Bayville Residents Against Cell Towers (B.R.A.C.T.)
We are Bayville Residents Against Cell Towers (B.R.A.C.T.), a group of residents that love our Village. We are not against Bayville; we are against the decisions that led to the cell phone antennas that are presently on our water tower, as well as the proposed new police equipment to be added. We are not against the concept of protecting our residents during emergencies but we object strongly to their improper placement across the street from our elementary schools, atop an already very compromised water tower.
Because we love our Village, our children and our residents, we no longer wish to live with a situation that makes us feel unsafe and uncomfortable. We have expressed our concnerns to Mayor Siegel and the Village Trustees, but to no avail. While the Mayor and Trustees believe the antennas to be safe, there is overwhelming evidence indication the harmful effects of these antennas. It is our strong belief that the cellular towers that aim directly toward our children's schools pose a serious and eminent threat to the occupants of the schools. This deep concern felt by many of the residents (particularly parents of school children) wss voiced at each of the public hearings. Unfortunately, these concerns were ignored by the very people whole role is to serve the needs and well being of its constituency. Left with no other recourse, we residents must pursue our court system to uphold our legal rights to voice our concern and be heard.
We want our safe Bayville back. We want those antennas gone so that we do not add another toxic factor to the air we breathe and perhaps the water we drink. We need your help. For those of you who share our concerns, please support our mission. We are collecting funds in order to further our cause. Any monies collected shall go directly to fighting the existing and proposed towers atop the water tower (i.e.legal fees). All checks should be made payable to Bayville Residents Against Cell Towers and sent to B.R.A.C.T, PO Box 68, Bayville, NY 11709. Additionally, please do not hesitate to contact Madeleine Perrin or Jo-Tina DeGennaro at 628-3997 or by mail at PO Box 68, Bayville, NY 11709 if you have any questions or insight regarding this issue. We prefer all communications be addressed directly by phone or mail rather than the blog.
Thank you.
Madeleine Perrin
Moved by Admin at the request of Jo-Tina DeGennaro
Originally posted under VOB Accepts NCPD Proposal on 6/20/07
Because we love our Village, our children and our residents, we no longer wish to live with a situation that makes us feel unsafe and uncomfortable. We have expressed our concnerns to Mayor Siegel and the Village Trustees, but to no avail. While the Mayor and Trustees believe the antennas to be safe, there is overwhelming evidence indication the harmful effects of these antennas. It is our strong belief that the cellular towers that aim directly toward our children's schools pose a serious and eminent threat to the occupants of the schools. This deep concern felt by many of the residents (particularly parents of school children) wss voiced at each of the public hearings. Unfortunately, these concerns were ignored by the very people whole role is to serve the needs and well being of its constituency. Left with no other recourse, we residents must pursue our court system to uphold our legal rights to voice our concern and be heard.
We want our safe Bayville back. We want those antennas gone so that we do not add another toxic factor to the air we breathe and perhaps the water we drink. We need your help. For those of you who share our concerns, please support our mission. We are collecting funds in order to further our cause. Any monies collected shall go directly to fighting the existing and proposed towers atop the water tower (i.e.legal fees). All checks should be made payable to Bayville Residents Against Cell Towers and sent to B.R.A.C.T, PO Box 68, Bayville, NY 11709. Additionally, please do not hesitate to contact Madeleine Perrin or Jo-Tina DeGennaro at 628-3997 or by mail at PO Box 68, Bayville, NY 11709 if you have any questions or insight regarding this issue. We prefer all communications be addressed directly by phone or mail rather than the blog.
Thank you.
Madeleine Perrin
Moved by Admin at the request of Jo-Tina DeGennaro
Originally posted under VOB Accepts NCPD Proposal on 6/20/07
Posted by Admin at Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:56 AM 
Categories: Microwave Satellite Receivers and Sticks aka -Antennas
Categories: Microwave Satellite Receivers and Sticks aka -Antennas
I realize that you wanted to be contacted via phone or mail - and I agree that the health and well being of those residing in this Village is paramount - but I wanted to again post that objecting to the cell antennas based SOLELY upon health concerns may not be enough to the antennas blocked or removed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For example, in 1997, the Town of Oyster Bay denied requests for permits made by ATT to put cell towers in Glen Head and Farmingdale. The main objection at Town hearings was the potential health risks, although aesthetic concerns were also cited. When the Town denied the permits, ATT went to Court for an Order directing that the permits be issued to allow the cell antennas to be installed. The Court ultimately found that the permits for the antennas should have been issued because the main objection - a risk to health - was insufficient to bar the placement of the cell equipment. The Court cited Section 332(c) (7) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act which sets forth that "no . . . local government . . . may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." That case, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1999 is called Cellular Telephone Company v. Town of Oyster Bay and is reported at 166 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 1999).
Unless you can prove that the emissions exceed current federal standards, I would suggest finding various other grounds for objecting to the cell antennas and contact an attorney well versed in this area of law so that you are not disappointed in the outcome after spending alot of time and money on this very important issue.
Reply to this
I am pleased that this very important issue did not just go by the wayside. I definitely feel that any tower, close to any facility, especially a school, should not be taken lightly and any monies that the village may receive is not worth the consequences that these towers may cause. When does human lives get put behind dollars earned? I personally would not want to be in any way responsible to the ill health of any of my fellow villagers and their families and will support any further investigation in this matter.
Reply to this
It is my understanding that the lawsuit going forward is not based on health issues, precisely for the reasons stated by the above poster.
The BRACT group seems to have other, factual, grounds to go on that are solid.
If you want to learn more please contact them, I did. They are very open and informative about how they are going about stopping further towers from being placed and the possibility of the removal of present towers.
Reply to this
Information regarding the risk of exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR's)from B.R.A.C.T. Watch the Video
Reply to this
I carefully reviewed this video and approximately 4 minutes into it there is a reference to "The Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study" You can find this by referring to http://www.silentspring.org/newweb/research/cape.html. After review of the available 1997 and 2007 studies conducted, there was no, (ZERO) indication of any connection between cell phone exposure and Breast Cancer Incidence as very clearly indicated in this 57 minute presentation. In fact the actual findings lean heavily toward pesticide contamination.
Reply to this
To all Bayville Residents concerned about the cell tower that exists next to our primary school--take heart. B.R.A.C.T. (Bayville Residents Against Cell Towers) has been working diligently, all summer, on your behalf. We have begun all the proper legal proceedings to both try to stop the new police equipment from going up on our water tower--and to try to get the existing cell phone antennas removed. For those of you who believe the police equipment is necessary for the health and safety of our Village, please note that we are not opposed to this idea--just very opposed to the location of the equipment next to our children and nearby residents. This is just too densely populated an area for such equipment--Motorola can find a more suitable location.
We hope you all enjoyed your summer and had an opportunity to forget the cell tower for awhile--but school is fast approaching, so call us at 628-3997 and see how you can help to resolve this problem. Most sincerely, Jo-Tina DiGennaro
Reply to this
I think every citizen should watch the video that is linked on this website by EON regarding the exposure to RF waves. Maybe all these RF waves are affecting our children their health as well as their test scores.
What I don't understand is why big mouth citizens like LM. Is it not concerned about things like this. This women adds her unwanted opinion to everything but never educates herself with any real information, unless it is about IB which is meant to help our children not affect their health and welfare.
Reply to this
Dear Eyes Wide Open,
Sounds like someone wants to pick a fight….LOL! Let’s see, I have lived for 17 years almost directly behind the water tower, my children both attended the Bayville schools through this period, I’ve read the reports, I use a cell phone, and by golly I just don’t see it as a major issue. I do consider the IB program far more harmful to our public school system AND the health and well being of our students. Perhaps if you bothered to educate yourself about the Truth behind the program you might be able to compose a complete sentence. But here, you have to insult me on a thread that I never even commented on. Am I stopping you from your cause? Um, I don’t think so. You have every right to your particular cause as I have to mine. But your confidence is misplaced if you think IB is helpful to children.
Btw, I’ve heard that the wireless technology in the school buildings gives off higher RF readings than the cell tower. It’s a matter of seeking balance, what benefits the most people, in a cost effective manner. You have to pick your battles, you know.
Reply to this
go Lisa!
Reply to this
Anyone catch the articel in NEWSDAY yesterdat regarding the towers. A local guy Angelo and his son were in the pic.
EVREY parent who is not happy about this new project and towers up there already needs read this article and help out BRACT.
Reply to this
Anyone know how many people in town have Leukemia and or how many people teachers or students have been diagnosed with cancer who are in the schools on a daily basis. Wake up people gather the information and see that are occurrences of these disease are very high for the population higher than the national averages...If its not the 50 cells on our tower I don't know what it is... but I don't think we need them up there....and by the way Lisa you don't see it as a mayor issue thats because you have a warped sense of what is important... hence the reason local papers don't want you writing for them anymore...
Apparently our wonderful board of trustees do not se it as a major issue either and they do not care about our villages health either.. they rather spend our tax dollars fighting our citizens then protecting them. I hope our mayor rots in hell because thats where she belongs. I think someone should start a petition not allowing the village board to use our tax dollars on fighting BRACT... let Vicky pay the bill herself...then will see how quickly she would sell us out...
Reply to this
It is interesting to see what fuels the mania and hatred exhibited by individuals who take a position on a specific issue. When it comes to the anti-cell tower crowd, I couldn't help but follow the bouncing ball on BRACT'S link : http://www.icnirp.de/
Interesting. I see the U.N./WHO is a major contributor to the report and the process.
http://www.who.int/gb/ebmr/PDF/E/Millenium%20development%20goals%20and%20health%20targets.pdf
Why is it issues the U.N. has a major hand in always cause such controversy? If you have a family member suffering from cancer, my sympathies and hopes for a speedy recovery. However, spewing hatred and venom at people just because they don't happen to agree with you, is not only very counter-productive, it is just plain rude and nasty. Read the WHO goals carefully. Chances are you don't even realize that what you are proposing, supporting and using as your evidence of position - is deeply anti-American. Then think about your rights as an American AND the rights of your fellow Americans.
Reply to this
What is the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? Answer: Money. And you can take that to the bank Mayor Siegel!
Reply to this
Two poignant letters to the editor in The Leader last week. Letters are still posted on The Leaders website.
One from Jo Tina DeGennaro about the sell towers near the school and the other from Dr. P. Capabianco regarding Citywide Wi-Fi.
Must reads.
Reply to this
in oyster bay the town has a cell tower in their yard on Lake ave . Is there any reason a cell tower couldn't be built away from residences in a place like behind the strip in the swamp or in the parking lot at Staley's ? Who says it has to be on top of our water tower ? Then again I wonder if these supposed death rays couldn't be used instead of chlorine so we'd have drinkable water again , just a thought
Reply to this
there are homes on lake ave and renville ct near those antenna. there are also antenna across Glen Cove Road from KFC on top of a 3 story building. homes right behind the building at the same 3 story elevation. these antenna are popping up everywhere. some placed improperly. we want to keep them high.
these antenna create a RF ceiling parallel to the ground. placing these antenna at a lower elevation may create an increase in RF for residences nearby on higher ground even though the homes are more than 500 ft away.
stehli is probably a safe spot but would it cover all of bayville? if not? then what? place a second tower at another location in bayville?
if the RF were dangerous at less than 1% MPE (maximum permissible exposure). one solution would be to build a taller tower, creating a higher RF ceiling (elevation). this would lower the RF (magnitude) even more than it currently is at the school and nearby homes.
another solution would be to build a tower at stehli tall enough so the antenna are at the same elevation as they are on the water tower. this would keep the RF ceiling at the same elevation while moving the antenna (RF source) away from any homes.
probably the safest solution as long as the tower never falls.
never pass people are to worried how ugly it would be.
cost to build and maintain? forget about it.
Reply to this
I told Vicki that I would be happy to lease a corner of my yard for a cell tower and collect the $5,000 or so a month that companies like Verizon are willing to pay. For an extra $60,000 a year, I'll risk the "less than 1%" RF risk. One of those tree looking ones, it will blend. I asked her if there was any sort of ordinance preventing a private owner from doing so, and she said with a grin, "Not specifically, but try it and there will be."
My cell service (Verizon)SUCKS! My husband's cell service (Nextel) SUCKS! We are both in jobs which require us to be locally in areas with huge dead spots. Important business calls get dropped because all of a sudden for some unknown reason you are roaming and you could be in the backwoods of Tennessee and get better reception. Then everyone shows up at cell tower meetings to whine about a new antenna with their cell phones going off. Very hypocritical.
Reply to this
Lisa, I have Verizon and except for a dead spot at the base of Mountain Ave, where it meets Bayville Ave, I get great reception.
Interesting that Mayor Siegel indicated there is no ordinance against private citizens/businesses leasing roof/yard space to cell companies. That is a direct contradiction to what she said at one of the public meetings about the Police Antenna. To hear her version, after the flood in 92, a lot of the businesses in town were entertaining offers to have cells installed on their properties. She came to the rescue of the town and required that they only be put on municipal property, to avoid bayville starting to look like "queens" and to 'spread the wealth', ie, let ALL the taxpayers benefit from the rental money via the village....not just a select few business owners.
interesting how the stories differ, no?
Reply to this
edie,
"required" and "town ordinance" aren't the same. that's politics 101.
everyone,
would we have rather had "queens"? antenna anywhere or at the renaissance?
do the tax payers benefit? if the antenna were elsewhere in Bayville would we have the same RF? but then the taxpayers in bayville may not benefit. some business does instead.
if you follow the link below, page 3 shows a diagram of the proposed dish antenna and the output levels of RF. if this dish antenna were placed a 1/4 of a mile away at the same level as the base of the water tower. the base of the water tower would be around 12 microwatts/cm2. the cotton report states that all proposed and existing (measured) RF outside the school at the highest level is below .7 microwatts/cm2.
http://www.bayvillevillagehall.com/PDFs/Radiation%20Objectives%20&%20Calculations%20(MCD%20TE%20Paper%20151).pdf
BRACT is attempting to move the antenna off the water tower. Now I'm sure the police dish antenna would never be placed in such an improper location. A 1/4 of a mile away. That's 1320 feet.
At least not while I'm around.
But then if BRACT does win where do the police dish go??
hard to figure what people really want from their mayor. or where anyone wants the cell antenna and police antenna to reside. it sounds like we all agree we need it.
Reply to this
Edie,
You said: "interesting how the stories differ, no?"
Uh, no. I'm a private property owner, not a business, so the "stories" have nothing to do with each other. Also, I had hoped you would have discerned my comment as being somewhat tongue in cheek.
As far as Verizon and Nextel service goes, as soon as I pull in my driveway it goes dead. I find it to be dead along Bayville Ave. from roughly Mountain Ave. through the President Streets. Forget Upper Brookville, most parts of Muttontown, Locust Valley or the Rt. 106 corridor. Oyster Bay Cove also has a huge dead zone.
Reply to this
Lisa and NPS,
You are both misinofrmed. VS did tell a story at two of the four meetings, where the Village, her board specifically had to put an ordinance on thebooks, prohibiting a resident from putting a tower in his yard. I do not remembr the mans name, but she did reference it and stated he lived in Cat Hollow.
She most definitely said their is a resolution that was passed prohibiting residnet and businesses.
Bayville, was not the only Village to pass such an ordinance, this assures them all the revenue from any cell tower that goes up in Bayville.
Try going to the meetings, or reading the stenographers report, there was one present at three of the four meetings.
Reply to this
misinformed?
edie used the term "required".
Lisa admitted the story should have been taken litely. "tongue and cheek".
personally i could care less why the antenna are where they are. i could also care less on how they look. i don't care how much money the town makes off of it. i really don't care that they may be placed on a property illegally.
i do however care what the levels of RF are. the safety is my first and only concern here. no political BS.
maybe the antenna were placed there due to the greed of a mayor. is that what we want to argue? if that is your issue start another blog.
i have a child at the primary. another to attend soon. i live in bayville.
if you can't stop the placement of antenna do to health reasons. then what is going to stop them from placing the antenna and dish in a possibly worse area? lower in elevation near other residences in bayville. again is it even possible to cover bayville without multiple locations for antenna. what if the new locations expose some residences to 2%? your worried now. what then?
to get rid of the antenna altogether without compromising cell service seems impossible. so doesn't it seem unrealistic to want the antenna out of bayville?
again, what's worse the police dish a 1/4 mile away at a lower elevation or atop the 60-70 foot water tower within 300 feet of the school?
i'd vote for the water tower. keep in mind a higher tower on the same property would lower RF more.
by the way 3/4 of a mile would produce a 1.2 microwatt/cm2 RF signal. Still under 1% maximum permissible exposure but almost twice the almost current .7 microwatt/cm2.
but i'm misinformed? no, i'm just a bit confused.
Reply to this
Mike,
The conversation I had with Vicki was probably 4 or 5 years ago, so it is very likely that the ordinance you are referring to was passed after that time. It is even possible that I had coincidentally mentioned the subject at the same time as the gentleman from Cat Hollow, causing the Mayor and the Board to say, "Hey, if there are at least 2 private property owners who are talking about this, maybe we better make sure there isn't a loophole which would allow them to get away with it."
Rats, I could've used that $60,000 a year.
Reply to this
LIsa,
Thanks for that clarification. Just a thought you say it is $60,000 each, multiply that times the amount up there and you are in the 3 million range. That is about 2.5 million more than the Village states they collect in the budget.
NPS,
I was soley responding to your comments about the location. You clearly have more info regarding the RF wabes etc. than I do. I really do not care where they go, I do not have kids and do not live near there.
However, I do care that land entrusted to the Village with speicfic covenents and deeded restrictions was completely misused and the law ignored by the Mayor, counsel and the trustees.
If they are so blatant to ignore what is in black and white, what are they doing with things that fall in the grey area?
Just my opinion.
Reply to this
Mike,
I never claimed Math as my strong point, but are you alleging that there are FIFTY (50) ($3M divided by $60,000 = 50) antennas on top of the water tower?? That seems bizarre. If such is the case, I should be getting a lot better cell service than I am!
Reply to this
Yes there are over 50, 5-0 up there. Recently, a few were moved around to the otehr side, but i do believe the count is still the same.
Most towers face South
Thus is the reason for the dead spots along Bayville Ave.
Reply to this
Lisa, I am shocked that you don't know that number...It was brought up at pretty much every meeting last winter. I thought by now that was common knowledge, but I guess not.
That is the crux of my objection, personally. If we as a village had not been sold down the river for commercial antennae to be placed on the tower, then I would have no problem with the NCPD project. it's that adding more stuff on to the already overloaded tower, so close to the school, that makes it a breaking point issue for me.
to know that we (as a village) are in this position b/c our gov't acted in defiance of a legally binding document (the deed to the land the tower is on)is particularly galling. and as Mike pointed out, if this is what they are doing out in the open, it raises the question of what is going on behind closed doors, in areas more easily hidden.
Reply to this
to know that we (as a village) are in this position b/c our gov't acted in defiance of a legally binding document (the deed to the land the tower is on)is particularly galling.
I don't believe that has been determined in a court of law yet.
Reply to this
concerned, you are correct, it has not been proven in a court of law. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the deed and it is fairly clear as to what is and is not allowed on the property. I base my statements above on that. File a Freedom of Information Act request at Village Hall for a copy of the deed and read it yourself, make your own determination.
Reply to this
and here lies my confusion . . .
my focus lies on the fact that these antenna are safest placed on the highest point. the water tower is not only on the highest point in bayville but it is the highest structure in the area.
is not the combination of the antenna being placed on the safest (highest) place in bayville and the fact that the site may be illegal make it grey (if not legal) not black and white. the location is a no brainer if legal. just my opinion.
don't most people own cell phones these days (past 5 years)? do the antenna only benefit a select few in bayville? NCPD? Hello . . .
are we trying to move the antenna because they are safest placed elsewhere in bayville? if so, please enlighten me.
at the meetings i did attend, we the people (majority) were stating that motorola (NCPD) should find a more suitable location. maybe i am informed. i was able to hear this over the conversation behind me stating the facts that mayor siegal was frying her kids for money. other statements were to vulgar to repeat.
ironically if the antenna were placed by the rec, behind the town hall, on "legal ground". probably on a structure 30-40 feet so folks couldn't see the ugly antenna. note, the rec is a lower elevation than the base of the water tower and more than 500 feet away from the primary. the RF could possibly be higher than it currently is at the same locations near the primary. probably do to its height and location exposing even more homes near robert rd to similar RF measured at the primary.
specific covenants, deeded restrictions, blah . . FN . . blah . . nice language. sounds like political BS at its finest.
"village sold down the river" edie i'm almost speechless.
and here lies my confusion . . .
is there actually a safer location in bayville that will provide the same or similar service? or are we attempting to move the antenna because of some political mumbo jumbo?
Reply to this
I am not trying to move the antenna at all. I made my efforts back over the winter....collected 250 signatures on a petition that i presented at the last hearing meeting. I've since heard through the grapevine that Mayor Siegel discounted those signatures b/c I bullied and forced people to sign. Ok, fine, whatever. I personally bullied 250 people to sign their names.
but i digress. I am not fighting this at all. my daughter who should have been at BP is at a different school, and when my son is ready for kindergarten, he will be there as well.
furthermore, are you saying it's ok for gov't (any gov't, not just ours here in Bayville) to disregard deeds and other legal documents if it suits their needs? because, and again I am not an attorney, but that sounds suspiciously like eminent domain to me.
Reply to this
Edie,
Don't be so shocked. There is a difference between what you are calling antenna, and "cell sites". There are FIVE companies who are currently listed as having "cell sites" on the Bayville Water Tower; T-Mobile, Sprint/Nextel, Sprint, Verizon and Cingular. The combined revenue from those companies "per site" equals $207,224 for 06-07. If you divide that by five, you come up with an average of approx. $4,000 per month. The leases agreed to in the earlier 90's were at a lower rate than newer ones.
Reply to this
now i'm more confused.
the RF inside the primary is comparable/safer to homes much farther than 500 ft (cotton/maurer report). the fact that you can't get a phone signal in most locations inside the school would confirm that (information previously posted on blog and reported at second meeting). the higher RF is outside the school still less than 1% maximum permissible exposure.
send your children elsewhere?
please tell me you did so for reasons other than RF. or tell me you had someone measure the RF inside/outside and on the way to the "other school". if you get a phone signal you are being exposed to some level of RF.
is not the government supposed to represent the people? all the people worst case the majority?
sounds like the mayor may be doing just that in this case. could she be overlooking a legal document for that benefit?
money for the tax payers (not just lisa mcloughlin)
Reply to this
Not a Popular Stand.
Get a pair and sign your real name.
Reply to this
NPS,
First off, I don't think the Cotton report is worth the paper it's printed on, so your quoting of it is a non-issue to me.
""is not the government supposed to represent the people? all the people worst case the majority?
sounds like the mayor may be doing just that in this case. could she be overlooking a legal document for that benefit?""
Well then isn't that just the most inviting slippery slope??? Let's just throw away checks and balances, transparency in gov't, accountability, and all else. Let's by all means give Mayor Siegel and her minions full out absolute power to do whatever they want, as long as THEY think it's for the greater benefit! are you crazy?
Reply to this
Edie -
A few things:
#1 - I can understand your bitterness toward the current admin. due to the fact that your sister lost the mayoral race.
#2 - You saying the antennae are against the deed is "not worth the blog it's written in" bc you have no legal credentials whatsoever.
#3 - 250 people are def. not the majority of people in this town. So, as for govn't representing the majority of the people...you can do the math. As for bullying, when you're approached to sign a petition in front of every other mother in your child's pre-school class you'll do anything to not be made into a social outcast.
#4 - In all seriousness, the Mayor would most def. not put anyone in harm's way. You can slander her and the board all you want but the bottom line is that she herself has family that lives in the area and she would most def. not do anything to intentionally harm them or any of the other residents in this town. And that's the bottom line. The Mayor is many things, but she is def. not the one doing damage to the Village and it's residents. That's coming from somewhere (and someone) else.
Reply to this
Concerned: You conclude your diatribe with, "That's coming from somewhere (and someone) else."
Please share- I am confused. Can we stop being so cryptic?
Also - just a thought here...and perhaps some perspective. Sixty-five years ago you could buy cigarettes in vending machines, doctors did not counsel patients to stop smoking, even during pregnancy and big tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer. What makes you think RF and cell tower TODAY are any different than cigarettes were then?
Reply to this
Concerned,
Sorry, I didn't catch your name.
1. Don't project feelings onto me. You don't know me, or at least I don't think you know me. Can't be sure about that b/c you aren't willing to man up and sign your name. I am not bitter at all about Margaret losing the race. It was a campaign well run, and lost not for lack of trying. That's what I teach my kids, do your best in everything you attempt, so by that measure, nothing to be bitter about.
2. No kidding I have no legal credentials. I stated that and stated it was my own OPINION having read the deed. Have you read the deed? Didn't think so. Clearly the case was taken by a reputable attorney, so I assuming that it's not entirely without merit.
3. I never said that the 250 were a majority. It's not my forte, but I can do basic math. Are you a parent at the preschool I am a part of? Yes, I did solicit signatures from my fellow parents, however it was done by distributing the petition in the backpacks, to be signed and returned or used for kindling...whatever the person wanted. It was a completely no-pressure approach, not bullying at all. I won't even deign to address your last line on people fearing becoming social outcasts in front of the other mothers.
4. I am not slandering the mayor or anyone else. I am stating my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. likewise, this final bullet point of yours is simply your opinion. we will have to agree to disagree on the mayor and her intentions.
Reply to this
Cocerned,
I too do not beleive Mayor Siegel is "damaging" anyone, but I am curious as to who you think/know in this Village has such power that they could be damaging the Village and the residents?
I do not mean to sound ignorant, but if you do not think the people in power are doing that, who else can?
Reply to this
"I am not bitter at all about Margaret losing the race. It was a campaign well run, and lost not for lack of trying." ~ Edie
Heck, even I'll give Maggie points for "trying". But "campaign well run"?
Slander, false accusations, trespassing and entrapment really don't make for great campaign strategy.
I guess one's perspective of if something is "well run" all depends on what your standards are. Clearly, the opposition doesn't believe that the Village is "well run", for having the supposed audacity to approve the NCPD death ray and for not having yoga on the beach, (undeniably, two heinous crimes against humanity!)
Reply to this
I had read your article on the entrapment, but slander and False accusations? Could you elaborate? I followed the campaign closelya nd must have been ignorant to it. Would love to know.
Reply to this
One more thing, you personaly have slandered most of the BOE memebrs, Ron Walsh being the biggest target... Equating him to a horrible WW2 dictator on your blog.
I guess your standards are so above the rest it exempts you.
Reply to this
Mike,
Sorry, this is not the place for elaboration. Come into The Leader blog and I will be happy to discuss with you.
Reply to this
Hi Lee-Lee,
It is amazing to me that you are still concerning yourself with the election that I lost well over a year ago. You must have more to your life than dwelling on that... yet you always come back around to making a comment about it. Sad. Move on, I have!
Reply to this
edie says,
Let's just throw away checks and balances, transparency in gov't, accountability, and all else. Let's by all means give Mayor Siegel and her minions full out absolute power to do whatever they want, as long as THEY think it's for the greater benefit! are you crazy?
very extreme . . . and crazy, that would be. full out absolute power, wow. absolute covers full out. is that what i said/implied . . .
just my opinion,
a group really afraid of RF at any level will spend money/time/resources to find the antenna are placed illegally in a court of law and will therefore force/challenge the same mayor/government, cell companies, NCPD/motorola to find a more suitable location other than the highest structure on the highest spot in bayville.
this action seems strange/questionable? almost crazy?? genius? not. desperate? maybe.
Reply to this
Well, well, well.... Wonder who will be running against Vicki in the next election. Perhaps people with sour grapes? Is B.R.A.C.T. warming up publicity? Very interesting to watch what will unfold. Too many people with too much time on their hands. Ah, the disgruntled, angry silly folk, truly, ya'll are not worth it. You will lose the court case and have to pay through the nose. Bravo Lisa, for standing your ground, no one is going to bully you around. Karma will prevail and I believe that these petty little people will receive their just desserts.
Reply to this
"Sour Grapes" or not agreeing with who is in power are two driving forces that motivate any past, present and future candidate to run in America. It is called democracy, our country was founded on the premise that people were not happy with the way things were going and could make it better.
Reply to this
It would seem you are misconstruing the meaning of the phrase "sour grapes". Please refer to definition #1 in the following link:
http://dict.die.net/sour%20grapes/
One would hope that anyone running for public office in this country would do so because the goals that they stand for are "attainable", not because of unattainable goals which have already been shot down democratically.
Reply to this
All this quabbling is pathetic, pedantic, and yes, even picayune. With the amount of conspiracy theories being spouted about local politics I feel like I reading a script from the X-Files.
Granted local politics is just small enough so that if people try they can truly have a voice, so have at it. There must be some reason that VS has detractors.
On another note I really like the Halloween themed layout for the blog.
Reply to this
While reading the above statements, I could not help but feel that we might be losing sight of the real issue. Members of B.R.A.C.T. do not believe that our water/cell tower is safe by any standards or at any height for the following reasons: 1) the safety standards of RFR radiation in Russia and Italy are 58 times more stringent than the U.S. Why is this? What have they found out that we are ignoring in this country? 2) These cell phone antennas are sitting on our water supply--on the very water we drink. I am not sure this has been explored thoroughly. 3) Most importantly, this cell tower is right across the street from our school children.
How can we possibly debate height, location, and reception when our children's health and safety may be at risk. What has happened to our priorities--reception over possible serious illness?
Please don't personalize the issue by disrespecting eachother's comments. Don't put words in your neighbor's mouth or get lost in the petty--search for the real truth about the issues. Please call us(628-3997), and we will clarify or discuss any point that is concerning you.
Thank you to all who have responded so well to our newsletter. Thank you in advance to all who have not yet had the time to respond. The signed petition and your donation can be mailed to Bayville Residents Against Cell Towers, P.O. Box 68, Bayville, NY 11709 Most sincerely, Jo-Tina
Reply to this
Thanks Steve...
Reply to this
This week a BRACT propaganda segment was shown on News12 featuring one of the members carrying his son and bemoaning the closeness of the antennas to his home and the primary school. However I didn't hear one word of his witnessing, the day before, the required routine testing of the radiation levels by an independent testing firm and that the readings were so low to be nil. That's what is politely referred to as "being disingenuous by omission". Wasn't that newsworthy, wouldn't that have helped to alleviate any fears of parents who send their children to the Bayville schools, but alas that contradicts the erroneous propaganda that BRACT espouses. Propaganda that needlessly preys on the fears of parents for the safety of their children. What responsible parent wouldn't be concerned when bombarded by the misinformation that BRACT provides. Mayor Siegel's excellent letter in this week's The Leader was correct when she chastised BRACT for not hiring their own expert to do their own testing. Any lawyer will tell you that only an expert witness can refute the findings of another expert witness. The opponents certainly had more than ample time to do so during the four months that public hearings were held and the Cotton report presented that showed readings less than one percent of those allowed by the FCC. It certainly would have been a lot cheaper than filing a lawsuit and wasting precious tax dollars to defend.
The Mayor and the Board of Trustees did nothing wrong in approving the installation of the NCPD antennas. They complied with Federal law that prohibits any municipality from denying such installation, for a perceived health risk, provided the radiation levels are within allowable limits. Where are BRACT's findings that the limits are exceeded? Bayville didn't determine those limits, the US Congress did by an overwhelming majority after extensive review; so why is Bayville and their elected officials being sued for obeying the law? Let this vocal minority of opponents present their position to the US Congress where it belongs and not down at the local level where elected officials have no control over the matter. There is only one criterion for determining a cell tower's health risk and that is the level of radiation.
The other issue in the lawsuit is the alleged deed restriction. Here again the Mayor and the Board acted responsibly by obtaining legal advice. During the hearings someone advised of a NYS Ct. of Appeals case that prevented the installation of a cell tower where the deed only allowed for single-family homes. That case, John Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Associates that can be found on the Internet, has a treatise therein when deed restrictions are unenforceable. To those who are too quick with such comments as "I read the deed" should take the time to thoroughly read this court decision before forming an opinion. Nonetheless my opinion and those of others can now take a back seat; the matter will be decided by a court of law.
Reply to this
Splistick:
The channel 12 news pieces was one sided, onthe side of the police and Village. Why didn't the Village or their Lawyer talk about the independent testing. I am sure the man on TV works and was not home all day to monitor the ongoings at the tower.
I am also sure the Village did not notify him of the testing so your point is ridiculous.
On your other points....keep drinking the cool aid! Mayor Siegel was caught lying to the public on a cruicial point through these hearins and she claimed a bad cold on the reason for not rembering she put 47 cells up there!!!
As for the lawsuit, Mayor Siegel told Jo-Tina D. to sue the Village at an open meeting. Read the minutes. She is only now being called on her bluff. Way to go Mayor great diplomacy. Thanks for wasting our money!!!
Reply to this
Looks like Babylon isn't going to be quiet either. This from a late Newsday article today, 10/24/07.
Babylon residents oppose cell tower in village
BY BRANDON BAIN | brandon.bain@newsday.com
3:51 PM EDT, October 24, 2007
About 100 residents of the Village of Babylon turned out for a two-hour public hearing Tuesday night to protest the possible placement of a cell phone tower in a village park that lies near Great South Bay.
Although no formal application for a tower has been filed, residents turned out in force to express their opposition, citing aesthetics, potential health risks and the proposed tower's location in Lewis Park, which is frequented by children.
"I don't want my kids sleeping under this tower," said Anthony Ruggiero, 39, an electrical contractor who lives near the proposed site. "Twenty years ago, they didn't tell you that cigarettes caused cancer."
Vincent Cannuscio, owner of Beacon Wireless, which would develop the towerand rent it to major carriers such as T-Mobile and Verizon, said there is a need to improve capacity and signal strength in the southern portion of the village.
The tower would generate $3 million over a 30-year term for the village or a private landowner should the village not accept the deal, Cannuscio said. "These sites are going to be built, so why not build them on municipal land, so the municipal government gets the benefit," he said to audience groans.
Beacon Wireless has another cell tower in the village's Department of Public Works yard on Ralph Avenue, for which it is paying the village about $55,000 per year over a 30-year period, Canuscio said.
The new tower, which would be at least 80 feet tall, also would support antennae for police and fire communication, Cannuscio said.
Debbie Lynch, 49, a nurse from Babylon Village, reviewed an artist's rendering of the proposed tower and said, "It's not too shabby looking. A tower like this doesn't look too bad, we need a cell tower somewhere, but I do not think it's in a good location."
Most residents agreed with Lynch.
"The waterfront is a great asset to the community, you just don't want to start industrializing the waterfront. It's not a good spot for it," said Sandra Levine, a not-for profit worker who lives in the village.
Joel Sikowitz, the village attorney, said the village board of trustees would review public comments and check with consultants before making a decision in the next 4-to-8 weeks. "We look at it as a health, safety and financial issue," Sikowitz said.
Reply to this
Eddie - Yes there IS concern about being a social outcast in this town. This town is very clicky and several people new to town have expressed a concern about fitting in. Things get around this small town quickly, even the names on that petition. The baseless mudslinging in this comment thread alone proves my point. Not that you're the only one guilty of it, I see it throughout, on both sides. Your petition also doesn't take into account those who signed it because they are truly educated on the subject, or those who signed it out of baseless fear of something they know little about. This brings me to my next point...
Everyone else - Has anyone done any research on RF levels and their effects on their own? Did anyone find some unbiased scientific studies on this subject? Through all this back and forth, I have yet to see someone post any back up for the points they have made, nor typed where they came up with this information. For those of us who have yet to form an opinion on this matter, this information would be helpful. The source must be unbiased however. Not something BRACT just printed out(there are legitimate reasons to believe BRACT has their own political goals), and if it is something they have, I want to know where they got it. Also, has anyone considered the different technologies out there. The different signals these towers use? Cingular/AT&T uses different technology then Verizon. Which is more dangerous? Which needs more RF? Cell phones have been around since the 80's. Has info been gathered from the earliest cell phone users? Stats on cancer? What and how much of a change was made with the technology since then? Does anyone have this info? If not, why not put in efforts to study it more before starting an hysteria? If it exists, then how was the data retrieved and by whom? Those from both sides should be able to come up with scientific info to back them up. Some people may simply want to make a more educated, unbiased, decision before going to war.
Reply to this
This is an excerpt from an article in the Oyster Bay Enterprise Pilot 4/24/98 titled:
Cellular Towers Try to Bloom Locally
By Dagmar Fors Karppi
It quotes Mayor Siegel stating that the cell towers are in violation of the Harrison Williams deed and admits that they should not be located near the schools. Why not place a moritorium on the placement of additional cell towers and tell the Zoning Board not to renew any "special permits".
Full article here - http://www.antonnews.com/oysterbayenterprisepilot/1998/04/24/news/
Bayville Tower-
Bayville Mayor Victoria Seigel spoke to Locust Valley Rotary members on April 16 and said the previous administration allowed a cellular tower to be built at the village complex on their water tower. It carries A T & T Wireless, Bell Atlantic Nynex and NC Emergency Management System.
Mayor Seigel said in 1954 when the property was gifted to the village by Harrison Williams he said only the back yard could be worked. The rest was to be kept in pristine state, "So we are in violation of the deed," she said. When other companies ask to be on the tower, she gives them a copy of the deed, "And keep them at bay."
She added, "The 1996 federal government gave carte blanche to the cellular carriers to do almost anything they want to do." She advised municipalities to "Work on zoning laws and enforcement as much as they can.
"The law says it's not debatable. President Clinton says it is no health concern but they shouldn't be put near schools."
Reply to this
What is wrong with you people? I use a cell phone daily as I know the rest of you do. What do you think is going to happen if you win this, and take down the cell phone repeaters? The phones won't work!!!!
And you are against a police antenna as well????
What happens when your loved one needs the police? As a life long Bayville resident, a cell phone user, and a police supporter, I thank the village Trustees for looking out for me.
If you people were in charge, you would jeopardize the whole community.
Reply to this
Bayville Resident Should be concerned!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027699/14-die-cancer-seven-years-living-phone-mast-highest-radiation-levels-UK.html
14 die of cancer in seven years living next to phone mast with highest radiation levels in UK
By Rebecca Camber
Last updated at 1:47 AM on 20th June 2008
Fourteen people living within a mile of a mobile phone mast that emits one of the highest levels of radiation in the country have died of cancer.
Four of the deaths have been in a cul-de-sac yards from the site.
A further 20 residents have developed tumours in the last seven years, although they have survived.
Those living in the shadow of the mast have begun a campaign for its removal, claiming that it has caused a cancer hotspot. The Health Protection Agency is investigating.
Worried parents are refusing to take their children to the playing fields where the mast is sited for fear of damaging their health.
The mast was erected in 1995 on a disused water tower on the High Acres estate in Kingswinford, near Dudley, West Midlands.
But campaigners claim health problems started among the 700 residents of the estate when more antennae and dishes were added in 2001.
It serves four mobile phone operators.
Experts from the communications watchdog Ofcom, who carried out tests on the mast, say it has the highest radiation level of any phone mast site surveyed in England this year.
However, the radiation was still within UK safety guidelines.
Wendy Baggott, 52, who leads a protest group against the mast, which is only 200 yards from her home, said: 'It feels like a threatening presence looming all over the neighbourhood.
'Over the last seven years there have been 14 cancer deaths in the area. Four of those happened in this road. The wellbeing of the whole community is being affected.'
The retired NHS clinical auditor, whose husband Clive has twice contracted skin cancer, said: 'It is a massive concern to us that there is a children's play area so near to it.
'Parents and grandparents around here won't let their children go there because they are terrified they could get cancer.'
One resident, Michael Morris, died from a brain tumour in 2003 aged 57.
His widow Pamela, 61, said: 'There have been so many people in the neighbourhood who have died of these cancers.
'Michael used to take the dogs for walks up there by the tower and I wonder if it might have been that.
When these masts came I think it was when he started to go downhill.'
The 14 deaths have included Betty Genner, who was killed by ovarian cancer in 2003 aged 68, and Dorothy Day, 69, who died two years later from cancer.
Six months ago another woman succumbed to a brain tumour. All of them lived within a mile of the mast.
The Government insists mobile phone masts pose no threat to the public.
But some campaigners believe the radiation from masts could be powerful enough to change the composi....
Reply to this
From the American Cancer Society...
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phone_Towers.asp
IF WE DO NOT PUT UP CELL PHONE TOWERS OUR PHONES WON'T WORK. IF WE DO NOT LET THE POLICE PUT UP A TOWER, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET HELP WHEN YOU NEED IT!
THINK EVERYBODY!
Do Cellular Phone Towers Cause Cancer?
Humans generate electromagnetic fields internally as well as externally. The simple collision between 2 molecules is an electrical event. Since there is electrical activity inside the human body, the question arises as to whether radio waves emitted by cellular phone towers can influence cell function, and in particular whether they can cause cancer.
However, several theoretical considerations suggest that cellular phone towers are unlikely to cause cancer.
First, the energy level of radio waves is relatively low. Electromagnetic energy comes in "packages" that are referred to as photons. Photon energy is measured in electron volts (eV), the energy gained by an electron after accelerating over 1 volt. The energy in the photons depends directly on the frequency, and decreases as one moves down the electromagnetic spectrum. X-rays have about 1,000 eV of energy, while the photon energy of radio waves from cellular phone towers is about one millionth of an eV, not enough to alter molecules in the body.
A second issue has to do with wavelength. Radio waves have a wavelength of approximately 1 foot in air, and about 2 inches in body tissue. As a result, RF radiation can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from radio waves could be concentrated on a small bit of tissue, affecting individual cells.
A third issue has to do with the magnitude of exposure. Measurements taken around typical cellular phone towers show ground level power densities well below the recommended limits. Moreover, public exposure near cell phone towers is not significantly different than background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.
For these reasons, cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer.
Reply to this
It is a well-know fact that the American Cancer Society receives massive funds from the Cell Phone Industry. The American Cancer Society is losing any credibility that they might already have by taking such a position. If one looks, they will find. The evidence out there that microwave radiation causes a host of problems including cancer is absolutely overwhelming. When someone talks about "recommended limits" we need to do a little digging and find out who did the recommending and why. I think it isn't too hard to find ulterior motives here.
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2006/Firstenberg-EMF-Experiment1jan06.htm
Organs that have been shown to be especially susceptible to radio waves include the lungs, nervous system, heart, eyes, testes and thyroid gland. Diseases that have increased remarkably in the last couple of decades, and that there is good reason to connect with the massive increase in radiation in our environment, include asthma, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, autism, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, cataracts, hypothyroidism, diabetes, malignant melanoma, testicular cancer, and heart attacks and strokes in young people. Radiation from microwave towers has also been associated with forest die-off, reproductive failure and population decline in many species of birds, and ill health and birth deformities in farm animals. The literature showing biological effects of microwave radiation is truly enormous, running to tens of thousands of documents, and I am amazed that industry spokespersons are getting away with saying that wireless technology has been proved safe or — just as ridiculous — that there is no evidence of harm....
If cell phones and cell towers are really deadly, have the radio and TV towers that we have been living with for a century been safe? In 2002 Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson coauthored a paper titled 'Cancer Trends During the 20th Century,' which examined one aspect of that question. They found, in the United States, Sweden and dozens of other countries, that mortality rates for skin melanoma and for bladder, prostate, colon, breast and lung cancers closely paralleled the degree of public exposure to radio waves during the past hundred years. When radio broadcasting increased in a given location, so did those forms of cancer; when it decreased, so did those forms of cancer. And, a sensational finding: country by country - and county by county in Sweden - they found, statistically, that exposure to radio waves appears to be as big a factor in causing lung cancer as cigarette smoking!
Which brings me to address a widespread misconception. The biggest difference between the cell towers of today and the radio towers of the past is not their safety, but their numbers.
Reply to this
Not only in united states all over the world most of them are suffering from the skin cancer,may be in future with the help of science may get rid of the Skin cancer......Thank You.....
Reply to this
Mobile Telecommunications in Kempten West
Blood levels alarmingly altered
The Citizens Initiative Kempten West , which was established after the installation of the T-Mobile transmitter on the bank building (in Lindauerstraße) is now able to present the first results of the blood tests. Unfortunately, the results confirm the fears of the Initiative.
The initial blood samples were taken in November 2006 before the transmitter commenced operation (Dec. 2006). The second set of blood samples were taken in May 2007, 5 months after the transmitter commenced normal operation.
All 28 participating residents had already removed DECT-Telephones and WLAN from their homes weeks before the first blood sampling took place and also reduced their mobile phone use to a few conversations outside home. Furthermore, 6 families had the electromagnetic exposure in their houses measured by technician Herr W. Jogschies, Wildpoldsried, both before and also after the installation of the transmitter mast. The second test results showed a several fold increase in the electromagnetic RF radiation exposure (the medical team has the measurements).
At the suggestion of Dr. med. M. Kern, the initiator of the `Allgäuer Doctor’s Initiative’, and of alternative practitioner E. Strodl, the citizen’s initiative decided to investigate the effects of the telecommunications mast on diverse laboratory parameters. At the same time, this series of analyses is part of a German-wide investigation into the effects of mobile telecommunications on humans (Dr. med. Hans-C. Scheiner in Munich (München). The organisation, implementation and medical supervision of the project Suburb and the first summary of the results were handled by physician Anna Blanz.
The following laboratory values were established:
o The differential blood picture using whole-blood
o Serotonin daytime level from the blood serum (8 a.m. -9:00 a.m.)
o Melatonin and from the blood serum (daytime level)
o Determination of the nocturnal maximum melatonin excretion through determination of the melatonin metabolite
6-Hydroxy-Melatonin-Sulphate (6-OH-M-S) in the nocturnal total collected urine.
It is established that both, the “mood hormone” serotonin and also the “sleep-“ and “immune defence hormone” melatonin is formed in the pineal gland of the brain, whereby serotonin represents a precursor of melatonin.
In healthy conditions a maximum of the sleep hormone melatonin is formed from serotonin during the night, whilst, during the daytime, the ‘mood hormone’ serotonin is shown to be clearly increased, at the expense of the then severely reduced amount of the ‘sleep hormone’, melatonin.
In addition, undisturbed melatonin excretion synchronises various biological and hormonal rhythms in the human body and ensures deep revitalising sleep.
Reply to this
At the same time, melatonin represents one of the most important immune enhancing substances of our body and, as a free radical scavenger, it protects all body- and brain cells against genetic damage considered as a precursor to cancer.
Serotonin acts especially as a messenger for the nervous system and in the brain as a mood hormone. A reduction of the serotonin level is therefore associated with depression, lethargy and listlessness, inner agitation and many psychiatric disturbances.
The evaluation/analysis of 25 study participants (13 women, 9 men, 3 young people) who all live within a radius of 15-300 metres of the telecommunications mast produced the following results:
Melatonin in the Urine:
Only 8 out of 25 participants (28%) at the initial testing exhibited initial blood levels which were in the region considered to be normal. It was therefore a group of people that had already been pre-exposed.
For 14 of 25 participants (56 %), there was a decrease for the 6-OH-M-S in the collected nocturnal urine.
For 7 of 25 participants (28%), there was an increase, in most cases, within a region considered to be severely pathological.
Only one out of 25 participants (4 %) with normal initial level exhibited an increased level of 6-OH-M-S at the 2nd [blood] test.
Daytime melatonin in the blood serum:
As a rule, the daytime melatonin level in the blood serum is very much lower than the nocturnal maximum melatonin level.
The paradox increase in the daytime melatonin levels reflects the general tendency to marked daytime tiredness of people exposed to radiation.
Melatonin levels clearly increased on average by about 4.5 times of the initial level for all 25 participants.
This effect is shown below based on the mean value (of 25 participants).
Graph
Melatonin in the serum
Serotonin in the blood:
At the second measurement 21 of 25 participants (=84%)presented a reduction of the ‘mood hormone’ serotonin (in the daytime blood serum) by an average of 46.3%.
Of these, 10 participants showed a decrease of about 50% and above, with a maximum serotonin decrease of up to 68 %. For 3 participants it remained unchanged, for 1 participant the level was slightly increased.
The following graph shows this change based on the mean value of 21 participants:
Graph 2
Serotonin in the Serum
Summary Evaluation of the Results:
Especially alarming is the fact, that 84 % of participants, almost the whole group, reacted with a massive decrease in the serotonin level (average 46%) following increased exposure from the operation of the newly erected telecommunications mast.
The clear increase in depressive mood disturbances, lethargy and listlessness, appetite disturbances, inner agitation and reduced quality of life experienced by nearly all nearby residents must be acknowledged by orthodox medicine.
Reply to this
Alarming is also the fairly steep nightly melatonin decrease in the presence of increasing telecommunication signal exposure, which is nearly half of the normal level for more than half of the group (56%). Even the slow increased tendency of nearly one third (28%)represents ultimately, despite a slight increase, only an upturn within a mainly deeply lowered pathological region.
We therefore have to expect considerable sleep disturbance and immune deficiencies in 84% (28 plus 56%). Since, from the medical viewpoint, sleep disturbance is increasingly seen as a cancer promoting risk factor, these numbers must be considered as alarming
The increase of the daytime melatonin level, that is also normally substantially lower in comparison to the nocturnal melatonin peak, also indicates a displacement of the flattened nocturnal distribution graph in the morning direction. Normally, the level increases about 1-2 hours after going to bed, it reaches a maximum between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. and then drops off again steeply until the morning hours.
The blood sampling took place in the morning between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. All participants went to bed the night before at the latest by 11 p.m. This increase indicates, in addition to the nocturnal melatonin reduction, also a displacement of melatonin excretion in the morning direction.
That means:
1. relative melatonin deficiency at night with shortened phases of deep sleep. This is indicated by restless sleep with frequency awakening and
2. increased melatonin level at the tine of arising from bed. It is symptomatic of this, that one has difficulty getting out of bed in the morning and feels “absolutely whacked”. During the day, consecutive symptoms appear, such as tiredness, irritability, loss of concentration etc. Actually, 16 participants complained about sleep disturbances, 6 complained that they were regularly awakened between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. and that they then had difficulty getting off to sleep again.
Since the group of participants had no other obvious change in their living conditions, apart from the operation of the mobile telecommunications mast with the measured, appreciably increased radiation exposure, it must be assumed that there is a direct relationship.
Conclusion:
.
Since the medically conducted tests carried out on residents living in the vicinity of the commissioned operational telecommunications mast proves a drastically increased health risk, immediate action by political and regulatory authorities , at the municipal, provincial- and federal level are demanded.
In order to prevent further endangerment of the health of residents, the medical point of view is that the operation of the telecommunications mast must immediately be stopped!
Dr Anna Blanz, -Dr. med. Markus Kern -Dr. med. Hans-C. Scheiner
Reply to this
Hello everyone,
On June 25, 2008, the Citizens Against UnSafe Emissions (CAUSE) with the help of federal MP Dr. Keith Martin, hosted a Public Form on Cell/Transmission Towers in the City of Colwood, Vancouver Island, BC. I was invited to attend and to give a short presentation. Dr. Martin Blank, who was spending some time on Vancouver Island with family, came to the meeting, gave a short presentation and answered questions. The rest of the evening consisted of Q&A.
The day of the talk I met Sharon and Dennis Noble, who were the ones who invited me to come to their Colwood community. As I drove to their lovely home, which sits on top of a "mountain", I could see the ocean, the boats below, with Seattle in the distance. A lovely location, with beautiful homes, and a lot of very sick people. What I noticed first was the size of the towers and the large number of antennas. Broadcast antennas are within 35 meters of the nearest home and there are nearby towers with cell phone antennas perched on top. They loom above the community.
In 2001, Industry Canada did a survey of the neighbourhood and their highest "30 second" reading was 115 microW/cm2! Very convenient with the guideline at 200 for the low MHz range for TV broadcasting.
I took out my Electrosmog meter and began to take measurements. Highest readings were 455 microW/cm2 in the Noble home. We visited their neighbours and found they all had high readings. Readings between homes were in the 300 microW.cm2 range. Canadian Guidelines for frequencies in the lower MHz range are 200 microW/cm2 for a 6-minute average. My readings were peak readings, which is what we should be measuring rather than "average".
Sharon pointed out each of her neighbours homes and told me what illness they were suffering from. Cancers, sleeping problems, skin problems, one young man in his 40s had cataracts, miscarriages, 4 pets in one home died of cancer and other illnesses within a few months . . . sound familiar? Does this community have a problem? Damn right they do and neither Industry Canada nor Health Canada is willing to raise a finger to help them.
We need someone to do an epidemiological study. We need someone to do detailed monitoring since I expect that the guidelines are exceeded in various locations based on the limited testing I did.
Feel free to forward this email to others with similar problems or those who may be able to help with scientific expertise, policy advice, funding for a study, . . .
Below are some of the newspaper articles about CAUSE and the Triangle Mountain Antennas. I strongly recommend you read the one about Dar Churcher, who is an accomplished artist and who has become extremely sensitive to these frequencies. She sat through the entire evening in her wheel chair. Despite her disabilities, her pain and her suffering she is remarkably positive. With her photograph in the paper she is no longer suffering in silence. She is sharing her experiences... from Magda Havas
Reply to this
...so that others need not suffer as she is doing. But that can only happen if we stop this foolishness of placing antennas near homes. What is the government thinking?
I hope that Dr. Keith Martin, and others in positions of authority, will make the antennas go away for at least this community. In the meantime if anyone can help this group, please contact Sharon Noble at dsnoble@shaw.ca.
Thanks,
-magda
Reply to this
COLUMN: The antennas are coming
Wed Jul 02, 2008, 12:32 PM EDT
http://www.wickedlocal.com/marblehead/news/lifestyle/columnists/x1713654197/COLUMN-The-antennas-are-coming
Marblehead -
There’s something the government, the telecommunication industry and the corporate media don't want you to know: Invisible things can hurt you.
The invisible things in question are low-level electromagnetic waves emitted by cell phones and cell-phone towers. Three neurosurgeons appearing on Larry King confessed that the danger is such that they never put their cell phones up to their heads, but at least cell-phone use is a matter of choice. The antennas going up at the Jewish Community Center and on the Village Street water tower are another matter. Neighbors, some of whose property line is only 2 feet away, will be involuntarily affected by low-level radiation 24 hours a day. The Veterans Middle School is within a 750-foot radius of the water tower, where six more antennas will soon join those already there. Kids at Hillel and the JCC are the new JCC single antenna’s nearest neighbors.
Why don’t more people know that low-level, non-heating electromagnetic waves can adversely affect people’s health and well-being? One reason is that citizens are prohibited by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from speaking at public meetings about health effects when cell-phone antennas are proposed for their towns, a law written by lobbyists designed to keep information about health effects from the public. Another is the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Law of 1999, which gave cell phone companies total immunity from product liability. Unlike cigarettes, you will not read in your newspaper about any high-profile lawsuits claiming cell-phone use causes brain tumors or cancer. By law, there can be no lawsuits.
A third reason we hear so little about health effects is that following the passage of the Telecommunications Act, the government stopped funding independent research on health effects from cell-phone radiation. University studies in progress in the U.S. were shut down, and this highly profitable industry became the only one investigating itself. The corporate press refrains from reporting the bad news uncovered by foreign research.
I know that last point is true from personal experience. When I wrote a weekly column for the Boston Globe, I pointed out that the government of Great Britain was warning parents against giving cell phones to children because their brains are more vulnerable to harm due to thinner skulls and rapidly growing grey matter. The column was never printed; it was deemed outside my “area of expertise.”
“I don’t even have an area of expertise,” I told my editor. “How can I be outside it?”
“Linda,” he said, as if I were a child. “Look at the advertising.”
I looked. And saw page after page of advertising for cell phones, especially family cell-phone plans.
Reply to this
There’s total agreement in the scientific community that exposure to low-intensity radio frequency waves in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum causes biological changes in living things. Research in Finland, the UK, France, Australia and Japan indicates that those cellular changes can lead to short-term physical ailments such as chronic fatigue syndrome, insomnia, headaches and memory disturbance, as well as long-term weakening of the immune system and the protective blood-brain barrier, eventually leading to brain tumors and cancer. The American Cancer Society and other groups dependant on corporate funding are waiting for definitive proof that will never come. With so many poisons in our environment (each one of us has traces of hundreds of toxins in our blood stream), science will never be able to pinpoint exactly which one has finally caused our illness.
Why is this invisible threat an issue in town now? For a total fee of $2,000 a month, the Water Board solicited telecommunications companies to look into siting new antennas in town. The Board of Selectmen signed a lease with MetroPCS in January, then waited four months to inform neighbors on Village Street, as required by law, that new antennas would be going up. Six weeks later, the Planning Board approved a special permit, encouraging other companies to follow suit. This scenario — monetary rewards, neighbors taken by surprise, federal limits on local authority, an uninformed citizenry and compliant boards — plays out in town after town across the United States, orchestrated by highly paid corporate strategists. Oh, and agreements once reached cannot be rescinded.
Town Planner Rebecca Curran and a group of volunteer citizens will soon be working on a new by-law to regulate the further proliferation of antennas in Marblehead, which hopefully can be presented at next year’s Town Meeting. The principle of prudent avoidance, which has led New Zealand and Scotland to prohibit antennas on school grounds, should lead us to limit the number of antennas situated here. We already have sufficient coverage for town-wide cell-phone use.
We need not add more threats to our environment if we are half as determined to protect our health as the telecommunications industry is to keep us believing that we needn’t bother our pretty little heads about invisible things.
Linda Weltner is a Marblehead resident.
Reply to this
Residents rally to remove towers
By Amy Dove - Goldstream News Gazette - July 03, 2008
Experts offer advice on minimizing EM ‘fog’
Triangle Mountain residents are rallying to lift the so-called electrosmog hovering above their homes.
A public meeting hosted by Dr. Keith Martin, MLA for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and the Citizens Against Unsafe Emissions (CAUSE), was attended by more than 150 people concerned over what cellphone, television and radio waves could be doing to their health.
“We need these towers moved,” said Sharon Noble, a Triangle Mountain resident and CAUSE member. “If we work together we can convince Health Canada that these have to be moved.”
There are six transmission towers on the mountain, with more than 40 transmitters broadcasting in the area. Over the last seven years residents have raised concerns over the lack of consultation when the towers go up and more recently the declining health of those living in the area. Residents are reporting fatigue, cancers, problems concentrating and night sweats among other issues.
Magda Havas, a Trent University professor, and Dr. Martin Blank, a Columbia University professor, were on hand to explain the associated health risks of living near transmitters as well as some of the ways people can protect themselves.
With conflicting research on whether or not electromagnetic radiation is harmful to people, it is important to note that Canada has no safety guidelines for non-thermal radiation, such as what is emitted from communication antennas, Havas said.
Safety Code Six, as determined by Health Canada, is used by Industry Canada to gauge safe radiation levels, including thermal, emitted from towers based on a series of six-minute tests. Essentially it says what doesn’t harm you in six minutes is alright, Havas said. But what happens after an hour, a week or a month, she questioned.
“Six minutes is too short a period,” Havas said. “You shouldn’t have to live with this form of radiation.”
Something is lost in translation when scientific research is presented to the governing bodies that control exposure standards, Blank said.
“They chew it over to the point it’s unrecognizable and the public does not know,” he said.
Basic science is saying this radiation is not good for human cells, but industries are encouraging more and more use of the devices that emit it, he said. How large a role electromagnetic radiation plays in illnesses such as cancers is hard to say, but more research needs to be done to determine the long-term health effects, said Martin.
Based on the way radiation moves, it is hard to avoid it, Havas explained. You can use your cellphone inside because the signal it uses can travel through things, including people.
Reply to this
In that way it can also be absorbed into the human body. Metal reflects the waves and those effects can be seen in everything from metal tooth fillings to underwire in bras.
The electromagnetic radiation comes from the antennas on towers for communication devices and from devices within the home, from alarm clocks to a cordless phones. It can charge the wiring within a home and be reflected from bed springs.
“If we were to see it, it would look like fog,” Havas said. “It’s very very hard to avoid.”
Other counties have already acknowledged the potential dangers, making changes to their legislation and asking for further research. Sweden has declared electromagnetic sensitivity a disability, while governments in other European countries are banning wireless Internet in schools. In Canada, the government and involved industries are failing to protect citizens, Havas said.
The towers need to be moved, Havas said. Cellphone towers should be prohibited within 400 metres of a home, while broadcast towers shouldn’t be located within 4 kilometres. The current towers are within 30 metres of some homes.
In the meantime there are things people can do to protect themselves — at a cost. There are special films that can be placed on windows, or material that deflects the waves. It can be as simple as changing the type of phones in the house or using corded Internet over wireless, she said.
Many called out to Martin to ensure the message was taken to the proper federal authorities. The evening’s information will be forwarded to the appropriate people, he assured, however the real push for action will come this fall.
Residents want to see the radiation levels retested since the 2001 readings from Industry Canada and ultimately they want the towers moved.
In a letter to Martin after the meeting, Noble asked for more, stating: “... all costs for shielding and its installation (should) be paid by the federal government for any residents of Triangle Mountain who fear that exposure levels are endangering their health.”
For more information go to http://members.shaw.ca/causetm/ or e-mail cause.tm@shaw.ca.
reporter@goldstreamgazette.com
Reply to this
Bayville Water Department
It is true that the village has a water department, and that no one in the water department is certified to test the water. How does the administration allow this. Are residents of Bayville paying an outside agency to test our water and interpet the results. What is the responsibility of the water department supervisor and who is the supervisor. And if this true, how come the village administration hasn't require the supervisor to take the test to be certified.
Thanks Lou Celik
Reply to this
Mr. Celik,
I have no idea where you are getting your erroneous information from. The New York State Health Department REQUIRES BY LAW that water samples be collected by the water department and sent to an independent outside agency for analysis. In Bayville's case, it uses H2M. The report is issued annually and mailed to every resident. Not only does our Water Department Supervisor have all of the proper licensing necessary for his position, he is up to date on his continuing education credits, however he is not required to be a chemist and perform water sample analysis.
Reply to this
Meeting tonight - Wantagh
JOIN US FOR A MULIT-TOWN MEETING TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE CELL TOWER INVASION AND LEARN HOW WE CAN UNITE TO FIGHT THE POWERFUL CELL COMPANIES. IN THE PAST YEAR, COMPANIES SUCH AS METRO PCS AND T-MOBILE HAVE PLACED TOWERS NEXT TO OUR HOMES AND SCHOOLS, SOME LESS THAN 25 FEET FROM BEDROOM WINDOWS AND ONLY FOOTSTEPS AWAY FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS.
OUR GOAL IS TO CREATE SAFE ZONES AND TOWERS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 1500 FEET (Approximately 1/4 Mile) OF ANY HOME OR SCHOOL.
WE WILL NOT LET OURSELVES BE AN EXPERIMENT OF THE CELL PHONE COMPANIES. WE WILL NOT LET OUR CHILDREN BE GUINEA PIGS!
MEET FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY ANDREW CAMPANELLI WHO IS TAKING ON THE BATTLE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF LONG ISLAND. FROM BAYVILLE TO MERRICK TO HUNTINGTON. HE IS ALSO WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD TO CREATE NEW REGULATIONS AND CODES.
GO TO www.DONTCELLOUT.COM For more information
M.O.M.S OF MERRICK/BELLMORE SPEAK OUT
CHILDREN ARE WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED
Host: MOMS Sharon Curry, Jodi Turk, Atty. Andrew Campanelli Legislator Dave Denenberg, Claudia Borecky
Location:
Wantagh High School Auditorium
3297 Beltagh Ave
Wantagh, NY 11793 US
When: Monday, August 16, 7:30PM
Reply to this
We have recently observed the news catching up with the issue we have been raising for 3 years. Our Bayville Cell Tower should not exist--it defies all the recommendations of the placement of such structures--it is on a metal structure, in the middle of a residential neighborhood--and most importantly right next to our Bayville Schools. Parents and Residents please voice your opposition to this potentially dangerous situation (not to mention the illegality of their placement on that property)--and do not resign yourself to be the long term experiment for this powerful Telecommunications Industry. Most sincerely, Jo-Tina DiGennaro
Reply to this
But the Taxpayers Party said that the cell towers must stay. Afterall, they need the money in addition to the recent 8.5% tax increase that they imposed on all us lab rats.
Reply to this
Dear give up--I know it sometimes sounds like all the odds are stacked against us--but never give up. We really have truth on our side and a very good legal case. Check out our website and contact us if you have any questions. Peace
Reply to this
An interesting sidebar to the cell phone issue is what's happening in europe. France, Finland and Israel (I know, Israel is not europe!)are passing legislation to require children to use earpieces or earphones while using a cell phone. There are european studies which conclude that holding a cell phone to one's ear is a lot more dangerous than the emissions from the cell repeaters. There is also research going on in europe to study the effects of Bluetooth.
Of course one can also find studies that say these recent european laws are based on unfounded science.
Reply to this
I am happy to find this post very useful for me, as it contains lot of information. I always prefer to read the quality content and this thing I found in you post. Thanks for sharing.
Reply to this
Woody, do you know the source of these european studies? I, too, have heard that holding a cell phone to one’s ear is dangerous, and I would like to research this further.
Reply to this
Laying out grounds reproduce may be considered a liberal art, in some sort like poetry and painting.
Reply to this