Letter: Still many unknowns about cell tower emissions

Letter to the Editor:

The City of Milford should err on the side of caution in its pursuit of the dollar.

Why rush into transforming the existing police and radio communications towers on Eels Hill into a 135 foot tower that will also see AT&T lease space on that very same tower for cell phone relay usage that could endanger the residents who live within one quarter to one half mile from its base with radio frequency microwave transmissions that may be harmful to humans?

Yeah, I know we are all bombarded with RF waves every day from everything from cell phones, wi-fi and laptops. But cell phone towers emit these waves in much stronger and concentrated amounts. I don't think many of us would be willing to chance the effects this electromagnetic radiation would have on our health living under the shadow of one of these towers 24/7.

The International Association of Fire Fighters... “oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such sitings are not hazardous to the health of our members.”

Why should Milford citizens assume the risk that our firefighters, who get paid to risk their lives for us everyday, refuse to take? I'm sure there are many areas in Milford that are better suited for construction of such a tower where the taxpayers of Milford won't have to gamble with their health and well being.

Unlike our use of cell phones and laptops, which is voluntary and can be monitored and limited by our own actions, a cell phone tower exposes people to the potential health hazards without our consent or regulation.  In reality, my property is farther away from the proposed tower than residents in Settlers Woods and Settlers Ridge who were never notified of the city's intentions. In fact, the new 135 foot tower probably would not be visible from my property.

This isn't strictly a “not in my back yard” issue per say in my case, despite the fact my property is directly adjacent to Eel's Hill. It is basically a health issue from my point of view.

However, having walked the neighborhoods in question, I can see the concern homeowners might have about property values and the prospect of a huge unsightly tower looming over their heads. Some homes are literally a few short feet away from the proposed site.

We, as Americans, have a right to not be harmed by our neighbors, be they violent drug dealers or government agencies. We all have property rights that should not be sacrificed by bureaucrats with an agenda.  We all want better cell phone service but at what cost?

For anyone to say this is a win-win situation for all involved, I say it is not going to be a victory for the folks who will have to live under the shadow of the tower on Eel's Hill. Until it is firmly established these towers present no risk, the city should reconsider this action. The Board of Alderman should reject this proposal and protect its' constituents rather than sell them out for a few AT&T dollars.

Walt Rollins