Cell Towers

The debate over whether cell towers are hazardous to our health has raged on for decades. Neither side gives in, but both claim they are right.  According to Cell Tower Lease Experts, as of 2016 there were 307,626 cell towers in the United States. Including all the sites on rooftops, flagpoles, and other places, it adds up to an astounding 964,444 locations. Besides the fact they are really ugly, what risks do cell towers pose exactly, and what are we exposed to?

 

The answer to that really depends on what you are looking to hear. New studies continue to come out. Regardless of your position, you can find studies to support your view. Tony and I do not claim to be scientists, but one fact is certain beyond doubt: some people are more sensitive to the effects of cell transmission waves than others as we shall show later. With the proliferation of locations with cell transmitters, avoiding exposure is extremely difficult. They appear in a wide variety of places: the tops and sides of buildings, mounted on flagpoles, churches, schools, parks, etc.  We can’t escape.

 

What harm could they be doing to our bodies? The government and the cell phone industry use the tired old phrase, “The level of radiation is below federal standards.” The standards used to measure exposure are for short-term exposure only. We are only beginning to find out the hard way what the effects are for long-term exposure. With our current best understanding, there are a number of factors that influence how hazardous cell towers can be. 

 

1. Proximity to source of EMF

 

Data from the National Institute of Health and other organizations show that the intensity of EMF waves decreases rapidly as you move away from the source. The research and studies also shows the level of EMF waves is far less at ground level under a tower. What these studies do not address is the long-term effects of continuous, low-level exposure to electromagnetic rays.

 

In order to accommodate the rapid expansion of the transmitters needed by the cell industry, many other locations are being sought as potential locations to place new transmitters. Telephone poles, streetlights, sides of buildings, and billboards are only a few of the creative places the industry seeks to use. Many of these places get paid a hosting fee for allowing the transmitter to be located there. This opens up many places that previously would never have been used, creating new and potentially hazardous locations. 

 

One of the biggest dangers we are now facing is instead of all the towers being located very high off the ground, lower locations are shifting EMF waves closer to the ground and exposing many more people to them. 

 

Studies have come out that show evidence of increased risk of miscarriage due to high level EMF exposure during pregnancy. Soon after, another study, funded by the NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Science) also found an association between high EMF exposure during pregnancy and miscarriage. In addition, there were at least four more studies published in widely recognized and respected journals during the past 15 years that examined the relationship between high EMF exposure and the risk of miscarriage. The studies measured the overall EMFs the pregnant women were exposed to, and not just specifically those from a source as a cell tower. There are other sources of EMFs in our homes and workplaces; however, none emit such a constant and steady stream passing through the tissues of the people in the path they travel. 

 

An elementary school in the town of Ripon outside Sacramento, California, had a low cell tower placed on school grounds near the classrooms children use. Over the last few years, four elementary school children have been diagnosed with cancer. The school, when asked about the possible link to the cell tower, said, “The EMF emissions are below federal standard.” The school refused to take down the cell tower while further investigations are carried out. The school also receives $2,000 a month to host the tower on the property. Eventually, the school gave in after the parents continued to insist the tower was the possible cause of a cancer cluster among elementary school kids. While no conclusive tests have definitely shown the tower was the cause, the tower was removed and relocated because of the strong correlation. 

 

In Mill Valley, California, the town banned new cell transmitters in residential neighborhoods. Their decision was based on studies showing negative health effects from the radioactive waves. Of course, the industry contested the decision. How it plays out in the courts is yet to be seen, buth the industry is spending many millions of dollars on lobbying efforts across the country. 

 

In Sandy Springs, Georgia, residents are getting together to stop Verizon from installing new transmitters across town. A class action lawsuit against Verizon claiming the transmitters cause cancer and lower property values is headed for the courts. One resident said the new transmitter would be 100 feet from his bedroom window. If the residents are successful in stopping Verizon in town, this will have ramifications across the country. Most of all, it would allow people to choose not to be subjected to the EMFs that nobody is certain will not turn out to be a health risk. 

 

2. Length and frequency of exposure 

 

When the government establishes exposure regulations, they are almost always based on short-term exposure. Unfortunately, this does not address the people who live, work, or spend many hours day after day exposed to low levels. Similar to regulations governing toxic chemicals, long-term cumulative effects of exposure are neglected to be considered in the exposure.

 

There is a tremendous difference when a person has a single exposure to something toxic or harmful and when a person has continuous exposure to the same thing. Tiny bits add up and become huge problems. For example, most people go to the dentist once or twice a year. At one visit each year, the dentist takes an X-ray to look for any problems. That one X-ray per year would not have any long term negative effects. But, the technician giving the X-ray leaves the room when the machine is turned on. They do not want to be exposed to something that is safe in the short-term but harmful in the long-term. They know the cumulative effects of exposure will cause problems and be harmful. Until then, a cautious approach to potential effects of cumulative exposure of these EMFs would make sense. 

 

3. Sensitivity to EMF

 

There are people who claim they have a sensitivity to EMF exposure, usually referred to as EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity). While mainstream science has not officially recognized this as a disorder, it does appear to be real and not simply a manifested reaction. 

 

In the words of the World Health Organization, “EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to EMF. The symptoms most commonly experienced include dermatological symptoms (redness, tingling, and burning sensations) as well as neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms (fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation, and digestive disturbances). The collection of symptoms is not part of any recognized syndrome.”. Both WHO and the National Institute of Health acknowledge the existence of EHS. Until officially recognized as a disease, however, it remains unofficial.

 

When I lived in upstate New York, there was a family who lived directly in the path between two cell tower transmitters. They had been living there for years before the cell towers were installed. The town held public hearings prior to the approval, and all the neighbors nearby attended. In spite of concerns of potential health issues, the town gave their approval for the towers. One family in particular raised the issue that the EMF waves would travel between the towers and directly through their house. Once the transmitter tower was turned on and operating, all three people living in the home started to have headaches and strange sensations in their bodies. When they were not in the house and away, their headaches went away as did the strange sensations. As soon as they returned and were in the house again for a few hours, all the negative symptoms returned. 

 

In spite of there being no definitive medical proof showing a direct causation between the exposure to EMF waves and their health effects, to them it was as real as anything could be. Cases like theirs occur with regularity, and the medical profession says there still is no proof the two are related. However, the current research that does exist has not explained these people’s symptoms. These are real people who are really suffering. Currently, the best explanation is that EMF waves are causing or exacerbating these health problems. Rather than believe these people and look for a solution, the current research suggests they are imagining or faking their symptoms. More research needs to be done to make sure that we are not putting further people at risk.

 

4. Effects Yet Unknown

 

Tony and I acknowledge that the information in this chapter is more difficult for some people to accept because the research is not finished yet. We feel it is our duty, however, to point out that there is a clearly established historical pattern surrounding pollution like this.   Certain chemicals that were once used widely by industry and even wider by an accepting public, such as DDT and non-stick coatings on products, were found later to have been responsible for causing many people’s illnesses, newborns’ birth defects, and thousands of cancer deaths. They too were at first thought to be miracle products, making our lives better, with no drawbacks. 

 

The chemical industry gave us Alar to spray on our apples and Paraquat to kill weeds and unwanted pests with. We blindly believed them when we were told they were safe. Millions of pounds were used without so much of an afterthought to our safety. Such was our blind trust in the government and the belief they would never let us use unsafe products. Blind trust in anything will only get us in a bad situation. 

 

The most noteworthy example of this is DDT. We were told to go ahead, spray it and kill what we need to with it. They never told us the deadly effects it would wreak on humans and wildlife. Those millions of pounds of  DDT is now coming back to haunt us. 

 

This is not the only example. Flame retardants such as Tris were used extensively for years on infant’s and children’s clothes; this chemical  is now known to cause cancer. Teflon-coated cookware we used in our kitchens has given us diseases. Certain chemicals such as BPA in our plastic containers harm us and are considered potential carcinogens. The pattern is clearly established.  We must trust these people who are reporting the early symptoms so as to not cause further, more dire, consequences later.

 

Radiation that passes through a body beyond a certain intensity heats up the cells and causes damage. There is growing concern about the potential non-thermal levels of radiation causing damage too. Now, most of us do not have a cell tower a couple hundred feet from our home sending electromagnetic waves through our homes and bodies whenever we are there. But for those of us who are located directly in the path of these transmitting waves, there definitely should be a level of concern about what the cell phone companies have not told us or what they have yet to find out.

 

The research is beginning to bare out the dangers cell towers place. There are already studies pointing to brain tumors, miscarriages, Alzheimer’s disease, and more. An Australian study even found that children living near cell towers had substantially higher rates of leukemia compared to those who did not. 

 

To reiterate, for every study saying cell towers do not cause harm, we can find matching ones that say they do. Moreover, many of the guidelines and regulations dealing with the EMFs from cell towers were written over 25 years ago and are based on what was the standard back then. Incredible advances in cell phone communications have been made, and tens of thousands of new transmitters have been added, all sending waves much faster than ever before. Using outdated studies on technology no longer in use does not protect the public. Numerous pushes to update the regulations using the standards and outputs of today’s towers have been fought vigorously by the industry. Will the wireless cellular industry become like the tobacco industry?  

 

With the expansion of the wireless industry into 5G, scientists say we will be blanketed in more radioactive waves than ever before. Recently, WHO has come out in support of slowing down this expansion until more is learned about the health effects. Hopefully, the effects of these transmission waves would have many more in-depth studies done by independent health organizations with no agenda or stake in the results. Instead, the battle lines have been drawn, and both sides are firmly dug in, saying they are correct. 

 

The course of action that makes the most sense to somebody in the direct pathway of a cell tower transmitter would be to avoid it. The small body of conclusive evidence raises the possibility of there being effects beyond what we are able to detect and see damage from at this point. Until the science is settled, we advise caution.