|
Over 190 million cell
phones are in use in the
United States, with
users often scrambling
to another room,
building or street to
get better reception. As
consumers, it is
frustrating when your
cell phone reception
gets dropped or is too
garbled to hear. But
beyond "Can you hear me
now?" is another
considerably more
important question:
Are the cell towers
and antennas popping up
all over the country -
-the very ones that we
depend on for clear
reception and a wide
coverage area -- safe?
Health, not
aesthetics, is
the primary
reason why
residents oppose
cell phone
towers in their
towns. |
This may have been a
moot issue in the past
when the towers were
sparse and limited to
obscure cornfields and
hilltops. But the number
of these cell "sites,"
as they're called, has
increased tenfold since
1994. Among the more
than 175,000 cell sites
in the United States are
antennas on schools,
churches, firehouses,
cemeteries and national
parks. There's even a
cell tower near Old
Faithful in Yellowstone.
"Don't Put That
Tower Here"
"Our companies are
always running into this
conundrum, which is, 'We
want cell phone service,
but don't put that tower
here.' When you're
dealing with
communications through
the air, you have to
have antennas and
towers," said Joe Farren,
a spokesman for CTIA-The
Wireless Association,
the industry's trade
group.
Aesthetics aside, the
primary reason most
people don't want cell
sites near their homes
and communities is
because they're afraid
of the potential health
effects.
Already, more than
500 cases have sprung up
across the country in
which people have tried
to stop cell phone sites
from being constructed,
according to Washington
attorney Ed Donohue, who
represents several cell
phone companies.
Most of the time, the
cell phone companies win
because, as it stands,
federal law does not
allow rejection of a
tower based on health
risks.
Cell Phone Towers:
Risky or Not?
If you ask the
government, no studies
have shown conclusive
evidence that
radio-frequency
emissions, a form of
electromagnetic
radiation (EMR), from
cell towers are harmful.
According to the Food
and Drug Administration:
"RF [Radio
frequency] exposure
on the ground is
much less than
exposure very close
to the antenna and
in the path of the
transmitted radio
signal. In fact,
ground-level
exposure from such
antennas is
typically thousands
of times less than
the exposure levels
recommended as safe
by expert
organizations. So
exposure to nearby
residents would be
well within safety
margins."
Cell phone companies
also maintain that no
risks exist from the
towers. "There are no
health risks posed by
the towers. Independent
scientific panels around
the world have reached
this conclusion," said
Russ Stromberg, senior
manager of development
at T-Mobile.
The
government and
cell phone
companies
maintain cell
towers (and
phones) are
safe. |
But other studies
seem to tell a different
story, with findings
such as:
- A study by Dr.
Bruce Hocking in
Australia found that
children living near
three TV and FM
broadcast towers
(similar to cell
towers) in Sydney
had more than twice
the rate of leukemia
than children living
more than seven
miles away.
- Says Dr. Neil
Cherry, a
biophysicist at
Lincoln University
in New Zealand:
- "Public
health surveys
of people living
in the vicinity
of cell site
base stations
should be being
carried out now,
and continue
progressively
over the next
two decades.
This is because
prompt effects
such as
miscarriage,
cardiac
disruption,
sleep
disturbance and
chronic fatigue
could well be
early indicators
of the adverse
health effects.
Symptoms of
reduced immune
system
competence,
cardiac
problems,
especially of
the arrhythmic
type, and
cancers,
especially brain
tumor and
leukemia, are
probable."
- Biomedical
engineer Mariana
Alves-Pereira says
exposure to cell
phone towers can
lead to
vibroacoustic
disease. "From what
I understand, some
of the complaints
are similar in what
is seen in
vibroacoustic
disease patients,
which are people who
develop a disease
caused by low
frequency noise
exposure," she said.
Symptoms can include
mood swings,
indigestion, ulcers
and joint pain.
- Dr. Gerard
Hyland, a physicist
who was nominated
twice for the Nobel
Prize in medicine,
says, "Existing
safety guidelines
for cell phone
towers are
completely
inadequate ... 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."
- According to the
Mount Shasta
Bioregional Ecology
Center, "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."
- According to Dr.
W. Löscher of the
Institute of
Pharmacology,
Toxicology and
Pharmacy of the
Veterinary School of
Hannover in Germany,
dairy cows that were
kept in close
proximity to a TV
and cell phone tower
for two years had a
reduction in milk
production along
with increased
health problems and
behavioral
abnormalities. In an
experiment, one cow
with abnormal
behavior was taken
away from the
antenna and the
behavior subsided
within five days.
When the cow was
brought back near
the antenna, the
symptoms returned.
Incentives for
Cell Phone Towers
Why would a church,
school or other private
property allow a cell
phone antenna to be
placed on the grounds?
Cell phone companies pay
"rent" for their
placement that can range
anywhere from $800 to
$2,000 a month. This can
mean all the difference
for an under-funded
school district or
church.
Still, many people
are wary that the
incentives do not come
close to matching the
potential risk involved.
This includes the
International
Association of Fire
Fighters who, in 2004,
came out against the use
of firehouses for cell
antennas "until a study
with the highest
scientific merit" can
prove they are safe.
These sentiments are
echoed by residents of
St. Louis where T-Mobile
plans to put a cell site
on an 89-year-old
church. "That revenue is
in exchange for our
potential well-being,
our peace of mind and
our property values,"
said resident David
O'Brien. "None of us are
willing to take that
risk."
Recommended
Reading |