PLEA FOR HELP
My neighbor has become completely disabled as a result of EMF
disease.
She has exhausted all her financial funds in medical costs trying
to
heal herself. Her elderly mother has also used all of her money
to aid
her daughter.
On July 15th she has to be out of the house she has rented
for the last
7 years. She has no place to go. Her mother can no longer
help her and is
moving back to Florida to be with her 84 year old husband.
Where do
people suffering from this environmental disease live? Where
do they
find help?
Are there any research programs or medical facilities anywhere
that could
possibly help a woman trying to survive under her circumstances?
She
can't even sleep in the house since the owners put an aluminum
roof on
the house. She is sleeping outside. She complains that even
talking on
the regular telephone affects her health.
Please contact me so that I can pass on any information to
her. My
compassion toward her is great. She is a wonderful woman and
she
needs professional and compassionate help ASAP.
Please respond soon.
Thank you,
Karen Sycamore
Thousand Oaks, California
RCR
News 3/19/03 U.S. cellular tower battles continue
Tower moratoria down, but not out
by EMILY MOTSAY
May 19, 2003
Activists against tower buildout are everywhere, doing everything
they
can-from heading up D.C. lobbying efforts to initiating small
online chat
rooms and message boards-to stunt tower growth. Their arguments
against
siting range from the possible effects of towers on the environment
to
aesthetic concerns to potential health risks from radiation.
Industry
continually fights back, claiming effects on health and the
environment
are minimal and that activists' arguments claiming the contrary
are
often embellished or presented out of context.
As for aesthetic concerns, industry counters that every tower
it builds
meets zoning board requirements and that solutions to hide
towers in
trees, on rooftops and inside church steeples are employed
when
possible. Regardless of which argument more closely resembles
the truth,
the fact remains there is high demand for ubiquitous cell-phone
coverage, which forces industry to walk a tight line-fighting
consumers
on the tower issue without alienating them as potential customers.
Adding to industry's woes, anti-tower groups are getting
backing from
their local municipalities, which are placing temporary blocks
on the
development of wireless towers in their communities while
they take
time-often months-to debate changes to zoning ordinances.
Meanwhile,
construction companies are waiting in the wings to build,
tower
companies are anxious to rent space, and carriers are eager
to offer
highly demanded wireless services to customers.
The City of Davis, Calif., for example, on April 3 issued
a 45-day
moratorium on issuing permits for wireless telecommunications
facilities
while it reconsiders procedures and requirements for building
towers.
The moratorium is the city council's response to concerns
from Davis
citizens regarding the city's current public notification
procedures,
submittal requirements, and rules on the separation of wireless
telecommunications facilities from residential areas. During
the 45 days,
the council was to review current standards and procedures
and decide
whether revisions were necessary-if so, the moratorium would
be extended
beyond its May 17 expiration date while they were made.
But when the deadline approached, according to the council's
May 14
meeting agenda, it was recommended the council extend the
moratorium for
an additional 10 months and 15 days to study further and provide
preliminary feedback to the staff working on a "Draft
Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance amendment."
Although companies cannot build during the moratoria, applications
for
use permits are being accepted. But building permits will
be issued only
after an ordinance is revised and the moratorium lifted, representing
another conundrum for wireless companies that may need to
revise their
site plans to follow suit with new ordinances.
Other cities, big and small, have stepped in to make similar
adjustments
to their communities' regulations, putting a halt to wireless
tower
buildout for chunks of time.
Sound bites from some city council meetings show the disconnect
that
exists between the lawmakers and the technology they are debating.
For
example, during a city council hearing held last year in Chattanooga,
Tenn., in the midst of its moratorium on tower builds, a councilman
questioned the need for more towers, noting drastically dropping
share
prices of wireless carriers and his understanding that most
installed
fiber at existing sites goes unused.
The length of moratoria depends on the council: North Ridgeville,
Ohio,
for example, last summer enacted a 180-day moratorium on the
placement
of all towers and additional antennas on existing towers while
it
reassessed its zoning code. Council members there were hopeful
six
months was enough time to review the current zoning code and
pass
legislation on revisions.
Other councils have fallen to pressure from industry and decided
against
enacting moratoria on buildout. County officials in Santa
Cruz, Calif.,
late last year voted down a proposal for a six-month moratorium
after
wireless companies threatened to sue the county if it was
adopted.
In fact, according to Karl Nelson, an attorney at Saul Ewing
L.L.P.,
which works on behalf of industry to get towers built, moratoria
are
declining. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local
governments
cannot ban infrastructure, he explained, and since it was
signed, courts
increasingly have frowned on moratoria. However, other trends
stunting
tower buildout are gaining momentum, particularly in large
population
centers, Nelson said.Seattle's Mayor Greg Nickels, for example,
in March
announced plans to prohibit cell-phone antenna towers in Seattle's
single family zones, or residential neighborhoods catering
to
single-family homes. "It's become increasingly clear
to me that the cell
antenna towers are not compatible with our single family neighborhoods,"
Nickels said in a press conference March 24. "The towers
are too tall,
too large and are simply not a good fit."
The legislation will not be retroactive to sites that have
already been
approved, but it will nullify pending applications in 13 neighborhoods.
The decision did not sit well with T-Mobile USA Inc., which
had about 20
applications pending or about to be filed, according to the
Seattle
Times, including a project under which the carrier would pay
the city to
top existing utility poles with cell antenna equipment. "This
is a dark
day for wireless service in Seattle," T-Mobile's government
affairs
director Laura Altschul told the newspaper. "Seattle
prides itself as a
city that is technologically savvy, and this directive sets
that back."
Informant: Libby Kelley
Seeking
Advice from Berkeley
Dear Fellows:
I hope you are all doing fine. I would like to seek your advice
and opinion.
As you might know by now, two neighbor groups in Berkeley,
California,
are fighting to stop the installation of Sprint's antennas
in their
neighborhood. On April 1st, 2003, we barely managed to get
a Public
Hearing for our case. I write "barely" because the
dismissal of our
appeals was recommended.
So, we left the City Hall happily after the City Council gave
us a
Public Hearing. The Public Hearing was scheduled for June
17, 2003.
Today, the City Officials are asking us to agree with the
postponement
of the Public Hearing for a month. They say that they are
seeking the
evaluation of Sprint's application by a 3rd party radio Frequency
engineer.
This sounds strange (at least to me). Some neighbors think
that this is
a routine procedure.
The puzzling thing is that, before April 1st, we were told
that Sprint's
application had fulfilled all requirements. The Zoning Board
even
granted a Use Permit to Sprint ignoring opposition from 20
neighbors.
The City Officials were so sure that they recommended the
dismissal of
our appeals. Now, they are saying that they want to have Sprint's
application re-evaluated by an RF engineer.
Well, if the application had fulfilled all requirements,
then why should
it get scrutinized now? I am sure that if WE requested the
Planning
Department or the Zoning Board in December to have a 3rd party
engineer
re-evaluate Sprint's application, they would have refused
our request.
Do you folks think we should insist on the original date of
the Public Hearing?
Any suggestions as what this delay could be for? What should
be done?
Best regards,
Radi
Help,
please: AMINA LAWAL SET TO BE STONED ON 3RD JUNE
Please find below an Amnesty International petition you might
be
interested to sign, asking for a woman's life to be spared
from the
death penalty apparently she will be stoned to death for being
found
guilty of committing adultery.
The Nigerian Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence
for Amina Lawal,
condemned for the crime of adultery on August 19th 2002,to
be buried
up to her neck and stoned to death. Her death was postponed
so that she
could continue to nurse her baby. Execution is now set for
June
3rd. If you haven't been following this case, you might like
to know
that Amina's baby is regarded as the 'evidence' of her adultery.
The
father denied everything when he realised the trouble he was
in. To
find out more about sharia law, see
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,777972,00.html".
Amina's case is being handled by the Spanish branch of Amnesty
International, which is attempting to put together enough
signatures to
make the Nigerian government rescind the death sentence. A
similar
campaign saved another Nigerian woman, Safiya, condemned in
similar
circumstances. By March 4th the petition had amassed over
2,600,000
signatures. It will only take you a few seconds to sign Amnesty's
online
petition. Go to the web page "http://www.amnistiaporsafiya.org/"
The website http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/302184339
will
give more details regarding this proposal. The following is
part of that
information passed on by central coast people for peace and
justice.
http:/www.ccpeople4peace.org
From central coast people for peace and justice
|