The question was debated at a lively and sometimes raucous public hearing on the future of cell service in the village. Also of concern: Possible health effects from cell tower radiation.
I went and observed. The village trustees seemed bored and annoyed. Whatever the principal / agent relationship these elected representatives are meant to have with residents of Croton, is clearly not there. They have no trust. They were defensive and combative.
Yes, I think that describes the situation very well. As usual Pugh did the worst job of masking his disdain for anyone who shows up to challenge what he and the Board have already decided will be done. His arrogance is remarkable.
Great insights on addressing Croton's service gaps! Both tall towers and small cells have their merits. For property owners, consulting cell tower lease experts can maximize value. sitebid offers great solutions for fair sitebid lease agreements.
Great insights on addressing Croton's service gaps! Both tall towers and small cells have their merits. For property owners, consulting cell tower lease experts can maximize value. Wireless Equity offers great solutions for fair wireless lease agreements.
Tall towers cover large areas and work well in places like rural or suburban areas. Small cells are better for cities where there are many people, as they improve speed and network capacity. For the best 5G coverage, companies like Wireless Equity Group use a mix of both tall towers and small cells to ensure strong and reliable connectivity.
Does anyone have any info on the rulings or other references made by Signe Bergstrom at the meeting? It sounds like there is some real science behind what is being said, but id love to see it. So far, I have yet to see any real indication/proof of danger posed by 5G at the powers were talking about, or any other forms of related radiation, but I'm open to having my mind changed. Thanks in advance!
I'm just looking for the documents that were referred to, and the scientific evidence the FCC is purported to have ignored. I'm open to having my mind changed by the facts!
Thanks. Separate from your help I found the judgement that is being referred to, and it appears to give names of scientific journal articles which I will try to get my hands on and review.
For what its worth, I read the judgment and got my hands on all of the documents referenced by the majority.
The judgement basically says that the FCC didnt explain its reasoning (specifically about non-thermal effects) when it made its decision not to update its guidance, and that violates some law. The majority point to a handful of papers and review articles, indicating that new evidence about non-thermal effects exists. The dissenting judge noted that the science referenced showed mixed and weak results (for instance, there was something in one of the articles that could be interpreted as a positive impact of microwave exposure).
I downloaded the five mentioned articles. One is a book chapter, another is a 610 page report, three are science articles. The book chapter and the report are just a little long for me to digest. However, looking at the three journal articles, they are, to me, very weak evidence of anything, or in some cases, strong evidence of nothing! Basically, whenever I look at the primary sources, I find that the effects are week, the confidence intervals are wide, and very often, as it the case here, the effect is not statistically different form zero.
So basically, even though the statements made at this meeting made it sound like there was really new and strong evidence of something, there just isnt. We should of course continue to be skeptical and look into things, but there is a certain amount of fear mongering and ignorance at play here. Its not unlike that people who are still insisting that the COVID-19 vaccine is killing people.
I went and observed. The village trustees seemed bored and annoyed. Whatever the principal / agent relationship these elected representatives are meant to have with residents of Croton, is clearly not there. They have no trust. They were defensive and combative.
Yes, I think that describes the situation very well. As usual Pugh did the worst job of masking his disdain for anyone who shows up to challenge what he and the Board have already decided will be done. His arrogance is remarkable.
Thank you for the very thorough summary of last night's events.
Great insights on addressing Croton's service gaps! Both tall towers and small cells have their merits. For property owners, consulting cell tower lease experts can maximize value. sitebid offers great solutions for fair sitebid lease agreements.
Great insights on addressing Croton's service gaps! Both tall towers and small cells have their merits. For property owners, consulting cell tower lease experts can maximize value. Wireless Equity offers great solutions for fair wireless lease agreements.
Tall towers cover large areas and work well in places like rural or suburban areas. Small cells are better for cities where there are many people, as they improve speed and network capacity. For the best 5G coverage, companies like Wireless Equity Group use a mix of both tall towers and small cells to ensure strong and reliable connectivity.
Does anyone have any info on the rulings or other references made by Signe Bergstrom at the meeting? It sounds like there is some real science behind what is being said, but id love to see it. So far, I have yet to see any real indication/proof of danger posed by 5G at the powers were talking about, or any other forms of related radiation, but I'm open to having my mind changed. Thanks in advance!
It’s a controversial subject and I personally am not out to change anyone’s mind about it. But perhaps others might have thoughts.
I'm just looking for the documents that were referred to, and the scientific evidence the FCC is purported to have ignored. I'm open to having my mind changed by the facts!
This is a good place to start ---you may have to copy and paste this link into your browser:
https://ehtrust.org/court-judgment-on-fccs-record-review-of-1996-wireless-radiation-standards/#:~:text=After%20reviewing%20more%20than%2014%2C000%20pages%20of%20petitioners%E2%80%99,limits%20for%20wireless%20radiation%20was%20%E2%80%9Carbitrary%20and%20capricious.%E2%80%9D
Thanks. Separate from your help I found the judgement that is being referred to, and it appears to give names of scientific journal articles which I will try to get my hands on and review.
You might try archive.org
They are a treasure trove.
For what its worth, I read the judgment and got my hands on all of the documents referenced by the majority.
The judgement basically says that the FCC didnt explain its reasoning (specifically about non-thermal effects) when it made its decision not to update its guidance, and that violates some law. The majority point to a handful of papers and review articles, indicating that new evidence about non-thermal effects exists. The dissenting judge noted that the science referenced showed mixed and weak results (for instance, there was something in one of the articles that could be interpreted as a positive impact of microwave exposure).
I downloaded the five mentioned articles. One is a book chapter, another is a 610 page report, three are science articles. The book chapter and the report are just a little long for me to digest. However, looking at the three journal articles, they are, to me, very weak evidence of anything, or in some cases, strong evidence of nothing! Basically, whenever I look at the primary sources, I find that the effects are week, the confidence intervals are wide, and very often, as it the case here, the effect is not statistically different form zero.
So basically, even though the statements made at this meeting made it sound like there was really new and strong evidence of something, there just isnt. We should of course continue to be skeptical and look into things, but there is a certain amount of fear mongering and ignorance at play here. Its not unlike that people who are still insisting that the COVID-19 vaccine is killing people.