At the March 2012 neighborhood meeting, several questions were asked of the Locust Hill Homeowner’s Association (HOA) Board regarding a proposal we have received dealing with the installation of a cell tower on HOA property. (See March 2012 HOA Meeting briefing here) The Board has researched answers to these questions, which are provided here; in addition, answers to general questions regarding the proposal are also provided here. Please address any questions on this cell tower issue to Tobin Anthony, president@locusthillva.org.
The Questions:
- Who is proposing this installation?
- Are there health hazards with putting a cell tower in a neighborhood?
- How would this impact the Locust Hill HOA nonprofit status?
- How would having a cell tower or mono-pine on HOA property affect our resale values?
- What are some of the advantages of having a cell tower or mono-pine on HOA property?
- Location of tower – how far could the mono-pine be placed from the barn?
- How would this affect the public area cluster status?
- Would we implement a cell tower or a mono-pine?
- What happens after this point?
Who is proposing this installation?
The HOA has been approached by Community Wireless Structures (CWS) for the opportunity to lease part of the Barn structure and surrounding area for the purpose of locating a structure that would be leased out to wireless providers. The HOA would receive monthly revenue from this installation.
Are there health hazards with putting a cell tower in a neighborhood?
There are no government-sponsored studies that detail any link between health issues and cell tower proximity. There are so many cell towers located throughout the world that any association with health hazards near cell towers would be evident.
Cell towers emit microwave radiation, which is a non-ionizing radiation unlike gamma rays and X-rays. The only way non-ionization radiation can cause harm to humans is if that the radiation is intense enough to heat outer skin and internal organs. Keep in mind that this is the principle by which microwave ovens work. However, an observer at 500’ distance from a 2 kilowatt cell tower with emitters roughly 100’ above the ground, will experience about 6 milliWatts of microwave radiation. This is 1/300th of the federal standard of radiation intensity allowed to leak from a conventional microwave oven.
It is the Board’s opinion that while there may be solid concerns with allowing a cell tower to be constructed in our neighborhood, health concerns are not among them.
How would this impact the Locust Hill HOA nonprofit status?
Any income from the cell tower would be taxable but having the tower on Homeowner’s Association property would not affect the HOA’s nonprofit status.
How would having a cell tower or mono-pine on HOA property affect our resale values?
It is unknown whether having a cell tower on HOA property would have an effect on resale values. The Board has received anecdotal opinion that there is a slight impact on resale value on Fairfax County houses in close proximity to the cell tower. However, it is unclear as to whether this is attributed to a cell tower or a mono-pine. It is also unclear as to whether or not the visibility of the installation from the house is a factor in any effect on resale. In addition, there are nationwide studies that also show that there are no impacts on neighborhood resale values from proximity to a cell tower. Without retaining an experienced consultant experienced to determine the effects on our neighborhood, the effects of a cell tower or mono-pine on home resale values would be difficult to estimate.
What are some of the advantages of having a cell tower or mono-pine on HOA property?
With some form of tower in close proximity, homeowners would have improved wireless coverage along with whatever services the carriers would provide. In addition, revenue from the installation would allow the HOA to improve on landscaping. The current dues do not allow mowing of the lawn on all the public areas in the neighborhood; in fact, the area of mowed grass has decreased over the years as costs of have escalated while revenue from dues has remained the same. Additional income would allow for better upkeep of the bike path. The cell tower provider would maintain upkeep of the Barn and Milk House.
Location of tower – how far could the mono-pine be placed from the barn?
CWS has proposed putting equipment in the Barn. The tower’s efficiency decreases as the distance from the Barn increases. It would be cost-prohibitive to have CWS locate the tower in the midst of the trees adjacent to the west side of the Barn. In truth, the tower would be located between the silo and the trees.
How would this affect the public area cluster status?
Each of the homes in our neighborhood has 1 acre of private land associated with it. Each home is located on a half-acre plot of land. The other half-acres are located in a cluster on the Barn property meaning that with 97 homes, there are 48.5 acres of land in the public area; it stretches west from Trotting Horse Lane parallel to Leesburg Pike. A cell tower installation will not affect this cluster organization.
Would we implement a cell tower or a mono-pine?
The Board has not made an assessment of these options yet; aesthetically, the mono-pine would blend in with the surroundings of the area than would a cell tower. Pictures of a simulated mono-pine and extended silo containing a cell tower are on the web site.
What happens after this point?
The Board is sending out a survey to determine the interest within the community of pursuing this cell tower option. If the Board deems there is sufficient interest, we need to get notarized signatures of homeowners of at least 73 households within the community in order to re-write the HOA Deed of Declaration. This Deed will authorize the Board to negotiation with CWS with the intent of developing a suitable arrangement to commence the installation of a wireless structure.
This does not mean that the cell tower would be a done deal. A significant vetting process would have to be undertaken by CWS with the County. In addition, it is always possible that negotiations between the HOA and CWS would never arrive at a mutually agreeable set of conditions. In a highly success-oriented schedule, the cell tower would not be operational until at least 18 months after HOA Deed of Declaration is approved.
I would like to thank the Englanders for their reasoned, civil, and cogent, statement. My, and Becky’s, views are so closely aligned with those they expressed that they have saved me the trouble of composing a detailed reply of matters already discussed in detail.
For ease of counting, Tobin, Becky and I representing Lot 11 oppose the installation of the cell phone tower as proposed. We do not object to the Board exploring proposals such as this, and presenting them to the members. Contrary to at last one opinion expressed here, we believe that shutting off discussion of a topic before a decision is reached is rarely beneficial.
Where my opinion diverges from the Englanders is asking the Board to depend on uncertain income sources to fulfill the obligations of the Association. Our current annual fee of $100 is equivalent to about $25 when the fee originated in 1977. If that fee had increased at the rate of inflation, we would be paying about $350 now.
The Association requires funds to maintain the common grounds; insure the Association’s officers, and provide for contingencies such as removing hazards (e.g. a tree on common ground threatening a residence.) The Association having extra funds to spend on community beautification and events such as Halloween at the Barn enhances the community and property values.
I would like to see the Board proceed with the effort to obtain the necessary approvals to change the deed of declaration so that adjustment of the annual fee, and action on other matters of the Association, could be decided by members more easily, e.g. adjusting the fees by 75% of those present at a membership meeting. That said, I know that will require a great effort, and might not be successful.
Since the consensus of comments here seems to be that the Association needs more money, the logical solution seems to be that the members provide those funds although not legally obligated to do so.
Becky and I, therefore, are doubling our annual payment. (The check is in the mail.) I would encourage the Board to request all other members do the same. At $200 annually, we will be paying less then 2/3s of what would be expected by inflationary increases. I also encourage the Board to explore whether those contributions to the Association might be tax deductible, but whether they are or are does not affect our decision.
I recognize that some will not contribute (or may contribute more or less) and that means that those who contribute will be supporting some who don’t. Isn’t that the way of the world?
As with several others, we are quite willing to pay a somewhat higher annual homeowners fee rather than have a cell tower constructed. This is a very small price to pay compared with the alternative, which would likely lower our property values substantially.
It seems to us that our neighborhood does not need the cell tower. True, our maximum regular annual dues are paltry. But as we recently proved, when funds are needed for maintenance or repairs, or for reserves for maintenance or repairs, funds easily can be raised by a special assessment. Community associations that crave the revenue from cell towers (e.g., large condominium associations that are required to maintain and repair multi-family buildings) usually have much higher maintenance expenses than we face as an association.
The amount of funds promised by CWS exceeds our neighborhood’s long-term needs. The opening bid is $2,000 per month, to escalate over time. There is no obvious consensus regarding the proposed use of funds in these amounts. Some people want to develop the barn into a community center. Others hope for a swimming pool, tennis courts and/or basketball courts. Some of us are happy with the neighborhood basically the way it is, and would be more than satisfied if our association had just a little more money for mowing and maintenance.
Fundamentally, our neighborhood is just that: a residential neighborhood. As stated in the deed of declaration establishing it, our association “shall hold, develop and maintain [the Open Space] for recreational purposes for the owners of the numbered lots of the Subdivision.” We don’t need to lease portions of the Open Space to business enterprises, or to undertake the commercial or industrial development of the neighborhood.
We also should consider the impact of the tower on our neighbors who are closest to the proposed site. Those of us who are more distant from the site will not suffer impairment to our property values, comfort or enjoyment of our homes on account of the tower. Some of the members of our association who live closer to the proposed tower site, not surprisingly, have stronger viewpoints. Each of us would expect and be entitled to some level of deference if the association were considering development of common areas adjacent, or in proximity, to our homes. Similar deference should be given to the feelings of those who live closer to the site, and have expressed their concerns regarding the proposed tower (whether on account of health issues, property values or aesthetics).
Our current board of directors has done an outstanding job in bringing this matter to the association for its consideration in a thoughtful and well-informed manner. They should be congratulated for this effort (and for their many other successes). As homeowners, we have the collective power to amend our deed of declaration to change the use of the common area. It is our personal opinion that the matter should not proceed. But if there is a strong consensus to move forward, we will support the board in its efforts to proceed in a manner that respects the legal rights of all.
Regards,
Brad and Susan Englander
There is no doubt that Tobin and other board member are performing their work with responsibility and admirably. They should be congratulated to bring this issue remarkably well to community for freely expressing their opinion. It would be helpful if the opinions expressed are based on sound and factual research data rather than on speculative and marginally relevant articles posted for general public and often influenced by politics. Perhaps a careful review of the research by some well known established scientists/doctors in this particular area working for many years and published in reputable international scientific peer reviewed research journals would be helpful to understand the problem. The research reported in these and many other papers is not based on questional scientific opinion rather it is based on sound scientific/medical research data accepted by international scientific community and published in reputable peer reviewed research journals. Some of these research papers were quoted in one of my earlier message to Tobin.
Capitalizing the letters in a statement does not make it so. It is true that cell towers operate at a higher power than cellphones. It is not true that the exposure of the public is therefore at a higher level. Due to the placement of cell towers at significant heights, the exposure of the public to radiation from the cell towers typically is lower than exposure from cellphones. In that regard, see the information from the Food and Drug Administration at http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting devices. You will need do to a little more searching to find the exact site. You can find similar information on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) site. There is a committee composed of experts from the various federal agencies with roles to play concerning this issue. They monitor the science and make risk assessment conclusions, as they are required to do by law and regulations. The science is not all on one side; it rarely is. Nevetheless, the scientific consensus from sources which don’t have any dog in the fight (or any axe to grind, or your favorite cliche) is that, at this point, the data do not support the existence of a significant risk to human health from cellphone use or cell towers. I happen to be opposed to the tower for other reasons. But, having worked for many years on risk assessment issues, including with a government agency which will remain nameless because I do not speak for them, I am not inclined to allow questionable scientific opinions to be portrayed as facts for my neighbors. I also urge respect by everyone for the fact that Tobin and our Locust Hill Board have a fiduciary obligation to bring this kind of proposal before the neighborhood. Having been in Tobin’s position some time ago on this very issue, I support him and our other Board members for having performed very admirably, in fact remarkably, in carrying out their responsibilities.
I like the improvements to the barn and path and appreciate the board’s work to get this done. I am fine with increasing dues for maintenance and capital needs. It makes Locust Hill a better neighborhood and I believe increases property values.
The link cited by Ralph Simmons from Science-Based-Medicine published by Lorne Trottie presnts the article”An Update on the LARC Report” providing very interesting information for cell and mobile phone users. However, in the entire article consisting of several pages not even once is ‘cell tower’ and its radiation hazard is mentioned. The entire article is concerned with the cell and mobile phones.
PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THE MAIN ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION IN OUR COMMUNITY. OUR COMMUNITY IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE USE OF CELL PHONES. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INSTALLATION OF A CELL TOWER AT THE BARN THAT WOULD BE CONTINUOUSLY EMITTING STRONG ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (24/7) AND CREATING A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD FOR THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE VICINITY.
Comparing the radiation emmitted from a cell phone vs cell tower is similar to compare the weight of one drop of water vs weight of water in a large olympic size swimming pool.
For those of you looking for a recent summary of the science in this area, I suggest taking a look at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/are-cell-phones-a-possible-carcinogen-an-update-on-the-iarc-report. For those of you who don’t want to read the article, it goes into the background of the classification by IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer) of cellphone radiation as a “2B” “possible human carcinogen.” This classification can sound frightening if you do not understand the IARC classification system. In fact, many substances to which we are exposed every day are classified as “2B” carcinogens. If you read the information surrounding the IARC study, you also will find that the original IARC conclusion was that there is no significant health hazard. However, IARC is subject to political pressures just like most organizations, and they ended up taking the middle ground of a “2B” classification. By way of background, I am an attorney with about 30 years of experience dealing with product safety issues, including time with the government on risk assessment matters (although mostly in the area of chemicals, not radiation). There are valid reasons to be opposed to the cell tower. In my opinion, safety is not one of them.
Hi Tobin,
I am sorry for the typo error in my last message. The title of the information that I provided should read “Cell Tower Hazard” and not “cell phone hazard”.
In your last message you sent a link of American Cancer Scoiety (ACS) suggesting that there is no health risk from cell towers. Very similar documents can be found from the ACS in late 1940 and early 1950 strongly advocating that there is no risk from smoking or asbestos. You can find these documents in the archives of John Hopkins Medical University library. Sandra Dickerson was correct in her message of June 5 in pointing this issue from ACS.
In your last message you asked me to provide scientific evidence based on high quality research and controlled studies to demonstrate the factual cause-and-effect relationship. Following is a summary of a few studies undertaken in different countries and a list of research papers published in ruputable peer reviewed scientific journals. I trust you will review these papers before pursuing this matter further.
Information on cell towers hazard and list of relevant references reported in the scientific literature
There have been several epidemiological studies of people living near cell phone tower in Spain, the Netherlands, Israel, Germany, Egypt, Austria, etc.. Some of these studies are summarized below:
Example 1: FRANCE
(Santini, 2002)In this study the people who lived closest to the cellular antennas had the highest incidences of the following disorders: fatigue, sleep disturbances, headaches, feeling of discomfort, difficultyin concentrating, depression, memory loss, visual disruptions, irritability, hearing disruptions, skin problems, cardiovascular disorders, and dizziness .Women were found to have more symptoms than men. This study, based on the symptoms experienced by people living in vicinity of cell tower recommend that the cellular phone tower should not be sited closer than 1000 m to populations. This is probably not possible in Urban area, so the solution is to reduce the transmitted power level.
Example 2: GERMANY
(Eger H, 2004)The aim of this study was to examine whether people living close to cellular transmitter tower were exposed to a greater risk of becoming ill with malignant tumors. The researchers found that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived within 1900 meter from the cellular transmitter tower site during the past 10 years, compared to those patients living further away. They also found that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. After five years of operation of the transmitting tower, the relative risk of getting cancer had increased by 3-fold for the residents of the area near the installation, compared to the inhabitants outside the area. Breast cancer topped the list, and the average age of contracting this disease was considerably lower, 50.8 years compared to 69.9 years for the people living in the outer area. Cancers of the prostate, pancreas, bowel, skin melanoma, lungand blood cancer were all increased.
Example 3: ISRAEL
(Wolf R, Wolf D, 2004)
This study, based on medical records of people living within 1350 meters of a long established phone tower, showed a fourfold increased incidence of cancer compared with the general population of Israel, and a tenfold increase specifically among women, compared with the surrounding locality further from the mast.
Example 4: SPAIN
(Oberfeld 2004) This study found significant ill-health effects among those living in the vicinity of cell tower. The strongest five associations found were depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems. The scientists reported the following symptoms within 500 to 1500 m of the cell phone tower at an average power density of 0.11 + 0.19 µW/cmAmong the 350 inhabitants of Pérez, near the town of Velez-Malaga, there have been 43 cases of cancer, 35 of which have resulted in death.
Example 5: SWEDEN
Sweden was one of the first countries to claim 100% mobile connectivity. Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000 – 290,000 Swedish men and women out of a population of 9,000,000 are now electrohypersensitive (EHS) and report a variety of symptoms when being in contact with electromagnetic field sources. Symptoms include – allergic reactions, redness of skin, memory loss, sleep disruption, headache, nausea, tingling, altered reflexes, buzzing in the head, palpitations of the heart, visual disorders, cardiovascular problems, respiratory problems etc. Severe symptoms like leukemia, brain cancer, and acoustic neuroma (tumor in the ear) havealso been reported.
Conclusion
The seriousness of the health hazards due to radiation from the cell towers has not been realized among the common man. Cell operators continue to claim that there are no health issues. Even organizations like WHO, ICNIRP, FCC, ACS(American Cancer Society) etc. have not recommended stricter safe radiation guidelines, whereas several countries have adopted radiation norms, which are1/100th to 1/1000thof these values based on their studies. Cell phone industry is becoming another cigarette and asbestos industry, which kept claiming that smoking or exposure to asbestos is not harmful and now there are millions of people around the world who have suffered from smoking. and exposure to asbestos. In fact, cell phone /tower radiation is worse than smoking or exposure to asbestos; as one cannot see it or smell it, and its effect on health is noted after a long period of exposure. Therefore, majority of people tend to have casualness towards personal protection. Unfortunately, ignorance and non-awareness adds to this misery and all of us are absorbing this slow poison unknowingly. Even if people are aware of the radiation hazard, they may not have the choice to move away from it if the tower is installed near their office or residential building. .We are exposed to all these radiations which are additive in nature. If people in the mobile companies think there is no health hazard, then let them stand in front of their own cell tower at 100m distance in the main beam for 6 hours – are they willing to take the risk? Similar effect will be there at 1000m distance in about 600 hours (25 days). If mobile companies accept that radiation causes serious health problems, will people stop using cellphones? Not really, because the cell technology has its several advantages. However, then researchers/technocrats/entrepreneurs will come out with possible solutions, which may be expensive but that cannot be greater than the health risk faced by humans, birds, animals and environment.
REFERENCES
Hardell L, Carlberg M, So¨derqvist F, Hansson Mild K, Morgan Beniashvili D, Avinoach I, Baazov D, Zusman I., Electromagnetic fields and breast cancer in elderly women., In Vivo. 2005 May-Jun;19(3):563-6.
Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM, Le Ruz P, Seigne M, Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: Incidence according to distance and sex, PathologyBiology, 50(6), 369-73, 2002
Eger H., Hagen K. U., Lucas B., Vogel P., Voit H., The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer, Published inUmwelt•Medizin•Gesellschaft 17,4 2004
Wolf R, Wolf D, Increased Incidence of Cancer near a Cell-phone Transmitter Station (Israel) ,2004, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, 1(2) 45-55
Levitt B, Lai H, Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base , Environ. Rev. 18: 369–395, 2010
Salford, Leif G et al., Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to Microwavesfrom GSM Mobile Phones, Environmental Health Perspectives 111, 7,881–883, 2003
Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt J, Persson B. 1994. Permeability of the Blood-Brain barrier Induced by 915 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation, Continuous Wave and Modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microscopy Research and Technique 27:535-542.
Grafström G, Salford LG et al Radiofrequency and extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on the blood-brain barrier. Electromagn Biol Med,2008;27:103-263
Mezei G, Iriye R, Silva JM, Epi KL, Kheifets L, Link MP, Kavet R, Magnetic field exposure and long-term survival among children with leukemia, British Journalof Cancer, 94, 161-164, 2006 /
Allan H. Frey, Evolution and Results of Biological Research with Low-Intensity NonionizingRadiation, Modern Bioelectricity, 785–837, 1988
Blackman CF, Benane SG, Kinney LS, House DE, JoinesWT , Effects of ELF fields on calcium-ion efflux from brain tissue in vitro, Radiation Research, 92, 510-520, Indian J. of Biochemistry & Biophysics36,337-340, 1999-
Lai, H, Singh, NP, Melatonin and a spin-trap compound block radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells, Bioelectromagnetics, 18, 446-454,1997a
Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, Barbul A, Korenstein R, Jerby E, Avivi L., Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phonesleads to chromosomal instability. , Israel, Bioelectromagnetics 2003 Feb;24(2):82-90 –
Phillips J, Ivaschuk O, Jones T I , Jones R A, Beachler M C and Haggren W, DNA damage inMolt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular telephone radiofrequency fields in vitro, 1998,Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, 45, 103
Tice RR, Hook GG, Donner M, McRee DI, Guy AW.,Genotoxicity of radiofrequency signals. I.Investigation of DNA damage and micronuclei induction in cultured human blood cells,Bioelectromagnetics.2002 Feb;23(2):113-
886,1996
Stang A, Anastassiou G, Ahrens W, Bromen K, Bornfeld N, Jöckel K-H: The possible role of radio frequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma. Epidemiology 2001 , 12(1):7-12.-
Atay T, Aksoy BA, Aydogan NH, Baydar ML, Yildiz M, Ozdemir R., Effect of ElectromagneticField Induced by Radio Frequency Waves at 900 to 1800 MHz on Bone Mineral Density of IliacBone Wings, The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 20(5):1556-60, 2009.
Huber R, Graf T, Cote KA, Wittmann L, Gallmann E, Matter D, Schuderer J, Kuster N, BorbélyAA, Achermann P., Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic field during waking
affects human sleep EEG., Neuroreport. 2000 Oct 20;11(15):3321-
Mann K, Röschke J., Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human sleep, Neuropsychobiology. 1996;33(1):41-44
Sharma V. P and Kumar Neelima , Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations , Current Science, VOL. 98, NO. 10, 25 MAY 2010
The American Cancer Society piece that you cite, Tobin, espouses a great deal of “theory” (their word, not mine) as to their opinion of possible health risks. However, I’m sure that if you were to look into what the American Cancer Society said about cigarettes or asbestos back in the 1950’s, you would find very little link to cancer.
If the concern is raising revenue to maintain common grounds, I certainly take no issue with an increase in our HOA dues. The $100 rate that was set in the 1970’s is hardly reasonable in light of what today’s $100 can or cannot buy. I would not have any issue w/ a 50% or even 100% incrase in the annual dues.
Harvey- I have responded to Tobin’s message and provided some details about the risk involved. Perhaps you can read my message and get some idea. A few links are also listed. Please ask this question to yourself- Even if there is some doubt – is it worthwile to take a chance for our children and community?
We are interested in having the board move forward with investigation of the cell tower. We have a cell tower in our church steeple. You don’t see it and it has caused no problems.
With regards to health issues, here is a very interesting page from the American Cancer Society regarding cancer risks from cell towers. It’s a must read for those who are concerned about potential health risks from having a cell tower installed at the Barn.
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phone-towers
Shahamat, I think it would be helpful for everyone if you could provide links to the research you cited or perhaps provide copies for Tobin to forward or post here. I don’t believe anyone wants to risk the health of family and friends for the sake of additional revenue for the HOA. However, as was presented in the last HOA meeting, there are research papers which suggest no lasting effects of cell towers. I think it is important for everyone to read as much as possible before coming to any one conclusion on this topic.
I agree with Sue (and not just because she’s my neighbor) that in lieu of additional revenue that could be gained from the cell towers, a plan needs to be presented which allows the HOA to raise the revenue to repair the barn and perform other needed maintenance. I hope those who are not supportive of the cell tower proposal would be supportive of making the necessary changes to the bylaws which would allow us to raise the annual HOA dues.
I also hope those who have voiced their opinions here (pro and con) will take the time to participate in the HOA meetings. At the last meeting there didn’t seem to be the type of opposition to exploring the cell tower option as there is here. The Board has done a great job of putting these meetings together and has done a lot of leg work to bring these options to the table. Active participation in those meetings will help better guage the interest, or lack there of, in initiatives such as this.
I will read what I can find regarding the effects of Cell Towers and suggest our homeowners do their research as well to satisfy there curiosity. There is a lot of hype out there for sure on both sides of this issue. I too would not be offended by the cell tower near the barn property as there’s enough natural cover to hide the “tree”. I also believe that there are other possible solutions to having this so close to the barn.
I too am in favor of a reasonable hike in HOA dues.
If there are health affects associated with living in close proximity to cell towers, then I’m guessing the cell tower proposal is a no-go. That said, I will read what I can, and suggest our homeowners do their research as well to verify this assertion. I would not be offended by the cell tower on the barn property – there’s enough natural cover around there to make it’s presence unobtrusive.
If the cell tower gets denied, I am in favor of increased HOA dues to help towards the HOA being able to improve our common areas and HOA services. Our paltry dues are outdated. I look forward to hearing HOA members, opposed to the cell tower and interested in improved HOA services, offer suggestions on ways to increase HOA revenues in light of these interests.
There are no real opportunities to raise revenues other than raising HOA dues. The $100/year dues were set over 30 years ago. We have a lot of public area that no longer gets mowed and the area that we cleaned up in April around the bike path still needs a lot of work. The Barn and Milk House will require money for upkeep. There is no “bake sale” option; any additional revenue will be coming from us.
I am the editor of two international scientific research journals at GMU dealing with the Environmental Science and Health. We have published research papers in our journals providing evidence that the cell towers have long term harmful effects particularly on the health of children and elderly living close to the towers. In addition there have been numerous research papers published in other scientific literature pointing out the adverse accumulative long-term health effects due to the continued (24/7) electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell towers. My humble request is to drop this idea for the sake of our community health.
I would like to see some of those studies, Shahamat. Could you please post, or send me, some links? I have seen a lot of studies in this area and some of them are not well-done. Specifically, the cell towers are sometimes located in areas that are not environmentally sound and there’s no really control element to see if sicknesses result from the cell tower or environmental/lifestyle concerns. An exposure of 6 milliwatts is going to be mitigated by walls, roofs, clothing, and other factors to make the radiation exposure a non-issue. Even if a person stood buck naked out in the open, the exposure to that low level of radiation would be much less than radiation from things like personal cell phones, microwave ovens, televisions, and other sources of radiation.
Hi Tobin,
With all due respect I really do not know what literature/magzines you been reviewing to get information about the risks from cell towers. They do not appear to be based on scientific/medical facts as evidenced from your few sentences at the end of your message. I can direct you to more scientific and medical research journals but do not wish to confuse the issue by highly scientific and medical data. Perhaps at this time it will suffice to read the following to get a general picture so that our community is not mislead by some staements in your message. There are also some links listed. Once again it is my humble request not to pursue this matter any further for the sake of community in general and children in partular health. We are not doing any favour to our HOA Locust Hill Community by raising this controversy for the sake of earning a few $ from the tower at the expense of long term health risk particularly to our children.
Cell Phone Hazard
The health risk associated with cell phone use and cell phone towers, the points and counter points made, are often equated with the ones made on cigarette smoking few years back. And we know where we stand now. The industries who make money out of it kept saying, “There is no conclusive evidence to link the two.” The report titled “Electromagnetic fields and public health : mobile phones” published by World Health Organization in May, 2010 says, “To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use.” Such statements can be read in both ways. It always leaves a hint of doubt : There may be or there are ‘adverse health effects’ but not established as yet.
In a 2002 report published by Karen J Rogers titled “Health effects from cell phone tower radiation” cautions people. The author cites several references like [1]Microwave and Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure, San Francisco Medicine , Vol. 74, No 3, March 2001 [2]Mobiles Risk to children, Daily Mail (U.K.), May 11, 2000 etc. and and to quote a few paragraphs from page 1 of his report
Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer’s disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. [1]
Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women. Doctors from the United Kingdom have issued warnings urging children under 16 not to use cell phones and stay away from cell towers, to reduce their exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation. [2]
Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. And, 33 delegate physicians from 7 countries have declared cell phone towers a “public health emergency.”
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of setting the standards of exposure for the public, and claims that, based on scientific studies, the current levels are safe. But it is not a public health agency, and has been criticized as being “an arm of the industry”. Many who work for the FCC are either past, present or future employees of the very industries they are supposed to regulate. With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, critics have stated “you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show”.
Prof. Girish Kumar has been working with arduous tenacity to make people aware. He prepared a comprehensive “Report on Cell Tower Radiation” which is full of case studies and circulated widely. We received it in our mailbox some time back and this as well as the Rogers’ report mentioned above are available in full at scribd. Prof. Kumar has explained it nicely with radiation beam pattern etc. and to quote from his report
Through the help of the above typical radiation pattern, let’s analyze the news reported in Mid-day, Mumbai dated Jan. 3, 2010, which stated -“Mumbai’s swanky Usha Kiran building says the four cancer cases there could be linked to mobile towers installed on the facing Vijay Apartments”. The picture taken from the Usha Kiran building of the several antennas installed onthe seventh floor of Vijay Apartments is shown in Fig. 2. People living in the 6th, 7th and 8th floor in the opposite building will get maximum radiation as they are in the main beam direction. People living on the other floors will receive lesser radiation as beam maxima is reduced considerably as can be observed from vertical radiation pattern. In the horizontal direction again, people living in the front side of the antenna will receive much higher radiation compared to people living in the back side of antenna.
“Each antenna is transmitting with a gain of approximately 50, so we are looking at 4-5 kilowatts of power being transmitted by these antennas. Microwaves use only 500 watts of power and that too you cook food for just a few minutes. These towers are transmitting 24 hours so you are absorbing radiation 24 hours. The solution is that cell phone towers should transmit one tenth of the power they are currently transmitting,”
DNA Research Journal publishes this on Jan. 30, 2010.
Radiation from mobile phones and towers poses serious health risks, including memory loss, lack of concentration, disturbance in the digestive system and sleep disturbances, according to an inter-ministerial committee formed by the ministry of communications and information technology to study the hazards posed by mobile phones.
The committee has also attributed disappearance of butterflies, bees, insects and sparrows from big cities to mobile phone-related radiation.
“In the case of a person using a cellphone, most of the heating occurs on the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree. The brain blood flow is capable of disposing this excess by increasing the local blood flow and increasing body temperature,” states the report. It says that the non-thermal effects of cellphone use — attributed to the induced electromagnetic effects inside the body’s biological cells — are more harmful.
“There is a 400% increase in the risk of brain cancer among teenagers using cell phones for long periods. The younger the child, the deeper is the penetration of electromagnetic radiation as children`s skulls are thinner.
Another government-funded study on radiation from mobile phones and towers found that the exposure to radiation from mobile towers and mobile phones could have an adverse impact on male fertility and pose health hazards by depleting the defence mechanism of cells.
Whether we consider cell phone as necessary evil or not, we may try to limit its use to the extent possible and develop a collective opinion so that common man who do not read all these reports, can avoid health hazard.
It is a collective responsibility for all of us who appreciate the underlying issues.
Links:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone-Tower-Radiation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44736879/Cell-Tower-Radiation-Report-sent-to-DOT-Department-of-Telecommunications
http://www.ndtv.com/article/sci-tech/is-cell-phone-radiation-a-health-hazard-33943
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_citizens-ensure-warnings-on-cell-radiation-are-taken-seriously-in-mumbai_1500686
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mobiles-pose-health-risk-says-govt-panel/articleshow/7415288.cms
Shahamat – I don’t find the article you posted very convincing. In addition, the references you post seem to share a common trait – alarmism. It’s one thing to say that a) brain cancer is up since [insert some date] and b) cell phones were introduced in [insert some date]. It’s another thing to infer a causal link between those two facts. A lot of the papers you posted make those inferences citing heresay and opinions without really providing factual cause-and-effect relationships or controlled studies.
Furthermore, no one is talking about putting a cell tower on someone’s roof as stated in the one link you’ve provided. The radiation traverses horizontally from the antenna and seeing as how the Barn is at the highest elevation in the neighborhood, our houses would be exposed to even less radiation than the spherical model I assumed in an earlier comment.
If you’ve got a good controlled study that demonstrates the effects of microwave radiation and it’s link to cancer in humans, I’d love to see it. I think myself and many others in the community could handle the science.
http://celltowersites.com/2009/12/31/how-to-spoil-a-new-mexico-view/
I used to frequently drive between Santa Fe and Albuquerque and there is no avoiding looking at this tower amidst the beautiful vistas. The cell company even painted it blue to match the sky…you can paint the base brown and the top green and plant shrubs around it. There is no way you’ll be able to drive onto Rt7 from our neighborhood and not look at this everyday. On the other hand it will make giving directions to our neighborhood even easier…turn right at the giant cell tower, but then with the excellent GPS reception that we’d be able to get that wouldn’t be an issue.
After hearing the facts presented at the HOA meeting in March, I am good with it. There was a study done that there are no adverse health effects and the tree doesn’t look bad at all. They are all over and you don’t notice them. We use alot of technology in our house and I think the reception needs to be better. The extra revenue is much needed as I predict continued assessments and dues increases in the future.
I am vehemently opposed to a cell phone tower a mere block from my home. First, of course, there are the probable health risks associated with it.
Second, even if they try to make it look like a tree, I am well aware that they are not going to plant 100′ trees around it so that it doesn’t stand out like a sore thumb.
Third, I have perfectly reasonable cell reception in my home and all over Great Falls, which just a few years ago was quite the dead zone.
Fourth, although I would have preferred that the barn be demolished, I am certainly unwilling for the community to give up use of this portion of our common ground that granted is barely used, but at least it isn’t the eyesore as it will become with prison-style fencing around it.
Above and beyond all else, in an age when strong, long-standing corporations fall into non-existance on a regular basis with little or no warning, I have absolutely no faith in a company I’ve never heard of before being able to stand the test of time and continue to pay the HOA over the long haul.
Not only will I never support such a thing, if it proceeds much further, I will not hesitate to hire a team of top-notch lawyers to sue the HOA to prevent such discussions from ever being raised in the future.
If the HOA really wants to raise more revenue, have a bake sale!
I strongly oppose the establishment of a cell phone tower basically in our “backyard”. Sure it will bring more revenue for the HOA for lawn maintenance but at the expense of our health. There are numerous articles available. Please read Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation by Karen Rogers.
Thanks for posting, Karen. I respect your opinion but I have to disagree with you on the health hazards of cell towers. I’ve done a lot of reading on this topic. Radio waves are “non-ionizing” radiation. They do not react negatively with your body chemistry like gamma rays or X-rays do. The only way microwave radiation can you hurt you is if the radiation heats your body. The radiation dosage from a 2 kilowatt tower experienced at a 500 ft distance is a small fraction of the radiation you receive from standing next to an operating microwave oven. There are no reputable studies that present evidence of high cancer rates of residents in proximity to cell towers. There are several sound reasons to not reject a cell tower in the neighborhood; but I disagree with you that adverse health effects are one of them.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone-Tower-Radiation
Here is the article that I was referring to and I believe Shahamat also noted an article by this same author in his comment.