Friday, February 17, 2012
One simple question exposes the ugly truth about 1996 Telecommunications Act
WHY does the 1996 Telecommunications Act include language that prohibits state and local officials from protecting against "the environmental effects of the radiofrequency radiation" of wireless facilities? (this has been interpreted to mean no one may oppose a siting of a cell tower or other transmittor due to health concerns.)
If there was no evidence of health effects, such language would have been unnecessary, now, wouldn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friday, February 17, 2012
One simple question exposes the ugly truth about 1996 Telecommunications Act
WHY does the 1996 Telecommunications Act include language that prohibits state and local officials from protecting against "the environmental effects of the radiofrequency radiation" of wireless facilities? (this has been interpreted to mean no one may oppose a siting of a cell tower or other transmittor due to health concerns.)
If there was no evidence of health effects, such language would have been unnecessary, now, wouldn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment