Comments

Josh Wallace wrote on Mar 24, 2011 12:30 PM:

" Federal courts have now ruled that cell towers need to be avoided in areas with migratory birds.

In addition, studies now show that there is a 4 fold increase in cancer for people living within 400 meteres of a cell tower (published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention by Wolf in 2004). "




scott wrote on Aug 11, 2010 10:52 AM:

" I just talked to the AT&T tech. dept. and was told that AT&T is erecting a new 3G tower in the Kern River Valley starting on Oct. 02, 2010 FYI. I was complaining of their lack of 3G network in the KRV. Looks like we may make it into the 21'st century. He did not know exactly where but it will be nice to get a 3G tower in the area. cheers. PS. I think the Verizon tower is a good thing and hope it happens, we need more than one carrier up here. "




Erin wrote on Mar 17, 2010 8:30 AM:

" They aren't officially exempt as of yet. If the zone variance is approved and they file a Notice of Exemption we will file a Writ of Mandate.

By the way, the Board of Supervisors of several California municipalities have sent resolutions to congress and the FCC seeking the repeal of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Why? The of the potential danger of EMR and RF radiation. "




Don Enebo wrote on Mar 13, 2010 7:01 PM:

" The proposed location of the cell tower in Kernville is not exactly a dense area for homesites. If you look at the maps of cell towers in Bakersfield you will see there are dozens and many in the best residential areas around. I wonder who owns the alternate sites? And whoever the objectors are best hope they do not need help anywhere north of James Store. "




20th Century Completed wrote on Mar 11, 2010 11:07 PM:

" Cell towers transmit in a flat pattern, parallel to the ground. They've already put cell towers in up as high as they can. We now need more data traffic ability in the north end of the valley, at approximately ground level. Kernville is just about perfect. "




21st Century Visionary wrote on Mar 11, 2010 7:24 PM:

" It would appear a more logical location for a cell tower is Mt. McCoy with the other broadcast towers, or the satellite dish "farm" near Wofford Heights. While you're at it, let's get some repeater towers for transponders to carry over-the-air HDTV signals from Bakersfield, Fresno and L.A. stations to break the monopoly that is Mediacom. "




No Enviro Impact wrote on Mar 9, 2010 6:34 PM:

" WRONG. The tower is CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT. It has been determined ALREADY that ALL cell towers have NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. You need to go read the code. "




Erin wrote on Mar 9, 2010 8:13 AM:

" Environmental studies would have to be done to make that determination, "NoEnviro" Furthermore, the plan in question has no provision for "security."

The Masons need to follow their own 'Declaration of Principles. "




No Enviro Impact wrote on Mar 7, 2010 8:28 PM:

" The tower has NO environmental impact. Therefore, it does not MATTER where it goes. The Masons deserve their revenue. Or perhaps some other nearby owner would do it cheaper? The tower CANNOT be in the middle of nowhere unless you want to pay to run the power line to it and provide security around it. "




Erin wrote on Mar 6, 2010 6:11 PM:

" The point is this: The tower does not have to go up in a residential neighborhood. Look at all the open space around you! Both sides can have their way if the tower is placed somewhere else.
The Masonic Temple is pushing for this because they want the income from Verizon. The truth is the tower could be placed elsewhere. "




Richard wrote on Mar 3, 2010 5:53 PM:

" Cell phone towers, like wireless internet antennas on your street lights are the way people in big cities get access to all their cell phones offer and all that is possible on the internet. In addition our schools and libraries benifit with quick access to untold amounts of free information we do not have access to now. While I woudnt want a cell phone repeater towers antenia within a few feet of children, I have not as yet heard of any detrimentrial information relating the positioning of this location to be any worse than our current dangers from the sun. "




Speak Out in Support wrote on Mar 3, 2010 2:25 PM:

" If you wish to support Verizon Wireless's plan to bring cellular service and internet service to the area; please take a moment to email the planner, Randall Cates, at CatesR@co.kern.ca.us and let him know. Verizon will offer reliable cellular and internet service when the site is constructed and has plans to bring LTE (faster speeds) to the area in 2012. "




Mad732 wrote on Mar 2, 2010 4:19 AM:

" radio waves are just photons just like a light wave is I say ban the sun it does more harm to our children that a cell tower would and sure put the tower in my bedroom that's how safe I know they are unless it falls on you but that would be gravity I say ban gravity do you know how many children it kills weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee "




Positive Emails and Letters wrote on Feb 26, 2010 5:07 PM:

" I heard the office in Bako got lots of emails, and most were PRO. Apparently the noisy Luddite minority didn't have much impact. And since it reads like the federal law doesn't allow consideration of EMF or RF, any letter that used that as their reason got put in the "not useful" basket. "




Gen X Y and Beyond wrote on Feb 21, 2010 9:59 PM:

" A big reason that our valley kids grades are poor is the general lack of opportunity. We've got mini-libraries, poor highspeed internet, and no businesses to speak of. We need to join the 3rd world countries that have high speed internet, tv, and phone THRU THE AIR with cellular. 4G is the next wave. "




Data Sources wrote on Feb 21, 2010 9:56 PM:

" The 788minutes per month comes from WPP, a 140,000person communications and research firm. As you might expect, US use is 5X the world average.

As far as cellphone output, I assumed the cellphone at 1 FOOT from your body. That's a heck of lot further than most people have their phone, even with bluetooth. All bluetooth does is move the signal from your ear to your internal organs in your midsection if it's on your belt.

By the way, the signal from a celltower DOESN'T blast into your brain like a cellphone at your ear. "




Erin wrote on Feb 21, 2010 7:42 PM:

" Again, maybe there's a need for a tower, maybe there is not. Either way, a tower does NOT have to go up next to someone's residence and in a neighborhood near a school. There's a lot of land up here -- put it somewhere else.

To "whatever" please send me the links you have for your information. Thank you:
getthecelloutofkv@yahoo.com "




Local One wrote on Feb 21, 2010 2:55 PM:

" In my opinion, as a former city dweller, the lack of basic technological amenities is driving the property value of the KRV down. Generation X is accustomed to these technological advancements and have grown-up as kids who have went to school with a cell tower behind it. Studies have proven there are some types of radiation emmitted by certain cell towers and electical generators tha encourage bone rejuvination and strength, especially in children. If it blocks a resident's view, ask the company to move it a few feet. Mabey u there's a compromise "




Whatever wrote on Feb 21, 2010 12:37 PM:

" But people have the choice to use cell phones and microwaves. I'm thinking your math may be a little funny because the goverment report I read suggest that cell phones emit a small amount of radiation that can nearly be completely eliminated through the use of hands free devices such as blue tooth. Finally, I would love to know where you got your average cell-phone minutes from. The only people I know to use the thier phone that much use hand free devices. I don't believe that people who don't want to be exposed to this radiation should be forced. "




Think wrote on Feb 20, 2010 7:19 PM:

" Hey, I have an idea.

Put the tower up on the hill just beyond Kernville with the Care Ambulance microwave antenna. It's a good location and it's not in anyone's yard. Oh, but then the Masons wouldn't get their $2500 a month from Verizon. Darn. "




To Whatever wrote on Feb 20, 2010 1:24 PM:

" I simply did the MATH on the wattages of a tower vs. a cell phone. The fact that an average MONTH of cell use gives you more radiation than 75years of the HIGHEST OUTPUT cell tower is enough to demonstrate how indefensible your claims are. And for a typical, 25Watt cell tower, you could live a block away for 300years and get less radiation than 1 month of a handheld cellphone. Don't cut and paste arguments that you don't understand. Howstuffworks is like wikipedia - wrong most of the time. "




Whatever wrote on Feb 19, 2010 10:01 PM:

" I can point to at least a dozen articles that support my assertion that that cell towers are dangers. I specifically pulled this article from a ehow article. I didn't just pull this information from then air. I'm careful not to chose articles that can be written by any random person. You can find a half a dozen studies all that point to the dangers of living to close to cell towers. Where did you get your info? BTW microwave run for a minute or two not for endless periods of time. "




Valley Res wrote on Feb 19, 2010 9:09 PM:

" We either want to be able to communicate in the new Millenium with cell phones and texting, or we want to keep the values of the community that most of us escaped to. I adamantly oppose the mock cell tree that is so repulsive and ultimately dangerous. And who is the resident that will benefit? REALLY? Shame on that person. If we want to compromise our Valley and Children's health why live here? I thought the idea was to get away from the city and ensuing technoligically driven crap and LIVE here with beauty. "




Oh but it is SMALL wrote on Feb 19, 2010 8:30 PM:

" In CEQA lingo, a cell tower is a SMALL project. Per state law, and EXPLICITLY NAMED, a 10,000 square foot building, such as an office or motel is SMALL also. A little ole cell tower is also SMALL. "




Erin wrote on Feb 19, 2010 8:25 PM:

" Whether or not you believe tower radiation is a danger our property values GO DOWN anyway because of the PERCEPTION that there is a health risk. If the tower is in a residential neighborhood it has to be part of disclosure in a real estate deal.

Furthermore, the tower comes with a noisy diesel fuel generator in a high fire risk area. If you bought a house in a location known for peace and quiet how would you feel about your neighbor's new noisy generator? "




More Science wrote on Feb 19, 2010 7:55 PM:

" And while we're at it,

A cellphone at your head puts out 50,000times more RF than a celltower at 1 block.

Average monthly talk time is 788 minutes per person. That means you can TALK one month or live 1 block away from a HUGE 100Watt celltower for 75 years and get the same radiation.

You better give up your cellphone for Lent if you're planning to oppose our NEW CELL TOWER. "




Apply Some Science wrote on Feb 19, 2010 7:51 PM:

" A celltower is usually 20Watts. A HUGE celltower is 100Watts. A microwaveoven is 1000Watts. YOUR ASSERTION IS FALSE.

The power of RF drops off square of the distance. A microwaveoven at 10feet puts out over 1000TIMES the RF of a cell tower that you are standing directly under.

If you are 1 block from the cell tower, it puts out only 1/16,000th as much power as a microwave at 10feet.

CONCLUSION - BAN MICROWAVE OVENS FROM SCHOOLS, NOT CELL TOWERS. "




Whatever wrote on Feb 19, 2010 12:26 PM:

" The radiation emitted from towers is equal to that of a microwave and can travel approximately two miles. There is evidence that exposure to even low levels of Electromagnetic Radiation is dangerous. Children are considered the most vulnerable group, followed by the frail, elderly, and pregnant. "Cancer, suppressed immune systems, depression, Alzheimer's disease, blood brain barrier leakage problems and neurological problems are just a few of the health problems associated with RF"
The school children and the people living in a two mile radius would be exposed to dangerous RF continously which is uncomparable a cell phone conversation. "




Erin wrote on Feb 19, 2010 9:53 AM:

" CEQA - the proposed project is not "small." "




Erin wrote on Feb 19, 2010 8:22 AM:

" CEQA - the proposed project is not "small." "




Bob wrote on Feb 19, 2010 8:12 AM:

" Chole, its all government land.
Don't believe me? Don't pay your property tax........ "




Resident wrote on Feb 18, 2010 10:15 PM:

" Funny how the Mason's who don't even LIVE in our neighborhood are the ones who want to lease to Verizon. When their pacemakers stop working due to the electromagnetic field around that tower maybe they'll think twice about their selfish decision. "




CEQA Exempt wrote on Feb 18, 2010 8:13 PM:

" Section 15303(d) provides a categorical exemption for small utility construction.

EVERY planning department in california can cite that.

Furthermore FEDERAL LAW prohibits any amateur assessment of RF impacts. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 limits the authority of state and local governments to regulate cell towers and related wireless facilities on the basis of their health and environmental effects. PERIOD.

Go text your complaint to someone. Oh no - that needs CELL SERVICE. Go call someone. Oh no - that needs CELL SERVICE. "




Archie Logsdon wrote on Feb 18, 2010 3:54 PM:

" The 70 foot tall "Monopine" tower would be in violation of zoning ordinances. The property owner who would receive $800.00 per month from Verizon is seeking a variance, but their neighbors would see their property values decline. Doesn't seem like a very nice way to treat your neighbors, does it. Also, there is a fault line running right through this area, making this project a danger to the whole community. The 250 gallons of diesel fuel for the permanent generator just poses another fire hazard. Seems like the variance should be denied to me. "




Chloe wrote on Feb 18, 2010 8:36 AM:

" The tower is not simply a "utility pole." It's a radiation emitting eyesore. Put it somewhere else. The government could use the lease money so put it on government land. "




Erin wrote on Feb 18, 2010 7:33 AM:

" I do own an adjacent property, however I am not the one with the plans to build a house. I'm not sure where you're getting your misinformation, Tom. There are other residents who are also opposed to the project.

As I said before this is not about being against cell phones or towers -- it's about putting a potentially dangerous tower next to people's homes and land.

No one at planning has been able to explain how it is CEQA exempt.

The tower should be located away from residential neighborhoods. "




Pro Cell Tower wrote on Feb 17, 2010 10:02 PM:

" Welcome to the 2000s. We ALL have cell phones. MANY have cellular internet. No towers, no service. Those who OPPOSE should have their service CUT off. The tower is LEGAL, it is CEQA exempt, and it SHOULD BE BUILT. "




tired of 2G wrote on Feb 17, 2010 5:22 PM:

" Maybe this new tower would have 3G, like almost every other country in the world and MOST of America?
And Verizon is using the android system on it's high end phones- a really excellent piece of software.
And maybe that would force AT&T to re- calibrate their local towers to 3G.
And a tower in that spot might solve some of the "blind" spots in and around Kernville?
Isn't competition the American way that the 74% of this counties Republicans keep talking about?
It might up land values as you could boast good 3G service. "




Tom wrote on Feb 17, 2010 5:12 PM:

" I don't mean to be insensitive or disrespectful of your opinion Erin, I don't so much enjoy looking at the utility poles in front of my home either. It's my understanding that the people at Verizon considered six possible sites for the tower and selected the site up from the market in Kernville as the least intrusive and best for the cell service needed. Erin is correct in her recommendation for all to write letters and participate in the government process. How else will the government that is supposed to work for us know what we want. "




planningtheflames wrote on Feb 17, 2010 5:11 PM:

" verizon is in a war right now with AT&T and they are losing. They have not invested in this community, upgraded the services in years. Even as people have complained, there has been no action. Now action time means they need money, and they want ours. Its seems these days, who doesn't want your money?Question is, who deserves it? Write to the planning commission and ask them about alternatives. Or just let them do what they want. It's your choice. "




Tom wrote on Feb 17, 2010 4:57 PM:

" My first observation is the fact that the proposed site for the cell tower is not a densly populated area. Secondly, the school is over a quarter mile away from the proposed cell tower site, and thirdly, I bleieve that "local One" is correct in that there is far greater risk to our children from use of cell phones, microwaves etc. Another truth is that the person most concerned about this cell tower owns the property adjacent to the proposed site and is more concerned about it obstructing her view from the new house she plans to build. "




Erin wrote on Feb 17, 2010 8:42 AM:

" They can put the tower somewhere else. It doesn't have to be in a residential neighborhood.

However, if you think it should be in a residential neighborhood I suggest that you contact Verizon and ask that they put the tower in your yard so your property value goes down. "




TO LOCAL ONE wrote on Feb 17, 2010 8:22 AM:

" im sorry you have such a negative attitude when it comes to our children i DO NOT WANT NOR DO WE NEED A CELL TPOWER NEAR THE SCHOOL YES OUR KIDS ARE EXPOSED TO HARMFUL THINGS BUT MOST OF US DO OUR BEST TO KEEP THEM SAFE THIS CELL TOWER WOULD DO MORE THAN HARM THAN GOOD....... "




Local One wrote on Feb 17, 2010 12:40 AM:

" I think the year is now 2010, right? And doesn't everyone have a cell phone?
And doesn't everyone up here complain about crappy reception?
The fake trees are barely noticable and your kids are getting harmful health RF exposures daily from electrical wires, computers, microwaves, and YOUR cellphone. Let's not forget, ignorance and inability to change with the times kills children, too. "