ku # 276 ~ a matter of life and death?
Sunday, January 28, 2007 at 02:01PM 
-15F, North Hudson, NY (the Hudson River starts here) • click on photo to embiggen I have a question for the environmentalists/conservationists in the audience.
Outside of the High Peaks region of the Adirondacks, the landscape is made up of tightly clustered mountains in the 1,550-3,000ft range. As I have mentioned before, all public land in the Adirondacks is protected as "forever wild" by an amendment to the NYS Constitution. In addition, the Adirondack Park Agency was established in 1972 to ensure that the lands were so protected. The APA also governs all private land use in the Adirondacks as a super zoning board of sorts. The net result is an inhabited wilderness that has emerged as a unique worldwide model of sustainability.
The other net result is that cell phone coverage in the Adirondacks is virtually non-existant. A few villages have managed to avoid line-of-sight restrictions by camouflaging cell facilities in church or town hall towers, but the reality is that, in an area bigger than the state of Vermont, cell coverage is the exception, not the rule.
The dilema is this: a few days ago, a couple from the NYC area was returning home from Montreal via I87, a 4-lane interstate that traverses the Adirondacks, inside its eastern boundary, through many desolate areas. Around 2:00AM they crashed, leaving the highway, essentially disappearing from view and ending up trapped in their car (by their injuries). They were not found until 32 hours later. The husband survived for 13 hours before succumbing to hypothermia. The wife, who tried to call for help using a cell phone, survived.
There was no cell coverage. The APA has been petitioned to allow cell towers in the form of those fake tree things which, around here, are called Frankenpines. To date, the APA has not allowed them on the basis that; they violate the "forever wild" restrictions on public land, and, on private land, they violate line-of-sight (and other) restrictions.
What's your take on the subject - Does the preservation of the wildereness and the wilderness character of private land justify an occasional (and very rare) death?
publisher's comments: hey gang, a well tempered discussion for such a hot topic. Thanks for all your thoughtful participation. One point I would like to make is on the notion of "consistency". It was suggested that one must be "consistent" and "non-contradictory" in making one's decisions about what is "good" or "bad", in this case, about what level of technologies to allow into a wilderness environment.
As an example, it was stated that if one has a desire to live in an area that "time forgot", "...why not go all the way and rip out the power lines, the paved roads, and anything else that smacks of "technological intrusion"?.
Well, my answer is a simple matter of discernment, I want to use electricity and drive (mostly) on paved roads. However, because I want to use electricity, it does not follow that I have to own and use every electronic device known to man. I can be discerning in how I use electricty. I am also grateful that the paved roads the Adirondacks, with the lone exception of I87, are paved two-lane roads that conform the lay of the land and don't bulldoze their way through it. The fact that I choose not to embrace cell technology and support a position that limits cell use in the Adirondacks is an act of discernment regarding what level of "technological intrusion" I want in my life and in the community in which I live. It in no way contradicts or is inconsistent with my use of electricity and paved roads.
The people of NYS, acting through their elected representatives, have expressed their discernment regarding what level of "technological intrusion" they want in the Adirondack Park. They decided over 100 years ago that the public lands within the park will be free of all commercial use, i.e., "forever wild". This desire was expressed, not with an "opinion", but with the full protection of an amendment to the NYS Constitution. It is enshrined in law - law that can not be changed without the full rigor of the constitutional process. More recently, the APA was created by duly elected representatives to oversee these protections of public land and to protect the wilderness character of the whole of the park. The APA is empowered to discern, according to its mandate from the people of NYS, what level of "technological intrusion" to allow within the borders of the park.
The creation of the APA was an act of discerment by the people of NY which essentially determined that protecting the wilderness/wilderness character of the park was an environmentally and economically sound position to take. The environtmental benefits shuld be obvious. The econimic benefits become apparent with the realization that the region's economy is based on tourism.
That said, here's an interesting update: Politicians, state agencies, some residents, and other groups (Brooklyn Orthodox Jewish community demands cell coverage) have latched onto the tradegy. Many are excoriating the APA and environmental/conservation organizations as culpable in the deaths and as obstructionists. What they are conveniently ignoring is the fact that 4 years ago the APA, with the expressed backing of environmental and conservation groups, approved a plan for 32 30ft cell towers (less coverage per tower, hence, more visually discreet towers) along the remote stretches of I87 - a compromise that balances the interests of public safety and the lawful requirements of the NYS Constitution, the oversight interests of the APA, and those of conservation groups.
Now here's the kicker - the project, a joint venture with the State Police, the Dept of Transporation, and Crown Technologies, was scrapped because it was deemed economically unfeasible by the cell-phone company.
Ahh, the free-market at its very best. But that's another story.
Reader Comments (21)
Hi. First time caller, long time listener.
I've got a somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion. If the occasional death is unjustifiable, close the highway. Is the occasional death justifiable in the name of allowing highway transportation?
Some folks who read this might be sputtering, "well of course we need highways" at this point. My response?
"<I>Of course we need wilderness</I>"
And every incrimental change we make takes us farther away from that land being wild. We have accepted, in fact, innumerable highway mortalities as the cost of having this kind of transportation. It's all a matter of priorities. And I think we need wilderness.
Many things carry inherent risks. Driving is one of them. Travelling in a wilderness area is also one of them.
I'm in general agreement with Sean above. My guess is that enabling phone access, etc, will lead to more traffic on the road which in itself will lead to more deaths than the rare one cited. One of the things I most dislike these days is the intolerance of and gross mis-assessment of risks. If society has gotten to the point where cell phone service is generally expected (don't ask me, never had one), then put signs on the road warning about loss of access and let people take responsibility for their choices.
What would have happened before we had cell phones anyway? Why change things just because of cell phones and the convenience of them. We've gotten along fine without them for centuries and people lived or died by their choices. I have a cell phone, but I don't depend on it having coverage everywhere I go here in VT or most of the upper NE. I am saddened to hear about someones death, don't get me wrong here, but that doesn't mean the whole area has to change because of it in my opinion.
BTW, I like the term Frankenpines. It fits. I've seen a few of those in my neck of the woods and they don't disguise anything. I would hate to see them springing up all along the Adirondacks. It still would probably not be the best coverage even then and it would just escalate until the hillsides looked like porcupines with all the towers jutting out of their backs. UGH. You let one or two in and then you are done for.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the above responses are just plain silly. I too favor saving any wilderness area from damaging encroachment by all means possible. But we're not talking about drilling for gas or oil here, nor are we discussing building casinos. We're talking about providing inconspicuous, non-threatening, non-polluting cell towers that might have (in this case) saved a life. To say that, in essence, it was his own fault because "he took the risk of driving on that road" is a bit callous.
I would ask those who disagree this one question: Would you be so "noble" if it were you sitting injured in that car, slowly freezing to death while your cell phone sat next to you, useless?
Paul,
Fair challenge. I admit that I don't know about the specifics of the Frankenpines and am more worried about slowing future development in general. As for your question: hard to say until one is in such a situation, but I'll never buy a cell phone or GPS locator for safety reasons (or probably any others).
According to the Insurance Information Institute, "almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention." They also say: "The latest research shows that while using a cell phone when driving may not be the most dangerous distraction, because it is so prevalent it is by far the most common cause of this type of crash and near crash." So my guess is that cell phones cause far more deaths than they prevent. I hadn't researched this previously, please let me know if you have contrary information.
A "Barkeater's" perspective
Frankenpines = BAD
50,000 sq. ft' Year-round Disneyland looking Waterpark lit up like Macy's around the holidays, directly next to highway = GOOD
15 more miles up from that, a 20 acre decaying 1960's Western Themed Amusement Park (again, directly next to highway) = GOOD
Also along this 100+ mile stretch of "wilderness" (use the term loosely) highway, you can spot 3 or 4, skyward towering Rondald McDonald illuminated arches.
It is in my opinion that this is simply a thoroughfare for mass transportation of predominately, non-park-visiting-travellers on the very eastern edge of the park. So to save a few innocent north-south travellers from small inconveniences, not just death (but the more regular issues like running out of gas, flat tires, accidents, etc...), how could a few "frankenpines" scattered about, possibly upset the preservation of this busy, sometimes ugly, stretch of road?
If you are coming to the Adirondacks to SEE the Adirondacks, you simply exit the highway, point your car west and can drive for hours and hours and hours taking in all the Adirondacks that you wish to see, that is until you hit the western wall of the park and the North-South corridor highway monstrosity called I-81.
Steve,
I certainly can't quibble with your cell phone data or "driver inattention". As much as anyone, I cringe when I see people driving and talking on a phone (sometimes driving, eating, and talking). It's flat dangerous. But it's the people that are dangerous, not the phones. When I'm alone in my car, it's almost never on. It's there simply because it might help in a situation like the one we're discussing.
The real issue here, I guess, is how you feel about the balance between the infringement of technology on the environment and the value of a human life. If you believe that the environment must be preserved at all costs, then it logically follows that cell towers are a "bad" thing and must be kept out. If, on the other hand, you believe that it's OK to allow non-threatening devices to dot the landscape to offer some additional safety value, then maybe cell towers are OK.
I honestly don't know where that "balance" lies (apparently, others think that they do). I will say, though, that I don't think you're being totally honest when you say that you don't know how you'd react if you were in this guy's situation. Horse pucky. If someone handed you a working cell phone, you'd use it.
But then again if you had the StarTrek transponder available from Wal_Mart for $249.99, you wouldn't need a cell phone.
"The dilema is this: a few days ago, a couple from the NYC area was returning home from Montreal via I87, a 4-lane interstate that traverses the Adirondacks, inside its eastern boundary, through many desolate areas. Around 2:00AM they crashed, leaving the highway, essentially disappearing from view and ending up trapped in their car (by their injuries). They were not found until 32 hours later. The husband survived for 13 hours before succumbing to hypothermia. The wife, who tried to call for help using a cell phone, survived."
Before cell phones what would have happened?
Most people traveling in the PNW during winter in the mountains, have kits for the unexpected. Warm blankets, food, water. They are in my vehicle all the time. I am generally in areas where the sight of other humans are scarce. To me they should have prepared better for traveling through a "wilderness area".
To their defense Jim, they were only 10-15 feet from the highway down an embankment hidden from site, but because of either the condition of the car or serious back injuries (not known yet), they were unable to move at all from their seats. A survival kit would have been useless it seems. This road IS heavily travelled (night and day), they would have been fine if they were only seen or heard. Unfortunately it's winter and the horn would have been useless to passing commuters.
We had an instance recently where a family took a wrong turn in Oregon and got stranded on a forest road that led to a resort that was closed for the season. It seems vandals cut the lock on the gate closing the road. cell phone didn't work. Husband went to walk for help. He died, wife that stayed with the car lived. Now they want to sue the Forest Service because the lock to the gate was cut by vandals. Where is the justice in this thinking. I am sorry for the losses in both cases, but should we really rely on cell phones for saving our lives? Or should we be better prepared?
Shoot, I remember when we took a trip, without a dvd player, without video games, where we actually looked out the window and took in the sights. Has technology gotten to the point where we have to rely on it for our lives?
Paul,
If you agree with the implications of my statistics (admittedly incomplete), then enabling cell phones kills people. You may not use onein the car except in emergency, but the general public does.
You've changed the situation of your question. Handed a phone, I'm sure I would use it. Regret a choice not to have bought one and live my life along those lines -- I don't think so. I'm not trying to sound dramatic, but simply put, there's things I'm more afraid of than death. Just my personal choice.
Steve,
"TAXES"?
Steve,
No, the question is the same. It's the same decision. If you really believe what you say, you'd refuse the phone.
And to say that "enabling cell phones kills people" is hardly an argument. Heck, "enabling" the use of cars and interstates kills people. That doesn't mean we should stop using them. It's like a couple of the comments above where individuals asked, "what would they have done before cell phones?". That question is no more relevant than asking what they would have done before automobiles.
I respect your decision to not use a cell phone. That's entirely up to you. But they're not "evil", nor are they a threat to the environment (even with the required towers). I also respect people's desire to live in an area that "time forgot". But then, why not go all the way and rip out the power lines, the paved roads, and anything else that smacks of "technological intrusion"? I honestly don't see the difference.
Mark,
Hopefully this discussion is germane to the topic of your post, but just tell us to shut up if you think the heat exceeds the light. As the length of the comment list indicates, it's an issue that raises passions -- as it should.
Paul,
Well, I may have understood your question differently from you, so let me try to state clearly my position, if I were dying in an overturned car. I don't claim to be clairvoyant, these are just sincere best guesses.
1. If I had a cell phone that worked, or were handed one, I would use it.
2. If I had a cell phone for whatever reason, and discovered it didn't work when I expected it to, I'd probably utter a cuss or two, then move on to other thoughts.
3. If I had a cell phone, but knew it didn't work there, I'd probably check anyway and then do the same as #2.
4. (Most likely) If I had no cell phone and no prospect of one, I'd cuss and move one, same as #2. I would spend zero time regretting I didn't have a cell phone. Or maybe I'd wish for it in a wistful sort of way, but would not wish I'd lived a life of worrying about tiny risks and ignoring big questions (like how I might die, or how to make a good photograph).
You may see scenario #1 as inconsistent with my opposition to cell antennas. I don't. Not everyone thinks the same way, and that's fine with me.
And to say that "enabling cell phones kills people" is hardly an argument.
I'd say it is an argument against facilitating cell phone use, and it weakens the argument that cell phones enhance safety. Of course it's not the only argument or an overwhelming one; as you say, we tolerate increased death rates as a tradeoff in plenty of ways. I never suggested cell phones are evil or that we stop using them, and I'd be crazy to bother.
Steve,
If I grant that "enabling cell phones kills people", then you should (if you wish to be consistent) grant me the following:
Enabling cars, trucks, and motorcycles kills people.
Enabling electric power lines kills people.
Enabling airplanes kills people.
Enabling the Internet can get people into serious trouble and, on rare occassions, kill them or cause them serious physical harm.
Yet we all use these things. All, if used properly, are in general beneficial and can enhance our safety and well being. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for the Internet, would we? There would be no "blogging" and no instant bully pulpits to speak from. But don't tell me that the Internet is a safe place. Should we, then, "disenable" the web?
But that's not really what this is about. Mark's original question was really about whether someone's death (rare or otherwise) was an acceptable consequence of keeping cell towers out of his "neighborhood". I'm not sure why he asked - he answered it himself in his next posting. Reading that, it's clear that he believes that it's not only acceptable, it's mandatory. It's a "life and death" issue on a planetary scale. A few preventable deaths here and there become something akin to collateral damage, I guess.
Yes, humanity faces catastrophic consequences for its insanely poor decision making over the last century or so. No one can or should debate that. (The "planet", by the way, will survive just fine, thank you. Unless we literally blow it up, it will rebound as it always has, with or without us.)
But to draw a line in the sand over a few cell towers? Maybe I'm a little dense, but it sounds like spitting into the wind to me. Surely there are more important dangers to rail against.
Paul wrote "Surely there are more important dangers to rail against."
The primary issue before us is learning to live together. We need to stop doing anything as stupid as killing each other over religion or fear. We also need to take much better care of the planet, but if we can't figure out how to share it nothing else will matter.
Paul,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I grant all your statements in your first six paragraphs, and I couldn't agree more about there being more important issues. But we do still have to deal with this one. If I understand correctly, not dealing with it means the status quo, i.e. keeping the towers out. I'm sure that we both expect this to be handled by some form of more or less extended, and more or less fair, political process in which a lot of opinions are expressed and weighted.
I think I've been clear in saying I'm not against everything that is unsafe. Almost everything in our lives has good and bad aspects, and we all have our scales for weighing the good vs. the bad. All I am saying is that when talking about saving lives, cell phones may well come out negative (that's still a tentative conclusion, as far as I'm concerned), despite the advertising campaigns. In your comment, it still seems that the "few preventable deaths" you're thinking of are only the ones where a cell phone could have saved a life, rather than the probably greater number where they caused the death. That's the argument or perception I'm trying to counter.
In any case, there are surely other considerations on which cell phones will come out strongly positive. For me, the balance is such that I'm against towers in this situation, though not in others. I don't think of it as a line in the sand, just a simple statement of what I care about. I also think most people understand that it's not just about cell phones, but relates to the bigger issues that many care strongly about. As a society, we generally don't decide those big issues with a few big decisions, but with many small ones.
It was mentioned, "...I'm not sure why he asked..." the question.
When I posted the question - about 18 hours before I posted my opinion on the matter - I had just become acquainted with the accident and its circumstances. I was genuinely grieved regarding the couple's plight, especially that of the wife who was trapped with her dead husband for almost a full day.
This made me think about my full and unwavering support of all of the implications of my "forever wild" stance. I wanted to hear the opinion of others - pro and con.
Obviously, they were only a few opinions at the time of my second post, but I had read a few and I had plenty of time to think about it.
Mark,
This is more of a response to the above "addendum" to the original post than to your recent "comment". I'll preface it by saying that it will hopefully be my last - these conversations (as you know) can go on forever without resolution. We just happen to disagree on this, although I'm sure that there is far more that we would agree on pertaining to this nutty world than disagree on.
First, a minor point. I don't think "discernment" is the right word here. Someone who is "discerning" is one who is able to grasp or see what is not clear to or is obscure to others. But I get your meaning. You're simply saying that you choose the technology you wish to use (or tolerate) and eschew that which you don't like (or won't tolerate).
My point exactly. We all do that. I like to exercise by walking, running, or hiking. I don't particularly like to swim and I hate skiing. We all do the same thing with respect to what we eat, what we wear, what we drive, and so on and so on. You like to be able to drive in the Adirondacks without destroying your vehicle's springs, you like to heat your house, and to power your lights and computer. You don't like cell phones and you positively abhor cell towers. I get all that. And I respect it. They're your choices.
But in my opinion, you're placing your personal "dislikes" - this one in particular - under the banner of "wilderness preservation". It's the old "having your cake and eating it too" cliche. It is, in fact, inconsistent. You can't be "Amish" only when it's personally convenient.
My guess is that the exhaust emitted from all of the vehicles driving through that wonderful area during a given year is far more harmful to the "wilderness" than these cell towers would be. Why not lobby against that?
Finally, you seem to have omitted part of the story about the cell towers proposed 4 years ago. Yes, there was a proposal to put up a series of 38 foot cell towers that theoretically would have provided complete coverage. The possible "catch", however, was that it would likely only work for people who didn't go off the road (like the Langners did). The towers probably would have been too short to provide adequate coverage. And the fact that cell phone providers didn't like it for economic reasons is irrelevant. Preventing possible catastrophes has never been a high priority for any corporation.
Also, my understanding is that the required easements would only apply to areas along I-87. I find it difficult to understand how an area immediately contiguous to an interstate can be considered "widerness". The damn road is already there, for heaven's sake.
On a photographic note, I just wanted to say that I love your site and I very much enjoy your images. There is an effective "understatement" about them that very much appeals to me. Since we're practically "neighbors", perhaps some day our paths will cross.