Stephen,

Please take a look at the following web sites and let me know what you think.

http://www.marginata.com/tower/

http://www.onedc.org/tower/index.htm

American Tower's sites:

http://www.towerfacts.com/

http://atcdmziis01.americantower.com/mainweb/

In a nutshell, a whole lot of my neighbors are all stirred up with FUD about a new TV tower being built in our neighborhood. They got DC's Mayor Williams to rescind the permit and stop construction on the tower. The company, American Tower, is suing the city over it.

I'd be very interested in your opinion about this whole thing. I feel that I am the lone debunker in DC over this issue (other than American Tower and their lawyers).

-Buddy in DC

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Answers

It's the...ooooooooo...radiation donchaknow!

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Buddy,

Speaking from experience, you're going to have a difficult time convincing people who are "scared" of the tower. All American Tower can hope to do is get more people who AREN'T scared of it to shout the first group down. Politics, y'know.

As far as the tower being safe, self-supporters like that rarely, if ever, fall. (Guyed towers rarely fall as well, though it does seem to happen more often -- typically because a guy wire gets damaged or cut, or a tornado hits the site.) That's one fear that's baseless.

Exposure to electromagnetic radition is another thing that's very difficult to explain to laycreatures. Junk science abounds in that, too. In spite of the fact that there's no direct link between low levels of radiation and sickness, the FCC has strict emissions guidelines. I would imagine that most of the antennas on that tower will be cell and wireless types -- typically 10 to 100 watts. You'd receive more radiation by standing 1' from a large microwave oven in operation.

But again, it's difficult to convince people of this. All American Tower can hope to do is organize enough people to oppose the opponents. The FCC (www.fcc.gov) has some materials on radiation hazards that you might could use.

And I hate to tell you this -- but if they can't get enough support from the public, the tower probably won't go up. I doubt they'll win their lawsuit with the city, either.

I did enjoy the throwaway comment from that opposition page about the three towers being replaced by this one big one. "Two of them have already been removed!" That's a choice example of political spin. Of COURSE they've already been removed -- in anticipation of the one big tower going up! This happens all the time.

Just to be balanced, though, American Tower's claim that this new tower is indispensible for HDTV is a little misleading; I would imagine that DC (like most communities) is well over 90% cable-served, and HDTV could be implemented that way.

High-powered TV transmitters are usually built nowdays to service the fringe and rural areas, not the main community of license (which will usually have cable in most homes).

Good luck. :)

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Buddy,

One other thought. After re-reading some of the hysteria at that anti-tower site, I wonder if these people realize that the antennas are located several hundred feet up the tower? There will be very little (if any) exposure to radiation at ground level.

Whence my comment about receiving more exposure from a microwave oven.

These people seem to be using figures and arguments based on a person in the plane of radiation NEAR the antenna itself. (They don't specify, so it's hard to say.)

Most antennas are built nowdays to "focus" the signal. Even if it's omni-directional, you don't want to waste power going straight up or down; the pattern will be a tight "disk" around the array.

Imagine taking two plates, one on top to squeeze the signal down and out and the other under the antenna to squeeze it up and out. Another good analogy is that of a lighthouse -- focused light going OUT in all directions horizontally, but it's difficult to see right at the base of the light tower (ie, in the vertical plane).

But again, trying to explain technical matters to someone who's frightened is a very, very difficult task (speaking from experience).

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

I thought there was a regulation in DC that NO Commercial Structure was ever to be built that was higher than either the Capitol or the Wash. Monument.

Why hasn't that surfaced? AND why didn't the dummies build it someplace where it wouldn't bother everyone? Either in Md. or Va.?

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

CPR,

Either in Md. or Va.?

The microwave frequencies used in the new PCS and digital wireless systems are so high, the signal actually attenuates in atmosphere -- drastically. The tower has to be within a few miles of the target area.

That's why American Tower wants to build right there -- it'll be a cash cow. They'll have companies falling all over each other for rental space right there in downtown DC. They'll be able to cover the whole city from a single tower, as opposed to paying for a dozen different rental contracts on taller buildings and water towers. :)

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Stephen and Charles, thanks for taking a look.

A couple of things I didn't say and the opposition web-site doesn't want to mention.

The tower is being built on a lot adjacent to two other towers that have been there for quite a while. These are in addition to the 3 towers that American Tower is replacing. One of those was a replacement for the other, although the other is still used for radio. The other two towers are owned by Albritton Communications (I think it's called) which owns WJLA (Albritton's initials) Channel 7 (ABC) in DC. WUSA (CBS) Channel 9 also uses that tower. The smaller of the two is the former Channel 9 tower. They used to put Christmas lights on that tower, which was quite a sight during the holidays. The taller of the two is already taller than the Washington Monument, which makes it taller than the Capitol building of course.

The towers all stand on a hill which is the highest point in the city. This is not downtown, but uptown and to be blunt in the only historically white majority area of the city. The fact that the other towers are already there and aren't going anywhere makes any arguments about aesthetics and eyesores ridiculous. How can it be any more of an eyesore to put another tower where towers have been clustered for years? In my opinion, this is a logical place for a new tower. Also, WTTG (Fox) Ch. 5 and WRC (NBC) Ch. 4 also have towers within a mile of this site. In fact, the Ch. 5 tower is closer to houses across the street from it than this new one is to any houses. Also the Ch. 5 parking lot is under their tower! They routinely drive under it and park adjacent to it, which makes me skeptical about the ice issue. Stephen, what about ice anyway? There is another very tall tower across the Maryland state line about 2 miles from these. That one stands about 500-1000 feet from a high rise apartment building. Nobody protested when any of those went up, and these people aren't clamoring to have them torn down either. I just don't get it.

A few miles away is another very tall tower that looks like the Eiffel Tower. This one is owned by the DC government, which they lease to commercial interests and, I think, use it for police and fire radio. That one must be 600 feet tall at least. So, the city has always had the right to allow these types of towers to be taller than the Capitol building, although no other type of structure is allowed to be.

American Tower is suing the city because the city had approved their permits, but rescinded them on the basis of a handful of influential protesters who had collected 1000 signatures on a petition. I think they have a case, though I'm not a lawyer. In any other part of the city, 1000 signatures on a petition wouldn't even get you into city hall, let alone action by the mayor.

The thing that irks me most about the protests, and what got me fired up about this, is they had kids out on their picket lines with signs reading "Radiation without Representation" and so forth. They also sent out anti-tower flyers via my son's backpack mail (his school is 2 blocks from the tower) and I find that highly inappropriate.

I think that if these folks succeed in stopping this tower as it is, there will still be a tower built there, it will just have to be modified from this design. A lot of hot air, a lot of wasted city money, and a lot of tax revenue being lost. Junk science run amok!

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

Oh, Stephen, one more thing.

My understanding is that the law requires that all broadcast television be digital. So, cable transmission doesn't meet the requirements.

-- Anonymous, January 26, 2001

Buddy,

Sorry, I missed that last one; just saw it.

Digital television is simply another way to deliver the signal to the end user; it's still an RF signal, compatible with cable (though some cable systems might have to rearrange THEIR special services, if any use the same frequencies as the digital TV signals).

The FCC also requires that broadcasters must transmit a signal over the air, regardless of the presence of cable service; hence, the desire for more tower space. One would think they could simply piggyback the new antenna on the same tower with the old, but (aside from some arcane technical concerns) in many cases, the towers are already full. :)

Here's one discussion at the FCC. They may indeed have to get involved -- as they did with home satellite dishes. A lot of local officials have been slow to get the news, but they CANNOT prevent you from mounting such a dish on your property. The FCC has preempted them.

We'll see if they do the same with DTV. If they decide to get involved in DC, that'll settle the matter once and for all.

The main thing in favor of that scenario is that the FCC and Congress are committed to DTV and getting it implemented as quickly as possible. I hadn't realized that they had such stringent requirements on the antenna, either (I'm radio, not television, I have enough time keeping up with MY rules[g]), so American Tower's argument takes on a new light.

After further consideration, I believe they'll prevail.

The deadline, last time I checked, was 2006, but because of difficulties in obtaining local tower space, many broadcasters have petitioned the FCC for an extension. We probably won't see an all-HDTV system until well into this century.

(Look how long AM has held on. They've been threatening to give AM an in-band digital system for decades now; hasn't happened yet.)

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2001

New pictures

http://www.ma rginata.com/tower/photos/setback.htm

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2001