The Henderson Center Concerned Neighbors take the position that a cell tower should not be sited in ANY neighborhood.
Our concerns are:
- visual pollution
- possible adverse effects upon health in the vicinity of a cell tower
- health effects due to the addition of new devices to the tower as the industry develops
- psychological problems due to fear of adverse effects upon health
- depression of property values (up to 20% in some reports)
We understand that, under existing law, a municipality cannot deny a cell tower site merely out of health concerns.
Even if cell companies and the say that health is not affected by living in the vicinity of a cell tower, their protestations are not necessarily true. It is well known that the 1996 regulation was bought and paid for by the cellular industry, and that people migrate back and forth between the FCC and the industry they are supposed to regulate.
There is a growing body of evidence that cell towers and cell phones are harmful to our health.
There are a number of articles available regarding precautions one might take when using cell phones themselves. From the University of Pittsburg Cancer Institute: “Important Precautionary Advice Regarding Cell Phone Use”
However, people living in the vicinity of a cell tower (sometimes called a base station) have no recourse, except perhaps to sell out at a depressed value and move.
PERHAPS AN INCREASED AWARENESS OF HEALTH EFFECTS IN THE VICINITY OF A CELL TOWER CAN MOTIVATE US TO FIND WAYS TO PROHIBIT THEIR SITING IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. (Please excuse the emphasis).
It is primarily the fear of health effects that cause the depression in real estate values. From a New Zealand study, "The impact of on house prices in residential neighborhoods.":
"Both the survey and market sales analysis find that CPBSs have a negative impact on the prices of houses in the study areas." Note that "New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S. standard." This latter quote is from an article by Karen J. Rogers, an environmental scientist at the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center:
This article also notes that “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
A 2002 French study concludes that "From these results, and in applying the precautionary principle, it is advisable that stations be not sited closer than 300 meters to populations and most significantly because exposed people can have different sensitivities related particularly to their sex". Note the 300 meters, rather than 300 feet.
In a letter to Mayor Young and the Langford Council, Langford, B.C. from Martin Blank, Ph.D., Associate Professor of physiology and cellular biophysics, Columbia University, dated September 11, 2008:
"I have been an active researcher on biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) for over twenty five years at Columbia University. I was also one of the organizers of the 2007 online
Bioinitiative Report on the subject. Because of this background, I have been asked to provide background information regarding current discussions about the proposed cell tower.”
“There is now sufficient scientific data about the biological effects of EMF, and in particular about radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to argue for adoption of . We can state unequivocally that EMF can cause single and double strand DNA breakage at exposure levels that are considered safe under the FCC guidelines in the USA. As I shall illustrate below, there are also that show an increased risk of cancers associated with exposure to RF. Since we know that an accumulation of changes or mutations in DNA is associated with cancer, there is good reason to believe that the elevated rates of cancers among persons living near radio towers are probably linked to DNA damage caused by EMF. Because of the nature of EMF exposure and the length of time it takes for most cancers to develop, one cannot expect 'conclusive proof' such as the link between and gastric ulcer. (That link was recently demonstrated by the Australian doctor who proved a link conclusively by swallowing the bacteria and getting the disease.) However, there is enough evidence of a plausible mechanism to link EMF exposure to increased risk of cancer, and therefore of a need to limit exposure, especially of children."
The Bioiniative report he references is at http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm
This is "An International Scientific Review by 14 world leading scientists, public health & public policy experts – based on the assessment of 2,000 published studies – states “It appears it is the
INFORMATION conveyed by (rather than heat) that causes biological changes – some of the biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death. The Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health."
- see SECTION 1
<http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/section_1.pdf>: Summary for the Public (Conclusions)
I am a home owner within 300 feet of the on Harris Street.