New rules approved for proposed cell towers

Isn't it time that the City require people to provide evidence that cell towers actually have a negative health impact? If the CDC, NIH, or other recognized health-oriented agencies have no evidence to back claims about cell towers impacting peoples' health, and no local evidence of cancer clusters, or kiling zones around the towers--why should the City listen to such complaints?

> several council members also raised concerns about the latest science concerning the health effects of radio-frequency emissions from the new equipment.

Really? There are *no* creditable studies showing measurable health effects from cellular transmissions. The anti-tower folks have tried over and over to find this evidence -- it doesn't exist.

Please, Weekly, stop citing "health effects" as if they exist. It's perfectly reasonable for people to be concerned about how the equipment looks, or how construction may impact their neighborhoods. It's not at all reasonable for a news publication to report on mythical physical effects of radio frequency transmissions as if they actually exist.

"Mayor Karen Holman agreed and questioned whether the health studies conducted in other communities really anticipated the type of proliferation of cell equipment that Palo Alto has seen in recent years.
"While I agree, absolutely, that what should be true in one community should be true in another, the proliferation is not the same in one community as in another," Holman said."

Really, Karen??? I know you think Palo Alto is special, but cell equipment is cell equipment. And as others have stated there is no credible studies regarding harm from cell phone radiation.
It is comments, like the above, from elected officials that embolden the luddites among us.
Next time, before you feel to need to make an "in your own mind" provocative statement, karen, learn what the facts are.

When considering the effects of radiation, please look up the "inverse square law."

From the article: "Mayor Karen Holman agreed and questioned whether the health studies conducted in other communities really anticipated the type of proliferation of cell equipment that Palo Alto has seen in recent years."

The American Cancer Society states: "Cell phone towers are not known to cause any health effects." and "Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different from the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations. For these reasons, most scientists agree that cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer."

In general, the proliferation of cell equipment decreases the distance between cell phones and cell towers, reducing power emitted by both. If anything, this cell-equipment proliferation is reducing the RF levels in Palo Alto.

If people are afraid of electronic equipment, they really should leave Silicon Valley. Where do you think the name Silicon Valley came from anyway.

I'm all for working with the cell phone companies to make sure the towers are not truly ugly, but installing a cell phone tower in an existing light pole or hidden inside a church tower hardly qualifies as ugly. The city's ARB has approved far uglier buildings around town.

Suppose a governing body, federal, state court or municipal city council, etc. decided a science or health issue by taking a vote and then passed a law saying "disagreement with our vote cannot be used legally to avoid the consequences of our findings" Reminds me of a U.S. Senate vote a number of years ago which outlawed war. As the opposition vainly pointed out, "the trouble with this law is that it doesn't outlaw sin as well!" Q.E.D

The black helicopters are not coming. Put up the damn cell tower so I can actually conduct a business call from my home office.

Let AT&T add the tower. I just wish that Sprint would add four of five new towers in Palo Alto.

I am sick of hearing everyone refer to Palo Alto as " The Dead Zone", referring to cell service here.

I know the EU has warning labels on cell phones themselves, but the claims against the towers have NEVER been proved. Remember that the EU does not have an FDA, and a lot of medical and health hokum goes on there!

"In general, the proliferation of cell equipment decreases the distance between cell phones and cell towers, reducing power emitted by both. If anything, this cell-equipment proliferation is reducing the RF levels in Palo Alto."

Spot-on; +1.

"In general, the proliferation of cell equipment decreases the distance between cell phones and cell towers, reducing power emitted by both. If anything, this cell-equipment proliferation is reducing the RF levels in Palo Alto."
Well stated.
Now, can someone explain that concept to the mayor, since she publically makes statements suggesting that there is something different about the cell phone equipment in Palo Alto that may cause problems.
Perhaps afterwards, the mayor would like to issue a retraction of her statement and an apology for being uninformed about the subject.

"There are *no* creditable studies showing measurable health effects from cellular transmissions. The anti-tower folks have tried over and over to find this evidence -- it doesn't exist."

That is precisely why radiation effects are so feared. Nobody can find them, and that means they will probably be extremely nasty when finally unmasked. You never know.

Now take skin cancer. Everybody knows sunbathing can cause skin cancer, so everybody goes confidently to the beach. But once there, they carefully ensure they are set up at a "safe" distance from any cell towers.

@Curmudgeon

Since we haven't seen *any* uptick after 30 years around cell phones and cell towers, I think we can lay those fears to rest.
Unless your statement was tongue in cheek, i.e. "there are no I'll effects from cell phone radiation, which is what makes those effects so insidious!"

"In general, the proliferation of cell equipment decreases the distance between cell phones and cell towers, reducing power emitted by both. If anything, this cell-equipment proliferation is reducing the RF levels in Palo Alto."

Not necessarily. Adding more phones (as is inevitable) will cause the towers to emit more RF power to service them, and what had been a few hot spots becomes a general RF heat wave.

It's interesting that the fire station right next to the ball park has cell antennas in their flag pole.

>> "substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base stations,"

What does that mean? If you go with the feds' definition it is 20' wide and 20' taller. Please tell me the council defined this incredibly important terminology as it pertains to Palo Alto, and the reporter just missed it.

It astounds me that all the commenters above are not aware of the actual research on biological effects. We're not talking about cancer, but rather measured cellular changes, stress effects, etc. Stressors in the environment ADD UP, the more you are exposed to, the greater the health impacts.

Web Link

In France, wifi is banned in schools, for precisely these reasons.

Web Link

There are lots of studies showing cell phones cause health risks (e.g.., Hardell) yet as soon as a study comes out, the industry comes up with their own versions of studies to create doubt and confusion. Tell all the communities of Swiss farmers who got sick (along with their animals and plants) when cell towers were installed that cell towers do not affect their health.

I notice my response to the section on the health risks of vaccines stating that legislators were paid $2 million dollars by pharmaceutical companies before passing this bill was not posted. It is not clear to me why an expert medical opinion is not allowed in these discussions when the question of industry support for an opposing view is raised.

Check out my award winning documentary on this topic as it is about a Palo Alto resident. Web Link

@PeerReviewedResearch

What specifically are these "health impacts"? Perhaps you could point me to any reviewed medical articles pointing to specific health effects that can be traced exclusively and specifically to cell phone signal or wifi? Or is this part of some grand conspiracy to disallow that research?

Robert,

As I said, check out Hardell or the researcher in my film posted above

[Portion removed.] The Hardell study is classic recall bias - it was a survey of people with brain cancer asking how much they used their cell phones. That's going to be prone to over reporting.

There is a clear and obvious case for the safety of cell phones: brain cancer incidence rates have remained unchanged since the introduction of cell phones. There are now 5.2 BILLION mobile phone users. Don't you think we'd notice if they were causing cancer?

The Hardell study examined the national inpatient registry in Sweden and found that many brain and central nervous system tumors of unknown type are not reported to the cancer registry. The annual percentage change for this type of tumor increased from 0.2% from 1998 to 2007 to 4.25% from 2007 to 2013, or from about 8 per 100,000 patients in 2007 to more than 10 per 100,000 patients in 2013.

The study is highly important because scientists from the Interphone study, WHO, and SCENIHR have repeatedly cited the flat brain tumor incidence trend from the Swedish cancer registry to dismiss the Hardell group's case-control studies which found increased glioma risk associated with wireless phone use. Note, that many of those supporting the opposing view and studies were funded by the telecommunications industry. The denialists argue that if glioma risk doubles after ten years, then why aren't we seeing the increase in the cancer registry? Apparently, many diagnosed cases are not being reported to the cancer registry; hence, the Swedish cancer registry data may not be reliable for tracking brain tumor incidence.

It will be hard to conduct controlled studies because one needs to consider source from IPADs (which have in its instructions to keep 8 inches away from the body), cordless phones

“It’s looking increasingly likely that cellular phones (mostly smartphones these days) are harmful in terms of cancer risk, particularly to the head and neck,” says Joel M. Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley. “A lot of scientists have come round to the view that radiofrequency radiation is probably carcinogenic because of new research that has emerged since 2011.”

A panel of 31 expert scientists from 14 different countries classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans

If you look at the patent applications from cell phone companies they admit that cell phones may lead to an increased risk of cell cancer.

Another potentially telling revelation is that the industry can’t get product liability insurance for mobile devices. Some people within the insurance industry feel that there’s a real risk of a wave of lawsuits related to brain tumors and other conditions caused by cell phones over the next couple of decades. Insurance giant the Swiss Re Group included “unforeseen consequences of electromagnetic fields”

This sounds a lot like the history with tobacco and the tobacco industry. There are 5.2 billion people partaking in this uncontrolled experiment. Even if half the independent studies (66 % find there is an effect) are incorrect and all the industry supported studies are correct (66 % find no connection), isn't a precautionary principle a wise approach.? The bottom line, is "Distance is your friend." especially in the young whose skulls are thin, brains growing fast are the most vulnerable

To Slow Down: Concerning the vax crowd, 130 have died from the measles vaccine, none from measles. For those with a poor immune system (bottle fed , born via a C section), there could be trouble ahead. Is it a coincidence that pharmaceutical companies have donated approx 2 million dollars to key legislators in this bill (according to the Sacramento Bee)?

" Concerning the vax crowd, 130 have died from the measles vaccine, none from measles."
The above is a false statement:
Web Link

@board certified, you are confusing the issue. The issue is about the safety of cell-tower RF on the general population, NOT whether cell phones themselves can cause health issues to users. The safety of using cell phones (especially for users who spend large amounts of time with the phone at their ear) is an active research area, with the current research suggesting that cell phones are safe, but some questions do remain.

However, due to the inverse square law, the RF exposure due to cell towers is thousands, if not millions, of times lower than the RF exposure from putting a cell phone on your ear. Your cited studies are irrelevant unless you plan on climbing a ladder and putting your head against the tower antenna.

The consensus in the mainstream medical community is that cell towers are safe.

KJ

66 % of the current research (except that done by the industry )does indicate health risks from cell phones. Turkish researchers found changes in the brains of offsprings who were exposed to cell phones in utero.

Dr RS Sharma is engaged in an all-India study on the health hazards from mobile phones. In his presentation, Dr Sharma discussed the findings of international research which points out medical complications arising from sustained use of mobile phones and exposure to radiation form cell towers. All research points out to the impact on the human immune and nervous systems, complications in reproductive health as well as behavioural problems in children. He emphasized that all epidemiological studies point out to adverse impact of mobile radio especially on children, pregnant women and on male fertility.


The Swiss farmers I interviewed who all got sick when cell towers were not making it up as their animals and plants also got sick. Have you checked out the pictures of the cancers that formed a perfect pattern around where the woman kept her cell phone? That seems to be pretty convincing.

My point is if you choose to believe all of the industry funded studies (which seems to be the case), choose to overlook the experience of others, and believe only half of the independent researchers, a precautionary principle is still recommended if not for you, for your children.

1) @board certified, once again, you are mixing up safety cell phone use with the safety of towers. Evidence for cell phone danger is sketchy, evidence for cell tower danger is nonexistent.

2) A picture of one woman with tumors is not evidence of cell phone danger. Anecdotal stories of sick Swiss plants and animals are just that: stories. Even if true, there could be other explanations. That is why we base medical decisions on research, not anecdotal stories.

There may be stories of cell-tower danger, but no evidence. No study of statistically-significant size and published in a mainstream peer-reviewed publication has shown danger in cell towers.

The STRONG consensus in the mainstream medical community is that cell towers are completely safe.

We have substantial evidence documenting various health risks from cell phone radiation including cancer, sperm damage, and reproductive health effects. Contrary to what many health agencies report, the preponderance of research published in the last decade demonstrates harmful bio-effects and health consequences.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization declared radio-frequency radiation including cell phone radiation "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

Recently published, peer-reviewed research has found that brain tumor rates have been increasing in the U.S. Moreover, three independently conducted case-control studies have found that the risk of glioma, the most common malignant brain tumor. is associated with heavy, long-term cell phone use. Similar findings have been obtained from three independent case-control studies that examined the risk of meningioma, the most common non-malignant brain tumor. For more information see Web Link.

In May, two hundred scientists from 40 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on electromagnetic fields and biology or health signed a petition, The International EMF Scientist Appeal, calling on world leaders to adopt more stringent regulations of wireless radiation and to issue precautionary health warnings to the public. For more information see Web Link.

For more information about the health effects of cell phone radiation and recent policy developments see Web Link. For information about cell tower health effects see Web Link.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

Board certified (what board? M.D.?) and PhD (what reputable peer reviewed journal supports your claims? you are using a journal where publishers or authors pay the journal to publish their material) appear intent on confusing the issue of towers with actual phones, or they just don't understand the issue in the article. I question their understanding or advocacy of any issues due to their inability to understand this simple article and the comments pertaining to the issues raised in the article.

From Web Link :

>> "The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for health reasons. Nevertheless, landlords may be liable for any harm caused by cell phone radiation emitted by towers situated on their property."

If that's true, it would seem to follow that a property owner who allows a cell tower to be situated on their property could likewise be liable for harm caused to anyone in the vicinity, not just their own tenants.

Mr. Moskowitz states, in part, "We have substantial evidence documenting various health risks from cell phone radiation ..."

Yet, from the Abstract in the first study highlighted in the web link given towards the end of Mr. Moskowitz's post above ("Biological effects from ..." by B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai; published on the NRC Research Press Web site on 5 Nov 2010):

"While specific epidemiological research in this area is sparse and contradictory, and such exposures are difficult to quantify given the increasing background levels of RFR from myriad personal computer products ..."

How does one reach 'substantial evidence' on the back of such inconclusive language?

Aside to @Barron Park Dad, most journals ask for payment to publish, commonly referred to as an Article Processing Charge or "page charges", often $2000 to $3000. The journal Nature is the only exception that comes to mind, but even they will assess fees for color figures.

@Robert and @DadOf2

"what reputable peer reviewed journal supports your claims?"
"Perhaps you could point me to any reviewed medical articles pointing to specific health effects"

I guess you did not see the earlier link I posted to the main site. Here is the specific annotated list of papers,

Web Link

From: Web Link

There are no serious studies that show any health issues. The surveys studies that have been linked to are no longitudinal studies, but simply surveys that are prone to error and at most show correlation. This is what the New York Times says,and they are hardly shills for the telecom industry:

--

According to the World Health Organization, “To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have all said there is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship.

The claim that WiFi had been banned in schools in France is not quite accurate.

According to any number of sources, France has banned WiFi in pre-schools, and requires that the Access Points be turned off in elementary schools when not used as a part of the instruction delivery--meaning that Wifi can be used in elementary schools.

The reasons for this ban are not discussed in English accounts of this legislative action. Presumably the French have their reasons--but most people celebrating this decision don't seem to want to share those reasons with the world.

Also interesting is that the French Government did not outlaw WiFi in the homes of the children who are in the government schools where this ban must be followed. If WiFi were that dangerous--why didn't the Government ban it in the homes where chidren live?

Lastly .. all other schools are not under a similar ban.

@Slow Down : "There are no serious studies that show any health issues."

Apparently you equate "serious studies" with double blind human trials?

The long long list of cellular level research (peer reviewed) at Web Link , makes it abundantly clear that effects ARE happening. Epidemiologists don't know WHAT the hell long term human health effects are going to be. Given all the variables in the picture.

Given that the cellular level research is undeniable, you suggest we simply ignore it? Gamble with our children as we experiment with lab rats? Why do you suppose those changes and disruptions are happening, if radio frequency emissions are totally benign?

If RF at the frequencies used by cell phones is harmful, wouldn't the greatest danger come from one's own cell phone? How about the cell phones of surrounding people?

@PeerReviewedResearch - you are free to forbid your children to use a cell phone, just like you are free to refuse to vaccinate them. But leave the junk science in your own house. There is no worthwhile data at your link, and I suspect you know that, just like you know there is a difference between a longitudinal study and double blind study. And more importantly, the difference between a cell tower and cell phone, because we are talking about installing towers, not phones on your head.

KJ,

Kazu
Good question - you are asking the right questions.
You can find on your cell phone instructions to keep it 3/8 " from your body. The IPAD has instructions to keep it 8 " from your body.

Yes, as distance protects, so the greatest risk comes from the cell phone that we put to our head.. Yes, there is a risk from others especially in a car, train or plane. The metal enclosure increases the exposure as does moving from tower to tower as the signal changes. The risks increase for children whose skulls are thin and cells are rapidly growing.

KJ,

double blind studies will be extremely difficult as it will be hard to find controls, and there will be many confounding variables such as wireless phones, cell towers, tablets, new wi - fi gadgets, not to mention the many other environmental toxins which are synergistic in their effects.. So many studies focus on what it does to cells, brain cells, semen etc.

When you looked at the picture in my film above, you thought that was not convincing. Having many farmers get sick when they did not even know what was causing it, and all their animals and plants were affected, that means nothing.

I think most people would at least begin to question the package handed to us by the cell phone industry (who in their patent applications mentioned the possibility of cell phones causing brain cancer read word for word by a Palo Alto attorney in my film.) The cell phone industry is very interconnected with the FCC.


What is the source of the statement of the consensus of the mainstream medical community. I have no reason to believe that the mainstream medical community is even aware of these issues.

You assume that talking about two different concepts means I am confused or mixing concepts?

There were a few gentlemen in my neighborhood that were very active with their HAM radios. They all had rather tall towers in their yards. The 3 that I knew, died of heart failure and one lived to be 94. I personally would rather see cell towers from my backyard than second story homes. I do miss my privacy at times.

"You can find on your cell phone instructions to keep it 3/8 " from your body. The IPAD has instructions to keep it 8 " from your body."

The real purpose is to improve the performance of the device's antenna. Your body gets in its way.

Roger,

The test conditions involve a distance from the head and the body. The reason they do that is because if phones were directly next to nobody or the head they would exceed the guidance

This means that few phones would pass the current SAR standard if they were tested in a pocket

No property owner with a brain would advocate to have a cell tower installed next door, which why every one of these proposals is extremely contentious.

What a sad place this town has become. It seems the more technology we have, the less we care about each other as part of a community. Technology is now dictating our humanity toward each other.

This is pretty much scare mongering. There is no concerns about the power station right next door which is very ugly, and probably just as dangerous.

People were afraid of all new things when they first came about. Some were potential problems, others weren't. People were afraid of letting electricity, gas and telephone into their homes a century ago! I don't hear of any concerns about asbestos when it was first put into everyday life. Now we consider it a hazard, but there were no concerns at first. Technological advances are now checked out better before they become common place.

@board certified

Operating an antenna next to a conducting object like the human body results in RF power being uselessly absorbed in that object. For optimum performance operate your device away from your body. Use your phone with those earbuds and dangle mike.