NYT on Cell Phone Tower Controversy 481
prostoalex writes "The New York Times discusses the controversy of placing cell phone towers on top of hills, a practice to which many people object. According to the article, people frequently complain about the visual impediment and are afraid that property values will decline or some health damage will be done with radio waves. At the same time, people get quite irritated when proper phone service is not provided by the operators, and the calls keep dropping or coverage is poor outside of densely populated areas. Phone companies also lease the land to place the cell phone tower for $30,000-$50,000, which is attractive to many landowners, but some, like Sammy Barsa from NYT article, find themselves persona non grata in the community."
business model (Score:5, Funny)
New ebay auction. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:business model (Score:5, Interesting)
This thing woud have dwarfed everything around it, houses and the few very short trees. It was a full sized tower you'd see off the Parkway. It would have been right behind their fence and right across the street from our house. We put up flyars showing how tall it was compared to the nearby houses, and it was like 3x taller (perhaps more, I forget).
Such a thing is an eyesore, and I could deal with that. However, big eyesoard drop property values and we consider our house an asset. They plan on moving out in a few years when they retire and obviously don't want their property value plummetting when the have to sell. It's really their one big asset.
It was tough to dissuade the town, they were getting money and were explaining how much better our cell coverage would be. That was a laugh as the coverage in town was already damn good (full bars on Verizon and AT&T at the time). So big deal, the town gets another ~50k a year and our [b]already great[/b] cell coverage would have gotten an iota better.
I can't blame individuals for wanting to do it, especially if they need the money. But for our town to want to do it for what would have been (let's face it) a small amount for a well-off town was rediculous.
Re:business model (Score:3, Interesting)
Now we'll have people kicking themselves for not buying every hill in town.
You haven't been in some small communities, then (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone thinking that large numbers of people can act like sheep, haven't seen what _small_ numbers of people can do. Your social acceptance or becoming the public enemy can depend on conforming to the local "fashions" in every step
Re:You haven't been in some small communities, the (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also a ham radio enthusiast. It used to be that neighbors didn't care if you put a TV antenna on your roof. It used to be that neighbors didn't care that you had a few wire antennas strung out in your back yard.
Now all that's changed. Thanks to the ignorance of a few empowered art school students who know nothing about either radio, economics, or even public safety (yes, these idiots even bal
Re:You haven't been in some small communities, the (Score:3, Informative)
From now on, instead of calling those who object to antennas "luddites" I'll call them art students. Wonderful euphemism.
Re:You haven't been in some small communities, the (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I think it has to do with the monstrous eyesores that are being constructed every place you look, called "cell phone antennas". People see how ugly and intrusive these things are, and then you come along and say YOU want to put an antenna up, too. You're getting painted with the cellphone antenna paintbrush.
And yes, they are ugly, and no, I do not
Re:business model (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:5, Interesting)
And the 28,000 we recieve a year is as much as the income of a low-income family.
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:5, Informative)
For instance:
http://campus.champlain.edu/faculty/whitmore/img/
or
http://danbricklin.com/log/0f010790.jpg [danbricklin.com]
or
http://www.80acres.com/Stupid%20things/stupid_thi
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:4, Insightful)
A palm tree is fairly symetrical to begin with. And if it is well taken care of, it just looks like a bunch of fronds on a big pole.
Here is a decent example. [engadget.com]
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:3, Interesting)
And properly placed, it could be useful for shade, too. (We never have enough trees, real or otherwise.)
And for $28k a year, they could enforest my back lot... in fact, where do I sign up? I've got 10 acres and NO neighbours!
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's actually a pretty sweet deal (Score:3, Funny)
We have the powerlines/other lines hung EVERYWHERE (and when the ice in the winter takes them out -- THEY PUT THEM BACK UP). We have water towers EVERYWHERE. And almost every tower has *something* attatched to it that isn't water related.
Of course, I haven't heard about anyone around here not wanting the huge towers (Alltel threw one up across the street from Wal*Mart at the junction of highway 6 and 63).
People are just funny...
---
telnet://sinep.gotdns.com [gotdns.com]
Why not make them really thin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why not make them really thin (Score:3, Funny)
Not just cell towers (Score:5, Insightful)
Its an expansion of the technological lifestyle, and a shift away from the purity of nature.
I'm all for people reusing industrial/hidden rundown areas for these eyesores, and prefer to keep the countryside views clear.
Re:Not just cell towers (Score:4, Interesting)
Water towers are the same. They're big, surreal bulbs cropping out of tree lines. They ground an area and let you know where you are, and where you are going. They're like the biggest tree in the forest. I've always thought of them as quite pretty.
Re:Not just cell towers (Score:5, Interesting)
I do like the idea of wind farms in gerneral, but I also see that there might be a problem with having one in your back yard.
Re:Not just cell towers (Score:3, Insightful)
I have seen farms in South America. Long lines of power lines and road destroying the pristinene pastures. Not to mention the coal mining and brick making operations covering everything in soot.
We had a farm about an hour out of town in Texas. Again, power lines, telephone line
Sweet Deal (Score:5, Informative)
What really makes the deal sweet though is that the amount of land taken up by the tower is really small, and you're free to do anything else on the land that you want. I suppose what they're really leasing from you is the privlege to put a tower on your property.
In my mother's case it's a rental property with a fair amount of land, and the tower sits back far from the house. So it doesn't really interfere with the tennants lives, and it basically gives her money-for-nothing every month.
Re:Sweet Deal (Score:5, Funny)
And her chicks for free..?
Re:Sweet Deal (Score:2, Insightful)
NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cell phone towers
Windmill farms
Nuclear power plants
People would love the benefits of all three, but only if they're nowhere to be seen, or in the case of the nuke plants, just far, far away.
I hope for karmic retribution for these people.
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:2)
If you don't want something in your line of sight then buy all the land around where you live. Otherwise fuck off. Stop telling other people what they can and can't do with their own land.
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:3, Funny)
Remember that sentiment when your upwind neighbor wants to build a pig farm or a junkyard.
(not equating a pig farm with an innocuous cell phone tower, but blanket statements about land use are silly)
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:5, Insightful)
Farming, I think, does have more reasons for some controls. There should be some control as to the waste output of farms. I've seen to many that just dump their sewage into the local water system without any treatment or anything.
My experience with living in rural areas is that you always live next to a junkyard. You always have some enighbor who thinks it's a good idea to have 50 scrap cars, a few refridgerators, etc spread across their property. Again it is none of my business as long as they aren't imposing a safety risk to the community.
If you're not creating a danger to others and you're on your own land then you should be left alone. I hate community nitpicking. Home Owner's groups are the worst. Noooo you can't build your kids a tree house.. that might look tacky and lower land values. Doh. Then you have endless hassles over installing solar or wind power because neighbors don't like the way it looks. Who cares if it's better for the enviroment.
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want Beverly Hills, stay in B.H. Don't all move out to the country together, then try to make it into B.H. -- all that does is destroy the rural character that made it an attractive place to live in the first place.
In fact, we LIKE our local trailer trash and their junkyard, because hopefully they'll make it look bad to B.H. types, so they'll go build their fancy custom homes somewhere else, where they won't negatively impact OUR rural lifestyle.
The problem with "neighbour control" is that it tends to snowball. Today you can't have a pig farm, tomorrow you can't have horses or put up a barn, next year you're required to landscape your property with N-many trees and X-much lawn (do they offer to pay your increased water bills? hell no!), and the year after that you're forced to ALWAYS keep your non-running car in the garage (don't have a garage? Tough, you may be required to build one.) Yes, ALL of these are realworld scenarios I've either actually encountered, or have seen proposed.
Most bizarre case I've seen, even the colour of your MAILBOX was controlled. And this was clear out in the boonies, as Los Angeles County goes, with exactly ONE neighbour in sight.
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:3, Funny)
Did you count them at night?
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:5, Funny)
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:5, Interesting)
It reminds me of some of the events that happened in Upstate NY in the last few years. Its a region where the only real employer left is government, and new jobs are supposedly a highly desired commodity to local leaders.
The first was a microprocessor fab, to be built in an existing industrial area and to employ nearly 2,500 skilled people. The objections from the surrounding suburban communities that tipped the county legislature's decision?
Increased traffic.
The second was a concrete plant intended to replace an existing plant that was built during World War 2. The new plant would use newer technologies that would decrease most types of air pollution, but increase particularate matter emmissions slightly; while tripling output and doubling employment.
The construction wasn't approved, after a multi-million dollar advertising campaign... now the existing plant is going to be expanded, which will translate into a net increase in pollution and less new employment.
But some wealthy land speculators won't have their pristine views spoiled! Thank goodness!
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:3, Funny)
I'd mod them down for you, but most of them don't use Slashdot.
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:3, Insightful)
And what the hell is wrong with that?
I like the benefits from sewage treatment plants too, but I don't want it located downtown, next to my favorite restaurant. There are proper places for everything.
Windmill farms make a lot of noise if you're near them, so putting it near a residental neighborhood is a bad idea. Nuclear power plants are potentially a danger, so
Re:NIMBY is what's going to screw us... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what the grandparent was on about. In the U.S. we write dates MM-DD-YY, while pretty much everyone else who uses the Christian calendar (and the U.S. Armed Forces as well) writes dates in DD-MM-YY format.
I for one don't think it matters all that much, unless you're looking for something stupid to bash someone about. The U.K. and many other countres drive on the other side of the road. Yay for them. Europe uses the Metric system and the U.S.
Simple fix (Score:3, Funny)
That's easy to fix. If anybody complains, threaten to turn up the power!
Cell Phone Towers & Light Pollution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cell Phone Towers & Light Pollution (Score:2, Interesting)
from
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/beason
"Two aspects of tower lighting that can attract birds are its color (white lights, ultraviolet, or specific wavelengths) and the duration of light (strobes, flashing lights, or steady lights) as pointed out previously. Both these aspects remain unresearched. Unfortunately, there have been no controlled experiments as to which colors birds find most or least attractive. Anecdotal reports,
Re:Cell Phone Towers & Light Pollution (Score:2)
Re:Cell Phone Towers & Light Pollution (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of the more recent towers use white xenon strobes instead of the more traditional slow flashing red lights.
I suspect the strobes are what the astronomers are complaining about.
Damage via cell phone rad (Score:3, Informative)
Radiation is not like other everyday occurances, either radiation ionizes your molecules/atoms, or it dosen't. It's not like pushing a car down the road, where you will get thre no matter what, its just a mater of time, no. It's more like pushing a car up a hill, either your strong enough, or not.
Thats is why lab rats get cancer, or other assorted forms of doom, when they are exposed to "Cell phone like radiation", they get a higher dose to 'accelerate' (change the outcome of, whatever) the experiment. If they were given the dose that you recieve from standing a few hundred feet from a tower, or holding a cell phone an inch or so from your brain the rats would have jack.
Do some research, folks. Better yet, how bout the media do a bit of reporting! Tell folks what I just did, DUMB IT DOWN, make peoiple understand that unless the tests are fair, they mean SQUAT.
Sorry for all the shouting. False science makes me angry. You should hear me in my programing class.
Re:Damage via cell phone rad (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile they get an MRI which is 50,000 times stronger than the entire Earth's magnetic field.
I can see how dictators do it, it's so easy.
Re:Damage via cell phone rad (Score:3, Informative)
The technique of applying a high-intensity magnetic pulse to a human's brain to produce a neural disconnect is called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magneti
Fascinating stuff, really.
Re:Damage via cell phone rad (Score:4, Insightful)
Since it's impractical to simply expose animal subjects to continuous low-level radiation and check back on them 20 years later (by that time, it'll be too late for the results to be useful), controlled experiments are used to mimic the effects of long-term exposure. Common adjustments include increasing the radiation dose, as well as engineering the lab animals to be more susceptible to cancer development. This way, the duration of the experiments is shortened enough so that we get the results quickly enough for them to be useful.
The flip side is that the conditions obviously aren't exactly the same as the ones that humans are being exposed to anymore, which is why the arguments about whether cell phone radiation is harmful or not remains inconclusive. (For example, how similar are the new engineered animals to regular ones?) But to dismiss the results out of hand just because you don't understand the methodology is poor reasoning.
Re:Damage via cell phone rad (Score:5, Insightful)
In effect, they're saying "We're going to test if soaking for an hour in warm water is bad for you, by immersing you in boiling water for 60 seconds. Sure, it's hotter, but it's for a lesser period so it works out the same."
Obviously, anyone will see that's a ridiculous statement, but that's because they have experience with warm water. Radiation is too abstract a concept without even starting in on it's lack of physical evidence until well after the fact.
Learn some physics, lemming (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such bullshit threshold where above X watt it's ionizing, under X watt it's not ionizing. If a single photon can cause a transition in an atom or mollecule, it will. That's the only either-or condition.
Pumping more watts, i.e., more of those photons per second, doesn't change that. There is no such thing as needing 100 photons to cause a transition. Either _one_ causes it, or any amount doesn't.
I.e., if something happens at 100W, it happens just as well at 1 milli-Watt or even 1 micro-Watt. You just have more or less of those ionized atoms, depending on the power. That's all.
I.e., those tests _are_ fair, and they're done by people who actually understand what's happening there.
"False science makes me angry."
Well, then do us all a favour and stop spouting bullshit about stuff you don't have any clue about. Actually read a physics book instead of making your own pseudo-science bullshit.
And no, just because you're the latest nerd in a CS university does _not_ make you an expert in everything on Earth. For starters, as you just proved, it doesn't mean jack squat about knowing any physics.
Re:Learn some physics, lemming (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Learn some physics, lemming (Score:3, Informative)
Ummm, as someone who spent several years dealing with atomic spectroscopy in college, I can tell you that you are wrong. There are two photon transitions, and even three, four, etc ones. My PhD work was based on two-photon ionization of sodium (and a few other atoms). Smack sodium with "orange photons" (D lines),
Re:Damage via cell phone rad (Score:4, Informative)
Typical "yes, but not in my backyard" syndrome (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Typical "yes, but not in my backyard" syndrome (Score:2)
Instead of ugly power lines, let's lay power and telephone lines underground, even if it does cost a few extra bucks. Instead of hundreds of cell towers, how about a high altitude airship?
Re:Typical "yes, but not in my backyard" syndrome (Score:2)
Re:Typical "yes, but not in my backyard" syndrome (Score:2)
Ever priced out a trench to bring new cable to your house? As soon as you do, you'll be smacking yourself upside the head for railing against "those eyesore utility poles." Everything artificial is an eyesore for t
For crying out loud.. (Score:2)
Re:For crying out loud.. (Score:2, Funny)
There are no trees in NY.
Re:For crying out loud.. (Score:2)
Then make it look like an apartment building.
Re:For crying out loud.. (Score:4, Interesting)
IMO Cel towers better than phone poles (Score:5, Insightful)
Make them less ugly (Score:4, Interesting)
Surely just painting them light blue or white to suit the sky would make them half dissapear. Cheap and easy solution for a non problem.
Oh, and for the record- our TV reception SUCKS.
Re:Make them less ugly (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to the first guy to fly into the tower because he COULDN"T SEE THE TOWER. There is a reason the toweres I see are neon orange with red blinking lights. Make them hard to see and you are asking for a helicopter/plain pilot to fly into one. Although, I wonder how you can camoflage a 2,000 foot tower. Making it look like a tree is a joke. Making it dark makes it harder to see, and a danger to pilots.
As for you TV reception, try tuning to that channel. It could be the multipath interference, or maybe you just aren't tuning to that channel.
Re:Make them less ugly (Score:3, Interesting)
Church steeples are a good spot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Church steeples are a good spot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Church steeples are a good spot (Score:2)
Though, it reminds me of how my dad used to answer the phone on occasion.
"Heaven, God speaking."
Soko
Re:Church steeples are a good spot (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, instead of going about sticking massive recievers in housing sectors, why not find a way to make them less obtrusive (note: obv
It is great to see in America (Score:4, Interesting)
The one thing that retains best value in America and you can't do what you please with it when you own it. Property rights are the biggest thing for a free society, without them you have nothing.
If you had proper property rights for land you own you wouldn't need the EPA becuase you could sue those big companies that polute your land and get the proper restitution for them destroying your land. But perversions in propery rights have made people dependent on the State to receive alimony for damages.
Re:It is great to see in America (Score:3, Insightful)
I can sue companies for poluting my land right now. So the absence of
Re:It is great to see in America (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody wants them neaby, so hide them (Score:2, Interesting)
Beware of link in summary (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure what else it does as I'm running OmniWeb on my Mac, but Windows users beware.
Clean link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/business/01towe
More info. . . (Score:2)
Re:Beware of link in summary (Score:5, Informative)
No, it doesn't, NYT articles linked from iWon don't require registration and login.
Closer is actualy better. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now an eye-sore, it still can be.
A precursor to wind power problems... (Score:2)
The cell phone tower v. skyline blight wars will pave the way for (or bottle up) the deployment of wind farms on ridges across the United States. Standard NIMBYism continues with cell towers, and more NIMBYism will come down the pike with wind power.
Leave it to the NYT (Score:3, Interesting)
More agenda-setting, just like with Augusta and the Masters not allowing women members. Only a "controversy" because the NYT ran 100 piece on it.
Yawn.
Re:Leave it to the NYT (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an Engineering Issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
A huge metal eyesore makes it harder for the product to be deployed. Disguising, blending or beautifying the towers to compliment their surroundings would make them easier to deploy. For example, in New England, many cell towers are hidden atop the towering smokestacks of 18th and 19th century mills (no longer used, but are pleasing brickwork architecture the building owners usually left in place.) They also lease space in tall church steeples... another commodity New England has in abundance.
Where no steeples or smokestacks are available, companies should design a nice cladding that compliments the surroundings.
Hire a real architecht with serious artistic chops to oversee the design and implementation of cell towers, and you spend a lot less money fighting hostile communities. Not hard to figure out.
SoupIsGood Food
Suggestion (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, maybe somone is already doing it.
It's getting easier (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it's a mixed bag. The NIMBYs that throw a fit when someone wants to put up a cell tower are the same morons that are freaking out about the Wind Farm project in Nantucket Sound. It's free, clean energy and our oil addiction is destroying us.
I'm pretty off-topic here. Sorry.
Same with airports (Score:5, Insightful)
Phone Customer: The reception in my area is poor
Phone support: Yes, that is because we have no transmitters in your area.
Phone Customer: Why not? I deserve to have good reception, I pay my bills
Phone support: We had planned to build one last year at the request of people in your area, but people in your area protested and the plan was scrapped. So, what do you want?
Phone Customer: I want perfect reception in the middle of nowhere, with not a tower to be seen.
Phone support: have a nice day.
I think that about sums it up.
If I recall correctly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't they do this in the US? For that matter, why not just attach a cel phone antenna to the top of a tall, already existing tree? Unless there's major hurricanes or tornadoes to knock one over (a condition which would effect a tower mounted antenna as well), you wouldn't see them, except for fall (unless you bolt them to conifers).
If you use the preexisting tree scenario, you save millions if not more, because you aren't wasting money on constructing towers out of steel. In fact, with that scenario, you can built antennae on mountains, etc, as far as you want. The added benefit is, of course, conservation, because the more trees standing around your antenna, the more relocation options you have for virtually zero cost.
My hilltop, and the nearby cell tower (Score:3, Interesting)
Though my neighbors might think otherwise, I wouldn't mind having a 150 foot tall steel lightning rod nearby on a couple of acres that are just hayfield right now (I have had 3 damaging strikes in the last 2 years). I also wouldn't mind getting a piece of the cell company's largess that they seem to be handing out so freely to site owners.
Putting transponders on hilltops, high-tension towers, water tanks and so on makes practical sense, but I see many cell sites around here chosen for political reasons rather than engineering ones.
Factoids (Score:3, Informative)
- The fake tree approach is made difficult by the fact that the towers need to be extremely stiff. The antennas are tuned to radiate very precise flat lobes with minimal back/up/down-scatter. Even a bit of flex ruins the pattern. That's why the flagpoles and trees look so ungainly and out-of-proportion.
- Camouflage - fake trees, fake flagpoles, fake chimneys, etc. - are ungodly expensive. You can make a fake chimney, but it has to be out of fiberglass sculpted to match the building. There can be no internal metal frame which would block the signal, and even sharp interior corners of the fiberglass panels were rejected by the RF engineers. When you try to blend something into a building facade, differential weathering of exposed surfaces makes the antenna show up anyway, and you have to keep sending out painters to reapply the "make-up". $$$ The trees have to be made out of something that will stand up to weather and look OK for many years. Pine needles (fake trees are almost always "pines") in front of the antennas have to be designed not to scatter the signal. Who wants to climb the pole and replace branches? $$$
- Overly tall poles are rare. The higher the pole, the more other cells that pole can "see", the more interference. You only see really tall poles or towers in very flat areas where the RF engineers can spread things way out. In even modest topography, the coverage area per pole is surprisingly small. This is exacerbated, as pointed out in the article, by the rising demand for "in-building coverage" which requires much stronger signals.
- The best solution I was never able to implement was one which strung a series of small antennas along existing power/phone pole lines. Planners in the rich suburbs were much more amenable to this kind of thing, and the tech exists somewhat, but negotiating an agreement among the several utility companies who own the poles and right-of-ways jointly proved infuriating to the the (unbelievably impatient and fractious) cellphone companies.
- My advice: If you're rich and you're about to get a tree tower giving you the finger from the highest hill in your otherwise pristine town, hire a consultant to negotiate a deal with your utility companies to let the wireless carriers string tiny repeaters down your streets. If you make an alternative available, the wireless company pretty much has to take it.
Re:A Little Creativity Please ... (Score:2, Interesting)
You can tell it's a radio tower. It's the one tree that's twice as tall as all of the other trees, plus it looks fake. If anything, it's more of an eyesore.
Re:A Little Creativity Please ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A Little Creativity Please ... (Score:2)
Utility Camo ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A Little Creativity Please ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Where I go to college, there is a cellphone antenna array on the top of the tallest building - but you will have to really know what you are looking for to find it... its hidden in a work of art - and looks like part of the building!
Very well hid.
Maybe they should send some of their people to Disney to work in some of the theme parks to discover how Disney makes art. They are damn good at making one thing look like something else. A
Re:A Little Creativity Please ... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:A Little Creativity Please ...[bell ringing] (Score:2)
>transmitters installed inside the church towers
... thus ringing in a whole new set of changes on the art of change-ringing ... The Ringing World [ringingworld.co.uk]
Re:A Little Creativity Please ... (Score:2)
>nests of small transitters enclosed and contained within a treeline
That sounds cool. After all: The best disguise is the real thing!
Re:A grand solution (Score:2)
being done already along Interstate 287 in NJ, among other places. Right at the 202/206 interchange on the southbound side, there's a 'tree' with no leaves except an odd triangle shaped assortment at the top. The trunk is hexagonal as well.
It doesn't bear intense scrutiny, but it kinda sorta blends in.
Re:Yes, it is a health hazard to live near the tow (Score:2)
Re:Radiation (Score:4, Insightful)
What does the length of a mouse have to do with the effects of non-ionizing radiation on it? Are you supposing that the mouse forms some kind of resonant dielectric cavity or something? This is quite preposterous given that a mouse is far from homogeneous, and even farther from resonant. The Q of a mouse is so incredibly low that it is unlikely in the extreme that there would be any resonance to speak of.
This is something that the medical community doesn't even understand. RF is non-ionizing, so it does not cause damage at the molecular or cellular level. The only effect of non-ionizing incident radiation is heat. That's it. Heat does not cause cancer.
Pine needles? You've got to be kidding me. Reception is poor in forests because of absorption and scattering, not because pine needles are somehow resonant.
Why would you advise someone not to hug a cell phone tower? The tower itself is not the radiating element, at least it had better not be.
Are you REALLY an RF engineer?
Re:Much as I hate to... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an old English case about a 19th century train that runs next to a farmer's flax field. The train emits sparks which could set the field on fire. Do you give the farmer to right to tell the train not to run, or do you allow the train to tell the farmer not to plant? In theory, it doesn't matter: If you give the right to the farmer and the train running has more value than the farmer's crop, then the train company will just pay the farmer for the right to emit sparks, and vice-versa.
The problem comes when there are 1000 different farmers: at this point, it does matter who gets the right, since it's much too difficult to deal with that many farmers. In this case, the government somehow has to figure out which option has the highest value, because the market is too convoluted to do it.
To me, that appears to be exactly what's going on with cell towers -- the value of nationwide cell-phone coverage is worth more than the drop in value of property around the towers.