“26 Unanswered Questions and Concerns About Potential Wireless Antennas in Matinecock Village”, provided to the Trustees earlier in the day, lists many potential concerns of the residents. Concerns range from health risks, to risks to wildlife and migratory birds, risks to children, fetuses, the elderly and immuno-compromised, as well as potential autism risks.
by Emily, Electromagnetic Health Blog, 25 March 2014
Locust Valley, NY, March 25, 2014. Residents of the Village of Matinecock tonight challenged Village Trustees on whether they have performed adequate due diligence regarding a proposed contract with NY-CLEC LLC (“Crown Castle” or “Crown”), a Crown Castle International affiliate (NYSE-CCI). The contract being considered this evening, were it to have been signed, would have given this unknown corporation, with no local ties to the community, permission to install radiating antennas in Matinecock residential areas, now and in the future, without any review of the technology, or future technology, or its risks. Due to concerns from residents, the Trustees of the Village of Matinecock postponed the matter. Further discussion will continue in two weeks time on April 8th, 2014.
A document “26 Unanswered Questions and Concerns About Potential Wireless Antennas in Matinecock Village”, provided to the Trustees earlier in the day, lists many potential concerns of the residents. Concerns range from health risks, to risks to wildlife and migratory birds, risks to children, fetuses, the elderly and immuno-compromised, as well as potential autism risks which were recently described in two important new papers by Harvard neurologist, Martha Herbert, MD, an autism expert and director of the Transcend Research Group at Mass General Hospital.
Residents cited the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer decision in 2011 to classify radiation from cellular and wireless antennas as a ‘Class 2B Possible Carcinogen’, potential violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, many actions being taken globally to remove towers and antennas, especially in residential areas and near children, the growing number of electrosensitive persons, the U.S. Department of Interior’s recent very strong criticism of present RF exposure guidelines for wildlife safety, concerns about pole and antenna aesthetics, the potential negative impacts on Matinecock property values from oversized industrial poles with radiating antennas, and from the related electrical equipment necessary to power them. Questions about the addition of ‘Dirty Electricity’ (high frequency transients) on resident home wiring, resulting from powering new infrastructure like this, were also raised.
“Serious consideration should also be given to the impact of the enormous height and girth of the intended poles, as well as the effects of the potential ‘extension brackets.’ We should be seeking to bury utility lines where possible, not adding new unsightly monstrosities that detract from neighborhood beauty, quality of life, and, potentially, property value”, the statement said.
Residents say the very purpose of the antennas to be installed is not stated in the contract, and that were it signed, the contract, as it reads now, would give unlimited rights to install any technology now or in the future in their neighborhoods without proper evaluation of the antennas’ power, frequencies, range and radiation patterns.
They wonder whether the antennas are only for cellular service, saying they already have cell phone use on their properties, and since NY State prohibits cell phone use while driving, why should residents facilitate better cell phone service for drivers?
Questions have been posed whether the antennas, to be installed on utility poles, are actually intended to be used for the controversial ‘smart grid’, documented to present reliability, health, privacy, security and safety risks if created with wireless, as opposed to hard-wired, technology. An Exhibit to the draft contract mentioned utility meters. (See www.GettingSmarterAbouttheSmartGrid.org) The risks, including very serious potential privacy risks to individuals from wireless antennas as part of a wireless ‘smart grid’, were recently presented at a program at the nation’s largest and oldest public affairs forum, the Commonwealth Club of California.
Full disclosure, the homeowners say, about what the antennas will be used for, and any health privacy and security risks, is necessary for the Trustees and residents to make an informed decision on this matter. They also ask for answers to the “26 Unanswered Questions”, in writing, and sufficient time to review the answers with the assistance of independent parties not connected to the telecommunications or utility industries.
The Trustees at this evening’s meeting were responsive to homeowner concerns, and seemed surprised to realize the extent of unlimited and unspecified wireless technology permitted in the proposed contract. They agreed to table further discussion of this matter until April 8, 2014. An attorney for Crown Castle said the intended antennas were for a DAS (distributed antenna system). He did not address whether the antennas would be used as part of a ‘smart grid’. He said he would get back with the antennas’ technical specifications as well as answers to the 26 Questions from homeowners.
Further information, contact Emily@electromagnetichealth.org
Download a PDF of this Post Here