Thanks for the attention thefrontpageonline.com is giving the issue of a proposed cell phone tower for our neighborhood.
This has been an educational experience.
I wasn't aware of the many communities struggling against towers until it happened to (our south Culver City neighborhood).
I was intrigued by the story of the owner of Cash 'n Carry.
Just about everybody I know likes to shop there.
I hope they stay in business.
But not like this.
Desperation can give someone very narrow vision, like a parched man adrift drinking sea water. Almost irresistible, but not rational.
Take this comment by the owner, Dan Israely:
“I think the cellular phone you put to your ear is much more dangerous than what we want to do,” he said “Nobody is going to be close to the ‘tower.’ It will be hundreds of feet from any neighbor.”
Yes, cell phone are dangerous. That is why cell phone companies responded to research that said phones cause cancer.
Now they are much safer than a few years ago. But the comment “hundreds of feet from any neighbor”? His store is about 50 feet from the next neighbor.
And the owner also said: “Every report I have read says that radiation from the tower does not cause cancer, has no effect whatsoever on people.”
He must choose his material carefully, or let the cell phone company select it for him.
Here is some more reading:
A study by the German Government, concludes the risk of developing cancer for those living within 400 metres of the mast in comparison to those living outside this area, was three times as high- http://www.savespiritbear.org/documents/11GermanreportInfluencemastcancer.pdf
General lit about the effects of this kind of radiation. http://www.emwatch.com/EMF%20Effects.htm
It goes on and on. But the FCC, which has the only real power of regulation over the radiation levels and location of these masts, allowed uses of thermal effects as a relative measure. It is insane to anyone who looks at it. As long as Mr. Israely’s tower doesn't heat up my baby daughter's skin, everything is good!
Mr. Israely said further:
“If I were the least concerned, I would not do what I am doing. My office is directly under the ‘tower.’ I am about 4 feet away from it. “If it really is dangerous, I am the one who should be most concerned. I am not.”
He may not be the best judge. He should be concerned and so should his employees. LAFD has taken a stand. They don't want cell towers on their buildings. :http://www.iaff.org/HS/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp
The Obama Administration is concerned. http://emfjournal.com/2009/02/17/president-obama-panel-exploring-cell-tower-radiation-risks-sign-petition/
“Next,” [Mr. Israely] said, “is size. “Everybody is talking about a ‘tower’ on our roof. It is approximately 8 feet high. I don’t know of any ‘tower’ that is 8 feet high.”
The community was given absolutely minimal notice about this. But what the notice did say was that it would appear 11 feet high. The tower(s), there are 12 of them, are small. Call them masts if you like.
This is a sad thing, and Mr. Israely is using his troubled store to leave the neighborhood and school with a lasting gift of terrible health risks.
Finally, regarding a story last Friday:
Why does Mayor Andy Weissman think that learning that there are more towers further away mean our concerns are missplaced?
Somebody should alert those neighborhoods about what is going on.
Mr. Tjomsland, who organized a neighborhood meeting on the pending cell phone tower last night, may be contacted at tjomsland@ca.rr.com
