<p>Concerns about cellular radiation — either real or perceived — have prompted several Katama residents to protest a plan by AT&T to place a cell antenna in an abandoned silo on town-owned property at the Farm Institute.</p>
Concerns about cellular radiation — either real or perceived — have prompted several Katama residents to protest a plan by AT&T to place a cell antenna in an abandoned silo on town-owned property at the Farm Institute.
The plan has been in the works for well over a year. About 20 people continued to voice their objections during about two hours of discussion at Tuesday’s Edgartown planning board meeting, saying that concerns about cellular radiation would affect home values and might also affect the Farm Institute by deterring parents from sending their children to the farm’s summer camp, lowering donations and hurting sales of Farm Institute produce and meat.
In the fall of 2011, voters at a special town meeting approved installing wireless cell antennae inside the abandoned silos to improve cell phone coverage in Katama, the Edgartown harbor and parts of Chappaquiddick. AT&T responded to a request for proposals from the town.
Last May, there was a brief conflict over the tower when Farm Institute board members briefly said they opposed the cell tower location, later recanting.
But the issue continues to bother residents, including Thomas Burke, a longtime Katama resident and an abutter to the Farm Institute. The institute leases the town-owned Katama Farm for its operation as a nonprofit, educational working farm.
Mr. Burke told the planning board Tuesday that he was concerned about the potential impact on $77.5 million in assessed property in the area.
“I’m absolutely convinced . . . there will be an impact on property values,” he said, noting that a five per cent drop in property values could lead to a $27,000 drop in annual tax revenue for the town.
David Maxson, the planning board’s advisor on the issue, said the Telecommunications Act of 1996 dictates that as long as the antenna is compliant with FCC standards, the board cannot oppose the tower based on concerns about radiation.
“The Farm Institute is in the business of running an organic farm, primarily for the education of children,” institute board member Howard Miller said at the meeting in response to neighbors’ concerns. “We are the tenant of the town, and with that in mind, we felt it necessary to cooperate with the town,” he added, noting that the board “willingly” gave approval to the project,
“If we thought there was any health danger at all to our children or our animals we would not be giving our approval,” Mr. Miller said.
Planning board member Alan Wilson said when it comes to property values, people are also reluctant to rent homes that do not have cell coverage, recalling one emergency room doctor who stopped renting a home on Chappaquiddick because he did not receive service.
Planning board member Michael McCourt said he “would like to see AT&T explore the possibility of other alternatives just from a perception standpoint,” like a distributed antenna system (DAS) or another location.
But AT&T representative Dan Bilezikian said the company does not consider DAS a viable alternative, nor are there other options for the antenna location.
“We’ve eliminated every possibility,” he said. “The only other potential possible site would be the [town] water tanks, which according to the bylaw are not even on the table.” He said AT&T could bring in experts to say there will be no effect on property values, noting other antennas in Edgartown as an example.
Residents requested that the board delay a decision until the summer. In the end the board voted to continue the issue to its Feb. 5 meeting.
“Come with something new,” board chairman Robert Cavallo told the neighbors. “We’re happy to listen.”
Comments
I think that done correctly
John Summer Katama residentI think that done correctly that the tower would have no impact on housing value, and be a benefit to those in the area that struggle with cell coverage. The radiation issues are silly. You cannot be anywhere in the world without this same radiation.
People also used to say that
T.S. MVPeople also used to say that asbestos was perfectly safe and people were silly to think differently. They sited the fire prevention properties of asbestos and condemned those opposed to it as crazy. Most of the initial studies done regarding asbestos as being safe were done by companies and people with financial interest's in the use of asbestos. Does this sound familiar? One of the most obvious clues we could look at might be the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as noted in this article which states that "as long as the antenna is compliant with FCC standards, the board cannot oppose the tower based on concerns about radiation." I.e. They've taken away a large ability for people to protest cell phone towers based on those peoples concerns over radiation, lets please think about that. Recently, the "International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)" classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma associated with wireless phone use", and it seems probable that more evidence is likely to be revealed by other notable organizations in the near and coming future. Given that there is said to be a 20 year period of consistent exposure to carcinogens prior to dis-ease occurring, and given that cell phones became more mainstream less than 20 years ago and cell phone towers are thousands upon thousands of times stronger than individual cell phones, do you really want to risk your own health, and the health of other people, children and animals? Are you 100% confident in your assessment? If in a few years from now it is then proven conclusively that cell phone towers and cell phones can adversely affect human and animal health will you be comfortable with yourself for, in effect, helping to allow a tower to be placed in such close proximity to people and animals? To children? In my opinion, there is enough question regarding the health risks of cell phone towers that those who ignore them and condemn others for opposing them are being highly irresponsible, and that is dangerous.
While we deeply appreciate
Jon Previant EdgartownWhile we deeply appreciate Howard Miller's upgrading The FARM Institute to organic status, we are not a certified organic farm. We do follow organic practices as well as natural and humane standards, but there are only 2 certified organic farms on MV - Grey Barn and Stannard - and they deserve the recognition.
Yea make sure our cell phones
matt vineyard havenYea make sure our cell phones work everywhere,but don't put a tower in my back yard.Can't have no radiation bouncing around our homes.Wait how does my Wi-Fi work?
The radiation argument is
Paul EdgartownThe radiation argument is getting old. How about your cell phone in your pocket, if you believe in the radiation argument then you are closer to it than you think! As to the property values, this is a NIMBY argument, as they can hide the tower or disguise it.
BTW - I live in the Katama beach area
October 19, 2012: "Italian
T.S. MVOctober 19, 2012: "Italian court rules man's tumor caused by mobile phone" **
"The World Health Organization classifies cell phones as "possible" carcinogens"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57536355/italian-court-rules-mans-t…
**Regarding "NIMBY", I wouldn't call this that. This is about a very valid concern over the radiation emitted from a cell phone tower which is proposed to be in the "backyard" of a small teaching farm where developing children visit on a daily basis, where good hearted and hard working people work on a daily basis, and where innocent animals reside 24/7. If the World Health Organization is now classifying cell phones as "possible carcinogens", how do you think a cell phone tower that is 1000's of times more powerful than an individual cell phone might be classed? How will both individual cell phones and cell phone towers be classified in the coming years as more studies come to light? The silo is right next to where small children learn about farming each day, and people would rather focus on better cell phone coverage? Is chatting on the phone more important than the health of children, animals, and good people? I ask you to please consider the priorities of being human.
There isn't much that could
Debbie EdgartownThere isn't much that could effect property values on the Vineyard, especially in Edgartown, and there are already several cell towers on the island, so the residents are already exposed to this non existent radiation that they are fearing.
Put the towers in. Call
KGH EdgartownPut the towers in. Call service in that part of the island is awful.
I'd like to see it shared by
BG EdgI'd like to see it shared by Verizon to fix their poor service in the area.
Radiation from the intended
RON BISSETT KATAMARadiation from the intended tower should be certified safe for humans in its "Near Field" according to FCC standards by an independent certifier and provide "Financial Bonding" for radiation liability and yes, the Town should in its lease require that the tower be available to all cell service providers so that we all can enjoy good cell service and not just AT&T customers.
With all due respect, and
T.S. MVWith all due respect, and while I for one appreciate your suggesting that tests be done by an independent source, the standards set by the FCC are outdated and limited in scope. The health and safety regulations implemented by the FCC are based on research conducted in 1996 and only take into account the thermal effects of "microwave radiation" disseminated by cell phone transmission towers. They do not take into account non-thermal effects of exposure, and have no regard for the adverse health effects from non-thermal radiation which is proven to harm the human brain and immune system. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency stated in a July 16, 2002, letter: http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/EPA_respuesta_a_janet_newtonEMF_Norbert.p… “Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures. The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism (RF radiation from cell towers is non-thermal) but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protecting human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified”. A recent study in the Ukraine suggests that exposure to cell phone towers substantially induces cancer progression in humans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201 "The carcinogenic effect of MW irradiation is typically manifested after long-term exposure," "Nevertheless, even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among population living nearby." Civic bodies across the world have also been wary of a link between cell phone tower exposure and health risks. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corp. in India recently banned the installation of cell phone towers near educational institutions and hospitals ( http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/No-mobile-towers-near-c… ). Unfortunately, implementing such bans is difficult in the United States, where the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits state and local governments from regulating the placement of cell phone towers on the basis of possible health effects, if the facilities meet FCC standards for emissions. This is extraordinarily problematic, in my opinion. Further, the more providers that operate from one cell phone tower, the greater the transmission strength, and thus the far greater the risks of adverse health impacts, particularly with those closet to the tower, which in this case, would be small developing children, animals, visitors, and farm workers. Is the notion of having better cell phone signal, so that more people can talk on the phone, worth the very real risks that would be imposed on children and animals at the farm, and all the surrounding people and animals, by the radiation emitted from a cell phone tower that operates 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Please lets think clearly about this.
They aren't called 'sheeple'
Island Observer chilmarkThey aren't called 'sheeple' for no reason, TS!
In twenty, thirty years or more when the data becomes irrefutable these same people will be 'shocked and dismayed' that their government didn't protect them from the telecommunications giants who only cared about money. Kids sleep with their iPhones under their pillows these days and treat these things like they were some sort of prosthetic device that they couldn't live without. Forget about the health risk from radiation. Most parents won't even acknowledge that their children have turned into little addicts who have become completely absorbed in the miniature world of their cell phone screen.
Thank you for your comments TS.
Danny P As with all
Jatti Danny P As with all radiative deveics, there is s risk. A cell phone, bluetooth deveics, Wifi, Wireless senders, Cordless home phones etc all emit radio wave radiation of some form. I believe there is a link with this radio wave radiation and health rDanny P As with all radiative deveics, there is s risk. A cell phone, bluetooth deveics, Wifi, Wireless senders, Cordless home phones etc all emit radio wave radiation of some form. I believe there is a link with this radio wave radiation and health risks. I am not condoning the use of these deveics but we should all be made fully aware of what this risks are and full case studies should be undergone to show and educate the users of the risks. I personally use Wifi, but I do make sure all wifi is off when not needed. As with cell phones, I only use when I have to etc. I limit the risks and reduce personal exposure.June 21, 2007 | 2:30 pm
Microwave cell phone tower
Marthanan Bonelli Ness,KansasMicrowave cell phone tower radiation,disrupts our D.N.A. harms our delicate pineal gland,and should be placed at least three miles away from people,schools,and hospitals.The FCC lies to us about the dangers of microwave cell phone towers.Bird`s and bee`s move away from them.The cancer rate for people increases by ten% for people who live close to these microwave cell phone towers.Many third world countries protect themselves from cell phone towers better then U.S.A. Money talks, and we have been lied to and sheppled into believing they are not dangerous to live near.Marthanan Bonelli youtube channel has videos and facts about the dangers of cell phone tower radiation.Investigate the facts,and lies you have been told by the FCC and protect yourselves from MICROWAVE cell phone tower radiation.HAARP,and chemtrails work in conjuction with Microwave cell phone towers,Have you hugged a GWEN tower today.What is gangstalking? Look up what else a Microwave towers can do to you.These towers do not harmanize with nature.
Add new comment