Press Release from Responsible Cell Regarding New San Marcos Cell Tower Ordinance

cell

New San Marcos Cell Tower Ordinance Lacks Resident’s Protections

San Marcos released the proposed cell tower ordinance that includes Mayor Desmond’s requests to allow “clustering” more Macro Cell Towers in San Elijo Hills and San Marcos. The ordinance does not include any requests from Responsible Cell, a group representing San Elijo Hills and San Marcos residents.

As Connie Signorino of Responsible Cell stated, “The Ordinance will reduce property values and delay the filling of cell voids in our community while maximizing cell company profits.

This Ordinance mandates at least 3 Macro Cell Towers on Antilla Way and Orion Way in San Elijo Hills. Many of these homes will be just 200 feet from the maximum microwave radiation emissions from these towers.

The number of allowable cell towers is based on lot size, not their distance from homes and schools. The property the San Elijo homes back up to is 10.2 acres and the ordinance allows 3 macro cell towers on lots larger than 10.1 acres. This property owner is enriched at their neighbor’s expense.

The Ordinance allows two additional pine tree cell towers next to San Elijo Hills

What San Marcos needs to fill cell phone voids is safe small cell technology, (DAS). DAS systems do not create visual blight, safety concerns and lower property values and can fill cell phone voids in a fraction of the time a large macro cell tower can be approved and erected.

Responsible Cell wants the Ordinance to include reasonable distance and DAS mandates and:

  1. Enforceable third party site analysis if a cell tower is near homes or schools
  2. Mandate safe small cell technology (faster, safer cell service with no visual blight)
  3. Citizen Cell Review Council and an Integrated San Marcos City cell tower plan
  4. Maintain the residents protections in the January Ordinance

The three San Elijo Hills macro cell towers will provide service to neighboring cities. This is why they are so profitable for the cell companies. Residents have asked Mayor Desmond to protect their property values and not the cell company’s profits. To-date the Mayor is insisting this Cell Farm be erected even though, on a per capita basis, San Marcos already has 19% more cell towers than the rest of the country.

The Planning Commission will vote to approve the ordinance on June 26, 6:00 p.m. at One Civic Center Drive in San Marcos. If residents do not attend and speak out at these meetings, the City is set to approve this Ordnance.

For more information contact: responsiblecell@gmail.com

34 comments

  • 19% more cell towers and we still have subpar service in our community. I still have to walk out in the middle of my street to make call.

    And they’re asking for small-cell technology that would place antennae EVEN CLOSER to our homes. Logical consistency be damned.

    When is San Elijo Life going to stop giving these NIMBYs a mouthpiece for their “press releases?” They have already cost the taxpayers of our city thousands of dollars with a lawsuit and administrative appeals.

    And on top of that everything they release is so poorly written it’s cringe-worthy. We need effective service. Simple as that.

    • Max we share your coverage frustration and thus we have covered both sides of the cell tower issue since 2006. We welcome others to summit opinions and participate in the discussion.

    • Max, I would assume you are Jeff Brandon hiding yet again behind another alias. I am still trying to figure out your bent if you are in fact, not Jeff.

      I’ll try and set the record straight as to your misinformation; DAS and other small cell technology distributed throughout San Elijo will actually reduce the RF exposure for the folks living closest to the large towers. It will also distribute the total signal so that it is not concentrated in any one given area which puts families at risk. DAS also fills in gaps with a much greater accuracy where coverage is needed. Cellular signals, for the most part, do not bend, therefore making San Elijo an impossible task for macro towers. DAS was designed specifically for hilly communities such as San Elijo. I have seen many arguments from the telecoms siting the various reasons as to why they are against the ordinance or any other regulation. Quite frankly, it is not about the kind of technology or time to market. We want these companies to be accountable for their actions. If we do not have an ordinance that protects our city (San Marcos), macro towers like the one recently erected in front of our amazing new high school will be on every corner driving property values down.

      And to speak of the time frame, as it is due to the opposition or lawsuit, the speed in which AT&T has moved has very little to do with the lawsuit or the ordinance. The efforts of Connie and others in the community to put both time and resources to protect our families should be commended. As for AT&T, after they were shot down for the proposed tower at Deadwood, it took them nearly 5 years to submit a new, subpar site (your house on Golden Eagle). I’m glad you are for better coverage (so you say) but if that were truly the case, you would be in support of the DAS technology and an ordinance that will enable the telecoms to move quickly to fill in the coverage gaps. Due to the fact that the large tower technology, if the decision grants it, would be on your property, it is not a secret that you have much to financially gain by arguing with your perspective.

      • Mr. Clifton, if you must resort to assuming I’m someone else then clearly my viewpoint threatens you enough that you have to attempt to discredit me in an infantile manner. I am a 27 year old, two year resident of San Elijo Hills (Mariner’s Landing). My interest is in getting reasonably reliable cell service in my house without the need for a booster. And you can talk until your blue in the face – the fact remains that DAS won’t work in San Elijo Hills. I have deduced the best thing to do is to allow a cell tower to go up. The only thing I have to gain is more value per dollar of cell phone payments.

        I will speak with Mrs. Signorino in the near future, though I’ve already wasted enough time on this board and know enough based on the postings by “Responsible Cell” to realize that a personal discussion with anyone affiliated with them… as I assume you are given your anger at my post… would be as worthless as their postings on this website.

        I find it interesting you consider a waste of your taxpayer dollars on a frivolous lawsuit to be a commendable thing. I for one think the money should be better spent on something to enhance our community.

      • “Max” I’m sorry you feel that I am angry. I’m not. It is very interesting to me that you want better coverage, yet you do not seem to hear the argument. We also desire better coverage. Unfortunately, when the next tower goes in, you will find that your coverage may get better but the likelihood is, unless you are in direct line of sight of the tower, it will not improve your coverage much, if at all. You will also find that if approved, not only will the two towers turn into three mega trees with six total carriers, additional macro towers within San Elijo will be erected (as stated by AT&T) with the eventual addition of a DAS network. I also find it interesting that you continue to say that DAS will not work. Please do tell us why you seem to think this? DAS was designed for sites with significant obstructions, like hills and windy roads. It was also created to be a fast response, easily deployable solution to fill in the “last mile” of the wireless grid.

  • Much of what is said here about DAS (Distributed Antenna Systems, which are different from “small cell” technology) is completely at odds with what is said in this report from a pro-DAS organization:

    http://www.thedasforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/DAS-and-Small-Cell-Technologies-Distinguished_HNF.pdf

    In particular, they mention that a DAS “can require significant upfront capital investment, especially when deployed outdoors, due primarily to the costs associated with designing, siting and installing multiple Nodes and miles of fiber optic cabling.” That means it costs more and will take longer to deploy. They do not “fill voids in a fraction of the time” it takes to deploy a macrocell.

    • Bill, DAS in communities with existing fiber, new fiber will not need to be installed. Telecoms would rather have their own backhaul but can use the current infrastructure to deploy quickly and at a much lower cost. AT&T’s CEO has stated that DAS is the future of connectivity to fill in the “last mile” of the network.

      Here is there latest add campaign:

      AT&T Mobility (NYSE:T) is rolling out a new advertising campaign called “Better Network” aimed at illustrating how exactly it is improving coverage and capacity on its wireless network.

      The ad campaign does not take aim at any competitors and in fact highlights network technologies like small cells and Distributed Antenna Systems that may not be familiar to consumers. Indeed, the ads, which AdAge reported will replace AT&T’s “It’s Not Complicated” ads, star two network engineers fine-tuning the network.

      One spot features the engineers adding a small cell to an office, and explaining the improvements in coverage, capacity and network quality. One of the engineers flirts with the office worker he has just explained a small cell to.

  • One more thing. The number of cell towers required is highly dependent on topography and the number of users (as opposed to residents) in a given area. If San Marcos has 19% more towers per capita than the national average, it is likely a reflection of those factors. For example, in a flat rural area, one cell tower is enough to cover many square miles.

  • The current cell tower on that property is barely visible, they did a decent job of disguising it. The cell coverage in San Elijo is so poor in some areas it is a safety concern (many people have done away with house phone lines), better cell coverage is needed. Putting 2 more cell towers on the same property is better than spreading them around to other areas. Make the new ones as well disguised as the current one and lets move on already, enough with wasting tax payers money on frivolous lawsuits that you are going to lose.

  • Regarding if DAS is significantly faster than erecting a macro cell tower: A DAS system approval is 10 days, a macro cell tower is 150 days. Both need fiber optics cable.

    Due to their size and impact on a community, macro cell towers often take years to erect. This is due to community resistance and legal challenges.

    The AT&T macro cell tower the city approved in the backyards of San Elijo residents on Antilla Way and Orion Way was originally proposed in 2010 on Deadwood, over 2,000 feet from SEH. Deadwood residents objected and threaten lawsuits which is typical. The City of San Marcos moved and approved this AT&T tower in SEH in October of 2013. With lawsuits this tower is not likely to be operating for years. We could have been getting cell service all along if the City mandated DAS systems.

    Both Macro and DAS systems need fiber optic cables to communicate. SEH has a robust fiber optics network. This is in part why SEH is getting a macro cell farm. During the last fire a great deal of this fiber optic network was destroyed and restored in just a few days. Running fiber optics is not a big deal, they run on the same infrastructure as our phones and cable lines. Plus DAS systems suit the San Marcos typography since they efficiently fill cell voids created by our hills.

    Please click on this link and sign the SEH petition: http://chn.ge/1fjAeSh More important, attend the June 26, Planning Commission meeting (6:00 p.m. at One Civic Center Drive) where they will vote to allow a macro cell farm in SEH.

    • Since this is clearly Connie Signorino of “responsible cell” I would like to point out that we would have had better AT&T service much quicker if you didn’t file the “lawsuits” to stop it.

      Mr. Walker already outlined how DAS won’t work. Can you explain to me how San Marcos’ “typography” is uniquely suited for DAS? I’m curious to learn how a typeface can render DAS usable in our area of San Marcos… whose topography is uniquely unsuitable for DAS.

      Oh… and you don’t even live in San Elijo Hills. Someday you’ll realize your power over what other people do stops at your property line. Even if it costs you a ton of money to learn that lesson.

    • “Regarding if DAS is significantly faster than erecting a macro cell tower: A DAS system approval is 10 days, a macro cell tower is 150 days.”

      You’re talking politics, I’m talking engineering. It takes many more DAS antennas to cover the same area covered by one macro cell, each of which will need permitting and each of which may face local opposition. They’re not some magic bullet that works without emitting RF energy. And since they will certainly, by their nature, be closer to homes than the macro towers, the RF exposure may not be much different.

  • The reason we have so many cell towers is the City’s lack of a Cell Ordinance and our tall scenic hills. Placing macro cell towers on San Marcos and SEH peaks provides the elevation needed to transmit cell signals long distances and service other communities. Our service voids can be quickly filled with safe small DAS antennas which will not hurt our property values.

    Carlsbad, Encinitas, San Diego County… have better cell tower ordinances and policies which pushes their cell towers into our community. This is why the cell companies are erecting a Cell Farm in SEH. Responsible Cell of SEH and San Marcos has forced this issue on the City and they are now writing a Cell Ordinance but it does not address our service issues or protect us.

    These 3 SEH macro cell towers will service Carlsbad, Encinitas… This is why they are so profitable for the cell companies. AT&T’s profits were over $30 billion while many of us are still upside down on our homes and paying huge mello roos fees. The City’s proposed cell ordinance should protect our community character, safety and property values, not Cell Company profits. We need better service now but this ordinance will only delay such service.

    Please click on this link and sign the SEH petition: http://chn.ge/1fjAeSh

    More important, attend the June 26, Planning Commission meeting (6:00 p.m. at One Civic Center Drive) where they will vote to allow a macro cell farm in SEH.

  • Max,

    You are right, Connie lives in Questhaven Hills but if you asked SEH residents you will find no one has fought harder for us (SEH) than her. Their property is just 100 feet from SEH homes and they are part of our larger community. You are welcome to visit them and see for yourself. Although Connie set up responsible cell, SEH and Questhaven Hill residents are members and use this site.

    Bill Walker is right, a flat typography is more conducive to macro cell towers since hills obstruct microwave cell signals. Even if you go to a source like Wikipedia, you will see that DAS systems are for difficult to reach typography like ours. DAS stand for Distributed Antenna Systems which means they can direct their microwave signals only to where they are needed (avoiding hills).

    Also these DAS systems only use 50 to 60 watts of microwave energy as opposed to your macro cell towers at 700 to 7,000 watt of microwave energy. When the SEH cell farm is complete, it will have three of these macro towers. I fail to see why you would not support safer less intrusive DAS systems.

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer and World Health Organization rated cell tower microwave energy (RF) as a “possible human carcinogen” and cause of childhood leukemia.

    The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers also found children more vulnerability to RF. People moved to SEH for their schools and children. Responsible Cell is working for residents in SEH and the health and welfare of the community.

    The only entities we know supporting these macro cell towers are the cell companies (they are more profitable for them) and the property owner who is erecting the SEH cell farm. This property owner will get a monthly lease from the cell companies while everyone else suffers safety concerns and lower property values.

    Max, if you would email responsiblecell@gamil.com we will send you our contact information so we can talk and provide you more information about macro cell towers and DAS technology. We would also be happy to show you the homes affected by the cell towers. Also, hopefully we can meet at the June 26 City meeting when the Planning Commission will vote on the ordinance to approve 3 cell towers at the SEH Cell Farm.

    Thanks, we await your email,

    Responsible Cell of SEH and San Marcos

    • “The International Agency for Research on Cancer and World Health Organization rated cell tower microwave energy (RF) as a “possible human carcinogen” and cause of childhood leukemia.

      The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers also found children more vulnerability to RF. People moved to SEH for their schools and children. Responsible Cell is working for residents in SEH and the health and welfare of the community.”

      Do you have a reference for these claims? I searched the IEEE web site and wasn’t able to find anything that applied to modern digital cellular systems, which have quite different RF radiation characteristics than older technologies.

      I did find this from WHO:
      “Because exposure to the radiofrequency (RF) fields emitted by mobile phones is generally more than a 1000 times higher than from base stations, and the greater likelihood of any adverse effect being due to handsets, research has almost exclusively been conducted on possible effects of mobile phone exposure.” (source: http://www.who.int/features/qa/30/en/). This is, again, the issue that power falls off as the square of the distance. A low-power antenna next to your head gives you more exposure than a high-power antenna some distance away.

      • From the same 2013 WHO page:

        “Based on mixed epidemiological evidence on humans regarding an association between exposure to RF radiation from wireless phones and head cancers (glioma and acoustic neuroma), RF fields have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). Studies to date provide no indication that environmental exposure to RF fields, such as from base stations, increases the risk of cancer or any other disease.”

        Let me repeat that: STUDIES TO DATE PROVIDE NO INDICATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE TO RF FIELDS, SUCH AS FROM BASE STATIONS, INCREASES THE RISK OF CANCER OR ANY OTHER DISEASE.”

  • I live on Deadwood, not in SEH. In 2010 AT&T came to out community to erect their cell tower. The homes in our community are on average around 5 to 10 acres so the cell tower only impacts a couple of residents but the entire community came together and supported each other to fight the ATT cell tower. We did this to protect the neighbors children from RF.

    I wasn’t initially aware of health risks however my neighbor is a doctor and she informed me of health risks associated with RF. Someone in the cell industry said cell towers are “Slow Cookers”. The point is everyone should read and do their own research.

    Our community is minuscule compared to SEH, but by supporting each other, we got the cell tower moved. Unfortunately the City moved it to SEH.

    We opposed the tower after lengthy analysis of their impact on health and property values.
    The International Agency for Research on Cancer rated cell tower microwave energy (RF) as a “possible human carcinogen” as does the World Health Organization. The institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers found potential vulnerability of children to radio frequency (RF) fields…because of the potentially greater susceptibility of their developing nervous systems…brain tissue is more conductive… longer lifetime of exposure.”

    When a friend of ours in SEH said a resident suggested it was better to put all the cell towers in one area since it would impact fewer homes, they missed the point. It should not impact anyone and they should support their neighbors.

    Your service voids can be quickly filled with safe small DAS antennas. Not as much an option for us but we have bought or had our cell provider give us boosters for our homes and our service is strong.

    Although I do not live in SEH I have attended every meeting opposing the SEH cell farm and the new cell ordinance. In fact, at some city meetings there were more residents from our community opposing the cell towers than people from San Elijo Hills.

    The point of my comments is it is wrong what AT&T and the City are doing to your community and if you organize, you can get safer better cell service faster. The ordinance
    the Planning Commission is voting on June 26th will be neither safe nor fast for San Elijo Hills. I will be at this meeting on your behalf, please join me.

  • Max,
    I see you accepted our invitation to meet, let’s do it tomorrow evening so as a community we can start working together to safely improve our cell service. We look forward to meeting you but I wonder how you know where we live if you are not the cell tower property owner. I guess this will be cleared up after our meeting tomorrow evening. Let’s meet at 6:00, email me and I will send a meeting place.

    Arguing DAS technology will not work in SEH is just factually incorrect. We will show you why at our meeting but if you just review the literature on DAS, you will have to agree, the facts are there.

    Max, I am also inviting Bill Walker and Mark M to join us at this meeting. Let’s pull together and work to safely improve our cell service. Even the City of San Marcos has now stated these cell towers “create visual blight” in our community.

    We look forward to pulling together a fast plan to safety improve our cell service.

    • Google is your friend. Or in this case my friend. The NSA isn’t the only one who knows where you live. And you and your husband’s names are all over the public record between the lawsuit and your city activities regarding cell towers: http://www.spokeo.com/search?q=John+Signorino&sns7=t104#California:1695407677

      And unfortunately I was under the impression I could contact you to have a discussion at a time that was at my convenience rather than being told by you when it shall happen. Your record and statements don’t really suggest that a discussion with you would suddenly reveal the good faith intellectual effort that is heretofore lacking in your posts.

      By the way… when did you change the name of your organization to Responsible Cell? This post suggests your name was “CellNo.” http://sanelijolife.com/san-marcos-cell-tower-ordinance-guest-post/ Unless of course this wasn’t you.

  • Max,
    You are incorrect about these microwave antennas being “low power”. DAS systems are low power but the three macro systems the cell ordinance is allowing are anything but low power. Each tower has 12 microwave antennas for a total of 700 up to 7,000 watts of microwave energy and is capable of transmitting up to 40 miles.

    Why they are being put just 300 or so feet from SEH homes is indefensible.

    Remember you do not use a cell phone 24/7 yet this is what these towers will be emitting into our community.

    We look forward to meeting you, let’s pull together a fast plan to safety improve our cell service.

  • Mark,

    You are saying putting 3 macro cell towers on the same property is better than spreading them around to other areas. By other areas do you mean by your home? Please provide your address in SEH so the City will know where to relocate this cell farm.

    Tax payer money is not being wasted on frivolous lawsuits. Since the City has a very close relationship with the Cell Companies it is the cell companies that are paying all these expenses. Remember AT&T’s profits were over $30 billion, they can afford it, residents can’t.

    Help us safely improve our cell service quickly and act as good neighbors and support our community.

  • I moved to SEH because it was a great place to raise my family, a strong sense of community, safe neighborhoods… Good communities stand together and watch out for each other.

    I live on Antilla Way and look at these cell towers every day. I am disappointed when a member of our community talks about how it is okay to add more cell towers in my backyard. It is not right or necessary for SEH to do this to anyone.

    To say they are well hidden, which I can tell you they are not, misses the point. A UCLA Department of Epidemiology “The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields” article states: “Consistent epidemiologic evidence of an association between childhood leukemia and exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields has led to their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible human carcinogen”. The World Health Organization agrees.

    A study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) found that there was a significant difference in radiation absorbed by 5 year olds (skull thickness .5mm), 10 year olds and adults (skull thickness 2mm). This study is related to mobile phone radiation (RF); this is the same radiation from cell towers only cell tower emissions are 24 hours a day seven days a week. Age play a factor in radiation penetration. Just because you cannot see these cell towers does not mean you and your family are not affected.

    These large cell towers can transmit over 40 miles. There are vast wide open areas all around us that these cell towers can be safely placed. So why is the city allowing 3 towers erected just 300 feet from my SEH home and not much farther for many of you.
    Most of the world’s population is protected by RF cell tower limits 10 to 100 times less than the United Sates. I question if the 3 large cell towers which the City wants to allow could be placed this close to our homes if we lived in these countries.

    These towers are not a solution to our service problem. A safe non visible DAS system can quickly fill our void.

    I have signed the petition, I ask you do the same http://chn.ge/1fjAeSh and ask that you stand up for our community and join me at the June 26, Planning Commission meeting (6:00 p.m. at One Civic Center Drive).
    Thank you.

    • ““Consistent epidemiologic evidence of an association between childhood leukemia and exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields has led to their classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a “possible human carcinogen””

      Cell tower emissions are NOT “extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields”. Those are the fields you get from power lines, operating at a frequency of 60 Hertz. Depending on which bands they’re using, these cell towers are using frequencies of 800 MegaHertz to 1900 MegaHertz. The research you cite does not apply here.

      Likewise, your study relating to radiation absorbed by children due to thinner skulls is relevant only to the radiation from the phone itself, with an antenna in very close proximity to the head. Further, it was conducted (not published, but conducted) prior to the very 90s, it’s based on analog or early digital cellular technology which used much higher transmit power than modern spread spectrum systems.

      • Oops. I see I dropped a couple of words in that last sentence. It should read:

        Further, IF it was conducted (not published, but conducted) prior to the very LATE 90s, it’s based on analog or early digital cellular technology which used much higher transmit power than modern spread spectrum systems.

  • One more thing: when I see somebody quoting “studies” without providing adequate references for me to find said studies, I automatically assume they’re either misquoting the studies or quoting them out of context in an attempt to fool me (as I have seen time and time again on many issues). Further, as I have pointed out, some of the health studies you folks are quoting do not apply to this situation.

    If you have health concerns about radio frequency radiation, then by all means voice those concerns. But please base your concerns on real data that actually apply to the signal type, frequencies and power levels actually under discussion. If you don’t have enough background in communications systems to understand the distinctions, then find somebody WITH the proper education to advise you. Failing that attempt at intellectual honesty, I’m forced to assume that your real concerns are merely cosmetic, i.e., fake trees really bug you for some reason, and you’re just grasping at anything you can find that might say cell towers are bad.

  • obviously rf can’t really bother them much since they have boosters in their homes.

  • Bill,

    Claiming someone intellectually dishonesty because they disagree with you and “assume that your real concerns are merely cosmetic” is out of bounds. People are truly concerned about the potential health impacts of RF on their families.

    Let’s respect their health concerns and not question their honesty. Bill we have communicated in the past and I know you did not mean to do this. Perhaps we all have gone over the edge, but when one family’s’ health or property values are at risks (or perceived at risk) flash points get raised.

    I hope we can agree there is sound science on both ends of this RF health debate. We have a physician as part of our group and they absolutely believe there are RF risks with cell towers. We have communicated with physicists and biologist within the FCC. They are not alarmist nor are they dismissive regarding RF health risks.

    The people you are questioning are also informed about RF. They are every bit as sincere as you. They just came to a different conclusion. They may just have a different risk tolerance perhaps because they have young children or they are not living near the cell farm.

    I believe in our prior communications the inverse square function as it relates to RF was discussed? If so we both agree RF risk is based on amount and distance, so different RF risk thresholds are reasonable. A family situation (age of their children, sensitive to RF…) and distance from the SEH cell farm are unique to each of us. Let’s respect each other’s RF risk threshold decisions.

    Responsible Cell has looked at the RF risks and determined 3 macro cell towers this close to homes is inappropriate. There is one cell tower at this property now and we had not voiced a concern, 2 certainly 3 is a concern.

    I respect your taking the time to communicate your position. Responsible Cell would welcome you as part of our team. We are open to all points of view and want SEH to have great safe cell service and responsive City government. Will you work with us? Contact us at responsiblecell@gmail.com let’s work together.

    • “Claiming someone intellectually dishonesty because they disagree with you and “assume that your real concerns are merely cosmetic” is out of bounds.”

      Constance, I did not claim that because you disagree with me. I claimed that because you failed to provide references to the studies you cite as evidence. I’m perfectly willing to examine the evidence, but I’m not willing to take your word for it, when you clearly have a vested interest. And you may recall that I cited a reference on the WHO site that contradicts what you cited (without reference) as the WHO’s position.

      Again, it’s past experience, not disrespect, that leads me to be skeptical of your claims. I’ve read numerous articles on multiple subjects by authors pushing an agenda that vaguely cite some study that says X, and when I finally find the study in question, I discover it says no such thing. Sometimes the authors even provide a link to the study, assuming nobody will bother to check up on them. Given that experience, I tend to approach all such unreferenced citations with a great deal of skepticism.

      It’s also possible that people have read things (like the ELF study Elliot mentioned) that sound very scary to the layman, but that just don’t actually apply to the situation at hand. I have a daughter. I understand being concerned for the health of your children. But I’ve seen too many people buy into bogus claims of some health danger that doesn’t really exist (anti-vaccination folks, for example).

  • You’re saying “you did not claim” (dishonesty) “because we disagree with you” but “because you failed to provide references.” Really! Not providing references makes someone dishonest?

    Your DAS posting sent readers to a 12 page link that you implied discredited other postings, when in fact it confirmed what the others said about DAS. It missed the larger point that DAS systems can be put up in weeks when macro cell towers more often take years. Also, DAS systems, when installed in the right of ways, do not require a formal conditional use permit or public hearings as do the large cell towers. We can nit each other’s posting but this in not constructive.

    You are knowledgeable, we are knowledgeable but unfortunately we are not using this knowledge constructively and working together to resolve the issue. We are caught up in the details and missing the point about community and neighbors supporting each other. We are forgetting our obligations to each other and the community members most impacted by this issue. You are somewhat effected, we are more effected but other SEH homeowners are much more effected than us by this cell farm.

    I share your skepticism on health claims on both sides of this issue. People should do their own research and draw their own conclusions. One’s family heath and financial wellbeing is very personal. They do not need you or I telling them if they should be or not be concerned or what their RF risk tolerance should be.

    Email responsiblecell@gmail.com and I will send you contact information so we can talk. We have a lot of information that you will find interesting and can help each other with some of our comments/questions.

    Bill, I respect what you have to say but I am going to avoid answering your postings since we are monopolizing the discussion. It is not fair to others. Our going back and forth on this site is not constructive communication or condusive to finding solutions. We are not respecting others time. You will probably will feel compeled to answer (is not not constructive) this but after you do I hope you will reach out to us personally.

    We should work together and communicate further ( responsiblecell@gmail.com ) meet face to face or by phone. Email us to trade contact information.

    SIncerely

    • You wrote: “You’re saying “you did not claim” (dishonesty) “because we disagree with you” but “because you failed to provide references.” Really! Not providing references makes someone dishonest?”

      I did not say “dishonest”, I said “intellectually dishonest”. Apparently you’re not familiar with the concept of intellectual honesty. Here’s the definition from wikipedia:

      “Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:

      One’s personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
      Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis;
      Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
      References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.”

      You wrote: “Your DAS posting sent readers to a 12 page link that you implied discredited other postings, when in fact it confirmed what the others said about DAS. It missed the larger point that DAS systems can be put up in weeks when macro cell towers more often take years.”

      No, it did not miss that point, it completely contradicted that point, as mentioned in the paragraph I quoted. A DAS system requires much more up-front network design time, more antennas to be installed, and more backhaul (fiber) to be present or installed. If you have verifiable information that contradicts this, please share it with us.

      You wrote: “Bill, I respect what you have to say but I am going to avoid answering your postings since we are monopolizing the discussion. It is not fair to others.”

      I disagree. I think discussing this in a public forum is not only fair, but important. Other readers (assuming there are such) need to see that the views you espouse do not, in some instances, appear to be rooted in verifiable facts. I believe you are sincere, but I think it likely that you have been misled or underinformed in the interpretation of various studies.

  • Are there cell towers on Orion Way and Antilla Way?

  • There is one 300 ft away…

Leave a Reply