Comments on: August, 2012′s Letters to the Editor – September 3, 2012

By: Marc Delany

Marc Delany — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:51:53 +0000

http://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa/litigation-settlements

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:10:50 +0000

Thanks for the encouragement, Mark. I requested information from the city about how/when to open up this issue.

By: Marc Delany

Marc Delany — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:42:01 +0000

Go get the exemption.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:20:31 +0000

I have a copy of the zoning ordinance. It says nothing about "radiation" (would be illegal). Other zoning issues have been granted exemptions, I see no reason why this should be set in stone.

By: Marc Delany

Marc Delany — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:03:23 +0000

I'm trying to inform you that there is a decision process at work here, it has nothing to do with what levels of radiation, you or I or the current CC believes exist here, or on Mars. There was a previous public discussion and debate resulting in a collective decision by CC, informed by debate and testimony, then made law. To ignore that would be wrong. Go to CC and see if you can get the plan, or code amended if you want to reopen the debate.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:33:07 +0000

I apologize for keeping on this subject. I will try writing to the city about their cellular tower zoning policy. I think that the city will never state that the policy is based on environmental concerns or else it would be void. I still think there are pragmatic exceptions to zoning ordinances and that the ballpark tower was a good example of such a case.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:25:34 +0000

Mark Delany, the law is that cities cannot invent new safety limits different than established levels for transmission towers. You quoted established levels which do not come anywhere near a 1,000 foot radius to antennas 50 or more feet in the air.

You appear to buy into the idea that what we know about photon energy is wrong. I am not tryIng to debate 100+ year old established science. The key issue is people are deciding that there is potential risk in a physically implausible phenomenon, thus preventing useful things like LTE networks. I don't think Arcata should do that no matter how many true believers speak in circles about the subject.

By: Marc Delany

Marc Delany — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:42:41 +0000

"A cell phone puts out at most a couple of watts of radiofrequency/microwave radiation—often called “RF”—usually much less. A rooftop cell phone base station, on the other hand, can transmit a hundred times more energy. And if more than one company has antennas on that same roof, the radiation levels could be much higher. Many other types of transmitters may be there too: fire and police networks, terrestrial and satellite radio, TV and pagers, among others. Some of these can be very powerful, radiating thousands of watts. Not all rooftops have transmitters. But the number of active antennas is huge. There are about a quarter of a million cell sites alone in the U.S., according to CTIA—The Wireless Association, the cell phone trade group"

"Non-Ionizing Radiation: … Includes tower erection, repairs and painting; Limits MW to 10 mW/sq.cm. (no averaging); Requires Programs to provide safe work to employees and contractors; includes … RF Exposure Standards are Typically Based on 6 min. TWA " OSHA and others thinks there are concerns regarding exposure, even if you do not. however the issue is that of "due process".

If the community decides to limit the distance to 1000 feet, it is not acceptable to then change that, without going through the full decision making process.

By: Marc Delany

Marc Delany — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:28:52 +0000

Its far from "make believe". Also there is no invented safety limit "collectively agreed to", a 1000 foot radius was agreed to. It is only "low level" if you are far enough away from the generator. You think it's safe to stay on a tower in operation? Do you own a microwave? Read the manual.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:15:40 +0000

Again, it would be illegal to "collectively agree to" invented safety limits for transmission towers. The city cannot officially endorse make believe in this particular instance.
As any effect from low-level EMF is widely agreed to be psychosomatic, I have no issue with the potential risk that some people might believe they are being affected. I do think this issue should be reopened if the 1,000 feet is primarily to appease environmental concerns of fringe believers as this is not an appropriate function of city government or public process.

I was enthused at first regarding this subject for the city council wanting to explore a pragmatic exemption to an overly strict zoning law, but that faded once the fearmongers seemed to stop the process.

For the record, I have no problem with people believing in physically implausible nonsense, I see this as the norm. What I do have a problem with is public process backing this kind of thinking up to everyone else's detriment.