Phones, radios and even microwaves could cause sudden bursts of speed
BY GREG GARDNER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
In today's complex cars, a cell phone, satellite radio or even a restaurant's large microwave could -- in theory -- cause the accelerator to surge out of control, according to engineers familiar with electronic engine technology.
And the problem is not limited to Toyota, which is reeling from a recall over unintended-acceleration issues that forced it to stop selling eight models last week.
"This problem is well-known to all automakers. If you can solve this problem, you would be a multibillionaire," said John Liu, a Wayne State University professor of electrical and computer engineering.
Toyota is phasing in a brake override system on new cars and installing it on select models going back to 2007. Some competitors already offer some form of that technology, enabling a driver to rein in any unexplained surge by stepping on the brake.
Unintended acceleration happens rarely; floor mats, driver error and faulty gas pedals may be contributing factors.
But most automotive engines today are governed by sensor-driven throttle systems. Controlled by finely calibrated software, the systems can be thrown out of whack by signals from cell phones or microwave towers, engineering experts said.
Regulators struggle to pin down the problem because replicating the incidents is nearly impossible.
Liu compares the problem with the jamming of signals on military aircraft.
"The problem is, the expertise for preventing signal jamming rests in the Department of Defense, not the automakers or their suppliers," Liu said.
Toyota trails competitors in safe-brake technology
Toyota has been hit disproportionately hard by unintended-acceleration problems because it has been slower than some competitors in introducing braking technology that could have prevented it, according to safety records and consumer advocates.
The problem has occurred in almost every manufacturer's vehicles. A Consumer Reports analysis of 166 sudden-acceleration complaints to federal safety regulators for 2008 found they came from 22 brands, but 41% came from Toyota or Lexus models. That was more than Chrysler, General Motors, Honda and Nissan combined.
All complaints analyzed were filed before Aug. 28, 2009, more than a month before Toyota's recall of floor mats that could become trapped in accelerator pedals.
"You can't wash it away on the basis of probability and blame it on Toyota's growth," said Sean Kane, a safety researcher for Safety Research and Strategies in Rehoboth, Mass. "They certainly need to apply the brake-override technology on all vehicles with electronic throttle control."
Kane's firm has compiled regulatory and accident data back to 1999 that it said shows 2,262 complaints, 815 crashes, 314 injuries and 19 deaths attributable to sudden acceleration in Toyota-produced vehicles.
What Toyota has done
Although Toyota has urged replacement of floor mats or gas pedals, engineers familiar with engine technology said electromagnetic interference from a range of devices, including cell phones and microwave towers, can disrupt the electronic signals to the electronic throttle control system, which controls the accelerator.
"We have not found any evidence that electronic throttle control systems have been a cause," Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said. "The systems have multiple redundancies and fail-safes and would store an error code in the case of a fault."
In November, Toyota announced it would offer a brake-override system to owners of 2007 through 2010 models of Camry, Avalon, Lexus ES350 and IS250. The system also will be standard on all new Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles by the end of 2010, Michels said.
The override technology cancels any signal that triggers an unplanned burst of acceleration. Chrysler offers what it calls "smart-brake" technology on every model except the Chrysler PT Cruiser, a company spokesman said. Nissan incorporates a similar feature in all its models, said company spokesman Fred Standish. General Motors and Ford did not respond to requests for information Friday.
Many luxury automakers, including BMW and Mercedes-Benz, incorporate an electronic offset to their computerized engine-control technology because they can sell vehicles at a price high enough to cover the added cost. Honda and Acura do not.
A rare, dangerous occurrence
Unintended acceleration remains a rare phenomenon. Based on the Consumer Reports study of 2008 complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, about one of every 50,000 Toyota owners experienced it. That compares with one of every 65,000 Ford owners and just one in every 500,000 GM vehicles sold in that period.
But when it does happen, and the brake can't take control, the consequences can be dire.
Last year, shortly before Toyota's first recall on the issue, an off-duty California Highway Patrol officer, Mark Saylor, along with his wife, teenage daughter and brother-in-law, died when a 2009 Lexus ES350 surged up to 120 m.p.h. in the middle of rush-hour traffic in San Diego.
The day after Christmas, four people in a 2008 Toyota Avalon died in Southlake, Texas, when the driver lost control, and the car left the road, crashing through a fence and landing upside-down in a pond. Police found the floor mat in the trunk.
Chuck Eaton, a retired industrial engineer in Greer, S.C., said he has experienced a surge in his 2006 Toyota Tacoma three or four times, usually in warmer weather, when he deactivates the cruise control at between 65 and 70 m.p.h., then quickly resets it. But it has never happened in his wife's 2004 Toyota Camry.
"The closest I came to an accident was when I drove into a curve, and the engine revved from about 2,100 RPM to about 4,500 RPM before I could react with the brakes," Eaton said. "It did scare me."
Eaton said the floor mat was never caught in his truck's accelerator in any of those experiences.
Other potential causes
Safety advocates and other critics said there may be multiple potential causes for sudden acceleration, and therefore, multiple solutions.
But the most puzzling potential cause is electromechanical interference.
Each electronic throttle control component determines the appropriate position based on signals from three or four sensors. That communication can be disrupted by signals from a nearby Blackberry, a microwave or radio transmission tower, said John Liu, a Wayne State University professor of electronics and computer engineering who has consulted on this technology for automakers.
For now, the brake-override technology may be the best available solution.
"We still don't completely understand why it's happening or the root causes," Kane said.
Contact GREG GARDNER: 313-222-8762 or ggardner@freepress.com
Baca POA considers a cell tower—Improved communication at what cost? Part I
by Sandia Belgrade
http://crestoneeagle.com/wp/?p=1300
The Baca Grande Property Owners Association held a public comment meeting on whether to respond to a proposal from Commnet Wireless to pursue a lease and install a cell phone tower on POA property near the Kit Carson Rod & Gun Club and Camper Village. The POA Board said it was their first discussion, and someone commented that one would need a PhD to grasp the information so we'd have to trust Comnet and the FCC. That, as it turns out, could be misguided trust. We would all benefit from accurate information on the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) standards, the impact of radio frequency radiation (RF), how EMR impacts property values and our safety. Most of all, there is newer technology that can make unnecessary the radiation from cell towers.
This will be the first of a two part series presenting credible information. The second installation in March will feature an interview with a noted expert in the field.
There will be some residents whose only questions are about improving service. After all, many of us use cell phones and like the convenience. Given that a cell phone tower (cellular base station) is going to be put up in Moffat, we need to ask how much is enough? What is overkill—and I use that phrase literally. For some it will take a quantum leap to realize that there's much to be concerned about, much of it invisible, as in what you can't see could be dangerous. The Comnet group limited its presentation to the guidelines of their company and the FCC which resulted in a very narrow view of the science of telecommunications which is changing rapidly.
Description of the cell tower
The height of the proposed tower would be 150 feet, enclosed in a 60ft x 60ft area with a 6 foot tall locked chain link fence. There will be 2 sets of antennas (the actual source of radiation) and 2 radio cabinets, a total of 6 transmitting antennas, 6 radios in a cabinet. Both the POA and the County have height restrictions; therefore, Comnet would have to apply for an exception and a conditional use permit from the County. The proposed location is a 35-acre parcel leased to the gun club. This location is approximately 500 feet from Camper Village and close enough that Casita Park will also feel its impact. It will provide services to major carriers including Verizon, AT&T and Sprint, and if the POA signs a lease for 25 years, it will generate revenue of $150,000.
Who would receive that money, the gun club or the POA? That wouldn't be settled until the tower is approved and its ultimate location determined.
The permitted limits of electromagnetic energy
All cell phones and cell phone towers emit RF energy, a type of electromagnetic energy. Julie Hall, the Comnet engineer who fielded most of the questions at the POA meeting, stated that the microwave and satellite emissions are 0.3% of the FCC allowable limit at the base of the tower.
She repeated that seemingly low number nearly a dozen times stating how it was well within safety guidelines set by the FCC. Legally it could even be more. Compare this to the standard being used by most countries: the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting attended by scientists from around the world issued the Salzburg Resolution with these safety recommendations: a total high frequency radiation limit of 100W/m is recommended. For base stations a limit of 1 m/Wm (0.1 W/cm) is recommended. Simply put, the level is .1 microwatt or 10,000 times less than the US allows. A significant question to ask is why doesn't the United States follow this standard? Comnet's tower, and specifically the antenna which puts out the radiation, will emit 30 times the international standard, and they can legally increase this.
In contrast to mobile handsets, radiation from a tower is emitted continuously and is more powerful at close quarters. Two of the most important factors are the distance and the direct line of sight to the antenna site. Radiation energy is focused out horizontally to whatever is in the sightline, so many people and creatures will be impacted. A 2004 German government study found that people living near cell tower radiation had three times the normal cancer risk. Some schools in the US, including the Los Angeles Unified School Board, have already passed resolutions opposing cell towers on school property. While the residents in Camper Village and Casita Park will most feel its effects, the Charter School, with children who are most vulnerable to radiation, is across the golf course from Casita Park.
Material considerations
The tower would be a steel pole or would be disguised as lattice, an ugly intrusive structure in a rural area prized for its natural beauty and spiritual values—after all, this is why people come here. Its visibility will directly affect the aesthetics of the community and the property values. A study conducted in Florida found prices of properties decreased by over 2%, on average, after a tower was built. Realty Times noted towers may very well diminish property value. Various appraiser journals and industry publications concur that reduced property values accompany cell phone towers.
Health factors
The FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in health and safety. One member of the Board asserted that we must consider only the legalities. Ignoring the health findings about invisible radiation could result in a legal nightmare here. A large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence points to the existence of thermal and non-thermal effects of RF/MW (microwave) radiation. Internationally, scientists—acknowledged experts in the field of RF/MW radiation research—have shown that RF/MW transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures in animals and people and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects.
The range of symptoms a person might feel from radiation includes fatigue, cataracts, reduced mental concentration, dental problems (especially broken fillings) bronchitis, insomnia, pelvic discomfort/pain in the testicles or ovaries, just to name a few. But the damage to DNA, noted specifically in brain and sex cells and affecting the young and old, really gives one pause. Children are particularly at risk, for they are biologically more vulnerable: their skulls are thinner, their tissues—including their brains—are not fully developed. Perhaps the Board and residents will look at studies from the Netherlands, France, and Australia. An Australian study found that children living near towers which emit radiation developed leukemia at three times the rate of children living over seven miles away. In communities like San Francisco, for instance, concerned individuals and neighborhood groups have formed the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) for the purpose of preventing "the placement of wireless antennas on or near residences, schools, health care centers, day care centers, senior centers, playgrounds, places of worship, and other inappropriate locations."
A multitude of studies
It may take a critical mass of studies and information to turn the tide, as in the case of tobacco, asbestos and thalidomide. However, a serious biological effect of radiation is its ability to disrupt cell membranes. This has been known since the work of Suzanne Bawin and her coworkers in 1975 (Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences Vol. 247, pp 74-81). They discovered that amplitude-modulated radio-waves, where the signal strength rises and falls (as it does in mobile phones), could remove structurally important calcium ions from cell membranes at levels far too low to generate significant heat.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences classified electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B carcinogen. Over 100 scientists and physicians at Boston and Harvard Universities Schools of Public Health have called cell phone towers a radiation hazard. 33 delegate-physicians from seven countries have declared cell phone towers a "public health emergency!"
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an intergovernmental agency forming part of the World Health Organization of the United Nations, found extremely low frequency magnetic fields were evaluated as potentially carcinogenic to humans, based on the statistical association of higher level residential ELF (extremely low frequency) magnetic fields and increased risk for childhood leukemia. Numerous other studies show memory and cognitive function impairment.
George Louis Carlo headed the Wireless Technology Research program, a US$28.5 million research program, employing over 200 doctors and scientists, funded by the cellular phone industry. They were to investigate the possible health effects of cellular phones.
When Carlo raised "red flags of concern among public health people," he lost his position.
Animals are also affected by radiation. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a "Briefing Paper on the Need for Research into the Cumulative Impacts of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife in the United States." It would be ironic that, after fighting so hard to keep oil and gas drilling out of the Wildlife Refuge that we would now sacrifice it to invisible radiation.
Legal situation
200,000 legal challenges are currently making their way through the courts involving communities opposing placement of towers. There are calls for tightening EMF (electro-magnetic frequency) power-frequency exposure standards, the most significant of which was filed in federal court by a group of concerned citizens in conjunction with the Communications Workers of America and a group of "electrically sensitive" people, who have allergic-like reactions to electromagnetic fields. The suit charges, among other things, that federal health and safety agencies should be held accountable for their failure to protect the public, and accuses the FCC of ignoring important studies on RF-radiation hazards, as well as overstepping its statutory authority in banning RF regulation at the local level. (http://arts.envirolink.org/arts_and_activism/BlakeLevitt.html)
Dr. Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, and Camilla Rees, Founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org, write about "Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution" which reviews the independent science on the health hazards of wireless radiation.
The emerging technology
Most importantly, Comnet and others are using older, out-dated technology. The communication industry has been switching over to optical systems for landlines and they can use infrared or other visible light frequencies for wireless transmission instead of microwave frequencies, chosen thirty years ago because of convenience and cost factors.
Why is this new technology not more prevalent? Cost. When critical mass is reached, the industry will have to respond with safer alternatives, but the public must demand it.
By waiting for the new technology, the POA can avoid getting sued, devaluing property values and diminishing this place of rural beauty. Most of all, they can protect the wellbeing of their membership.
(More on infrared light, the electrosmog conditions reported in the news just last month, and the most insidious effects of radiation on human cells in the March issue of The Crestone Eagle.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Cell Phone Can Be Causing Brain Injury
Posted by rozeklawoffice on January 31, 2010 under General, Mild Brain Injury, Traumatic Brain Injury | 
Despite the rising number of cases, the United State has a long standing history of legislation protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges. Not so of other countries where the wireless industry does not have such a grip on policy makers. Take for instance the Agence France-Press that stated "Israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumor risk." Or the London's Independent that said in a headline, "Mobile phone radiation wrecks your sleep." Or the Australia's The Age, which stated "Scientists warn of mobile phone cancer risk."
Multiple reports from Europe's research institutions, link cell-phone to brain damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, and senility. The research shows that men are more prone to the impacts due to their common practice of carrying the cell phones in their pockets all day.
According to an article in Men's Health, in September 2007, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol." Studies show that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor, specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone, goes up as much as 40%. Cell phones can cause tumors of the salivary gland in the cheek and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were 5x as likely to develop a brain tumor.
Research continuously shows radiation from cell phones and wireless transmitters affects the human brain, yet the concerns raised in so many studies outside the U.S. are not being taken seriously in the US. This may be because industry-funded studies (funded by Motorola and other cell phone makers) seem to reflect the result of corporate pressure. According to Men's Health, only 25% of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75% of those studies that were independently funded. Over the years, scientists who have shown negative effects from cell phones and microwaves have been silenced, and had funding taken away. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the result of $50 million in political contributions and lobbying from the telecom industry. The Act contained a rider known as Section 704, which specifically prohibits citizens and local governments from stopping placement of a cell tower due to health concerns. Section 704 made it publicly clear that there could be no litigation to oppose cell towers because the signals make you sick. By 1997, telecom companies had paid the federal government more than $8 billion to purchase portions of the microwave-frequency sequence and cell phone antennas had popped up everywhere. The private sector continues to be dominate public policy.
Even more troubling is the thought of the establishment of a nationwide indoor Wi-Fi system. In the summer of 2006, a super-Wi-Fi system was tested in rural Sweden. Receiving a multitude of signals, the residents of the village reported headaches, difficulty breathing, and blurred vision. This happened only hours after the system was turned on, and as soon as it was powered down, the symptoms disappeared. Today, Sprint Nextel and Clearwire are attempting to establish similar technology across the U.S., with a $7.2 billion government broadband stimulus.
The tobacco industry hid the dangers of smoking with numerous deceptive studies. Asbestos manufacturers hid evidence that asbestos was dangerous even as thousands of workers died from exposure; the makers of DDT/Agent Orange backed their products even as it became clear that the herbicides caused cancer. The cell-phone industry last year posted revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It shouldn't come as a shock that they too have an incentive to shut down research showing the dangers of cell-phone use.
For more information on Brain Injuries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Parents call out board over cell towers |
February 01, 2010 FORSYTH COUNTY - The few parents who attended a public information hearing on a proposal to locate cell towers on school property seemed as upset that so few of their neighbors attended as they were with the idea of putting a 150-foot tower on Riverwatch Middle School property.
http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-c-2010-02-01-181894.114126-sub_Parents_call_out_board_over_cell_towers.html
Those parents put the blame on the school system for the sparse attendance, saying while they get numerous phone calls asking for contributions through the automated calling system for the schools, only letters were used to notify them of the Jan. 26 hearing. (A public notice was published in the county's legal organ.)
As Settles Bridge Elementary School is essentially on the same land as Riverwatch, several people attending wanted another hearing with parents of children at that school invited, too.
The local residents had two main complaints:
• Studies can be found that claim radiation emitted from cell towers is dangerous.
• Property values would drop because a tall cell tower was nearby.
School Board President Ann Crow said that no decision is being made now on the cell tower proposal. This was just one of the ideas staff presented for additional revenue after the board requested additional funding ideas. T-Mobile's proposal could bring almost $1 million in revenue to the school system through the anticipated 25 years of leasing. Adding three other wireless companies' antennas to the tower would increase that amount.
Frank Romeo of Pat Marshall and Associates, whose firm represented T-Mobile in finding and acquiring cell tower sites, said it would be less likely the proposed 150-foot tower would be visible from James Burgess Road or the homes across the road because of topography and existing trees. A taller tower could be seen.
He also said the studies so far show cell towers aren't affecting property values, though he acknowledged T-Mobile's only completed survey was made in the more urban environs of Buckhead. Data from another study in Cobb County will be provided when it is done.
"Based on the location of this tower put forth here tonight, I cannot imagine that the location of that cell site would be an impact," Romeo said.
But homeowners in the neighborhood said they'd never buy a home under the shadow of a cell tower, and would expect they'd have a hard time selling there homes for the same reason.
As to the visibility of the tower, Romeo said if the site is further considered, a balloon test would be performed. His firm would arrange for a balloon to rise up to 150 feet. Homeowners would be notified of the date and time, and could check from their homes if the tower would be visible.
Romeo said transmitters at cell towers will emit RF radiation. But he said it's at such a low power no threat is likely. Holding a cellphone to the ear exposes a person to many times the non-ionizing radiation as a cell tower.
"This is not a new technology. We've all been using them, we've all been watching TV, turning on our FM radios," Romeo said. "What we are seeing here tonight is a new application of an old recipe."
The parents attending the meeting weren't satisfied with his explanations, making it clear they wanted to take no chances with their children's health, no matter how low the risk might be. Several pointed out studies in Europe that state there are health risks.
Romeo countered that by saying it was not a fair comparison, as the average cell tower in Europe is no more than 20 or 30 feet tall because of historic preservation guidelines and other restrictions. Some cell "towers" are antennas broadcasting from second-story windows.
The parents asked the school board members why they would want to take a chance, especially when T-Mobile's representatives acknowledged that cell phones haven't been around long enough to determine what effects the towers are having on children.
After the hearing was over. Robert Galop and Ken Shadoff both put safety of their children as the most important consideration. Galop didn't want cell towers approved unless the board was certain of the safety. And Shadoff wanted to be sure the emissions were as low as Romeo claimed, with studies after a tower was operational.
If the cell towers are ever approved, proceeds from this alternate funding source will be split 50/50 between the school housing the tower and the district for operational expenses to offset cuts in state revenue. Each site will generate an approximate average of $150,000 over a 5-year period. No additional county schools are being considered for towers. The school system's online notice states, however, that schools may be added to the list annually. Under T-Mobile's proposal, cell sites would be placed on school land away from the building. Tower construction as well as a locked fence around the tower, would be financed by T-Mobile. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Internet antenna will be erected on Walnut Heights Elementary School grounds, at least in the near future. The Walnut Creek School District Governing Board voted unanimously Monday night to deny a request from Washington-based Clearwire to install a 37-foot wireless broadband Internet antenna at the school. The board's vote drew applause from audience members, mostly Walnut Heights parents. The antenna proposal had sparked a heated debate, with parents and neighbors fearing possible health dangers from radio waves emanating from the proposed WiMax tower. WiMax is touted as being much stronger than standard Wi-Fi. After the outcry and subsequent press coverage, Clearwire last week withdrew its application to place the antenna on school grounds, said Superintendent Patricia Wool. But the board still had to officially deny the request. Wool had previously recommended denial of Clearwire's proposal, citing reasons including Clearwire representatives having been ill-prepared at a community meeting two weeks ago. "Clearwire didn't have definitive information for the public," said Wool. While parents were happy with the vote, some are still concerned with the future. "Could Clearwire or another provider put up a cell tower at any other school site?" resident Judy Adler asked the board. Such concerns spurred Adler and others to submit a resolution to the board which would prohibit radiation emitting towers near or on school property. It would also petition the California Environmental Protection Agency to do more research on "non-ionizing" radiation. The Los Angeles school board adopted resolutions in 2000 and 2009 opposing cellular facilities on or near school campuses to minimize exposure to electromagnetic and radio frequency radiation. Walnut Creek trustees decided not to vote on the proposed resolution. Board member Dan Walden said such a resolution may be "premature" because there is much still unknown about the effects of radio waves. He did point out that the antenna proposed by Clearwire would have brought in about $15,000 a year for the district. "We had some reservations, but we also have an extraordinary challenge to our budget," said Walden, citing a $1 million shortfall for the coming fiscal year. "Fifteen thousand dollars is small, but every little bit helps." Contact Elisabeth Nardi at 952-2617 No Internet antenna will be erected on Walnut Heights Elementary School grounds, at least in the near future. The Walnut Creek School District Governing Board voted unanimously Monday night to deny a request from Washington-based Clearwire to install a 37-foot wireless broadband Internet antenna at the school. The board's vote drew applause from audience members, mostly Walnut Heights parents. The antenna proposal had sparked a heated debate, with parents and neighbors fearing possible health dangers from radio waves emanating from the proposed WiMax tower. WiMax is touted as being much stronger than standard Wi-Fi. After the outcry and subsequent press coverage, Clearwire last week withdrew its application to place the antenna on school grounds, said Superintendent Patricia Wool. But the board still had to officially deny the request. Wool had previously recommended denial of Clearwire's proposal, citing reasons including Clearwire representatives having been ill-prepared at a community meeting two weeks ago. "Clearwire didn't have definitive information for the public," said Wool. While parents were happy with the vote, some are still concerned with the future. "Could Clearwire or another provider put up a cell tower at any other school site?" resident Judy Adler asked the board. Such concerns spurred Adler and others to submit a resolution to the board which would prohibit radiation emitting towers near or on school property. It would also petition the California Environmental Protection Agency to do more research on "non-ionizing" radiation. The Los Angeles school board adopted resolutions in 2000 and 2009 opposing cellular facilities on or near school campuses to minimize exposure to electromagnetic and radio frequency radiation. Walnut Creek trustees decided not to vote on the proposed resolution. Board member Dan Walden said such a resolution may be "premature" because there is much still unknown about the effects of radio waves. He did point out that the antenna proposed by Clearwire would have brought in about $15,000 a year for the district. "We had some reservations, but we also have an extraordinary challenge to our budget," said Walden, citing a $1 million shortfall for the coming fiscal year. "Fifteen thousand dollars is small, but every little bit helps." Contact Elisabeth Nardi at 952-2617
Romeo said the cell tower would be at least as far away from the school as the height of the tower.Walnut Creek school will not host Internet antenna
Posted on: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:09:15 EST
