Transmitters on Light Poles
When getting out of the house, check if it's in your frontyard. 
We all came to live in Cupertino because of the schools (Monta Vista is ranked 57th in the nation by Newsweek 5/16/05) and quality of life.
Surprise! One day, transmitters also known as repeaters sprang up on the light poles without any notification from the city to the affected residents. The city of Cupertino said that there was a public meeting on granting the right to MetroFi to install these transmitters for wireless access to the Internet. It did not know where these transmitters would be. Also it did not have any say on the health issue regarding the Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) as it's under the jurisdiction of the FCC.
What we don't understand is that no resident was notified of the installation of the transmitters. Although the city had no idea where the transmitters were going to be, it had a master plan identifying the infrastructure, traffic lights, light poles, etc. for the company to use. In its master plan, the city condoned the installation of the transmitters in residential areas, in high schools and churches, etc. So this is to show that the city doesn't care about the citizens of Cupertino.
As there's no concrete evidence one way or the other of real health hazard with the RFR, we should at least take in consideration the health impact on our children in the future. Today we don't know. In 30 or 50 years from now, it's possible that the children who are the most exposed to RFR might develop health problems. Why don't we prevent it from happening?
What's the need to have the transmitters in residential areas and especially right across from schools such as Kennedy Middle School (one is at the corner of Bubb and Holly Oak). The city should allow the use of transmitters in commercial areas only.
People have DSL and cable modem that they can subscribe to. They don't need wireless access from home at a lower bandwidth.
So what's the solution? According to the city, we're screwed. We can't do anything.
According to us, yes, we can do something if we are all united. We don't need to support the business of MetroFi by not subscribing to its services. So DO NOT DO BUSINESS with MetroFi.
For a long shot, we should write to our senators and congressmen regarding the issue of the health hazard associated with the RFR.
If you drive along Bubb Rd, you'll see the transmitters on light poles near the corners of Monravio, Terrace, Edward, Holly Oak and Presidio. Along S. Stelling Rd, they're near Waterford, Oak Meadow, Hillview Bible Chapel, Huntridge (what an irony after PCS Sprint failed) all the way down to Homestead, and inside on Squirewood.
It's time to FIGHT BACK!
(Please click on Comments to read the city's response).
Next time when you walk in the streets of Cupertino, look up!
posted by Hann @ 5:56 PM
Post a Comment
28 Comments:
The city manager has asked that I respond on his behalf regarding your concerns about the recent installation of MetroFi’s WiFi antennas in Cupertino. I will endeavor not to repeat myself as I know there are several overlapping e-mail communications that have gone out on this subject. As staff to the city Telecommunications Commission, I will be working with chairperson Guttadauro and the rest of the commissioners on this matter.
In your e-mail you also expressed concern regarding interference with your cell phone coverage. It is our understanding that the WiFi 2.4 GHz is not adjacent to the cellular spectrum and is therefore an unlikely source of interference. However, it is important that you contact you cellular carrier about this problem. If your service is one of the national carriers, they have well-developed tools for assessing and maintaining the integrity of their signal and network.
In your e-mail you, you express disstress over the city's apprent lack of concern for resident exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR). The only legal control maintained by any city in the United States is that of aesthetics, that is, whether or not something looks "appropriate" for a given community. Concerns about Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) discussed locally have jeapardized what limited local control does exist (Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3rd at 495). Even the appearence of local decisions being based upon "health effects" may forfeit municipal decisions on antenna placement.
Your e-mail also mentions interference with your wireless home phone. New versions of these types of phones do also operate at 2.4 GHz. Any WiFi network may be interfering, along with other appliances. Because all of these devices are legally broadcasting on the public airwaves, all cities are prohibited from interfering. The federal government jealously guards its authority over these matters. No city staff or council would ever prevent residents and businesses from legally utilizing the public airwaves, as is their right, per federal law.
The new MetroFi WiFi network is broadcasting on the same wave length as are all residents and businesses that maintain WiFi (802.11) networks. According to the FCC, individuals and businesses have the right to broadcast on this wave length.
For additional information, attached is a link to the city’s Wireless Facilities Master Plan: http://www.cupertino.org/downloads/Pdf/_wmp.pdf. Page 27 and 28 of this document outline in detail the rights of the city. As permitted by law, the city did require RFR measurements from MetroFi before the installation of antennas. Based on all information available to the city, MetroFi antennas do meet FCC standards.
There is an interesting document on the FCC web site that you might be interested in reading, “A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance” It is on the FCC web site at
http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/siting/FCC_LSGAC_RF_Guide.pdf
Another document on the FCC site that seems to be a pretty good discussion of health issues and radio frequency (RF) radiation. Is at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Rick Kitson
Public Information Officer
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
408.777.3200 phone
408.777.3366 fax
rickk@cupertino.org
www.cupertino.org
The arguments presented by Hann show his ignorance of simple physics.
The level of power or signal that is received at a particular location diminishes with the SQUARE of the distance from the source of the signal.
This means that the amount of RF received if you stand next to a 20 foot high light pole directly under the transmitter is about 0.25% of the RF you would receive if you held it in your hands.
The FCC has studied this issue for over 10 years. The studies by them and other researchers cannot prove any link between RF transmissions and any harmful effects. See FCC RF Safety FAQ.
Studies on cellular phones continue to prove that holding a transmitter next to your head is extremely likely harmless.
As a contrast, if you go to a Starbucks in Cupertino you are exposed to a higher level of 2.4GHz transmission than you possibly could in your front yard by the light pole. The source of this RF is a wireless access point. There are probably several private wireless access points that you could measure in YOUR Cupertino home right now. I have discovered at least eight different access points from inside my Cupertino home.
Congress has read the studies on RF transmissions and has upheld FCC regulations that prevent local authorities from stopping transmission points on the basis of health as there is no merit to claims of harm. In fact, there are entire communities that have installed community-wide WiFi access for free to all citizens and visitors to the area. Many businesses are providing free WiFi to draw customers.
While I appreciate that you would be concerned about the health and safety in your neighborhood there is no justification for concern about these transmitters.
Thanks for pointing out my ignorance. It's too bad that you did not sign your name.
These repeaters that are installed on the light poles are stronger than your WiFi inside your home that can go up to 100ft only.
Would you like to have a transmitter in front of your house? Please call the company and ask for one.
You mentioned about the whole city with WiFi access to attract visitors. You're missing the point here. Do the visitors come to visit your house? They go to commercial areas. The free WiFi access is in downtown such as Spokane, WA. It's not the entire city of Spokane.
You mentioned about Starbucks in Cupertino. It's their business. I'm not against their business. They can do whatever they want. I'm talking about the neighborhood where people live and sleep.
Excerpt from
http://www.globalchange.com/radiation.htm
"...However some studies have caused concern in the media. For example, in October 2004, scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm gave a new warning about mobile phone radiation and brain tumours - accoustic neuromas (published in the journal Epidemiology). They found that long term users of mobile phones were four times as likely to develop growths on the side they held the phone, and twice as likely as non-users to develop these benign non-cancerous growths. They saw no increased risk from mobile phone radiation in those who had used mobile phones for less than 10 years. The study was of 150 mobile phone users, compared to 60 in a control group..."
Excerpts from
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/mobphonupd
"...In January 2002, the Health Council of the Netherlands published an advisory report ‘Mobile Phones: An Evaluation of Health Effects’ [go to reference 2]. This provided an overview, based on scientific literature, of whether exposure to electromagnetic fields from antennas and mobile phones can adversely effect health. It concluded that the electromagnetic field of mobile phones does not constitute a health hazard, according to the present state of scientific knowledge. However, further research is needed to better understand the possible effects, especially long-term, of mobile phones on health (go there now).
In December 2003, the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority’s Independent Expert Group on Electromagnetic Fields published its first annual report [go to reference 3]. The report concluded that the scientific results do not warrant any firm conclusions about the possible biological effects of radio frequency electromagnetic fields. However, intense research is currently ongoing in several countries. Given the complexity of the research area the report claimed that it is essential that both positive and negative results be replicated before being accepted. More research is needed to address long-term exposure due to the prolonged latency period of many (go there now)chronic diseases... "
Excerpt from
http://www.jrc.es/pages/iptsreport/vol61/english/HEA1E616.htm
"...Children: No specific health risks have been put in evidence for children. However, "due to their developing nervous systems, greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head, and their longer lifetime exposure, children may be more vulnerable to the effects of RF radiation". Therefore, more precautions should be taken with them..."
Do you have facts about Starbucks? If you want to go there 24/7, it's up to you. Do Starbucks use repeaters?
Why don't you get the city of Cupertino to offer free WiFi for its citizens and visitors?
========
"Everybody is ignorant only on different subjects."
-- Will Rogers
Hotspots are for business people who want to have access to the Internet and their email at the airports, restaurants, hotel lobbies, coffee shops, etc. They're not needed in residential areas.
I live across the street from where a MetroFi transmitter is mounted. Like my neighbor, recently I've also noticed a marked degradation of my cell phone reception. It used to be that I could routinely make phone calls from inside the house without any problems. Now, many times whenever I power up my cell phone, I can't even get a signal. So, I have to go outside the house to make a cell phone call. Initially, I thought it might be something wrong with my cell phone carrier, but when I discovered the existence of the transmitter recently, I instantly realized that it's probably creating the interference.
When I first started using a cell phone, I noticed that after talking for a few minutes, I can feel a strange, uncomfortable sensation in my head. So, now whenever I use a cell phone, I use an earphone attached to the phone. This eliminated the sensation in my head. I have advanced degrees in electrical engineeing, and I've very familiar with radio frequency waves, so nobody can tell me that there are no detrimental effects from RF emissions. I don't care what research you or anybody can cite regarding the supposed safety of RF emissions. The fact is that there is no body of research on the long-term effects of this kind of emissions. If MetroFi executives and any proponents of these transmitters are so confident there are no detrimental effects, then let them be the beta sites for these transmitters.
As Hann implied in his previous posting, there is absolutely no consumer utility for residents in a densely populated community such as ours to have WiFi access, when we already have better and no health risk, wired alternatives such as DSL and cable. If a homeowner wishes to have wireless acess, he can set up a wireless network in his own home and not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
Remember these transmitters are on CONTINUOUSLY, 24x7. With a cell phone I choose to use it only when I want to. Even with that, I avoid using it as much as possible, only for emergencies. Imagine if you were to use a cell phone continuously 24x7. I don't think you or anybody would be comfortable with that. Now imagine being located near a transmitter that's magnitudes more powerful than the transmitter in your cell phone and operating 24x7.
As Hann correctly pointed out, these transmitters represent not only health hazards, but also, they have an adverse effect on property values. If I were to put up something on my property that will detract from the financial attractiveness of my neighborhood, I would be prevented by law from doing so. The same principle should apply here. As Hann said, there is a place for WiFi in a business district, but in a densely populated residential community whose residents will be subjected to RF emissions 24x7, it's total nonsense.
For all those people who are so sure there are no detrimental effects
from wireless transmission, I have a great idea.
Why don't we install the transmitters at all nearby elementary, middle,
high schools, etc., if they're so sure there are no detrimental effects
from RF emissions?
Better yet, why don’t we make all MetroFi company executives, employees,
and FCC policy makers talk with a cell phone held up against their heads
24x7 as a scientific test and monitor their health over a year's period. Of
course, this test would be inconclusive, unless we apply the same test to
their infants and young children as well.
I would NEVER pay to have MetroFi wireless access! Neither should you.
Why should we pay to a for-profit company, so that they can operate an intrusive device on our properties that
1)represents a potential health hazard to us
2)is an unsightly blight on our property and community
3)detracts from our property values
And they want us to pay them for something that has absolutely no benefits to us, but has plenty of attendant risks?
What's wrong with this picture?
It should be the other way around!
MetroFi should be paying us for granting them the privilege of operating an intrusive device on our premises.
MetroFi pays the city of Cupertino for the business. It doesn't need to pay the residents. The cit council members are responsible. So if the residents are unhappy, vote them out.
If the City of Cupertino is getting paid by MetroFi, then shame on the city council members. That's even more despicable. Basically, the City sold us out for their own profits.
I concede you on one point. That is, we need to vote out those city council members. Believe you me, there will be plenty of potential candidates who are chomping at the bit to take over their jobs. Let this serve as a notice to the city council members. So, when is the next election.....
Have you ever wondered why more upscale, exclusive residential communities like Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos, etc. don't even have street lights on their residential streets? The reason is that these well-to-do residents consider street lights and other such obstrusions to be blights and destroy the aesthetics of the environment. If these residents are opposed to street lights, how do you think they would react if MetroFi were to install wireless transmitters in these exclusive communities? Yes, they would be up at arms about that for sure. There is a snowball's chance in hell that they would allow transmitters into their communities.
Yet, the VCs who fund MetroFi are also the same ones who live in these exclusive communities. Although they don't want these transmitters in their communities, they have no qualms about making money from a company that installs these transmitters in less exclusive neighborhoods such as Cupertino and Santa Clara. This is yet another classic example of corporate greed gone wild.
If you live in Cupertino or Santa Clara, and you don't think this issue affects you, just because a transmitter is not installed either directly on your property or within your eyesight, you're wrong, dead wrong. These wireless transmitters affect the entire community, because communities that are willing to allow such intrusive devices are going to be perceived as less desirable and less exclusive as communities that do not allow them. If you don't believe this, just ask some of your friends who live in Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos, etc.
Just to iterate, it's not that I'm against wireless transmitters per se. The point is that these transmitters have a useful purpose in a business district, but they have no business in a residential neighborhood.
Here is an article from The Cupertino Courier May 12, 2004. This is an example of how residents fought back and successfully prevented Cingular from installing a wireless antenna in their neighborhood. We can do it too!
=============================
ARTICLE
=============================
Wireless company can't find spot for tall fake tree
By I-chun Che
Mary Abrook likes trees. She enjoys seeing the redwood forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains from her living room in Cupertino. But when Cingular Wireless proposed erecting a 55-foot-high artificial tree for its antenna facility in the shopping center next to her house, she asked them to find another spot.
"The tree will stick out like a sore thumb, without any trees surrounding it," said Abrook, who lives next to the Tin Tin Market, where Cingular proposed to build the tree. "I am also concerned that the waves will affect young children."
Abrook's neighbors share her concerns. At the April 26 planning commission meeting, people in the neighborhood, many of whom got to know each other because of the proposal, requested that the commission deny Cingular's application.
The planning commission did reject the application, but the case also shows that the city needs more than a well-written Wireless Facilities Master Plan to help wireless providers build antenna facilities in residential areas. Cingular Wireless complied with the guidelines but still failed, mostly because of reasons that were beyond its control.
To provide residents with better cellular-phone reception, the city council passed the Wireless Facilities Master Plan in October of 2003. The document provides guidelines for wireless providers to build antennas throughout the city. Before that, antennas were prohibited in residential neighborhoods.
For the past five years, staff had been approached by such wireless providers as AT&T Wireless, Verizon, Cingular and Sprint PCS to place an antenna facility in the Tin Tin Market parking lot or on the flagpole on the property of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
An antenna at this location would serve Abrook's neighborhood near S. Blaney Avenue, Eaton Elementary School, Bollinger Road commuters and the adjacent San Jose neighborhood.
The Master Plan states a preference for facilities to be located on existing structures and buildings. There is a lack of tall buildings in the neighborhood, which is predominantly made up of one-story buildings and single-family residences. The owners of the only taller building, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were not interested in having an antenna on their property.
So Cingular went to its next preference, building a new structure in a nonresidential location. It originally proposed erecting the tree at the rear of the Tin Tin Market near La Roda Drive but faced strong opposition from the residents there.
Cingular then decided to locate the tree near a midway point between Bollinger Road and La Roda Drive after examining other possible sites.
The sites that Cingular had considered included the Home Depot building on De Anza Boulevard, the new City Library building, adjacent city-owned land and City Center properties. But all the sites were too far away to provide satisfactory coverage to this particular neighborhood.
To prevent the facility from looking intrusive, Cingular camouflaged the monopole, a type of antenna, as an artificial tree. "A simulated tree may look goofy, but it looks better than a traditional monopole," Chao said.
To address the residents' health concerns, Cingular hired a reputable health physicist to assure residents that the waves would be too weak to cause any impact to health. But the residents questioned the doctor's credibility because he was paid by Cingular.
Assistant city planner Gary Chao said to prevent residents from doubting health specialists' credibility, the city will consider selecting a few consultants for wireless providers to choose from in the future. The applicants will still pay for the consulting fee.
"The applicant did exhaust all the options, and their proposal was consistent with the Master Plan," Chao said. "They haven't expressed interest in appealing the case. The area will remain a black hole of reception for a while."
Meanwhile, the 55-foot-high artificial tree brought to light another issue that has long frustrated the residents: the code violations of the Tin Tin Market.
Their complaints include noise from a refrigeration unit, truck noise, light glaring into residents' bedrooms, rats and overflowing garbage bins.
"We basically live with rats," said Tom Hugunin, who puts rodent bait boxes along his backyard fence. "Although it is generally believed that the rats come from Tin Tin, it is hard to prove."
The property manager of the shopping center, the city staff and the people from Tin Tin Market have been meeting to solve the problems.
"If residents have any problems, they should call code enforcement," Chao said.
Here is a more recent article from The Cupertino Courier March 9, 2005. It is another example of parents' concern regarding the potential hazards of wireless radiation to their children.
==============================
ARTICLE
==============================
Parents line up against Monta Vista cell tower
By Allison Rost
The item was pulled from the agenda. But that didn't stop a number of emotional parents from voicing their disapproval of Monta Vista High School getting cell phone towers.
The parents crowded the meeting of the Fremont Union High School District board of trustees on March 1, only to find the board wanted to wait to make a decision.
Board president Homer Tong explained at the beginning of the meeting that the item would instead be discussed at a forthcoming board meeting when a representative with AT&T, the company that approached the district with the proposal, could address community concerns.
But dozens of Monta Vista parents—organized by mass emails and petitions—stuck around for the public communications segment of the agenda so they could hear their peers speak out against the proposal.
"I bought my California dream home just so my kids could go to Monta Vista. Don't turn my dream into a nightmare," Emily Wu said. Many of the speakers said they were concerned about the effects of cell phone signals on their children, both at Monta Vista and at neighboring schools, saying that there is no conclusive evidence that such signals do not harm humans.
"I don't want to allow the possibility," Wu said.
AT&T's proposal asks for permission to place two antennas on the science building at Monta Vista—one on the north roofline and one on the south. Their height hasn't been determined yet, though cell phone towers of various heights are already in place at three other district schools. The Cupertino Planning Commission has approved the Monta Vista plans.
A study conducted by consulting engineers Hammet & Edison showed that those at ground level directly underneath the antenna would be exposed to an amount of antenna signals far below the standard set forward by the Federal Communications Commission—1.7 percent of the level of public permissible exposure. Those on the second floor of the science building would be exposed to 1.4 percent of that limit, and anyone on the roof of the building would be exposed to 33 percent.
But other parents said that the worst exposure could occur in areas not outlined in the study. AT&T held additional information sessions at Monta Vista on March 8, both for teachers and parents. The Fremont Union board will discuss the issue at an upcoming meeting, the date of which has not yet been decided.
The Cupertino Courier March 23, 2005 reported another story of how parents successfully fought back.
==============================
ARTICLE
==============================
Monta Vista will not get AT&T cell phone towers
By Allison Rost
There will be no cell phone tower at Monta Vista High School. But even with their greatest fear averted, parents from the high school still had plenty to say on the subject.
At the March 15 meeting of the Fremont Union High School District's board of trustees, word quickly spread that AT&T/Cingular Wireless had withdrawn its proposal to place cell phone antennas on the Monta Vista campus.
A public hearing on the issue, previously scheduled for the meeting, was canceled.
However, even with the cell tower a moot issue and the public hearing canceled, several parents still took to the microphone to criticize the district for even considering the proposal.
"[The withdrawal] is a welcome event to all involved, but all the parties are losers," said parent Dennis Yau. "We had to spend time and effort on this issue, and we should have spent that energy on our families."
Yau and other parents also said the district should pass a policy banning commercial deals on school campuses that are not educationally related despite possible economic benefits. "We want to prevent this from happening again in the future," Yau said.
The main criticism leveled at the board was that the district had erred in not communicating better with Monta Vista parents, especially by not letting them know earlier about the possible contract. Parents said AT&T had been planning the Monta Vista towers for a 11/2 years..
Cupertino's planning commission had approved the proposal before it even went to the school board. And the board's first discussion of the issue was supposed to take place on March 1.
That discussion was pulled from the March 1 meeting's agenda to allow for an AT&T representative to attend the next meeting and address parent concerns. The representative spoke at a forum for Monta Vista parents on March 8, where the public rancor over the proposal became obvious.
That rancor led to a number of parent-driven campaigns to prevent the approval of the cell phone towers, and board members indicated that they had heard from many of those parents via email.
But several board members also expressed concern over rumors that had spread about the cell antenna issue.
Board trustee Avie Katz said he had heard a rumor that he was actively promoting approval of the cell antennas, which he said wasn't true. Trustee Nancy Newton said she'd heard that the Asian American Parent Association was planning a boycott of the Fremont Union foundation's upcoming crab feed because of perceived personal agendas on the board.
"I saw that there were a lot of misunderstandings, and I think this shows the extent to which the rumors have spread," Newton said. Board members said they had never approved a contract with AT&T, which is what many in the community were saying.
All agreed that the situation proved that there is a broken link in the communication chain between the board and parents. Newton requested contact information for the Monta Vista group present at the meeting, and Homestead parent George Hamma approached the microphone to suggest that all the high schools send a PTSA representative to the board meetings as Homestead does.
"There's an email list with the agendas for the board meetings, and anyone can sign up," Hamma said.
Here is a an earlier failed attempt by Sprint PCS to erect an RF antenna.
The Cupertino Courier July 21, 2004
==============================
ARTICLE
==============================
Commission nixes hiding the antenna in a crucifix
By Robert S. Hong
Sprint PCS went to church in Cupertino hoping for communication with a higher power. The telecommunications giant had opted to place a new radio frequency tower on the crucifix atop Redeemer Lutheran Church on Huntridge Lane.
The crucifix is one of the prime locations suggested in the city's master plan for wireless services. However, under pressure by neighboring residents, Sprint's proposal was turned down in a 3-1 vote at the July 12 planning commission meeting.
Sprint representatives, as well as a local consultant hired by the company, say the crucifix is a safe place, with a safe distance from the population.
However, dozens of residents of the Huntridge area showed up to voice their opposition at the July 12 meeting. They had several complaints.
Some were angry at the short notice they received about a community meeting scheduled by Sprint—at which only five people showed up.
"It was very confusing when we got this notification," resident Judy O'Brien told the commission. "This has been going on for over a year, but nobody let us know until three weeks ago," she said.
One resident said it was disrespectful to place a dangerous antenna under the disguise of a Christian crucifix. "God bless us all," he said as he concluded his statement.
At the meeting, Sprint representative Sandra Steele explained why Sprint chose this particular location.
"This site meets all the city and government requirements," she said, referring to the city's regulations for a communications tower, which include setback from the community and proper concealment. "Sprint needs to meet our customers' demands and improve service for them in this area," Steele said.
She said that the reception for Sprint mobile users in the area was not very strong, and the new site was necessary to provide reliable service to areas within a half-mile radius of the tower. She said that Jollyman Park, which is close to the church, and Monta Vista High School were alternatives but they did not meet all requirements.
She said that Sprint really wanted to work with the neighbors near this project, but out of 95 notices sent to residents, only five residents showed up at Sprint's public information meeting.
One Huntridge resident at the July 12 meeting said she suffers from a condition known as electrical sensitivity syndrome, which prevents her from being around any electrical appliance for an extended period of time. She said that if the tower was put up, she would likely be forced to move out of the area.
Paul Chang, another resident, expressed his concern about having radio frequencies broadcast so close to his home. He also said it would be especially unfair for the woman with the sensitivity to electricity to have to move out of the neighborhood. "I personally don't think we can ask the couple to leave the community... they have been living here for over 40 years," he said.
He also presented a protest letter, which he said had 134 signatures from concerned citizens.
Dawn Teuthorn, pastor of the Redeemer Lutheran Church, told the commission and residents that she and her associates had been approached by the city and Sprint, and after hearing the details of the proposal, had approved the antenna. However, she said that she was shocked to hear the backlash from the residents. "We didn't have any complaints before this," she said.
In the days following the meeting, Teuthorn said her concerns about the tower grew as she listened to residents' concerns.. "It was good to spend time with the community and get to understand their fears," she said.
She said that when the church was approached with the proposition, she was told the antenna would be safe and posed no serious health risks. William Hammet, a safety consultant hired by Sprint, said his company had decided the church was a safe place to mount the tower.
He said Sprint's standard for this project was 50 times below the safe threshold level of frequency exposure required by the federal government.
Dr. Katz, an assistant professor at Stanford Medical Center and resident on Huntridge Lane, said that studies on exposure were not conclusive. "We cannot say with 100 percent assurance that [frequency exposure] is causing a problem or is not causing a problem," she said.
Sherman Wong, 19, said he was concerned that the tower could cause unintentional harm to children since the church is located next to Jollyman Park where children play.
The commission swayed its decision in favor of the residents in a 3-1 vote, leaving Sprint with the option to appeal the decision to the city council.
I agree with what Hann said.
Many parents want better life for their children, I myself with 3 kids want my children to be healthy enough to not have to go through any problems.
It may not seem much, but if each parent can tell someone about the harmful effects of wirelss transmitter and spread the news, eventually someone will put an end to it.
I'm personally ready to vote out those unsupportive canidates.
Do you see Wireless Transmitters around their residential locations? No. And that's why they aren't against it. They earn money from allowing wireless transmitters around our location.
We have to put an end to it.
Vote out those greedy pigs.
There are many many more canidates who wish to win office, they would be willing to help us in an effort to BAN wireless transmitter.
Reply to what the second anonymous said,
"The arguments presented by Hann show his ignorance of simple physics."
We can obviously conclude that either there are no wireless transmitters around his area, or he doesn't give a shit for his children's health.
If we can take an effort to prevent our childrens from dying from turmors and have the harmful effects from the Radiation, why not take the chance?
There are many people supportive of this cause, and the only people AGAINST banning wireless transmitters are those who directly profit from this.
Who profits from this?
The greedy canidates in office , the business of the MetroFi's WiFi antennas in Cupertino , and any other person who's being paid to go against us.
Who's going to object us now? Do you not care for our childrens? The businesses of the MetroFi's WiFi antennas obviously don't have Anetennas around their residential areas, because they also care for their children's health.
We do to, lets ban this crap.
Peter Kim
Peter Kim, you've got my vote for Mayor, Vice Mayor, or any other City Council member post.
For everyone's information, Cupertino City Council members are:
Sandy James (Mayor)
Richard Lowenthal (Vice Mayor)
Patrick Kwok
Kris Wang
Dolly Sandoval
These are the folks who sold us out. Let's vote them out!
Right now Patrick Kwok is the mayor.
Richard Lowenthal has been responsive and supportive. He was the one who voted against the Sprint PCS tower because of aesthetic consideration. According to him the city has no control on health issue. In the case of the transmitters, the city could not find a case of non aesthetic to reject them. If that's the case, how do the other cities do? Los Gatos has WiFi access in the park near the business district. I don't believe the whole city is going wireless. So how did they do that Cupertino could not do?
As expected, today I got a promotional postcard from Metrofi for High Speet Internet.
We need to remind our neighbors not to do business with them.
According to the Cupertino Courier today, the anonymous person who posted about the level of power..." is Chuck Haas, CEO of MetroFi.
Rick, as PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, the issue is communication with the constituents and residences of Cupertino.
Irreguardless of the "technical" studies by FCC (and we all know how the Federal government NEVER makes mistakes!), it is the residences that should be aware of this issue and make the call about these transmitters.
I would like to encourage everyone to use metrofi, this sounds like a great service at less than 1/2 the cost of comcast or DSL. While the speeds are not as great as comcast, they are fast enough for most people. This is a great service for those that cannot or do not want to spend $500 a year for comcast or DSL. It is absurd to think that there is any danger due to radio waves (remember when living near a powerline would kill you?), the bigger danger would be getting hit by a car driven by a Monte Vista student.
I am constantly amazed by the absolute cluelessness of those motivated to restrict the freedoms and rights of individuals and companies that have brought so many great technologies and products to the marketplace that improve our daily lives.
btw, "irreguardless" is not a word.
When "horseless carriages" first came out there were many "experts" who claimed they caused a wide range of maladies including sexual disfunction, dementia, indigestion and constipation. I am sure that many of the Monta Vista students would debunk the first claim.
I do not encourage or discourage the usage of MetroFi's product. I leave it up to the individual to decide if the service and price fits their individual needs. However, I would not discourage usage based upon unsubstantiated health claims.
With regard to placement of WiFi access points at schools, they are already there. They are already inside your neighbors' houses. They already sleep within a few feet of WiFi transmitters that they brought into their own homes. I have two in my house to get better coverage.
Remember basic physics about tranmission power and distance. A source sitting ten meters from you needs 100 times more power than one sitting one meter from you to achieve the same power level on you. (distance squared)
It still has yet to be proven that the power levels in the spectrums of WiFi and cellular we receive can cause any health problems. Even if they did cause problems these would have to be weighed against the benefits of the same technology.
The "horseless carriage" does cause thousands of deaths each year in accidents that would not have happened at horse and buggy speeds. However, the benefits of a speedy and reliable transportation system far outweigh this cost in saved lives from quick delivery of medicines, foods, supplies, fire vehicles, etc. in addition to the general and significantly improved lifestyle of those not in life and death situations.
Oh yeah. I forgot.
When you put the protective hats on your children make sure the tin foil is SHINY SIDE OUT.
You don't want them exposed to the Martian death rays.
Post a Comment
<< Home