2014-07-03 Hearing Transcript - AT&T MobilityUSE 14-048

Home

have no aggression toward the individual who owns the property of the proposed tower. He’s doing nothing wrong but taking advantage of a situation or opportunity to produce some I’m sure needed income but possibly at the expense of his own family and his own informed choice, so what am I talking about? The problem I have is that initially, he was told to send a letter to neighbors around him of a distance of 500 feet. That might work for other proposals, but for a cell tower, it’s a little different. He did not make up that distance, so I don’t hold that against him. There was some unresearched rules of engagement which bear no sensibility and scientific study regarding the tower’s EMF radiation. The fact is there are not many homes in this 500- foot area, but there’s a lot of homes in that Fern Acres area. It gives AT&T a step up in their request to have a tower because they’re not enough people knowing about this tower. And that means not much adversity. The community was really not informed. There’s people who live way up beyond that tower, excuse me, beyond that sign, proposal sign that have never seen that tower because they don’t come that way or up that way. Moving on to the next concern, now if this gentleman chooses to have this tower on his property and is aware of the health possibilities that could occur, it’s his choice, but here’s the concern. If the tower is approved, it does not give any neighbors any choice of choosing their poison. I considered this myself as an alternative site, but then I thought about and did some research on this and I’m not so sure for myself if I had the chance to have an alternative site at my property, but they’re not benefitting financially like this good gentleman is, but are forced to subject themselves to the negative possibilities of having this tower. I look at it this way. We all choose our poisons. I smoked, that’s not good, but I don’t drink. I choose my poison of choice. Do you drink? That’s your poison of choice, but the fact is, it’s your chosen poison, and it’s, it’s not having it forced down your throat. I feel that anyone who’s in a three quarter mile radius of this tower should be compensated monthly or a lump sum check for having to be exposed to this radiation voluntarily or not. Now, if AT&T is a responsible organization, and if they are hell bent on having this tower in this geographical area, then I feel the people who have no say about this and are exposed to such EMF radiation—and it’s, it’s a lot—should at least receive some sort of stipend for the possibilities of ill health. I use a figure of three quarter of a mile radius because studies have said that an area of about 1,800 feet is a ground zero area of such EMF on a tower. How about our real estate values? Do you think having a tower is a good selling point, for example, for homeowners. Now, I’ll just make this quick and quote, an Australian study found that children leaving near TV/FM and broadcast towers which emit similar radiation as cell towers develop leukemia at three times the rate of children living seven miles away. A German study cited that cancer rates tripled among people living within 400 meters of cell towers. Those within 100 meters were exposed to radiation one hundred times normal the levels— MIYASATO: --Excuse me, could you please summarize, please? BATTAGLIA: Excuse me? MIYASATO: Could you summarize? BATTAGLIA: Well, I’ll summarize it. I mean, I’m here cause I’m probably the only representative in Fern Acres because not everybody has—the summarization that not everybody 5 EXHIBIT D