Home » From The Readers, Letters to the Editor » Citizen Safety Requires Wireless Communications Moratorium

Citizen Safety Requires Wireless Communications Moratorium

Massive cell towers planned for Sedona and Cottonwood residential communities

Massive cell towers planned for Sedona and Cottonwood residential communities

Sedona AZ (December 15, 2012) – In a Letter to the SedonaEye.com Editor, Elaine Brown of Sedona Arizona petitions the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors not to suppport the AT&T cell tower request. Ms. Brown writes:

Dear Yavapai County Supervisors Davis, Thurman and Springer:

I oppose the upcoming two proposals for an AT&T 90 ft cell tower in Verde Village, 406-46-330A; HA# H12089 and an AT&T 99ft. cell tower in Sedona Pines, APN: 408-29-002W; HA# H12090. This will be your decision on December 17th, 2012 in Cottonwood. I am asking you to vote NO on both. No. No.

My heart has been very heavy with sadness and disbelief since I found out that my beloved Country has a congressional act that prohibits you from considering the environment or your citizens’ health when making decisions about wireless communications placement. I am so appalled by the fact that I have had to set aside my core values concerning environment and health and fight a battle using scenic roads and visual intrusions, historic trails and other community won battles to try and protect my neighbors and myself.

I’ve done a lot of good research and now know where we are potentially headed. I also know that good will always prevail if people have the courage to do the right thing. You have a duty and moral responsibility to maintain public health and safety as a number one priority, not number five out of seven as it stated in Yavapai County planning and zoning ordinance Section 605, Wireless Communication Facilities.

Do we have independent engineers that review applications and modifications to existing sites? Are we demanding the ongoing monitoring of tower emissions from the Wireless Communications applicants at their cost? That should be standard.

Are these applicants required to tell inform the County when they sell or transfer it to someone else for future liability reasons? The service provider, tower owner and land owner should all be part of the application process to prevent speculative building. Do we do that? Are we simply allowing planning and zoning to say yes, it could go there and then turning a blind eye towards everything else?

Are we assuming the towers are right for each particular area? Do we know the frequencies of all the existing and proposed towers? We should only be allowing signal strengths that will provide adequate coverage for an adequate capacity, not blanket coverage.

The right to determine signal strength at the local level has been upheld in federal case law and by the FCC. It is understood that there will be holes in coverage, especially in hilly topography.

Have we been allowing more than approximately 75% coverage because we just don’t know any better? Is it going to prohibit service if we say no? Hills, mountains, terrain and materials are all affecting the signal once it leaves the source.

You have a responsibility to know what that means if you are surrounding your citizens with these frequencies. Wireless technology is ever expanding. Bandwidths are being superimposed on other bandwidths. Who knows anything about that? Are we using it anywhere in the County? How would we know? Does the County presently have an engineer that specializes in this technology? If we do, please guide me to him or her. I have a couple of questions.

Personal Communication towers are already available. AT&T sells them to fill the gaps. It’s a little cell tower for your living room. What about that? Why do we need more towers if we already have that? What else is out there? We need to know that.

Planning and Zoning should be very strict regarding Wireless Communications and our ordinances are outdated and not protective enough. We have rights that are not being exercised.

We need larger setbacks. We need by-right zones where facilities can locate-but nowhere else. We should require extensive engineering detail in the application. Do we? I am asking you to respect the little distance we have for safety. Our current distance of 1,000 feet is inadequate with out waiving it. We also need our fall zones.

States, Counties and small communities are winning the battle to keep safety in their lives. I am requesting that you immediately place a moratorium on any further wireless communications placement in Yavapai County until a Master Plan can be developed and implemented to protect the safety of our citizens, millions of visitors and businesses. Safety is paramount.

These proposed towers are incompatible with Yavapai County’s Comprehensive Plan. The environment is our business.

Perhaps our Chamber of Commerce could start asking the two million plus visitors a year from around the world if they travel here because of our scenic views or their phone service. Shall we? If we continue to consider wireless communications placement on a case-by-case basis with no Master Plan, we could eventually lose our environmental business and then it won’t matter.  Wireless Communications Moratorium Requested for Citizen Safety

We should follow the Precautionary Principle at this time for many reasons.

It is very simple. When there is doubt, do no further harm. Better safe than sorry.

Thank you for your consideration.

Elaine Brown
Village of Oak Creek
Sedona AZ 86351


For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.

For the best Sedona Arizona News and Views? Subscribe to www.SedonaEye.com today.






  1. In recent years, legal claims over damage to property value because of EMF and RF emissions have met with some success. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits usually allege that the value of their property has been reduced because of its proximity to devices that emit RF or EMF. The theory behind this argument is that, since the general public believes that exposure to RF or EMF emissions is dangerous, the property is less valuable regardless of whether or not fears over the dangers are founded. For example, the selling price of a house located near an RF or EMF transmission line may be much lower than prices of similar properties located farther away, simply because families are afraid of potential negative health effects that could result from living in a house that is so close to the transmission line.


    Getting Help – Claims involving EMF or RF exposure are usually not the kind of lawsuits in which you can represent yourself effectively. The legal and scientific issues in such cases are often complex and sophisticated. Depending on your case, you may wish to retain the services of a lawyer who specializes in toxic torts or EMF and RF litigation specifically.

    For help in choosing a good personal injury attorney, read Nolo’s article Finding a Personal Injury Lawyer http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/finding-personal-injury-lawyer-29840.html. Go to Nolo’s Lawyer Directory for a list of personal injury attorneys in your geographical area (click on the “Types of Cases” and “Work History” tabs to find out about the lawyer’s experience, if any, with EMF or RF cases).

    Kathleen Michon, J.D.

  2. C. S. Torg says:


    Is this the “smoking gun” that proves how dangerous Wi-Fi is? In 2004 a Swiss mobile carrier patented a router design that was intended to reduce or eliminate part of the radiation emitted by Wi-Fi routers and transmitters due to cancer concerns/DNA damage. Watch the 5 minute video.

    A simple and important explanation of Wi-Fi technology for parents, teachers and administrators.


  3. N. Baerr says:

    In the UK: 12/19/12 Bridgewater unanimously passes law to regulate cell phone towers

    The Bridgewater Township Council Monday voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance introduced on Dec. 3 to regulate future cell sites, such as the one the township rejected from T-Mobile earlier this year that triggered an ongoing lawsuit from the wireless company, according to a representative from the township clerk’s office. http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2012/12/bridgewater_passes_law_to_regu.html

  4. N. Baer says:

    This is the latest movie on RF radiation. It just became free to watch on youtube. A must watch for all. This will give us a very basic knowledge of the health effect or RF and allow us to make the right decision about more cell phone towers that can house up to 40 antennae coming to and around Sedona.
    Please share with your neighbors.

  5. http://www.nahealth.com/NewsAndEvents/HealthEducationArticles/Other/electromagnetic_pollution

    Kathy Greenberg, R.N., B.S.N. -A new and often overlooked area of home safety is assessing the home environment for electromagnetic pollution. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are energy waves that surround electronic devices. Everyday electronic devices and appliances such as microwave ovens, computers, stereo equipment, TVs, clock radios, cordless and cell phones, space heaters, fluorescent lights, wiring and electric blankets have EMFs that can extend up to several feet around the device. These EMFs also can travel through the body, as well as walls, floors and ceilings. Most homes and workplaces are filled with electronic equipment and appliances that emit higher levels of EMFs than recommended.

    According to natural health expert, Andrew Weil, M.D., “Electromagnetic pollution may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced in this century, and it is all the more dangerous because it is an invisible, insensitive ‘toxin’.”

    EMFs can affect us because human beings have their own biochemical and electric responses (e.g. brain and heart functions, nervous system and digestion). Some people are very sensitive to EMFs and experience one or more non-specific symptoms.

  6. Elaine Brown says:

    Please circulate to all interested parties.


    See number 9.

    It is time to write your thoughts and comments to your leaders and today would be best if not by Thursday.

    You may talk about health and environment and you should. Nothing is being decided for siting this day so there is no law in place preventing you from speaking freely about protecting your family, your health and our environment.

    Speak about tourism and our beautiful land that will be ruined by careless placement. Nature is trying to protect us. Use those tools.

    With regard to Wireless applications and waivers:

    We need an Master Plan for Yavapai County and should place an immediate moratorium on Wireless Communications placement until our ordinances can be updated.

    Ordinances must be updated with strict citizen protection. Public Health and Safety a number ONE priority.

    No more administrative reviews.

    Very important to mention upgrades/modifications because they have been installing new 4g technology which includes dangerous pulsing microwave radiation towers very close to residents. In one case locally going from 2 to 12 plus antennas with little to no oversight by independent wireless communications experts is and should be unacceptable.

    All applications must have public participation and comment.

    No waivers of distance and safety or fall zones. This is our only protection. Living within 1500 feet of a tower increases chances of illness exponentially. There are studies to prove this over and again.


    The agenda officially comes out tomorrow ( it is up under planning and zoning on the County website) and it is already too late to have anything included in the supervisors packet. If you would like to comment to the Supervisors
    in advance send your emails to:

    Yavapai County Supervisors:


    She will make sure it goes to them in advance of the meeting.

    Yavapai County Planning and Zoning:


    Please copy to your leaders from Sedona, Cottonwood, Prescott, etc. This is about all of Yavapai County.

    Elaine Brown

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·