My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments 04-30-2015 thru 05-13-2015 (file 2 of 2)
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
Public Comments 04-30-2015 thru 05-13-2015 (file 2 of 2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2015 4:05:46 PM
Creation date
5/20/2015 8:10:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT @ CROSSFIRE MINISTRIES
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
4/30/2014
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Testimony to Eugene City Council, October 13, 2014 public forum <br />1. There are clearly expert opinions on both sides of the issue regarding health risks from cell <br />tower radiofrequency signals. The American Cancer Society states that the RF waves given off by <br />cell towers are not known to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how some forms <br />of radiation cause cancer. But they also state that the International Agency for Research on <br />Cancer has classified RF fields as "possibly carcinogenic," and the Environmental Protection <br />Agency's position is that RF and electromagnetic radiation are "potential carcinogens." Thus, <br />while there is no conclusive evidence regarding the specific impacts of RF energy on human <br />health, public health agencies are clear in articulating that there are potential risks. I live with <br />my wife, already a cancer survivor, within 150 ft. of the proposed tower site. <br />2. Apart from human health effects, the nature of impacts to birds, pollinating bees, and other <br />wildlife should be considered, particularly since the proposed tower is within 150 feet of what <br />the City of Eugene identifies as the Amazon Creek Wildlife Corridor. A cell tower seems <br />incompatible with this existing designation. <br />3. It is well known that the close proximity of cell towers diminishes property values. My wife and I <br />have lived at our current residence for nearly 30 years, within 150 ft. of the proposed tower <br />location, and have invested our sweat and money in enhancing its value. During that period, we <br />have seen seen numerous different churches occupy the property in question. I know of no <br />close neighbor who is not strongly opposed to the proposed tower, and there is resentment that <br />a group likely to be yet another temporary neighbor can impose diminished values on all their <br />long-term neighbors. <br />4. It has been argued that a cell tower is needed to improve cellular phone service. Again, I live <br />within 150 ft. of the proposed tower, and have perfectly satisfactory service. The reality is that <br />reliable cell service is already available. <br />5. Finally, City of Eugene Planning Division's stated mission (Envision Eugene Plan) is to "protect, <br />repair, and enhance neighborhood livability." I urge the city to uphold that pledge. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.