Letter: Why You Should Oppose DAS in Scarsdale Neighborhoods
Here is a letter from Scarsdale resident and concerned parent Marjorie Rosenblatt on the proposal to install distributed antenna systems in Scarsdale neighborhoods: I consider Scarsdale an educated and forward-thinking town, and as such, I cannot understand how we, as a community, are not vehemently opposing the plan to allow placement of distributed antenna systems (DAS) in our neighborhoods. Perhaps the community does not realize that NextG has requested that the Village amend the Village Code to permit the operation of DAS technology in the Village right-of-way. This involves distributed antenna systems in 15 neighborhood locations around Scarsdale; I feel strongly that Scarsdale should resist this plan; our first step should be to attend the Planning Board work session on the proposed zoning code amendment on May 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm in the third floor meeting Room in Village Hall.
There is clearly conflicting information available to support whatever perspective one chooses with regard to the safety of exposure to non-ionizing radiation, as is transmitted by a DAS. Suggesting that there is no definitive proof of increased malignancy as a result of RF transmitter exposure is dramatically different from stating that it is definitely not harmful. I personally would prefer to err on the side of caution; history is littered with mistaken assumptions resulting in unfortunate medical outcomes– thalidomide, estrogen replacement therapy, cigarettes, to name a few. The cost of increased incidence of malignancy in our children is too great when weighed against better cell phone reception and financial reward for NextG. All members of the Scarsdale community with whom I have spoken to date share this view.
An FCC website reports:
"At a given cell site, the total RF power that could be radiated by the antennas depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) installed, the power of each transmitter, and the type of antenna. While it is theoretically possible for cell sites to radiate at very high power levels, the maximum power radiated in any direction USUALLY does not exceed 50 watts."
Moreover, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, has recently classified radiofrequency fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
Additionally, the proposed concept that we are already exposed to non-ionizing radiation so a bit more does not significantly matter, is ignorant and shortsighted. Radiation exposure, ionizing or non, should be limited to that which is necessary. BOTH have resultant tissue changes (non-ionizing radiation has clearly been documented to increase temperature in the adjacent tissues, and to increase glucose metabolism in the brain).
I believe that our local government should actively try to prevent something that most of prefer not occur. Other communities are vigorously opposing placement of these transmitters in neighborhoods (Greenburgh, for example) and waging battles in court. We may not be able to afford to be complacent – it would be tragic were we, years from now, to discover that these devices are in fact harmful, when the damage has already been done.
I pose the following questions:
1. I discourage my children from using their cell phones because of potential risk of increased malignancy with RF exposure, as suggested by many experts, both medical and otherwise. Why would we not try to prevent additional exposure? Is it not bad enough that one of these transmitters is currently placed directly across the road from Quaker Ridge School? Do we continuous exposure for our children at home as well?
2. How much output will there be from the DAS in question as compared to the existing cell towers, which are purposefully placed at locations removed from neighborhoods?
3. Need we consider the possible decreased value of houses in close proximity to a DAS. A new multimillion-dollar home is currently being built at 11 Wynmor Road – will, for example, putting the planned DAS on the telephone pole directly outside this home, reduce its market value or deter potential purchasers? I know that it would be a deterrent for me.
5. Do we really NEED a distributed antenna system? How will a DAS improve our lives? Are we exchanging minimally improved cell reception under select carriers for potential health hazards?
6. Scientists are not always immediately correct; it often takes many, many years for health risks to be uncovered. Fluoroscopy was at one time used to determine if shoes fit correctly in shoe stores before we knew that it definitively increased malignancy, estrogen used to be deemed healthy for postmenopausal women before we proved with certainty that it increased one's risk of breast cancer, and smoking was not considered problematic until its clear link to lung cancer became evident - must we allow more malignancies before we find ourselves wrong again? As a radiologist, I view myself as a radiation "gatekeeper," with my responsibilities including avoiding unnecessary exposure for my patients; don’t our representatives have a similar responsibility to attempt to protect their "constituents"?
7. Is there a great financial benefit to someone in a position of power? Are we, the town of Scarsdale, charging a franchise fee to NextG, as we do to Cable Vision? .
We need to insist that these questions be answered for us and not allow others to dictate policy to us that may have dire future consequences. Please attend the Planning Board meeting May 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm in the Third Floor meeting Room in Village Hall to learn more about this issue, and to have your view heard.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by J, April 30, 2012
I'm a little confused here. In one breath you seem so vehemently against cellphone usage. In the next you criticize those looking to stop the never ending tide of more RF in our daily lives. If you are so knowledgeable about RF and so against cell phone usage why not use that knowledge to rail against large companies that stand to profit from additional RF rather than those looking to stem the tide?
-
- +0
-
-
written by marjorie, April 27, 2012
you clearly have the numbers down, and i am duly impressed. and yet i am still convinced you are way off base about the potential harm from rf exposure (and i note that you have no cell phone).
- i agree microwave ovens are a poor analogy, but it was initially your analogy.
- radiation dose is cumulative over time. just because we have quite a bit of exposure in life,
certainly dos not mean we need any more.
- one can use or not use cell phones as one sees fit; this is an exposure over which we have some degree of control. we can not as individuals shut off a cell tower or das.
-the residents of scarsdale are not asking for das units - in fact, most people with whom i have discussed this issue were not even aware that nextG had asked for a variance. they deserve to be informed (yes, of both sides of the issue)
- the whole idea of changing zoning regulations without due process is, in itself, questionable; the initial regulations were put into place for a reason. the reasons have not changed - only technology has, and that should not be a reason to "skirt the law."
- your reference site provided includes the following passage...
"Research abounds, but there still is not conclusive or demonstrated evidence as to whether cell phones cause adverse health effects in humans. While some studies have found a possible link between long-term (10 years or longer) cell phone use and brain tumors, decreased sperm count, and other ailments, other research has found no such effects. The science will continue, and we will continue to monitor the results, but it can take years of exhaustive research before studies actually prove anything (if they ever do)."
MY POINT EXACTLY - thank you for providing another reference to support my view.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bruce Wells, April 27, 2012
I am simply saying I know of know data that correlates to any health effects of radio frequency radiation on humans. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the US concerned about this, and that apparently includes you (which is not a bad thing). I would think in this day and age of the internet and Google, we could easily find some research someplace that would tell us of the health effects of all this radio frequency radiation we receive daily. But there is none.
Contrast this to the well documented effects of radiation above the visible light spectrum (UV, xrays, etc). No question in anyone's mind these shorter wave length frequencies are harmful.
As for what causes all these modern ailments, I would look to environmental factors such as the tons of poisons we dump on our food and into our environment every year. Or the toxic chemicals we use the clean our houses, or the chemicals in plastics that surround us. There is a lot more research and evidence that these are factors in the problems you sight. I just don't think there is any cause for alarm on low power radio waves.
There are bigger fish to fry (like going to organic sustainable agriculture) than wasting time on radio radiation. And if you where really concerned about that, not using cell phones will reduce your exposure substantially. Also, don't use cordless phone, bluetooth or WIFI in your house. Are you willing to make those choices for reduced radiation? If not, don't complain about DAS units in your front yard.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bruce Wells, April 27, 2012
Say we wanted to get the MAXIMUM exposure to the radiation coming from a DAS unit sitting on a telephone pole in our front yard. We would get as close as possible to it and stand directly underneath it. Let's say I am 6 feet tall and the unit is another 10 feet (nice round base 10 number) above our head at 16 feet off the ground, which is probably low given that the DAS unit should be placed as high on the pole as possible for the best coverage, but let's just say 16 feet for the sake of the argument.
A sphere with a 10 foot radius has a surface area of 1256 square feet. That is .04 watts of radiation per square foot assuming the max of 50 watts on any particular DAS unit. Since I am stand directly under it, the square footage exposed to the radiation would be about 2 square feet (if am a fasto!) which is essentially my footprint looking down from the top of my head, basically head and shoulders. So standing directly under the DAS unit, I am exposed to .08 watts of radiation.
Suppose I decide to expose all 12 square feet of me (again, if I am a total fatty lard bucket) and I lay down on the ground. Now I am 16 feet away from the radiation source. The surface area of a sphere with a 16 foot radius is 3217 square feet. That is .0156 watts of radiation per square foot. Times 12 (remember I am a fat slob) is only .19 watts of radiation. The LOWEST radiation cell phone you can buy is a Samsung Infuse 4G at .2!!!!!
So everyone who uses a cell phone is getting WAY more radiation from their cell phones than they are from a DAS unit DIRECTLY in front of their house!!!
Stop using cell phones if you are concerned about the effects of radiation.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bruce Wells, April 26, 2012
Remember that 50 watts is going in ALL directions, it is not aimed at any one place like a microwave transmitter is. The surface area of a sphere is 4 * pi * radius squared. So in 30 feet, the surface area is 11309 square feet. By the time it gets to 30 feet, the wattage is 0.0044209743756788 per square foot. Humans have a frontal surface area of say 12 square feet. So you are getting about .05 watts of radiation from a 50 watt transmitter at 30 feet. If this is a health problem, please site your data. I know of none, but would love to find it.
You get far more radiation from your phone next to your head. A typical cell phone is outputting about 1 watt. 20 times what you are getting from standing 30 feet from a DAS unit. See this link:
http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-p...vels/?tag=
Bottom line: Don't use cell phones if you are concerned about radiation.
Some people are sensitive to EMF radiation. I am not aware of any of them who live in Scarsdale.
And what is the difference between a DAS unit and a WIFI network anyway? Same radiation. Cablevision has already installed them on our telephone poles all over the Village. We all have WIFI units voluntarily in our houses. We are being bombarded with radio waves. Cell phones, cordless phones, TV and radio signals, Bluetooth, WIFI, security and home automation systems all use radio waves to work, not to mention natural radio waves from the sun.
I don't own, let alone use a cell phone. If all Scarsdale residents did not have cell phones, we would not need these units. Simple problem to solve. The free market is a wonderful thing. We use cell phones, so we get DAS units. Stop using cell phones or stop complaining about cell towers and DAS units. Pick one. Your choice.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Maryellen , April 26, 2012
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mother of 4, April 26, 2012
-
- +0
-
-
written by ...., April 26, 2012
-
- +0
-
-
written by Parsee, April 26, 2012
It isn't just about increased demand for wireless data. The trend for fulfilling this need in residential areas is that more data comes increasingly through additional WiFi networks, not by pulling down gigabyte after gigabyte out of the 3G or 4G systems. (Note how Apple's iPhone and iPad restrict downloading large files from its App Store except via WiFi, and how high-bandwidth apps like FaceTime are only available via WiFi.)
Additional 3G/4G transmitters may well be needed in the Village but that is not so much the issue here.
-
- +0
-
-
written by marjorie, April 26, 2012
-first, consider that microwave ovens are shielded to decrease the rf exposure. (note that i don't let my children stand near those while they are in use) so your comparison is inaccurate...and rf transmitters won't only transmit when one is cooking.
-secondly, anyone who knows me knows that my cellphone is never on - not the way to reach me, so your snide comments are off base (not to mention unnecessarily adversarial).
-i can certainly provide you with literature suggesting (though you are correct that they don't definitively prove) that rf exposure is harmful. would you like for scarsdale's children to be the experiment?
-as i understand it, and i am admittedly no physicist, radiation exposure decreases with the square of the distance, so transmitters in the neighborhoods translates to greater exposure than were they placed out of the neighborhoods
btw...the nasty tone of your comment undermines any constructive comment which may hidden in your response
gtg - farmville awaits
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bruce Wells, April 26, 2012
I still have seen no scientific evidence of the effect if radio frequency radiation at distances and levels used by cell towers or DAS units. Light is a higher frequency of EMF than radio waves, and we need it for our health. Frequencies above light are harmful to us for sure, starting with UV rays that the sun produced naturally. Human made radio frequency radiation has been with us for years, yet I know of no ill effects from it. How do you think TVs and radios work?
Sure, we microwaves at close proximity to the transmitter will cook biological things, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are far from these transmitters and they are low power. Your microwave is 1200 watts. These DAS units put out 50 watts max, and you are not inches away from the transmitter, but feet, plus they are not enclosed like an oven. Radio waves dissipate in all directions quickly. The intensity of radio waves just 15 feet way from the source is a tiny fraction of the power inches away, like in an oven.
Everyone also has cordless phones, WIFI routers, bluetooth devices, and of course cell phones that they hold directly to their heads. If you are concerned about EMF radiation, stop using your cell phone. You are probably getting more radiation from your phone than you will get from a DAS unit installed on the telephone pole in front of your house.
I think only people who don't own cell phones should be able to complain about DAS units installed in their neighborhood. The rest should simply be grateful they will finally be able to get a signal with sufficient power so they can continue to consume massive amounts of data on their smartphone so they can retreat into their own world of Twitter, Facebook and Farmville and not have to deal with other people face to face.
-
- +0
-
-
I am not opposed to cell phone towers. They don't add much to the radio wave radiation we absorb in our daily lives. No one has show to me that radio waves are in any way hazardous to our health. I am opposed to cell phone users who oppose cell phone towers. How else do you think your cell phone works? If you oppose cell phone towers and DAS units, then don't use a cell phone. I don't use a cell phone. Don't own one. I don't spend my time entranced by a small screen and a device that constantly interrupts my life. I seem to be one of a kind in Scarsdale.
If there was no demand for cell phone usage, companies would not be putting DAS units in our neighborhoods. But every single person in Scarsdale resident that I know (including children), has a cell phone. Companies are simply catering to them and their demand for more data. You don't want cell phone tower and DAS unit? Don't use a cell phone!
The market decides what we get. I am not opposed to a free market. I don't believe cell phones enhance our lives. I don't use one. Join me to rid Scarsdale of cell phones. Then we can rid Scarsdale of DAS units. But don't use a cell phone and oppose DAS units. If you use a cell phone, you are the reason why DAS units are being installed in our streets. It is not me, it's you!
Who wants to join me and throw away their cell phones? I think I will still be the only one without a cell phone in Scarsdale. If you can't throw away your cell phone, then don't object to a DAS unit. You get FAR more radiation from your cell phone then you will ever get from a DAS unit.