Cancer expert: Cell tower won't kill you
John Morgan, a doctor of public health with the California Cancer Registry, said on the phone today that a proposed cell tower wouldn't elevate cancer risks around a south Redlands neighborhood.
The California Cancer Registry collects statewide data on cancer. Morgan said he wouldn't be able to justify diverting resources from a known cancer risk like tobacco use to focus on public worries about cell towers.
He noted that people opposed to cell towers for various reasons often zero in on fears that the technology will increase cancer risks.
"People will use cancer as an argument for things they want or don't want," he said.
Cell company T-Mobile has proposed a new tower that would be built in the 1900 block of Country Club Drive. The 60-foot tower would be disguised as a cypress tree and surrounded by homes.
Several residents went to City Hall at 9a.m. Monday to speak against the proposed tower at Monday's Environmental Review Committee meeting. Objections to the tower included a possibly negative affect on area aesthetics, property values and concerns about increased risks of cancer.
The speakers included Javier Sanchez, who identified himself to the panel as a doctor working for Kaiser Permanente. Cell phone towers transmit radio frequencies (RF), and Sanchez told panel members that he has read studies showing that exposure to RF energies can increase risk of lymphoma, endocrine cancer, brain cancer and melanoma.
However, the Federal Drug Administration and World Health Organization report that cell towers are not likely to pose serious cancer risks. Although Monday's hearing was conducted under the understanding that federal law prohibits local governments from blocking cell towers on the basis of health concerns, tower opponents argued that there is enough medical uncertainty to insist that city officials be as cautious as possible.
T-Mobile wants to build the tower on city-owned land, and Redlands would get $25,000 annually if the City Council ultimately approves a lease with the cell phone company. Tower opponent Scott Reading contended that since the proposal centers on city property, Redlands officials are not bound to approve T-Mobile's plan.
"The city, in its capacity as owner of the property, can lease to whomever it wants," Reading said.
If Morgan, the FDA and WHO are correct that the cell towers are not dangerous, that still wouldn't answer the question of how close cell phone companies should be allowed to build homes to residences. Many people could still object to towers on the basis of not wanting to look at them when they look out their backyards.
But a T-Mobile representative said Monday that the proposed tower is needed to solve some customers' complaints of poor cell service around southern Redlands. Take away cancer concerns and there's still enough of an issue to motivate residents to attend something as dry as a public hearing.
The environmental panel ended the meeting by deciding to hold future discussions in late April.
Comments
Cell Towers, Phones & Wi-Fi -
Radiation Poisoning Of US
1 nov 2007
“Wireless communications radiation is to America today what DDT, thalidomide, dioxin, benzene, Agent Orange and asbestos were yesterday.
In 2000, European communications giant T-Mobile commissioned the German ECOLOG Institute to review all available scientific evidence in regard to health risks for wireless telecommunications.
ECOLOG found over 220 peer-reviewed, published papers documenting the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of the high frequency radiation employed by wireless technology.
Many corroborating studies have been published since. By 2004, 12 research groups from seven European countries cooperating in the REFLEX study project confirmed that microwaves from wireless communications devices cause significant single and double strand DNA breaks in both human and animal cells under laboratory conditions.
In 2005, a Chinese medical study confirmed statistically significant DNA damage from pulsed microwaves at cell phone levels.
That same year, University of Chicago researchers described how pulsed communications microwaves alter gene expression in human cells at non-thermal exposure levels.
Because gamma waves and F/microwave radiation are identically carcinogenic and genotoxic to the cellular roots of life, the safe dose of either kind of radiation is zero.
No study has proven that any level of exposure from cell-damaging radiation is safe for humans.
Dr. Carlo confirms that cell damage is not dose dependant because any exposure level, no matter how small, can trigger damage response by cell mechanisms.
Posted by: Larry Bishop | March 27, 2008 1:20 AM
http://www.icems.eu/
Benevento Resolution
The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international
conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and
Implementation”, hosted by the City of Benevento, Italy, on February 22, 23 & 24, 2006.
The meeting was dedicated to W. Ross Adey, M.D. (1922-2004). The scientists at the
conference endorsed and extended the 2002 Catania Resolution and resolved that:
1. More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from
occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or
EMF1, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a
comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to
this emerging, potential public health issue.
2. Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite the explosive
growth of technologies for wireless communications as well as the huge ongoing
investment in power transmission.
3. There is evidence that present sources of funding bias the analysis and interpretation
of research findings towards rejection of evidence of possible public health risks.
4. Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not
represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.
5. Based on our review of the science, biological effects can occur from exposures to
both extremely low frequency fields (ELF EMF) and radiation frequency fields (RF
EMF). Epidemiological and in vivo as well as in vitro experimental evidence
demonstrates that exposure to some ELF EMF can increase cancer risk in children and
induce other health problems in both children and adults. Further, there is
accumulating epidemiological evidence indicating an increased brain tumor risk from
long term use of mobile phones, the first RF EMF that has started to be
comprehensively studied. Epidemiological and laboratory studies that show increased
risks for cancers and other diseases from occupational exposures to EMF cannot be
ignored. Laboratory studies on cancers and other diseases have reported that
hypersensitivity to EMF may be due in part to a genetic predisposition.
6. We encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and
occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle2 -- as some nations
have already done. Precautionary strategies should be based on design and
performance standards and may not necessarily define numerical thresholds because
such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below which no adverse
effect can occur. These strategies should include:
6.1. Promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g., use of fiber optics
and coaxial cables; design cellular phones that meet safer performance
specifications, including radiating away from the head; preserve existing land line
phone networks; place power lines underground in the vicinity of populated areas,
only siting them in residential neighborhoods as a last resort;
6.2. Inform the population of the potential risks of cell phone and cordless phone use.
Advise consumers to limit wireless calls and use a land line for long
conversations.
6.3. Limit cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the
lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to
them.
6.4. Require manufacturers to supply hands-free kits (via speaker phones or ear
phones), with each cell phone and cordless phone.
6.5. Protect workers from EMF generating equipment, through access restrictions and
EMF shielding of both individuals and physical structures.
1 EMF, in this resolution, refers to zero to 300 GHz.
2 The Precautionary Principle states when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the
risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary
Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it.
2
6.6. Plan communications antenna and tower locations to minimize human exposure.
Register mobile phone base stations with local planning agencies and use
computer mapping technology to inform the public on possible exposures.
Proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. Wi-Fi, WIMAX, broadband
over cable or power-line or equivalent technologies) should require public review
of potential EMF exposure and, if installed, municipalities should ensure this
information is available to all and updated on a timely basis.
6.7. Designate wireless-free zones in cities, in public buildings (schools, hospitals,
residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are
hypersensitive to EMF.
7. ICEMS3 is willing to assist authorities in the development of an EMF research agenda.
ICEMS encourages the development of clinical and epidemiological protocols for
investigations of geographical clusters of persons with reported allergic reactions and
other diseases or sensitivities to EMF, and document the effectiveness of preventive
interventions. ICEMS encourages scientific collaboration and reviews of research
findings.
We, the undersigned scientists, agree to assist in the promotion of EMF research and the
development of strategies to protect public health through the wise application of the
precautionary principle.
Posted by: Larry Bishop | March 27, 2008 2:40 AM
I have provided several resources that support the possibility of health impacts (not just cancer) and professional groups which support a cautionary implementation for cell towers yet I do not see any posted on this blog. Where is the fair and unbiased information? Does the community where the impact is greatest not get to provide opposing views to the Sun?
Posted by: Larry Bishop | March 29, 2008 11:16 PM