Tower Summary For Board June6

Introduction
Source: http://www.gashpo.org/assets/documents/preserving_gas_hist_schools_links.pdf
S chools play an important role in our lives. During a large part of our
formative years, schools are where we make lifelong friends, learn to read
and write, develop skills and learn lessons in sports, music, and other
extracurricular activities, join clubs, attend football games and dances, and
court boyfriends and girlfriends. School is often the place where we decide
what we want to be when we “grow up,” and decisions made there determine
who we will become as well as what we will do. Memories of our school years
are significant, and preserving the buildings associated with those memories
can provide important anchors for individuals and the community.
Historic schools link generations within a community. Schools are also local
landmark buildings—like county courthouses, city halls, and libraries—
which are monumental in architecture and rich in associative memories. W.
Ray Luce
W. Ray Luce, Director, HPD
© 2003 Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

156 Trinity Avenue, SW, Ste 101
Atlanta, GA 30303-3600
404-656-2840
www.gashpo.org
Definitions
and a look at the TRUE landscape of cell towers
surrounding Brockett Elementary School:
Source: http://www.antennasearch.com/
Tower Structures
Towers are tall structures (typically over 200 ft) used for Cellular, Paging and other
radios services. Towers can contain multiple antennas owned by various companies.
Future Tower Structures

Before a tower is built applications must be filed with various government entitites. We
detect FUTURE towers by scanning these applications and finding all newly filed (or
pending) Tower applications in your area.
Antenna Locations
Antennas are the actual signal emitters for cellular, paging and other radio services.
Antennas can be placed on towers or be stand alone and placed on top of offices, condos,
churches, light poles, signs, etc. Stand alone Antennas are small and difficult to spot as
they are easily hidden/camouflaged.
Current status of existing towers & antennas

and tower proposals within 4 mile radius
of Brockett Elementary:
© 2004-2009 by General Data Resources, Inc
Alert! 86 Towers (35 Registered,51 Not Registered) found within 4.00 miles of Brockett
Elementary, 1855 Brockett Rd, Tucker, GA 30084.
Info! The NEAREST Tower is .82 miles away and is owned by Tower Assets, Llc.
Alert! 2 New Tower Applications found within 4.00 miles of 1855 Brockett Rd, Tucker,
GA 30084.
Current Tower Locations 4 miles from Brockett Elementary School:
Tower -- Site Owner -- Height -- Dist Registered:
(1) Tower Assets, Llc 180 feet .82 miles
(2) Oglethorpe Power Corporation 217 feet .93 miles
(3) T-mobile South Llc 148 feet 1.05 miles
(4) Pinnacle Towers Llc 264 feet 1.35 miles
(5) American Towers, Inc. 198 feet 1.34 miles
(6) Sba Towers, Inc. 163 feet 1.46 miles
(7) New Cingular Wireless Pcs, Llc 163 feet 1.60 miles
(8) Diamond Towers Llc 160 feet 1.70 miles
(11) Verizon Wireless (vaw) Llc 253 feet 1.74 miles
(12) Crown Castle Pt, Inc. 265 feet 1.76 miles
(15) Cox Radio, Inc. 663 feet 1.93 miles
(16) Global Tower, Llc 253 feet 2.03 miles
(17) Towerco Assets Llc 153 feet 2.26 miles
(23) Powertel, Inc. 164 feet 2.89 miles
(24) Towerco Assets Llc 155 feet 2.99 miles
(26) Skyway Towers, Llc 165 feet 3.25 miles
(28) Skyway Towers, Llc 154 feet 3.34 miles
(34) Georgia, State Of 70 feet 3.97 miles
Not Registered
(1) Nextel Communications Inc 123 feet .90 miles
(2) At&t Mobility - Southeast Region 88 feet 1.03 miles
(3) Bellsouth Mobility 153 feet 1.06 miles
(4) Oglethorpe Power Corp 210 feet 1.15 miles
(5) Southern Company 332 feet 1.35 miles
(6) Sunlink 155 feet 1.51 miles
(7) Ms. Susan Israel 163 feet 1.64 miles
(8) Spectrasite Communications 198 feet 1.66 miles
(10) At&t Wireless Services 164 feet 1.92 miles
(11) Grid Towers 200 feet 1.95 miles
(13) American Tower Ga 192 feet 2.15 miles
(14) T-mobile, Usa 160 feet 2.29 miles
(15) At&t Mobility Llc 104 feet 2.44 miles
(16) Muayyad Mustafa (mc) 165 feet 2.46 miles
(17) Cingular Wireless-dallas 164 feet 2.48 miles
(18) Verizon Wireless Vaw Llc 200 feet 2.55 miles
(21) Pactel Cellular, Inc.of Georgia 134 feet 2.72 miles
(22) Sprintcom Inc 128 feet 2.84 miles
(23) Powertel Inc 115 feet 2.94 miles
(27) Rick Suarez (ag) 139 feet 3.04 miles
(30) Crown Castle Usa 165 feet 3.12 miles
(31) Dekalb, County Of 168 feet 3.18 miles
(35) T-mobile 135 feet 3.33 miles
(36) Intellicom Pcs Llc 165 feet 3.43 miles
(37) Way Broadcasting Operating, L.l.c. 199 feet 3.44 miles
(40) Crown Castle Usa 165 feet 3.56 miles
(41) T-mobile, Usa 130 feet 3.67 miles
(42) Community Public Radio Inc 105 feet 3.78 miles
(43) Bellsouth Mobility, Inc 200 feet 3.82 miles
(45) Powertel Inc 165 feet 3.88 miles
(46) Blank 320 feet 3.91 miles
(48) Airtouch Cellular Of Georgia 154 feet 3.94 miles
(50) Intercel Powertel Inc 150 feet 3.98 miles
(51) Crown Castle International 254 feet 4.00 miles
Future:
(1) Dekalb County Police Department 180 feet 1.41 miles
(2) Dekalb County Police Department 140 feet 3.16 miles
Issues that must be considered before rendering a vote:
Has T-mobile exhausted all available co-location sites?: The municipality wants to
control the number of cell towers popping up in every corner of town, so they design
ordinances that define the parameters of how cellular carriers may operate within their
space. Generally, they require wireless service providers to look at existing structures
first, such as rooftops, water towers, smokestacks, etc., to see if the existing infrastructure
can support their antennas and also meet their coverage needs. Essentially, a town or city
will try to force cell site collocation on carriers whenever possible.
Can taxpayers look at the actual proposal? (Freedom of Information Act) It needs
to be examined for many reasons:
Is there a clause for colocation income?
Is the RF radiation document dealing with only T-mobile strength or maximum after
all sites on tower have been leased out?
Are there any “out” clauses, such as if children or residents start to get sick as a
result?
Is there an explanation of how it will be used after merger with AT&T
Is there still a need after merger with AT&T or would we be helping AT&T simply
form a monopoly which is bad for consumers (higher prices, less value, etc.)
How much money are we looking at?
Where would it be used at our school specifically?
How much would go elsewhere and where would it go?
Urge board to consider:

1.) Research that shows health dangers to long-term, ongoing exposure to RF radiation.
2.) Children are the most vulnerable.
3.) Health issues: brain tumors, leukemia, insomnia, confusion, mental disorder, autism,
other forms of cancer including breast and testicular, Alzheimer’s.
4.) Have any medical experts been consulted? Pediatricians? Brain surgeons?
Oncologist?
5.) Effects on animals, wildlife, vegetation
6.) Decrease in property values will bring lower taxes which could make the deal
pointless because income over time could not possibly make up for decline of
neighborhood value over time.
7.) Standards being used by T-mobile for “safe” emissions were made by FCC in 1976.
These need to be re-evaluated considering the vast changes in the use of this technology.
Brown Act
1.) Requires notification of all who would possibly be affected in an area. That was not
done in this case. Only parents were notified at short notice with little explanation as to
the purpose of the meetings. General community has not been informed. This could be
violation of the law and would break the deal when it goes to zoning anyway.
Urge postponement of vote until:

1.) More research can be done on subject so board is fully educated.
2.) Results of MOBI-KIDS research is completed in 2013 which will show link between
cellular use and brain tumors in children.
3.) New superintendent is hired - decision should not be made without full support of top
leadership in our county.
5.) T-mobile / AT&T merger is complete so terms can be discussed with true contract
owner not T-mobile as competitor.
6.) School is back in session so a parent conference can be held to discuss proposal as a
group.
COMMUNITY PETITION
Support for saying “no” to cell towers in DeKalb county and at Brockett Elementary
specifically is included in an attached petition which is still open online. Due to the short
time frame allowed to get the word out to parents, this petition is not inclusive of the
opinions of the entire school, county or surrounding communities that would be affected.
RESEARCH
From the National Cancer Institute:
Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cell phone use than
adults?
There are currently no data on cell phone use and risk of cancer in children. No published
studies to date have included children. Cell phone use by children and adolescents is
increasing rapidly, and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their
lives (1). In addition, children may be at greater risk because their nervous systems are
still developing at the time of exposure. A large case-control study of childhood brain
cancer in several Northern European countries is in progress. Researchers from the
Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting an
international study—Mobi-Kids—to evaluate risk from new communications
technologies (including cell phones) and other environmental factors in young people
ages 10 to 24. More information about the Mobi-Kids study is available at
http://www.mbkds.com on the Internet.
This study is scheduled for release in 2013. The board should postpone a decision until
the results of this study. Or, at the very least, they should ensure that our contract has an
“out” clause that would allow us to have the structure removed is there is evidence
brought to light that children are in danger. If an “out” clause is not supported, then we
strongly urge the board to take a shorter term look at any deal with T-mobile, on an
annual or 3 - 5 year term allowing for a new vote at the end of the term to determine if
the county wants to continue leasing the space.
Defeated Cell Towers

Source: http://www.celltowerdangers.org/defeated-cell-towers.html
If Dekalb County School Board does the right thing and turns down the proposal by T-
mobile, it will join the respected and growing list of decision-makers nationwide who
have also found that the risks involved and unknown factors creating controversy on the
subject of cell towers is not worth any gain, financial or otherwise.
A contentious plan to build an Optus mobile phone base station on top of a Mt Hawthorn shopping centre
was rejected by the Town of Vincent last week... (Read More)
Cell phone tower voted down at Wilmette park... (Read More)
Controversial cell tower proposal dropped; debate continues... (Read More)
U.S. Antenna permit denied on health grounds...'Please disable Wi-Fi on Laguna Beach School
Campuses'... (Read More)
Park Ridge has disconnected T-Mobile’s plans to erect an 80-foot cellular antenna pole in Northeast Park...
(Read More)
Thanks, Ocean City, for saying no to cell tower...Letter to the Editor, shore News Today (Read More)
Virginia community that contacted GOACT successfully opposed cell tower near municipal pool. (Read
More)
Cell tower proposal near a historic site defeated by a coordinated letter writing campaign of local citizens
and environmental organizations. (Read More)
State Supreme Court judge denies cell tower proposal due to the towns local zoning laws. (Read More)
Plan to bring a cell tower to Condon Park was soundly defeated at Town Meeting after opponents argued
the structure could pose unacceptable health risks for children.. (Read More)
Schaumburg trustees voted 5-0 Tuesday night to reject a proposal by T-Mobile to construct cellular towers
near two schools.. (Read More)
Alliance of Neighbors of Walt Whitman High School...the Whitman community is notorious for such
opposition ever since it defeated a cell tower proposal at Pyle Middle School in 2005. (Read More)
Cell tower stopped by the Citizens Against the Cell Tower in Holualoa. The individual who was going to
allow the tower on his property decided he did not want all his neighbors against him, and he did not want
to be responsible for any possible long term health effects. (Read More)
The Hempstead Town Board will holds a public hearing on new cell tower regulations meant in part to keep
the wireless equipment away from homes and schools. (Read More)
More towns fight cell towers - increasing evidence of adverse health effects. (Read More)
LAUSD Calls for Increased Setbacks, Advance Notification on Locations Near Schools. (Read More)
Douglas County Planning and Zoning meeting denied permits to T-Mobile for two separate tower locations:
...The tower would be 'an eyesore' and would drive down property values. (Read More)
Fred Camillo, a state representative from Greenwich, is absolutely right about passing a law that would
govern where cell phone towers can and can't go. (Read More)
Union Township’s zoning Board of Adjustment Wednesday unanimously denied T-Mobile’s application to
build a cell tower near a residential neighborhood... (Read More)
The Building Commission denied the Grace Point Church’s request to build the 151 foot tall tower. (Read
More)
Milton Planning Commissiondenied three applications for cell towers. Residents who live near the
proposed sites came out in force to object to the 150 ft tall monopoles as both too big and too close to their
homes... (Read More)
Fort Dodge City Council says no to vacating Elmhurst Court, throwing cell tower plan into question, after
nine people told them the 150-foot-tall tower would ruin the beauty of the neighborhood and drive down
their property values. (Read More)
Cell tower request to build near Huntington Beach's Harbour View Elementary School was denied, but now
a legal battle erupts. (Read More)
Port St. Lucie rejects cell tower proposal. “There is no benefit here for the city,” said Vice Mayor Jack
Kelly. “Residents don’t want it.”
(Read More)
Group opposes cell tower placement, upset by the size of the tower, its location near the town center and its
proximity to populations of elderly residents and the affordable housing complex. (Read More)
Council nixes controversial cell tower, as more than 1,400 residents have protested having a cell tower in
what is largely a residential area. (http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2010/07/14/council-nixes-
controversial-cell-tower/)
Normandy Park rejects controversial cell tower. The tower would have violated the zoning laws in the
area, with the tower being taller than the allowed 40 feet. (Read More)
Concluding Remarks:
Cellular communication has become a way of life for many of us. There is no denying
that. However, while we knowingly risk exposure to the RF radiation that is a part of this
form of communication, it is largely limited to the areas of DeKalb County that are zoned
for commercial use. We are currently at a lower risk of harm to our health because our
residential areas have remained free from the massive structures that emit this form of
radiation, known as cell towers.
While there may be conflicting research regarding the effects of cellular radiation on
adults, there has been no significant research in this area about the effects on children.
Parents in the U.K. and other countries abroad that have more focus on preventative
healthcare than we do in the U.S. have been advised by their governments not to allow
children under the age of 18 to use cell phones or other forms of wireless technology due
to the fact that their bodies are still growing, their skulls are thinning and they may
therefore be a higher risk group for EMF sensitivity and resulting medical conditions.
The major study in this area will be released in 2013.
Currently, parents in the U.S. have a choice about whether or not they will allow their
children to utilize this technology and assume the health risk and subsequent treatment
costs. However, if DeKalb County allows a cell tower within the 1.0 mile “safety zone”
that is currently protecting the neighborhood of Brockett Elementary School in Tucker,
this choice will be essentially taken out of the hands of the parents. Every resident in the
Brockett community, every teacher and administrator and every student who attends this
school will be exposed for long periods of time to constant and likely increasing higher
and higher levels of RF radiation. For some, the exposure will be 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, with no way to escape it. This will put the responsibility and liability for its
consequences directly in the hands of the county, and those of you who’s very job it is to
do what is in the best interest of our children, our most valuable and yet vulnerable asset.
Government at the highest level has often been slow to respond to the health issues at
hand. But, that is not surprising when you consider their track record on issues such as
cigerette smoking, lead-based paint and asbestos which have all led to dire consequences.
EMF emissions are the cigarettes of today. The exposure is growing at an unbelievable
rate, surely faster than the FCC’s standards, which have not been updated since 1976.
The cellular companies have been racing to beat each other and gain the most profits as
consumer demand continues to rise. Cell towers have popped up everywhere. In fact,
there are 89 within a 4 mile radius of Brockett Elementary, the controversial topic of this
summary. More than 20 of those 89 towers are owned by T-mobile / AT&T / Bellsouth,
which has already announced its merger which will result in a combining of the tower
resources.
There must be some limits imposed on technology when there is concern about its safety.
We certainly cannot expect corporations, such as T-mobile, to be transparent about their
true intentions. It is not up to them to protect children. Their job is to sell what they have
been told to sell, especially in light of the fact that they know they will soon be part of a
highly publicized, major merger that could potentially leave many of the T-mobile folks
without jobs. They are selling at all costs now. AT&T is looking to own the airwaves in
terms of roaming and thus prevent any smaller companies from becoming true
competitors.
It is not the right time to be doing business with T-mobile. They do not care about their
name or reputation because it will be mute within 6 months. And, AT&T does not need
additional coverage in our area. Their motivation is clearly to “hog up the airwaves” so
that they can lease space to other smaller competitors in an effort to monopolize the
industry. That will mean higher charges, less bargaining on corporate accounts, fewer
deals, less mercy when it comes to every customer they have, including the residents in
our community as well as the school system and county government.
Read more about “AT&T, T-Mobile Merger Bad News for Consumers” at
http://www.newser.com/story/114574/att-t-mobile-merger-reactions-not-good-for-
consumers.html
Excerpts: Reactions to the surprise AT&T-T-mobile merger are pouring in, and, not
surprisingly, most conclude this isn't a good thing for consumers:
The Bell telephone system—"aka AT&T"—was broken up in 1984 to increase
competition, and the US telecommunications market was deregulated in 1996, again
to increase competition. But this merger "effectively restores Ma Bell to her former
girth yet allows the company to operate in a looser regulatory environment," writes
David Lazarus in the Los Angeles Times. "Consumers might wonder if they've been
played. ... Ma Bell is back," and the only thing left for federal regulators to do is
instill "new rules that address the shortcomings of our failed experiment in
deregulation."
Regardless of the impact on consumers, it's obvious why AT&T made this move,
writes Ben Parr on Mashable. Its network is strained "to unacceptable levels," and
even though the company is upgrading, "it takes years to get the approval to build
new towers ... so if you can’t build towers fast enough, what’s the next best way to
get them? That’s right: You acquire them. ... Today’s acquisition is all about bolstering
AT&T’s network and beginning the process of repairing its reputation."
In conclusion, we would like to remind the board of its primary responsibility to educate
and protect our children and to represent the best interest of the districts that have elected
them into office.
Brockett recently celebrated its 50th year anniversary and is currently being considered as
being named to the National Register of Historical Places as well as one of Georgia’s elite
“Historic Schools” for its role in the civil rights movement and school integration
movement in Georgia.
We cannot think of anything more sad than a deserted school, rich with history, with a
massive cell tower looming in the background. Brockett Elementary could easily end up
as an abandoned school. It could end up in a community with property values sharply
declining and with an enormous list of lawsuits against the school district for the death
and illnesses caused when AT&T takes over as a true monopoly of telecommunications
once again.
The tower can be used an unregulated, unchecked maximum capacity leased out to
multiple cell carriers, not at the low level used as mere submission qualifications as
provided to the board today.
We recently held a picnic for families to celebrate the 50th anniversary. Imagine this
photo with a huge cell tower in the background:
“Preventable ugliness is a sin, especially when it is forced upon children
in the formative years of their lives…Let us make the school what it
should be — the most attractive place in the community.”
— M. L. Brittain, State School Superintendent, School Architecture: Georgia (Georgia’s Department of

Education, 1911)
All of this controversy could be avoided by not making any decision too hastily. There is
reason for concern based simply on T-mobile’s track record of approaching schools
nationwide with similar deals right now. They provide little notice of any meetings, seek
to draw little attention and make promises of great rewards all the while knowing that
they will no longer exist in a few months and will not be around to contact when the
landscape of telecommunication changes.
We urge you, our representatives, to postpone your decision so that parents may talk
fairly and openly about the costs and benefits that are central to this issue. Allow us to
learn and decide.
We urge that you focus on your search for a superintendent and postpone any
monumental decisions such as this one until the leadership is firmly in place that will
give taxpayers and parents the feeling of confidence that the right choice is being made,
not something to be rushed into.
Please give us a chance to talk to more parents to provide you with more testimonial
about the true feelings of the community and what we believe is the right thing for our
school. Unless you are prepared to vote ‘No,’ then we urge you not to vote at all.
T-mobile is not the one we need to worry about right now. The future of our school
system and the community is of far greater concern and you will be heros for standing
among the leaders who have seen through this bad deal to the true facts that must be
considered: monopoly, greed, health, children, community, history, property values, a
way of life, our future.

Tower Summary For Board June6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tower Summary For Board June6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

W. Ray Luce, Director, HPD

© 2003 Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Future Tower Structures

Current status of existing towers & antennas

Issues that must be considered before rendering a vote:

Urge board to consider:

Urge postponement of vote until:

From the National Cancer Institute:

Defeated Cell Towers

Cell phone tower voted down at Wilmette park... (Read More)

Controversial cell tower proposal dropped; debate continues... (Read More)

— M. L. Brittain, State School Superintendent, School Architecture: Georgia (Georgia’s Department of

You might also like