11/17/2005: "Ludwig Questions Need For Additional Cell Service"
To the Editor:
Perhaps the most repugnant characteristic a person can acquire is to become insatiable. Users of wireless technology seem to be especially prone to this ailment. They cannot seem to accept the inherent limits to these systems; that they will always have "dead spots", be susceptible to interference and become overloaded during broad scale emergencies. The large sums of money offered by cell phone corporations to schools, churches, fire departments and utilities etc. do not help to clarify the reasoning of wireless enthusiasts.
Debating the merits of particular "scientific studies" just serves to obfuscate the issue, "science", after all, is just politics carried on by other means. "Science" goes where it is paid to go. You cannot be a scientist without the money, laboratories and staff provided by the systems that would be harmed by firm evidence of harm from RF radiation. Still, in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Dr. Lai and work done in countries that are less market-oriented than the US, the truth is gradually becoming known.
First, there is no longer any dispute about whether man-made radio frequency radiation causes biological effects other than heating of living tissue. It does have a wide variety of effects, often at vanishin
gly low power densities and at every frequency, mix of frequencies and modulation of frequency,
Secondly, even the lowest of so called "low power" devices produce power densities hundreds or even thousands of times greater than the earth's natural background RF radiation in which life evolved (or was created).
Thirdly, at it's core, this issue is not about "science", but rather ethics and morality. On Oct. 28, 2003 the BOCC adopted the proclamation "supporting the principles of the Earth Charter as a guide for our efforts to assure a healthy future for our community and the fulfillment pf our Vision Statement". Empty words, of course, but part of the Earth Charter is a statement of the precautionary principle which says, in essence, that people should not be exposed to any man-made chemicals or radiation unless it is proven safe. This is the fundamental axiom that must be obeyed if life is to be preserved in a technological age. That Roger Crosby and others feel comfortable exposing thousands of their fellow citizens to radiation with unknown consequences without their consent, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of democratic citizenship and ethics.
Since Mr. Crosby is an OPALCO board member the question needs to be asked: How much will OPALCO get from allowing cell phone antennas on their power poles?
Finally, SJC's cell tower ordinance Chapter 16.80 UDC does need to be revised. It denies equal protection to people living in "activity centers". Those in rural areas get the benefit of a 500ft. setback from antennas (still not enough), while those in other areas are apparently considered expendable and get no separation at all! The changes could be made on esthetic grounds since the cell phone corporations bribed the US govt. to make it illegal for local governments to even discuss health effects in their regulations!