Send a Message
to Angela Flynn

Comments

64

Joined

Aug 3, 2008

Angela Flynn Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Santa Cruz Sentinel

As We See It: Highway lanes: Politics as usual

All of these Caltrans highway improvement projects are stealth widening. The bridges being built are wide enough to accommodate 8 lanes. We all know this. I am sure there are some people who want a super freeway here, but most of us voted against widening Hwy.1. Can't Caltrans find a community that wants a superhighway running through it? My guess is that they can't. In order to keep their paychecks flowing they have to force highway widening on us all. Why is there money for highway widening and not for commuter lines and bike lanes? Because neither of those will make the oil conglomerates any money. And they will likely take money away from the pharmaceuticals as people would be healthier if they did not go everywhere in their cars. Can you imagine a bike lane being added to Hwy. 1 instead of another two car lanes? That would make for a sweet quick ride cross county.  (Oct 31, 2008 | post #8)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

City tells transportation leaders to slow down on Highway...

I was not referring to L.A. as a dinosaur. I meant cars. My reference to L.A. was over turning our little highway into a superhighway. Wouldn't the money be better spent on increasing and improving our mass transit. Then people could get rid of their cars. Think of the savings in money and pollution.  (Oct 29, 2008 | post #29)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

City tells transportation leaders to slow down on Highway...

Widening Highway 1 will only lead to more cars sitting idling away and polluting our air. Accommodating these dinosaurs will only lead to more traffic, more development and more pollution. If you want L.A. move to L.A. Two good sites for background on this is - http://sensibletra nsportation.org/hi ghway1/ http://peoplepower sc.org/ There is a Public Hearing tonight - Public Hearing to Oppose Highway Widening Wednesday, October 29, 6:30pm - 7:30pm (an Open House starting at 5:00pm precedes the hearing) Santa Cruz County Government Center 701 Ocean Street 5th Floor  (Oct 29, 2008 | post #20)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

I know the Academy of Sciences publication was a panel making recommendations. My point is that they feel it merits investigation. In the climate of the Bush regime and its suppression of scientific findings this is significant that it was even allowed to be published. According to Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy, MSc PhD [Andrew Goldsworthy is an Honorary Lecturer in Biology at Imperial College London. He retired from full time teaching in 2004 but still gives occasional lectures there in specialist subjects such as food irradiation and the (exorbitant) energy cost of modern food production.] http://www.es-uk.i nfo/about/andrew.a sp ,,,If you can follow this, you will be able to see easily how weak electromagnetic fields can give biological effects without generating significant heat. Their effect is to reduce the stability of the delicate membranes that surround living cells and divide them into compartments. They are made mostly of negatively charged molecules interspersed with positively-charged ions that help to bind them together. Divalent ions (ions with two charges) such as calcium are better at binding than monovalent ions (having only one charge) such as potassium. Bawin and her co-workers in 1975 showed that electromagnetic fields can selectively remove calcium from cell membranes, which would reduce their stability. This has been repeated in other laboratories and has been found to occur only with very weak radiation and is restricted to certain ‘amplitude windows’, above and below which there is no effect... ...Although the signal is weaker, this does not necessarily mean it is safer. Because the effect only occurs in specific ‘amplitude windows’, a weaker signal could even be more dangerous, especially since the router radiation is continuous...  (Oct 22, 2008 | post #151)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

The Board did vote to accept the amendments. A good site on microwaves is http://www.microwa venews.com/ http://books.nap.e du/openbook.php?re cord_id=12036& page=15 (From the National Academies Press) BASE STATIONS Wireless networks are being built very rapidly, and many more base station antennas are being installed. Maintenance personnel may be exposed to fairly high electromagnetic fields emanating from base station antennas5 unless all of the typically four to six antennas mounted on the base station are turned off. For all of the base station antennas, the radiated power is on the order of several tens of watts, with higher powers being radiated at peak hours of the day. Though not as well characterized, particularly for multiple co-located base station antennas, the radiated RF fields for rooftops near base stations may also be fairly high. The quantification of SAR distributions from base stations is fairly minimal and those distributions are of concern for professionals involved in maintenance of base stations, building/roof maintenance personnel, AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE ANTENNAS. There are also subpopulations among the employees, which might be exposed to greater amounts of RF energy than the average population. The characterization of these subpopulations is important. Thus, the interest in base station exposures close to the antennas is driven by the potential health effects on antenna repair professionals and building/roof maintenance workers from relatively high, acute exposures, but the interest in exposures for members of the public that live in close proximity to the antennas or for the public at the ground level at larger distances is motivated by the need to address public concern about very low level, chronic exposures that are in fact similar to those from existing TV and radio antennas albeit at different frequencies. Most of the reported studies to date have involved one base station antenna and have used mostly homogeneous models, often of simplified circular or rectangular cross sections of the exposed human. One study involving a heterogeneous, anatomically based model consisting of diverse constituents, but still assuming a single antenna rather than typical arrangements of four to six antennas, is given in Gandhi and Lam (2003). In other words, the studies to date do not pertain to the commonly used multiple-element base station radiators. Also, unlike highly localized cell phone RF energy deposition, the base station exposures involve much, if not all, of the body and would have slightly different radiator origins (for multi-element base stations) and may be multi-frequency as well, particularly if several different-frequenc y base station antennas are co-located. Furthermore, because of the whole-body resonance phenomenon, THE SAR IS LIKELY TO BE HIGHER FOR SHORTER INDIVIDUALS DUE TO THE CLOSENESS OF THE FREQUENCY/FREQUENC IES OF EXPOSURE TO THE WHOLE-BODY RESONANCE FREQUENCY.  (Oct 21, 2008 | post #147)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

Oh, yes the Federal government is always looking out for our best (corporate) interest. The quote above can also be read that there is no consensus that radio frequency emissions are NOT a hazard. The junk science is done by the industry. They take jello filled balloons and tell us that they represent our brains. They take a fifteen minute exposure and tell us that represents 24/7 exposure. According to Janet Newton, EMR Policy Network (www.emrpolicy.org ) - "The January 2008 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences committee whose task was to examine the needs and gaps in the research on the biological effects of exposure to these antennas points out that the research studies to date do not adequately represent exposure realities. Specifically, the studies 1) assume a single antenna rather than the typical arrangements of a minimum of four to six antennas per site, thereby underestimating exposure intensities, 2) do not pertain to the commonly used multiple-element base station antennas, thereby not taking into account exposures to multiple frequencies, 3) lack models of several heights for men, women, and children of various ages for use in the characterization of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) distributions for exposures from cell phones, wireless PCs, and base stations and 4) do not take into consideration absorption effects of exposures from the many different radio frequency emitting devices to which the public is often simultaneously exposed. " Anyway, my goal here is to put this information in your heads. This way you will be able to make the connections as the brain tumor epidemic grows. Personally it seems like a terrible price to pay for the convenience and largely preventable if people would make simple changes. My comment on E! News was for the people who brought up sex. If that was not you, then it does not apply to you. I don't have the compunction to go through and address each one of you individually.  (Oct 21, 2008 | post #133)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

I could see sewing tin foil into a hat for the winter, but it would be way too hot otherwise. I don't blame any of you for being skeptical. I was completely skeptical until I realized my health was being impacted. Unfortunately for all of us exposure is cumulative. It seems that we may all have a tipping point where we become sensitized. I know that Chellis Glendinning is a psychotherapist. She does not even give citations in her article, but I thought the article was appropriate to the audience. The studies are in the BioInitiative Report. Here is a Youtube interview with Cindy Sage, one of the co-authors of the report - http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=7tZDo r-_co0 I suppose for those of you who get your news from E News! sex is probably the most thought you put anything into. Go Sarah! Wink. Wink. God our world is in trouble.  (Oct 20, 2008 | post #126)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

The measurements at my house were taken with what www.lessemf.com calls the ALPHA RF METER. I was not there for the measurements at Westlake. I have seen a video of the testing and it looks like they used the one called the high frequency meter, but I am not sure. I would have to do some checking on that. They can both be found here - http://lessemf.com /rf.html  (Oct 20, 2008 | post #101)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

Ok, sorry. There must have been a delay in the posts appearing.  (Oct 20, 2008 | post #91)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

Oops, sorry the first two posts did not go through. The one above should follow this and the next one. 5/06 Measurements @ Westlake (prior to church erecting 2nd set of cellular antenna) In front of library where kids sit and wait for pick-up. (worst spot in the entire School): 2.8 microwatts/cm2 On Moore Street driveway where kids enter 1st & 2nd classroom: 1.4microwatts/cm2 On side of the same building - between drop off and next to 1st & 2nd grade building. 1.4microwatts/cm2 At drop off on side where the circular wooden bench is: 1.0microwatts/cm2 By flagpole/kiosk.: .003microwatts/cm2 On side of upper building in middle, looking over parking lot, near room 17: .003microwatts/cm2 a Same building closer to church; near room 15: .0052microwatts/cm 2 By doors on same building on side closest to church: .008microwatts/cm2 Lunch area: at end furthest away from the present antenna .0014microwatts/cm 2 By classroom 28: .001microwatts/cm2 In back of preschool .0022microwatts/cm 2 Kindergarten & Life Lab (by entrance to Life Lab) .0032microwatts/cm 2 Lunch area, lower wing: .01microwatts/cm2 Play area next to Campus Kids Connection; lower wing: .006microwatts/cm2 At soccer field; lower wing: .004microwatts/cm2 Quad between library and office: .02microwatts/cm2 Upper quad outside building by doors: .0004microwatts/cm 2 Outside building on side of upper wing overlooking parking lot: .0018microwatts/cm 2 At church upstairs at preschool: (numbers are higher at Westlake than at church) .0112microwatts/cm 2  (Oct 20, 2008 | post #90)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

(19) Michelozzi et al. (2002)- childhood leukemia higher at a distance up to 6 km from a radio station. (21) Novoselova et al. (1999)-low intensity RFR (0.001 mW/cm2) affects functions of the immune system (23) Phillips et al. (1998) reported DNA damage in cells exposed to RFR at SAR of 0.0024 - 0.024 W/kg. (26) Santini et al. (2002)- increase in complaint frequencies for tiredness, headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, in people who lived within 300 m of mobile phone base stations. (27) Schwartz et al. (1990)- calcium movement in the heart affected by RFR at SAR of 0.00015 W/kg. Calcium is important in muscle contraction. Changes in calcium can affect heart functions. (31) Tattersall et al. (2001)- low-intensity RFR (0.0016 - 0.0044 W/kg) can modulate the function of a part of the brain called the hippocampus, in the absence of gross thermal effects. The changes in excitability may be consistent with reported behavioral effects of RFR, since the hippocampus is involved in learning and memory. (32) Vangelova et al. (2002)- operators of satellite station exposed to low dose (0.1127 J/kg) of RFR over a 24-hr shift showed an increased excretion of stress hormones. (33) Velizarov et al. (1999) showed a decrease in cell proliferation (division) after exposure to RFR of 0.000021 - 0.0021 W/kg. (34) Veyret et al. (1991)- low intensity RFR at SAR of 0.015 W/kg affects functions of the immune system.  (Oct 20, 2008 | post #89)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

I already posted the measurements I took. I was not hard pressed getting them. Here are some measurements that were taken at Westlake Elementary School which is adjacent to the First Congregational Church. These measurements were taken before the second set of antennas was installed. 5/06 Measurements @ Westlake (prior to church erecting 2nd set of cellular antenna) In front of library where kids sit and wait for pick-up. (worst spot in the entire School): 2.8 microwatts/cm2 On Moore Street driveway where kids enter 1st & 2nd classroom: 1.4microwatts/cm2 On side of the same building - between drop off and next to 1st & 2nd grade building. 1.4microwatts/cm2 At drop off on side where the circular wooden bench is: 1.0microwatts/cm2 By flagpole/kiosk.: .003microwatts/cm2 On side of upper building in middle, looking over parking lot, near room 17: .003microwatts/cm2 a Same building closer to church; near room 15: .0052microwatts/cm 2 By doors on same building on side closest to church: .008microwatts/cm2 Lunch area: at end furthest away from the present antenna .0014microwatts/cm 2 By classroom 28: .001microwatts/cm2 In back of preschool .0022microwatts/cm 2 Kindergarten & Life Lab (by entrance to Life Lab) .0032microwatts/cm 2 Lunch area, lower wing: .01microwatts/cm2 Play area next to Campus Kids Connection; lower wing: .006microwatts/cm2 At soccer field; lower wing: .004microwatts/cm2 Quad between library and office: .02microwatts/cm2 Upper quad outside building by doors: .0004microwatts/cm 2 Outside building on side of upper wing overlooking parking lot: .0018microwatts/cm 2 At church upstairs at preschool: (numbers are higher at Westlake than at church) .0112microwatts/cm 2  (Oct 20, 2008 | post #87)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

I have a meter and tested the scarf. How does that make me a crackpot. There are many businesses that sell emr shielding. Not only does it interfere with our cells it also interferes with other electronics. EMR shielding is a big industry. Are you saying that high tech companies that use the same type of shielding as I sue are crackpots too? I already mentioned about the sun. The emr we produce is millions of times higher than the levels we get from the sun and we all know how damaging the sun can be. I think sun exposure is a good parallel for demonstrating how some people are more electrosensitive than others. A person with pale skin is obviously more sensitive to sunlight than a person with dark skin. So does the person with dark skin tell the person with pale skin that they are crazy and should be able to withstand the same sun exposure they can? Of course not. I love the internet. In case you haven't noticed I use it regularly. I just also love to be healthy. So I am trying to find a balance.  (Oct 20, 2008 | post #72)

Santa Cruz Sentinel

County prepared to restrict cell phone towers

How many of you have bothered to check the BioInitiative that I referenced to earlier? How do any of you get off saying there is no science to back me? Of course, don't worry. You won't feel the brain tumor growing as our brains have no pain receptors. At least you won't feel it until it either presses on a nerve or damages some critical function of your brain. And hey, many tumors can be successfully removed. I get the impression that many people aren't using to much of their brains anyway and won't miss the chunk that is cut out. Here's a good article for anyone who is using their brains - http://www.counter punch.org/glendinn ing10122008.html Wireless Mind, Gullible Mind  (Oct 20, 2008 | post #68)