[Winni]

Ok, I have some serious nit-picking to respond to, but I won't quote all of Commodore's criticism, just the parts I will respond to, as it would make my response too large. If you do not want to read through all this nonsense, I suggest you just go to the hearings, do some listening, and even state your case, that is, if the governmental types ever get around to letting the public speak. However, I could not let Commodore's response go, as his main goal seems to be to discredit me and not to put forth a substantial argument opposing the proposed towers. So, I guess I'll give it a go, though this is going to turn out to be ridiculously long.

"If he had not wasted his cell signal on the call to you he could have reached 911 and saved time." This is just a ridiculous statement! You don't have the facts clear. As I stated, he did try 911 before he tried me and he did not get a signal. It was not because he was unable to connect to E911; it was because the signals are so spotty in this area. You can take 1/2 step away and find a signal, then move another 1/4 step and loose it. In a high tension type situation like an accident, it can be very frustrating. I know this to be true because while I was waiting around for the paper exchange once I got to the scene, I took out my phone and tested the signal strengths. Baby steps made the difference.

"The police would have found him at the end of 11-D just like you found him." Wrong again; they were really ticked off that they went flying by the end of 11-D when they came back and I first stopped the policeman. He clearly was relieved that I could bring him to where the accident scene was and complained right along with me about the terrible cell coverage. The only reason I even knew which end of 11-D to go to (because the connection dropped before my husband could say more) was that I knew he was coming home from the Gilford end not the Alton end. The police wouldn't have known that.

"Ms Winni, you seem to want this proposal to go through regardless of any other solution. You claim that the only objections to the new cell towers are the aesthetics and the claim about RF health hazards." You clearly have not done your homework. These are not the objections I focused on, they are what the opponents (i.e. abutters) are objecting to.

"You are a Ham Radio..." Sorry, no; I have no dials, buttons, or readouts, and am not attached to an antenna. If you really knew what you were talking about, you would have said, "You are a Ham..."

"... yet you use terms that are not accurate and you do not answer all the legitimate questions put to you. You say the proposed cell towers will be for cellular relay only. A cell relay tower does not take calls from cell phones, it merely relays a group of calls and data from one cell receiving and transmitting site and sends it to another relay or to the switching system." NO KIDDING! Really; gosh...I didn't know that! Honestly, if you think I didn't know that then you are really looking for something to pick at. Yeah, we all go around calling them "cell relay towers" instead of "cell towers". Gosh, and I thought there was a little guy sitting up on top of the tower answering my phone for me, too! Would you like me to name the seven original communication layers for you too?

"You talk about the, "Tree line". When asked for clarification about the height of the towers you repeat, 10 feet above the tree line. Tree line is the area on the mountain where the trees stop growing. You don't mean that you probably mean tree tops but you don't answer the questions." You know, I really think you ought to attend some of the hearings before you try to do me in. I'm a hiker from way back (say, how many 4000 footers have you done?) and I am well aware of what a "tree line" is on a mountain top. Unfortunately, the ZBA and legal-type talkers at the meetings are (yes, improperly, but never-the-less are) using this phrase to mean the visual line made by the top of the trees. I'm thinking maybe they just don't want to spout out the words, "Visual line made by the top of the trees..." every time they want to reference it; 'ya think?

"Your description of telephone lines that are really high voltage lines also shows a lack of technical expertise." No, it means you (and a bunch of other people) missed the point. It did not/does not matter what those lines are on the land/ground poles/towers. The point of the picture was that lines that must connect to each other and run along towers/poles on the ground necessarily must have huge swaths of trees cut out around them and are much more grotesque than a simple stand alone tower (be it cell "relay" or anything else). (Hmm......funny one of the two largest companies building air and space craft in this country, which I will not name, used to pay me whole bunches of money to head up the technology areas of entire sites for many years. Glad to hear you are a better judge of my abilities, since you know me so well, than they were!)

"Maybe you did not want to bring in the topic of radiation concerns from high voltage lines or you just don't know the difference." Or...maybe I did not want to bring in the RF issue because it is a non-issue, i.e. the government has ruled it so and in reality, it is so. I'm not going to waste space here rehashing that yet once again.

"Using microwave ovens as an example of misplaced RF concerns is not a fair comparison." Once again you miss the point! (Perhaps you have issues with abstract concepts?) The comparison was not about output! The comparison was to point out that people were scared to death of microwave ovens when they first came out until they realized they were virtually harmless to individuals using them and now they are everywhere. The same will be true of cell phones and cells towers soon. People will get over this silliness about RF. (Note: this is known as an "analogy".)

"Please review this thread and answer the unanswered questions as best you can." Not worth my time and effort to keep repeating (pun intended) myself and the answers others have already given. Instead, why don't you, "Try to keep an open mind," and go to the hearings instead? Why also don't you delve into the stacks and stacks of material available at the Town Hall on all this and then maybe you can answer your own questions, because I think the important ones have already been answered sufficiently.

"There can really be more than one solution to better cell coverage than this one proposal." Yes; it would be nice to get one (as in one, once!) that actually works, though. As far as I can see from the multiple engineering studies, the proposed solution is the best so far.

So, any more arrows you want to throw at me? Go for it. (Oh yes, and if you would like some grammar and punctuation tutoring, I'm available for that as well.) Maybe someone else can pick up my side of it if anyone out there cares. I'm pretty sick of all this. Yes, I am "passionate" because all I really want is for MY CELL PHONE TO WORK!

If you actually read through all this and made it to this point, I thank you and congratulate you on your endurance!