corybraiterman wrote:
[quote]
dare i ask why living next to a tower is somehow different than living beneath one?

Seagull wrote:
This is an excerpt from a cellular phone tower article published on www.cancer.org

"Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer.

First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.

A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.

Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low ? well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different from the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.

For these reasons, most scientists agree that cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer."

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

kellyh wrote:
And what makes you such an expert?

I'm not an expert, and I have no more information than anyone else. I've stated the facts as I know them, and it's all from public sources.

Dolomiti wrote:

Carbon monoxide poisoning kills around 500 people per year. In contrast, an average of 2 people per year die in gas pipeline explosions. And 5,700 Americans die from food poisoning every year.

I'm 2,850 times more likely to be killed by eating in a neighborhood restaurant than I am to be blown up in a gas explosion. So which of these two should concern me?

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Who is this Dolomiti character and why is he/she supporting the pipeline?

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

I've lived in JC for over 10 years, I'm a homeowner. Heaven forbid I disagree with people on this topic... or point out that most people are terrible at evaluating risk.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The fact that residential gas lines can produce this kind of resuilt shows the fallacy of your statement....

Actually, the size and harm caused by incidents doesn't vary much based on the size of the pipeline. There are numerous transmission line incidents which result in no fires, or cause minimal harm; and numerous residential lines that someone broke with a backhoe that result in big explosions.

Carbon monoxide poisoning kills around 500 people per year. In contrast, an average of 2 people per year die in gas pipeline explosions. And 5,700 Americans die from food poisoning every year.

I'm 2,850 times more likely to be killed by eating in a neighborhood restaurant than I am to be blown up in a gas explosion. So which of these two should concern me?

And what do you plan to do, rip out every residential gas line in JC?

What about the gas lines that already run through Woodbridge and Carteret and Sayreville, to the massive storage facility in Linden?

The point is that we've already decided as a society that natural gas lines are an acceptable risk. While the installation and placement should get input from affected citizens, it's also important to realize that much of the objection is good ol' NIMBYism.


Quote:

Congress does not have oversight of the FERC...

Congress passed the laws which determine how FERC operates and who has oversight. So like I said: If Congress wants oversight, all they have to do is change the law.

AlexC wrote:
Quote:

The Spectra pipeline doesn't result in a significantly higher risk.

Yeah? Tell that to the owner and potential tenants of this building:

http://www.castironloftsjerseycity.com/

This is the Spectra route:

http://nogaspipeline.org/the-pipeline

bearbear wrote:
The place that sold the same day was a 2 br condo in Hamilton Square, really nice place.

The places we bid on but didn't get have thus far been: 3 br condo in a brownstone and two separate 1 family homes.

All in Harsimus Cove/Hamilton Square area.

jcmiles wrote:
That quote is an obscene amount of money, for a "temporary" bridge which has no suspension engineering at all. The road is coming in maybe 2 years tops.

Why not just fill in a pathway using rocks/dirt from nearby excavation projects?? create an earthen path, then just add an asphalt or rock path on top of it with fencing??

The canal is used for nothing in that section and will most likely be filled in anyway.

Josiered wrote:
You DON'T want to go to Golden Cicada - the guy leaves his hair brush on the stove and the place is disgustingly dirty. The latrines haven't been cleaned in years. Avoid bacteria and go to the VFW or a Church.

brewster wrote:

I got a bridge to sell you if you believe everything you read in the paper or (especially) online. How many water heaters have you installed?

brewster wrote:
Not buying it. Tank water heaters are coded for almost no clearance, they do not radiate perceptible heat, that would be inefficient. Even leaving it on top next to the draft hood wouldn't heat it much.

T-Bird wrote:
I haven't eaten in a McDonalds in many years and don't intend to start now. That said, it looks tastefully appointed and is a welcomed improvement in that area.

JustJames wrote:

As for Made With Love, yes it was expensive, yes the service was dire, the food on occasion was good, but the death knell had to have been charging a dollar to charge your phone during the hurricane.