1. For what purposes are antennas being installed in our residential neighborhood? This is not stated in the “Right-of-Way Use Agreement.” Exhibit A describes “typical equipment types and installation configurations,” but this language is vague. Are the planned antennas for a cell phone network? WiFi network? Homeland Security? Other?

2. (a) Will the antennas be used to read utility meters, either now or in the future? In Exhibit A, the bottom of the antenna illustrations states, “Scale approximate. Mounting brackets, disconnect switch, electric meter (per utility standards), and associated attachments, such as channels, conduits, and grounding to be constructed in accordance with national and local utility and safety codes.”

(b) Are electric meters involved in this project? Is the purpose of these neighborhood wireless antennas related to the highly controversial ‘smart grid,’ which involves privacy, security, health, safety, and reliability concerns when conducted in a wireless manner? See www.GettingSmarterAbouttheSmartGrid.org for more information.

3. Are officials of the Village of Matinecock intending to allow antennas to be installed without evaluating their strength, frequencies, modulation characteristics, ranges, and radiation patterns? Why aren’t these important details being provided to residents for consideration? No technical specifications for the antennas have been provided in either the “Right-of-Way Use Agreement” or “Exhibit A.”

4. Has the Village of Matinecock considered the health risks of radio frequency and microwave radiation exposure to children, the unborn, the immuno-compromised, and the elderly?  Recently published papers by Harvard neurologist and neuroscientist, Martha Herbert, MD, indicates a potential connection between wireless technologies and the increasing incidence of autism:

Also of note are presentations by Yale University’s Hugh Taylor, MD, Chairman of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, and Columbia University’s Martin Blank, PhD, expert in DNA effects of wireless radiation.

5. What present cellular and wireless coverage does the neighborhood already have from cell towers and wireless networks? Given the existing cellular, wireless, and hard-wired options, has careful evaluation been made of the need for a new network in our residential neighborhood? Where is that analysis? It seems imprudent to make a decision that involves exposing residents to higher and higher levels of radiation, while giving a corporation that has no association with our community,  blanket, irreversible permission to add whatever new technology it chooses, without our evaluation and consent.

6. Is the Village of Matinecock aware that based on the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) May 2011 analysis and warning, radiation emitted from radio frequency electromagnetic fields constitutes a “Class 2B Possible Carcincogen,” and countries around the world are now taking steps to limit exposure to wireless radiation emissions?

In light of this emerging global trend towards wise, targeted use of wireless technologies, why is the Village of Matinecock willing to take risks with the health of Village residents?

7. Will the radiation from the planned antennas be limited to daytime hours or be turned off at night? RF radiation has been shown to deplete melatonin, thus impairing sleep patterns.

8. What environmental reports have been requested and considered, or will be, by the Village of Matinecock of Crown Castle as part of a ‘State Environmental Quality Review’ process? Are the effects of wireless radiation on wildlife and nature, such as birds, bees, and trees, considered as part of this review process?

9. What are the risks of the equipment, such as the backup battery power needed for the antennas, on and near the utility poles at ground level? In what ways might pets and other wildlife need to be kept away from this equipment?

10. Has the Village of Matinecock determined whether deployment of wireless antennas in our neighborhoods would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act?

11. Are the intended antennas ‘WiMax’ or similar communication technologies (e.g. point to point, medium/high power terrestrial microwave)? What are the power levels, frequencies, radiation patterns, and ranges of the planned antennas/transmitters?

12. How does radiation from the planned antennas compare to exposure from cell towers, and has the Village of Matinecock reviewed the cell tower science? What are the pros and cons of cell tower versus distributed neighborhood antennas like this? Are there risks for people who are already electrically sensitive?

13. How much Dirty Electricity (i.e. high frequency transients) will be placed on the   electrical circuits in our neighborhoods and homes from powering this new antenna network? What is the plan to measure and monitor these levels and effects?

14. What risk of gas explosions exist from exposure to the RF/microwave radiation emitted by the antennas?

15. In the draft contract, mention is made of additional locations planned for antennas in Matinecock. Where will these be and how many antennas in total are intended for Matinecock and environs? The full plan, not just the four nodes mentioned on Exhibit B, should be made clear to residents so that the full scope can be appreciated. Piecemeal information dribbled out on four antennas at a time, such as this, does not fully consider the interests of the residents you are representing.

16.  What plans does the Village of Matinecock have to add more radiating antennas to utility poles? Section 11.2 states that Crown Castle will not have exclusive use of the utility poles, and suggests that the Village of Matinecock may permit other providers of communications services to add antennas to these poles.

17. The drawings of the planned utility poles in Exhibit A are not aesthetically resonant with the character of our residential neighborhood, and are more suitable for highways. The Village of Matinecock should require several design options that are more in keeping with our historic neighborhood. Serious consideration should also be given to the impact of the enormous height and girth of the intended poles, as well as the effects of the potential ‘extension brackets.’ We should be seeking to bury utility lines where possible, not adding new unsightly monstrosities that detract from neighborhood beauty, quality of life, and, potentially, property value. On these grounds alone, this project should be reevaluated.

18. What are the ways in which Crown Castle will derive revenue from these antennas? From whom? And, for what services? Do they have contracts with service providers for specific jobs about which we should be informed?

19. Mention was made of “dark fiber” being routed to the village as part of the fiber system interconnecting the microcellular nodes. What contractual commitments has the Village of Matinecock made to Crown Castle or NY CLEC LLC regarding future use of the fiber? Are there any limitations on the municipality, if in the future it wishes to create, specifically for the benefit of residents, a municipal fiber system for Internet, TV, and wireline phone service?

20. Please provide financial projections that estimate the income generated by both the $500 pole fees and the 5% share of the “Crown Adjustment Gross Revenues,” for the Village of Matinecock during the initial 10-year term of the intended contract. The benefits of such a contract need to be weighed against the risks, and in consideration of the Village finances, this information should be provided with complete transparency.

21. Crown Castle is agreeing to indemnify the Village, council members, officers, and employees for certain liabilities, except in specific circumstances, such as instances of ‘negligence.’ Could a failure by Village of Matinecock officials to perform due diligence regarding the scientifically validated risks of wireless antennas, not be considered negligence? Would not the Village then be liable for any of the known risks of this radiation at this time?

22. According to Sec. 7 of Crown’s Commercial General Liability Policy, the Village of Matinecock and its employees will be named as Additional Insured. Also, Sec. 5.4 mentions potential relocation of equipment by the Village; reasons for relocation include the need “to protect or preserve the public health or safety.” Please provide a copy of the coverage Crown Castle has for public health liability, specifically regarding the operation of the intended antennas and network.

23. What are OSHA requirements for worker safety when Crown employees install the wireless antennas, and how will residents be protected against OSHA liability if poles and antennas are placed on residential property, as opposed to Village of Matinecock property?

24. In Section 11, what does it mean that Crown’s facilities are ‘unlisted,’ and what is its relevance?

25. Why is the Village of Matinecock agreeing in the draft contract that no zoning or planning board permit will be required for the installation of Crown Castle’s equipment? Should our community not be able to enforce zoning laws that concern commercial entities operating in residential neighborhoods?

26. What plans are in place to independently measure and monitor, on an ongoing basis, the levels of radiation exposure caused by the antennas and other sources of electromagnetic fields in our neighborhoods?

3/25/2014

Download PDF of 26 Questions and Concerns

Please support our work by making
a tax-deductible donation.
We are 100% donation-based
and need your support
to educate, communicate and analyze
critical developments in this field.
Thanks so much for your help!
Please give generously.
We depend on you.