new videos
hot off the press!  
    more about rocket
mass heaters here.

more videos from
the PDC here.
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

cell towers in missoula  RSS feed

 
Abe Coley
Posts: 96
Location: Missoula, MT
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
anyone living near missoula's cell towers observe any negative health effects?

i watched this doc last night, very scary: Resonance - Beings of Frequency.
 
Rory Page
Posts: 26
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Very freaky documentary, this is a map of all the FCC registered cell phone towers in Missoula; http://www.city-data.com/towers/cell-Missoula-Montana.html it is interesting how health issues are not part of the debate on the construction of a Verizon cell tower on Waterworks hill in Missoula. One would think that would be the number one concern to Missoulians.
 
Tim Zalinger
Posts: 9
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Check out this "fact sheet" from Connecticut.

http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/cell_phones.pdf

My favorite part is the careful distinction between the tower and the antenna.

It's classic general terminology reeks of under researched statistics.
 
Tim Zalinger
Posts: 9
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I found the reply I got when I inquired about the fact sheet...

Hi,
I was curious when the Cell Phone Towers and Cell Phone Fact Sheet was created and if there has been any further research into the matter?
http://www.ct.gov/dph/LIB/dph/environmental_health/EOHA/pdf/cell_phones.pdf
Is this still the stance of the Connecticut Department of Public Health?

Dear Mr. Zalinger, the fact sheet was written in 2004 and since that time, a number of additional studies have been published on exposures from cell phones and cell phone towers. We are planning to update the fact sheet in the near future. However, I will tell you that none of the new studies I am aware of would result in changes to the health and safety conclusions in the 2004 fact sheet. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.

No new findings since 2004...hmm...
 
James Graham
Posts: 64
Location: Cranston, Rhode Island
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I spent numerous years working for a telecommunications company in Connecticut. Yearly we were given classes about the dangers of exposure to Radio Frequency. Everything from your eyeballs being super heated to plastic melting on our hardhats. Of course, this was in the direct path of the antenna and 95% of the time I was well below the antenna so I never gave it much thought. Now with the evolution of high speed data (LTE), many cell operators with their own antennas and subscribers, the radiation from these towers is increasing. Also with more cell operators, the increasing amount of antennas are closer to the ground as space on the towers is limited (this applies to older towers and new ones are much taller).
Maybe I should contact some of the guys from where I worked to see if there are new findings?
 
John Polk
steward
Posts: 8019
Location: Currently in Lake Stevens, WA. Home in Spokane
289
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Personally, I feel that many of these fears are exaggerated.
I don't fear short-term exposure to low levels of this radiation.
However, I do feel that people who spend a lot of time with a cell phone 'glued' to their ear, should look deeper, and find ways to minimize their exposure.

While all of the published research I have seen seem to state "...there is no clear evidence...harmful", they all seem to avoid stating that nothing published has found it to be safe. "Guilt by omission" ?

That CT study is 8 years old. There are probably 100% more cell phones in use now, and users are demanding 'better coverage' which translates into more towers (or higher power outputs). Nobody wants a tower close to their house, but they need to go somewhere if 'we' are going to define cell phones as a 'necessary' part of our lives.

 
Abe Coley
Posts: 96
Location: Missoula, MT
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Last year at the BSDFF I saw a documentary about the Carfter family of country music. There was this radio station just over the mexican border that at the time was the most powerful radio station ever built, xer-am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XER-AM. Apparently it was so powerful that you could hear it coming through the metal bedsprings at night. The old guys said if you ever needed a kitchen radio you could just take a tin can and poke a piece of copper wire through the opening, run the wire out the window up the side of the house, and you could hear it.
 
James Graham
Posts: 64
Location: Cranston, Rhode Island
3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
John Polk wrote:
I don't fear short-term exposure to low levels of this radiation.
However, I do feel that people who spend a lot of time with a cell phone 'glued' to their ear, should look deeper, and find ways to minimize their exposure.


I agree that short term exposure is acceptable with the handheld phones. The antennas on newer devices emit lower wattages than their predecessors.

I would not want one of these towers near my home if I could help it. They lack aesthetics, even the ones designed to look like giant trees.
One the other hand, if a cell company wanted to lease land from me to install a tower, I may be inclined. The leaseholders receive huge amounts of money, based on the number of antennas, portion of real estate needed, access requirements, height of tower and all the support that goes with it.
 
All of the world's problems can be solved in a garden - Geoff Lawton. Tiny ad:
Learn, Design, Teach, & Inspire with Permaculture games.
FoodForestCardGame.com
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!