor S dos right by us and our kids. How much can the same things be talked about.No one Knows so lets just say NO.
Reply to this
Thank you for explaining that. It was very confusing to me.
Q: When Mr. Cotton said we should be more concerned with what is already up there? Why would he make that comment when in his report which was a study of what is currently up there said it was at no harm to the public??
Reply to this
With respect to Don Cotton, as a fellow resident; the last projects he has been involved with had absolutely nothing to do with these issues.
Once again I only stating facts:
Goto www.google.com
enter the following into the search bar-
"planning and research consulting associates"
Make sure you include the quotes.
Click SEARCH
Only 4 things are found. 2 are for a road work project near CS Labs. The other is a Correlation Study of Solar Wind Proton Flux. The 4th, this current project.
Once again, no attacks here...just facts, do with them what you like.
I am not sure how he even came up with the report, being he never used a Spectrum Analyzer to first identify what he is measuring....BayvilleEngineer, what do you think? He used a field strength meter that does not identify the source or frequency. Something else to consider is this. Without identifing each individual source & strength, how do you come to a total?
Chris Zino
Reply to this
In reference to the question
He used a field strength meter that does not identify the source or frequency. Something else to consider is this. Without identifying each individual source & strength, how do you come to a total?
Let me start with a disclaimer. (The following is my opinion as an educated engineer)
Whatever Mr. cotton did was reasonable.
A spectrum analyzer is typically needed if you
1) Don’t know the source of what you are measuring (He did it’s the antennas on the water tower)
2) You want to verify the antennas are working correctly (That’s not what he was looking for)
What He was looking for was the signal strength of a know frequency. So using a Field strength meter makes a lot of sense. (It is how you come to a total)
Mathematical calculations are used to predict what will happen A meter is what you use to see if you were right.
The only thing that was questionable to me was his math for the new antennas. If we want to push any thing it should be for some one to check his math. I feel this is a reasonable request. As a fellow engineer I ask if he did make a mistake let it go he is only human.
Reply to this
Bayville Engineer,
DId you ever get anyone to give you the $$ needed to get the equipment for testing?
Just wondering, because the first blog note you wrote you sounded very interested in finding out info for yourself, now you seem to have changed your mind. Did you get to do independent readings? Please let us know.
Reply to this
I am still trying to get the tools I need. No I have not been successful yet.
Reply to this
Barry,
I don't know that I necessarily agree that it the responsibility of the populace in this situation to come up with an alternative. NCPD did not seem to share any alternative sites with us, so either they ask us to suspend disbelief and believe that no alternative sites exist, or they just want, as you said, the path of least resistance. Either way, my take on it is that right now we can influence our elected officials to know the collective public opinion of yes or no.
I also think that yes, this situation should be a wake up call as to the other environmental ills that surround us, but as I referred to facetiously on the other thread....should there really be a litmus test? (For what it's worth, I think I'd pass it; come see the mowed, not chemically treated weeds that pass for a lawn at my house.)
Edie
trying not to be snippy, snarky or name calling, in hopes that the blog doesn't go away
Reply to this
To All,
If people seem snippy, could it be that we have been misled and lied to repeatedly?
At the first public hearing on 11/2, the Harris Corp gave a great presentation for about 1/2 hour on the 1 watt directional Microwave Dishes being proposed. I was about to walk out, because I felt there were no real threats to the children. The Motorola, the NCPD, the Village reps never even said a word about the other parts of this project, such as the FOUR, 100 watt transmitters also being added. We only got information that we asked for. We are regular people, not radio engineers. Motorola offered no voluntary information. Again, on 12/18/06, they didn't even answer my questions. Sometimes they just ignored them.
Is this becoming a political issue?
For me it has become a matter of trust. When our Mayor says one thing on three occasions prior to the meeting, then again on 11/18, THEN is called out on it, says something else? I am referring to the additional Cellular equipment that was installed around 2003, according the budget report . Some people may feel a decision has already been made for this reason: If Mayor Siegel allowed the installation of cellular equipment as late as 2003, she must feel that this type equipment, 150' from the primary school is "safe". Was there a public hearing then? By the way, "safe" is not a word I have heard from ANY of the parties involved. I am not attacking anyone, I have no prior issues with any of the elected officials. These are just the current facts.
To add to this, our Mayor and trustees will not give a straight answer as when a descision will be made.
A public vote was requested and seconded. But denied by Mayor Siegel. Why? It would take all pressure and responsibilty off the Mayor and the Trustees. THEY are no more an expert on this issue then the people that voted them in to office.
Since 11/2/06 much more as come to light then just this NCPD Proposal, for me at least. I am not going to bury my head back in the sand.
Several people have approached me and others, with the suggestion that a formal, named, group be created. If anyone is interested, please let me know; czino@optonline.net
Chris Zino
Reply to this
People keep talking about “FOUR, 100 watt transmitters”
This is the way I understood it
Its not 4 antennas But a dipole antenna with four sets of prongs.
It would look like a TV antenna you use to see on everyone’s rooftop with two differences. One there would only be only 8 rods. Two the rods would all be the same length. One uses such an antenna when you want to try and direct where the radio waves are going. Example we don’t want to waist energy sending useless signals to the sky. Now for the is it a 28(was it 28?) or a 100 watt antenna question. It’s a 28 watt antenna that concentrates the signal to were you need it. If you used a normal antenna you would need 100 watts to get the same results. As far as we are concerned (The Amount of RF power we have to deal with) it’s a 100 watt antenna. Not (4 X 100 or 400 watts of power). I hope these explanations Help.
Reply to this
BE:
I normally do not respond to people who do not sign a name, but I feel this post was directed towards me and my husband.
It was my husband who asked the question of the fonts. If you had read Mr. Cotten's report on line prior to the meeting, as many of us who attended the first meeting did, you would have seen very large, important sections changed from a legible font to a barely legible font, mid-stream in the report. That was the purpose of the question. Mr. Cotten attempted to trivialize it by calling it absurd.
As for poiltical gain, at this current point in Bayville politics, I could be the one you are speaking of.
I have been in contact with Mayor Siegel via personal conversations related to this topic since the first meeting. Mayor Siegel understands my postion and my interest in this issue. I was honest with the Mayor about my political future. The Mayor knows this is about the kids. My kids, her grandchildren and all of our kids. To qoute what you asked at the end of your post, That is "What your missing". You are missing the point that the kids are the common denominator for all sitting in that auditorium.
We all have one common denominator in this and that is the safety of our children. If you are o.k. with the NCPD and Motorola not answering valid questions during the evening, then you are entitiled to that. I am not o.k. with vague answers and answers that are two sided.
As for your comment about Mayor Siegel lying or not, and equating politicians=lies I offer you this.
I need to be diligent in making sure every avenue of alternatives were sought out, I need to be the one to find out if there is any harm to my children, I need to be my childrens voice. I especially cannot rely on people I percieve to be biased (Motorola & Mr. Cotten) to give me all of that information.
If you can rely on people you believe to be not trustworthy to make decisions that impact your children that is your perogative.
One last point. If the speaker (Mr. Cotten), gained your respect than you must remember his point. "You all should be worried about what is up there, not what is going up there."
Do you think we should be worried?
I also think people hear should post their names. It is easy to hide behind alias'.
Margaret Marchand
Reply to this
Thank you for trying to put me strait
Please try and understand all I’m trying to do is solve the problem at hand
As for the comment
“But I feel this post was directed towards me and my husband.”
Sorry but I Just picked a question that stuck in my head (I’m clueless as to who is who in Bayville politics)
Remember I’m an engineer not a politician. I think I’m starting to figure it out though (Were you and your husband sitting on opposite sides of the room?)
Help me Understand Why do you feel mr cotton is biased?
I do remember reading threw the weird font. What part of that did you feel was vital?
Please help me what were the
“vague answers and answers that are two sided”. (One or two is fine)
“Do you think we should be worried?” Yes But not to the scale this has turned into.
“I also think people hear should post their names. It is easy to hide behind alias'.”
Yes it is. I fear I will become the next Mr Cotton.
Reply to this
First I would like to comment on the main topic in this thread. Barry broke it down in plain terms and very well. Nice job trying to get everyone back on topic, but what do you know it all rolls back to politics.
Do not dismiss the main issue in this which is the communication problem that exists. It has created the sub issue of what the proposed solution is or should be. I have only read BE and a couple of others even attempt to look at this with the right intentions. A great deal of others have the well being of our children and residents in mind which is a thought process I agree with. Please do not let political accusations and other ridiculous barbs skew that opinion.
As for identifying oneself in this blog, get real people. This is the internet and you never know who lurks out there. In this age of identity theft and personal attacks and accusations, who on earth would want their name exposed to the www??? Remember there are no restrictions who can read and post here. It's each persons choice to identify themselves or not. I for one find some of those that don't identify themselves to have some pretty valid points.
Don't lose sight of the main topic and try to make the underlying topics the issue.
Reply to this
14str8,
just a little story for you on ID theft and protection. I recently received a letter from the university where i got my masters degree in December of 2001. they had a computer stolen from my former advisors office during a move, by a mover, thereby putting ALL my information at risk. SS#, address, test scores, etc.
I now have to put fraud alerts on my credit reports and watch them for three years.
just pointing this out to say that putting your first name on this blog is not the risk you think it is, but that your information in the hands of people you think you can trust just might be a bigger risk, you never know.
Reply to this
That's unfortunate that you have to deal with all of that. In all due respect, I did not take the suggestion re: identity to be limited to first names. I understand very well what will and won't put you at risk on the internet as it is part of what I do.
I hope your situation never leads to anything that will harm you or your family.
Reply to this
I have a few Ideas (They all have prows and cons) but at least it’s a start
1) Let them put up the antennas and only turn them on during high levels of threat.
2) Build a camouflaged antenna (It looks like a tree) and put it in the middle of the Bayville woods.
3) Put an antenna in the middle of Saint Gertrude’s Wood’s (For the good Saint Gertrude’s needs the money)(For the Bad Its now closer to the pre school)
Reply to this
good ideas.
The tower in the woods was presented a the first meeting. The police's response was "they did not think the public would like a fake tree"
Lets use open space money to buy St. Gerturdes acres and put the tower there.
Reply to this
Good idea... An open space parcel can be nominated for purchase with the recent county bond act money, through the North Shore Land Alliance (they have a web site). Nomination forms come out early 2007.
Reply to this
My comment was in response to Vinnie's comment about attaining open space (St. Gertrude's property) and putting tree-type cell tower there.
Reply to this
It is good to consider alternates for the tower site, but, I am not sure how feasible it would be to consider St. Gertrude's Open Space. They are pre-schoolers who attend St. Gertrude's
Reply to this
Peter,
Not speaking for Vinnie or anyone else, but I'm fairly certain that the St. Gerts land being referenced is the 3+ acres that they own that is rumored to be on the market....there is a separate post on this blog about it.
Reply to this
Barry, Thank you so much for putting everything in perspective. You are right on all counts. I attended the meeting also and you summed up my feelings to a tee. I thought the attendance was gratifying seeing as there was not obvious notice about such an important issue.
Reply to this
Didn't Dr. Cotten say that Dr. Morro was the expert in this field? (I don't even know the spelling of his name.) I think he should have been there if he was an authority on this waves.
Reply to this
i bet "Dr Morro" was just his "invisible friend"...ha ha I really had no respect for him at that meeting I could not even follow what he said he was all over the place, to me he seemed like a stooge for mayor siegal.
Reply to this
Why is everyone so against Mayor Siegel and Mr. Cotton? When I see a person stand in front of a room full of people trying to help only to be accused of purposely changing font types I gain respect for the Speaker And loose respect for the audience. When Mayor Siegel Help a conference On organic lawn care (A bigger environmental issue ) No one showed. Its Become apparent to me that this issue is some ones tool to bash the current Mayor. My question is Why? (Is it for some one else’s political gain). Please don’t tell me she lies (Politician = lies). What am I missing?
Reply to this
bayville engineer,
can only speak for myself...I didn't go to the the organic lawn care meeting b/c it would have been a waste of time for me. We already don't use artificial stuff on our lawn.
My personal hypothesis as to why no one showed at the meeting is that Village sponsored events are usually poorly publicized. The one and only reason that the meeting on the 18th was a full house was because concerned people like myself used this blog, our personal email and phone contacts and notified as many people as we could. the prior meeting to this was attended by about 10 people, which is (as stated by Trustee Watson) a record for town meeting attendance.
I will toot my own horn and say that Mayor Siegel took my suggestion to use the Village Newsletter to publicize the meeting on Dec. 18. I think that putting an unclear note by the address on the front fold was ineffective, but at least it was put on the mailing that goes to every household in the village. Why it should take ME, a non-politician, not experienced in marketing or anything like that, to think of that idea is something I can't speak to.
Reply to this
Bayville Engineer,
I have more to say in reply to your questions, but I feel really strongly that you should identify yourself and if you don't want to do so, I'm not really up to debating with an unknown entity.
Reply to this
Edie,
Just curious. What difference does it make who Bayville Engineer is? Isn't it possible to discuss ideas without attaching a face to them? (I didn't notice anyone in here challenging BayvilleVideo to reveal their identity)Is it because Bayville Engineer didn't bash VS?
Reply to this
curious, I suspect i know who each person on this thread is, for the record. i can post my guesses or you can contact me personally if you want.
that said, i agree with bayville video, so i am not 'debating' with him. note i said that i don't feel up to 'debating' with someone who isn't up to revealing their name. with your love of semantics, i'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.
Reply to this
LM (i mean "curious")-
IMHO I didn't bash VS - I only stated the facts as I saw them with my own eyes (and camera) - I called attention to Don COTTEN because I felt his involvement appeared to be some type of payback he, and his wife, received for backing VS in the last campaign. His expertise is not in the area he is discussing, his presentation was somewhat disjointed and the real "expert" did not show...
If he really cares about the Village why not donate his time rather than charge for it?
I say the Village should look beyond Mr Cotten, and H2M, and hire someone who is not linked in any way with the current administration. That would improve their credibility greatly - and would diminish some of the mistrust...
Ultimately the entire system on the water tower needs to be reviewed and a long-view solution should be proposed. I like the idea of setting a limit on total discharge of EMR and swapping out some of the cell phone antennae for the NCPD equipment... but I fear there will be yet another debate on what the limit should be.
Regarding NCPD - I support the efforts of any first-responder to improve their process - but the case the presented bordered on scare tactics and the maps they showed worked against the story they were try to tell.
As far as ANY statements from the Motorola reps in attendance - it has NO VALUE. They were there to push the project through and to present info that supports that push.
I second Edie's comment that I would rather have less cell coverage than risk the health of anyone - children or otherwise.
In closing -to find out why many residents do not trust the current admin just look back to the campaign - everything from violating campaign law by selling tickets in Village Hall to stealing a photo of a Bayville sunset for their election mailing...
Not only did they steal the photo but they stole it from Jeff Pulver the gentleman who started Vonage phone company!!! this is a fact and you can see it at his blog:
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/004845.html
It is this culture of dishonesty that has many residents asking - "if they would steal a photo of a Bayville sunset for a political mailer how can we trust them on the bigger issues?"
BV
Reply to this
I am not familiar with the difference in technology between cell phone towers and the proposed microwave transmitter, but has anyone asked whether the Police transmitter would cause interference with our TVs, portable phones and radio reception? I know ham radio operators can sometimes cause interference, and I'm wondering if this is along the same lines?
Reply to this
My brief respite is over, so after reading the new entries I feel it neccesary to restate a fact from the meeting. Barry stated
1) "...It[this blog] was never intended as a tool to for unchecked criticism..."
My thought is that this is indeed a public forum, and those elected officials who represent the residents of bayville are free to log on and reply if they so desire. The answers were not forthcoming at the meeting from the NCPD, in fact several times they simply did not answer questions. The Mayor and the Board did not question this and, for that matter, did not moderate the forum as a "hearing" have been.
2) Barry you also said, "It is important for us to remember that the Nassau County Police Department, Mayor Siegel and the Board of Trustees are not the enemy. NCPD is trying to improve the quality of the services that it has been entrusted to provide and Mayor Siegel and the Board of Trustees are merely trying to make an informed decision after hearing the evidence. I have seen no indication that they have already made the decision ..."
I agree, none of those folks are the enemy, however, the NYPD offered graphics of the village with an improved system without the new antennae that was NOT substantially improved. And I respectfully disagree with you Barry, Mayor Siegel stated THREE TIMES, after the court reporter had left, directly in answer to my question, that she had not received any solid documentation that this WAS HARMFUL. Curious choice of words if she hasn't made up her and the boards minds. In my experience our Mayor chooses her words VERY CAREFULLY, more often than not, answering in such a way so that the exact question was not answered clearly.
4) Mayor Siegel made an explicit comment about noone having a problem with the antennea until she brought up that they were there, she also defensively questioned a woman about why their road association had never said anything before. She also vehemently defended herself saying if she were on the board when the antenna went up she would not have voted for it. After Mr Marchand "refreshed" her memory and pointed out the antennas placed since then, the web began to unravel. This is not an attack on Mrs Siegel or the Board, rather a statement of what occurred at the meeting. As public officials, our Mayor and Board should answer for their behavior and decisions, if Mayor Siegel could not recall her approval for the 93 antennae, she should have said so rather than lie in a way that put her in a better light given the general disposition of the group present.
5) It seemed to me that the board and the Mayor (as elected officials who are supposed to represent the people) are willing to lend more credence to their own opinion (aka informed decision) rather than the fact that the were ELECTED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE. I counted one supporter of the project amoung the resident speakers.
Reply to this
Bayville Engineer,
Any and all info is very appreciated, but please look at the new final report, from Don Cotton at:
http://www.bayvillevillagehall.com/PDFs/MOT_Bayv_final.pdf
I quote from page 7 of the report, in a letter from the county:
"..., five(5) of the six(6) omni antennas are transmit antennas. These transmit omni antennas generate a maximum of 100 watts of radio frequency (rf) per antenna per transmission."
To be fair, the letter continues:
"...(RF) is only emitted when a radio dispatcher at Police Headquarters transmits to mobile units or for simulcast purposes..."
This last statement does not make me feel any better. I have been a Volunteer Firefighter for over 15 years, I am often in the vicinity of radios/scanners and such. The 2 or 3 NCPD frequencies I am familiar with (there are more than 2-3) are almost constantly active.
The letter continues to mention something brand new. There is also one(1) MHz transmit antenna...I guess thats why the number of transmit antenna went from 4, to 5 (out of 6). Mr. Cotton's preliminary report mentions a possible 3rd dish, but has not mentioned it since.
The lower the frequency, the more likely the RF is to penetrate human skin. Therefore the lower the frequency, the higher risk of possible health affects. These are facts from the meetings, I am not an expert or doctor.
Many people are concerned about the Microwave dishes, I could care less about them. The stick antenna are omni directional, 100 times the power, lower in the frequency range, there are 5 of them, and seem to get the least amount of attention from Mr.Cotton & Motorola, during these public hearings. My concerns are with the transmit stick antenna combined with the massive amount of existing transmit cellular antennae.
As far as the type of antenna, please let me know where that info came from, I can't find it anywhere in the letters/reports. However, I am open minded to new, documented info.
Radiation exposure with guidelines does not always mean "safe". Has the FCC ever changed there guidelines? I know the answer because I am educating myself, the Bayville Engineer knows the answer, because He is an engineer. For anyone who doesn't, the answer is yes, they have. The FCC lowered the Maximum Permissible Exposure limits from 1 mW/cm2 to .2 mW/cm2 in the 30-300mhz band. There must be a reason or at least a concern for that to happen.
As for anonymous names..."to each his own." But keep in mind, it does create suspicions of authenticity of information AND motivations. How anyone could question someone else's motivations from behind an alias, baffles me. I voted for VS, whether that was a mistake, as far as this issue, remains to be seen. Please don't question my motives.
I hope in 20-30 years, myself, and other concerned parents can look back at this, and laugh. That certainly beats the alternative.
Chris Zino
Reply to this
Chris Zino
Thank you for the technical input.
Chris wrote “As far as the type of antenna, please let me know where that info came from, I can't find it anywhere in the letters/reports. “
It was a miss under standing on my part. Although the technical concepts I tried to explain still hold true I did have the wrong type of antenna in mind (I was close but not exact). The report shows the dipole to be different than what I described. If you look around page 42 you will see the correct antenna. You will also see the oblong power distribution I was trying to describe.
Chris wrote ” the Bayville Engineer knows the answer, because He is an engineer.”
Sorry to inform you Engineers and doctors don’t know everything. We just have a knack for finding out how things work. Case in point (are RF emissions safe?)
Chris wrote “The FCC lowered the Maximum Permissible Exposure limits from 1 mW/cm2 to .2 mW/cm2 in the 30-300mhz band”
Chris do you know when this happened? (What year?) the answer to that is not critical but it would defiantly ad a key to the puzzle.
Thanks Again (ALL technical questions and input are encouraged)
Reply to this
"Engineers and doctors don't know everything", no argument here.
The FCC Exposure Limits were changed on August 25,1997, if I am reading this right. Goto www.fcc.gov , search for Bulletin 65.
The reason I mention the 30-300mhz bands is that the proposed project is in the 400-500mhz range. Kind of close.
If your walking in the woods, and a bear starts to chase you; Do you care if its a 400 pound bear or if its a 350 pound bear? Probably not.
I met another engineer type last night. If he's on the blog, I hope he puts in his 2 cents.
Merry Christmas to all. Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year.
Chris Zino
Reply to this
It would be nice to know why the FCC lowered the standards for the (30-300mhz range). It could be a useful piece of history. TV channels 2-13 are 54 - 216 mhz .
Reply to this
Dear Admin,
I respectfully request that you ask certain posters to stop referring to me as 'LM' or 'Lisa'.
Having read Zino's and Bayville Engineer's posts above, perhaps I don't know enough about the technology but once again, your focus appears to rest entirely with whether the system is safe to one's health. I'm not saying that shouldn't be a concern, I'm just asking a different kind of question. What I am asking is - does this equipment have the potential to interfere with our everyday personal home electronics? Bayville Engineer? Do you know?
Thanks.
Reply to this
Bottom line from a family with child with leukemia--if those sites are not 100% positive safe...now and forever-do not put them in.........
Reply to this
I have lived in Bayville for a significant amount of time.I too personally had to experience a cancer episode. Then in 1986 a close family member was diagnosed with leukemia. In the early 1990s they had to undergo a clinical trial treatment due to their advanced stage.It was a very difficult experience including having to be quarentined and my giving bone marrow injections. They are beating the odds today but it is a life changing event that never goes away.
I am reviewing all the information carefully.I can sympathize with all with young children and those with medical illnesses.
However, since the world has changed since 9/11 I cannot overlook the need for improved communication. We had personal experiences there as well.
Please do not panic. Review not just the information that people with different agendas on both sides of the fence are feeding you, but do your own research on this issue.
I wish you all peace, good health, prosperity and the time to enjoy it all for the coming holiday and New Year.
Reply to this
"improved communication"=possible increased health risks to children/residents?
Reply to this
You are 100% on the money ,We are putting are kids life on the line .The village needs to think about the kids first...
Reply to this
In Answer to the question
Will this interfere with out TV
The short answer is No
The proof is the current system is running in the high 480mhz range.
The long answer is. A well designed Antenna is designed to work at a very small window of frequency. Putting a 1 gig frequency on a 500mhz antenna doesn’t work very well. This is why one of the Reps was trying to divert the question of “Once the antennas are up there can you change the frequency” to Once they are up there can you change the power.
As for the Ham radio operators. Most of them are experimenting with radios. Every once in a while they build a dirty antenna (One that winds up transmitting on many frequencies) this is when one needs a spectrum analyzer to correct the problem. Most ham radio operators don’t have the $10k laying around to by the tool to perform such a test.
Reply to this
My father died this year of leukemia. Was it his use of a cell phone that triggered it? Playing on golf courses treated with chemicals? Who knows. I am not unsympathetic to other families where leukemia has reared its ugly head. However, with almost zero proof that a microwave transmitter is a "causal agent", my question remains:
Does this type of transmitter interfere with personal home electronics?
Reply to this
The only thing separating St. Gertrude's woods from the water tower is the Village Hall/Library/museum complex. If so many of you believe that this is such a danger, what would a 1,000 foot or so difference in location mean in terms of reducing the danger?
And what of the poor little woodland creatures, the racoons, opossums and foxes? Don't they have a right to healthy lives too?
If no one knows the answer to my question regarding equipment interference, perhaps someone who was at the meeting could at least tell me, was it ever asked?
Reply to this
Thank you Bayville Engineer, for both the short and the long answers.
Reply to this
Will We have a say in our schools or the water tower ? I don't think so . the only one that will end this is our mayor and with her money talks ....My kids are the 5 generation born in this town and I don't have a say ..how did Margaret not win ,who voted for this mayor .
Reply to this
The same people who are now thinking they may have made the wrong decision. But that is the way the cookie crumbles. Board elections are only a year and a half away....
Reply to this
Lori S,
....Ah, never mind.
Reply to this
Hey ,curious you never mind ,,,,my family been in this town be for it was INC. We build ed the post office, and the firehouse in fact you might live on a street with my name on it ..so I don't want that antenna ....hope to see you at the next meeting.....
Reply to this
Lori S -
Please let's stick to the situation at hand. Just to remind you it's the Antenna that they want to stick on the water tower. Over and over again it's been said to stick to the issues. MM didn't win. And if memory serves she lost 2 to 1. If you have nothing important or constructive to say, go complain with your friends at the Food Basket.
Reply to this
who will give the ok, the village.I am sticking to the situation. take that to the food basket........I know about the antenna..And I don't want in this village.
Reply to this
Lori,
How do you know the Village is going to give the ok? No vote has been taken. Do you have a secret connection in the frozen food aisle?
Reply to this
Mayor Siegel said 3x at the meeting (that I know of) she has not seen proof that this was harmful...still an interesting chioice of words if she has not made up her mind and at the end of a meeting at which several residents submitted evidence which Mayor Siegel had not yet reviewed. Perhaps if the Village were truly undecided she might have chosen her words more carefully.
Reply to this
Hanson,
It sounds to me as though up until the meeting, Mayor Siegel had not seen any evidence that would lead her to believe it was harmful. The PURPOSE of a public meeting is for residents to air their views and present evidence for consideration. The Mayor and the Board should be given the common courtesy of a little time to evaluate that which they already knew and that which was presented to them that evening. I think it is very wrong of anyone to pre-guess what the Mayor's and the Board's position is. Furthermore, the Mayor is but one vote and does not have veto power.
Reply to this
Pay attention here, she and the board were presented with evidence from both side, yet the Mayor response AT THE VERY END OF THE MEETING was not that she had to review the evidence received at the meeting but that she had not received proof that it was harmful...just admit it curious or (LM) she chose her words poorly for a diplomatic response.
Reply to this
Hanson,
As I stated previously, I was not in attendance at the meeting. If Mayor Siegel's opinion at the end of the presentation was that no evidence of harm was made apparent to her, she is entitled to feel that way. Would it have been more "diplomatic" of her not to have stated so? Perhaps. But I'm sure you and your gang would have burned her in effigy for "misleading" the audience if she had said anything else.
Reply to this
Curious, I do not belong to a gang, I was at the meeting, you switched around my words and have mighty strong personal opinions about folks who did attend the hearing. The purpose of the meeting was to hear the facts presented, nice of you comment on what was presented without having bothered to attend. Did you already get the transcript?
Reply to this
Curious, for someone not at any of the meetings you have an awful lot to say. Why dont you keep your posting to a minimum so you dont take down this blog like you did the leaders with all of your aliases. I think the administators of this blog need to keep the aliases to one and only one. Personally I would rather you HAVE to sign your name in order to get posted. Then will see how much people really have to say.
Reply to this
Reply to this
That last post was a 'blank stare' at the 3 previous posters, in case you were at a loss as to my meaning.
Has anyone else noticed a tremendous improvement in Verizon wireless service in Bayville lately? Nextel still stinks, though.
Reply to this
i missed the meeting the 18th because i was unaware of any issue. i understand radiowaves and microwaves. i have a EE degree. a close friend who works for verizon 18 years (10 years a cell tech). he assures me our children are safe. the dangerous waves are passing over the heads of all our children and neighbors in the area. my brother is a doctor. he cannot vouch for the safety of these low level RF's. But he informs me when tests are conducted they will use in this case higher magnitudes of the lower RF's to perform these tests. Non of these tests according to my findings have been conclusive. that with the fact my buddy from verizon and his associates on the job have not come down with any illnesses leads me to ask where are we finding these doubts. i do have children and would like to keep them safe. but i am having a hard time following the doubt. if there is a website or a study i missed could someone please point it out. sorry for being so long winded. but i can keep quiet no longer.
Reply to this
Good post. One thought. At the first meeting Nov.2nd, the question was raised about the safety of workmen, from any area (water tower techs, cell techs etc.) when working on the tower. There is an OSHA regulation. The workmen can only be exposed to active cells for 15 or 30 minutes depending on the magnatude. After that, the expert from Motorola and the Microwave co.Harris, stated that everything would ned to be shut down for extended work in the area. Maybe the Verizon techs are not around active cells for extended periods of time? Just a thought.
The doubt is drived from the fact that no one can say it is safe, conclusivly.
Reply to this
the dishes use microwaves which are dangerous. but those dishes send a beam directly to another dish at some point. anyone outside of the beam is safe. you can only be in front of the beam for those periods. these microwaves cause thermal heating and can damage vital organs when exposed. the radio waves are the waves that everyone is concerned with. these waves from the antenna would potentially expose our children if the school was the same height as the towers. the dangers are at that level within a certain distance. there is a law in certain states (i can find out what state) where these towers are not to be within 500 feet of any school or public building. it was because these antenna were being placed on rooftops. people lived in these buildings and schools were nearby. these radio waves are much lower than fda regulations. if we are concerned about the magnitude of this low level radiation, i suggest we the people get an expert to measure the current levels at the school. if people aren't happy with those results due to the amount of antenna. dump the 52 antenna up there and allow the police antenna. i believe from my research that you'll find even with the current amount of antenna this low level radiation is shooting over everyones heads at a safe distance. i am willing to give up my cell phone service in my home town to keep my neighbors and kids safe.
Reply to this
I agree with you. Lets dump the 52 up there and allow the one that is vital to exist, the NCPD one.
Mr. COtten did say that we should be worried about what is up there now, not what is going up. He is the expert in the field, we should heed his advice.
I would give up cell phone and reception for that.
Could you find out which states have the 500 ft law, I know NY is trying to get it passed right now, there are resolutions pending put forth from local leaders in QUeens. Peter Vallone is the most notable, who was successful in helpng a group of 100 parents move the towers from their school grounds to 500 feet away.
Just one more thing, if the waves go over our heads, then if one was right above us that should be safe right? Then why are they passing laws to remove them from school building and such?
Reply to this
actually i have misquoted two articles. the actual facts are they were attempting to pass laws with these requirements. they have not so far and through additional findings there are actual federal bans on creating these laws due to lack of evidence these radiations are harmful at the FCC safety limits.
did mr cotton actually measure the current levels of radiation hitting our school? or did he simply survey the affect of the new attennas?
i just found mr cottons report online.
happy new year to all.
Reply to this
The supreme court ruled in 2005 that a municipality cannot be sued by a tlecommunications company for saying no to the company. This is opposite from the 1996 telecommunicatins act.
Reply to this
Vinnie,
You're partially correct. However, after "cannot be sued" you omitted the most important part of the U.S. Supreme Court's March 22, 2005 unanimous decision, the words "for damages and attorney's fees". In City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (Docket # 03-1601) the court did not preclude municipalities from being sued for denying a permit in violation of the 1996 TCA, but instead denied claims for damages and attorney fees. This conforms to the TCA where Congress did not provide for such monetary claims, an important factor considered by the court. Not only can municipalities be sued for violations of the TCA, courts must hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.
Reply to this
after reading the findings of Mr Cotton and Mr Maurer i am concerned with what our worries are.
Are we worried that the standards set by the fcc are incorrect?
Or are we questioning the integrity of the findings of Mr Cotton and Mr Maurer?
Did anyone else read this report?
i understand emotions are high. i want the safest environment for our children just like everyone else.but after reading the report and spending hours online fcc fda etc. i'm convinced our children are safe.
have i missed some relevent reading? i'm willing to read i can still be swayed. i do have children. feel free to comment.
Reply to this
Does anyone have any documentation (or know where to get it) that would explain why Ossinig, Queens, Palm Beach, the State of California and New Zealand have already banned cell-towers in to varying degrees even though it is "safe"? Have there been any long-term testing on young people, not adults who are not as susceptible to problems?
Reply to this
in all the situations that i have read (cali, ossinig, queens). these antenna were placed on rooftops. at that level the radiation are going to be close to or sometimes exceeding the fcc rating. there is clear documentation that when these radiations exceed fcc regulations they are harmful.
according to the report the highest level by the school, calculating in the police antenna is .673 uW/cm2 at its highest level near the school. two other points are .340 and .228. the fcc standard is 200uW/cm2 (30-300) or 333uW/cm2 (500) or 1000uW/cm2 (micro beam). that .673 uW/cm2 is a combined total. if we multiply that by 250 times we get 169uW/cm2. even if one were to question the fcc standard, our kids are being exposed to a much lower level than that.
if we question the integrity of the report get a second opinion.
if we question the fcc being that far off of the standard. then i question our fears.
i do believe in better safe than sorry. but i also refuse to deny my loved ones the benefits they so deserve. i fear that someone will take my child. but i still let her play in the yard. pesticides, dog poop etc. keep a close eye.
i believe thanks to neighbors chris zino and nick penny we now know how safe our kids are.
are we really still scared?
Reply to this
I guess you were not at the meeting. If you were you would have heard Dr.cotton shout that we should all be more worried about what is already up there.
Reply to this
that reply was to not a popular stand.
Reply to this
in a rush to get kiddos to school, but here is a link to a Newsday article today.
http://www.newsday.com/features/printedition/ny-uscomm045039023jan04,0,4844021.story
If it is so safe and wonderful, why are we NOT the only ones resisting this project????
of the 8 sites that have said yes, five are on county land...does that tell you something?
Reply to this
not a popular stand,
I'm not in the business of trying to convince you or any other doubters. however, we are not the only ones, by far who have concerns about the safety of this stuff.
www.protectschools.org
is just one site of many. do a google search on cell towers and schools and see what you come up with.
Reply to this
why is there resistance? because people aren't sure. they don't know what the levels are. there are 52 antenna currently on the tower. how dangerous are the levels?
now you have a report. read it. get a second opinion if you don't beleive it. multiply the existing levels times 250 and you still are lower than what the fcc says is safe.
as i said before we now know our children are not being bombarded with dangerous levels. if you choose to ignore the report you may.
i simply ask why? are we scared of the levels (actual numbers). highest number allowed 200. the school is at a level less than 1.
i recommend any neighbors who really don't understand the magnitude to call a friend. everyone must know someone who is an engineer or technician somewhere in the field of electronics. 200 less than 1.
before the test i would have said 50 to 70 would be questionable, but safe for those questioning the fcc levels. but at less than 1. i thought everyone would be wow thats a relief. guess not.
Reply to this
edie,
i'm not throwing punches here. but i really don't understand the opposition. we're all neighbors.
are we still afraid of these levels?
Reply to this
A question for the NCPD at the next meeting:
If the NCPD does not get the 24 sites they are looking for what happens to the project? What happesn to the site/villages that said yes? Do the antennaes still go up in those sites and the system is then re-routed or given higher power at the appoved sites to compensate for the areas that say no?
Is there a number of how many sites they need to be operational? For example, they were looking for 24 but could it work with say 16?
For me the issue is when is enough enough. Our cell tower numbers grew from 9 in 2003 to 52 in 2006. That is out of control.
Jericho is saying they are ugly, and that is enough for them. We are saying it is too close to a school and there are too many up there already.
For all of your info, once a company gets approval to go onto a site, they do not have to go back to public hearing each time they add something, unless the height of the apparatus they are installing changes.
Margaret Marchand
Reply to this
kirsten zino,
again neighbors i'm not looking for a fight. no i wasn't at the meeting.
the reason mr cotton was shouting was people were booing him? glad i wasn't there. again i understand emotions were pretty high.
but according to his report 96% of the .673 uW/cm2 is from the existing antenna. he wasn't saying it was dangerous he was implying that .649 uW/cm2 already exists and another .024 uW/cm2 will come from the new antenna (NCPD antenna). under 1 uW/cm2 total.
seems even though i was not there i am more informed than yourself. you see, i avoided what was a pretty horrible presentation but i read the report.
the kids are number one.
Reply to this
I really wish that people who were not at the meeting would stop spreading inaccurate information about what happened when at the meeting.
When Mr. Cotton made the statement in question "we should worry about what is already up there" he was not being booed at. He was agitated because the person in the audience who was asking the questions about the proposed antenna and their safety, conintued to ask Mr. Cotton questions that he could not answer. Therefore, out of sheer desperation because Mr. Cotton could not say it was safe, he attempted to quiet the "question asker" by yelling his statement.
By the way, he recieved a thunderous applause for being truthful!
Reply to this
Not a popular stand, Seems you don't know how to spell your real name. That is the only thing you are more informed about. Am I right neighbor?
Reply to this
i wasn't there. your right. by the way i do know how to spell my name. sorry about messing up the blog with all the rumor.
it sounds as though joan d answered my question. it sounds as though we are worried about the levels below the 1 uW/cm2. thats enough for me. you see my kids aren't my only concern. my neighbors and friends deserve piece of mind.
you see some fear allowing thier kids to play in the sand, others fear the water, others what they feed thier kids. with all those things you can choose. with the tower you can't. if enough people and parents are that worried move it.
like i said i have kids and a family. they don't deserve to be treated differently because some in this town don't like my stand. my kids are everything to me. i am more than willing to attempt find the truth before jumping off the bridge with everyone else.
bayville's advantage is we know the levels. many don't, others the levels are higher. still others are worried about how pretty thier tower. i was just questioning our motive.
i didn't realise there was so many who feared the actual levels as low as they are. piece of mind is priceless and everyone deserves it. i'm sure the mayor will make the right choice.
Reply to this
Not a Popular Stand,
I certainly hope that none of the fearmongers have harrassed your children in anyway because you expressed your opinion here. That would be most disturbing, and what I consider to be far more harmful than less than 1uW/cm2.
Peace of mind is priceless, assuming one has a piece of mind.
Reply to this
i choose not a popular stand to remain anonymous. my children have in no way been mistreated because they remain nameless themselves. thanks for the concern curious.
the beginning of this venture started with a memo from chris zeno. that memo reported that our children were going to be zapped with the same magnitude of power as the workmen up on the tower (according to motorola experts). we find that is not true through a report by cotton and maurer. this has snowballed into a fear of all radio waves near the school no matter what magnitude. it just sounds to me some folks have gotten caught up in this without being well informed.
Reply to this
Once again NPS you are mis-qouting what the report and Mr. Cotton said. HE NEVER SAID that the levels being emitted were safe. He never said the levels were not high enough for workmen/children to not be exposed to them. OSHA mandats what amount of time the workmen are allowed to be exposed in front of these levels for 15 to 30 mintues depending on the levels. If they need to work up there longer, the cells power would need to be shut down. This was stated by the Water Dept. Consultant who is an outside paid consultant hired to speak on behalf of the water dept. supervisor.
PLEASE get your facts straight or at the very least site your sources.
Reply to this
Not a Pop Stand,
Once again, an anonymous person, not at the meetings, is the one who is mis-quoting and mis-leading people.
I never said the school was going to be zapped. Are your listening ears on? THE MOTOROLA REP STATED THAT THE SCHOOL WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO 1 WATT. These are the people that the FCC has granted a license too...which in affect grants them a self regulating authority. If they, not I, are spurting out numbers that are wrong, then they should be questioned...should they not?
As far as folks being caught up and not being well informed: There are more people now, who are informed. Facts are available from both sides. You (Not a pop stand) should be one of them.
Here is a part of my original blog:
"FACT#3: According the Motorola rep, Four of the Stick antennae will transmit at 100 watts at 500mhz. When I asked what will hit the school, the motorola rep stated about 1 watt. "
Since then, the MOTOROLA REPS statement has most likely been proven wrong. Does it matter? Not to me. The fact remains that there are 52 existing antennae, more on the way, WHEN does it stop? I am not against the NCPD or Cell companies. I am against the NCPD proposed location. I am for, looking into a long term solution to Bayvilles radio/cell communications...100' from the primary school property is not the place.
If your blaming me for this issue coming to light, think again.
Anonymous posts are killing the purpose of this blog. I urge the Admin of Bayville Blog to consider a "no anonymous" area of bayvilleblog.com
Chris Zino
Reply to this
here is a question answer as posted by the fcc
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Q16
read paragraph 2 on page 2 below
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.pdf
(feel free to read the whole thing)
both the above refer to the radio waves given off by the antenna. both are posted by the fcc to help all of us comprehend the magnitude of these radio waves when properly placed.
http://www.bayvillevillagehall.com/PDFs/MOT_Bayv_final.pdf
i guess mr cotton didn't read his own report page 62 begins his conclusion. in which it is stated that by fcc standards and the most stringent standards in the world the school is safe. the conclusion explains the safety standards are lowered by a factor of fifty in the US.
read it yourself it is all there.
the beams that the workers have to be aware of are from the dishes. these dishes produce a beam, point to point. you can see the beams direction in the report. these beams are direct and can be harmful due to the thermal radiation. if the worker is outside of the beam on the tower that person should be fine. ask around, i got this information from the original memo and some additional research.
"Measurements of electromagnetic levels at significant locations are reported herein. All were less than 1 percent of the US Maximum Permissible Exposure."
quoted from the bayville report.
Reply to this
NAPS,
The FCC limits are not a concern to me and others, it would appear. If the US standards are so stringent, why have they been lowered towards the side of safety? Has the FCC, ANSI or other Gov agencies ever been wrong??? For instance, the FDA, regularly approves drugs, siting there safety for the general population. How many drugs have been pulled off the shelf years after the FDA approves them? The list goes on...smoking, asbestos, diet pills.
Are 2 packs of cigarettes a day as bad as 1 cig a day. No, but its still dangerous. Did you know that they actually created a new MPE section for un-controlled, non-worker environments. I have said it once, but I'll say it again. I hope that the proximity to the school and water supply does not prove to be a terrible mistake in the future. If there is any doubt, and there appears to be plenty...why risk it.
A long term tower in another location is needed, where I don't know. We all know this NCPD proposal is not the last thing that will be proposed for our water tower...again, when is enough, enough?; 2%, 50%, or 99% of the FCC Maximum Permissable Exposure?
Can anyone argue that the health of our children, does not deserve options? Or alternative sites? Or to lean to the side of safety...when there is lack of studies. The World Health Organization seems to be concerned enough to look into the matter.
Chris Zino
Reply to this
chris i am in no way blaming anyone for starting this. i smply tried to point out we were mislead by information from a motorola rep. (not you) that rep gave us the impression the kids at the school were in danger of being exposed to the same level 1 watt as the workers on the tower. i simply pointed out it was untrue. in fact i gave you credit because if it weren't for you and the memo we would never have gotten the tests and reports that we now have at our disposal.
i am not blaming anyone for anything. as far as i'm concerned noone has done anything wrong. i use an alias to protect my family (hence unpopular stand). i am protecting my family just like you folks. what is the benefit of me coming out, nothing for me. move the antenna. i have supplied nothing but researched fact. i have however been accused of a few misquotes. i again apoligise for these. they weren't meant to do harm or be an exact quote.
Reply to this
you need to use some type of standard. i feel you may be being a little unreasonable. again emotions are high.
if no standard then what? when you medicate your child do you use fda reccommended drugs? i hope so. because if your buying your stuff from canada your putting yourself or your loved one at more risk.
were the governments ever wrong? of course. do we trust them? only as far as i can chuck em.
could the fcc be off, yes. as much as 99%, i doubt it. i'm just attempting now to put a perspective on things.
stop any further antenna from going up after the NCPD.
find your alternate location. relocate anything you want. moniter the stuff currently up there.
nobody is going to argue with you about improveing the safety of your child. unless of course some believe you are messing with thier safety. why are we giving the NCPD project so much opposition. they are attempting to improve thier service to us.
i would and still am not willing to put my child at risk. but i will use the standards given to me. i will also heed any warnings that may lead me to question these standards. at less than 1% MPE my child is in my opinion safe.
chris do you really think my input is killing this blog? i'm serious.
Reply to this
thanks Mr Barry Lamb for creating this forum. i think you have some great ideas about the limiting of magnitude or antenna. Chris Zino and Margaret Marchand I'm all for improving the environment for the kids. I think you both have some great ideas. I just don't understand the opposition to the current proposal. Although I am beginning too.
Take Care. Stay Safe.
Reply to this
Coverage in the Leader:
http://www.theleaderonline.com/bayvillewatertower.htm
and also at The Northender.com:
http://www.northender.com/feature_story_details.jsp?id=760
Again, if you are not subscribed to the Northender, you should consider doing so (as well as subscribing to the BayvilleBlog).
Barry
Reply to this
Dear Barry,
Just a quick thanks for referencing here both Kelly Johnstone's article on the antenna, and mine on the busing. For those who don't know her, Kelly is an outstanding senior at LVHS and I think she did a great job on the article.
Reply to this
Lisa,
I had to go back and re-read Kelly's article with the knowledge that it was written by a 17 or 18 year old high school student. Let her know that I am thoroughly impressed. In fact, ask her if she would like authorship rights on the Bayville Blog - the perspective of someone her age who writes so well is worthy of our attention.
Barry
Reply to this
Barry,
I'm sure she will appreciate your kind words. I will be happy to pass them along.
Reply to this
Please Please understand that what I’m about to ask is not meant to bash or bring any more fear into the situation. I’m still tiring to figure out what the real fear is. Did everyone read and understand the report from Mr Cotton. Does everyone understand that the worst values are out side the building facing the water tower? Does everyone under stand that these values are about 10 times less then a cell phone? Does everyone understand that once inside the building the RF values (From the tower) are undetectable (Unless you’re standing at a window facing the tower)? Does anyone remember the woman who said “Just take them down I get no signal in the building any way”
And for the question I’m Afraid to ask. Does everyone understand that the florescent lights are generating RF power that is compatible to worst case out side readings?
The next sentence is a question not a stand either way! Are we at the point now that we understand that the original information told to us was wrong and that we really have nothing to worry about Or are we now at a point were we are afraid of florescent Lights?
One last comment before everyone shoots me. If the answer is to move the antennas Please Make sure that some one calculates the power hitting the schools. A lower antenna farther away could be worse.
Reply to this
perspective people...
emfs are electromagnetic frequencies. these are listed as 'possible human carcinogens'. these emfs are produced from high power items, electric wires, transformers. this is not meant to scare anyone, perspective. these emfs are also produced from electric blankets, electric razors, many household appliances. please don't throw out juniors computer or worry about the placement of your central air unit. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and The World Health Organizaton states the "link between EMF exposure and cancer is weak". site my source below:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/booklet/reviews.htm
again my goal is not to create more fear but to put a perspective on what we are encountering at the school. below 1%MPE. If bayville engineer is correct in saying the levels are nearly undetectible inside the school we are only concerned with playtime. The children are being sheilded by the roof. Is Bayville Engineer right?
The level at its highest is .673 uW/cm2. outside the school. 1% would be 2uW/cm2.
"From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them."
Why do people fear cell towers? read the "Public perception of risk".
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html
The above was posted May 2006 by WHO, findings from The International EMF Project created around 1998.
They are still studying EMF & ELF. That is their job. I suggest people read both links entirely. Learn The Facts.
Reply to this
Here's some more reading:
http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai2.htm
This Lai fellow seems to be doing a lot of research. My favorite quote from the article above is:" For those who have questions on the possible health effects of exposure to radiation from cell masts, there are studies that show biological effects at very low intensities"
Here's another study done in France. There conclusion: "...it is advisable that mobile phone base stations not be sited closer than 300 meters to populations and most significantly because exposed people can have different sensitivities..."
www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Santinip.pdf
I understand that ELF Radiation is not the subject of concern right now. But just to show how fast things can change in the study of EMF, here is an article dated January of 2007. The study states that some people are genetically more sensitive to EMF than others:
http://www.epidem.com/pt/re/epidemiology/abstract.00001648-200701000-00022.htm;jsessionid=FlkTBpFgKMbdhR6X7Z9Qh16vVM1gnhN6V1ywzPlfVY229TRpCK7m!1959100665!-949856145!8091!-1
We could go back and forth all night. I'll find the bad stuff...someone else on this blog will find the good stuff (about Microwave Radiation studies). My point being, the long term health effects of RF( even well below the ANSI Limits), is too uncertain.
Chris Zino
Reply to this
The first site with Henry Lia is challengeing 1mW/cm2 that is = 1000uW/cm2. He states that even at that low intensity the body can possibly absorb a dangerous level emmission. We are at .673uW/cm2 (under 1). The current max level we are using for MPE is 200 uW/cm2.
The second is based on 530 people living near different cell sites. How does this tell me anything? Factors, Diet, Jobs, how long are they home. What else might be affecting the environement? Train stations, city, farm, etc. This study is not very helpful in proving or disproving anything.
As for the third I couldn't tell you what it says. I will read it. But it is a known fact that some are more genetically more sensitive to differences in our environment. Everyone is different.
Long term health affects?
"From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them." WHO sighted previously.
Is it true that the magnitude of the ELF inside the school is negligent? Are the children really in a completely safe environment all day as per both our standards? Serious question. Bayville Engineer brought it up. Does anyone know? If they are is this good enough for the PBF?
The PBF suggests we oppose the current NCPD proposal. Why? Why don't they work on getting the current antenna moved? If they did .033 uW/cm2 would be the new max magnitude outside the school. That works to be below .02% MPE.
What is an expectable MPE for your child? 0? I hope you realise that is impossible.
What if the alternative for NCPD resides outside of Bayville? Isn't it better that we have the NCPD in our backyard? This would surely provide our emergency services with the best coverage in our own homes, our neighborhoods. Isn't that in tune with keeping our families safe?
Is the PBF's purpose to scrap all existing antenna and the NCPD?
Pretty tall order in an environment that many may concieve as currently safe.
Reply to this
Just checked the Partnership website and the petition does state " to oppose current proposal....and for NCPD to provide alternative options" I may have paraphrased.
Sounds like they are looking to work with the issue.
Reply to this
Like I said we could go back and forth with studies/docs.
You bring up a very good point about the current equipment. If the tower had no cell equipment on it, do you thing there would be so much opposition to the NCPD proposal? I don't. And on a personal level, I don't think I would be as concerned as I am now. Dr. Donald Cotten, a Village appointed expert speaking at the 122206 public meeting, warned against "what is already up there..." . If Dr. Cottons numbers, being below the FCC/ANSI limits are so important to you...then you must certaintly be concerned about the statement he made. When is enough, enough?
The expected MPE for my child when at school, is the lowest possible. Wouldn't any parent feel the same? Do you have kids in the school? Do you want your kids to have a little Chlorine in there water, or a lot? I want my child to have none, so I send them to school with drinks. The RF signals I can only control by trying to stop anything new. As far as I am concerned the PBF should go after the cell antennae, but that has to be decided as a group.
ELF in the schools could be PBFs next campaign, but for now we are all very busy with this issue. I posted the article, not for just you (not a pop stand), but anyone interested. The purpose, to show how new research continues to change. If you already new that some people have sensitivities to rf, good for you.
Chris Zino
Reply to this
"We, the residents of the Village of Bayville, strongly oppose the above proposal as submitted and urge our Village officials to oppose the same. The undersigned request that the Village Board respond to the above proposal by opposing the current proposal and requesting Nassau County to provide alternatives options."
I did not paraphrase and sight my source below:
http://www.partnershipforbayvillesfuture.org/DOC/petition_finalv3.doc
Again, Any alternative most likely will not cover Bayville like the first.
Strongly opposeing anything does not sound to most like working with the issue. Again NCPD not a telecom company.
Are the children in the school being shielded from the existing ELF's by the roof? Are the children in fact being exposed to these low level RF's only during playtime and arrival/departure times? Even if they are only be exposed during these periods why not just move the other antenna?
Strongly opposing help from our emergency services NCPD sounds so wrong on so many levels.
Reply to this
chris, i do not wish to go back and forth, either. i have read lots of negative, most of it to do with levels thousands of times higher than the one existing outside the primary. again i realise your compassion in protecting your children. i hope you realise with my difference in opinion your messing with me protecting my children and family by opposing the current NCPD proposal. i respect your position even though i don't agree. i hope through all this you can respect mine.
to all,
give the NCPD an alternative. behind the watertower a higher tower. get rid of the rest or replace them elsewhere. unsightly some might say, but probably pretty effective. moving the NCPD 50 feet back and higher would knock the calculated .02% MPE down. you tell the NCPD to give you an alternative they may not come back. i wouldn't.
PBF, strongly opposing and working with are not the same thing.
Reply to this
Please someone correct me if I am wrong with what I am about to say.At the November meeting the question was asked do you(the ncpd)need all sites to say yes for the system to work?Answer YES!Dos anyone realize that 16 sites said NO!Am I missing something here.
Reply to this
OK
Florescent lights Transmit RF The subject should not have gone to EMF Or ELF
I won’t even go into the long answer we would all need a degree in Physics’ to start it.
The Meter Mr. Cotton was using is designed not to pick up frequency’s under .5mhz
Florescent lights operate at 20 kHz (Which is in the RF range)
Why would you see a 20khz device on a .5mhz meter? Good question. It’s related to the ham radio interfering with a TV question. The easiest way to explain it is a florescent light is a dirty transmitter. (It broadcasts on frequencies other than 20 kHz).
Again not taking a stand Just trying to help every one understand.
If your fear is low frequency RF It is my opinion you should worry about the florescent lights more that what is going on outside the building.
One more time just trying to put things in perspective only! (Not taking a stand or trying to add fear) If you feel that worrying about the florescent lights is silly you should have no fear of the current antennas on the water tower.
Go To following link to see how florescent lights work.
http://www.reefscapes.net/articles/breefcase/lighting_ballasts.html
By the way ELF is less than 30hz it would be used if we were trying to talk to a submarine.
I do wish Mr. Cotton added a Meter reading in the Playground to his report. I have been questioning that my self.
Reply to this
It seems like another survey of the radiation levels around the watertower is in order. Perhaps bring in someone completely independent of Bayville or Nassau county (where political preference is likely to interfere). Taking levels from places like the water tower, the surrounding neighborhood, inside the school, outside the school seem to be a good idea. Then we can see if Mr. Cotton's research was correct.
Reply to this
We are all stuck on what is up there. The levesl up there are there with lease agreements binding them to be there.
What concerns me is what is going up there, what will the readings be then? Will the Village have the right to then say no more antennas to the NCPD in thr future? I think we need to be talking about stipulations on the new proposal to protect ourselves from further proliferation.
Just a thought.
Reply to this
PBF, Spoke to someone about to sign your petition. That person did not know what an MPE was. Had no idea according the report that the current MPE was below 1% outside of the school. I also informed that person that many were concerned about the negative press.
Some (us) want to limit what is up there and others want to take down what is up there. I told that person the petition your about to sign opposes our emergency services from putting up their antenna and dishes which would add 4% to the current magnitudes outside of the school. I told that person check the website (blog & PBF), make up your own mind.
You say "Learn The Facts"
Your group seems to be leaving out lots of them. I understand the FCC standards may be meaningless to you. Pretty careless if those signing your petition don't know that.
I suggest everyone look at the report and PBF site. Read this blog follow the links read the reports. I agree with LEARN THE FACTS all of them.
To all, Stony Brook has an engineering department. I'm sure they could recommend a source for the second opinion or they may have someone who could do it. Just a suggestion.
I think if we do get the second opinion we should have them take reading from a bucket in the air above the school and at 500 ft. These readings would provide us with what some feared in these rooftop situations. Again just a suggestion. I not sure at this point if it would help much.
Reply to this
While everyone is quoting what levels are acceptable to the FCC lets remember that the FCC is a government agency responsible to Congress, which is lobbied by the cell phone companies. So who's interest do they really have in mind? The EPA lied about air quality and the government has not stepped up to help any of the individuals who are now sick. They say they can't find the proof that their lies made people sick. Though there is not currently proof that the current or intended levels are harmful I don't want my kids to be the proof.
Reply to this
Bayville Primary school has chlorinated drinking water, RFR/EMF issues, and now bad air quality (letter sent home from school).
Is anyone else considering sending there kids to another school??
Reply to this
take the rest of the antennas down and put up the antennas that are needed for our safety
Reply to this
i don't think we should be concerned with what the old NCPD system covered or who is opposeing the current NCPD. it seems to me that because bayville is on the edge of the grid we have more to lose. jericho for example is surrounded by land. any signal blocked by landscape can be covered by another cell at a different location. the bayville cell covers bayville and others. but i don't believe any others cover bayville. move this to mill neck we may be losing coverage with the new system. that being said i don't believe in trading the health of my children for good coverage.
it seems many are hung up on the fact that there are 52 antenna, also the antenna are within 500 feet of the school. our main concern should be the magnitude of these signals.
again this isn't meant to scare anyone. this example happens to be in canada but it was the most detailed example i could find. these are actual readings. follow the link below in another window.
http://www.heliognosis.com/rd.html
example 6a:
red circle (.1mW/cm2=100uW/cm2), yellow circle (.01mW/cm2=10uW/cm2),
green circle (.001mW/cm2=1uW/cm2),
red line (1mW/cm2=1000uW/cm2)
As stated the red lines show levels about 1000 feet from the CN tower on the highway. The highway has levels 10 times higher because it is 20 feet higher than the surrounding area.
You can use a google map, type: cn tower, on, toronto, ca
click: search maps. the yellow circle looks to be about 3500 ft from the center. 10uW/cm2 (the primary .673uW/cm2 highest point outside).
ex 7a shows a twin tower. google map: dixie rd, on, toronto, ca. (pan to left look for top of 410). the towers are near highway far from the residential area.
this example shows max magnitudes very close to the towers. but the signal peaks again 800 yards (2400 ft) from the towers (.01mW/cm2=10uW/cm2). this second peak is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. the dark green circle looks to be about 1000 yards (3000 feet) from center (.6uW/cm2) comparable to the highest level at the primary (about 300 feet from WT).
what does all this mean? maybe we should be thinking of building a taller tower? shouldn't we be happy that our children are being exposed to such a low level? shouldn't we maybe be happy the school isn't four levels? shoudn't we be blessed with the fact that it looks like the school shields them even more while they are in class?
does 500 feet or 52 antenna have any relevance? Not much.
again, why are we strongly opposing the NCPD?
Reply to this
i'm not sure if anyone is still reading. but if you are and need further explaination on anything i have posted, feel free to ask a question. use an alias if you feel silly. i don't care. i do advice everyone to read all, be informed. LEARN THE FACTS.
Reply to this
So far in summation it seems there are two main points being formulated in the discussions on this blog. First is the idea that the unknown consequences of the NCPD proposal on the kids is causing many to have reservations. Second, the argument from those with more scientific backgrounds that the amount of radiation received is comparable to what we receive from other devices and that we shouldn't be as worried as we are. I am with the engineers that some of the people here seem to be overreacting in light of the data presented and need to calm down. However, on Long Island where cancer is an especially tense topic to err on the side of safety is of course the smartest choice. I think we need a few more studies done of whats up there and what will be up there if this change goes into effect.
Reply to this
I guess she's caused with summer ingroup. For the firstly time in weeks, Malia rolex watches Obama was out and about in the public eye with her younger sister, Sasha. She must be through with summer
replica watches camp. Its awesome that we don't have any photos from her camping experience. It has been a long hot summer for the First Family.
Reply to this
I just sent this post to a bunch of my friends as I agree with most of what you’re saying here and the way you’ve presented it is awesome.
Reply to this
Pollution..Mmmm i think for starters every new house that is built should have solar panels installed, each house should come standard with an electric car, that’s for starters, has anyone else got some ideas..
Reply to this