Cell towers more than eye sores
To the editor,
There are concerned citizens who are not on a mission to “ban cell phones” as the Durango Herald’s political cartoon (Jan. 26) suggested. We simply want our city and county officials to listen to our concerns and do what’s necessary to protect the health and wellbeing of our community from the harmful radiation emissions that are flooding our lives 24/7. The following is my letter, which appeared just under the cartoon:
The editorial on cell towers (Herald, Jan. 21) cannot stand unchallenged! It’s insulting to those of us who for over two years researched the world’s most authoritative sources on RF emissions and their impact on human and animal life.
Your editorial – and the views of our elected officials – show concern only for the visual impact of cell tower proliferation and none for their impact on living things. Doesn’t the code of ethics in journalism require a balanced presentation of facts?
What unbiased, credible sources can you cite that support the statement that cell towers are safe? The FCC? The telecommunication companies?
The FCC hasn’t updated their studies since the Telecommunications Act was adopted in 1996. That Act gave the telecommunication industry carte blanche to install as many cell towers and antenna clusters as they want, anywhere, with a free pass on the potential impact on our health and environment.
When the Act was enacted, only about 30,000 cell towers existed, and no Smart Meters (devices that also emit radiation). Today, there are hundreds of thousands of towers and millions of installed Smart Meters! You can’t use the same studies and rules when the numbers have dramatically changed. The bottom line, it’s all about greedy corporate profits! Listening to the big corporations claims of safety is reminiscent of the tobacco company’s denial about the hazards of smoking.
Do people honestly believe we can subject our small children, the elderly, people with compromised immune systems, pets and wildlife and our own bodies
to this unprecedented accumulation of radiation without consequences?
The health concerns and complaints aren’t just coming from a few “smoke signal” devotees in Durango, as the Herald’s article implied, there are hundreds of thousands of people being affected by the unbridled RF emissions that are being injected into our environment worldwide. Well-respected medical doctors, professional organizations (e.g., WHO), the American Academy of Environmental Health (to name a few) have all expressed concerns about the health impacts and independent studies have supported their concerns.
Do we listen to the people getting sick or do we listen to the people getting rich? You decide!
– Angela Andersson, Durango
Acclimating from here on out
To the editor,
Peter Carver headed out with his buddies on a Saturday morning for some skiing not quite a year ago. He was taken by an avalanche and never made it back. Almost a year later, Peter’s friends and particularly his family, may appear to be “doing ok.” But, as anyone knows who has lost a young one before his time, that’s only to the untrained eye.
In the long wake of this tragedy, there’s an unseen process going on. I’ve come to use a particular word for this that fits Peter: Acclimating. It’s defined as “the process of adapting to a changed environment.” That’s an understatement when it comes to the passing of a close buddy, let alone a nephew, brother or child. What I’ve come to understand is, this is not a phase that has a beginning and an end, but the nature of things from now on.
Acclimating. It fits Peter, growing up in our mountains and the canyons of the Colorado Plateau, a native son of the San Juans. He was a student of geology, working and playing in his home terrain with, as he often put it “My People.”
He was born in the drainage of the Rio de las Animas Perdidas, and he died in the headwaters of the same, the River of Lost Souls. The avalanche that took him Feb. 2, 2013, those molecules of frozen water worked their way downstream passing through his home town months later. Many of us, “His People,” floated together on some of those same molecules last summer, canoeing, tubing, kayaking, laughing. We group up and head out often, remembering. Continuing to do all the things that Peter loved to do. But without him, we are acclimating from here on out.
Peter’s buddy John Thomas wrote in his song about Peter: “I feel a chill, and for a moment you are real. Oh no, now you’re gone. You’re like a ghost that haunts my heart, dropping by from time to time.”
– Paul Wilbert, Durango
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel
To the editor,
A letter to the editor last week titled “Ease Natural Gas Exports” was a well-written piece about the benefits and necessity of using natural gas for our transportation system and to meet our current energy needs. Merrill Matthews, the author, is on staff with the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), a conservative think tank that states on their home page that “economic growth” is their priority, and that they favor “less government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.” As such, I was not surprised to see the article end with a rather dismissive acknowledgement that “the day may come when we can get most or all of the energy we need from renewable sources,” but for the time being, with the “right policies” and natural gas, we can celebrate CO2 reductions now.
Some good arguments for using natural gas were made, and comparing it to coal helps support natural gas’ superiority in terms of reduced C02 emissions (assuming it’s burned and doesn’t escape unburned). The EPA was cited as “making it increasingly difficult and costly” by virtue of “pushing regulations” to burn coal. Thus natural gas is the answer – especially if the “right policies” keep those “difficult and costly” regulations from interfering with “economic growth.”
I wonder if the residents of West Virginia, Pennsylvania or Colorado who’ve been affected by the fossil fuels industry and fracking via water contamination, etc., would agree that we need more fossil fuels and less regulation (environmental protection), in order to make more money (for whom is debatable), i.e. economic growth as IPI supports?
Not so coincidentally, IPI is funded by organizations like the Kochs’ Claude R. Lambe Foundation, Scaife Foundations, the Bradley Foundation, and Exxon Mobile (www.soursewatch.org). It’s amazing to me how much the focus has shifted in the public and legislative arenas (did I mention the “American Legislative Exchange Council” – the corporate bill mill that IPI belongs to?) from trying to move to less-polluting, more renewable energy sources and away from fossil fuels, toward the latest fossil fuel – natural gas. Articles like Mr. Matthews are part of the reason why.
Yes, we need to use various energy sources while we move away from fossil fuels (including natural gas). But we need to stay focused on renewables and safe guarding the planet on which we live. Money won’t buy us a new planet.
– Tim Thomas, Durango
Small world moment ...
Unbeknownst to us, the picture used in “Open Letter to Ullr,” (La Vida Local, Telegraph Jan. 16) is of the sculpture “Ullr” by former Durango resident and DHS art teacher Richard A. Jagoda. The sculpture is currently located in and owned by the Town of Breckenridge, where this picture was taken. Richard passed away Feb. 12, 2013, in Black Forest, Colo. Thank you to Barb McCall for bringing this amazing coincidence to our attention. Let’s hope Ullr is paying attention, too.