Debate Over Cell Phone Towers Growing

I saw the headline on DrudgeReport.com. I read the article and was just amazed but not surprised. It even states in the article itself that people complain about needing/wanting better coverage but yet they are the first to say don't put it by me or as we like to describe it...."not in my back yard." These people are so full of crap. I really wish I could tie all of them to a cell tower mid-way up and just leave them there....one per tower.

 

It was also posted on the main page of Yahoo news earlier today! That's the first time I've ever seen a cell tower story make the Yahoo news headlines!

 

Mr. O'Brien: Welcome to the year 2005! Please educate yourself about how inoffensive cell sites are.

Those arguments about "my kids will be exposed to health hazards" are so last century! If you are a cell phone user, you are exposing yourself far more to radiofrequency emissions when you place your cell phone in your ear.

A cell site placed atop a church is 1000 times less harmful than standing in front of your microwave oven when it's cooking.

Get your facts straight, please. Federal law has eliminated the health factor as one of the arguments against cell sites because it is baseless.

That's good! Aliens belong in another planet!

 

This reminds of the famous Berkeley, CA case Sprint dealt with last year.

 

There is equipment mounted on an apt. building that is within line of sight of my home (it is more than one mile away though). Doesn't appear to be hurting them one bit. Based on the displayed signal strength on local coverage maps, some of this equipment would appear to be T-Mobile's.

T-Mobile should fight to have their equipment up there on that steeple.

As Bobo indicated, they cannot use health as a reason to deny the equipment. And there is a public safety aspect regarding GPS to find you and calling 911, both in an emergency situation.

 

:uppoint:
Perfect!!

 

BINGO! Fer petes sakes... Lets see, 1500 Watts at 2GHz or 300 Milliwatts at 2GHz? I've done far more damage to myself by watching endless bags of popcorn pop and making 2 day old pizza come back to life. Dont even get me started on the radiation thats coming out of the CRT's these people stare at for 6 hours a day.

 

Exactly. These are the same people with their cells glued to their ears, or BT ear pieces and are complaining about lack of coverage.

Reminds me of the wind farms on Cape Cod. Everyone's all PRO clean wind energy until the wind farm goes up in front of their vacation property.

 

Distance is a huge factor. If you are one foot from the microwave and 100 feet from the cell tower the cell tower is hitting you with less than a 0.03 mW of power.

 

I believe that anyone who says they are against tower/antenna constructions in interviews or anyone who signs petitions against cell towers/antennas should automatically be barred from complaining about network coverage. "Oh, I'm sorry Mr. So-and-so, it says here that you signed a petition against building a cell site half a mile from your home, if that tower had been built you would have five bars in your living room but since you signed the petition, you'll continue to get, maybe one bar. Also, I'm making a note with our field techs to have the antenna adjusted to avoid your home completely. In the future, please weigh the decision more carefully as tower placement directly affects your coverage. Thank you for calling Hooligan Wireless, goodbye."

 

There are law firms who look for NIMBYS to represent it is an entire industry dedicated to making litigation. It works well for the plaintiffs lawyers and the defendants lawyers. They get richer, the public gets shafted.

Shakespear was right!

 

They should not allow NIMBYs to buy cellphones unless they agree to a 5-year contract. That will teach them!

 

It's this the truth, and it's with everything now, you can't cross the street without thinking somewhere a lawyer is looking to sue you for crossing the wrong way.

 

And live in a fringe area for coverage.