Cell tower & cell phone safety

_{By ELIZABETH LADEN}

FREMONT COUNTY, — Are cell phones and cell towers safe? With more than 170,000 cell towers in existence now in the U. S. alone, and two new ones proposed for Fremont County, it’s a question that has to be asked. And, the answer cannot be that cell phones are safe because we love to use them and want the rent money when a tower is placed on our land, or that they’re unsafe because we do not want to own one.

The answers should be based on science. Unfortunately, some studies say they are safe and others say they are a serious health hazard. Both sides do agree that people should take precautions when they use cell phones and other wireless devices.

One of the proposed towers would be on approximately 14 acres of county property in Chester. The other would be on 2.37 acres in Shotgun Village Estates, close to homes, Boondock’s restaurant, and Stoddard’s Mill Creek children’s fishing pond. Both would be 196 ft. high with six antennas and a building for a generator and other equipment.

Ray Pierce, owner of Hard Rock Mine, LLC, owns the property, which is at 3575 Yale-Kilgore Road. Pearce operates Valley View Construction at this location.

Americans rely heavily on cell phones, and they are a great convenience to second home owners because they can be used in both the resident and the vacation home, eliminating the expense of a land line in one or both places. The list of why cell phones are convenient, how they help business productivity, and how they make people feel safe, is long and indicative of how much people have become dependent on their “cells.”

A growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that the electromagnetic radiation cell towers, cell phones, and various wireless devices emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health and can damage cell tissue and DNA. The damage has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, and other serious illnesses.

A new health condition has been identified and connected to cell phone use and living close to cell towers and wireless devices. It’s known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or EHS, and it’s affecting more and more people these days. EHS symptoms include headaches, fatigue, impaired thinking, loss of visual and hearing acuity, chest pain, abnormal heart rhythm and skin rashes. It has been estimated that 3 to 8 percent of the population in developed countries experience serious electrohypersensitivity symptoms today, and up to 35 percent experience mild symptoms.

Another growing body of work says cell phones and towers are safe and studies or research that say otherwise are based on “junk science.”

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets the standards of exposure for the public, and claims that, based on scientific studies, the current levels are safe. But it is not a public health agency, and has been criticized as being an arm of the $40 billion a year telecommunications industry.

The telecommunications industry continues to insist that cell towers and cell phones pose no threats to humans and other creatures. So do other groups, including the Health Physics Society, which says its members are specialists in radiation safety. In a Q and A section on the Health Physics Society’s Web site, the question, “Is there any risk for health with the installation of a cellular tower near a community?” is answered: “Radiofrequency (RF) emissions from antennas used for wireless transmissions such as cellular and PCS (personal communication systems) signals result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically thousands of times less than safety limits. These safety limits were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) based on the recommendations of expert organizations and endorsed by agencies of the federal government responsible for health and safety. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.”

Scientists and advocacy groups say current FCC standards are based on 1985 research, and don’t consider more recent research that found brain cancer, memory impairment, DNA breakdown, and neurological problems at much lower radiation levels. Earlier studies considered only the heating effects of the radiation — the level at which the radiation would heat tissue in the same manner a microwave oven cooks food.

This summer, the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (“NISLAPP”) mailed a report on the health hazards of wireless technologies to governors, members of Congress, President Obama and his administration, and thousands of health and environmental journalists.

All were urged to learn about the health consequences of microwave radiation exposure from cell phones, neighborhood antennas, wireless networks, wireless routers, DECT portable phones, and the potential health consequences of further chronic exposures from wireless broadband and new wireless utility technologies.

Co-authored by Dr. Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, and Camilla Rees, Founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org, “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution” reviews the independent science on the health hazards of wireless radiation and offers recommendations to the public on how to live more safely in a wireless world. It answers 110 questions posed by the audience at the Commonwealth Club of California, the nation’s oldest and largest public affairs forum, at an event co-organized by Wide Angle Health, LLC, Citizens for Health and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

Globally, public health officials and health advocacy groups have gone on record as being increasingly concerned about symptoms people are associating with rising levels of indoor and outdoor microwave radiation, known as electrosmog, including sometimes debilitating symptoms experienced near cell phone towers. They are troubled by the impact this radiation may be having on children, who are more vulnerable. Schools increasingly use wireless networks to access the internet, instead of hardwired connections, and many schools are being paid to place cell phone towers and antennas on school property. Several countries, but not the United States, recommend limited cell phone access for children, including Germany, Russia, India, Belgium, and Finland. France has banned cell phones in primary schools.

There is concern, as well, about involuntary, chronic radiation exposure in workplaces, and also that home values can drop precipitously in neighborhoods where cell towers are located.

Because of a provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, state and local governments have been prohibited from limiting cell towers and antennas on health or environmental grounds, despite symptoms residents may be experiencing. Cell tower critics blame this provision on multibillion dollar lobbying efforts by the telecommunications industry, whose leaders, they say, must know that cell towers and cell phones do indeed pose health an environmental hazards.

This year, governments have increasingly acknowledged electromagnetic field-related health concerns and taken stands to protect health. For example, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a “Briefing Paper on the Need for Research into the Cumulative Impacts of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife in the United States” (including crop pollinators, such as bees).

Also this year:

• Three U.S. Governors declared May 2009 “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Awareness Month.”
• Los Angeles Unified School District called for the return of state and local governments rights to limit antennas.
• The European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety voted overwhelmingly to recommend precautions be taken to protect human health with regard to mobile phones, Wi-Fi/Wi-Max, Bluetooth, DECT portable phones and cell towers.
• The City Council of Portland, OR asked its Congressional delegation to recommend the FCC “work in cooperation with the FDA and other relevant federal agencies to revisit and update studies on potential health concerns arising from RF wireless emissions in light of the national proliferation of wireless use.”

But the U.S. Congress has not taken steps to protect the health of American citizens from wireless radiation, though some consider this issue as important to the future of life as climate change.

An ElectromagneticHealth.org petition to Congress, signed by Americans in 47 states and citizens in 25 countries, calls for Congress to:

1) mandate the Federal Communications Commission revisit its exposure guidelines for radiofrequency radiation (RF), in light of the independent science showing current standards are not protective;

2) repeal Sec. 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prevents state and local governments from limiting antennas on health or environmental grounds;

3) declare a national moratorium on further wireless infrastructure build-out, including the “Wi-Max”, the wireless components of the National Broadband Plan being supported by the Obama Administration and new wireless utility technologies; and

4) establish cell phone and wireless-free zones in neighborhoods, government buildings, schools, public spaces and places of employment.

Jennifer Armstrong, MD, President of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, states, “The concerns raised in “Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution” regarding adverse health effects associated with exposures to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from cell phone towers, cell phones, and other wireless technology are understandable given the strength, consistency, and dose response of the associations reported in the scientific literature.”

NISLAPP Chairman, James Turner, Esq., who also is Chairman of Citizens for Health, states, “We believe it is essential that President Obama and his administration, legislators, other government officials, health care providers and journalists become educated on the hazards of electromagnetic fields so that a dialogue can begin about how to safely meet our nation’s communications objectives without jeopardizing the health of this generation and those to come. Congress must take steps now to educate the public on how to protect health, halt nationwide wireless broadband until legislators are better educated on the potential short and long-term health effects, and encourage innovative solutions to this difficult set of circumstances, where technologies have been introduced without adequate pre-market health testing or post-market surveillance.”

Martin Blank, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons; Researcher in Bioelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on Stress Proteins, states: “Cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.”

Minimizing Your Risk

Here are recommendations for dealing with cell tower and cell phone radiation exposure. They come from Web sites that acknowledge that more research has to be done to determine how hazardous cell towers, cell phones, and wireless devices are. But until we really know, we can consider taking these steps:

• Don't live near a cell phone tower if you have a choice. Don't buy a home near one even if the price is right.
• Limit use of wireless devices. Go back to wired connections whenever possible.
• Reduce your risk of cell phone radiation exposure: buy a low-radiation cell phone, use a headset while talking on your cell phone, talk less on your cell phone, hold your cell phone away from your body and use the speaker feature, text rather than talk on your cell phone and if your cell phone has a low signal, try not to use it because the cell phone emits more radiation while searching for a cell tower signal.
• There is no safe distance to locate away from a mast tower. Obviously, the closer to the tower the greater the exposure risk so locate as far away as possible.
• Encourage local government officials to consider transitioning to the use of fiber optic cable. Most of it has already been laid underground. It's just not being used. There are no masts with fiber optics and the small amount of radiation at the exits can be neutralized with technology now available.
• Discourage the use of Wi-Fi in schools by meeting with your school officials and school boards. Don't let cell phone companies install cell phone antennas on the roofs of schools. The radio waves may be disruptive to their ability to focus, in addition to posing other potential health hazards.

Cell Towers in Neighborhoods

Since the FCC will not allow objections to cell tower construction that are based on concerns about human health and the environment, local governments cannot write cell tower regulations with the goal of protecting people or natural resources. They can write regulations that address aesthetics so that towers do not mar scenic views. They can impose noise restrictions on cell tower sites, since the generators at these sites are noisy and run 24/7.

Here are the Fremont County code’s cell tower regulations:

Fremont County Development Code: Standards for cellular and personal wireless facilities

1. The purpose of this appendix is to provide reasonable assurance that future cellular and personal wireless facilities will not adversely affect neighboring uses.
2. Must comply with all FCC and FAA regulations.
3. No communication tower or antenna shall be located where the center of the tower is within a distance of 1.25 times the total height from any above ground transmission lines, and from any public highway, public road, railroad, or building. No communication tower or antenna shall be located where the center of the tower is within one mile from a county mapped visually sensitive area.
4. Removal of existing vegetation should be minimized. Any accessory buildings shall be painted or otherwise treated to blend with surroundings. All guy wires shall be, distinctly, marked. Public access shall be restricted through the use of a fence with locked gates, non-climbable towers or other suitable methods. Suitable warning signs containing telephone number and an address for emergency shall be placed on approach to the communication tower. Construction of new communication towers or antenna must comply with height restrictions as stated in subdivisions covenants and restrictions.
5. All communication towers shall comply with the requirements of the applicable seismic zone of the Uniform Building Code.
6. New communication towers must be constructed and designed to accommodate multiple users, applicants must demonstrate that their antenna cannot be accommodated on an existing tower and provision for sharing user to be charge reasonable fees and costs for shared use.
7. Communication tower must be removed by owner from premises, after 12 months of non-use.

Cell Tower Leases

Cell tower companies typically pay $800 to $1,500 a month to lease property where they build their towers, according to Privateline.com. They sometimes give the property owner free cell service, and some agreements allow the property owner to keep the tower if the company pulls out. The property owner usually is responsible for the power bill and, of course, the property taxes.

Numerous Web sites coach people who want to lease land to cell phone providers so they can argue for the cell tower placement. This is an excerpt from CellTowerInfo.com:

“NIMBY. You might see the term "NIMBY" in some articles in the paper or hear it from industry veterans. It refers to individuals who do not want a tower in their backyard — “Not In My Back Yard.” NIMBYs show up at zoning hearings to oppose the placement of a communication tower. They often claim that there are significant health risks posed by towers.

Unfortunately, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions from denying a tower application on the basis that it is "unhealthy.” As long as the tower meets FCC regulations and guidelines, it is presumed to be safe.

“Health is not the only manner in which people oppose towers. They also state that the tower is going to depreciate their home values. There are many different schools of thought on the impact of a cell tower on property values. Both wireless carriers and private landowners have created studies that show no change in value (carrier) or significant decreases in value (landowner).

“Last, aesthetic impact of the tower is often sited as a reason for opposing the tower. The reality is that many people cannot correctly name the closest tower to their house. While a tower may be visible initially, it will rarely be noticeable once it has been built for a while. There are numerous ways of "stealthing" a communication tower which include fake trees, fake cactus, fake bell towers, fake flagpoles, etc.”

Some sources in addition to those already cited.

Radio Frequency Safety, Federal Communications Commission OET Bulletin 56.

Mobile Telephones Fact Sheet, Health Physics Society, hps.org

Cell Tower Safety; A Citizen’s Tool Box, The EMR Policy Institute, Marshfield, VT.

Cell Phone Towers Electromagnetic fields (EMF) and Your Health. Environment, health and Safety Online, ehso.com

Environmental Working Group Report - Cell Phone Radiation: Science Review on Cancer Risks and Children's Health, MapCruzin.com, an independent firm specializing in the publication of educational and research resources.

Leif G. Salford et al., “Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain After Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones,” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 7 (2003): 881–883.

Allan H. Frey, Sondra R. Feld and Barbara Frey, “Neural Function and Behavior,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247 (1975): 433–439.

California EMF Program, The Risk Evaluation: An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances (2002), app. 3.