Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Please think about others

Expand Messages
  • Mark W. Snitily
    ... Why, thank you Mike. Likewise, I enjoy reading your postings. Upon reading Mike s response, (and seeing a common misspelling of my name) I would like to
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike Alvarado wrote:

      >... I hope people will follow Mark Snitley's example and state
      > the substance of their question or position without engaging
      > in personal attack and other undemocratic ways of expressing
      > themselves. ...

      Why, thank you Mike. Likewise, I enjoy reading your postings.

      Upon reading Mike's response, (and seeing a common
      misspelling of my name) I would like to segue briefly to a
      topic that many people have found to be an interesting story
      of history.

      I have a very unusual, unique and quite rare name. My last
      name is "Snitily." There are only about 200 people on our
      planet that have this name. The name has three syllables:
      "Sni - til - y." It is a very old Bohemian name that we have
      traced back 13 generations to the mid 1500's. (The country
      of Bohemia is where the modern day country of the Czech
      Republic now exists.)

      Back in the 1400's in the village about 100 miles east of
      Prague where my ancestors lived they made charcoal for
      smelting silver from the nearby silver mines.

      The word "snitil" (two syllables "sni - til") in the Czech
      language means to "ignite" or "to set on fire." By adding
      a "y" suffix you create a masculine name "Snitily." In
      other words, you have a man that sets things on fire,
      that is, a man that makes charcoal. By adding an "a"
      suffix you would create a feminine name; if we lived
      back in Europe my wife's last name would be "Snitila."

      If you have the opportunity to explore your genealogy,
      please do, you might be very surprised at what you find.

      Returning to the topic at hand, namely the cell tower,
      I asked three questions that might have been lost
      because my writings at times can be capacious.

      Succinctly stated:
      1) Who is the carrier?
      2) Will it be 3G or 4G?
      3) What is the street address of the tower?

      I would assume that our Evergreen community would
      be interested in knowing the answers to these
      questions, (I know I would).

      Best,

      -- Mark

      Mark W. Snitily
    • du_zhefeng
      While the FCC s statement is a valid point of view, one must keep his eyes open to different opinions on this very controversial subject, because there is so
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 31, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        While the FCC's statement is a valid point of view, one must keep his eyes open to different opinions on this very controversial subject, because there is so much unknown as of today.

        20 or 30 years ago, we may not have cared if our kids regularly inhaled second hand smoke, but what about today? Like wise, do we want to wake up 20-30 years later to realize that we unknowingly put our own kids at risk? I don't know your answer to the question, but mine is definitely NO.

        Here are some info I'd like to share, though everyone is entitled to his own research and to form his own opinion:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

        http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/take-action/

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/3773284/Health-Effects-from-Cell-Phone-Tower-Radiation

        Or, do your own search in google: "Cell Tower Health".

        Regards.

        Zhefeng


        --- In involvedevergreen@yahoogroups.com, Rob Thomas <domozitolk@...> wrote:
        >
        > For those concerned might read the FCC's Frequently Asked Questions about this subject on their website. I am including an excerpt related to the concerns being discussed here.
        >  
        > http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html
        >  
        > ARE CELLULAR AND PCS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS SAFE?
        >  
        > Cellular radio services transmit using frequencies between 824 and 894 megahertz (MHz). Transmitters in the Personal Communications Service (PCS) use frequencies in the range of 1850-1990 MHz. Antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions are typically located on towers, water tanks or other elevated structures including rooftops and the sides of buildings. The combination of antennas and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a cellular or PCS "base station" or "cell site." Typical heights for free-standing base station towers or structures are 50-200 feet. A cellular base station may utilize several "omni-directional" antennas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet in length, although these types of antennas are less common in urbanized areas.
        >  
        > In urban and suburban areas, cellular and PCS service providers commonly use "sector" antennas for their base stations. These antennas are rectangular panels, e.g., about 1 by 4 feet in size, typically mounted on a rooftop or other structure, but they are also mounted on towers or poles. Panel antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three each. It is common that not all antennas are used for the transmission of RF energy; some antennas may be receive-only.
        >  
        > 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.
        > The RF emissions from cellular or PCS base station antennas are generally directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow pattern in the vertical plane. In the case of sector (panel) antennas, the pattern is fan-shaped, like a wedge cut from a pie. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from the antenna decreases rapidly as one moves away from the antenna. Consequently, ground-level exposures are much less than exposures if one were at the same height and directly in front of the antenna.
        >  
        > Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with tower-mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densities are thousands of times less than the FCC's limits for safe exposure. This makes it extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of FCC guidelines due solely to cellular or PCS base station antennas located on towers or monopoles.
        > When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that a person could encounter RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. However, once again, exposures approaching or exceeding the safety guidelines are only likely to be encountered very close to and directly in front of the antennas. For sector-type antennas, RF levels to rear are usually very low. (Back to Index)
        >  
        > For further information on cellular services go to http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=cellular
        >  
        > ARE CELLULAR AND OTHER RADIO TOWERS LOCATED NEAR HOMES OR SCHOOLS SAFE FOR RESIDENTS AND STUDENTS?
        >  
        > As discussed above, radiofrequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times below safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the FCC based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the Federal Government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.
        >  
        > Other antennas, such as those used for radio and television broadcast transmissions, use power levels that are generally much higher than those used for cellular and PCS antennas. Therefore, in some cases there could be a potential for higher levels of exposure to persons on the ground. However, all broadcast stations are required to demonstrate compliance with FCC safety guidelines, and ambient exposures to nearby persons from such stations are typically well below FCC safety limits.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.