All electronic devices must be turned off during take off and landing as precaution ("why take the risk") against potential interference with communication and navigation systems of the aircrafts. This ban came from FCC and FAA.
Why does FCC allow CPTs on school grounds and in densely populated residential areas? "Why take the risk" where children are concerned?
This article was on cnn.com today:
Is it really dangerous to use a cell phone on a plane?
Excerpts:
A U.S. ban on airborne use of cell phones has been in place for 20 years because of concerns transmissions would interfere with cellular networks on the ground. While many airlines now offer Wi-Fi access via portable electronic devices from laptops to smartphones, cellular voice and data services on domestic airlines fall under that Federal Communications Commission ban.
The Federal Aviation Administration supports the ban, citing potential interference with aircraft communication and navigation systems. The FAA also advises airlines to make sure passengers turn off almost all portable electronic devices during critical phases of flight, below 10,000 feet. Airlines require electronics be turned off and stowed during takeoff and landing.
But airline passengers who have routinely neglected -- or forgotten -- to turn off their mobile phones without devastating consequences have to wonder, how dangerous can it be?
That turns out to be a tough question to answer, but those who've studied the rules sum it up as better safe than sorry.
The risk is small, "but why take that risk?" asked David Carson, a Boeing engineer who headed up a committee of aviation and electronics experts years ago to advise the FAA on the safety of Wi-Fi and cellular devices on planes.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Another research topic resulting in split opinions?
Yesterday's health news on BBC reported that it may not be good for babies to be breastfed exclusively for the first 6 months.
Weaning before six months 'may help breastfed babies'
Excerpts:
In the British Medical Journal, the team said breastfed babies may benefit from being given solid food earlier.
Ten years ago, the World Health Organization published global advice advocating babies be exclusively breastfed for six months.
The WHO recommendation "rested largely" on a review of 16 studies, including seven from developing countries.
But another review of 33 studies found "no compelling evidence" not to introduce solids at four to six months, the experts said.
"I believe that this is a retrograde step and plays into the hands of the baby-food industry which has failed to support the six-month exclusive breastfeeding policy in the UK.
"There is evidence that some babies do die in developed countries from inappropriate young child feeding, such as the introduction of solid foods earlier before their swallowing mechanism is mature enough or they have fully developed the capability to cope with solid foods."
Well, there you have it. If they can't get breastfeeding, (which exists since oh, when?) right, how do you expect the policy makers to get cell phones and towers right?
As usual, there is the name calling, accusations and 3rd party benefiting from all these policy changes...
Weaning before six months 'may help breastfed babies'
Excerpts:
In the British Medical Journal, the team said breastfed babies may benefit from being given solid food earlier.
Ten years ago, the World Health Organization published global advice advocating babies be exclusively breastfed for six months.
The WHO recommendation "rested largely" on a review of 16 studies, including seven from developing countries.
But another review of 33 studies found "no compelling evidence" not to introduce solids at four to six months, the experts said.
"I believe that this is a retrograde step and plays into the hands of the baby-food industry which has failed to support the six-month exclusive breastfeeding policy in the UK.
"There is evidence that some babies do die in developed countries from inappropriate young child feeding, such as the introduction of solid foods earlier before their swallowing mechanism is mature enough or they have fully developed the capability to cope with solid foods."
Well, there you have it. If they can't get breastfeeding, (which exists since oh, when?) right, how do you expect the policy makers to get cell phones and towers right?
As usual, there is the name calling, accusations and 3rd party benefiting from all these policy changes...
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Letter to the Planning Commision
Here is my open letter to the Planning Commision and also City Council Members of the City of Sunnyvale. I didn't bother with the school district office and board people since they seemed to have already given their approval.
To the Planning Commision and City Council Members of the City of Sunnyvale,
We, the residents of the City of Sunnyvale in the Sunnyvale Middle School Community attest that we are in opposition to the construction of the AT&T cell phone tower at 1080 Mango Ave, around coordinates 37.359778, -122.052556 (+37° 21' 35.20", -122° 3' 9.20").
Our objections are based on the following:
We understand that the federal courts have already ruled repeatedly that a municipality has no obligation to allow intrusive cell tower installations anywhere within its borders when other providers cover the area without such intrusive installations. Our research has shown that at least one other provider (Verizon) has demonstrated excellent customer service and coverage using existing towers.
We believe AT&T and other cellular service providers should be required to provide clear and non-convoluted written information to the parents of the students and all residents within a 300 meter radius, on all the following before proposing that any new cell towers be built, especially in single-family residential areas and K-12 schools:
We call upon the Sunnyvale City Planner and City Council to preserve the character and non-commercial setting of our schools for our children, to determine the legitimate need for this cell phone tower, to preserve the beauty and serenity of the park-like grass field and wooded area, and to preserve the property values of our homes by denying the construction of the AT&T cell phone tower at 1080 Mango Ave.
We also urge the City Planner and City Council Members to require that AT&T and other wireless service provider help the residents determine that the cell towers are indeed safe as those companies claim. This can be done by paying for a 20-year study by a group of independent psychologists to track the test scores and physical and psychological well-being of the students while they attend schools where cell towers or antennas are installed and to monitor the health of the teachers in the schools. We would also like the wireless service providers to switch off the towers temporarily if the study requires such actions.
We also ask that the City of Sunnyvale does not enter into long term contracts with AT&T and other wireless service providers. We urge a yearly lease or bi-yearly lease to have better control over the appropriate maintenance of the cell phone tower and site, and also the rights to decline renewal of lease should the employees or contractors of these wireless service providers display inappropriate conducts and/or evidence of harm or hazard surfaces in the future.
To the Planning Commision and City Council Members of the City of Sunnyvale,
We, the residents of the City of Sunnyvale in the Sunnyvale Middle School Community attest that we are in opposition to the construction of the AT&T cell phone tower at 1080 Mango Ave, around coordinates 37.359778, -122.052556 (+37° 21' 35.20", -122° 3' 9.20").
Our objections are based on the following:
- - It is wrong to allow the commercialization of school grounds. A school and its grounds are provided for the education and physical well-being of our children.
- - The tower provides no necessary service. When questioned, AT&T failed to explain the need for this tower. They said there have been no complaints of coverage in the area and indeed their online coverage map shows good coverage throughout the region.
- - A safety perimeter is required in the right field of the baseball diamond. A 10-foot tall perimeter fence is being planned to keep children away and it will be adorned with warning signs, which seems inappropriate for something located in a middle school playground and will radically change the character of the park-like setting around the big redwood trees.
- - The monopole faux pine tree is easily recognizable as man-made (as documented by a non-resident blogger passing by Bishop Elementary School) even from afar.
- - The support structures, safety perimeter fence and faux pine tree will reduce the property values of homes nearby, as documented by researches in the US and internationally and supported by letters from realtors in various cities. There will also be reduction in rent income in the two apartment buildings across from the cell tower site.
- - No long term studies. Due to the recent wide scale deployment of cell phone and its towers, there are no long term (40+ year) studies documenting their safety and there are no studies on children.
We understand that the federal courts have already ruled repeatedly that a municipality has no obligation to allow intrusive cell tower installations anywhere within its borders when other providers cover the area without such intrusive installations. Our research has shown that at least one other provider (Verizon) has demonstrated excellent customer service and coverage using existing towers.
We believe AT&T and other cellular service providers should be required to provide clear and non-convoluted written information to the parents of the students and all residents within a 300 meter radius, on all the following before proposing that any new cell towers be built, especially in single-family residential areas and K-12 schools:
- - be required to disclose all their existing and newly proposed cell towers.
- - be required to prove their current coverage gap.
- - be required to prove co-locating at an existing tower (even if of another company's) does not serve its purpose.
- - be required to find more appropriate locations in nearby commercial and industrial area, away from residential areas and schools.
- - be required to prove that all alternate locations have been exhausted and are inadequate.
We call upon the Sunnyvale City Planner and City Council to preserve the character and non-commercial setting of our schools for our children, to determine the legitimate need for this cell phone tower, to preserve the beauty and serenity of the park-like grass field and wooded area, and to preserve the property values of our homes by denying the construction of the AT&T cell phone tower at 1080 Mango Ave.
We also urge the City Planner and City Council Members to require that AT&T and other wireless service provider help the residents determine that the cell towers are indeed safe as those companies claim. This can be done by paying for a 20-year study by a group of independent psychologists to track the test scores and physical and psychological well-being of the students while they attend schools where cell towers or antennas are installed and to monitor the health of the teachers in the schools. We would also like the wireless service providers to switch off the towers temporarily if the study requires such actions.
We also ask that the City of Sunnyvale does not enter into long term contracts with AT&T and other wireless service providers. We urge a yearly lease or bi-yearly lease to have better control over the appropriate maintenance of the cell phone tower and site, and also the rights to decline renewal of lease should the employees or contractors of these wireless service providers display inappropriate conducts and/or evidence of harm or hazard surfaces in the future.
Monday, January 10, 2011
AT&T lowers price of iPhone 3GS
iPhone at $49 (isource.com) - Jan 10, 2011
excerpt:
Which brings me to the point of AT&T. Like, I’ve said in previous posts, AT&T is doing this as a competitive edge agains Verizon. Want an iPhone but don’t want to spend a lot of money up front? Then AT&T is your only option.
If AT&T can hook you with a $50 iPhone, then they’ve got you signed to their service for two years, and that’s two years that Verizon can’t get your business.
Older post on rumors of AT&T's price drop (cultofmac.com) - Feb 24, 2009
excerpt:
On Monday, Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu said the price of carrier data plans, not iPhone hardware, has caused a slowdown in iPhone sales, opening the door for Sprint and T-Mobile to gain a foothold in the smartphone market.
In our daily lives, AT&T's 'behavior' is called poor sportsmanship. In certain industries it is called dumping because it was done by companies of a certain foreign country.
excerpt:
Which brings me to the point of AT&T. Like, I’ve said in previous posts, AT&T is doing this as a competitive edge agains Verizon. Want an iPhone but don’t want to spend a lot of money up front? Then AT&T is your only option.
If AT&T can hook you with a $50 iPhone, then they’ve got you signed to their service for two years, and that’s two years that Verizon can’t get your business.
Older post on rumors of AT&T's price drop (cultofmac.com) - Feb 24, 2009
excerpt:
On Monday, Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu said the price of carrier data plans, not iPhone hardware, has caused a slowdown in iPhone sales, opening the door for Sprint and T-Mobile to gain a foothold in the smartphone market.
In our daily lives, AT&T's 'behavior' is called poor sportsmanship. In certain industries it is called dumping because it was done by companies of a certain foreign country.
CPTs decrease property values (Part 2)
Recall from Part 1 of this post that I was comparing two papers written by Dr Sandy Bond on the effects of CPTs on property values:
Note: 650 feet ~= 200 meters
Note: 985 feet ~= 300 meters
Note: 1310 feet ~= 400 meters
Both papers state that negative media and, perceptions and sentiments of residents and buyers may play a more important role than what the governments say ("inconclusive"). The both state that property prices decreased after CPTs were built around the neighborhood.
The papers diverge on how much property values decrease by and the distance from CPTs. In summary:
In NZ - Average 15% decrease until about 300 meters.
In FL - Average 2% decrease until about 200 meters.
How to apply this to the neighborhood of 1080 Mango Ave?
I think this Sunnyvale community more closely resembles NZ than FL, mostly because of taxation levels and property values. FL has no state income tax (except dividends and interests income) while CA's state income tax routinely puts most people in the AMT category, lets just say 10% for simplicity. Orange County FL's sales tax is 6.5% while Sunnyvale's is 9.25%.
According to the census report for Orange County, FL:
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 = $107,500
Median household income, 2008 = $50,674
Ratio of median value to median income is 2:1.
According to the censes report for Santa Clara County, CA:
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 = $446,400
Median household income, 2008 = $88,525
Ration of median value to median income is 5:1.
According to Florida Department of Revenue, a $400,000 property will pay about $1,250 in property tax.
Property tax rate in Santa Clara County is 0.8%, so a $400,000 property will pay about $4,000 in property tax.
It will take a family much longer pay off its house in Santa Clara County compared to in Orange County.
In NZ, income tax is around 36% but General Sales Tax is around 15%. Average property tax in NZ is $1000 to $2000. (see article)
So in short, people in NZ bears similar tax burden as the people in California and it will take a family just as long to pay off its property. Therefore, property values in Sunnyvale should decrease by the same percentage and using the same distance as the NZ case study.
In NZ - Average 15% decrease until about 300 meters.
Here is a map of the neighborhood around the SMS CPT:
What do we know about this area?
There are about 100 houses within the radius of 300 meters from the SMS CPT as shown in the map.
Average house price is $700K. (This is a low estimation since there are some pretty nice houses along W. Knickerbocker and Rockefeller area.)
The City of Sunnyvale will lose not only income from property taxes, but also taxes on the rental income of the two apartment buildings right across from the CPT.
But are we sure the property values will decrease because of the SMS CPT?
Dr Sandy Bond's papers clearly state that.
Also, here are some letters from realtors from Danville's fight against the siting of a CPT in their neighborhood:
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#Norm_Stanley_Expert_Opinion - disclosure issue and detrimental effect on value
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#pisenti - decrease by 6-10%
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#Nicole_Tucker_Agent_Letter - could decrease in excess of 10%
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#Ron_Gatti_Letter - negative impact on value
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#BJ_Diehl - disclosure and appraisal issues
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#Letter_from_Dana_Weiler - hurt value, disclosure issue
Residents in Glendale, California had letters from realtors citing almost 25% decrease. But letters could not be found online.
So, let us ask ourselves again, is the $25K offerred by AT&T going to add to the City of Sunnyvale's overall income?
I think the answer is a resounding NO! Again, when you look at the big picture, things just don't look so rosy afterall.
This is something the City Planner and City Council should think about very carefully about before signing over a multi-year lease to AT&T.
Note: 650 feet ~= 200 meters
Note: 985 feet ~= 300 meters
Note: 1310 feet ~= 400 meters
Both papers state that negative media and, perceptions and sentiments of residents and buyers may play a more important role than what the governments say ("inconclusive"). The both state that property prices decreased after CPTs were built around the neighborhood.
The papers diverge on how much property values decrease by and the distance from CPTs. In summary:
In NZ - Average 15% decrease until about 300 meters.
In FL - Average 2% decrease until about 200 meters.
How to apply this to the neighborhood of 1080 Mango Ave?
I think this Sunnyvale community more closely resembles NZ than FL, mostly because of taxation levels and property values. FL has no state income tax (except dividends and interests income) while CA's state income tax routinely puts most people in the AMT category, lets just say 10% for simplicity. Orange County FL's sales tax is 6.5% while Sunnyvale's is 9.25%.
According to the census report for Orange County, FL:
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 = $107,500
Median household income, 2008 = $50,674
Ratio of median value to median income is 2:1.
According to the censes report for Santa Clara County, CA:
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 = $446,400
Median household income, 2008 = $88,525
Ration of median value to median income is 5:1.
According to Florida Department of Revenue, a $400,000 property will pay about $1,250 in property tax.
Property tax rate in Santa Clara County is 0.8%, so a $400,000 property will pay about $4,000 in property tax.
It will take a family much longer pay off its house in Santa Clara County compared to in Orange County.
In NZ, income tax is around 36% but General Sales Tax is around 15%. Average property tax in NZ is $1000 to $2000. (see article)
So in short, people in NZ bears similar tax burden as the people in California and it will take a family just as long to pay off its property. Therefore, property values in Sunnyvale should decrease by the same percentage and using the same distance as the NZ case study.
In NZ - Average 15% decrease until about 300 meters.
Here is a map of the neighborhood around the SMS CPT:
What do we know about this area?
There are about 100 houses within the radius of 300 meters from the SMS CPT as shown in the map.
Average house price is $700K. (This is a low estimation since there are some pretty nice houses along W. Knickerbocker and Rockefeller area.)
The City of Sunnyvale will lose not only income from property taxes, but also taxes on the rental income of the two apartment buildings right across from the CPT.
But are we sure the property values will decrease because of the SMS CPT?
Dr Sandy Bond's papers clearly state that.
Also, here are some letters from realtors from Danville's fight against the siting of a CPT in their neighborhood:
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#Norm_Stanley_Expert_Opinion - disclosure issue and detrimental effect on value
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#pisenti - decrease by 6-10%
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#Nicole_Tucker_Agent_Letter - could decrease in excess of 10%
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#Ron_Gatti_Letter - negative impact on value
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#BJ_Diehl - disclosure and appraisal issues
http://nocelltower.info/info.php#Letter_from_Dana_Weiler - hurt value, disclosure issue
Residents in Glendale, California had letters from realtors citing almost 25% decrease. But letters could not be found online.
So, let us ask ourselves again, is the $25K offerred by AT&T going to add to the City of Sunnyvale's overall income?
I think the answer is a resounding NO! Again, when you look at the big picture, things just don't look so rosy afterall.
This is something the City Planner and City Council should think about very carefully about before signing over a multi-year lease to AT&T.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
How to lower your property tax
If you find out that your property has decreased in value from what was assessed, you can contest the amount of property taxes you should be paying. Just in case you need the information:
Contesting Your Assessed Value
Since any increase or decrease in assessed value will impact the amount of taxes you pay, it is very important to contact the Assessor's Office if you feel that the assessed value exceeds the market value of your property. We welcome the opportunity to review any information you may have relating to the value of your property. If you have any questions concerning the valuation, please call the Assessor's Office.
In Santa Clara County, a Notification of Assessed Value indicating the taxable value of each property is mailed (via postcard) at the end of June to all property owners. A taxpayer who disagrees with the assessed value on the Notification Card may request a review by presenting to the Assessor's Office by August 1, of the current assessment year, any pertinent factual information important to the determination of the property's market value (as of the January 1 lien date).
After August 15, taxpayers are advised to file an assessment appeal with the Clerk of the Board to request a reduction in the assessed value. The matter will then be set for hearing before a Value Hearing Officer or the local Assessment Appeals Board. Each three member Assessment Appeals Board, which is independent of the Assessor and trained by the State Board of Equalization, consists of private sector property tax professionals, CPA's, Attorneys, and appraisers appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
Appeal applications must be filed between July 2, and September 15, with the Clerk of the Appeals Board (Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors). To appeal a roll correction or supplemental assessment, typically triggered by a change in ownership or completed new construction, the application must be filed within 60 days of the date of the notice.
If the Value Hearing Officer or the Assessment Appeals Board renders a decision that results in a decline in value below the property's factored base year value (its upper limit), the reduction in value, and corresponding reduction in taxes, applies only to the property tax due for the year in which the appeal application was filed.
If the Value Hearing Officer or the Assessment Appeals Board orders a change in the assessed value set by the Assessor for new construction or changes in ownership, the change in value applies to the tax bill(s) for the year the application was filed, and establishes a new base year value for the future. The appeal application for supplemental or corrected tax bills must be filed within 60 days of the notice of supplemental assessment or notice of roll correction.
When a taxpayer files an appeal challenging the Assessor's determination of the re-assessability of a change in ownership, the matter is heard and adjudicated by an independently appointed legal hearing officer.
Contact the Clerk of the Board at 299-5088, to receive a simple, one page appeal's application or to receive more information about the Assessment Appeals Board or the Value Hearing Officer.
IMPORTANT NOTE: It is very important to understand that filing an assessment appeal does not relieve an owner of the responsibility for paying any outstanding tax bill no matter how unfair the owner may feel a bill might be. If you do not pay the bill in a timely manner, you may suffer penalties and interest charges that could otherwise be avoided. If you pay a bill and subsequently the Appeals Board lowers the value, you will be refunded any excess taxes you may have paid.
The State Board of Equalization has published a guide to the filing of Assessment Appeals. Although its title indicates its focus is residential appeals, much of the same information applies to the filing of appeals on virtually any type of property. That pamphlet is available on the internet and may be viewed by clicking here:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub30.pdf
Contesting Your Assessed Value
Since any increase or decrease in assessed value will impact the amount of taxes you pay, it is very important to contact the Assessor's Office if you feel that the assessed value exceeds the market value of your property. We welcome the opportunity to review any information you may have relating to the value of your property. If you have any questions concerning the valuation, please call the Assessor's Office.
In Santa Clara County, a Notification of Assessed Value indicating the taxable value of each property is mailed (via postcard) at the end of June to all property owners. A taxpayer who disagrees with the assessed value on the Notification Card may request a review by presenting to the Assessor's Office by August 1, of the current assessment year, any pertinent factual information important to the determination of the property's market value (as of the January 1 lien date).
After August 15, taxpayers are advised to file an assessment appeal with the Clerk of the Board to request a reduction in the assessed value. The matter will then be set for hearing before a Value Hearing Officer or the local Assessment Appeals Board. Each three member Assessment Appeals Board, which is independent of the Assessor and trained by the State Board of Equalization, consists of private sector property tax professionals, CPA's, Attorneys, and appraisers appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
Appeal applications must be filed between July 2, and September 15, with the Clerk of the Appeals Board (Clerk of the County Board of Supervisors). To appeal a roll correction or supplemental assessment, typically triggered by a change in ownership or completed new construction, the application must be filed within 60 days of the date of the notice.
If the Value Hearing Officer or the Assessment Appeals Board renders a decision that results in a decline in value below the property's factored base year value (its upper limit), the reduction in value, and corresponding reduction in taxes, applies only to the property tax due for the year in which the appeal application was filed.
If the Value Hearing Officer or the Assessment Appeals Board orders a change in the assessed value set by the Assessor for new construction or changes in ownership, the change in value applies to the tax bill(s) for the year the application was filed, and establishes a new base year value for the future. The appeal application for supplemental or corrected tax bills must be filed within 60 days of the notice of supplemental assessment or notice of roll correction.
When a taxpayer files an appeal challenging the Assessor's determination of the re-assessability of a change in ownership, the matter is heard and adjudicated by an independently appointed legal hearing officer.
Contact the Clerk of the Board at 299-5088, to receive a simple, one page appeal's application or to receive more information about the Assessment Appeals Board or the Value Hearing Officer.
IMPORTANT NOTE: It is very important to understand that filing an assessment appeal does not relieve an owner of the responsibility for paying any outstanding tax bill no matter how unfair the owner may feel a bill might be. If you do not pay the bill in a timely manner, you may suffer penalties and interest charges that could otherwise be avoided. If you pay a bill and subsequently the Appeals Board lowers the value, you will be refunded any excess taxes you may have paid.
The State Board of Equalization has published a guide to the filing of Assessment Appeals. Although its title indicates its focus is residential appeals, much of the same information applies to the filing of appeals on virtually any type of property. That pamphlet is available on the internet and may be viewed by clicking here:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub30.pdf
Many problems in determining if CPTs are safe
The major problems of convincing people that cell phones and cell phone towers can cause health problems are:
1. There is too much money involved in the industry and governments.
2. People are simply hooked on to mobile units.
Unless they have already started questioning the safety of cell phones and other wireless devices, people simply have no issues with Cell Phone Towers and will not be convinced of any issues.
I went for a leisure stroll and some solitude at the park the other day. Instead of playing with the children, some of them very young, the parents or nannies were chatting or surfing on the cell phones. As I ate my lunch I overheard a mom proudly announced that 4 year-old Binto received an iPod Touch for Christmas and how he already figured out the educational Apps and learned so much, and how the mom could stream video from Netflix wherever there is Wi-Fi. As I left, most of those moms and nannies were still deep into their cell phones.
And I thought to myself: this is all just Darwin at work!
Mailbag:
"I was home from college on Christmas and came across an Uncle Sam Wants You flyer my younger brother was given by a 'crazy lady' on Mango to take home to our parents. I asked my great uncle how he felt about the cell tower as he lives a block from one in Mountin View and he said 'they are everywhere.' I asked if he thought it is appropriate to put the towers in schools. And he replied, 'there is one by the old folk's home by 85. What is so special about children? Why is it okay to put it near old people and not children?' I was floored by his answer. God Bless America."
Mailbag:
"I am ambivalent about this tower. As a trained chemist, I fully understand the
physics of radiation and their effects on chemical bonds. The physics of cell
phone radiation do not support a claim of ionization or free radical creation
that would be cancer causing. My major concern is the 15x35' proposed structure
that I think radically changes the character of the park. The structure at the
Verizon tower near 85 and Fremont appears to much smaller."
For health hazards of cell phones and cell phone towers, google the following people for their publications, slides, presentations and video on youtube.
These people are looking at effects of low-dosage radio frequency radiation exposures, chronic exposures, whether effects are cummulative, how long the effects last, etc. Some of them also observed rise in brain tumor in children and long term cell phone users. The American Cancer Society is looking at reports of an increase in brain tumors in women within age group of 20-29.
FCC and American Cancer Society are still unsure but will let cell phones and cell phone towers to proceed at the mean time.
Dr Neil Cherry (1946 -2003) held the position of Associate Professor of Environmental Health at Lincoln University, New Zealand. (Assoc Prof (NZ) = Full Prof (US)). Professor Cherry had listened to these concerns of the community and spent many years and a great deal of his own salary income to travel around the world visiting universities and laboratories to collect the published papers and discuss as much as possible with the original researchers to make sure his evidence and conclusions are closely correct.
Dr Charles Teo, Australia
The Centre For Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery
Suite 3, Level 7 Prince of Wales Private Hospital
Barker Street, Randwick
New South Wales, 2031
Australia
Other names of interest:
W. Gregory Lotz - urged "err on the precautionary side" (now at cdc.gov)
Norbert Hankin - stated "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, (FCC's) exposure guidelines are considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified." (Chief EMF Scientist for the EPA.gov)
Olle Johansson
Sianette Kwee
Dr. Gerard Hyland - researched cancer cluster in UK (was at University of Warwick)
Others names are listed in this article.
1. There is too much money involved in the industry and governments.
2. People are simply hooked on to mobile units.
Unless they have already started questioning the safety of cell phones and other wireless devices, people simply have no issues with Cell Phone Towers and will not be convinced of any issues.
I went for a leisure stroll and some solitude at the park the other day. Instead of playing with the children, some of them very young, the parents or nannies were chatting or surfing on the cell phones. As I ate my lunch I overheard a mom proudly announced that 4 year-old Binto received an iPod Touch for Christmas and how he already figured out the educational Apps and learned so much, and how the mom could stream video from Netflix wherever there is Wi-Fi. As I left, most of those moms and nannies were still deep into their cell phones.
And I thought to myself: this is all just Darwin at work!
Mailbag:
"I was home from college on Christmas and came across an Uncle Sam Wants You flyer my younger brother was given by a 'crazy lady' on Mango to take home to our parents. I asked my great uncle how he felt about the cell tower as he lives a block from one in Mountin View and he said 'they are everywhere.' I asked if he thought it is appropriate to put the towers in schools. And he replied, 'there is one by the old folk's home by 85. What is so special about children? Why is it okay to put it near old people and not children?' I was floored by his answer. God Bless America."
Mailbag:
"I am ambivalent about this tower. As a trained chemist, I fully understand the
physics of radiation and their effects on chemical bonds. The physics of cell
phone radiation do not support a claim of ionization or free radical creation
that would be cancer causing. My major concern is the 15x35' proposed structure
that I think radically changes the character of the park. The structure at the
Verizon tower near 85 and Fremont appears to much smaller."
For health hazards of cell phones and cell phone towers, google the following people for their publications, slides, presentations and video on youtube.
These people are looking at effects of low-dosage radio frequency radiation exposures, chronic exposures, whether effects are cummulative, how long the effects last, etc. Some of them also observed rise in brain tumor in children and long term cell phone users. The American Cancer Society is looking at reports of an increase in brain tumors in women within age group of 20-29.
FCC and American Cancer Society are still unsure but will let cell phones and cell phone towers to proceed at the mean time.
Dr Neil Cherry (1946 -2003) held the position of Associate Professor of Environmental Health at Lincoln University, New Zealand. (Assoc Prof (NZ) = Full Prof (US)). Professor Cherry had listened to these concerns of the community and spent many years and a great deal of his own salary income to travel around the world visiting universities and laboratories to collect the published papers and discuss as much as possible with the original researchers to make sure his evidence and conclusions are closely correct.
Dr Charles Teo, Australia
The Centre For Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery
Suite 3, Level 7 Prince of Wales Private Hospital
Barker Street, Randwick
New South Wales, 2031
Australia
Other names of interest:
W. Gregory Lotz - urged "err on the precautionary side" (now at cdc.gov)
Norbert Hankin - stated "The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, (FCC's) exposure guidelines are considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified." (Chief EMF Scientist for the EPA.gov)
Olle Johansson
Sianette Kwee
Dr. Gerard Hyland - researched cancer cluster in UK (was at University of Warwick)
Others names are listed in this article.
Mailbag: The story of a young woman
A few days ago, I received a request to post this.
Heather was one of the brightest students in my schools. She was beautiful and smart and healthy. Above all she was one of the nicest person ever. This is her story that ended prematurely.
I had known Heather all my life. We were neighbors and classmates until we went to different universities. She went on to study electrical engineering while I to economics.
Heather graduated top 5% of her university and was sought after by technology firms. She chose to start her career with the wireless department of a high-profile telephone company. For 6 years she worked through the ranks and became a project manager of a prominent project. She was constantly on the phone coordinating and managing people from across the country. During the dotcom era she joined a startup that would become a successful wireless phone manufacturer.
Heather married her college sweetheart and had 2 beautiful children during this time. However her fairy tale like life took a bad turn shortly after her second child was born. She was diagnosed with brain cancer. Instead of nursing and caring for her child she was in chemo. For almost a year her condition improved until she was pronounced to be in remission. Her celebration did not last. Within 3 months she was complaining of headaches, dizziness and weakness again.
Tests showed that her cancer had returned. Chemo didn't work well this time. She opted for aggresive treaments but the cancer continued to spread. During the last 6 months of her life, she was barely conscious. Her husband continued to take their older child to encourage her to fight for her life. That little boy sat by her mother and read to her and told her about his day at kindergarten.
Her children were 6 and 2 when Heather passed away. Her son's memory of her was mostly of hospital visits. Her daughter does not know her at all. Her husband had used up most of their savings on medical fees and living expenses and now has to carry on as a single father.
Heather was 36 years old.
Cancer is one of those things that doctors don't know much about. Heather came from a good gene pool. Her grandparents on both sides lived to be over 80 years old and died in their sleep. Her parents are still alive and well. What had caused her brain cancer? Could it be the cell phones that she was using?
As we put a cell phone in a child's hand or put a cell phone tower near a school, please remember Heather's story.
Heather was one of the brightest students in my schools. She was beautiful and smart and healthy. Above all she was one of the nicest person ever. This is her story that ended prematurely.
I had known Heather all my life. We were neighbors and classmates until we went to different universities. She went on to study electrical engineering while I to economics.
Heather graduated top 5% of her university and was sought after by technology firms. She chose to start her career with the wireless department of a high-profile telephone company. For 6 years she worked through the ranks and became a project manager of a prominent project. She was constantly on the phone coordinating and managing people from across the country. During the dotcom era she joined a startup that would become a successful wireless phone manufacturer.
Heather married her college sweetheart and had 2 beautiful children during this time. However her fairy tale like life took a bad turn shortly after her second child was born. She was diagnosed with brain cancer. Instead of nursing and caring for her child she was in chemo. For almost a year her condition improved until she was pronounced to be in remission. Her celebration did not last. Within 3 months she was complaining of headaches, dizziness and weakness again.
Tests showed that her cancer had returned. Chemo didn't work well this time. She opted for aggresive treaments but the cancer continued to spread. During the last 6 months of her life, she was barely conscious. Her husband continued to take their older child to encourage her to fight for her life. That little boy sat by her mother and read to her and told her about his day at kindergarten.
Her children were 6 and 2 when Heather passed away. Her son's memory of her was mostly of hospital visits. Her daughter does not know her at all. Her husband had used up most of their savings on medical fees and living expenses and now has to carry on as a single father.
Heather was 36 years old.
Cancer is one of those things that doctors don't know much about. Heather came from a good gene pool. Her grandparents on both sides lived to be over 80 years old and died in their sleep. Her parents are still alive and well. What had caused her brain cancer? Could it be the cell phones that she was using?
As we put a cell phone in a child's hand or put a cell phone tower near a school, please remember Heather's story.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Good Faith and Accountability
If CPTs do cause health problems however small, we should see decline in standardized test scores and also in attendance. It will take only one day absence per student for the school district to lose the funding equivalent to the $25K per year from AT&T's leasing SMS's school grounds. As test scores tumble, so will property values which will be lost income for the city.
I have also read of some neighborhood petitioning for tower owners to pay for increase in liability insurance and the decrease in property prices if CPTs are proven harmful in the future.
It will be interesting for the school district to do a long-term study to determine that the well-being of the students, in terms of student perceptions, health and test scores are not affected at all by the presence of CPT at SMS. We also need to study the health, well-being and performance of teachers.
To get a clear picture, we must first establish a history of these variables before the CPT. Then we can study the effects. Students need to be tracked in terms of reasons of absence, location of classrooms, time spent in the open field, location of residence, etc. Variables for teachers run along the same line.
If we track the same students from grade 6 all the way through grade 8, and do these each "batch studies" of students for 10-15 years, we will be able to convince ourselves that the CPT is either safe or harmful.
Additional funds, that is, beyond the $25K per year, must be put aside by AT&T so that the school district and City of Sunnyvale can hire independent organizations to do such study.
We also need a way to make AT&T turn off the antennas and remove the antennas if we find that something is causing problems at SMS or if switching off is part of the study. To do that we need to add conditions to AT&T's lease to make sure we can review and renew AT&T's lease every year or every couple of years.
This study is for good-faith and accountability. I am sure AT&T will win support if it agrees to these terms and actually carrying them through.
Calculating ADA (Example on San Diego Unified Schoo District)
Overview
The state of California funds school districts based on student attendance, also known as Average Daily Attendance (ADA), at school. ADA is calculated by dividing the total number of days of student attendance by the number of days of school taught during the same period.
Example:
Michael has perfect attendance, calculated this way:
142 days attended ÷ by 142 days of school taught = 1.0 ADA
Hannah attended 136 of the 142 days taught, calculated this way:
136 days attended ÷ by 142 days of school taught = .96 ADA
How Does ADA Generate Revenue for the District?
A student like Michael, with perfect attendance, generates $5,786* in revenue for the district. It is calculated this way: 1.0 ADA x $5,786 revenue limit per ADA = $5,786.
A student like Hannah, who may miss several days, generates less revenue. In this case, ADA is calculated this way: .96 ADA x $5,786 revenue limit per ADA = $5,554
In this case, there was a loss of $232 in possible revenue.
Irregular attendance also affects the revenue the district receives from the lottery, and for Special Education.
Lottery
1.0 ADA x $118 = $118
.96 ADA x $118= $113
Special Education
1.0 ADA x $643= $643
.96 ADA x $643 = $617
Learn more about the history of California's revenue limit.
Learn more about lottery funds.
What are the financial effects of lost ADA revenue?
If all students attended daily, the district would have approximately 117,556 students (excluding Charter Schools) counted toward ADA. When ADA drops, revenue dips accordingly.
Perfect Attendance 117,556 x $5,786 = $680,179,016
Estimated ADA at 95.0** 117,556 x $5,786 x 95.0% = $646,225,032
Lost Revenue $33,953,984
* Estimates for 2007-08 as of 3/13/08
** Data is according to 2007-08, the most current year for which data is available. This figure is averaged, as different grade levels and different tracks generate different rates of ADA.
I have also read of some neighborhood petitioning for tower owners to pay for increase in liability insurance and the decrease in property prices if CPTs are proven harmful in the future.
It will be interesting for the school district to do a long-term study to determine that the well-being of the students, in terms of student perceptions, health and test scores are not affected at all by the presence of CPT at SMS. We also need to study the health, well-being and performance of teachers.
To get a clear picture, we must first establish a history of these variables before the CPT. Then we can study the effects. Students need to be tracked in terms of reasons of absence, location of classrooms, time spent in the open field, location of residence, etc. Variables for teachers run along the same line.
If we track the same students from grade 6 all the way through grade 8, and do these each "batch studies" of students for 10-15 years, we will be able to convince ourselves that the CPT is either safe or harmful.
Additional funds, that is, beyond the $25K per year, must be put aside by AT&T so that the school district and City of Sunnyvale can hire independent organizations to do such study.
We also need a way to make AT&T turn off the antennas and remove the antennas if we find that something is causing problems at SMS or if switching off is part of the study. To do that we need to add conditions to AT&T's lease to make sure we can review and renew AT&T's lease every year or every couple of years.
This study is for good-faith and accountability. I am sure AT&T will win support if it agrees to these terms and actually carrying them through.
Calculating ADA (Example on San Diego Unified Schoo District)
Overview
The state of California funds school districts based on student attendance, also known as Average Daily Attendance (ADA), at school. ADA is calculated by dividing the total number of days of student attendance by the number of days of school taught during the same period.
Example:
Michael has perfect attendance, calculated this way:
142 days attended ÷ by 142 days of school taught = 1.0 ADA
Hannah attended 136 of the 142 days taught, calculated this way:
136 days attended ÷ by 142 days of school taught = .96 ADA
How Does ADA Generate Revenue for the District?
A student like Michael, with perfect attendance, generates $5,786* in revenue for the district. It is calculated this way: 1.0 ADA x $5,786 revenue limit per ADA = $5,786.
A student like Hannah, who may miss several days, generates less revenue. In this case, ADA is calculated this way: .96 ADA x $5,786 revenue limit per ADA = $5,554
In this case, there was a loss of $232 in possible revenue.
Irregular attendance also affects the revenue the district receives from the lottery, and for Special Education.
Lottery
1.0 ADA x $118 = $118
.96 ADA x $118= $113
Special Education
1.0 ADA x $643= $643
.96 ADA x $643 = $617
Learn more about the history of California's revenue limit.
Learn more about lottery funds.
What are the financial effects of lost ADA revenue?
If all students attended daily, the district would have approximately 117,556 students (excluding Charter Schools) counted toward ADA. When ADA drops, revenue dips accordingly.
Perfect Attendance 117,556 x $5,786 = $680,179,016
Estimated ADA at 95.0** 117,556 x $5,786 x 95.0% = $646,225,032
Lost Revenue $33,953,984
* Estimates for 2007-08 as of 3/13/08
** Data is according to 2007-08, the most current year for which data is available. This figure is averaged, as different grade levels and different tracks generate different rates of ADA.
Friday, January 7, 2011
CPTs decrease property values
Some days ago, I was sent some links and a request to do a post on how CPTs would affect real estate property values within the neighborhood.
There is one name that kept popping up when searching for property value and CPT (mast, base stations). And that is Dr Sandy Bond.
This is part 1 of real estate property post. This post discusses published papers. Part 2 will discuss SMS neighborhood.
http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/staff-profile?staffId=Sandy.Bond
More information about Dr Sandy Bond:
http://www.buildingchi.com/meet.htm
http://www.buildingchi.com/contact.htm
Papers:
http://www.buildingchi.com/research.htm
Bond, S.G. (2007). “Cell Phone Tower Proximity Impacts on House Prices: a New Zealand Case Study”, Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 63-91.
2006
Bond, S.G. and Squires, L. “Using GIS to Measure the Impact of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida”, American Real Estate Society Conference, April 19-22, Key West Florida.
Note: 650 feet ~= 200 meters
Note: 985 feet ~= 300 meters
Note: 1310 feet ~= 400 meters
Both papers state that negative media and, perceptions and sentiments of residents and buyers may play a more important role than what the governments say ("inconclusive"). The both state that property prices decreased after CPTs wer built around the neighborhood.
The papers diverge on how much property values decrease by and the distance from CPTs. In summary:
In NZ - Average 15% decrease until about 300 meters.
In FL - Average 2% decrease until about 200 meters.
I think there are serious limitations of these papers:
1. They don't tell us about the demographics, in particular, the age groups and ages of the occupants of the properties, bought before and bought after the towers were built.
Why do I ask? > Buyers of different age groups have different criteria when choosing a property. Those with young children will have yet other different criteria. (During the second Neighborhood Meeting, didn't an old gentleman who opposed the CPT at SMS said to "bring it on" to the old age home?)
Why do I ask? > Demographic profiles can also affect skepticisms, choice and ability to pay more expensive houses outside the control areas.
2. They don't tell us whether the CPTs are situated at school or park land, etc.
Why do I ask? >Buyers will not care if they don't have to get anywhere close to the CPTs. On the other hand, if the occupants are at school or frequent the park, the sentiments of the buyers can be very different.
Why do I ask? > Even hobbies and availability of other forms of entertainments around the area affect decisions.
3. They don't tell us the property price or property price to take home personal income ratio.
Why do I ask? > Buyers will care more about depreciation if the properties cost more and if price-income ratio is bigger.
Why do I ask? > Even sales tax percentage and income tax levels affect decisions.
If the papers were to take into account all these variables I mentioned, and more to give an accurate picture, they would be too complex to analyze fairly.
Here are the papers: (There are many versions of them, these 2 are the official or published ones, I think.)
For the New Zealand study: http://www.prres.net/Papers/PRPRJ_No_1_2007_Bond.pdf
Excerpt:
Interestingly, the effect of a tower on price (a decrease of between 20.7% and 21%) was very similar in the two suburbs where the towers were built in the year 2000, after the negative media publicity given to towers following the two legal cases outlined above. The other two suburbs that indicated a tower was either insignificant or increased prices by around 12%, had towers built in them in 1994, prior to the media publicity.
(Summary & Conclusion)
The results indicate that property prices decrease by around 15% after a CPBS is built. This effect generally reduces with distance from the CPBS and is almost negligible after about 300 meters. However, this result varied between neighbourhoods, with a positive impact on price being recorded in one neighbourhood, possibly due to the CPBS being built before there was any negative media publicity towards CPBSs and that the CPBS is better concealed than in the other neighbourhoods.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/171851340_1.html
Excerpt:
(ABSTRACT)
This article outlines the results of a study carried out in Florida in 2004 regarding the effect that cell phone tower proximity has on residential property prices. The study involved an analysis of residential property sales transaction data. Both GIS and multiple regression analysis in a hedonic framework were used to determine the effect of linear distance of homes to towers on residential property prices. The results of the research show that prices of properties decreased by just over 2%, on average, after a tower was built. This effect generally diminished with distance from the tower and was almost negligible after about 656 feet.
(in NZ)
The Bond and Beamish opinion survey study included residents in ten suburbs: five case study areas (within 100 feet of a cell phone tower) and five control areas (over 0.6 of a mile from a cell phone tower). Eighty questionnaires (7) were distributed in each of the ten suburbs in Christchurch (i.e., 800 surveys were delivered in total). An overall response rate of 46% was achieved.
The survey study results were mixed, with responses from residents ranging from having no concerns to being very concerned about proximity to a tower. In both the case study and control areas, the impact of proximity to towers on future property values is the issue of greatest concern for respondents. If purchasing or renting a property near a tower, over one-third (38%) of the control group respondents would reduce the price of their property by more than 20%. The perceptions of the case study respondents were less negative, with one-third of them saying they would reduce price by only 1%-9%, and 24% would reduce price by between 10% and 19%.
Interestingly, the effect of a tower on price (a decrease of between 20.7% and 21%) was very similar in the two suburbs where the towers were built in 2000, after the negative media publicity given to towers following the two legal cases outlined above. In the other two suburbs, the results indicated a tower was either insignificant or increased prices by around 12%, where the towers had been built in 1994, prior to the media publicity.
In terms of the effect that proximity to a tower has on price the overall results indicate that this is statistically significant and negative. Generally, the closer a property is to the tower, the greater the decrease in price. The effect of proximity to a tower reduces price by 15% on average. This effect is reduced with distance from the tower and is negligible after 1000 feet.
(in Florida)
Variables
The study investigates the potential impact of proximity to a tower on the price of residential property, as indicated by the dependant variable SALE_PRICE. (10) The study controls for site and structural characteristics by assessing the impact of various independent variables. The independent data set was limited to those available in the data set and known to be related to property price, based on other well-tested models reported in the literature and from valuation theory. The independent variables selected include lot size in square feet (LOT), floor area of the dwelling in square feet (SQFT), age of the dwelling in years (AGE), the time of construction (AFTER_TWR), the closest distance of each home to the associated tower (DISTANCE), and the dwelling's absolute location is indicated by the Cartesian coordinates (XCOORD) and (YCOORD). (11)
Based on the parcel and tower data for Orange County, the mean sale price of single-family, residential property that sold between 1990 and 2000 is $115,850. The mean square footage is 1535 square feet, the mean lot size is 8525 square feet, and the mean age is 14 years. The mean distance from a residential property to a tower is 1813 feet. (13) Descriptive statistics for select variables are presented in Table 1.
The study hypothesis is that in areas where a tower is constructed, it will be possible to observe discounts made to the selling prices of homes located near these structures. Such a discount will be observed where buyers of homes close to the towers perceive them in negative terms due to, for example, the risk of adverse health, or aesthetic and property value effects.
To address the many difficulties in estimating the composite effects of externalities on property price an interactive approach is adopted. (18) To allow the composite effect of site, structure, and location attributes on the value of residential property to vary spatially, they are interacted with the Cartesian coordinates that are included in the model. (19)
To test the belief that the relationship between SALE_PRICE and other specific independent variables such as SQFT, AGE, and DISTANCE is not a linear function of SALE_PRICE, the variables were transformed to reflect the correct relationship. It was found that the best result was obtained from using the log of SALE_PRICE and the square of SQFT, AGE, and DISTANCE.
The results clearly show that the price of residential property increases with the distance from a tower. The independent variable, DISTANCE, estimates a coefficient with a positive sign, which increases with increasing distance from the tower (i.e., DISTANCE = 5.69E-05). As distance from the tower increases by 10 feet, price of a residential property increases by 0.57%. Moreover, the t-statistic associated with the estimated coefficient indicates the significance of the explanatory power of this variable (i.e., t-statistic = 10.751).
Limitations
This study analyzed residential property sales from different but neighboring suburbs as an entire data set, i.e., the suburbs were grouped together and analyzed as a whole. The absolute location was included in the model to take into account composite externalities as well as to allow these and other independent variables in the model to vary spatially, and therefore preclude the need to analyse neighborhoods separately. However, it is possible that not all neighborhood differences were accounted for.
For example, when comparing these results to those from the NZ study by Bond and Xue, it appears the results from both studies based on an analysis of the whole data set were similar. Towers have a statistically significant, but minimal, effect on the prices of proximate properties. However, what the NZ study showed by analyzing the suburbs separately was that substantive differences exist in the effect that towers have on property prices between suburbs, since the distribution of the property sale prices is quite different in each. It is possible that if the current study had analyzed suburbs separately that similar differences would have been found.
Summary and Conclusions
This article presents the results of a study carried out in Florida in 2004. The study involved the analysis of market transaction data of single-family homes that sold in Orange County between 1990 and 2000 to investigate the effect on prices of property in close proximity to a tower. The results showed that while a tower has a statistically significant effect on prices of property located near a tower, this effect is minimal.
Each geographical location is unique. Residents' perceptions and assessments of risk vary according to a wide range of processes including psychological, social, institutional, and cultural. The results of this study may vary with the NZ results not only due to the differences in study design (for example, this study excluded an analysis at a neighborhood level), but also due to differences in the landscape. In New Zealand, there are fewer structures such as high voltage overhead transmission lines, cell phone towers, and billboards than there are in the United States. As a result, it is possible that U.S. residents simply have become accustomed to these features and so notice them less.
The value effects from towers may vary over time as market participants' perceptions change due to increased public awareness regarding the potential (or lack of) adverse health and other effects of living near a towers. Further research into factors that impact on the degree of negative reaction from residents living near these structures could provide useful insights that help explain the effects on property price. Such factors might include, for example, the kinds of health and other risks residents associate with towers; the height, style, and appearance of the towers; how visible the towers are to residents and how they perceive such views; and the distance from the towers residents feel they have to be to be free of concerns.
As the results reported here are from a case study conducted in 2004 in a specific geographic area (Orange County, Florida) the results should not be generally applied. As Wolverton and Bottemiller explain,
There is one name that kept popping up when searching for property value and CPT (mast, base stations). And that is Dr Sandy Bond.
This is part 1 of real estate property post. This post discusses published papers. Part 2 will discuss SMS neighborhood.
http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/staff-profile?staffId=Sandy.Bond
More information about Dr Sandy Bond:
http://www.buildingchi.com/meet.htm
http://www.buildingchi.com/contact.htm
Papers:
http://www.buildingchi.com/research.htm
Bond, S.G. (2007). “Cell Phone Tower Proximity Impacts on House Prices: a New Zealand Case Study”, Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 63-91.
2006
Bond, S.G. and Squires, L. “Using GIS to Measure the Impact of Distance to Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Florida”, American Real Estate Society Conference, April 19-22, Key West Florida.
Note: 650 feet ~= 200 meters
Note: 985 feet ~= 300 meters
Note: 1310 feet ~= 400 meters
Both papers state that negative media and, perceptions and sentiments of residents and buyers may play a more important role than what the governments say ("inconclusive"). The both state that property prices decreased after CPTs wer built around the neighborhood.
The papers diverge on how much property values decrease by and the distance from CPTs. In summary:
In NZ - Average 15% decrease until about 300 meters.
In FL - Average 2% decrease until about 200 meters.
I think there are serious limitations of these papers:
1. They don't tell us about the demographics, in particular, the age groups and ages of the occupants of the properties, bought before and bought after the towers were built.
Why do I ask? > Buyers of different age groups have different criteria when choosing a property. Those with young children will have yet other different criteria. (During the second Neighborhood Meeting, didn't an old gentleman who opposed the CPT at SMS said to "bring it on" to the old age home?)
Why do I ask? > Demographic profiles can also affect skepticisms, choice and ability to pay more expensive houses outside the control areas.
2. They don't tell us whether the CPTs are situated at school or park land, etc.
Why do I ask? >Buyers will not care if they don't have to get anywhere close to the CPTs. On the other hand, if the occupants are at school or frequent the park, the sentiments of the buyers can be very different.
Why do I ask? > Even hobbies and availability of other forms of entertainments around the area affect decisions.
3. They don't tell us the property price or property price to take home personal income ratio.
Why do I ask? > Buyers will care more about depreciation if the properties cost more and if price-income ratio is bigger.
Why do I ask? > Even sales tax percentage and income tax levels affect decisions.
If the papers were to take into account all these variables I mentioned, and more to give an accurate picture, they would be too complex to analyze fairly.
Here are the papers: (There are many versions of them, these 2 are the official or published ones, I think.)
For the New Zealand study: http://www.prres.net/Papers/PRPRJ_No_1_2007_Bond.pdf
Excerpt:
Interestingly, the effect of a tower on price (a decrease of between 20.7% and 21%) was very similar in the two suburbs where the towers were built in the year 2000, after the negative media publicity given to towers following the two legal cases outlined above. The other two suburbs that indicated a tower was either insignificant or increased prices by around 12%, had towers built in them in 1994, prior to the media publicity.
(Summary & Conclusion)
The results indicate that property prices decrease by around 15% after a CPBS is built. This effect generally reduces with distance from the CPBS and is almost negligible after about 300 meters. However, this result varied between neighbourhoods, with a positive impact on price being recorded in one neighbourhood, possibly due to the CPBS being built before there was any negative media publicity towards CPBSs and that the CPBS is better concealed than in the other neighbourhoods.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/171851340_1.html
Excerpt:
(ABSTRACT)
This article outlines the results of a study carried out in Florida in 2004 regarding the effect that cell phone tower proximity has on residential property prices. The study involved an analysis of residential property sales transaction data. Both GIS and multiple regression analysis in a hedonic framework were used to determine the effect of linear distance of homes to towers on residential property prices. The results of the research show that prices of properties decreased by just over 2%, on average, after a tower was built. This effect generally diminished with distance from the tower and was almost negligible after about 656 feet.
(in NZ)
The Bond and Beamish opinion survey study included residents in ten suburbs: five case study areas (within 100 feet of a cell phone tower) and five control areas (over 0.6 of a mile from a cell phone tower). Eighty questionnaires (7) were distributed in each of the ten suburbs in Christchurch (i.e., 800 surveys were delivered in total). An overall response rate of 46% was achieved.
The survey study results were mixed, with responses from residents ranging from having no concerns to being very concerned about proximity to a tower. In both the case study and control areas, the impact of proximity to towers on future property values is the issue of greatest concern for respondents. If purchasing or renting a property near a tower, over one-third (38%) of the control group respondents would reduce the price of their property by more than 20%. The perceptions of the case study respondents were less negative, with one-third of them saying they would reduce price by only 1%-9%, and 24% would reduce price by between 10% and 19%.
Interestingly, the effect of a tower on price (a decrease of between 20.7% and 21%) was very similar in the two suburbs where the towers were built in 2000, after the negative media publicity given to towers following the two legal cases outlined above. In the other two suburbs, the results indicated a tower was either insignificant or increased prices by around 12%, where the towers had been built in 1994, prior to the media publicity.
In terms of the effect that proximity to a tower has on price the overall results indicate that this is statistically significant and negative. Generally, the closer a property is to the tower, the greater the decrease in price. The effect of proximity to a tower reduces price by 15% on average. This effect is reduced with distance from the tower and is negligible after 1000 feet.
(in Florida)
Variables
The study investigates the potential impact of proximity to a tower on the price of residential property, as indicated by the dependant variable SALE_PRICE. (10) The study controls for site and structural characteristics by assessing the impact of various independent variables. The independent data set was limited to those available in the data set and known to be related to property price, based on other well-tested models reported in the literature and from valuation theory. The independent variables selected include lot size in square feet (LOT), floor area of the dwelling in square feet (SQFT), age of the dwelling in years (AGE), the time of construction (AFTER_TWR), the closest distance of each home to the associated tower (DISTANCE), and the dwelling's absolute location is indicated by the Cartesian coordinates (XCOORD) and (YCOORD). (11)
Based on the parcel and tower data for Orange County, the mean sale price of single-family, residential property that sold between 1990 and 2000 is $115,850. The mean square footage is 1535 square feet, the mean lot size is 8525 square feet, and the mean age is 14 years. The mean distance from a residential property to a tower is 1813 feet. (13) Descriptive statistics for select variables are presented in Table 1.
The study hypothesis is that in areas where a tower is constructed, it will be possible to observe discounts made to the selling prices of homes located near these structures. Such a discount will be observed where buyers of homes close to the towers perceive them in negative terms due to, for example, the risk of adverse health, or aesthetic and property value effects.
To address the many difficulties in estimating the composite effects of externalities on property price an interactive approach is adopted. (18) To allow the composite effect of site, structure, and location attributes on the value of residential property to vary spatially, they are interacted with the Cartesian coordinates that are included in the model. (19)
To test the belief that the relationship between SALE_PRICE and other specific independent variables such as SQFT, AGE, and DISTANCE is not a linear function of SALE_PRICE, the variables were transformed to reflect the correct relationship. It was found that the best result was obtained from using the log of SALE_PRICE and the square of SQFT, AGE, and DISTANCE.
The results clearly show that the price of residential property increases with the distance from a tower. The independent variable, DISTANCE, estimates a coefficient with a positive sign, which increases with increasing distance from the tower (i.e., DISTANCE = 5.69E-05). As distance from the tower increases by 10 feet, price of a residential property increases by 0.57%. Moreover, the t-statistic associated with the estimated coefficient indicates the significance of the explanatory power of this variable (i.e., t-statistic = 10.751).
Limitations
This study analyzed residential property sales from different but neighboring suburbs as an entire data set, i.e., the suburbs were grouped together and analyzed as a whole. The absolute location was included in the model to take into account composite externalities as well as to allow these and other independent variables in the model to vary spatially, and therefore preclude the need to analyse neighborhoods separately. However, it is possible that not all neighborhood differences were accounted for.
For example, when comparing these results to those from the NZ study by Bond and Xue, it appears the results from both studies based on an analysis of the whole data set were similar. Towers have a statistically significant, but minimal, effect on the prices of proximate properties. However, what the NZ study showed by analyzing the suburbs separately was that substantive differences exist in the effect that towers have on property prices between suburbs, since the distribution of the property sale prices is quite different in each. It is possible that if the current study had analyzed suburbs separately that similar differences would have been found.
Summary and Conclusions
This article presents the results of a study carried out in Florida in 2004. The study involved the analysis of market transaction data of single-family homes that sold in Orange County between 1990 and 2000 to investigate the effect on prices of property in close proximity to a tower. The results showed that while a tower has a statistically significant effect on prices of property located near a tower, this effect is minimal.
Each geographical location is unique. Residents' perceptions and assessments of risk vary according to a wide range of processes including psychological, social, institutional, and cultural. The results of this study may vary with the NZ results not only due to the differences in study design (for example, this study excluded an analysis at a neighborhood level), but also due to differences in the landscape. In New Zealand, there are fewer structures such as high voltage overhead transmission lines, cell phone towers, and billboards than there are in the United States. As a result, it is possible that U.S. residents simply have become accustomed to these features and so notice them less.
The value effects from towers may vary over time as market participants' perceptions change due to increased public awareness regarding the potential (or lack of) adverse health and other effects of living near a towers. Further research into factors that impact on the degree of negative reaction from residents living near these structures could provide useful insights that help explain the effects on property price. Such factors might include, for example, the kinds of health and other risks residents associate with towers; the height, style, and appearance of the towers; how visible the towers are to residents and how they perceive such views; and the distance from the towers residents feel they have to be to be free of concerns.
As the results reported here are from a case study conducted in 2004 in a specific geographic area (Orange County, Florida) the results should not be generally applied. As Wolverton and Bottemiller explain,
Thursday, January 6, 2011
A Tale of Two Carriers
I believe I have found an alternative to constructing a Cell Phone Tower at 1080 Mango Ave, or Sunnyvale Middle School.
My philosophy is that I don't post things that I don't feel is right or things that I cannot quote a reliable source.
I spent hours pouring over data and multiple websites. I think I now have a clear picture of why AT&T lags Verizon in customer satisfaction. Although AT&T first claimed coverage issues, the engineer and rep changed the story to "911", "Community Service", "future" etc, when the people attending the second Neighborhood Meeting showed 5 bars on their iPhones and a coverage map from AT&T's own website showed good coverage... (see 2nd meeting)
Also, according to the document from AT&T's consultant engineering firm, that "There are no other wireless telecommunications base stations nearby" is simply not true! (see handout) There is a very prominent one less than 2/3 mile away at 1291 South Bernardo. Nearby is as very subjective indeed.
Note: To follow this post in detail, by following the links will take almost an hour. So be warn. Or you can just sit back and read.
Step 1) First I looked at the cell phone receptions page:
Cell coverage in Sunnyvale
So okay, AT&T's customers are very unhappy.
Step 2) Clicking AT&T brings up the comments page:
Comments for AT&T
Some complaints but mostly along Wolfe and 1 along Bernardo and Washington (they don't intersect the last time I checked).
Here is one of the more interesting comments:
Step 3) Clicking on AT&T Towers brings up a map of the tower locations:
So AT&T doesn't have any CPTs around here, that's why. End of story.
Well, not so fast. Because that cannot be. Because Verizon has great customer satisfaction even with no CPTs in Sunnyvale at all, according to this site:
Verizon towers in Sunnyvale
And we already know AT&T/Cingular has an undocumented CPT at Bishop Elementary School.
Step 4) Checking for coverage of AT&T voice reception found pockets of great and also almost all good coverage within Sunnyvale. These are AT&T's definition and not mine. Thus the proof that AT&T website claims no problems with data coverage.
The link to coverage map: AT&T Coverage Map
The link to definition: AT&T Coverage Definition
BEST: In general, the areas shown in dark orange should have the strongest signal strength and be sufficient for most in-building coverage. However, in-building coverage can and will be adversely affected by the thickness/construction type of walls, or your location in the building (i.e., in the basement, in the middle of the building with multiple walls, etc.) This AT&T owned network provides GSM, GPRS, and EDGE service. Learn more about our technology.
GOOD: The areas shown in the medium orange should be sufficient for on-street or in-the-open coverage, most in-vehicle coverage and possibly some in-building coverage. This AT&T owned network provides GSM, GPRS, and EDGE service. Learn more about our technology.
Step 4) Start the search again. And this time looking at website:
Another listing of CPTs
This has a few CPTs within Sunnyvale and a lot of text about GTE, AT&T, Cingular, Crown Castle, TowerCo etc. So I had to filter out all the data.
Note that AT&T and Cingular have merged. GTE and MCI are actually Verizon.
It turns out that AT&T has antennas at:
- Bishop Elementary School (Undocumented, Constructed between Jan 2006 - Aug 2007)
- 1140 N Mathilda Ave (belongs Pac Bell according to FCC registration website - Constructed Jan 1962)
- 221 Commercial Ave (whose? belongs to city of Sunnyvale according to FCC)
- 919 Hamlin Court (under Cingular - constructed Feb 2009)
On the other hand Verizon has antennas at:
- 1120 Stewart Court (belongs to Crown Castle according to FCC registration website Aprll 2004, with status terminated (?))
- 1184 N Mathilda Ave (belongs to Crown Castle - constructed Jan 1994)
- 1242 Kifer Rd (belongs to Crown Castle?)
- 1259 Birchwood (belongs to Crown Castle?)
- 1259 S Bernardo Ave (belongs to Crown Castle - constructed Jan 1995)
- 375 Pastoria Ave (belongs to Crown Castle - constructed Jan 1995)
Although AT &T is super-secretive about where its CPTs or antennas are, from the coverage map, it is clear that it does not have an antenna on South Bernardo.
I think that the real reason behind AT&T's customer satisfaction problems boils down to failed business strategy.
I think during the late 1990s, cell tower companies such as Crown Castle and American Towers started building cell phone towers, specifically in non-commercial and non-industry areas. Cell Phone Service Providers didn't bother.
Verizon continues to rent from Crown Castle (not that Verizon hasn't tried building its own towers) but AT&T seems to want to build a lot of its own CPTs. In the city of Santa Clara alone, there are at least 3 new AT&T CPTs granted in 2010 alone. I didn't look into other cities but I'm sure the pattern is the same.
- 1700 Space Park Dr (AT&T - Constructed Nov 2010)
- 500 El Camino (Cingular - Constructed Aug 2010)
- 3137 Forbes (Congular - 1273225 received Feb 2010, Status Granted)
- 2460 De La Cruz Blvd (Cingular - Constructed Aug 2006 - Status Terminated (?))
- 351 Brokaw Rd (Cingular - constructed April 2006)
- 1051 Martin Ave (Cingular - Constructed Feb 2006)
AT&T's coverage and bandwidth issues are results of its own business practices.
How can other Cell Phone Service Providers such as Verizon remain competitive with no Cell Phone Towers of its own while AT&T has to encroach on our schools to provide (what the AT&T rep and Associated City Planner Noren Caliva of Sunnyvale called) "community service"?
The bottom line is THERE IS ALTERNATIVE, as another company, namely Verizon has found.
The City of Sunnyvale should take a look at the whole picture as opposed to being lured by $25K per year and led blindly by AT&T through their deceives and dog and pony shows. AT&T has deliberately misled everyone.
I believe this is not a coverage problem but a business strategy issue. AT&T simply wants to expand its business into residential areas. There is no coverage issue as the AT&T engineer admitted during the second meeting and as proven by the coverage map and subscribers comments. AT&T can provide the same coverage and bandwidth by simply co-locating with either:
- Crown Castle @ 1291 S. Bernardo (Reg # 1018899), or
- Pac Bell Mobile Services @ Cws Site 32 1 Mi Ssw (Reg # 1013038 - supposedly terminated)
If we allow AT&T to build their infrastructure to gain business advantage, other companies will follow using the arguments of "unfair business practices". (See link)
Sunnyvale City Planner, and Sunnyvale Council Members, please vote "NO" to AT&T's proposal.
My philosophy is that I don't post things that I don't feel is right or things that I cannot quote a reliable source.
I spent hours pouring over data and multiple websites. I think I now have a clear picture of why AT&T lags Verizon in customer satisfaction. Although AT&T first claimed coverage issues, the engineer and rep changed the story to "911", "Community Service", "future" etc, when the people attending the second Neighborhood Meeting showed 5 bars on their iPhones and a coverage map from AT&T's own website showed good coverage... (see 2nd meeting)
Also, according to the document from AT&T's consultant engineering firm, that "There are no other wireless telecommunications base stations nearby" is simply not true! (see handout) There is a very prominent one less than 2/3 mile away at 1291 South Bernardo. Nearby is as very subjective indeed.
Note: To follow this post in detail, by following the links will take almost an hour. So be warn. Or you can just sit back and read.
Step 1) First I looked at the cell phone receptions page:
Cell coverage in Sunnyvale
So okay, AT&T's customers are very unhappy.
Step 2) Clicking AT&T brings up the comments page:
Comments for AT&T
Some complaints but mostly along Wolfe and 1 along Bernardo and Washington (they don't intersect the last time I checked).
Here is one of the more interesting comments:
Step 3) Clicking on AT&T Towers brings up a map of the tower locations:
So AT&T doesn't have any CPTs around here, that's why. End of story.
Well, not so fast. Because that cannot be. Because Verizon has great customer satisfaction even with no CPTs in Sunnyvale at all, according to this site:
Verizon towers in Sunnyvale
And we already know AT&T/Cingular has an undocumented CPT at Bishop Elementary School.
Step 4) Checking for coverage of AT&T voice reception found pockets of great and also almost all good coverage within Sunnyvale. These are AT&T's definition and not mine. Thus the proof that AT&T website claims no problems with data coverage.
The link to coverage map: AT&T Coverage Map
The link to definition: AT&T Coverage Definition
BEST: In general, the areas shown in dark orange should have the strongest signal strength and be sufficient for most in-building coverage. However, in-building coverage can and will be adversely affected by the thickness/construction type of walls, or your location in the building (i.e., in the basement, in the middle of the building with multiple walls, etc.) This AT&T owned network provides GSM, GPRS, and EDGE service. Learn more about our technology.
GOOD: The areas shown in the medium orange should be sufficient for on-street or in-the-open coverage, most in-vehicle coverage and possibly some in-building coverage. This AT&T owned network provides GSM, GPRS, and EDGE service. Learn more about our technology.
Step 4) Start the search again. And this time looking at website:
Another listing of CPTs
This has a few CPTs within Sunnyvale and a lot of text about GTE, AT&T, Cingular, Crown Castle, TowerCo etc. So I had to filter out all the data.
Note that AT&T and Cingular have merged. GTE and MCI are actually Verizon.
It turns out that AT&T has antennas at:
- Bishop Elementary School (Undocumented, Constructed between Jan 2006 - Aug 2007)
- 1140 N Mathilda Ave (belongs Pac Bell according to FCC registration website - Constructed Jan 1962)
- 221 Commercial Ave (whose? belongs to city of Sunnyvale according to FCC)
- 919 Hamlin Court (under Cingular - constructed Feb 2009)
On the other hand Verizon has antennas at:
- 1120 Stewart Court (belongs to Crown Castle according to FCC registration website Aprll 2004, with status terminated (?))
- 1184 N Mathilda Ave (belongs to Crown Castle - constructed Jan 1994)
- 1242 Kifer Rd (belongs to Crown Castle?)
- 1259 Birchwood (belongs to Crown Castle?)
- 1259 S Bernardo Ave (belongs to Crown Castle - constructed Jan 1995)
- 375 Pastoria Ave (belongs to Crown Castle - constructed Jan 1995)
Although AT &T is super-secretive about where its CPTs or antennas are, from the coverage map, it is clear that it does not have an antenna on South Bernardo.
I think that the real reason behind AT&T's customer satisfaction problems boils down to failed business strategy.
I think during the late 1990s, cell tower companies such as Crown Castle and American Towers started building cell phone towers, specifically in non-commercial and non-industry areas. Cell Phone Service Providers didn't bother.
Verizon continues to rent from Crown Castle (not that Verizon hasn't tried building its own towers) but AT&T seems to want to build a lot of its own CPTs. In the city of Santa Clara alone, there are at least 3 new AT&T CPTs granted in 2010 alone. I didn't look into other cities but I'm sure the pattern is the same.
- 1700 Space Park Dr (AT&T - Constructed Nov 2010)
- 500 El Camino (Cingular - Constructed Aug 2010)
- 3137 Forbes (Congular - 1273225 received Feb 2010, Status Granted)
- 2460 De La Cruz Blvd (Cingular - Constructed Aug 2006 - Status Terminated (?))
- 351 Brokaw Rd (Cingular - constructed April 2006)
- 1051 Martin Ave (Cingular - Constructed Feb 2006)
AT&T's coverage and bandwidth issues are results of its own business practices.
How can other Cell Phone Service Providers such as Verizon remain competitive with no Cell Phone Towers of its own while AT&T has to encroach on our schools to provide (what the AT&T rep and Associated City Planner Noren Caliva of Sunnyvale called) "community service"?
The bottom line is THERE IS ALTERNATIVE, as another company, namely Verizon has found.
The City of Sunnyvale should take a look at the whole picture as opposed to being lured by $25K per year and led blindly by AT&T through their deceives and dog and pony shows. AT&T has deliberately misled everyone.
I believe this is not a coverage problem but a business strategy issue. AT&T simply wants to expand its business into residential areas. There is no coverage issue as the AT&T engineer admitted during the second meeting and as proven by the coverage map and subscribers comments. AT&T can provide the same coverage and bandwidth by simply co-locating with either:
- Crown Castle @ 1291 S. Bernardo (Reg # 1018899), or
- Pac Bell Mobile Services @ Cws Site 32 1 Mi Ssw (Reg # 1013038 - supposedly terminated)
If we allow AT&T to build their infrastructure to gain business advantage, other companies will follow using the arguments of "unfair business practices". (See link)
Sunnyvale City Planner, and Sunnyvale Council Members, please vote "NO" to AT&T's proposal.
Undocumented CPT at Bishop Elementary School
I received an email the other day, letting me know that there is a CPT within 100 feet of classrooms at Bishop Elementary School in Sunnyvale, built around 2006, documented sighting in Aug 2007. I wonder why I can't find it at the FCC registration site.
I think this must be one of the first CPTs on school grounds, ever. Sunnyvale is really ahead of the curve!
website/blog of documented sighting. Aug 2007 Here is the quote, "We noticed that this tree looked wrong from a long way off."
I think this must be one of the first CPTs on school grounds, ever. Sunnyvale is really ahead of the curve!
website/blog of documented sighting. Aug 2007 Here is the quote, "We noticed that this tree looked wrong from a long way off."
Monday, January 3, 2011
Cell Phone Antennas Blamed for Kindergarten Cancer Cases
Bayville NY, Jan 2011
Copyrighted news article includes video report. Here are some excerpts:
Three young students of Bayville Primary School have already died of leukemia and many more are sick.
"We believe as much as 30 percent of the teachers, administrative staff and employees have been diagnosed with some type of illness, cancer, leukemia and things of that nature," said Attorney Andrew Campanelli.
A brief email to WPIX from the school district denies Campanelli's statement.
The lawsuit seeks to have the antennas removed, citing a village law that states that public property near a school or within a mile of residences cannot be used for profit. The cell phone antennas bring $200 thousand annually to the village coffers.
Copyrighted news article includes video report. Here are some excerpts:
Three young students of Bayville Primary School have already died of leukemia and many more are sick.
"We believe as much as 30 percent of the teachers, administrative staff and employees have been diagnosed with some type of illness, cancer, leukemia and things of that nature," said Attorney Andrew Campanelli.
A brief email to WPIX from the school district denies Campanelli's statement.
The lawsuit seeks to have the antennas removed, citing a village law that states that public property near a school or within a mile of residences cannot be used for profit. The cell phone antennas bring $200 thousand annually to the village coffers.
CPTs on school grounds a bad idea
This page will be under constant update.
(updated 12/12/2010):
The late Dr Ted Litovitz, Catholic University
Here is a video presentation by the late Dr Ted Litovitz, Physicist and EMR Researcher, at Catholic University in Washington D.C, titled, Electromagnetic Fields - The Science on Human Health Effects.
The late Dr Ted Litovitz video (24 minutes)
Here are some of Dr Litovitz's slides:
"I'm no lawyer, but I do know this: that you're going to preempt a pice of property, that the government is going to preempt it, that it can do what it wants it mainly has a right, because it is for the critical good (ill?) but it also has a responsibility to know what it is doing, to those who are around that preempted site and preemption should not come before it fulfills its responsibilities to understand what effect of that site cause." -- Dr Ted Litovitz, Congressional Staff Briefing, July 12, 2001.
(updated 12/12/2010)
FCC's claim that CPTs do not cause health problems is based on thermal effects on human bodies.
Recent studies had shown adverse biological effects for those who live within 1000+ feet of Cell Phone Towers in the absence of thermal effects. Many countries in Europe and some in Asia had banned the sitting of CPTs within school grounds and in close proximity to residential area.
(updated 12/12/2010)
See open letters from professors who have been doing studies on non-thermal effects of electromagnetic radiations on human bodies:
Open letters from professors and experts
(updated 12/12/2010):
The late Dr Ted Litovitz, Catholic University
Here is a video presentation by the late Dr Ted Litovitz, Physicist and EMR Researcher, at Catholic University in Washington D.C, titled, Electromagnetic Fields - The Science on Human Health Effects.
The late Dr Ted Litovitz video (24 minutes)
Here are some of Dr Litovitz's slides:
"I'm no lawyer, but I do know this: that you're going to preempt a pice of property, that the government is going to preempt it, that it can do what it wants it mainly has a right, because it is for the critical good (ill?) but it also has a responsibility to know what it is doing, to those who are around that preempted site and preemption should not come before it fulfills its responsibilities to understand what effect of that site cause." -- Dr Ted Litovitz, Congressional Staff Briefing, July 12, 2001.
(updated 12/12/2010)
FCC's claim that CPTs do not cause health problems is based on thermal effects on human bodies.
Recent studies had shown adverse biological effects for those who live within 1000+ feet of Cell Phone Towers in the absence of thermal effects. Many countries in Europe and some in Asia had banned the sitting of CPTs within school grounds and in close proximity to residential area.
(updated 12/12/2010)
See open letters from professors who have been doing studies on non-thermal effects of electromagnetic radiations on human bodies:
Open letters from professors and experts
Oregon school board to unplug cell towers
West Linn-Wilsonville school board to unplug cell towers, and some income, Sep 2008
Has a nice picture of the football team practicing in the shadow of the cell tower. Some excerpts:
The West Linn-Wilsonville school district is planning to reject cell towers. The board is concerned about possible health effects of electromagnetic emissions. At present, West Linn High School has a tower on the edge of its campus that came with property the district purchased 10 years ago.
"It hasn't been proven to be a hazard, but it hasn't been proven to be safe," said Jeff Hallin, school board member.
The school board, saying it is "erring on the side of caution," adopted a policy this month prohibiting commercial microwave technology sites and will oppose those proposed for sites adjacent to school boundaries.
Tigard-Tualatin School Board member Barry Albertson doesn't trust the towers.
Eight years ago, before he was on the board, he helped fight plans for a cell tower next to Mary Woodward Elementary School. "It was going to be a gigantic tower, and they offered money," he said. "The issue for schools is always about money -- more teachers and smaller class sizes."
Albertson, who holds a doctorate in biology, biochemistry and endocrinology and runs clinical research trials for a medical clinic, said children have different sensitivities to electromagnetic radiation.
"I'm not willing to risk it," he said. "Kids are far too important to me."
A popular trend is to "co-locate" cell/wireless antennae on an existing tower or other structure, said Jackie McCarthy, director of government affairs, PCIA -- The Wireless Infrastructure Association.
Local governments, including West Linn, Wilsonville and Lake Oswego, make it easier for wireless companies to add antennae to existing structures by requiring approval from planning departments only -- no public hearings.
Has a nice picture of the football team practicing in the shadow of the cell tower. Some excerpts:
The West Linn-Wilsonville school district is planning to reject cell towers. The board is concerned about possible health effects of electromagnetic emissions. At present, West Linn High School has a tower on the edge of its campus that came with property the district purchased 10 years ago.
"It hasn't been proven to be a hazard, but it hasn't been proven to be safe," said Jeff Hallin, school board member.
The school board, saying it is "erring on the side of caution," adopted a policy this month prohibiting commercial microwave technology sites and will oppose those proposed for sites adjacent to school boundaries.
Tigard-Tualatin School Board member Barry Albertson doesn't trust the towers.
Eight years ago, before he was on the board, he helped fight plans for a cell tower next to Mary Woodward Elementary School. "It was going to be a gigantic tower, and they offered money," he said. "The issue for schools is always about money -- more teachers and smaller class sizes."
Albertson, who holds a doctorate in biology, biochemistry and endocrinology and runs clinical research trials for a medical clinic, said children have different sensitivities to electromagnetic radiation.
"I'm not willing to risk it," he said. "Kids are far too important to me."
A popular trend is to "co-locate" cell/wireless antennae on an existing tower or other structure, said Jackie McCarthy, director of government affairs, PCIA -- The Wireless Infrastructure Association.
Local governments, including West Linn, Wilsonville and Lake Oswego, make it easier for wireless companies to add antennae to existing structures by requiring approval from planning departments only -- no public hearings.
Hempstead NY passed regulations against CPTs
NY township panel: No to cell phone antenna plan, Dec 19, 2010
Copyrighted article. Here are some excerpts:
Town of Hempstead spokesman Mike Deery tells Newsday in Sunday's online edition that the board determined that the cell phone company had failed to prove the need for improved wireless coverage.
He also said there was concern the new antennas could affect property values.
Tougher cell phone tower regulations in New York State beginning today, Sept 25, 2010
Copyrighted article. Here are some excerpts:
Despite a 1996 federal law prohibiting municipalities from considering health issues in approving locations for cell antenna sites, a group of mothers concerned about what they consider risky cell towers outside their children's schools and playgrounds successfully lobbied the town of Hempstead, and seem to have won the war for now.
The new regulations passed unanimously this week by the Hempstead town board prohibits wireless companies from installing equipment closer than 1,500 feet to any homes, day care centers, schools and houses of worship, unless they submit compelling evidence that there is an absolute need.
While the town board adhered to FCC regulations to not consider possible health effects, city officials instead described the vote as a quality of life issue.
There would also be restrictions on camouflaged towers, like the ones designed to mimic trees, to make sure they don't stick out in their surroundings.
Now why doesn't AT&T have to prove absolute need of the CPT at SMS?
Copyrighted article. Here are some excerpts:
Town of Hempstead spokesman Mike Deery tells Newsday in Sunday's online edition that the board determined that the cell phone company had failed to prove the need for improved wireless coverage.
He also said there was concern the new antennas could affect property values.
Tougher cell phone tower regulations in New York State beginning today, Sept 25, 2010
Copyrighted article. Here are some excerpts:
Despite a 1996 federal law prohibiting municipalities from considering health issues in approving locations for cell antenna sites, a group of mothers concerned about what they consider risky cell towers outside their children's schools and playgrounds successfully lobbied the town of Hempstead, and seem to have won the war for now.
The new regulations passed unanimously this week by the Hempstead town board prohibits wireless companies from installing equipment closer than 1,500 feet to any homes, day care centers, schools and houses of worship, unless they submit compelling evidence that there is an absolute need.
While the town board adhered to FCC regulations to not consider possible health effects, city officials instead described the vote as a quality of life issue.
There would also be restrictions on camouflaged towers, like the ones designed to mimic trees, to make sure they don't stick out in their surroundings.
Now why doesn't AT&T have to prove absolute need of the CPT at SMS?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Killer App
Here is an article in a Berkeley's California Magazine on cell phone research. It talks about researches can be of high or low quality and how sometimes the source of funding often affects the results and conclusions of the researches.
Killer App (or see below for full article)
Link to researcher's profile at Berkeley.
Killer App
By Eric Schultz
A Berkeley researcher weighs in on cell phones and cancer.
You, me, and everyone we know probably has a radio emitter close to our bodies, blasting off radiation almost constantly. Teens keep it under their pillow so they can hear it at night. Babies play with it. It's a cell phone, and while it's revolutionized how we interact with one another, scientists have been debating for years about its possible harmful effects.
Is all that radiation harmful? Can mobile phones cause brain cancer?
Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., directs a research center in the School of Public Health. He participated in a meta-analysis led by Seung-Kwon Myung, an epidemiologist from South Korea. The researchers looked at 23 recent studies of cell phones and their potential link to tumor risk. What Moskowitz had to say might change your mind about your iPhone or Blackberry.
California: What did your analysis find?
Joel Moskowitz: When you look across all 23 studies, you find no increased cancer risk. However, when you break the studies down in terms of the quality of the research, you find two distinctly different patterns of results.
The methodological quality was rated according to the appropriate use of control groups, blinding of study participants and researchers, etc. In the lower-quality studies you find what would actually appear to be a reduced risk of cancer. That accounts for 13 of the studies.
In the other ten studies, the higher-quality studies, we found an elevated cancer risk: approximately 10 percent higher than the general population. These tumors are mostly of the head and neck: gliomas, acoustic neuromas, meningiomas, and tumors of the salivary gland.
One of the interesting things we found with our meta-analysis is, when looking at a subset of people who used mobile phones for ten or more years, and there were eight of these studies, overall there was a significant risk of brain tumors. There is now evidence from two major studies that the risk of glioma, a common brain cancer, is doubled after ten years of cell phone use.
C: Did you find any connection among the lower-quality studies, the ones that found no risk?
JM: Well, almost all of the low-quality studies, most were part of a consortium called Interphone, were funded all or in part by the cell phone industry. Interphone is underwritten by the WHO [World Health Organization] in part, but also has supplemental funding from the cell phone industry.
C: Have you found any other outside influences on the research?
JM: I'm cautious in reading this literature, because so many biased studies have been published. In the past there have been a few attempts by editors to rewrite results, and by funding agencies to suppress research. Some early pioneers who found biologic reactivity lost funding for their laboratories. There was outright suppression by the military of some of the earliest research, particularly around radar, which is similar to the radiation emitted by cell phones and cordless phones.
The industry, by and large, has not been cooperative with supplying data for research. In the U.S., they have not been forthcoming at all.
C: Did you identify any other negative effects from cell phone or low-level radiation?
JM: One study found evidence of increased risk of salivary gland tumors. We're hearing from a few physicians about breast cancer in women who keep the cell phone in their breast pocket. We've also heard of bone marrow disease in men who keep the phone in their hip pocket. However, these are isolated reports, so it's hard to know if these effects are due to cell phone use.
C: What can we do to lower these risks?
JM: With electromagnetic radiation, the intensity is a function of the square of the distance, so the difference between 1 inch from your brain and 10 inches from your brain is a factor of 100. You get a substantial reduction of exposure just by keeping it away from your body. So, use a headset, especially a corded device.
[Of] particular concern is the proximity of the phone to sensitive bodily organs, especially your head and neck, but also your reproductive organs. You also have to be concerned if you're not using the phone but it is turned on, because you're exposing that part of your body to the radiation.
Another important piece of advice—and by my count about a dozen nations have already issued precautionary health warnings—focuses on children. The concern is that their developing brains are much more vulnerable, and they're going to have much longer durations of exposure if they start using phones as children. Because it generally takes decades to see brain tumors, and their exposures are starting at a much younger age, they may start having tumors as middle-aged adults. You want to reduce use among children as much as you can.
Killer App (or see below for full article)
Link to researcher's profile at Berkeley.
Killer App
By Eric Schultz
A Berkeley researcher weighs in on cell phones and cancer.
You, me, and everyone we know probably has a radio emitter close to our bodies, blasting off radiation almost constantly. Teens keep it under their pillow so they can hear it at night. Babies play with it. It's a cell phone, and while it's revolutionized how we interact with one another, scientists have been debating for years about its possible harmful effects.
Is all that radiation harmful? Can mobile phones cause brain cancer?
Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., directs a research center in the School of Public Health. He participated in a meta-analysis led by Seung-Kwon Myung, an epidemiologist from South Korea. The researchers looked at 23 recent studies of cell phones and their potential link to tumor risk. What Moskowitz had to say might change your mind about your iPhone or Blackberry.
California: What did your analysis find?
Joel Moskowitz: When you look across all 23 studies, you find no increased cancer risk. However, when you break the studies down in terms of the quality of the research, you find two distinctly different patterns of results.
The methodological quality was rated according to the appropriate use of control groups, blinding of study participants and researchers, etc. In the lower-quality studies you find what would actually appear to be a reduced risk of cancer. That accounts for 13 of the studies.
In the other ten studies, the higher-quality studies, we found an elevated cancer risk: approximately 10 percent higher than the general population. These tumors are mostly of the head and neck: gliomas, acoustic neuromas, meningiomas, and tumors of the salivary gland.
One of the interesting things we found with our meta-analysis is, when looking at a subset of people who used mobile phones for ten or more years, and there were eight of these studies, overall there was a significant risk of brain tumors. There is now evidence from two major studies that the risk of glioma, a common brain cancer, is doubled after ten years of cell phone use.
C: Did you find any connection among the lower-quality studies, the ones that found no risk?
JM: Well, almost all of the low-quality studies, most were part of a consortium called Interphone, were funded all or in part by the cell phone industry. Interphone is underwritten by the WHO [World Health Organization] in part, but also has supplemental funding from the cell phone industry.
C: Have you found any other outside influences on the research?
JM: I'm cautious in reading this literature, because so many biased studies have been published. In the past there have been a few attempts by editors to rewrite results, and by funding agencies to suppress research. Some early pioneers who found biologic reactivity lost funding for their laboratories. There was outright suppression by the military of some of the earliest research, particularly around radar, which is similar to the radiation emitted by cell phones and cordless phones.
The industry, by and large, has not been cooperative with supplying data for research. In the U.S., they have not been forthcoming at all.
C: Did you identify any other negative effects from cell phone or low-level radiation?
JM: One study found evidence of increased risk of salivary gland tumors. We're hearing from a few physicians about breast cancer in women who keep the cell phone in their breast pocket. We've also heard of bone marrow disease in men who keep the phone in their hip pocket. However, these are isolated reports, so it's hard to know if these effects are due to cell phone use.
C: What can we do to lower these risks?
JM: With electromagnetic radiation, the intensity is a function of the square of the distance, so the difference between 1 inch from your brain and 10 inches from your brain is a factor of 100. You get a substantial reduction of exposure just by keeping it away from your body. So, use a headset, especially a corded device.
[Of] particular concern is the proximity of the phone to sensitive bodily organs, especially your head and neck, but also your reproductive organs. You also have to be concerned if you're not using the phone but it is turned on, because you're exposing that part of your body to the radiation.
Another important piece of advice—and by my count about a dozen nations have already issued precautionary health warnings—focuses on children. The concern is that their developing brains are much more vulnerable, and they're going to have much longer durations of exposure if they start using phones as children. Because it generally takes decades to see brain tumors, and their exposures are starting at a much younger age, they may start having tumors as middle-aged adults. You want to reduce use among children as much as you can.
Open letter to SMS Principal
I received this email request today:
"Please post this open letter to the principal of SMS for me. I am a parent at SMS. In order not to alienate the school and cause trouble for my children, I would like to remain anonymous. Thank you for affording me an outlet for my anger towards the principal of SMS for not standing up for my children's rights to a safe environment."
Ms Dorothy Abreu-Coito
Principal of Sunnyvale Middle School
SMSversusCPT is ready
Easiest ways to use:
- Go to the page (just below the banner) that interests you and follow the links accordingly, or
- Read on.
Term of use:
You may use any material generated by the author. The author had tried to make sure all sources are authentic and reliable. You are responsible for verifying the contents and copyrights and adhering to them.
- Go to the page (just below the banner) that interests you and follow the links accordingly, or
- Read on.
Term of use:
You may use any material generated by the author. The author had tried to make sure all sources are authentic and reliable. You are responsible for verifying the contents and copyrights and adhering to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)