Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Over the centuries, people around the world have found lots of things to squabble about — including “the celebration of God’s holy and supremely excellent day.”That description of Easter was written by Epiphanius of Salamis not long after the First Council of Nicaea met in 325. There and then, it was decided that all Christian churches would celebrate Easter on the same day (whatever that day is); and that the complicated Hebrew calendar would no longer be factored in. Easter, and its associated holy days — Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday — are called “moveable feasts,” because the dates on which they fall are determined by the cycles of the sun and moon. The formula established by the Church of Alexandria was for Easter to fall on the first Sunday after the full moon following the northern hemisphere’s vernal equinox.It sounds pretty simple, and after many centuries it evolved as the standard for Western Christians. So how is it, then, that Easter can fall on any Sunday from March 22 to April 25?That spread of time is especially noticeable this year, because Easter falls on April 24. The last time Easter fell on the latest possible date was 1943, and it won’t happen again until 2038.A mere three years ago, Easter came very early, on March 23 (that will happen again in 2160). The last time Easter fell on March 22 was in 1818; it won’t do so again until 2285.Equinox always March 21How does such an apparently simple equation allow for such disparities in dates? And how are the dates selected?The church does not use the vernal equinox of March 20, which is the date it appears on the civil calendar. Never mind that the equinox (when day and night are exactly the same length) is an astronomical occurrence that can fall on March 19 or 21, as well. The fixed ecclesiastical date is March 21, which establishes the starting point for the math that follows. As decreed by the church, the full moon in question is the Paschal full moon. (“Paschal” is a word derived from “Passover.”)According to Wikipedia, this is a brief description of how the Paschal moon is determined:“Nineteen civil calendar years are divided into 235 lunar months of 30 and 29 days each [the so-called ‘ecclesiastical moon.’] The period of 19 years [the metonic cycle] is used because it produces a set of civil calendar dates for the ecclesiastical moons that repeats every 19 years while still providing a reasonable approximation to the astronomical facts. “The first day of each of these lunar months is the ecclesiastical new moon. Exactly one ecclesiastical new moon in each year falls on a date between March 8 and April 5 inclusive.“This begins the paschal lunar month for that year, and 13 days later is the paschal full moon. Easter is the Sunday following the paschal full moon. In other words, Easter falls from one to seven days after the paschal full moon, so that if the paschal full moon is on Sunday, Easter is the following Sunday.”And if that isn’t sufficiently complex, also factoring in are years with an embolismic month (known as a leap year to us laypersons).Of course, this is all related to the Gregorian calendar. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar, and celebrate Easter between April 4 and May 8.Passover and EasterThe connection between Easter and Passover, a commemoration of the escape of the ancient Israelites from Egypt, is symbolic and remains calendar-related to a degree, as both fall in early spring. Both celebrate new life. The two names are often translated into versions of each other in various languages. The original Easter date was the first Sunday after Passover. On the night before his crucifixion, Jesus, who was, of course, Jewish, celebrated Passover with his disciples, during what Christians now call the Last Supper.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.