Check your latest wireless bill. My Verizon Wireless bill rose this month entirely due to taxes and fees.

Thanks. Palo ALto. And please remind me again how long the city has been working on a broadband plan. It's at least 10 years, maybe longer.

We are thrilled to see the PA City Council finally approve the Verizon cell tower at the Palo Alto Little League Ball park on Middlefield Rd. Thank goodness the City of PA can move on and stop wasting valuable time and energy on this non-issue when we have so many other real pressing issues in PA to address (particularly since the Verizon antennae will only be five feet taller than the existing pole). PA needs this. Time to move forward. Welcome Verizon!

How many of the anti-cell-tower people themselves own cell phones? You can't have it both ways. If you use a cell phone, you are a shameless hypocrite for trying to ban cell phone towers.

I'm not objecting to the tower, just to the City's belief that they're entitled to an ever-growing share of everything.

The PA fee/tax is by far the largest fee charged on the monthly bill.

@Parent...Shameless hypocrite may be a bit over the top. Most people who are opposed to cell phone towers don't want them near their children's play areas or next to their homes because of potential health hazards. Until there is concrete evidence that emissions from towers do no harm, there will be people who oppose them whether they use cell phones or not.

My neighbor is a PhD physicist who has installed satellite towers for the government all over the world for years. When a proposed tower about 100 feet from his and my homes was in the works years ago, he calculated that the frequencies generated by the tower would be equivalent to holding a phone 6 inches from year ear 24/7.

Still think they're hypocrites?

Sorry....6 inches FROM you ear.

@38 year resident...Not true - He should double check his figures. We have two towers on one of our properties and have plenty of reports (required by the city) showing much less than his calculations.

@ parent...I concur!! Hypocrites!

The ballpark is a great place for a tower...they would get minimum $2000.00 a month (much needed for improvements...ummm SHADE over the dugouts! just for starters.), it can be disguised, so it doesn't look like a cell tower, and we would get better reception in our area!

To "Check Your Wireless Bill" ... there was a very interesting article the other day in the Daily Post about how the city of Palo Alto and many other cities were collecting too much in taxes on wireless bills. A lawsuit claimed the city owed $1 million to customers. So, yes, check your wireless bill and hope that the city is asking for the right amount.

So the ballpark tower has been approved. Anyone know how soon it will be up and functioning. I have Verizon and have TERRIBLE reception at my house.

@KP...the calculations done by my neighbor were accurate for the time in question...nearly 10 years ago. So yes, it was true then. Perhaps frequency emissions have changed. When he presented his information to the engineers representing the phone company at the community meeting, they gagged and could not provide any calculations to disprove what he came up with. The tower was never installed.

@38 year resident

Sadly no amount of "concrete evidence" is going to change you or anyone else's minds. People have been basting in wireless frequencies for 30+ years, and yet they aren't lurching around like mutants, let alone showing any notable increase in the diseases this radiation is supposed to cause. To anyone with an ounce of rationality, that should be the end of it.

"Until there is concrete evidence that emissions from towers do no harm, there will be people who oppose them whether they use cell phones or not."

There is concrete evidence already that these emissions do no harm so the above statement is not true. Fear trumps evidence.

There is a world of difference between ionizing emissions like x-rays, and non ionizing ones like the cell phone frequencies. The very worst that can happen with these lower frequencies is that they will keep you warm. If you don't feel warm, they are not hurting you.

There is also federal law backing this up. You cannot refuse to allow a cell phone tower because of concerns about health. People find that out and start to object to the color or the size.

I used to work designing test equipment for microwave radio. One of the problems they had was homeless people would sleep in the antennas to stay warm. Sucked up some of the energy and hurt the reception. Didn't hurt the people. These were big antennas with very high power and they were inside the antenna. I would definately not recommend that. If you feel warm, you probably are too close. If you don't you are going to be OK.

There is another solution. We don't need to build more cell towers, those people who don't have adequate reception in their homes can use cellular signal boosters. SureCall is one such manufacturer. These signal boosters greatly enhance the reception in your home, car or office. Building more cell towers isn't th anser

@kim S.

You're in luck because neither you nor I are being asked to or forced to build any cell towers. In order to get better cell reception, you, quite literally, don't have to do anything.

CW wrote:

To "Check Your Wireless Bill" ... there was a very interesting article the other day in the Daily Post about how the city of Palo Alto and many other cities were collecting too much in taxes on wireless bills. A lawsuit claimed the city owed $1 million to customers. So, yes, check your wireless bill and hope that the city is asking for the right amount.


Thanks.

How do we know what the right amount is? Who do we ask? Will the Weekly do a follow-up?

The core conflict is whether or not cell towers and wireless radiation are safe. I would love to see the Palo Alto Daily do an article presenting both sides of the argument in a fair and unbiased manner. I slowly changed my entrenched position on this topic over the last decade. Before that, I honestly, had never been presented with both sides of the issue and never took the time to look deeply and re-evaluate my position. I think that would be a great service to the community.

"Until there is concrete evidence that emissions from towers do no harm, there will be people who oppose them whether they use cell phones or not."

There is. Mountains of it. The debate is long over.

This stuff has been studied and studied and studied and studied for 70 years. (Oh, you thought RF radiation was invented when cellphones came out?)

Even the hyper-cautious Europeans have finally given up trying to show some harm from it.

Those "little sluggers" someone mentioned are getting VASTLY more electromagnetic radiation from the fluorescent lights in their school rooms.


The only people still objecting are the uniformed followers of the long-discredited Dr. Henry Lai (who likes to cite studies that don't exist) and the late and never-even-remotly-qualified-weatherman Dr. Neil Cherry.

(Yes, his degree was in meteorology. Look it up.)

"If you use a cell phone, you are a shameless hypocrite for trying to ban cell phone towers."

Not hardly. My phone only uses a few towers.