Are Cell Tower RF Emissions Something to Worry About?

Cell Tower on School Property Update:  On September 3, 2014, it was announced that the vendor responsible for the cell tower project withdrew its proposal to the Naperville school district.  It is thought the growing public opposition to the towers may have played a role in this action.  Possibly the information on this webpage will be of use to others where cell towers are proposed in the future on school grounds.

This article was prompted by an opinion piece in the Naperville Sun on July 30, 2014, entitled, “We should worry about things that are truly dangerous.”  The writer of that piece is certainly entitled to his opinion, but in this article we would like to clarify some of the “facts” as well as highlight the somewhat snobbish nature of the Naperville Sun editorial.

Naperville Sun CowsThe general theme of the opinion piece was that parents should not worry about such things as radiofrequency (RF) emissions from cell towers being proposed for placement on school properties, but instead they “should worry about [other] things that are truly dangerous,” such as use of antibiotics in livestock and chemicals used in the plastic lining of food and beverage cans.

Snobbish Opinion

My first point would be to mention how the expressed opinion disparages the health concerns that parents might express about cell tower emissions as if the parents are not also concerned about scores of other issues that face parents each day, such as healthy food, safe streets, sunburn, mosquito bites, childhood diseases, inappropriate online content, etc., etc.  The article characterizes the parents’ concerns as an irrational “fear” and “fret[ting] about radio waves” based upon a “vast ocean of lies, manufactured fear, and superstition.”

The article mentions that the school “should tell parents to stop worrying about things that are not dangerous…”

What type of school would we have that did not listen to and thoughtfully consider the concerns of the parents?  Would you want to send your children to such a school?

Biased and Erroneous Opinions

Editorial Opinion #1

“… there is zero scientific evidence they [radio waves] cause health problems and, because of their wavelength, few if any scientists who think they could.”

Facts and Counterpoints

By any standard, there is at least limited evidence that RF emissions negatively affect health, and there are many scientists who believe that the exponential and uncontrolled expansion of the wireless industry poses a serious threat to human health and the environment.

Some of the scientific evidence dealing specifically with cell tower emissions was presented in a previous article at this website: “Naperville School District 203 Considers Leases for Cell Tower Installations.”

Those who say there is “zero evidence” of harm typically view the issue as an “all or nothing” proposition.  In an attempt to better illustrate this concept, refer to the figure below showing a “ladder” with various degrees of possible certainty for demonstrated adverse health effects from RF exposure.  Those individuals who say there is “no evidence” are stuck at the bottom of the ladder stating that talk of low-level health effects from RF emissions is nothing more than “speculation.”  These same people further state that in order to take any action to protect the public you must find a way to jump to the top of the ladder showing absolute proof of harm including the mechanism causing the harm.

Ladder for Certainty for Adverse Health Effects

Those individuals advocating caution acknowledge that at least limited levels of evidence exist demonstrating that adverse health effects are caused by RF emissions.  Some scientists and independent experts believe we are further up the ladder than others. Between speculation and hypothesis toward the bottom of the ladder and absolute proof at the top of the ladder is a range where precautionary measures may be warranted based upon an objective review of the available scientific evidence and its possible negative impact on society if nothing is done to avoid harm.

The most basic precautionary action is to avoid RF exposure that is higher than necessary to achieve an intended purpose.  If a school’s primary objective is to educate children in a safe manner, then intentionally exposing children and school personnel to cell tower radiation should certainly be viewed as not supporting the school’s core objective.  Such exposure can therefore  be declared unnecessary from a health risk perspective.

Editorial Opinion #2

“the RF levels under an antenna are thousands of times lower than recommended levels, and only 1 percent of what the kid would get from his own cell phone.”

Facts and Counterpoints

There are at least three fallacies or straw man arguments in the above statement:

  1. In this instance, the applicable “recommended levels” would be the exposure guidelines or limits of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  These guidelines are currently at the center of scientific and legal controversy.  The FCC guidelines only address health effects caused by significant overheating of tissue or electric shock.  Many scientists believe (as demonstrated through peer-reviewed literature) that adverse effects are occurring below those levels.   Even our own United States Department of Interior expressed concerns regarding exposure  to “migratory birds and other trust species” from cell tower RF emissions in  a letter written earlier this year that states:  “[T]he electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. … [A] significant issue associated with communi-cation towers involves impacts from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by them.”
  1. On the issue of “RF levels” and for the Naperville School District 203 possible lease arrangement, have the expected RF levels for the school grounds even been disclosed?  Discussion of “RF levels” can sometimes be a biased discussion tactic that ignores the possible effects of chronic exposure and probably also ignores the differences between localized and whole body exposure.  The average American talks on a cell phone for about 15 minutes of a day (about 1% of the day’s duration).  If the RF level from a cell tower is 1% of that a cell phone (as stated in the opinion piece), then the cumulative exposure to RF energy over a period of 24 hours from a cell tower would be equivalent to that from the 15 minute phone call.  (For eight hours it would be more like a 1 to 3 ratio.)  In addition, scientists who support the assertion that RF radiation is harmful even at low levels also generally believe that chronic exposure by its nature is more harmful than sporadic exposure.
  1. The phrase about what “the kid would get from his own cell phone” ignores that talking on a cell phone is a voluntary experience while exposure to cell tower radiation would be mandatory and imposed for all kids if cell towers were installed on school grounds.  The statement also ignores actions being taken in other countries to limit the use of cell phones by children for health reasons.  In addition, the opinion piece statement ignores the cautionary words [1] at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website that: “Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use.  More research is needed before we know for sure if using cell phones causes cancer.”  Also from the CDC website:  “If RF does cause health problems, kids who use cell phones may have a higher chance of developing these problems in the future.”

Conclusion

The Naperville Sun opinion piece mentions that schools are hopefully “one of the few remaining islands of evidence-based rationality…”  The point of this article is that it is totally rational for the school to listen to concerned parents, … and that on the subject of cell tower radiation emissions on school grounds, several knowledgeable and informed parents are trying to do what is best for their children and the community.  In addition, from the information presented in this blog article, their concerns and “fears” appear to be “evidence-based.”

[1]  Update on CDC Cautionary Words

Say What?  CDC Flip-Flops on Cell Phone Danger

Public News Service – NY | August 26, 2014 |

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) became the first federal agency to acknowledge the potential health risks from using cell phones earlier this year.  Then, just last week, the agency backtracked from its earlier statements of caution.

About SkyVision Solutions

Raising public awareness and finding solutions for smart grid issues related to invasions of privacy, data security, cyber threats, health and societal impacts, as well as hazards related to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions from all wireless devices, including smart meters.
This entry was posted in Smart Grid, Smart Meters, and RF Emissions and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Are Cell Tower RF Emissions Something to Worry About?

  1. Mariette says:

    The extent of arrogant ignorance around this issue is astounding. Editors should not be so ignorant.

  2. Pingback: Berkeley Church Cell Tower | Protect Your Family from EMF Pollution

  3. B.TheIdea says:

    Watch “This Is Not A Tree” on You Tube if this subject interests you.

  4. John Perkins says:

    The wireless industry tends to ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to the safety and health of the “general public”. Not only with the cellular towers placed near or on school grounds but also the proliferation of wireless antennas on apartment, commercial, and industrial structures to such a frequency that they have been forced to acknowledged that they can no longer ensure the protection of people who may accidentally find themselves in front of a camouflaged or even an exposed antenna while in the course of their job.

    I have found a video account from a wireless industry worker willing to speak about the conditions he faces each time he goes to work on and around cellular antennas. The wireless industry and the FCC need to do something to stem the tide of people affected by the uncontrolled growth and regulation of the wireless industry before more innocent people are hurt.

  5. Wilma Miles says:

    Industry will do anything to stop the true research from being made public. Researchers are often fired, bad-mouthed, funds for research withdrawn etc. Prof Olle Johansson has received death threats – he insisted on making his research available to everyone.

    • Thanks for your comment. I had not heard about death threats against the Dr. and being one to confirm most everything placed on this website that can be fact-checked, I found the video shown below (interview filmed in March 2014).

      Video Clip Credit: Channel Alish (Alicia Ninou) and interview with Olle Johansson, available for viewing at http://www.TimeForTruth.es.

  6. Diana O. says:

    As additional support for the fact that many scientists do indeed believe EMR/EMF can negatively affect health, there is this page on Magda Havas’ web site:

    http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts-perspective-on-the-health-effects-of-electromagnetic-fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/

    June 11, 2011 (updated as of July 2014). Below are some of the key resolutions, appeals, and declarations released by expert scientific groups around the world since 1998, regarding the biological and health effects of both low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with electricity and radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) generated by wireless devices.

    Anyone who reads these cannot be left with the illusion (or delusion) that this form of energy is without adverse biological and health consequences at levels well below existing guidelines. Children are particularly vulnerable. It is irresponsible of governments to maintain the status quo in light of thousands of studies that have been published and statements by these experts.

    Here are the resolutions/appeals/reports in reverse chronological order. (There are 22 entries, each with a brief description and a link to the full document. So much for the opinion that “few if any scientists” believe RF harms health!)

  7. Wendy McClelland says:

    We have been fighting this EMR and RFR for over a decade and the smart grid implementation since January 2010, and have informed literally thousands of people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s