Portland Neighbors Fight Uphill Battle Against Cell Towers

By Anna Griffin, The Oregonian 

Portland’s next great neighborhood war has barely begun and already been lost.

You wouldn’t know the cause is hopeless from the signs dotting the leafy Northeast neighborhoods of Beaumont-Wilshire and Irvington, the ones defiantly asking, “Where are you when we need you, Amanda Fritz?” and insisting, “No Cell Towers in Residential Areas!”

But facts are facts. There are about 800 wireless antennas within city limits. Experts expect that to double in the next few years, with many going in residential neighborhoods.

Today, Sunnyside and Mount Tabor. Tomorrow, your neck of the woods. And there’s not much you can do.

“The bottom line is that these things make bad neighbors. They’re ugly. They’re noisy. Who knows what they do to your health?” said Colin O’Neill, an organizer of the anti-cell-tower group RespectPDX and a homeowner near a new antenna wireless provider Clearwire is installing in Beaumont-Wilshire.

Portlanders can expect to see signs like this pop up in more neighborhoods.

 

Nobody wants an antenna in their backyard. Everyone wants their cell phone and laptop to work everywhere. Wireless service has evolved from luxury to necessity: More than 60 percent of Portland 9-1-1 calls now come from cell phones. That fact — and, oh, yes, the telecommunications industry’s ability to spend tens of millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress — have prompted the federal government to repeatedly restrict city, county and state leaders’ ability to control where the towers and antennas can go.

Federal regulations bar local governments from blocking antennas over health concerns. Cities can use land-use laws to steer towers into commercial and industrial areas but have scant say over them in the public right-of-way — say, on utility poles outside your house.

A few years ago, Portland leaders decided that they’d rather have more, smaller antennas than a few giant old-fashioned cellular towers. So city regulations encourage smaller antennas above busy streets on existing structures such as church steeples and water towers.

The problem: There aren’t many of those in residential neighborhoods, where more and more of us rely on wireless.

For providers, utility poles are the easiest way to expand. That turns scary when you consider how many poles there are in Portland — 170,000 at last count — how close many sit to porch swings, dinner tables and baby cribs and how little we really know about the long-term health impact of all these wireless devices.

“I don’t want my family to be the test case,” said Steven Cole, who lives across the street from the proposed Irvington antenna. “Nobody does.”

We don’t have a choice. Under city policy, companies must warn neighbors that a new antenna is coming, must meet with them and let them vent. Venting, however, isn’t close to vetoing. By the time providers file the proper paperwork, they’ve spent months figuring out precisely where they need a new antenna. They’re not likely and certainly not required to change because a few homeowners grumble.

Last year City Council members asked Congress to kill the federal rule saying cities can’t use health concerns to block new towers. Earlier this year, they voted to join Arlington, Texas’, petition challenging the Federal Communication Commission’s authority. Those are largely symbolic gestures, not the full-fledged, full-throated legal challenge antenna opponents want.

“Basically, if the carrier says, ‘We want to be here,’ that’s what happens,” O’Neill said. “How is that possible? How can our elected officials possibly think that’s acceptable?”

City regulators say a lawsuit would be a waste of taxpayer money. City commissioners have opted for a more deliberative approach, using contracts with cell phone and wireless carriers who want to do business in Portland to impose some common sense restrictions on, for example, how tall antennas can be. The deals are up for renewal in two years. (Don’t think about how many more antennas are coming between now and then. You’ll just upset yourself.)

“Portland has done everything it can to make this as reasonable as possible under the limitations imposed by the federal government,” said David Soloos, the city’s antenna expert. “We are not allowed to regulate the wireless industry.”

Sadly, he’s probably right. At every step, providers have been ahead of federal regulators. The battle ended before it even started.

Welcome to the future. The cell phone reception is crystal clear, and you can check your email anywhere. Just watch out for the heartburn.

- Anna Griffin

  

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/anna_griffin/index.ssf/2010/06/portland_neighbors_fight_uphil.html

Fairfax Neighborhoods Battle New Cell Towers

By Fredrick Kunkle

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 11:11 PM 

A group of Fairfax County neighborhoods is battling plans to install mobile telephone antennas in a conflict that a county supervisor says appears to be occurring more often as telecom carriers push further into residential areas to satisfy the demand for smartphone service. 

On the eve of a county Planning Commission meeting Thursday, residents stepped up efforts to oppose two of the five antennas planned in the Providence district near Vienna. 

Elizabeth Slucher, 50, chair of the Lakevale Estates Community Association, said opponents of a 57-foot-tall antenna on Vale Road fear the new tower will mar the aesthetics in a neighborhood that was developed as part of an equestrian community in 1968. Its utilities have been buried underground. She said some opponents also worry that the cluster of mobile phone antennas poses a health threat because of the radio waves they emit. 

John Janka, 48, a telecom lawyer, has organized a Web page, an online petition and a 29-page document explaining opposition to a 58-foot tower that he said is virtually in his front yard on Oak Valley Drive. 

To read further click here: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/08/AR2010120807731.html

The Naked Truth About Scanners

By Roger Simon
December 28, 2010 04:34 AM EST  

 

On the day after Christmas, readers of The Washington Post were given a real treat: pictures of naked men.

The men in the pictures were fully clothed, but they were naked nonetheless, because the pictures came from airport full-body scanners.

The machines provided graphic pictures of the male anatomy. True, they were no more graphic than Michelangelo’s David or Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man (that’s the naked guy with his arms and legs stuck out), but both of those were depictions, not actual people trying to heft their wheelie bags on the conveyor belt, take off their shoes and jackets, remove their laptops, take out their baggies full of fluids no more than 3 ounces in size, take the metal out of their pockets and somehow get through security before their planes take off.

According to the Post, by New Year’s Day, there will be 500 such machines in use nationwide and 1,000 by the end of 2011, or roughly one machine for every two security lanes in every airport in the land.

If the machines offend your sense of modesty or decency for yourself or your children, then you can request a pat-down where your naughty bits may be touched by a Transportation Security Administration screener rather than projected on a video screen.

Officials say 98 percent of people go through the machines rather than request a pat-down, which is not surprising: First, who likes to be touched by a stranger? And second, going through the machines is faster, and flying has becomes such a cumbersome and aggravating experience that most people will do anything to get it over with.

(There is a company called Flying Pasties, which claims to have a product that you slip inside your clothing to screen your private parts. “It’s simply not against the law to keep your private parts private,” the company says.)

Some parties are suing the government over the new machines, claiming an unreasonable invasion of privacy, while others claim the machines expose people to too much radiation, which the government denies.

Most people, however, accept it as just another agony associated with flying (along with fees to check baggage and crowded luggage bins).

And, after all, the machines are worth it because they detect explosives.

Except they don’t. As it turns out, the machines don’t detect explosives at all. They detect images on your body that shouldn’t belong on your body.

“It’s not an explosive detector; it’s an anomaly detector,” Clark Ervin, who runs the Homeland Security Program at the Aspen Institute, told the Post. “Someone has to notice that there’s something out of order.”

Which means those security employees who stare at the screens have to be sharp enough and well-trained enough to detect things that are abnormal. (And some experts think that if the explosives are flat and pancake-shaped and taped to your stomach, they could not be detected anyway, because the picture would look too normal.)

The machines cost $130,000 to $170,000 each, and by 2014, the federal government will have spent $234 million to $300 million for them.

Which would be a bargain if they actually did something besides embarrass people. In May, a TSA screener at Miami International Airport who went through a full-body screening as part of his training was arrested for beating a co-worker with a police baton after co-workers made fun of the size of his private parts.

The solution for passengers? Get used to it.

Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, was interviewed Sunday by CNN’s Candy Crowley, and Napolitano said nothing was going to change “for the foreseeable future.”

“You know, we’re always looking to improve systems and so forth,” Napolitano said. “But the new technology, the pat-downs, is just objectively safer for our traveling public.”

But Crowley decided to screen and pat down that assertion.

Citing an ABC report, Crowley said, “There are some major airports who had a 70 percent failure rate at detecting guns, knives, bombs, that they got through in your tests…. So how good can it be when you have major airports with a 70 percent fail rate?”

Napolitano dismissed those results as old and questionable and said, “Let’s set those aside.” One of the real successes of the machines and procedures, Napolitano said, is that they discourage terrorists from even trying to get on planes.

In other words, the machines keep us safe even if they don’t work at all.

“What we know is that you can’t measure [how] the devices … are deterring [terrorists] from going on a plane,” Napolitano said.

“Just people who just are discouraged, thinking they’d be found out,” said Crowley.

“Exactly,” said Napolitano.

In which case, we do not need machines that cost upward of $130,000 each.

All we need are archways made out of $30 or $40 worth of sheet metal that are labeled: “Official Destructo Machine — If You Are a Terrorist, This Machine Will Not Only Zap You, but Put a Picture of Your Private Parts on YouTube.” 

That ought to do it.

dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=29DB2746-0853-0908-7FA154E7FA4AED7B 

 

WiFi in Schools Proven Dangerous

"Cross Currents" by Dr. Robert O. Becker

Dr. Becker tells of the emergence of electromagnetic medicine, which promises to unlock the secrets of healing, and the growth of electromagnetic pollution, which poses a clear environmental danger. He explains the effectiveness of alternative healing methods that use parts of the body's innate electrical healing systems, and warns that our bodies are being adversely affected by power lines, computers, microwaves and satellite dishes. 

To order click on image. Thank you!

"Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age" by Dr. George Carlo

George Carlo and Martin Schram are aiming to become information-age Ralph Naders. They ask a question that ought to concern America's 103 million mobile phone users, as well as those who merely come within earshot of these popular devices: Is the wireless future a threat to public health? "Visit any public building, college classroom, courthouse, or commuter train, and look around: You'll see people using not just wireless phones but also wireless laptop computers and miniature palm tops," write Carlo and Schram. "What you won't see are the microwaves that are criss-crossing a confined space where a number of people who are not even using these instruments are bombarded by these waves." It sounds creepy. And Carlo, an epidemiologist who once oversaw a multimillion-dollar research project on health for the cellular industry, believes the news is not good: there may be a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. The research is not conclusive, but Carlo and Schram think it's disturbing enough to warrant government action. Needless to say, the industry that once backed Carlo's work now considers him persona non grata. 

Due largely to Carlo's coauthorship, Cell Phones is unavoidably a one-sided story. Key business figures didn't agree to interviews. In fact, this might have been a better book if it were written by Schram, with Carlo as one of several major characters rather than a collaborator. Then again, it would lack the passionate advocacy that will draw many readers to it. And even the most skeptical may want to take a few of the simple safety precautions the authors recommend in a concluding chapter, such as wearing a headset or earpiece when using a cell phone, in order to keep a distance from the radiation-emitting antennae. One look at the x-ray photos reproduced in the book, which show how radiation easily penetrates skulls, will give even the most impervious observer second thoughts. One thing is probably certain: This book is a harbinger of litigation. If Carlo and Schram are correct about their concerns, the cellular industry--as unbelievable as it sounds--may go the way of Big Tobacco. --John J. Miller

To order click on image. Thank you!

TSA Agents Complain Over Body Scanner Radiation Exposure

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Monday, Dec 7th, 2010

TSA workers are complaining about the amounts of radiation they are being exposed to on a daily basis in the wake of the mass introduction of body scanners to airports around the country.

USA Today reports that TSA agents are unhappy with the fact that they are being kept in the dark by their employers, despite repeated requests for information.
“We don’t think the agency is sharing enough information,” said Milly Rodriguez, occupational health and safety specialist at the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA workers.

“Radiation just invokes a lot of fear.” she added.
According to the USA Today report, several TSA employees have expressed their concerns to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

…a TSA employee at an unidentified airport asked CDC in June to examine concerns about radiation exposures from standing near the new full-body X-ray scanners for hours a day. The CDC said it didn’t have authority to do a hazard assessment unless three or more current employees at one location made a joint request, according to a September letter from the CDC to the unnamed worker. The CDC provided the letter to USA TODAY.

Despite claiming that the body scanners and baggage scanners emit safe doses of radiation and are routinely inspected, the TSA has refused to release its radiation inspection records.

Worse still, an independent study by the CDC carried out in 2004, found that some baggage scanners were in violation of federal radiation standards, and were emitting two or three times beyond the agreed safe limit.
A further 2008 CDC report noted that some x-ray machines were missing protective lead curtains or had had safety features disabled by TSA employees with duct tape, paper towels and other materials.
Now there are even more x-ray devices in use, TSA workers’ concerns, as well as recent public backlash, is beginning to force the issue.

This has prompted members of congress to get involved, with a group led by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass, demanding that the TSA release the documents.
As the USA Today report explains, The TSA is responsible for inspecting the x-ray scanners itself, rather than the FDA, because they are not classed as medical devices.
Following the congressional attention, the TSA has said that it will attempt to release the radiation records to USA Today, but has not indicated when this will be, citing the need to review the records for security reasons.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee over federal workforce issues, has vowed to press the TSA for the documentation.
“It should send some flashing red lights when they won’t allow the public to review that data,” said Chaffetz, who oversaw the passage in the House last year of an amendment to ban “strip-search” imaging at airports.

“You don’t have to look at my wife and 8-year-old daughter naked to secure an airplane,” Chaffetz said at the time.

“You can actually see the sweat on somebody’s back. You can tell the difference between a dime and a nickel. If they can do that, they can see things that quite frankly I don’t think they should be looking at in order to secure a plane,” Chaffetz told the House.

Frankly, more TSA workers should be concerned over the levels of radiation they are being exposed to and are being asked to expose the public to.

Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine recently told AFP that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays”.

“…we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,” he added.

John Sedat, a University of California at San Francisco professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences tells CNet that the machines have “mutagenic effects” and will increase the risk of cancer. Sedat previously sent a letter to the White House science Czar John P. Holdren, identifying the specific risk the machines pose to children and the elderly.

The letter stated:
“it appears that real independent safety data do not exist… There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”

The TSA has repeatedly stated that going through the machines is equal to the radiation encountered during just two minutes of a flight. However, this does not take into account that the scanning machines specifically target only the skin and the muscle tissue immediately beneath.

The scanners are similar to C-Scans and fire ionizing radiation at those inside which penetrates a few centimeters into the flesh and reflects off the skin to form a naked body image.
The firing of ionizing radiation at the body effectively “unzips” DNA, according to scientific research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, yet pregnant women and children will be subjected to the process as new guidelines including scanners are adopted.

The Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report on the matter that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.

Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.

Scientists at Columbia University also entered the debate recently, warning that the dose emitted by the naked x-ray devices could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated, likely contributing to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma which affects the head and neck.
“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant,” said Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s centre for radiological research.

Despite all these warnings, The Department of Homeland Security claims that the scanners are completely safe, pointing to “independent” verification from the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both federal government bodies.
——————————————————————
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-agents-complain-over-body-scanner-radiation-exposure.html

Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations

Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The news about the potential health dangers of the TSA's naked body scanners just keeps getting worse. An increasing number of doctors and scientists are going public with their warnings about the health implications of subjecting yourself to naked body scanners. These include Dr Russell Blaylock (see below) as well as several professors from the University of California who are experts in X-ray imaging.

At the same time, some internet bloggers are insisting that the TSA's naked body scanners pose no health risks because air travelers are subjected to higher levels of radiation by simply enduring high-altitude flights where cosmic radiation isn't filtered out by the full thickness of the Earth's atmosphere. This comparison, however, is inaccurate: The TSA's body scanners focus radiation on the skin and organs near the skin whereas cosmic radiation during high-altitude flights is distributed across the entire mass of your body.

Comparing the total radiation exposure across your entire body to machine-emitted radiation exposure that focuses its ionizing radiation primarily on your skin is like comparing apples and oranges. You'll see this explained further, below, in the words of these scientists.

As Dr Russell Blaylock (www.BlaylockReport.com) recently reported:

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration's new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.

The letter Dr Blaylock is referring to is from the Faculty of the University of California, San Francisco and is signed by Doctors John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D.

You can download or view the full letter from NaturalNews here (PDF):
http://www.NaturalNews.com/files/TS...

Even though it was written in April of this year, this letter has received increased publicity lately due to the TSA's sudden expansion of naked body scanners in airports as well as the agency's arrogant insistence that such machines will soon be used at bus stations, railway stations and other entrance points for mass transportation.

In this NaturalNews article, I highlight the most important warnings from this letter and explain, in plain language, what these scientists are trying to say.

To read further please click here:

http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_naked_body_scanners_radiation.html

The Airport Security Solution They Don't Want You to Know About

Speaking about watchdogs ... these dogs are the solution to the airport groping fiasco.
Apparently this is the most censored news story in our country regarding the airport security.

Watch here at Brasschecktv:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/985.html