They will let them know when the plans are resumed. So, they are not off the hook. In fact, this is a Federal issue, not a local one. (Take a look at the last Communications Act if you don't believe me.)

Neighbors, Cities, States do not get a say. In fact they must make space available if at all possible. Just because you don't like the look, or are afraid of radio frequency (without ANY reason) doesn't mean you get to stop the towers and radio systems. Don't like the law, then get your Congress person and Senator to change it. (Good luck with that.)

Actually, the only thing the local authorities cannot do is regulate based on perceived health effects. They can certainly regulate the location of the antennas on aesthetic and other grounds, and Portland does in fact do so. For example, I can't rent my roof to T-Mobile to put one there. So please, go blow your smoke elsewhere.

No smoke. The 1994 Communications Act specifically says that local and State governments must allow cell sites in the right of way. If they don't they need more than aesthetics to refuse it. Aesthetics can be handled by many means (I built a full microwave site in the back yard of a home, inside a green house for example.)

In this instance you are incorrect.

The degree of federal pre-emption of cell or cable regulation is yet another thing for which we must credit Bob Packwood.

What a guy.

To my knowledge, only ERISA has stronger pre-emption provisions.

I built a full microwave site in the back yard of a home, inside a green house for example.

What a loon.

Zoning is not pre-empted. The city can regulate where these things go.

I don't understand all the hostility to cell towers. They're located all over close-in SE where I live, and I rarely notice any of them. What I do notice is dropping calls.

I'm not sure whether I can post links, but here's a pretty good map showing all of the towers in Portland:

http://www.cellreception.com/towers/towers.php?city=portland&state_abr=or

There are literally dozens, and, frankly, I can't recall ever noticing a single one.

I realize we have to put up with them but it annoys me that I don't use a cell phone or any sort of cell technology myself and have to live under a possible health threat. When I owned a home up on the hill west of Germantown Road years ago, we were about 1/4 mile away from the BPA power lines. Nobody in their right mind wanted to live under them because you could actually feel them when walking the area. Someone built a housing development directly under them but, wouldn't you know it, it had a hard time taking off.

As in anything else, it seems that we must all take the risks so that others can benefit.

The degree of federal pre-emption of cell or cable regulation is yet another thing for which we must credit Bob Packwood. What a guy.

Well, according to him, he "helped put more money in your jeans". That was one of the most insipid ads ever.

So the tangle of power/cable/telephone wires and the poles holding them are a marvel of asthetics and visual design? I really haven't been shocked at how radically ugly or horrible cell towers look compared to other (necessary) infrastructure. The neighborhoods need to figure out where they would rather have them, rather than reflexively opposing them. Make the telcos jump through the procedural hoops, by all means, but wireless communication is a feature of modern life that needs to be accomodated somehow.

As for health hazards from cell towers-the National Cancer Society says they are not harmful, and I've never seen a study that shows they are harmful. A tinfoil hat should provide ample protection from most effects.

Can we believe the National Cancer Society on this? Where are the years of studies that would be needed on this? When did cell towers begin and what effect on the children born then? I really doubt that thorough in-depth studies have been done on this any more than on GMO's or all the chemicals in our environment that haven't even been evaluated. We also know that numbers can be changed to reflect what can be acceptable to the public, in other words standards can be changed.

...and I've never seen a study that shows they are harmful.

Where are the studies that show they are not harmful? Should not the burden of proof be before general distribution to the public? I guess in our society, we can not wait for years of studies, more important to do it now, rather than do it right.

In my view, it is almost like we are a society of spoiled children, we want the latest and we want it right now. We don't even have the patience for a hand count on our elections, quick let us know a few minutes after the polls close. The mentality then is right now, rather than right!! The worst of it is that people don't care or want to be bothered, they will take the downfall even if proven to be negative as part of getting their latest.

The RF emitted by cell phone towers is at very low power levels. Using a cell phone right up against your head exposes you to much more powerful levels of RF, and those are the subject of about 30 studies, and still an area of active research. No definite harms have been found, but I don't think anyone has done an exhaustive, definitive study either. So you should be o.k. if you avoid cell phones, stay away from power lines, wrap the electric lines running through your walls and appliances in EMF absorbing substances, and keep that laptop off of your lap, where it could be doing who knows what.

Clinamen: Where are the studies that show they are not harmful? Should not the burden of proof be before general distribution to the public? I guess in our society, we can not wait for years of studies, more important to do it now, rather than do it right.
JK: Right here. Vast study over many years of many people:
In Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, the use of mobile phones increased sharply in the mid-1990s; thus, time trends in brain tumor incidence after 1998 may provide information about possible tumor risks associated with mobile phone use. We investigated time trends in the incidence of glioma and meningioma in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden from 1974 to 2003, using data from national cancer registries. We used joinpoint regression models to analyze the annual incidence rates of glioma and meningioma. During this period, 59 984 men and women aged 20–79 years were diagnosed with brain tumors in a population of 16 million adults. All statistical tests were two-sided. From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma increased by 0.5% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2% to 0.8%) among men and by 0.2% per year (95% CI = –0.1% to 0.5%) among women and that of meningioma increased by 0.8% per year (95% CI = 0.4% to 1.3%) among men, and after the early 1990s, by 3.8% per year (95% CI = 3.2% to 4.4%) among women. No change in incidence trends were observed from 1998 to 2003, the time when possible associations between mobile phone use and cancer risk would be informative about an induction period of 5–10 years.
Time Trends in Brain Tumor Incidence Rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974–2003 http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/101/24/1721