Cell PhoneTowers-Previous Research

capricioustelephoneΠολεοδομικά Έργα

16 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

159 εμφανίσεις

Cell Phone Towers-Previous Research
A.World Health Organization,"Electromagnetic Fields."2007
B.FCC Consumer Facts,"Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields:Guidelines For
Cellular
&
PCS Sites."2007
C.EMF-Health.com,"Cell Phone Towers:How Far IsSafe?"- 2007
D.American Cancer Society article,"Who Is At Risk"- January 31,2006
E.LiveScience,"Phony Cancer Scares Debunked"December 12,2006
F.www.cyburban."Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School":"Composite"2006
G.Connecticut Department of Public Health,Environmental and Occupational Health
Assessment Fact Sheet:"Cell Phone Towers and Cell Phones- Questions and
Answers about safety."2004
H.Mount Shasta Bio-Regional Ecology Center,"Health Effects From Cell Phone Tower
Radiation",an archive compilation.2002
Exhibit"A"
WHO
I
What are electromagnetic
fi
Page 1 of5
+5*
®AII
WHO OThis site only
Home
Electromagnetic fields (EMF)
About WHO
About us I Publications I
~..QntaJ;t.I!~
Countries
Health topics
Publications
(Y
Qrintable version
Data and statistics What are electromagnetic fields?:Previous page I
1,2,3,4,~,§,Z
Typical exposure levels at home and in the environment
1.
Deflnltions andsources
2.Summary of health effects
3.ProqressIn research
4.Typical exposure levels at
home and in the environment
5.
Curt:
__
eJ).L?tandard~
6.
Precautiol}glY~JlJ"oach~
7.
WhaUliMF
-
German....l.@lial}
~~~disJJ
Table of contents
Electromagnetic fields at home
Background electromagnetic field levels from electricity
transmission and distribution facilities
Electricity is transmitted over long distances via high voltage power
lines.Transformers reduce these high voltages for local distribution
to homes and businesses.Electricity transmission and distribution
facilities and residential Wiring and appliances account for the
background level of power frequency electric and magnetic fields in
the home.In homes not located near power lines this background
field may be up to about
0.2
I-JT.
Directly beneath power lines the
fields are much stronger.Magnetic flux densities at ground level can
range up to several uT.Electric field levels underneath power lines can be as high as
10
kV/m.
However,
the fields (both electric and magnetic) drop off with distance from the lines.At
50
m to
100
m distance
the fields are normally at levels that are found In areas away from high voltage power lines.In addition,
house walls.substantially reduce the electric field levels from those found at similar locations outside the
house.
Programmes and
projects
EMF Home
About
electromagnetic
fields
EMF Project
Research
Meetings
Standards
EMF publications
&
information
resources
Electric appliances in the household
The strongest power frequency electric fields that are ordinarily
encountered in the environment exIst beneath high voltage
transmission lines.In contrast,the strongest magnetic fields at
power frequency are normally found very close to motors and
other electrical appliances,as well as in specialized equipment
,.",-,).,~
such as magnetic resonance scanners used for medical imaging.
.....
':
...
'
Typical electric field strengths measured near household
appliances
(at a distance of
30
cm)
From:Federal Office for Radiation
Safety,
Germany 1999)
I
Electric appliance Electric field strength (V
1m)
Stereo receiver
180
Iron
j
120
I
I
Refrigerator
120
I
Mixer
III
100
I
,I
Toaster
11
80
[
I
Hair dryer
II
BO
!
I
Colour TV
I
60
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/aboutlWhatisEMF/en/index3.html
12/17/2007
WHO
I
W.hat are electromagnetic fields?
Page z ot5
Electric oven
8
Light bulb
5
Guideline limit value
5000
Many people are surprised when they become aware of the variety of magnetic field levels found near
various appliances.The field strength does not depend on how large,complex,powerful or noisy the
device Is.Furthermore,even between apparently similar devices,the strength of the magnetic field may
vary a lot.For example,while some hair dryers are surrounded by a very strong field,others hardly
produce any magnetic field at all.These differences in magnetic field strength are related to product
design.The followlnq table shows typical values for a number of electrical devices commonly found in
homes and workplaces.The measurements were taken in Germany and all of the appliances operate on
electricity at a frequency of
50 Hz.
It
should be noted that the actual exposure levels vary considerably
depending on the model of appliance and distance from it.
5
distances
n
h Idth f h
fi
fi
Id
t
Trvmca maqne ic Ie s rene:
0
ouse
0
ap
lances at
vanou
;::..
ctric
3
cm distance
30
cm
1
m distance
appliance
(IJT)
distance
(IJT) (IJT)
I
- 2000
I
0.01 - 7
I
0.01
-
0.03
~~"L';"
15 - 1500
II
0.08 -
9
I
0.01 - 0.03
Vacuum
200 - 800
2 - 20
I
0.13 - 2
I
cleaner
Fluorescent
40
-
400
I
0.5 - 2
II
0.02 - 0.25
I
light
Microwave
73 - 200
I
4-8
II
0.25
-
0.6
I
oven
Portable radio
16 - 56
I
1
II
< 0.01
I
Electric oven
1 - 50
I
0.15 - 0.5
II
0.01 - 0.04
I
Washing
v.o
",0
I
0.15 - 3
I
0.01 - 0.15
machine
I
Iron
II
8 - 30
II
0.12 - 0.3
I
0.01 - 0.03
I
Dishwasher
II
3.5 - 20
II
0.6 - 3
I
0.07 - 0.3
I
Computer
'8B8
1
<0.0'
"
I
I
Refrigerator
I
0.5 - 1.7
C;01
- 0.25
II
<0.01
I
I
Colour TV
II
2.5 - 50
II
0.04
-
2
I
0.01 - 0..15
With most household appliances the magnetic field strength at a
distance of
30
cm Is well below the guIdeline limit for the general
public of
100
lJT.
(Source:Federal Office for Radiation Safety,Germany 1999) Normal operating distance Is given In bold
http://www.
who.int/peh-ernf/about/WhatisEMFlen/index3.html
12/17/2007
WHU
I What are electromagnetic
fields?
Hz) for the general public.
Page 30[5
·
Television sets
and
computer screens
·
Computer screens and television sets work on similar principles.Both produce
./.'
static electric fields and alternating electric and magnetic fields at various
·
frequencies.However,screens with liquid crystal displays used in some laptop
,
computers and desktop units do not give rise to significant electric and magnetic
fields.Modern computers have conductive screens which reduce the static field
from the screen to a level similar to that of the normal background In the home
or workplace.At the position of operators (30 to 50 cm from the screen),
alternating magnetic fields are typically below 0.7
IJT
in flux density (at power frequencies).Alternating
electric field strengths at operator positions range from below 1
VIm
up to 10
VIm.
Microwave ovens
Domestic microwave ovens operate at
very
high power levels.However,effective shielding reduces
leakage outside the ovens to almost non-detectable levels.Furthermore microwave leakage falls
very
rapidly with increasing distance from the oven.Many countries have manufacturing standards that
specify maximum leakage levels for new ovens;an oven that meets the manufacturing standards will
not present any hazard to the consumer.
Portable telephones
Portable telephones operate at much lower intensities than mobile phones.This is because they are
employed
very
close to their home base station,and so do not need strong fields to transmit over long
distances.As a consequence,the radiofrequency fields that surround these devices are negligible.
Electromagnetic fields in the environment
Radar
Radars are used for navigation,weather forecasting,and military applications,as well as a variety of
other functions.They emit pulsed microwave signals.The peak power in the pulse can be high even
though the average power may be low.Many radars rotate or move up and down;this reduces the
mean power density to which the public is exposed in the vicinity of radars.Even high power,non­
rotating military radars limit exposures to below guideline levels at locations of public access.
Security systems
Anti-theft systems in shops use tags that are detected by electrical coils at the exits.When a purchase Is
made the tags are removed or permanently deactivated.The electromagnetic fields from the coils do not
generally exceed exposure guideline levels.Access control systems work in the same way with the tag
incorporated Into a key ring or identity card.Library security systems use tags that can be deactIvated
when a book is borrowed and reactivated when it is returned.Metal detectors and airport security
systems set up a strong magnetic field of up to 100
IJT
that is disturbed by the presence of a metal
object.Close to the frame of the detector,magnetic field strengths may approach and occasionally
exceed guideline levels.However,this does not constitute a health hazard,as will be discussed in the
section on gUidelines.(see Are exposures above the quldelines harmful?)
--.
",:::)
Electric trains and trams
f-......
.
..'"
...
:,\~~
Long-distance trains have one or more engine cars that are
i'"
~..'.,~
:....
,..:';::..
<J~
separate from the passenger cars.Thus passenger exposure comes
>.':.;~.:~ J_~~~.·;i:~;J
mainly from the electricity supply to the train.Magnetic fields in the
!:;".:,·,,;.::l7~';"'~
,,_ -,.;_.
~.~
passenger cars of long-distance trains can be several hundred
IJT
l~ir.:'I~±mr\~~;;<;.;",._~.~
near the floor,with lower values (tens of
IJT)
elsewhere in the
~~._~~
compartment.Electric field strengths may reach 300
VIm.
People
.....:,";..,.".:
-~f.:
..
:::?:.-;'·
living in the vicinity of railway lines may encounter magnetic fields
-,
~\
:from the overhead supply which,depending on the country,may be
comparable to the fields produced by high-voltage power lines.
Motors and traction equlprnent of trains and trams are normally
located underneath the floors of passenger cars.At floor level,
magnetic field intensities may amount to tens of
IJT
in regions of
the floor just above the motor.The fields fall off quickly with
distance from the floor,and exposure of the upper bodies of
http://www.who.int/peh-em'f/aboutlWhatisEMF/en/index3.htrnl
12/17/2007
WHO
I
What are electromagnetic fields?
Page 4
of5
for?Radio signals are described as amplitude-modulated (AM) or frequency-modulated (FM) depending
on the way in which they carry information.AM radio signals can be used for broadcasting over very
long distances whereas FMwaves cover more localized areas but can give a better sound quality.
AMradio signals are transmitted via large arrays of antennas,which can be tens of metres high,on sites
which are off-limits to the public.Exposures very close to antennas and feed cables can be high,but
these would affect maintenance workers rather than the general public.
TV and FMradio antennas are much smaller than AM radio antennas and are mounted in arrays at the
top of high towers.The towers themselves serve only as supporting structures.As exposures near the
foot of these towers are below guideline limits,public access to these areas may be possible.Small local
TV and radio antennas are sometimes mounted on the top of buildings;if this is the case it may be
necessary to control access to the roof.
Mobile phones and their base stations
Mobile phones allow people to be within reach at all times.These
low-power radiowave devices transmit and receive signals from a
network of fixed low power base stations.Each base station
provides coverage to a given area.Depending on the number of
.calls being handled,base stations may be from only a few hundred
metres apart In major cities to several kilometres apart In rural
areas.
Mobile phone base stations are usually mounted on the tops of
buildings or on towers at heights of between 15 and 50 metres.The levels of transmissions from any
particular base station are variable and depend on the number of calls and the callers'distance from the
base station,Antennas emit a very narrow beam of radiowaves which spreads out almost parallel to the
ground.Therefore,radiofrequency fields at ground level and in regions normally accessible to the public
are many times below hazard levels.Guidelines would only be exceeded if a person were to approach to
within a metre or two directly in front of the antennas.Until mobile phones became widely used,
members of the public were mainly exposed to radiofrequency emissions from radio and TV stations..
Even today,the phone towers themselves add little to our total exposure,as signal strengths in places
of public access are normally similar to or lower than those from distant radio and TV stations.
However,the user of a mobile phone Is exposed to radiofrequency fields much higher than those found
in the general environment.Mobile phones are operated very close to the head.Therefore,rather than
looking at the heating effect across the whole body,the distribution of absorbed energy in the head of
the user must be determined.From sophisticated computer modeling and measurements using models
of heads,it appears that the energy absorbed from a mobile phone is not in excess of current
guidelines.
Concerns about other so-called non-thermal effects arising from
exposure to mobile phone frequencies have also been raised.These
include suggestions of subtle effects on cells that could have an
effect on cancer development.Effects on electrically excitable
tissues that may influence the function of the brain and nervous
tissue have also been hypothesized.However,the overall evidence
.~
available to date does not suggest that the use of mobile phones
.has any detrimental effect on human health.
Magnetic fields in everyday life:are they really that high?
In recent years,national authorities in different countries have conducted many measurements to
investigate electromagnetic field levels in the living environment.None of these surveys has concluded
that field levels could bring about adverse health effects.
The Federal Office for Radiation Safety in Germany recently measured the daily exposure to magnetic
fields of about 2000 individuals across a range of occupations and public exposures.All of them were
equipped with personal dosimeters for 24 hours.The measured exposure varied widely but gave an
average daily exposure of 0.10
IJT.
This value is a thousand times lower that the standard limit of 100
n'T fnr thp nuhllc anrl 700
timpc;
Inwpr than thp SOO u'T pxnnc;lIrp limit fnr
wnrkprc;_
Fllrthprmnrp_ thp
1
?
11
7/'){\{\7
WHO
J
What are electromagnetic fields?
Page 5 of5
1.
Background electromagnetic field levels in the home are mainly caused by the transmission and
distribution facilities for electricity or by electrical appliances.
2.Electrical appliances differ greatly in the strength of fields they generate.Both electric and
magnetic field levels decrease rapidly with distance from the appliances.In any event,fields
surrounding household appliances usually are far below guideline limits
..
3.At operator positions the electric and magnetic fields of television sets and computer screens are
hundreds of thousands times below guideline levels.
4.Microwave ovens meeting the standards are not hazardous to health.
5.As long as close public access to radar facilities,broadcasting antennas and mobile phone base
stations is restricted,exposure guideline limits for radiofrequency fields will not be exceeded.
6.The user of a mobile phone encounters field levels that are much higher than any levels in the
normal living environment.However,even these increased levels do not appear to generate
harmful effects.
7.Many surveys have demonstrated that exposure to electromagnetic field levels in the living
environment is extremely low.
What are electromagnetic fields?:1,2,3,4,5,6,7
I
Next page
E-mail
scamsll;:r:npI.9Yrn.eJlllF.AQsIFeedqackIOtherU!.Jsit~sIPri.Y.Q9.IIiSS
le!'!..ds
©W9r1d.He.!lJth OrgCloizatiQn
2007.
All.r.ights
reserved
httn'//un""III
whn
int/nf~h_f'mf/~hnllt/Wh~ti<:FMF/f'n/inilf'y1
html
17/1
717()()7
Exhibit"B"
r~--ri<-.
....................,...
(
Hum~n
Exposure To Radio Frequency Fiefds:
!,~

1
Guidelines For
Cellular
&
PCSSites
.
.
- i
-.
-
.
.:.f
:
.
->
1
~
FCC
Consumer Facts
Background
Primary antennas for transmitting wireless
telephone service,including cellular and Personal
Communications Service (PCS),are usually
located outdoors on towers,water tanks,and
other elevated structures like rooftops and sides
of buildings.The combination of antenna towers
and associated electronic equipment is referred to
as a"cellular or PCS cell site"or
abase station."
Cellular or PCS cell site towers are typically 50­
200 feet high.Antennas are usually arranged in
groups of three,with one antenna in each group
used to transmit signals to mobile units,and the
other two antennas used to receIve signals from
mobile units.
At a cell site,the total radio frequency (RF)
power that can be transmitted from each
transmitting antenna depends on the number
of radio channels (transmitters) that have
been authorized by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the power of each
transmitter.
Although the FCC permits an
effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts
per channel (depending on the tower height),the
majority of cellular or PCS cell sites.in urban and
suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts
per channel or less.
An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual
radiated power of
5-10
watts,depending on the
type of antenna used.I n urban areas,cell sites
commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts per channel or
less.For PCS cell sites,even lower ERPs are
typical.As with all forms of electromagnetic
energy,the power density from a cellular or
pes
transmitter rapidly decreases as distance from the
antenna increases.
Background (cont'd.)
Consequently,normal ground-level exposure
is
much less than the exposure that might be
encountered if one wer e very close to the
antenna and in its main transmitted beam.
Measurements made near typical cellular and
PCS cell sites have shown that ground-level
power densities are well below the exposure
limits recommended by RF/microwave safety
standards used by the FCC.
Guidelines
In 1996,the FCC adopted updated gUidelines
for evaluating human exposur e to RF fields
from fixed transmitting antennas such as those
used for cellular and PCS cell sites.The
FCC's guidelines are identical to those
recommended by the National Cou neil on
Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP),a non-profit corporation chartered by
Congress to develop information and
recommendations concerning radiation
protection.The FCC's guidelines also
resemble the 1992 guidelines recommended
by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE),a non-profit technical and
professional engineer ing society,and
endorsed by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI),a non-profit,privately-funded.
membership organization that coordinates
development of voluntary national standards in
the United States.
(More)
---+-
Federal C.mmunlcaUonl Commlaslon  Consumor
&
Govornmen'al Affairs Bureau 445 12th 51.,
sw 
w.shlnglon.DC 20554
1-888-CALL·FCC (1-888·225·5322)  TTY:1-888·TELL-FCC (1·888·835-5322)
Fax:
1·866-418·0232  www.lcc.gov/cgb
Guidelines (cont'd.)
In the case of cellular and PCS cell site
transmitters,the FCC's RF exposure guidelines
recommend a maximum permissible exposure
level to the general public of approximately 580
microwatts per square centimeter.This limit is
many times greater than RF levels typically
found near the base of cellular or PCS cell site
towers or in the vicinity of other,lower-powered
cell site transmitters.
Calculations corresponding to a"worst-case"
situation (atl transmitters operating
simultaneously and continuously at the
maximum licensed power) show that,in order to
be exposed to RF levels near the FCC's
guidelines,an indIvidual would essentially have
to remain in the main transmitting beam and
within a few feet of the antenna for several
minutes or longer.Thus,the possibility that a
member of the general public could be exposed
to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is
extremely remote.
When cellul ar and PCS antennas are mounted
on rooftops,RF emissions could exceed higher
than desirable guideli ne levels on the rooftop
itself,even though rooftop antennas
usually
operate
at
lower power levels than free-standing
power antennas.Such levels might become an
issue for maintenance or other personnel
working on the rooftop.Exposures exceeding
the guidelines levels,however,are only likely to
be encountered very close to,and directly in
front of,the antennas.In such cases,
precautions such as time limits can avoid
exposure in excess of the guidelines.Individuals
living or working within the building are not at
risk.
2
For More Information
For more Information on RF exposure,you can
visit the FCC's RF Safety Web site at
www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafetv.For further
information about this issue or any other
telecommunications-related Issues,visit the
FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Web site at www.fcc.gov/cgb,or contact the
FCC's Consumer Center bye-mailing
fccinfo@fcc.gov:calling 1-888-CALL-FCC
(1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC
(1-888-835-5322)
TTY;
faxing 1-866-418-0232:
or writing to:
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer
&
Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiry and Complaints Division
45512
1h
Street,SW
Washington,DC 20554.
For thIs or any other consumer publication in an
accessible format (electronic ASCII text,
Bral1le,
large
print,or audio) please write or call us at the address or
phone number below,or send an e-mail to
FCC504@fr;c.qov.
To receive information on this and other FCC consumer
topics through the Commission's electronic subscriber
service,click on
htfp;llwww.fcc.govlcgblcontacts.
This document is for consumer education purposes oniy
and Is not intended to affect any proceeding or cases
involving this subject matter
or
related
issues.
11/08101'
Federal Communlcallons Comml8slon  Consumer
&
Governmental
Arlalra
Bureau 445 121h 51..SW  Washington.DC 20554
1·888·CALL-FCC
(1·888-226-6322)  TTY:
1·888·T.ELL·FCC
(1-888.836.6322) Fax:1.886.418·0232 
www./ee.gov/cgb
Cell PhoneTowers:HowFar is Safe?
~
EMF-Health.com
Exhibit"C
n
Page 1of3
EMF"Health.cOln
Advanced
EMF
Protection
So/IJIjons
to
the
Dangersuf EJectropollution
Q·linK~1
Concerned
about
<:1111 plume Bdlldlon?
Then
yOU
~
to
see
U-
tests.
~~
~
.
.~.
..
.
.,
HOME· PRODUCTS· NEWS- ABOUT US- SUPPORT- CONTACT - FREEREPORT
QLJNK PRODUCTS
Pendants
Bracelets
USB Plug-Ins
Handcrafted Silver
Animal Pendants
All Q-Link Products
ABOUT QUNK
Cell Phone Towers:How Far is Safe?
by TarakaSerrano
If youor peopleyouknowlivewithin a quarter mileof a cell phone
tower,this may
be
of
concem.Two studies,onein Germanyand
the other in Israel,revealthat livingin proximity of a cell phone
tower or antennacouldput your healthat significantrisk.
Electromagnetic
Radiation Protecton
Solutions
Personal
EMF Protection:
TESTIMONIALS
RESEARCH
INTHE PRESS
MORE EMF
SOLUTIONS
German study:3 times increased cancer risk
Several doctorslivinginSouthernGermanycity of Nailaconducted
a studyto assesstherisk
of
mobilephoneradiation.Their researh
examinedwhether population living closeto two transmitter
antennasinstalledin 1993and 1997in Nailahad increased risk of
cancer.
Datawas gatheredfromnearly1,000patientswho hadbeen
residing at the sameaddressdurinqthe entire observation period
of 10years.The socialdifferencesaresmall,with noethnic
diversity.Thereis noheavyindustry,andin theinner areathere
are neitherhigh voltagecablenor electrictrains.Theaverageages
of the residentsaresimilar in both theinner and outer areas.
What they found is quitetelling:the proportion of newlydeveloped
cancer caseswasthreelimes higher amongthosewho hadlived
duringthe past ten yearsat a distanceof up to400m(about 1300
feel) fromthe cellulartransmittersite,compared to thoseliving
further away.They also revealed that the patientsfell
ill
on
average8 yearsearlier.
Cell Phone EMF Protection
Computer simulation andmeasurements usedin the studyboth
showthat radiationinthe inner area(within400m) is 100
times
higher comparedto the outerarea,mainlydue to additional
emissionscomingfromthe secondarylobes of the transmitter.
Looking at only thefirst 5 years,therewas nosignificant increased
risk of getting cancerin the inner area.However,for the period
1999to 2004,the oddsratiofor gettingcancerwas 3.38in the
inner area compared to the outer area.Breast cancertoppedthe list,withanaverageage of 50.8
year compared with69.9yearsin the outer area,but cancersof the prostate,pancreas,bowel,
skin melanoma,lungand bloodcancer wereall increased
Israel study:fourfold cancer risk
Another study,this onefromIsrael'sTel Aviv University,examined 622peoplelivingnear a celJ­
phonetransmitter station for 3-7yearswho were patientsin oneclinicin Netanya and compared
themagainst 1,222controlpatientsfroma nearby clinic.Participants wereverycloselymatched
in environment,workplace and occupational characteristics.The peopleinthefirst group live
within a half circleof 350m(1148feet) radiusfromthe transmitter,whichcameinto servicein
July 1996.
The resultswere startling.Out of the 622 exposedpatients,8 casesof differentkinds of cancer
werediagnosedin a periodof just oneyear (July 1997to June1998):3 casesof breast cancer,
oneof ovariancancer,lungcancer,Hodgkin's disease(cancerof the lymphaticsystem),osteoid
osteoma(bone tumour) and kidneycancer.This compares with 2 per 1222in the matched
controlsof the nearbyclinic.The relativerisk of cancerwas4.15 for thoselivingnear the cell­
phone transmitter compared with theentirepopulationof Israel.
http://www.emf-health.comlarticles-celltowet:htm
9/1212011
Cell Phone Towers:How Far is Safe?- EMF-Health.com Page 2
00
Women were more susceptible.As seven out of eight cancer cases were women,the relative
cancer rates for females were 10.5 for those living near the Iransmitter station and 0.6 for the
conlrols relative for the whole town of Netanya.One year after the close of the study,8 new
cases of cancer were diagnosed in Ihe microwave exposed area and two in the control area.
Locate the Cell Phone Towers and Antennas Near You
Do you know how many cell phone Iransmitters are in your neighborhood?You'd be surprised.
Visit antennasearch.com to find out where the towers and antennas are in your area and how
close they are to your home or place of work.The sile will also pinpoint fulure tower locations,
additional helpful information for those considering buying a home.
For clarity,towers are tall structures where antennas are installed.A typical lower may easily
hold over 10 antennas for various companies.Antennas,on the other hand,are the actual
emitters of signals for various radio services including cellular,paging and others.Antennas are
placed on high towers or can be installed by themselves (stand alone) on top of buildings and
other structures.
Using where I live as an example,I've located 3 cell phone towers and 22 antennas within a
quarter mile from our home,with the closest one at 845 feel.And this is in a relatively quiet
residential neighborhood by the ocean in the small city of Hilo in Hawaii.As you may guess,I did
my research only well after we've moved in.Fortunately,we're here on just a lease and we'll be a
bit wiser nexllime we look for a new home.
What to Do
If
You Live Near a Cell Phone Transmitter
Short of relocating,Ihere are some things you can do to fighl the effects of eleclromagnetic
radiation (EMR).The Safe Wireless Initialive of the Science and Public Policy Institute in
Washington,DC,outlines three levels of intervention in accordance with the public heallh
paradigm that everyone can apply.Here are our suggestions based on these guidelines:
The primary means of intervention is through avoidance or minimizing exposure.This simply
means to avoid contact wilh EMR as much as possible.In case of a cell phone tower close to
your home,this could mean using specially formulated RF shield paint,shielding fabric,shielding
glass or film for windows.etc.Although they may sound extreme,these measures are a life­
saver for someone who suffers from electrosensitivity.a condition in which a person experiences
physical symptoms aggravated by electromagnetic fields.(Sweden is the only counlry so far that
recognizes electrosensitivity as a real medical condition,and their government pays for
measures to reduce exposure in their homes and workplaces).
The secondary means of intervention is to minimize the effects of exposure.This includes the
use of bioenergetic devices that help reduce the effects of EMR,such as pendants,chips or
other devices designed
10
strenglhen the biofield of Ihe individual.A biofield is Ihe matrix of weak
electromagnetic signals that the body's cells use to communicale wilh each olher.EMR disrupls
these signals,causing Ihe cells to eventually shul down and result in build up of loxins and waste
products within Ihe cells,including free radicals known to result in cellular dysfunction and
inlerference with DNA repair.A scientifically
validated
bioenergelic device reslores intercellular
communications and normal cellular function by strenglhening the biofield against Ihe effecls of
EMR.
The Ihird means of inlervenlion is to help reverse damage caused by exposure.This includes
nutritional support such as anli-oxidant supplemenlalion,particularly helpful in countering Ihe
effects of free radicals.Supplementing wilh anti-oxidants SOD,catalase,glutathione,and Coq10
are especially recommended.Microwave radiation has been shown to decrease levels of these
anli-oxidants thai the body normally produces to protecl ilself.These levels are sensilive
indicators in stress,aging,infeclions and various olher disease states.
Additional information:
1.The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on Ihe Incidence of
Cancer (PDF)
(German study)
2.Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell-Phone Transmitter Sialion (PDF)
(Israel study)
3.Environmental Epidemiological Siudy of Cancer Incidence in the Municipalities of
Hausmannstatten
&
Vasoldsberg (Austria) (PDF)
(Note:Thisarlicle is sharedfor educationalpurposesonly and doesnot constitutemedical
advice.
If
you believethat you have
a
healthproblem,seeyour doctor or healthprofessional
immediately.)
http://www.emf-health.comlarticles-celltower.htm
911212011
Cell Phone Towers:How Far is Safe?- EMF-Health.com
©
2007 Taraka Serrano
Page 3 of3
Taraka Serrano is a health advocate dedicated to sharing information and solutions relating to
serious health issues of our time.Watch video reports on the dangers of cell phone and EMF
radiation,and leam more about the right emf protection solutions for you.Visit EMf-Health.com
You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print,free of charge,as rong as
the bylines are included and the article remains unchanged.A courtesy copy of your
publication would be appreciated.
\<Vord
count:
f
,235
Q-Link
Personal EMF Protection
~
iU-.
EarthCarm
Home EMF Protection
~
UN1TEOST,ljT£S
I!!:iiitI
POSTIll.SEflVlCE"
Onf

Onlln
.
24
Houno
a
Ooy.
t
O,Y"

Woe"_
Ooy

Year
-ali--
~
VISA,
,,~
-.'.
,~c.(!\'!b1~;;::4 ~~
~
__
-:'.~
:'.";1
f~
Siewe 128
SSL
Encrypt/on
._.~.
._,._
._.

_.

__

_.._ _  _
 __
_  _

_. 0
 __
--_._.
__
._-
-.-.-----_
---_
Copyright
@2006-
2011 All
rights reserved.
EMF-Health,camis
owned
by Latus Pond Marketing Inc.,
authorized distributor for QUnk products.
Terms of Use
I
PrivacY
I
Disclaimer
http://www.emf-health.com/articles-celltower.htm
91l2/2011
ACS::Cellular Phone Towers

   
.
.
Cellular Phone Towers
What Are Cellular Phone Towers?
Exhibit"0"
Page 1of6
Who is at Risk?
printllJ
close
Ig]
Thewidespread useof cellular phones hasledto the placement of cellular
phone towers Inmany communities.These towers,alsocalled"base
stations,"consist of radios,computerized switching equipment,and
antennas that receive andtransmit radiofrequency (RF) signals.
VVhen
a person makes a cellular phone call,a signal Issent fromthe
phone's antenna tothe basestation antenna.Thebase station responds
tothis signal by assigning
It
anavailable radiofrequency channel.
Transmission and reception of theseradio signals transfer thevoice
Infonnation
to
the
base station.Next,thevoice signals aresent to a
switching center,
which
transfers thecall to
its
destination.For additional
Infonnation onthephones themselves,please seetheAmerican Cancer
Society document,"CellularPhones."
Cellular phone towers areusually mounted eitherontopor onthesideof
existing structures,suchas trees,watertanks,or tall buildings.The
antennas needto
be
located high enough sotheycanadequately cover
thearea.Basestations usually range Inheight
from
150-270
feet
Cellular phones operate at theradiofrequency (RF) part of the
electromagnetic spectrum.ThisIs non-ionlzlng radiation.Otherexamples
of thenon-Ionizing partof theelectromagnetic spectrum include
AM
and
FMradiowaves,mlaowaves,and Infrared wavesfromheat lamps.Unlike
x-rays andgamma rays(Which areexamples of ionizing radiation),radio
waves havetoo littleenergy
to
breakthebonds that holdmolecules (such
as DNA)
In
cellstogether.Similarly,since RFof this
frequency
contains
relatively
low
energy,
It
doesnot entertissues.At veryhighlevels of
exposure,RFcancausewannlngof tissues,much as aheat lampdoes.
Thewavelength of cell phone waves is aboutonefoot andthe frequency
is
approximately
800
to
900
MHz,although newermodels mayusehigher
frequencies upto 2,200 MHz.
HowAre People Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy
From Cellular Phone Towers?
As
peopleusecellular phones to makephone calls,signals are
transmitted backandforth
to
the basestation.Theradio wavesproduced
at
the
base
station areemitted intotheenvironment,where people can
be
exposed.
Theenergy froma cellular phone antenna,
like
that of other
telecommunication antennas,Isdirected toward thehorizon (parallel
to
the
ground),
with
some
downward
scatter.Base station antennas usehigher
ht1p:/Iwww.cancer.orgldocrootIPED/contentIPED_I_3X_Cellular_Phone_Towers.8Sp?site...
3/1212008
ACS::Cellular Phone Towers
powerlevels than other
types
of Iand-mobile antennas.but much lower
levelsthanradio and television
broadcast
stations..Thepowerdensity
decreases
with
increasing distance fromtheantenna.
As
a result,the level
of exposure to radio waves at ground level isverylowcompared to the
level closetothe antenna.
Public exposure
to
radio wavesfromcellular phone antennas
is
slightfor
several reasons.
The
powerlevelsare relatively low,theantennas are
mounted at highabove ground level,andthesignals aretransmitted
intermittently,rather than constantly.
Agencies suchas
the
National Council on Radiation Protections and
Measurements,the International Radiation
Protection
Association,the
Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers,andtheAmerican
National Standards Institute,haveestablished guidelines for exposure to
RFradiation originating fromcellular communications basestations.
These guidelines were designed to protect workers,aswell asthepubllc,
frompotentially harmful radio frequency.Therecommended exposure
limitsareinthe range of.41-.45 milliwatts per square centimeter
(mW/cm2)
for cellular radiofrequencies.
Exposures that exceed theserecommended standards cansometimes
be
encountered ontherooftops of buildings where basestations are
mounted.If thisis thecase,access
to
theseareas should
be
limited.The
powerdensity Inside buildings.where a base station is mounted is typically
10to 100timeslower thanthe level outside depending onthe construction
materials of thebuilding.
Wood
or cement block
reduces
theexposure
level of RF radiation bya factorof aboutten.Thepower density behind an
antenna
Is
hundreds
to thousands of times lowerthanIn front.Therefore,
If
anantenna
Is
mounted onthe sideof a building,theexposure level in
the room directly behind thewallis typically well below the recommended
exposure limits.
Do Cellular Phone Towers Cause Cancer?
Humans generate electromagnetic fieldsinternally as well asexternally.
Thesimple collision between 2 molecules Isanelectrical event Since
thereis
elecbical
activity Inside the human body,thequestion arises asto
whetherradio waves emitted by cellularphone towers can Influence cell
function,andInparticular whethertheycancause cancer.
However,several theoretical considerations suggest that cellularphone
towersare unlikely to cause cancer.
First.theenergy level of radio waves
is
relatively
low.
Electromagnetic
energy comes In"packages"that are referred to as photons.Photon
energy
is
measured
inelectron volts (eV),theenergy gained by an
electron after accelerating over 1volt.Theenergy Inthephotons depends
directlyonthefrequency,anddecreases as
one
moves downthe
electromagnetic
spectrum.
X-rays haveabout 1,000 eVof energy,while
the photon energy of radio wavesfromcellular phone
towers
Is
aboutone
millionth of aneV,not enough
to
alter molecules Inthebody.
A second Issue hasto do
with
wavelength.Radio waves havea
wavelength of approximately 1
toot
In
air,and about2 inchesIn body
tissue.
As
a result,RFradiation canonly
be
concentrated
to
aboutaninch
or two
in
size.Thismakes
It
unlikelythat theenergy fromradio waves
could
be
concentrated ona small bit of tissue,affecting Individual cells.
Page2 of6
http://www.cancer.org/docrootIPED/contentIPED_1_3X_Cellular_Phone_Towers.asp?site...
311212008
ACS::Cellular Phone Towers
Athirdissuehasto do
with
themagnitude of exposure.Measurements
taken around typical cellular phone towers showground level power
densities well belowthe recommended limits.Moreover,public
exposu~
nearcell phonetowers is not significantly different than background levels
of RFradiation in urban areasfromother sources,such as radio and
television broadcast stations.
For these reasons,cell phone antennas or towers areunlikely
to
cause
cancer.
What Does the Epidemiologic Evidence Say?
Nohuman studies havefocused specifically oncellular phone towers or
even on radiowavesmore generally.Several studies havelooked at the
effects of radiowavesand microwaves combined;these havegenerally
not shown any increase incancer,except for a USAir Force study that
suggested an increase inbrain tumors inassociation with
radiofrequency/microwave exposure.
What Does the Animal Evidence Say?
A number of animal studies havebeen conducted,generally showing no
carcinogenic
(cancer..causing)
effectof radio waves.Several experiments
haveusedexposure levels that cause a rise intissue temperature,and
evenInthesestudies,there wasno Increase InDNAmutations or In
cancer.A recent reviewconcluded that:"Thescientific evidence Indicates
that exposure to radiofrequency radiation fieldsis not mutagenic andIs
therefore unlikely to act asanInitiator of carcinogenesis.·
What Do the Expert Agencies Say?
Theexpertagencies that usually provide findings oncarcinogenicity
(whether something cancause cancer) - the International Agency for
Research on Cancer(IARC),the National Toxicology Program (NTP),and
theUSEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) - havenot Issued findings
oncellularphone towers.
TheWond Health Organization stated In1993 that"theepidemiologic and
cornparative clinical studies do not provide clearevidence of detrimental
health effectsIn humans fromexposure to RFfields.Occupational
exposure to RFwill beat higher levels than that encountered bythe
general population,and,thus,thereIslesslikelihood of health effects In
thegeneral population asawhole.·
TheUSFood andDrug Administration (FDA) offersthefollowing
infonnation to Individuals concerned aboutthesafetyof cellular phone
towers (alsoknown aswireless telephone base stations):
Theelectromagnetic RFsignals transmitted from base station
antennas stations travel toward thehorizon in relatively
narrow
paths.For example,theradiation pattern for anantenna
anay
mounted ona towercan
be
likened to athin pancake centered
around theantenna system.TheIndividual pattern for a single array
of sector antennas
Is
wedge-shaped,likea piece
of
pie.
As
with
all
formsof electromagnetic energy,
the
powerdecreases rapidly as
onemoves
away
fromtheantenna.Therefore,RFexposure on
the
groundis much
less
than exposure veryclosetotheantenna andin
Page3 of6
http://www.cancer.orgldocroot/PED/content/PED_l_3X_Cellular_Phone _Towers.asp?site...
311212008
ACS::Cellular Phone Towers
the
path of thetransmitted radio signal.Infact,ground-level
exposure from
such
antennas
Is
typically thousands of timesless
thantheexposure levelsrecommended assafebyexpert
organizations.Soexposure
to
nearby residents would
be
well
within
safety margins.
cellular and PCS (Personal Communications Service) base
stations intheUnited States arerequired tocomply
with
limits for
exposure recommended byexpert organizations andendorsed by
government agencies responsible for health andsafety.
Measurements made nearcellular andPCS base station antennas
mounted ontowers haveconfirmed that ground-level exposures are
typically thousands of timeslessthan theexposure limits adopted
bythe FCC (Federal Communications Commission).Infact.In
orderto
be
exposed to levels at or neartheFCClimitsfor cellular
or PCS frequencies anIndividual would essentially have
to
remain
in
the
main transmitted radio signal (at the height of theantenna)
andwithin a
few
feet
from
theantenna.ThisIs,of course,very
unlikely
to
occur.
When cellUlar andPCS antennas aremounted onrooftops,RF
levelsonthat roofor on others nearbywould probably
be
greater
thanthose typically encountered onthe ground.However,exposure
levelsapproaching or exceeding safety guidelines should be
encountered only verycloseto or directly infront of theantennas.
Inaddition,for sector-type antennas,typically used for such rooftop
basestations,RFlevelstothesideandInbackof these antennas
areinsignificant.General guidelines onantenna Installations and
circumstances that mightgiveriseto a concern abouta facility's
conformance
with
FCCregulations can
be
found inA Local
Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RFEmission
Safety:Rules.Procedures,andPractical Guidance.ThisGuide can
be
accessed onthe Internet at www.fcc.gov/oetlrfsafety.
Do Cellular Phone Towers Cause Any Other Health
Problems?
While highlevels of radiofrequency waves can cause a warming of
tissues,cellular phone towers
do
not yield exposure at levels sufficient to
cause thiseffect.There is noevidence Inpublished
scientific
reports that
cell phone towers cause anyother health problems.
What Do I Do If I've Been Exposed to Cellular Phone
Towers?
As
noted above.cell phone towers pose
little
riskunderordinary
conditions.There Isnotest to measure whether you have been exposed
to
RFradiation
from
cellular phone towers.However,
If
thereIsa cellular
phone towermounted nearyour home or office,youcanaska
government agency or
private
firm
to
measure theradiofrequency field
strength nearthetower
to
ensure that
It
ts
within theacceptable range.If
you
have
additional health concerns,please consult yourdoctor.
The Bottom Line...
Cellular phone towers,
like
cenular phones themselves,area relatively
new
technology,
andwedo not yet havefull information onhealth effects.
Inparticular,
not
enough
time
haselapsed to permit epidemiologic studies.
Page
40f6
http://www.cancer.org/docrootIPED/contentIPED 1 3X Cellular Phone Towers.asp?site...
3/1212008
ACS::Cellular Phone Towers
There aresometheoretical reasons Why cellular phone towers would not
be
expected to increase cancer risk,andanimal studies of RFhave not
suggested a risk
of
cancer.People whoare
concerned
canask
for
measurements of RFnearcellular phone towers
to
besureexposures do
not exceed recommended limits.
Additional Resources
National Organizations and Web Sites
Thefollowing organizations can provide additional information and
resources.·
Federal Communications Commission
RFSafety Program,
Office
of Engineering andTechnology,2006
Internet Address:www.
fcc.gov/oet/~fetyl
Food and
Drug
Administration
Cell
Phone Facts:Consumer Information on Wireless Phones,2005
Internet Address:
www.fOa.gov~cellpl:1onesi
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Internet Address:www.niehs.nih.gov/extemaVfaq/cellular.htm
Wor1d Health Organization
Electromagnetic fields andpublic health:extremely
low
frequency fields
andcancer.2001.
Internet Address:
www.w~Q,'nt/~i~~[1Jr.~~~b~t~~~~!~o!
*
Inclusion onthislist
does
not imply
endorsement
by the
American
cancer Society
References
ANSI-e95.1,1982.American National Standards Institute.American
national standard safety levels withrespect to human exposure to
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields,300kHzto 100Ghz.NewYork:
IEEE.
Food and
Drug
Administration:Cellular phone
facts.
Consumer
Information onwireless phones;2003.Available
at
www.fda.gov/cellphoneslqa.htmI#36.Accessed September 2003.
IEEE-e95.1,1991.Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers,Inc.
Safety levelswithrespect
to
human exposure
to
radio frequency
electromagnetic fields,
3
kHzto 300Ghz.Piscataway.
NJ:
IEEE.
IEEE:Institute
of
Electrical andEJectronics Engineers,Inc.Human
exposure to RFemissions fromcellular
radio
base station antennas;
Washington,
DC:1992.
ICNIRP:International Commission on Non-lonlzing
Radiation
Protection.
Health Issues related to
the
use
of
hand-held radiotelephones andbase
transmitters.Health
Physics 1996;70:587-593.
IRPA,1988,lntemational Radiation Protection Association.Guidelines on
Page5 of6
http://www.cancer.orgldocrootIPED/contentIPED_1_3~Cellu1ar_Phone_Towers.asp?site...
3/12/2008
ACS::Cellular Phone Towers
limits of exposure
to
radio frequency electromagnetic fields.IEEE United
States
Activities.
COMAR.washington,DC.
NCRP.
1986,
National Council on Radiation Protection.Biological
effects
andexposure
criteria
for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.Report
86,
(Bethesda,MD:National Council onRadiation Protection and
Measurements) pp.1-382.
OET:
Office
of Engineering andTechnology.Bulletin Number 56(Third
Edition January 1989).Questions andAnswers
About
theBiological
Effects
andPotential Hazards of Radiofrequency Radiation.
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/infoidocuments/bulletinsIWeIcome.html
Petersen RCandTest8grossa PA.Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields
Associated withCellular-Radio Cell-8ite Antennas.
Bioelectromagnetics 1992;13:527-542.
Rothman
KJ,
Chung-Kwang C.Morgan R,et a!.Assessment of Cellular
Telephone andOtherRadio Frequency Exposure for Epidemiologic
Research.Epidemiology 1996;7:291-298.
Valberg PA.Radio frequency radiation (RFR):thenature of exposure and
carcinogenic potential.Cancer Causes andControl 1997;8:323-332.
VVorid
Health Organization (WHO).Environmental Health Criteria 137:
Electromagnetic
Fields(300Hz to 300GHz).Geneva,Switzerland:WHO.
1993:1-290.A fact sheet
based
onthisvolume can
be
found at
http://www.who.int/inf-fslenlfact183.hbnl.
Revised:01/31/2006
Page 6 of6
http://www.cancer.orgldocrootIPED/contentIPED_1_3X_Cellular_Phone _Towers.asp?site...3/1212008
Exhibit"E"
Welcome,Guest
Curious?Join our community!
Members:
Log
InNew?Register:
Newsletters
Join Now!
...
Hot Topics
Livescience
RSS Feeds
L,VE
SClENCE~

Space

Animals

Health

Environment

Technology

Culture

History

Video

Strange News

Community

Store
.'-
~----~._.~
....
-- -_
..
_
..
~------~-".r'-"'-"-'~"'------~-'---'-"-"-
i
Vi"...
dll AI
u..
I"..
¢
i
(,';}!
s
..
t.......
i1",
Lu
RS
s
"..
...
_~
__.
~
...
_ (._.'l;.,:.;.
._
._
..
__"_
~
__
._ ._.
Health
Phony Cancer Scares Debunked
By
Christopher Wanjek,LiveScience's
Bad
Medicine Columnist
posted:
12
December
2006 09:19
amET
The Danes,relatively inactive on the world scene since their conquest of Greenland and
invention of that delightful pastry,have conducted one of the best health studies yet revealing
that there's no apparent link between cancer and cell phones.
Researchers at the Danish Cancer Institute (who,remember,don't want you to get cancer)
followed more than 420,000 cell phone users,nearly a tenth of the Danish population,and
found that their cell phone habits did not increase their risk of any type of cancer.The results
were published last week in the
Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Brain cancers can take many years to develop.The most reassuring aspect of the massive
Danish study is that some of the cancer-free subjects have been using cell phones for more
than 20 years.
Yet most scientists aren't surprised by the result.Study after study has been showing no
evidence of cancer precisely because there's no plausible reason for cell phones to cause
cancer.
Technology
=
worry
Cell phone users worried about brain cancer can call on history to ease their fears.Older
readers might remember when microwave ovens were said to cause cancer.After this,it was
power lines.After this,computer monitors.
Every new technology brings worry.Books are written each time-there are quite a few on
cell phone dangers-attempting to reveal the truth and uncover the vast conspiracy of those
villains forcing electricity and other useless products upon us.Lots of money is made selling
the fear;lots of money is spent on studies to convince the public the technology is safe.
The fear isn't always groundless.Industry has pushed a lot of deadly products our way,such
as asbestos and,well,a lot of processed junk food we heat up in our harmless microwaves.
One fear certainly worth investigating was the possible link between childhood leukemia,a
blood cancer,and
electrtc
and magnetic fields from power lines.In the late 1970s researchers
investigating a clustering of leukemia cases in Denver found that the sickened children lived in
homes near power lines whose configurations could emit higher levels of magnetic fields.But
subsequent studies over the next 20 years exceeding $20 billion,according to White House
estimates,have found no elevated risk of cancer from daily exposure to electromagnetic fields
from power supplies.
Bad Medicine
Bad Medicine appears
each Tuesday on
LiveScience.Previous
While
excessive
exposure to magnetic fields can cause
illness,cell phone"radiation"has always been far too
feeble to be of concern.
Speaking of (and with) radiation
Is radiation really so harmful?The sun is one big fireball
of radiation,and without it there would be no life on
Earth.Only the highest-energy forms of radiation are
deadly.
columns:
Top 10:Good Foods
Gone Bad
Discovery of'Red Gene'
Points to Bad Apples
The Myth of the Fat
Gene
Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into ionizing and
non-ionizing radiation.Ionizing radiation can knock an electron loose,break a chemical bond,
cause a DNA mutation,and cause cancer.Radiation isn't ionizing,
however,
until it reaches
ultraviolet energies.UV causes skin cancer;X-rays and gamma rays are well-known
carcinogens.
Visible light and lower-energy forms of radiation such as infrared and radio
waves
aren't
ionizing.This is a basic property of quantum physics.Light particles,called photons,are like
little balls.An X-ray is like a golf ball;it will break a window.Microwaves,the kind emitted
by a cell phone,are like puff balls.You can throw a million at the window.
It
won't break.
This is your brain on microwaves
Microwaves can cook meals when concentrated in an
oven
by vibrating the water molecules in
food,which creates heat [See:How
microwave ovens
work].The omni-directional
microwaves emitted by your cell phone are millions of times less concentrated.Your head,
which does a good job protecting the brain from the heat of the sun,would start to cook
before any brain tissue'inside started to heat.
Yes,microwaves are penetrating your brain as you speak on a cell phone.
If
they do cause
cancer,though,this would entail an entirely new process unlike any other cancer-inducing
chemical,virus or ionizing photon.
The most prudent scientists don't entirely rule out the radiation dangers (heat,magnetic or
ionizing) present in modern society.They do rely on scientific facts and findings to assess
these dangers,such as a lack of biological mechanism at the
given
exposure and studies
involVing nearly a half-million Danes.
Scientists are more concerned about improper use of radiating devices-talking on a cell
phone and driving,heating up Cheez Whiz in the microwave,or watching reruns of"Married
with Children"on the telly.Now we're talking about true dangers.
Christopher Wanjek is the author
of
the books"Bad Medicine"and"Food At Work."Got a
question about Bad Medicine?Email Wanjek.If it's really bad,he just might answer it in a
future column.Bad Medicine appears each Tuesday on LIveScience.
:eH
Tower
Mealth
Effects
Exhibit
"F"
http://www.cyburban.com/-lplachtalsafeweb2.htm
ofl2
A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?
The Ossining School Board voted to allow placement of a PCS Base Station atop the Ossining High School
on the basis of a"Safety Analysis"which claimed to report the health effects of the radiation emitted from
such antennas.
ill
Instead,it suppressed current areas of controversy and uncertainty and claimed falsely that
this technology is,in effect,universally considered safe.
Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation
(RF)
remain!
Should we expose our children
and
ourselves to this radiation for the next twenty years when
so milch uncertainty exists?
Our School Board was told that concerns about health effects from exposure to magnetic fields from electric
power distribution lines or the use of hand held cell phones are based on fear,not fact.The Board was not
told that a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel this year designated power frequency
electromagnetic fields (EMF) as"possible human carcinogens."m
There is a robust and ongoing controversy over many aspects ofRF health effects.While no one disagrees
that serious health hazards occur when living cells in the body are heated,as happens with high intensity RF
exposure (just like in a microwave oven),scientists are currently still investigating the health hazards of low
intensity exposure.Low intensity exposure is exposure which does not raise the temperature of the living
cells in the body.
The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the radiation they produce is too
weak to cause heating,a"thermal effect."They point to"safety standards"from groups such as ANSI/IEEE
or ICNIRP to support their claims.But these groups have explicitly stated that their claims of"safe levels of
exposure"are based on
thennallevels.
ill
Thus the claim that the RF exposure is harmless rests on the fact
that it is too weak to produce a rise in temperature,a"thermal effect."
There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of
nonthennal effects of microwave radiation.The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists,
but rather what weight to give it.
Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF research have shown that RF of the type used in
digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures,animals,and people in
laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities,not in the laboratory) of
serious health effects at"non-thennallevels,"where the intensity ofthe radiation was too low to cause
heating.They have found:
 Increased cell growth of brain cancer
cells
ill
5/5/20065:51 PM
::ell
Tower Health Effects http://www.cyburban.coml-1plachtalssfeweb2.htm
!
of
12
 A doubling of the rate oflymphoma in
miceill
 Changes in tumor growth in
rats@
 An
increased number of tumors in
rats
ill
 Increased breaks in double and single stranded DNA,our genetic
material
ill
 2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to
RF.L21
 More childhood leukemia in children exposed to
RF
OO)
 Changes in sleep patterns and REM type
sleep
Ql2
 Headaches caused by
RF
exposurJ11l
 Neurologic changes(l3) including
Changes in the
blood-brain-barrier
il12
Changes in cellular morphology (including cell
death)@
Changes in neural electrophysiology
(EEG)UQ2
Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain
perception)Q1}
Metabolic changes (of calcium ions,for
instance)i..!ID
Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer,Alzheimer's,neurodegenerative
diseases)L!.21
 Decreased memory,attention,and slower reaction time in school children(20)
 Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial"working
memory"Ql1
 Increased blood pressure in healthy
men@
 Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma
medications@
Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low
intensity,non-thermal
RF
exposure,calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open
questions.These include:
 The World Health Organization,noting reports of"cancer,reduced fertility,memory loss,and adverse
changes in the behavior and development of
children."~
 The U.S.Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)@
 The International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC)1122.
 The Swedish Work Environmental
Fund@
 The National Cancer Institute
(NCI)@
 The European Commission
(EC#22
 New Zealand's Ministry of
Health
Qill
 National Health and Medical Research Council of
AustraliaQ..!2
 Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia
(CSIRO)f1l2
Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on
RF
and health to be potential health hazards.Safe levels of
5/5/20065:51
PM
:::el'l
Tower HealthEffects http://www.cyburban.coml-lplachtalsafeweb2.htm
I
of
12
RF exposure for these low intensity,non-thennal effects have not yet been established.
The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are
"safe."m2
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected the current (ANSI/IEEE) safety standards because
they are based on thermal effects alone.
(34)
Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF.The CSIRO study,for example,notes
that there are no clear cutoff levels at which low intensity exposure has no effect,and that the results of
ongoing studies will take years to
analyze.
ilil
The county of Palm Beach,FL,the state of California,and the country ofNew Zealand have all prohibited
cellular antennas near schools due to safety concerns.
What should we do while waiting for the much needed answers about the non-thermal effects ofRF?This is
the question we,as parents,students,and Ossining residents must answer.
The Board of Education has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the best interests of the students
of our schools and of our community in general.The commercial interests of outside profit-making
corporations can play no role in their decisions.
We simply don't know at this time what the possible health consequences oflong term,low level exposure to
RF of the type used by the PCS Base Station antenna will be.No one knows--the data just isn't there.The
chairman of the ICNIRP,one of the main groups which formulated the current exposure guidelines,has
stated that the guidelines include"no consideration regarding pmdent avoidance"for health effects for
which
evidence is less than conclusive.
~
Should we allow ourselves to take this risk?
Should we allow our children to take this risk?
School buildings,youth centers,and other places where children are found are not the proper place for a
technology which could endanger health and well being.
As noted at the start of this brief review,our School Board was told none of this when they were asked to
decide on the siting of the cellular phone antenna.The"Safety Analysis"they received was not an honest
attempt to explain the health effects ofRF exposure,but rather a sophisticated"sale's pitch"designed to blind
the Board to the real questions and uncertainties.While such behavior in an attempt to"make a sale"can
never be condoned,in the case of the suppression of information about possible adverse health consequences
515/20065:51
PM
:::ell
Tower HealthEffects http://www.cyburban.com/-lplachtalsa:feweb2.litm
~
of 12
for the children of our schools,it is unconscionable.Our children and their parents stand defenseless before
such a strategy.
The only reasonable and responsible course is to"play it safe"with
our children.The Ossining High School is not the proper place for a
cellular telephone antenna.
[back] I."Safety Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity ofa Proposed Personal
Communications Services Base Station,Site 06-4601:Ossining High School,Ossining,New York"prepared
by the Wireless
&
Optical Technologies Safety Department of Bell Laboratories for Sprint Spectrum L.P.
[back] 2.An international blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as"possible human
carcinogens"on June 24,1998.The panel's decision was based largely on the results of epidemiological
studies of children exposed at home and workers exposed on the job.The evaluation of the EMF literature
followed procedures developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),based in Lyon,
France.The working group's report will be the basis for the NIEHS report to Congress on the EMF Research
and Public Information Dissemination program (EMF RAPID).The National Radiological Protection Board
(NRPB) of the United Kingdom noted that the views of its Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation are
"consistent with those of the NIEHS expert panel."
June
26,1998
statement ofthe National Radiological Protection Board,sited in Microwave News,
July/August 1998
[back] 3.The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) statement"Health
Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters"of 1996 reads:
"Thermally mediated effects of RF fields have been studied in animals,including primates.These data
suggest effects that will probably occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized heating sufficient to
increase tissue temperatures by greater than I C.They include the induction of opacities of the lens of the eye,
possible effects on development and male fertility,various physiological and thermoregulatory responses to
heat,and a decreased ability to perform mental tasks as body temperature increases.Similar effects have been
reported in people subject to heat stress,for example while working in hot environments or by fever.The
various effects are well established and form the biological basis for restricting occupational and public
exposure to radiofrequency fields.In contrast,non-thermal effects are not well established and currently do
not form a scientifically acceptable basis for restricting human exposure for frequencies used by hand-held
radiotelephones and base stations."
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection,"Health Issues Related to the Use of
Hand-Held Radiotelephones andBase Transmitters."Health Physics 70:587-593,1996
The ANSI/IEEE Standard for Safety Levels of 1992 similarly states:
"An extensive review of the literature revealed once again that the most sensitive measurements of
potentially harmful biological effects were based on the disruption of ongoing behavior associated with an
increase of body temperature in the presence of electromagnetic fields.Because of the paucity of reliable data
on chronic exposures,IEEE Subcommittee IV focused on evidence of behavioral disruption under acute
exposures,even disruption of a transient and fully reversible nature."
IEEE Standards Coordinating committee
28
on Non-Ionizing Radiation Hazards:Standardfor Safe Levels
5/5/20065:51PM
:::etl
TowerHealthEffects http://www.cyburban.coml-lplachla/safeweb2.htm
;of 12
With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields,
3
KHz to 300 GHz
(ANSIIIEEE C95.1-1991),The Institute
0/
Electrical and Electronics Engineers.New York,1992
[back] 4.Drs.Czerska,Casamento,Ning,and Davis (working for the Food and Drug Administration in 1997)
using"a waveform identical to that used in digital cellular phones"at a power level within our current
standards (SAR of 1.6 WlKg,the maximum spatial peak exposure level recommended for the general
population in the ANSI C95.1-1991 standard) found increases in cellular proliferation in human glioblastoma
cells.This shows that"acceptable"levels ofradiation can cause human cancer cells to multiply faster.The
authors note that"because of reported associations between cellular phone exposure and the OCCUITence of a
brain tumor,glioblastoma,a human glioblastoma cell line was used"in their research.
E.M Czerska,J.Casamento,
1.
T.Ning,and
C.
Davis,"Effects ofRadiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation
on Cell Proliferation,"[Abstract presented on February
7,1997
at the workshop'Physical Characteristics
and Possible Biological Effects
0/
Microwaves Applied in Wireless Communication,Rockville,MD] E.M
Czerska.J.Casamento Centers/or Devices andRadiological Health,Food andDrug Administration,
Rockville,Maryland 20857,USA;
H T.
Ning,Indian Health Service.Rockville,Maryland 20857,USA;
C.
Davis,Electrical Engineering Dept.,Univ.a/Maryland,College Park,Maryland 20742,USA
[back]5.Dr.Michael Repacholi (in 1997,currently the director of the International Electromagnetic Fields
Project at the World Health Organization) took one hundred transgenic mice and exposed some to radiation
for two 30 minute periods a day for up to 18 months.He found that the exposed mice developed lymphomas
(a type of cancer) at twice the rate of the unexposed mice.While telecommunications industry spokespersons
criticized the experiment for using mice with a mutation which predisposed them to cancer (transgenic) the
researchers pointed out that"some individuals inherit mutations in other genes...that predispose them to
develop cancer,and these individuals may comprise a subpopulation at special risk from agents that would
pose an otherwise insignificant risk of cancer."
Dr.Repacholi stated"I believe this is the first animal study showing a true nonthermal effect."He repeated
the experiment in 1998 using 50 Hz fields instead of the 900 MHz pulsed radiation (the type used by cellular
phones) used in the original experiment and found no cancer risk.He stated that this new data had
implications for his original cellular phone study:"the control groups for both our RF and 50 Hz field studies
showed no statistical differences,which lessens the possibility that the RF study result was a chance event or
due to errors in methodology."
It is extremely important to note that Dr.Michael Repacholi was Chairman of the ICNIRP at the time its
Statement on Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters was
developed in 1996.
M.
Repacholi et al.,"Lymphomas in Eu-Piml Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic
Fields,"Radiation Research,
147,
pp.631-640,May 1997
[back
1
6.Dr.Ross Adey (Veterans Administration Hospital in 1996) found what appeared to be a protective
effect in rats exposed to the type of radiation used in digital cellular phones.The rats were exposed to an
SAR of 0.58-0.75 W/Kg 836 MHz pulsed radiation of the TOMA type two hours a day,four days a week for
23 months,with the signals turned on and off every 7.5 minutes,so total exposure was 4 hours a week.
Interestingly this effect was not present when a non-digital,analog signal was used.Rats exposed developed
cancer less often.This study shows that low power fields of the digital cellular frequency can influence
cancer development.Whether they would protect or promote in our children is a question for further study.
Ross Adey ofthe Veterans Administration Hospital
0/
Lorna Linda,CA presented the results ofpulsed (digital
cellular) radiation on June
13,1996
at the 18
th
Annual Meeting
0/
the Bioelectromagnetics Society in
Victoria,Canada.He presented the findings ofthe analog cellular phone radiation effect at the June 1997
515/20065:51
PM
:::ell
Tower Health Effects http://www.cyburban.coml-lplachtalsa.feweb2.l1trn
j
of
12
2
nd
World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine in Bologna,Italy.Reviews can
be found in Microwave News issues July/August,
1996
and March/April 1997.
.
~
7.Dr.A.W.Guy reported an extensive investigation on rats chronically exposed from 2 up to 27
months of age to low-level pulsed microwaves at SARs up to
0.4
W/Kg.The exposed group was found to
have a significantly higher incidence of primary cancers.
A.
W
Guy,
C.
K.Chou,
L.
Kunz,L,Crowley,and
1.
Krupp,"Effects ofLong- Term Low-Level Radiofrequency
Radiation Exposure on Rats."Volume
9.
Summary.Brooks Air Force Base,Texas,USAF School of
Aerospace Medicine,USF-SAM-TR-85-11;1985
[back] 8.Drs.Henry Lai and N.P.Singh of the University of Washington in Seattle have reported breaks in
both single stranded and double stranded DNA in the brains of rats exposed to radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation at an SAR of 1.2
WlKg.
DNA is the carrier of the genetic information in all living
cells.Cumulated DNA strand breaks in brain cells can lead to cancer or neurodegenerative diseases.
H.
Lai and
N.
P.
Singh,"Single- andDouble-Strand DNA Breaks in Rat Brain Cells After Acute Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation,"International Journal ofRadiation Biology,Vol
69,
No.4,
513-521,1996
[back] 9.Dr.Stanislaw Szmigielski has studied many thousands of Polish soldiers.He has found that those
exposed to radiofrequency and microwave radiation had more than double the cancer rate of the unexposed
servicemen analyzing data from 1971-1985.He has presented further data suggesting a dose-response
relationship with soldiers exposed to 100-200 W/cm
2
suffering 1.69 times as many cancers as the unexposed,
and those exposed to 600-1000 W/cm
2
suffering 4.63 times as many cancers.1000 W/cm
2
is the level
considered safe for the public according to FCC regulations.Occupational exposure up to 5000 W/cm
2
is
allowed.
S.
Szmigielski,"Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Frequency (Radiofrequency
and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation,
II
The Science ofthe Total Environment 180:9-17,1996
[back] 10.Dr.Bruce Hocking found an association between increased childhood leukemia incidence and
mortality in the proximity of television towers.The power density ranged from 0.2-8.0 W/cm
2
nearer and
0.02 W/cm
2
farther from the towers.
B.Hocking,I.R.Gordon,
H.
L.
Grain,and
G.
E.
Hatfield,
"Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Proximity to
TV Towers,"Medical Journal ofAustralia
165:
601-605;1996
[back
1
II.Drs.Mann and Raschke investigated the influence of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields
of digital mobile radio telephones on sleep in healthy humans.They found a hypnotic effect with shortening
of sleep onset latency and a REM (Rapid Eye Movement) suppressive effect with reduction of duration and
percentage of REM sleep."REM sleep plays a special physiological role for information processing in the
brain,especially concerning consolidation of new experiences.Thus the effects observed possibly could be
associated with alterations of memory and learning functions."
K.Mann and
1.
Raschke,"Effects ofPulsed High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Human Sleep,"
Neuropsychobiology
33:41-47,1996
[back] 12.Dr.Allen Frey has been researching microwave radiation for over 3 decades.Here is the abstract
on a paper concerning headaches and cellular phone radiation."There have been numerous recent reports of
headaches occurring in association with the use ofhand-held cellular telephones.Are these reported
515/20065:5]
PM
::ellTower-Health
Effects http://www.cyburban.coml-lplachtalsafeweb2.htm
7
of 12
headaches real?Are they due to emissions from telephones?There is reason to believe that the answer is
"yes"to both questions.There are several lines of evidence to support this conclusion.First,headaches as a
consequence of exposure to low intensity microwaves were reported in the literature 30 years ago.These
Were observed during the course of microwave hearing research before there were cellular telephones.
Second,the blood-brain barrier appears to be involved in headaches,and low intensity microwave energy
exposure affects the barrier.Third,the dopamine-opiate systems of the brain appear to be involved in
headaches,and low intensity electromagnetic energy exposure affects those systems.In all three lines of
research,the microwave energy used was approximately the same-sin frequencies,modulations,and incident
energies-cas those emitted by present day cellular telephones,Could the current reports of headaches be the
canary in the coal mine,warning of biologically significant effects?"
A.H.Frey,"Headachesfrom Cellular Telephones:Are they Real and What Are the Implications?"
Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 106,Num.
3,
pp.101-103,March 1998
[back] 13.Henry Lai's review of the literature concerning neurological effects of RF:Existing data indicate
that RF of relatively low intensity can affect the nervous system.Changes in blood-brain barrier,
morphology,electrophysiology,neurotransmitter functions,cellular metabolism,and calcium efflux,and
genetic effects have been reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RF.These changes can lead to
:fi.mctional changes in the nervous system.Behavioral changes in animals after exposure to RR have been
reported.
Even a temporary change in neural functions after RF exposure could lead to adverse consequences.For
example,a transient loss of memory function or concentration could result in an accident when a person is
driving.Loss of short termworking memory has indeed been observed in rats after acute exposure to RF.
Research has also shown that the effects of RF on the nervous system can cumulate with repeated exposure.
The important question is,after repeated exposure,will the nervous system adapt to the perturbation and
when will homeostasis break down?Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of
the central nervous system to RF could be a stress response.Stress effects are well known to cumulate over
time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes.
H.Lai,"Neurological Effects ofRadiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to Wireless
Communication Technology,"Paper presentation at the IBC-UK Conference:"Mobile Phones-Is There a
Health Risk?"September
16-17,1997,
Brussels,Belgium
[back
1
14.Blood-Brain-Barrier:The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is primarily a continuous layer of cells lining
the blood vessels of the brain.
It
is critical for regulation of the brain's activity.Lai notes that"Even though
most studies indicate that changes in the BBB occurs only after exposure to RF of high intensities with
significant increase in tissue temperature,several studies have reported increases in
permeability
after
exposure to RF of relatively low intensities....Pulsed RF seems to be more potent than continuous wave RF."
Pulsed RF is the type used in digital cellular systems.Effects on the BBB were noted at the 0.2 W/cm
2
level,
and even at SAR of 0.0 16-5 W!Kg.These effects could lead to local changes in brain function.
H.Lai,Ibid
[backl l
S.
Cellular Morphology:RF induced morphological changes of the central nervous system are shown
only to occur under relatively high intensity or prolonged exposure to the radiation.However,there are
several studies which show that
repeated
exposure at relatively low power intensities caused morphological
changes in the central nervous system.Again here pulsed (as in digital phone use) RF produced more
pronounced effects.Certain drugs given to nonhuman primates sensitized them,for instance allowing eye
damage to occur at very low power intensities.Dr Lai notes"Changes in morphology,especially cell death,
could have an important implication on health.Injury-induced cell proliferation has been hypothesized as a
5/5/20065:51
PM
l
of 12
http://www.cyburban.com/-lp1achtal safeweb2.l1tm
cause of cancer."Some of these experiments were in the range of SAR 0.53 WlKg or even 0.26 W/Kg.
H.Lai,Ibid
[back] 16.Neural Electrophysiology:Changes in neuronal electrophysiology,evoked potentials,and EEG
have been reported.Some effects were observed at low intensities and after repeated exposure,suggesting
cumulative effect.Energy density levels were as low as 50 W/cm
2.
H.Lai,Ibid
~
17.Neurotransmitters:Neurotransmitters are molecules which transmit information from one nerve
cell to another.Early studies have reported changes in various neurotransmitters (catecholamines,serotonin,
and acetylcholine) in the brain of animals only after exposure to high intensities of RF.However,there are
more recent studies that show changes in neurotransmitter functions after exposure to low intensities ofRF.
For example,effects were seen at 50 W/cm
2
in one experiment.
RF activates endogenous opioids in the brain.Endogenous opioids are neurotransmitters with morphine-like
properties and are involved in many important physiological and behavioral functions,such as pain
perception and motivation.
The response to RF depends on the area of the brain studied and on the duration of exposure.Exposure to RF
has been shown to affect the behavioral actions ofbenzodiazepines (these are drugs such as Valium).
H.Lai,Ibid
~
18.Metabolic Changes in Neural Tissue:Several studies investigated the effects ofRF exposure on
energy metabolism in the rat brain.Surprisingly,changes were reported after exposure to relatively low
intensity RF for a short duration of time (minutes).The effects depended on the frequency and modulation
characteristics of the RF and did not seem to be related to temperature changes in the tissue.
Calcium ions play important roles in the functions of the nervous system,such as the release of
neurotransmitters andtbe actions of some neurotransmitter receptors.Thus changes in calcium ion
concentration could lead to alterations in neural functions.This is an area of considerable controversy
because some researchers have also reported
110
signi ficant effects of RF exposure on calcium efflux.
However,when positive effects were observed,they occurred after exposure to RF of relatively low
intensities and were dependent on the modulation and intensity of the RF studied (window effects).Some
studies had SARs as low as 0.05-0.005 W/Kg.
H.Lai,Ibid
[back] 19.Cytogenetic effects:Cytogenetic effects have been reported in various types of cells after exposure
to RF.Recently,several studies have reported cytogenetic changes in brain cells by RF,and these results
could have important implication for the health effects of RF.Genetic damage to glial cells can result in
carcinogenesis.However,since neurons do not undergo mitosis,a more likely consequence of neuronal
genetic damage is changes in functions and cell death,which could either lead to or accelerate the
development ofneurodegenerative diseases.Power densities of
I
mW/cm
2
were employed,a level
considered safe for the public by the FCC.
RF-induced increases in single and double strand DNA breaks in rats can be blocked by treating the rats with
melatonin or the spin-trap compound N-t-butyl--phenylnitrone.Since both compounds are potent free radical
scavengers,these data suggest that free radicals may playa role in the genetic effect ofRF.Iffree radicals
are involved in the RF-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells,results from this study could have an
5/5/20065:51 PM
:::ell Tower-Health Effects hnp://www.cyburban.coml-lplachta/safeweb2.htm
) of
12
important implication on the health effects of RF exposure.Involvement of free radicals
in
human diseases,
such as cancer and atherosclerosis,have been suggested.Free radicals also play an important role in the
aging process,which has been ascribed to be a consequence of accumulated oxidative damage to body
tissues,and involvement of free radicals in neurodegenerative diseases,such as Alzheimer's,Huntington,and
Parkinson,has also been suggested.One can also speculate that some individuals may be more susceptible to
the effects ofRF exposure.
H.
Lai,Ibid
[back] 20.Dr.A.A.Kolodynski and V.V.Kolodynska of the Institute of Biology,Latvian Academy of
Sciences,presented the results of experiments on school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio
Location Station in Latvia.Motor function,memory,and attention significantly differed between the exposed
and control groups.The children living in front of the station had less developed memory and attention and
their reaction time was slower.
A.A.Kolodynski,
V.V.
Kolodynska,"Motor and Psychological Functions ofSchool Children Living in the
Area
ofthe Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia,"The Science ofthe Total Environment 180:87-93,
1996
[back] 21.Dr.H.Lai and colleagues in 1993 exposed rats to 45 minutes of pulsed high frequency
microwaves at low intensity and found that the rats showed retarded learning,indicating a deficit in spatial
"working memory"function.
H Lai,A.Horita,andA.
W.
Guy,"Microwave Irradiation Affects Radial-Arm Maze Performance in the Rat,"
Bioelectromagnetics 15:95-104,1994
[back] 22.Dr.Stefan Braune reported a 5-10 mm Hg resting blood pressure rise during exposure to a
radiofrequency electromagnetic field of the sort used by cellular phones in Europe.The Lancet,the British
medical journal where the report appeared,stated that"Such an increase could have adverse effects on people
with high blood pressure."
S.
Braune,"Resting Blood Pressure Increase During Exposure to a Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic
Field,"The Lancet
351,
pp.
1,857-1.858,1998
[back] 23.Dr.Kues and colleagues (of Johns Hopkins University and the Food and Drug Administration)
found that placing timolol and pilocarpine into the eyes of monkeys and then exposing them to low power
density pulsed microwaves caused a significant reduction in the power-density threshold for causing damage
to the cells covering the eye and the iris.In fact the power was reduced by a factor of 10,so that it entered the
"acceptable,safe"level of the FCC,I mW/cm
2
!
Timolol and pilocarpine are commonly used by people
suffering from glaucoma.This is a very important study,as it points to the fact that laboratory experiments
under"ideal"conditions are rarely what one finds in real life.The"safe"level of radiation exposure for
healthy people is likely to be very different than for those of us who suffer from illness,take medications,or
are perhaps simply younger or older than those in the experiments.
H.
A.Kues,
1.
C.
Monahan,
S.
A.D'Anna,D.
S.
McLeod,
G.
A.Lutty,and
S.
Koslov,"Increased Sensitivity of
the Non-Human Primate Eye to Microwave Radiation Following Ophthalmic Drug Pretreatment,"
Bioelectromagnetics
13:379-393,1992
[back] 24.The World Health Organization states that"concerns have been raised about the safety of cellular
mobile telephones,electric power lines and police speed-control'radar guns.'Scientific reports have
suggested that exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted from these devices could have adverse health
effects,such as cancer,reduced fertility,memory loss,and adverse changes in the behaviour and
5/5/20065:51 PM
~el.1
Tower HealthEffects http://www.cyburban.coml-lplachta/safeweb2.h.tm
10of 12
development of children."Therefore,"In May 1996,in response to growing public health concerns in many
Member States over possible health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of
EMF sources,the World Health Organization launched an international project to assess health and
environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields,which became known as the International
EMF Project.The International EMF Project wil1last for five years.""A number of studies at [frequencies
above about I MHz] suggest that exposure to RF fields too weak to cause heating may have adverse health
consequences,including cancer and memory loss.Identifying and encouraging coordinated research into
these open questions is one of the major objectives of the International EMF Project."
World Health Organization Fact Sheet N181,"Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health,The International
EMFProject,"reviewed May 1998 and World Health Organization Fact Sheet N182,"Electromagnetic
Fields andPublic Health,Physical Properties andEffects on Biological Systems,"reviewed May 1998,
underlining added
[back] 25.The U.S.Food and
Dmg
Administration in a January 14,1998 letter to the House
Telecommunications Subcommittee stated it"believes additional research in the area ofRF is needed."In
1997 the agency established the following priorities:
 Chronic (lifetime) animal exposures should be given the highest priority.
 Chronic animal exposures should be performed both with and without the application of chemical
initiating agents to investigate tumor promotion in addition to tumorigenesis.
 Identification of potential risks should include end points other than brain cancer (e.g.ocular effects of
RF radiation exposure).
 Replication of prior studies demonstrating positive biological effects work is needed.A careful
replication of the Chou and Guy study
(Bioelectromagnetics,
13,pp.469-496,1992) which suggests
that chronic exposure of rats to microwaves is associated with an increase in tumors,would contribute
a great deal to the risk identification process for wireless communication products.
 Genetic toxicology studies should focus on single cell gel studies of DNA strand breakage and on
induction of micronuclei.....
 Epidemiology studies focused on approaches optimized for hazard identification are warranted....
Food and Drug Administration Recommendations quoted in Microwave News,March/April,1997
{back] 26.The Intemational Agency for Research on Cancer (lARC) is planning a multicountry,multimillion
dollar study of cancer among users of wireless phones,beginning 1998.
Microwave News,January/February,1998
[back] 27.The Swedish Work Environmental Fund initiated a new epidemiological study on cellular phone
radiation and brain tumors in 1997.
Microwave News,November/December,1997
[back] 28.The National Cancer Institute announced plans for a 5 year study of brain tumors and cellular
phone radiation in 1993.
Microwave News,January/February,1993
[back] 29.The European Commission (EC) Expert Group on health effects of wireless phones called for a 5
year research program with a $20 million budget,reported 1997.
Microwave News,January/February,1997
5/5/20065:51 PM
:ell
TowerHealth Effects http://www.cyburban.com/-lplachtaJsafeweb2.htm
II of 12
[back] 30.A report commissioned by New Zealand's Ministry of Health stated that"It is imperative that the
scientific issues be clarified as soon as possible,as there is much at stake."
It
called for more research to
examine the potential health effects ofRF radiation.
Microwave News,November/December.1996
[back
1
31.The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia announced its sponsorship of a 5
year,$3.5 million project on potential health effects of mobile phone technology in 1996.
Microwave News,November/December,1996
[back] 32.Finally,the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia
concluded in 1995 that the safety of cellular telephones cannot be resolved"in the near future."Dr.Stan
Barnett,a principal researcher ofCSIRO,states that"My goal is to establish a national committee to
approach this problem by coordinating relevant and focused research."He estimated a budget of $3 million
over a 3 year period would be necessary.
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization,"Status ofResearch on Biological Effects and
Safety ofElectromagnetic Radiation:Telecommunications Frequencies,
/I
a report prepared by Dr.Stan
Barnett,as sited in Microwave News,September/October,1995
[back] 33.On July 19,1993 Dr.Elizabeth Jacobson,Deputy Director for Science,Center for Devices and
Radiological Health,Food and Drug Administration criticized Thomas Wheeler,President of the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association:
"I am writing to let you know that we were concerned about two important aspects of your press conference
of July 16 concerning the safety of cellular phones,and to ask that you carefully consider the following
comments when you make future statements to the press.First,both the written press statements and your
verbal comments during the conference seemed to display an unwarranted confidence that these products will
be found absolutely safe.In fact,the unremittingly upbeat tone of the press packet strongly implies that there
can be no hazard,leading the reader to wonder why any further research would be needed at all.....More
specifically,your press packet selectively quotes from our Talk Paper of February 4 in order to imply that
FDA believes that cellular phones are"safe."("There is no proof at this point that cellular phones are
harmful.") In fact,the same Talk Paper also states,"There is not enough evidence to know for sure,either
way."Our position,as we have stated it before,is this:Although there is no direct evidence linking cellular
phones with harmful effects in humans,a few animal studies suggest that such effects could exist.It is simply
too soon to assume that cellular phones are perfectly safe,or that they are hazardous-either assumption
would be premature.This is precisely why more research is needed."
Full text ofletter can befound in Microwave News,July/August,1993
[back] 34.In 1993 the Director of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the Environmental Protection
Agency suggested that the FCC not adopt the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard"due to
serious
flaws,"among them
(1)
"the ANSIIIEEE conclusion that there is no scientific data indicating that certain subgroups of the
population are more at risk than others is not supported by NCRP and EPA reports"and (2)"the thesis that
ANSI/IEEE recommendations are protective of all mechanisms of interaction is unwarranted because the
adverse effects level in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard are based on a thermal effect."
Letterfrom Margo T.Oge,Director,Office ofRadiation and Indoor Air to Thomas Stanley,ChiefEngineer,
Office ofengineering and Technology,FCC,dated Nov
9,1993
[back
J
35.A brief sampling of the report,"Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of
Electromagnetic Radiation:Telecommunications Frequencies"follows:
5/5/20065:51 PM
:ell
Tower Health Effects http://www.cyburban.coml-lplachlalsaf<:web2.Jrtm
12
of
12
Problems in studies of human populations published to date include imprecise estimates of exposure.As a
result,such epidemiological studies may underestimate any real risk.The likelihood of epidemiological
studies providing useful information is questionable,particularly if the biological end point cannot be
predicted.Its value in the short term (less than 10 years) must be negligible unless there was an enormous
increase in the rate of cancer growth.Interestingly,the incidence of brain tumors
in
the EC countries has
increased substantially in recent years....
[RF] safety cannot be assessed in the absence of reported serious effects when so little research has been
aimed at the problem.
It
is somewhat surprising,and rather disappointing,to find that although the literature
contains many hundreds of publications,there are very few areas of consensus....At low levels the absence of
clear thresholds and [the] presence of intensity and frequency windows have created questions rather than
provided answers....
There is no doubt that the interpretation ofbioeffects data has been clouded by a preoccupation with
thermally mediated processes.In fact,development of the ANSI/IEEE standard is based only on
well-established thermal effects,and ignores the more subtle nonthermal processes that are more difficult to
interpret and apply to human health....
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization,"Status ofResearch on Biological Effects and
Safety ofElectromagnetic Radiation:Telecommunications Frequencies."a report prepared by Dr.Stan
Barnett,as sited in Microwave News,September/October,1995
[back] 36.The ICNIRP exposure guidelines are only designed to protect against"known adverse health
impacts,"according to Dr.Jtirgen Bernhardt,ICNIRP's chairman.Bernhardt reviewed the updated limits,
which cover the spectrum from I Hz to 300 GHz,in a presentation at the
2d
h
Annual Meeting ofthe
Biolectromagnetics Society
in S1.Pete Beach,FL,on June 10.The limits protect against"short-term,
immediate health effects"such as nerve stimulation,contact shocks and thermal insults,according to the
guidelines,which appear in the April issue of
Health Physics
(74,pp.494-522,1998).Despite"suggestive"
evidence that power frequency magnetic fields can be carcinogenic,ICNIRP has concluded that this and
other nonthermal health effects have not been"established."ICNIRP has long followed this approach to
standard-setting.In his talk,Bemhardt noted that the guidelines include"no consideration regarding pmdent
avoidance"for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive.
Microwave News.July/August,
1998,
underlining added
If
you would like to help or wish more information,please e-mail:Ossining
Citizens
(or
a Safe Environment
Back to the previous page!
515/20065:51
PM
Exhibit"G"
Conneaicsu
Department
ofP"blicHealtll
Environmemat and
Occupational HealtllAssessment
410 CapitolAvenue MS
#
11
EOH.POBox 340308
Hartford.
cr
06134-0308
(860)
509-7742
http://www.dph.state.ct.us/
Cell Phone Towers and Cell Phones:
Questions and Answers About Safety
Cell phones and cell phone towers send signals using
radio frequency
(RF)
en­
ergy,
or radiation,just like radio,television,pagers and other wireless commu­
nication devices.Many people have asked whether the RF energy from cell
phones and cell phone towers is safe.This fact sheet provides you with answers
to some common questions about RF energy and effects on health.
Jl.r
What Is Radio
If"
Frequency
Energy1
RF energy is another name for radio waves.Probably the most impor­
tant use for RF energy is for communication services.Radio and TV
broadcasting,cell phones,pagers,cordless phones,and satellite com­
munications are just a few of the many communication uses ofRF ra­
diation.A microwave oven is an example of a non-communication use
ofRF radiation.RF waves are one form of electromagnetic energy.
Other forms of electromagnetic energy include visible light and X-rays.
Electromagnetic energy can be described in terms of its frequency.The frequency is the num­
ber of waves emitted each second.Frequency is expressed
in
"hertz"(Hz).One Hz equals
one wave per second.One megahertz (MHz) equals one million waves per second.The fre­
quency of cell phones,cordless phones,and cell phone tower signals ranges between 800 and
2200 MHz.X-rays have much higher frequencies (above 10 million
1IIHz).
RF energy has
much lower frequency than X-rays,and therefore is not able to cause the type ofdamage to
the body that X-rays can.
Page 2
JL,
Cell Phones:Are They Safe?
we
They Cause Cancer?
Can
In recent years,cell phones and cancer risks have been widely studied by researchers in the U.S.
and abroad.Overall,the evidence does not indicate that cell phones cause cancer.However,there
are two studies by the same researcher in Sweden that found suggestive evidence linking cell
phone use and brain cancer.These results are not supported by the many
.
more studies that have not found evidence linking cell phone use and cancer.
Most scientists agree that it is wise to continue research in this area.This is
because most people have not been using cell phones for very long,and
cancer usually takes a long time to develop.
There are other cell phone safety issues to consider.Research studies have
linked cell phone use while driving to an increased risk of a crash.The safest
course is to pull off the road before making or receiving a cell phone call.

Cell Phone Towers:Is There
A Health Risk?
There is general agreement in the scientific studies that RF radiation emitted fromcell phone
tower antennas is far too low to cause health risks as long as people are kept away from the
antenna itself.It is important to be aware of the difference between the antenna (the object that
produces the RF radiation) and the tower (the structure that the
antenna is placed on).
It
is the
antenna
that people need to keep
away from,not the tower.As with all forms of radiation,the
strength of the radiation field decreases rapidly as one moves away
}:
..
;
..
from the source.Studies that have measured RF fields near cell
phone towers show that RF levels are many times below safety
standards.At locations where people are likely to spend time
(homes or schools),RF levels from cell phone towers will not pose
a health risk.
Page 3
What Are The
Safety
~~
Standards For Cell Phone
we
Towers And Cell Phones?
The
u.s.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets safety standards for RF radia­
tion exposure for the devices it regulates,which include cell phones and cell phone towers.
The FCC
standards
are based on safety standards developed by national and international
organizations and take into account the thermal (heating) effects ofRF energy.The stan­
dards also include safety factors to account for uncertainties in the scientific knowledge
about other health effects from RF radiation.New cell phone towers must be approved by
the CT Siting Council before they are built,and they must show that they meet FCC safety
standards.
AI
What Are
Thermal Effects From
Ir
RF Exposure?
It
has been known for many years that exposure to high levels ofRF radiation can be harmful be­
cause RF energy can heat the body.This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food.
Heating,or"thermal"effects on the body include eye damage (cataracts),skin bums and heat
stroke.These thermal effects are the only health effects that have been clearly linked with RF ra­
diation.
The level of RF radiation emitted from the antenna of a cell phone tower could cause thermal ef­
fects if someone climbed to the top of the tower and stood very close to the antenna,directly in
the path of the RF signal.In contrast,environmental levels ofRF radiation routinely encountered
by the general public from cell phones and cell phone towers are far below levels needed to cause
thermal effects.
---
.lil
What About Health Effects Other
r
Than Thermal Effects and Cancer?
A number of studies have looked into whether exposure to low levels of RF radiation (below
levels that would cause thennal effects) is linked with non cancer health effects.
Some scientists have reported links between RF exposure and headaches and changes in brain
activity,brain function and sleep patterns.The changes that have been seen are very small and
have no clear health significance.More studies are in progress to
try
to confirm these findings.

Conclusions
Current scientific research does not provide clear evidence that the low levels of RF radiation
from cell phones or cell phone towers increases the risk of cancer or other health effects.RF ex­
posures to cell phone users and to those living near cell phone towers are well below federal
safety limits.Research is ongoing to ensure that current safety standards for RF radiation from
cell phones and cell phone towers is adequately protective of public health.Some of this re­
search will follow cell phone users for longer periods oftime because cancer usually takes a long
time to develop.
Although the current scientific information does not indicate the need for individuals to take any
special precautions,people who would like to reduce their exposure to RF radiation may choose
to limit their use of cell phones or use"hands-free"devices to keep mobile phones away from the
head and body.
!
(This facrsheetis
funded
inpart by
!
funds from theComprehensiveEnvi­
j
ronmental
Response,Compensation,
i
and Li.bilily Act trusr fimdthrough
a
j
cooperative
agreement
wirh
the
I
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
nnd
I
Disease
Registry.
Public HealthSer­
!
vice,
U.S.
Departmentof Healthand
I
Human
Services.)
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington,DC20554
1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
http://www.fcc.gov/
1
112004
I
.
For More Information:
Connecticut Department of PublicHealth Connecticut SitingCouncil
Environmental and Ten Franklin Square
Occupational Health Assessment NewBritain,CT 06051
410 Capitol Avenue,MS#11 CHA Phone:(860) 827-2935
POBox 340308 http://www.ct.gov/csc/site
Hartford,CT 06134-0308 siting.council@po.state.ct.us
(860) 509-7742
http://www.dph.state.ct.us/
i
I'
Mount Shasta Bioregional EcologyCenter
Exhibit"H"
Page 1 of6
Archives
Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation
by Karen
J.
Rogers
The safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate.There
is a growing body of scientific evidence that the electromagnetic radiation they emit,
even at low levels,is dangerous to human health.
The cell phone industry is expanding quickly,with over 100,000 cell phone towers
now up across the U.S.,which is expected to increase ten-fold over the next five
years.The industry has set what they say are"safe levels"of radiation exposure,
but there are a growing number of doctors,physicists,and health officials who
strongly disagree,and foresee a public health crisis.
Many towers have been built recently in Siskiyou Co.,with dozens more planned,
as telecommunications companies rush to comer markets in this fast-growing
industry.These towers emit radio frequencies (RF),a form of electromagnetic
radiation (EMR),for a distance of up to 2 1/2 miles.They are essentially the same
frequency radiation as microwaves in a microwave oven.
Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation,there is evidence of
damage to cell tissue and DNA,and it has been linked to
brain
tumors,cancer,
suppressed immune function,depression,miscarriage,Alzheimer's disease,and
numerous other serious illnesses.1
Children are at the greatest risk,due to their thinner skulls,and rapid rate of growth.
Also at greater risk are the elderly,the frail,and pregnant women.Doctors from the
United Kingdom have issued warnings urging children under 16 not to use cell
phones,to reduce their exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation.2
Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of
Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard,Over 100 physicians
and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have
called cellular towers a radiation hazard.And,33 delegate physicians from 7
countries have declared cell phone towers a"public health emergency".
The U.S.Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of setting the
standards of exposure for the public,and claims that,based on sclentlfic studies,
the current levels are safe.But it is not a public health agency,and has been
criticized as being"an arm of the industry",Many who work for the FCC are either
http://www.mountshastaecology.orglArchive/Health_Effectsjrom_Cell_Phone_Tower_R...
9/12/2011
Mount Shasta Bioregional EcologyCenter Page
2of/Y
past,present or future employees of the very industries they are supposed to
regulate.With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake,
critics have stated"you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they
want them to show.
n
Our federal government also once told us that asbestos,cigarettes,thalidomide,
and the blood supply were"safe",but which were later found to be harmful.
With a $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake,"you can bet that their studies are
going to show whatever they want them to show."
Cathy Bergman-Veniza,at Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center
Conference,1996
The current U.S.standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580­
1,000 microwatts per sq.cm.
(mW/cm2),
among the least protective in the world.
More progressive European countries have set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower
than the U.S.Compare Australia at 200 microwatts,Russia,Italy,and Toronto,
Canada at 10,China at 6,and Switzerland,at4.In Salzburg,Austria the level is.1
mircowatts (pulsed),10,000 times less than the U.S.New Zealand has proposed
yet more stringent levels,at.02 microwatts,50,000 times more protective than the
U.S.standard.3,4
Contrary to what the communications industry tells us,there is vast scientific,
epidemiological and medical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and
microwave radiation emitted from cell towers,even at low levels,can have profound
adverse effects on biological systems.5,6,7,8
There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation,
even at low levels,can have profound adverse effects on biological systems.
Scientists and advocacy groups say that the current FCC"safe"standards are
based on 1985 research,and fail to consider more recent research that found brain
cancer,memory impairment,DNA breakdown,and neurological problems with RF
at much lower levels.The earlier studies considered only the"thermal",or heating
effects of the radiation
Un
other words,the level at which the radiation would heat
tissue,or"cook"a person,in the same exact manner that a microwave oven works.
The FCC levels may ensure our tissues are not"cooked",but they fail to address
long-term chronic exposure at low levels,or what is called"non-thermal"effects.
Doctors say that RF radiation is wreaking havoc with normal biological cell
functions."RF alters tissue physiology",says Dr.George Carlo,an epidemiologist
who found genetic damage in a $28 million research program,paid for by the
industry.He now fights to have safety levels lowered.9
In 1998 the Vienna Resolution,signed by 16 of the world's leading
bioelectromagnetic researchers,provided a consensus statement that there is
scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposure are
established.It says existing scientific knowledqe is inadequate to set reliable
exposure standards.No safe exposure level can be established at this time.
The world's leading electromagnetic researchers say existing scientific knowledge is
inadequate to set reliable exposure standards.
r
The Vienna Resolution,1998
The Salzburg Resolution,adopted in 2000 at the International Conference on Cell
Tower Siting,would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than.1 mW/cm2l
~
10,000 times more strict than the current U.S.standard.This limit takes into
account the grOWing evidence for non-thermal RF bioeffects.10
Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary,chronic,cumulative Radio
Frequency Radiation.Low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with
changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage.Some scientific studies show
adverse health effects reported in the.01 to 100
mW/cm2
rangeD at levels
http://www.mountshastaecology.org/ArchivefHealth_Effects
jrom
_
Cell_Phone
_
Tower_
R...
9/12/2011
Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center Page 3 of6
hundreds,indeed,thousands,of times lower than the U.S.standards.These
harmful low levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower
location.Reported health problems include headache,sleep disorders,memory
impairment,nosebleeds,an increase in seizures,blood brain barrier leakage
problems,increased heart rates,lower sperm counts,and impaired nervous
systems.11
Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in
history.There are no conclusive studies on the safety of such exposures,and the
growing body of scientific evidence reports such bioeffects and adverse health
effects are possible,
if
not probable.
Dr.Neil Cherry,Ph.D.biophysicist from New Zealand,reports that"there is no safe
level of ER radiation."Dr.Cherry wrote a 12o-page review of 188 scientific studies.
He said the standards are based on thermal effects,but important non-thermal
effects also take place,such as cell death and DNA breakdown."The
electromagnetic radiation causes cells to change in a way that makes them cancer
forming."It can increase the risk of cancer two to five times,he said."To claim there
is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence."
"To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large
body of evidence."Dr.Neil Cherry,biophysicist
Public health officials caution that we err on the side of conservatism,given the
massive public health
risk
that is possible.
Other federal health agencies disagree that safe levels of exposure have been
identified,much less built into the FCC standard.The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) does not agree with the FCC standards,and analysts have
recommended that EMR be classified as a"probable human carcinogen".12
Deputy Director of the Dept of Health and Human Services,Elizabeth Jacobsen,
has stated that the safety of RF"has not been established nor has the necessary
research been conducted to test it",and cites risk of brain cancer,tumors and DNA
breakdown.The Califomia Public Utility Commission has urged the cell phone
industry to not locate towers near schools or hospitals.And the World Health
Organization reports"many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links
between exposure to RF fields and excess risk of cancer.These studies do not
provide enough information to allow a proper evaluation of human cancer risk from
RF exposure because the results of these studies are inconsistent."
"The safety of RF has not been established.nor has the necessary research been
conducted to test it."
i
Elizabeth Jacobsen,Director,US Dept.of Health
"Our bodies are exquisitely sensitive to subtle electromagnetic harmonics,and we
depend upon tiny electrical impulses to conduct complex life processes,"says Dr.
Robert Becker,author of The Body Electric,and Cross Currents.The Perils of
Electropollution.13,14
He says"at the present the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is
the proliferation of (these) electromagnetic fields."Radiation once considered safe,
he says,is now correlated with increases in birth defects,depression,Alzheimer's
disease,learning disabilities,Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.and cancer.
The incidence of brain cancer is up 25% since 1973,and this year 185,000
Americans will be diagnosed with brain cancer.Brain tumors are the second leading
cause of cancer death for children and young adults.
Yet,the United States has a de facto policy of"post sales surveillance"with respect
to RF radiation.Only after years of exposure,will there be studies to characterize
the health consequences.
http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_R...9/12/2011
Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center Page4 of 6'
It can take 3 to 10 years for health effects to show up.Citizens shouldn't be forced
to act as guinea pigs in a radiation bioeffects experiment.
Some adverse health effects show up immediately,but it can often take 3 to 10
years for the longer term effects of RF illness to appear,such as cancer.Many
researchers,public health officials and citizens believe that consumers shouldn't be
forced to act as guinea pigs in a bioeffects experiment for the next 20 years.In
short,"we are the experiment",for health effects.
Dr.Gerard Hyland,physicist,says existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers
are completely inadequate,since they focus only on the thermal effects of
exposure.15 Hyland,twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine,says existing
safety guidelines"afford no protection"against the non-thermal influences."Quite
justifiably,the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to
reassure them that all is well,particularly given the unethical way in which they
often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests."
"Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate."
I
Dr.
Gerard Hyland,Physicist two-time nominee,Nobel Prize in Medicine
The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to ensure passage of a law
which essentially gives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods,
and makes it next to impossible to oppose them based on health reasons.
It
is no
coincidence that EPA funding was also cut in 1996 for electromagnetic radiation
health studies.Citizens and communities across the country are angered,and are
protesting this imposition of involuntary,
24-hour-a-<lay
microwave exposure,
without proven safety levels.As one citizen stated,"There's no place left to
escape."
The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to pass a law that took away
citizen's rights to oppose cell towers based on health reasons.
Also,once a cell tower is erected,it has proved very difficult to verify the radiation is
within legal limits.There are no safety measures in place to ensure that the towers
are not emitting higher radiation levels than legally allowed.One frustrated resident
finally spent $7,000 purchasing his own equipment to test a cell phone tower near
his home,and found it emitting radiation at levels 250% over the legal limit.16
Property values have also been known to drop once a cell tower is erected,due to
the perceived risk of negative health effects.Cellular phone frequencies have also
seriously disrupted local emergency and law enforcement radio communications.
Massachusetts lawyer Mark Berthiaume,opposing placement of a cell phone tower,
said"Municipalities....are being bullied every day by providers of wireless
telephone service who use their financial clout and the federal (law) to intimidate the
communities into allowing them to place large towers in inappropriate locations."17
Some Questions and Answers
But don't we need and depend on cell phones?
Of course.No one is saying not to have cell phones and towers,but to make them
safer.If Austria can have levels 10,000 times more protective,then so can we.It is
just more expensive to the companies.Also,we don't have to let these cell towers
go anywhere and everywhere the industry wants them.We can require that they
erect the minimum number required to provide adequate coverage,and be put in
the safest places possible.
Why don't we just oppose the construction of cell towers in our county?
In a strategic move,the cell phone industry has tried to make it illegal for citizens to
oppose the towers based on health concerns.In the Telecommunications Act of
http://Www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_R...9/12/2011
Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center Page 50f6
1996,state and local rights were seriously limited with regard to opposing towers
based on health concerns.The constitutionality of this Act has been challenged in
the Supreme Court,and a long legal battle is sure to follow.But it will take years,
while the public continues to be exposed to chronic,cumulative radiation with each
new cell tower.
So what CAN we do?
The Telecommunications Act prevents citizens from opposing the towers based on
concerns about RF emissions,but we can oppose them on'numerous other valid
grounds.There are still rights we and our local elected officials maintain,that allow
us local control of the number,size and placement of cell towers,while still
providing for adequate cell phone coverage.Numerous communities have called for
moratoriums on tower construction,allowing them needed time to study the issue,
and enact strict ordinances that require the industry to respect community desires,
such as building the minimum towers necessary,in appropriate locations.During
these moratoriums,communities are preparing non-industry biased studies of cell
phone tower need,and creating cell tower Master Plans,to help protect the rights
and health of citizens,while complying with the law.18,19,20
Siting of cellular towers is an important function of our elected officials.Protection of
citizens'health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibilities of local
government.We urge our elected officials to protect the health and welfare of the
citizens who live here,rather than big-money interests with profit as their bottom
line.
For further information.these websites
offer
a good starting point:
www.emrnetwork.org,www.microwavesnews.com,www.ccwtLorg,www.wave­
guide.org,www.planwireless.com,www.rfsafe.com,Sageasoociates.net
2002,Karen J.Rogers,B.S.
Endnotes
1 Microwave and Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure.San Francisco Medicine,
Vol.74,No 3,March 2001
2 Mobiles Risk to children,Daily Mail (U.K.),May 11,2000
3 Radiofrequency Radiation Health Studies,Wireless Antenna Site Consumer
Information Package,Sage Associates,Montecito,CA,2000,www.
sageassocciates.net
4 Tower concerns should be health,not aesthetics,Burlington Free Press,January
12,2001
5 Selected and Extensive Bibliographies on Electromagnetic Fields and Health,
Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service,compiled by:
Richard
W.
Woodley,revised 1999,
www.wave-guide.org/archives/bridlewood/biblio.html
6 Reported Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation,
www.wave-guide.org/library/studies.htmI
7 Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation,Sage
Associates,2000 at www.sageassociates.netlrfchartreportbio-sample.pdf,and
Reference List for Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation
(RFR),Sage Associates,August 2000,at www.sageassociates.netlBibliography­
sample.pdf
8 A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?,includes extensive reference
to scientific papers and government documents citing adverse health effects from
cell tower radiation,www.cyburban.com/-lplachta/safeweb2.htm
http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_EffectsJrom_Cell_Phone_Tower_R...
9/12/2011
Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center
Page 60f6'.
9 Cell Phones:Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age:
An
Insider's Alarming
Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage,Dr.George Carlo and Martin
Schram,Carroll & Graf,©2001
10 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting,by Monica Kauppi,No Place to
Hide,September 2000,Resolution presented June 2000 and signed by 19 of 23
speakers,inclUding Dr.Carl Blackman of the U.S.Environmental Protection
Agency.
11 Ibid,endnote 5.
12 United States Environmental Protection Agency,Evaluation of the Potential
Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields,External Review Draft,No.EPN600/6­
90/005B,October 1990.
13 Becker,Robert
0.,
& Gary Seldon,The Body Electric:Electromagnetism and the
Foundation of Life,William Morrow and Company,Inc.,New York,NY,1985
14 Becker,Robert
0.,
Cross Currents:The Perils of Electropollution,The Promise
of Electromedicine,Jeremy P.Tarcher Inc.,Los Angeles,CA,336 pp.,1990.
15 The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic
Radiation,Dr.Gerard Hyland,presented to European Parliament's Industry,Trade,
Research and Energy Committee,July 11,2001.
16 FCC takes look at'antenna farm',Denver Post,October 30,1998
17 Town May Order Company to Remove Cellular Tower,Massachusetts Lawyers
Weekly,March 20,2000
18 Cellular Tower Zoning,Siting,Leasing and Franchising:Federal Developments
and Municipal Interests,by Varnum,Riddering,Schmidt,Howlett Attorneys at Law,
presented to International Municipal Lawyers Association,September 2001,
19 Plan Wireless Newsletter,Kreines & Kreines,Inc.,at
www.planwireless.comlindex.htm
20 U.S.2nd Circuit Court of Appeals,SPRINT SPECTRUM v WILLOTH,
(Corrected Opinion,August Term 1998),Docket No.98-7442,at
http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/987442v2.htmI
............] I
Search
1
..J
Copyrighl
©
2008 Mounl shasta Bioregional Ecology Canter
http://www.mountshastaecology.org/ArchivelHealth_Effectsjrom_CeltPhone--.Towery...9/12/2011