If you are sensitive to electromagnetic frequencies, it is becoming harder to know how to avoid them. If you have physical problems that you do not understand, this could be part of the problem.
“Former eyesores now blend into the landscape, but some say the structures are still nuisances.The next time you go on a hike, take a closer look at the surrounding trees. You might be surprised to discover that “tree” is actually a cellphone tower….Cellular phone towers can take any shape: tree, church steeple, chimney, flagpole, windmill, cactus, and even boulder…….”One of the major ways that a town can deny an antenna permit application is because of aesthetic appeal or property values,” said Libby Kelley, executive director of the Council on Wireless Technology Impacts….
…”In many cases today, cities will not allow carriers to install sites without some sort of concealment and then when they conceal it, it really expedites the zoning process,….Normally, getting a cell tower approved can take a year or more, but a disguised tower could shorten the process — possibly to just six months….once approved, it takes about 8 to 10 weeks to construct a tree pole.”
“Hidden towers have their drawbacks, however. Camouflaged towers can cost between $40,000 and $100,000 to produce, roughly 10 times more than normal towers…. the return costs to wireless carriers offset the expense.”
“To keep up, cell “sites” — towers and antennas mostly — have increased tenfold, from fewer than 18,000 in 1994 to more than 175,000 now. Without additional towers, calls are lost and reception suffers.”
“Our companies are always running into this conundrum, which is, ‘We want cell phone service, but don’t put that tower here,’” Farren said. “When you’re dealing with communications through the air, you have to have antennas and towers.”
“To meet demand, companies are increasingly turning to nontraditional sites — fire houses, churches, schools, even cemeteries and national parks. A cell tower now sits near Yellowstone’s Old Faithful, despite strong opposition.”…..
….”Cell sites can be a financial boon to those who provide space for them. Cell companies won’t discuss rent, but Donohue said companies typically pay $800 to $2,000 per month, depending on location, the size of the tower or antenna, and other factors. That can be a significant amount for a struggling school district or a church with stagnant or declining membership.”….
….”T-Mobile sued. U.S. Magistrate Judge Frederick Buckles ruled in favor of the company in July. Debbie Barrett, a spokeswoman for suburban Seattle-based T-Mobile, said the company is doing everything it can to make the site “blend in.” But she said the antenna is needed.”
“Although some local and state governments have enacted rules and regulations about human exposure to RF energy in the past, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Federal Government to control human exposure to RF emissions. In particular, Section 704 of the Act states that, “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof 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.” Further information on federal authority and FCC policy is available in a fact sheet from the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at www.fcc.gov/wtb.”
Many schools are fighting against having cell towers near them. Some schools are winning. Some children are dying in the meantime. Administrators, School Boards, Parents, Teachers, and the cell phone industry, wifi networks etc are in conflict.
Are the above magnetic flux levels acceptable? If not, then what maximum limits are acceptable to the school board, administration, teachers, and parents? Currently, there are no federal or state maximum acceptable limits, except a 200 mG right-of-way edge limit for transmission lines in Florida and New York. It should be noted that the typical Morrisville-Loudoun 525 KV right-of-way edge levels range from 29 mG (April 1994) to 45.42 mG (2004 winter peak).
Here was data from other places in the school.
Existing Transmission Line Levels
Moved Transmission Line Levels
Location
Distance (feet)
VEPCO Data 905.6 Amps
Winter 2004 1286 Amps
Distance (feet)
VEPCO Data 905.6 Amps
Winter 2004 1286 Amps
Center Conductor
0
51.04
72.49
0
51.04
72.49
Edge of R/W
75
31.98
45.42
205
6.85
9.73
Playgnd Equip-front
160
11.01
15.63
290
3.74
5.34
New Building-wall
260
4.80
6.57
390
2.13
3.02
New Building-wall
330
3.01
4.18
460
1.54
2.29
Main Building-wall
360
2.54
3.53
490
1.36
1.94
Main Building-wall
560
1.05
1.49
690
0.69
0.98
Parking Lot
640
0.81
1.14
770
0.56
0.79
Parking Lot
700
0.67
0.96
830
0.48
0.68
http://www.vitatech.net/school_mwes.php4
This was data from an analysis of a particular elementary school. School boards and school administrators need to be aware of emf’s when planning new buildings, and rehabilitating old buildings.
Adding a mast increases the emf’s and should be avoided.
There is increasing research to show that children, in particular, are affected by the increasing amount of radiation around them. School administrators, school boards, and contractors should err on the side of caution, even if this involves increased expense or less income. The health of the children, teachers and employees are at stake.
