Perhaps We Should Just Rename the Town "Richwood"
NOTICE
On December 9, 2009, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Cellco”) filed an Application with the Connecticut Siting Council for the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Town of Woodstock, Connecticut. The installation would consist of a 100’ x 100’ leased area and a 50’ x 75’ fenced compound on an approximately 44 acre parcel at 445 Prospect Street. The property is owned by Frederick C., Barbara P., Frederick C. Jr. and Kimberly Rich. At this site, Cellco proposes to construct a 130-foot monopole tower. Access to the site will extend from Prospect Street to the cell site, a distance of approximately 345 feet. Cellco will also install fifteen (15) antennas at the 130-foot level and a new 12’ x 30’ shelter located near the base of the tower to house its radio equipment and a back-up generator. The location and other features of the proposed facility are subject to change under provisions of Connecticut General Statutes § 16-50g et. seq. On the day selected for the Siting Council public hearing on this proposal, Cellco will fly a balloon at the height of the proposed tower. Interested parties and residents of the Town of Woodstock are invited to review the Application during normal business hours at any of the following offices: Connecticut Siting Council 10 Franklin Square New Britain, CT 06051 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 99 East River Drive East Hartford, CT 06108
Town Clerk
Town of Woodstock
415 Route 169
Woodstock, CT 06281
First Selectman
Town of Woodstock
415 Route 169
Woodstock, CT 06281
or the offices of the undersigned. All inquiries should be addressed to the Connecticut Siting Council or to the undersigned.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
WIRELESS
Kenneth C. Baldwin, Esq.
Robinson & Cole LLP
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3597
(860) 275-8200
Its Attorneys
December 11, 2009
Yet another inside deal at Town Hall. Hasn't anyone explained to Mrs. Rich that the appearance of impropriety is as bad as the impropriety itself?
I also heard her son started working for the town recently. Disgusting.
Cell tower health dangers:
Cellular phone industry spokespersons continue to assert that cell phone towers pose no health risk. Almost all scientists in this field would disagree, at the very least claiming that no such assurance can be given.
There is strong evidence that electromagnetic radiation from cell phone towers is damaging to human (and animal) health.
A study into the effects of a cell tower on a herd of dairy cattle was conducted by the Bavarian state government in Germany and published in 1998. The erection of the tower caused adverse health effects resulting in a measurable drop in milk yield. Relocating the cattle restored the milk yield. Moving them back to the original pasture recreated the problem.
A human study (Kempten West) in 2007 measured blood levels of seratonin and melatonin (important hormones involved in brain messaging, mood, sleep regulation and immune system function) both before, and five months after, the activation of a new cell site.
Twenty-five participants lived within 300 metres of the site. Substantial unfavourable changes occurred with respect to both hormones, in almost all participants.
Over 100 scientists and physicians at Boston and Harvard Universities Schools of Public Health have called cell phone towers a radiation hazard.
Cell phone towers cancer risk
A study performed by doctors from the German city of Naila monitored 1000 residents who had lived in an area around two cell phone towers for 10 years. During the last 5 years of the study they found that those living within 400 meters of either tower had a newly-diagnosed cancer rate three times higher than those who lived further away. Breast cancer topped the list, but cancers of the prostate, pancreas, bowel, skin melanoma, lung and blood cancer were all increased.
Another study by researchers at Tel Aviv university compared 622 residents who lived within 350 meters of a cell phone tower with 1222 control patients who lived further away. They found 8 cancer cases in the group affected by the cell tower, compared with only 2 cases amongst the controls.
Very few studies have specifically concentrated on cancer risk from cell phone towers. This lack of studies is in itself a cause for concern, especially since anecdotal evidence is plentiful.
For example, in a case known as "Towers of Doom", two cell masts were installed (in 1994) on a five story apartment building in London. Residents complained of many health problems in the following years. Seven of them were diagnosed with cancer. The cancer rate of the top floor residents (closest to the tower) was 10 times the national average.
We agree that more research is needed, but it may be slow in coming. Those who might fund major studies are the very same organizations who would be disadvantaged if a definite link between cell towers and cancer were established.
I might be crazy but I think putting a 130-foot monopole lightening rod on a methane gas storage facility is just plain nuts.
Oh, you didn't know? Yet another hidden agenda.
A couple of years ago, when a tower on Prospect St was first proposed, I offered a spot in the "back 40" of my Lyon Hill Rd farm as an alternate site (elevation 730 ft). It would have been 1000' from anyone. At the time Woodstock's new cell tower siting committee was formed and I brought the layout to them. I never heard back from the committee. Verizon did pick a site on my farm, but closer to my house, so I didn't pursue it. I suppose that if the effects are felt 400 meters away (rather than 300)... it is better on Prospect St than in my backyard.