Hi Darren,

Thanks for your letter of Nov 24. I am pleased to read you are seeking alternative possibilities. I 
really hope a place can be found which is further from residences and less prominently visible. 
There are literally hundreds of people (per petition) who think likewise and therefore hundreds of 
people who will sleep more easily if you are able to secure a more remote location. Please keep us 
advised how this progresses.

Regarding the contentious health issue (if it were not contentious there would not be such 
consistent resistance whenever these towers are proposed). Here is my blunt understanding of 
what's going on. Please advise me if I am off-track on any of this.

1. cell phones and their derivative services are highly profitable
2. as with all industries, cell phone industry lobbies legislators for regulations which enable 
growth of the industry
3. legislators review studies and literature to see if any data exists yet which links health issues to 
cell usage or proximity, they find nothing which would put them in jail, so lobbyists get their way 
(towers next to residences are OK)
4. consumers like their cell phone services and happily increase their usage = "demand"
5. because of such demand, cell companies see more profit with more transmission facilities
6. so we arrive at the logic that cell companies (in compliance with willing and seemingly often 
non-resident landlords) are "demanded" to put 100 foot tall towers in front of 'neighbours' 
windows

Darren, when I was first told of this proposal I was horrified (still am) that it was OK for a 
landowner to place a 100 foot tower in front of their neighbours windows. And that local land 
use authorities are effectively over-ruled so as to have no say. I was not expecting this kind of 
development when we moved from the city to some green space in a community which is 
passionate about it's green space. No one knows what your future holds but do you ever ponder 
the karmic value of what is going on here? What might your neighbours one day surprise you 
with?

Another logic sequence...

1. outrage follows if tower proposed on or close to a school, why? because so much concern over 
health damage to children
2. so not OK to place tower next to where many children gather
3. seemingly OK to place a tower next to where a few children live
4. so what is the cut-off number between only a "few" and "many"

If there are health issues with cell proximity, we may not know for many years, because we are 
still in the 'experiment'. There were also periods of time when tobacco, asbestos, and thalidomide 
were thought to be good ideas. A simple internet search will produce enough controversy over 
health claims of cell proximity, that we are clearly not in a state of certainty as to the safety of 
cell proximity, especially for children.

Personally, I think as a society, the possible damage we do to our children during this 
'experiment', is a higher priority than consumer "demand" (as identified above).

Let's be precautionary where we can. Here we can. And let health, especially childrens, be of 
more value than profits, stock prices, bonuses, and targets.

Merry Christmas and thanks for doing what you can to make 2011 a Happy New Year. If there is 
anything we can do to help, please let us know.

Mike Sargent