1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter
2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower
3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited"
Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented?
Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful.
However, cellular towers near the area
a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones
b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES
Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health.
CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
J
Jason Chang
11 years ago
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter
2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower
3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited"
Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented?
Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful.
However, cellular towers near the area
a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones
b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES
Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health.
CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
J
Jason Chang
11 years ago
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter
2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower
3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited"
Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented?
Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful.
However, cellular towers near the area
a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones
b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES
Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health.
CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
J
Jason Chang
11 years ago
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter
2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower
3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited"
Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented?
Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful.
However, cellular towers near the area
a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones
b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES
Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health.
CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
J
Jason Chang
11 years ago
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter
2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower
3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited"
Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented?
Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful.
However, cellular towers near the area
a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones
b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES
Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health.
CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
Our neighborhood has already been supporting the cell phone equipment on top of the church. We are already doing our part - enough already.
A
Anonymous
11 years ago
This is very concerning. I worry about our kids and about the general safety of the surrounding neighbors. Please find another location.
S
Shuling Feng
11 years ago
These kind of structures should be built away from our schools.
L
Lori Ellingboe
11 years ago
Please find a place at least 300 feet away from homes and schools.
S
Smita Thakur
11 years ago
This tower is unsafe for our kids. I strongly oppose it.
J
Jennifer Zhong
11 years ago
Featured
The tower is harmful to students. We need to protect our future. We don't want any cell tower near our schools or residents. I was planning to switch to Verizon; with their attempt to build this tower, I decided to not to switch.
Y
Yafen Chen
11 years ago
i am against the installing of hazardous structures so close to out high school in our neighborhood.
J
jun wu
11 years ago
No tower near our kids. Protect our kids!
H
Hsinyi Li
11 years ago
no new wireless tower build near school or residential area.
K
Keyi Hua
11 years ago
no wireless tower around school and residential area.
D
Diane Mu
11 years ago
Against wireless post
C
Cheriel Jensen
11 years ago
Please don't allow this. There is too much hazard to the children beneath and in the vicinity.
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter 2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower 3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited" Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented? Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful. However, cellular towers near the area a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health. CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter 2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower 3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited" Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented? Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful. However, cellular towers near the area a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health. CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter 2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower 3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited" Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented? Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful. However, cellular towers near the area a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health. CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter 2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower 3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited" Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented? Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful. However, cellular towers near the area a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health. CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
1. Why does the Collocation analysis matter 2. The entire second claim is not about the cell phone tower, but about the generator that Verizon is "expected" to mount. This doesn't belong in the petition. This petition, as in the title, is against the tower itself. Petitioning the generator is different from petitioning the tower 3. "The immediate benefit to consumers is very limited" Simply because Verizon "provides the best coverage" does not mean that coverage is good. How well DOES Verizon cover the area today, and how well WILL it cover the area if said cellular tower is implemented? Now, I noticed that many of you are commenting against the cellular towers themselves, and some of you believe that the wireless tower itself is harmful. However, cellular towers near the area a. cause next to no harm to people who are not using cellphones b. REDUCES THE HARM TO PEOPLE WHO ARE USING CELLPHONES Since the cellular tower is more nearby, the phone signal to the radio tower does not have to be as powerful. The phone's radiation is many times more powerful in effect to the user due to the close proximity to the phone, hence the cellular tower actually benefits nearby people in terms of health. CONTRARY TO COMMON BELIEF, WIRELESS TOWERS DO NOT CAUSE HARM TO THE HUMAN BODY AND/OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH.
http://kissanime.com/Anime/Code-Geass-Lelouch-of-the-Rebellion-Dub
Our neighborhood has already been supporting the cell phone equipment on top of the church. We are already doing our part - enough already.
This is very concerning. I worry about our kids and about the general safety of the surrounding neighbors. Please find another location.
These kind of structures should be built away from our schools.
Please find a place at least 300 feet away from homes and schools.
This tower is unsafe for our kids. I strongly oppose it.
The tower is harmful to students. We need to protect our future. We don't want any cell tower near our schools or residents. I was planning to switch to Verizon; with their attempt to build this tower, I decided to not to switch.
i am against the installing of hazardous structures so close to out high school in our neighborhood.
No tower near our kids. Protect our kids!
no new wireless tower build near school or residential area.
no wireless tower around school and residential area.
Against wireless post
Please don't allow this. There is too much hazard to the children beneath and in the vicinity.
Petition for not having the tower.
Petition for not having the tower.