heights wrote:
I have been hearing many complaints from cell phone users about the reception in the Downtown section of J.C. maybe the new antenna will provide the necessary assistance towards good quality communication. If the aesthetics of the tower is still a haunt, why not try a landline with a cord in the wall.

neverleft wrote:
Jersey City panel tables Verizon bid to put antennas atop building

By Michaelangelo Conte/The Jersey Journal
on March 20, 2013 at 3:00 AM,
updated March 20, 2013 at 8:59 AM

The Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission voted Monday to table an application by Verizon Wireless to place cellular antennas on a building in the Harsimus Cove Historic District.

More than a dozen residents who oppose placing the antennas on the building at 238 Fifth St. attended the meeting at City Hall and the commissioners did not appear thrilled with the proposal.

?What you are asking us to do is accept something that is seen from the street, which if it was an addition to the building, we would probably have a hard time with,? said Commissioner Stephen Gucciardo.

After Verizon?s experts were peppered with questions and residents had spoken, it was Verizon?s lawyer who asked that the proposal to place antennas on the century-old building of 43 condominium units be tabled.

Full JJ piece?.

http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... historic_preservat_1.html

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:

Unlike FM radio, cell phone towers communicate at frequencies approaching the microwave band, but that still makes them radio antennas precisely by definition. The most obvious difference is that they're much shorter than FM antennas, because they handle shorter radio wavelengths.

ok, however that seems to ignore what was said earlier:

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.

Frank_M wrote:

Unlike FM radio, cell phone towers communicate at frequencies approaching the microwave band, but that still makes them radio antennas precisely by definition. The most obvious difference is that they're much shorter than FM antennas, because they handle shorter radio wavelengths.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

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

Read up on the inverse square law.

Cell phone transmission antennas don't produce ionizing radiation, but radio waves do interact with our tissues.

ok? this isn't a radio tower? what'm I missing in this comment?

Unlike FM radio, cell phone towers communicate at frequencies approaching the microwave band, but that still makes them radio antennas precisely by definition. The most obvious difference is that they're much shorter than FM antennas, because they handle shorter radio wavelengths.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

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

Read up on the inverse square law.

Cell phone transmission antennas don't produce ionizing radiation, but radio waves do interact with our tissues.

ok? this isn't a radio tower? what'm I missing in this comment?

leigh13 wrote:
What I find strange about this is that it's a Verizon antenna going in. I live in the area and I have never had a problem with VZW coverage--never less than 4/5 bars (and usually 5) and a full complement of 4G LTE download rates.

I wonder if Verizon is planning to replace a different antenna, or this is just going in for network growth and to provide expansion for expected data usage.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

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

Read up on the inverse square law.

Cell phone transmission antennas don't produce ionizing radiation, but radio waves do interact with our tissues.

Frank_M wrote:
Read up on the inverse square law.
Cell phone transmission antennas don't produce ionizing radiation, but radio waves do interact with our tissues.

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

scratchy wrote:

I'm guessing you wouldn't mind living there with that much faith in the "peer reviewed material"?

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

bear wrote:
As a renter on 5th, certainly within 200FT, I have not gotten this letter. Perhaps my landlord has, but I doubt they would share.

Could you post all of the information you received about the meeting so that others like me can attend? Where will it be held?

Either way, us neighbors should attend to see what they are proposing, and if it is indeed imposing, to have our opposition heard.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

scratchy wrote:
The last line doesn't really make me feel better about this.


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

meh. there are "some" scientists (and I wanted to put that in quotes, too, but figured it would look ugly) who disagree that climate change is happening and that there are probably man-made factors involved in it as well.

i'm willing to go with the vast majority of peer-reviewed material than the few dudes with mostly unsubstantiated claims

Quote:

the studies cited by the article all specify that these results are expected by radiation recipients at ground level adjacent to transmitters on buildings or towers. If I lived on the top floor of that building I would be very concerned.

dare i ask why living next to a tower is somehow different than living beneath one?

scratchy wrote:
The last line doesn't really make me feel better about this.


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

the studies cited by the article all specify that these results are expected by radiation recipients at ground level adjacent to transmitters on buildings or towers. If I lived on the top floor of that building I would be very concerned.

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."