“She’s been attending this school since kindergarten,” said Sonya Goodwin, a mother. “I pulled her out of the school just after Christmas, because I have concerns about the 18 cell sites.”
Goodwin is talking about the cell phone towers at the Innovation Centre in Encinitas.
Read more: http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/01/22/cell-tower-fears-have-parents-pulling-kids-out-of-school/#ixzz2PyKGu1MT
I'm uncertain why the Parents Coalition is advertising parent concerns in this area. The last I looked at the science, there was a broad consensus that the evidence did not even remotely support these concerns. Has that changed?
ReplyDeleteMCPS has posted a sign on a cell tower compound. The sign says:
Delete“Radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCC rules for human exposure”
So yes, apparently the human exposure to radio frequency at the MCPS cell tower sites has changed.
Broad Consensus? as far as I know the consensus by the International Agency on Research of Cancer is that it is a Class 2 b carcinogen due to increased brain tumors in users with the highest use over ten years. In fact all case control studies show increased brain cancer in this group.
DeleteMost environmental Toxins do not show effects until even a longer duration. This is about a lifetime of exposure for our children. Israel, India, Australia, France and the European Union are recommending precautions.
The Industry has a force greater than the Tobacco lobby out to make it seem inconclusive. After all the American Academy of Pediatrics is asking for a re evaluation of radio frequency standards.
In fact the FCC just came out with an item. http://ehtrust.org/fcc-releases-long-awaited-item-on-rf-exposure-standards/
Concerning children (yes this would be our children) the FCC states:
“ we ask whether any precautionary action would be either useful or counterproductive, given that there is a lack of scientific consensus about the possibility of adverse health effects at exposure levels at or below our existing limits. Further, if any action is found to be useful, we inquire whether it could be efficient and practical.”
Over a thousand studies are showing a myriad of serious health issues linked to microwave and radio frequency non ionizing radiation (a type of electromagnetic field - EMF) exposure: brain cancer, neuron damage, increased heart rate, decreased immune system, hyperactivity, oxidative stress, increased blood brain barrier permeability and genotoxic effects. http://www.bioinitiative.org/
you may want to read what a group headed by Yale doctors says about this matter before you dismiss it. This study summarizes the science. http://www.ehhi.org/reports/cellphones/
Please do look at the science. Every parent should.
That is just a standard FCC hazard sign. Ordinarily there will be a fence that prevents getting close enough to exceed the standard for exposure. Exposure levels fall extremely rapidly with distance.
ReplyDeleteYou are at much more risk from your cell phone itself, but I wouldn't worry about that either.
Fence does not keep out children. Children, and adults, can EASILY climb over the fence, and they do.
DeleteClearly, you have your personal opinion on this. Others disagree with you. These are public school sites and no parent should be forced to send their child to a school where they are concerned for their child's health and safety. These are commercial structures that are NOT kid safe by any stretch of the imagination. They are not fancy jungle gyms. They are HAZMAT locations that should not be located on playgrounds.
The relevant question is not whether parents are concerned for their child's health and safety. The relevant question is whether the science supports this concern. The science does not seem to support this concern.
Deletehttp://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cellular-phone-towers
Several Cancer sites are staying quite measured in their response. They are waiting. After all to change the stance will cause a national panic. As it should.
Deletedoes a class 2 rating not concern you? all long term case control studies are pointing to increased cancer. You do understand that research in this field is in its infancy and that all long term studies are showing effects?
It took 20 years for doctors to stop xraying pregnant women's bellies after it showed increased leukemia in the children.
about 35 years it took-- to show that when you xray tonsils, as many docs used to do... oh dear they developed tumors.
How about smoking?
Over 50 years for this country to take a stand on lead after it showed "possible effects" .
asbestos?
How about these cancer sites?
http://www.childrenwithcancer.org.uk/News/press-release-childhood-cancer-2012-mobile-phones
http://preventcancernow.ca/the-misleading-war-on-cancer#.UTwSRBpGnwE.facebook
How about reading the research. It is sad that we parents must do our own research.
Start with this lovely review of research.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201
how about this on our hormones... http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?l=e&aid=19946
For anyone to think this radiation is not effecting our bodies you must be ignoring the recent research. Read the actual research!
Sadly, most people will not read beyond a headline.
The exposure our children are experiencing is unprecedented and a true experiment. Cell towers add another layer.
Cancer is caused by cumulative exposure.
Anyone interested in science should go to this report by scientists around the world. http://www.bioinitiative.org/
DeleteDear Allen,
DeleteI would not be so quick to say your cell phone is safe. In fact no telephone company would say that. They just say the evidence is not conclusive that it is dangerous. The whole thing is a little stinky.
"Start with this lovely review of research.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716201"
ReplyDeleteThis piece was published in a journal published in Ukraine that goes all the way back to, well, 2004.
And the abstract says, "Nevertheless, even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among population living nearby."
"Reportedly"?
I don't find this persuasive.
oh dear, did you read the entire paragraph. here is is.
DeleteLong-term exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars and mobile communication systems.
Abstract
In this review we discuss alarming epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of long term exposure to low intensity microwave (MW) radiation. Recently, a number of reports revealed that under certain conditions the irradiation by low intensity MW can substantially induce cancer progression in humans and in animal models. The carcinogenic effect of MW irradiation is typically manifested after long term (up to 10 years and more) exposure. Nevertheless, even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among population living nearby. In addition, model studies in rodents unveiled a significant increase in carcinogenesis after 17-24 months of MW exposure both in tumor-prone and intact animals. To that, such metabolic changes, as overproduction of reactive oxygen species, 8-hydroxi-2-deoxyguanosine formation, or ornithine decarboxylase activation under exposure to low intensity MW confirm a stress impact of this factor on living cells. We also address the issue of standards for assessment of biological effects of irradiation. It is now becoming increasingly evident that assessment of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on physical (thermal) approach used in recommendations of current regulatory bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, requires urgent reevaluation. We conclude that recent data strongly point to the need for re-elaboration of the current safety limits for non-ionizing radiation using recently obtained knowledge. We also emphasize that the everyday exposure of both occupational and general public to MW radiation should be regulated based on a precautionary principles which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure.
PMID: 21716201 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Try the bioinitiave. It is a full review. Where to start? how about the Section 6 on DNA damage and Section 11 on brain tumors.
ReplyDeletePlease do let me know. http://www.bioinitiative.org/
Also you can go to the EHHI report. http://www.ehhi.org/reports/cellphones/
So great you are reading this. I guess we all need to make our own assessment of risk upon reading the information that is out there. Please do tell me your thoughts after reviewing these pieces.
have you read this?
DeleteYes, it is a lot of information. sadly most people don't read to far. this is how we got into this situation.
I sincerely hope you will read this.