New proposed cell antenna sites draw opposition

[ChristmasTree]

Wouldn't it be nice if posters could address the issues, instead of attacking each other? Oops, sorry, I forgot that most posters either don't work, or hate their jobs, family, neighborhood, etc. What's wrong with you people? As I mentioned in my post, there are (2) issues here, electromagnetic radiation & aesthetics, both words available in any dictionary, online or not. Any other comments only serve the pathetic egos of those posting them, and you know who you are. Grow up, and especially, mind your own business if you don't live in/near to the area in question!PS.Let's see how many negative posts this one generates.

[Also]

Stop your crying wrote:

<quoted text>
100% correct. Even one by the new standards is very safe. The morons just don't know ant beter.

The FCC standards are higher than any other country in the world. There is no proof that their current standards are safe - not to mention if you factor in environmental factors like interaction with metal objects or interaction with existing RFs close by creating hot spots which can exceed FCC standards. I think I will believe the scientists & organizations that have openly spoken out about this rather than the opinion of joe schmoo on the internet.

[Also]

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

This is the BioIniative Report. This is a report put together by scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMFs is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.

Again, I will defer to the scientists & not to Joe Schmoo......

Risk your own life Joe Schmoo, but not my kids or the children of Bethpage!!!!

[Say the Truth]

Also wrote:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/r eport/index.htm
This is the BioIniative Report. This is a report put together by scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMFs is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.
Again, I will defer to the scientists & not to Joe Schmoo......
Risk your own life Joe Schmoo, but not my kids or the children of Bethpage!!!!

Maybe you should move in with the Amish. It's 'safe' there.

[Also]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you should move in with the Amish. It's 'safe' there.

What's the matter, can't dispute this one? There are better locations for this & you know it!

Again, feel free to risk your own life, Joe Schmoo, but NOT THE CHILDREN!

[Also]

The FACTS are as follows:

Several scientific studies conclude that the standards are not safe & that children are at particularly high risk.

Several organizations have cited the need for additional studies, especially to children (because they are not fully developed).

A NYS Senator is trying to pass legislation keeping this away from schools.

So, you may wish to call all of us morons, but it seems like the FACTS are on side. Just because you choose not to believe them, does not make them so.

Again, Joe Schmoo, it seems like everyone is trying to protect the children except for the likes of you.

[Now Ive Seen It All]

Ray wrote:

<quoted text>
It has nothing to do with religion, meathead- it's all about NIMBY. I'll bet 325 of the 350 that signed have cell phones. Everybody wants one that gets perfect reception 100% of the time, just don't put those towers near my house (next to your house is OK, though).

My point exactly. Gee, great minds DO think alike.

I'd be willing to bet that they are organizing their "fight" over CELL PHONES right now...

POINT cell phones are everywhere
POINT everyone complains about spotty service
POINT for every idea, there is someone shouting NIMBY on LI

F'in Luddites, go back to te 17th century

[Now Ive Seen It All]

Also wrote:

<quoted text>
What's the matter, can't dispute this one? There are better locations for this & you know it!
Again, feel free to risk your own life, Joe Schmoo, but NOT THE CHILDREN!

And the sun posses a risk, red meat is bad for you, wine is bad, no, good, no, bad again. YADA YAD YADA

[Also]

Now Ive Seen It All wrote:

<quoted text>
And the sun posses a risk, red meat is bad for you, wine is bad, no, good, no, bad again. YADA YAD YADA

Again, Joe Schmoo 2, I will defer to the scientists....not the uninformed joe schmoos who would rather error on the side of hurting the children of Bethpage when there are much better locations for this. There are INDUSTRIAL locations with existing antennae that would make much better suitable locations rather than right near a residential community, with 3 preschools & 3 public schools.

[Say the Truth]

Also wrote:

<quoted text>
What's the matter, can't dispute this one? There are better locations for this & you know it!
Again, feel free to risk your own life, Joe Schmoo, but NOT THE CHILDREN!

Anyone can find a 'study' to support their wacked-out opinions, like the AGW nutballs. Your children are more at risk from the processed and preservative-laden crap you feed them and inactivity than any low-power radio wave propogation. Optimal locations for cell sites are not 'negotiable.' If you had a clue about how cell phone technology operates you wouldn't be saying it's OK to move it elsewhere.

[Also]

Now Ive Seen It All wrote:

<quoted text>
And the sun posses a risk, red meat is bad for you, wine is bad, no, good, no, bad again. YADA YAD YADA

Have you even read the Bioiniative report? or does your head feel like its going to explode when you try?

[Say the Truth]

Amazing that the censors removed the work c r a p. Maybe it's to protect the chiiillllddrreennn.

[Also]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Anyone can find a 'study' to support their wacked-out opinions, like the AGW nutballs. Your children are more at risk from the processed and preservative-laden crap you feed them and inactivity than any low-power radio wave propogation. Optimal locations for cell sites are not 'negotiable.' If you had a clue about how cell phone technology operates you wouldn't be saying it's OK to move it elsewhere.

It seems, Joe Schmoo, it is you who does not have a clue. Perhaps if you had attended the town meeting you would have known that there are suitable other locations acknowledged by Verizon's own RF expert. The rest of what you say is just BLAH BLAH BLAH

[Hmmmmmm]

Also wrote:

<quoted text>
It seems, Joe Schmoo, it is you who does not have a clue. Perhaps if you had attended the town meeting you would have known that there are suitable other locations acknowledged by Verizon's own RF expert. The rest of what you say is just BLAH BLAH BLAH

Maybe if he cared enough about this to spend all this time on the computer he should have gotten off his lazy butt to go to that meeting. One of the buildings that the residents are trying to get this relocated to was one of Verizon's selections. They claimed that the owners wouldn't allow there when in fact nobody at that location recalls ever speaking with Verizon.

You just want to open your mouth & say stupid, uneducated, uninformed disinformation all day long with absolutely no basis in fact.

[Stop your crying]

Momma wrote:

<quoted text>
You have too much to say. I'd like to know what qualifications you have. I notice that you are constantly posting your opinions which leads me to think that you are not a working person. Get a job, stay off your cell and computer and stop trying to prove to yourself that you are better than everybody else in the world by calling the rest of us ignorant. Shame on you.

I really haven’t said that much other than cell towers are safe (very safe) to the public. It’s a difficult task when the ignorant people don’t want to hear it because they are too busy wrapping their heads in tin foil to protect them from Martian death rays. These are the same people easily persuaded by PETA and the idea of global warming.

Since you asked my qualifications with regard to these matters, I do have a degree in electrical engineering (not the only one) and have been licensed by the FCC since the early 90’s. Yes Momma, I am an “expert” in the field. Now perhaps you can share your credentials with regard to such matters.

Momma wrote:

PS You want to talk...hire a shrink, and don't bother responding because I won't be checking for your diahrrea of the computer!

Okay, never mind then.
By the way, what you wont be checking for is spelled “diarrhea”.

[Stop your crying]

For those who have the time and desire to learn more:

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/

[Hmmmmmm]

Stop your crying wrote:

For those who have the time and desire to learn more:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/

The FCC standards are higher than any other country in the world. There is no proof that their current standards are safe - not to mention if you factor in environmental factors like interaction with metal objects or interaction with existing RFs close by creating hot spots which can exceed FCC standards. I think I will believe the scientists & organizations that have openly spoken out about this rather than the opinion of joe schmoo on the internet.

[Say the Truth]

Hmmmmmm wrote:

<quoted text>
The FCC standards are higher than any other country in the world. There is no proof that their current standards are safe - not to mention if you factor in environmental factors like interaction with metal objects or interaction with existing RFs close by creating hot spots which can exceed FCC standards. I think I will believe the scientists & organizations that have openly spoken out about this rather than the opinion of joe schmoo on the internet.

There's also no proof that any of this is harmful. Where did you get your degree in engineering? Did you write a thesis on "interaction with existing RFs?

[Hmmmmmm]

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
There's also no proof that any of this is harmful. Where did you get your degree in engineering? Did you write a thesis on "interaction with existing RFs?

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

This is the BioIniative Report. This is a report put together by scientists, researchers, and public health policy professionals. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMFs is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.

[Stephanie Weil]

ChristmasTree wrote:

<quoted text>Really, well two things, first of all, if you live in Manhattan, then it's really none of your business, is it?[/quote]

I live in Holbrook, bright guy.

[Quote]Second, a church is always viewed first from the outside first, unless you have a Star Trek transporter.[/quote]

Nobody will notice a well-concealed antenna. They can be placed in radomes mounted inside the bell tower.

[quote]Finally, cellphones are the audio equivalent of cocaine for the middle class of the world, yapping away cheerfully. Any less service is" a good thing", to quote felon Martha Stewart!

That's your own personal feeling. I happen to agree, however by the time the radiation from the cell-phone base antennas reaches you, the levels are very low. It's the inverse-square law.

Cellphone tower repeaters are very low-powered, so as they do not interfere with others in the same network. Also, lots of them are needed so that your cellphone can communicate with the tower at a safe enough power level without frying your head. If you had less towers, you'd need more powerful transmitters inside the cellphones (remember the "bag phones" of the 70s and 80s?).

My 2-meter walkie-talkie amateur radio tranceiver sends out five watts of power to communicate with nearby repeaters. Ditto the police-band walkie talkies that cops use. Those have WAY more power than a cellphone would ever need.