The sexiest two answers to any question are “Yes” and “No”.
We as humans hate, hate, hate, complicated issues with complicated answers. We like our water clear, our loops closed, and knots to be easily tied and untied. So as I dove into the world of Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF) radiation over the past two weeks I was disappointed to find that the evidence supporting either the Mobile carrier lobbyists or the 5G Truthers is not nearly as settled as either party wants you to believe.
So I’ve taken it upon myself to create a summary of dozens of studies I’ve read in the hope to help you form your own conclusion about the upcoming Cell Tower initiative - or anything related to the electromagnetic spectrum (I know, dirty talk, right?).
Lets dive right into it.
So what exactly is the cancer connection with a Cell Tower?
For years the pro-tower folks have pushed the narrative that low frequency EMF (see full spectrum image below) pose no danger at all. Its this definitive, “case-closed” attitude coupled with the obvious financial incentives to keep the matter closed that invites so much attention and scrutiny when contradicting patterns emerge. I only need to point to the tobacco industry for how that plays out. And who doesn’t love a good David v Goliath? I’ll admit, my instinct is to resist these tower initiatives purely to spite Verizon sometimes :)
The Cell Phones=Cancer folks have the same issue though, seeming to cling to a dozen or so studies over the past two decades for support while not paying much attention to the dozens and dozens of studies that contradict those results.
Every study has its issues of course. The problem I found with many of those studies showing a link is in the way they went about sorting data and assigning values to variables. Most of these studies were based on evaluating historical data. Because they had no way of monitoring actual EMF exposure of the individuals, they relied entirely on their own estimations of exposure. They then compare their estimations to historical information and medical records and looked for patterns to emerge. A major accomplishment of the NTP’s study (below) was that it controlled for this.
Note: We humans love patterns, so when we go looking for them, we often find them. My favorite patterns come from Tyler Vigens, Spurious Correlations
In a major win for the Cancer Concerned, the 2018 NTP study was the most conclusive study of EMF and cancer and did establish a clear connection in increased exposure to EMF and an increase in gliomas in male rats (specifically male rats, no causal relationship was established with female rats, or male and female mice, all part of the study. See? Its murky).
But even there, the rats that got cancer were exposed to FOUR TIMES the highest level of EMF that a human might. Which begs the question, what exactly isn’t a health risk when consumed at 4X the maximum recommended level. Any over/unders out there if I start driving at 4X the speed limit?
What this study did accomplish was blow a huge hole in the pro-tower crowds claim that these low energy radio waves pose no danger at all. They obviously do at high levels. This is new information that the FCC should consider when setting the safety standards, not sure how long we should keep fingers crossed there.
But even with that impressive study, the NTP still doesn’t include EMF radiation in its Report on Carcinogens, which lists exposures that are known to be or reasonably anticipated to be carcinogenic to humans. Neither does the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO).
For a much better written overview of this whole thing, check out the piece by American Cancer Society
For the data geeks, the FDA’s Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 Cell Phone Towersof Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer
For all the reasons to fear EMF, head over to the Environmental Health Trust
And I found this Pro-5G article in the NYT interesting too The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t
Final note: I focused mainly on cancer here because its hard to detect early on, but there is also evidence to review on cognitive impairment and sleep impacts of EMF exposure. If electromagnetic radiation is a health concern for you, keep in mind that the wifi broadcasters in each of our homes expose us to EMF even when cell signal doesn’t get through our home walls. And don’t forget your Laptops, Bluetooth headphones, Alexa and Sonos speakers, Smartwatches, Remote Controls, and WiFi-connected smart devices which receive and transmit data using this type of energy. Oh, and also sunlight, lightbulbs and infrared light which are even stronger forms of electromagnetic radiation than the lower frequencies (I couldn’t find anyone studying the health impacts of exposure to infrared radiation, which all human bodies emit).
Any other concerns besides health?
Ok...so is there any reason at all sto support getting a tower if I already have fiber internet?
At a personal level, convenience mainly. You know how you always lose that call when driving between Frogtown Rd and Atoka? That would go away.
BUT, the real consideration has nothing to do with you or me. Any tower brings data connectivity to a much larger area, which is sorely needed for dozens if not hundreds of families in the surrounding area that don’t have the privilege of fiber internet or find the $200 a month cost of satellite or fixed wireless cost prohibitive.
So then?
It really comes down to which way the scale tilts for you. How do you appropriately weigh out potential health concerns vs improving lives of people we’ll probably never meet?
Like I said, murky and complicated. Are you hating me yet?
Good morning Suzanne,
I have been informed of the proposed placement of a cell tower at Claude Thompson Elementary School grounds. I am the owner that resides at 8579 Maidstone Road. I am a cancer survivor and still have active cancer. I have undergone radiation therapy and cannot be exposed to any other forms of radiation. I am already at a heighted risk of other cancers including the one I already have.
I am asking the school board to reject this measure as it will have dire consequences to the health and well-being of the residents in the nearby neighborhoods and the children that attend the elementary school.
Heather Parker
We subscribe to the "they are ugly, devalue our properties, and are inappropriate for historic areas," as well as "don't help Verizon--they never helped us" argument:
RE: Cell Tower at Claude Thompson Elementary School
Dear Ms. Sloane:
The Fauquier School Board is considering a proposal to allow a tall cell tower on property the Board owns behind Claude Thompson Elementary School. As adjoining landowners, we are totally opposed to such a cell tower.
To understand the depth of and rationale for our opposition, you must first understand some of the history behind the school and this area. The school adjoins “Frogtown,” a historically black community where many of the land titles date to the period immediately following the Civil War. The original ramshackle elementary school was upgraded with a Rosenwald School, built in 1923/4 to educate the black children in adjacent Frogtown and nearby Rectortown, when county public schools were segregated. Many black residents remember well their days being educated at what ultimately became Claude Thompson Elementary School, named after its longstanding African American principal. Of all the possible sites for a cell tower in Northern Fauquier County, why is Milestone Tower company proposing to install one in the middle of a prominent, historic black community? This strikes us as an environmental injustice.
In the early 1960s, the late Robert Morf and his wife transferred the land for building Claude Thompson Elementary School to benefit the school children. Mr. Morf also once owned our farm, now Ballina Farm, that is next door to the school. He mentioned many times to us how proud he was to have assisted the community and its educational efforts with transfer of the land. In the early 2000s, the community fought to keep the school open and renovate it when the Board considered it too small to maintain. Today, Claude Thompson is a small, public elementary school that serves a diverse group of children and is a beloved part of our community.
Similarly, when the Nash family sold the small plot behind the school on which the cell tower would be placed, their intention likely was to assist the school with its water storage needs, not to benefit a commercial, for profit enterprise right next to their home and children’s school.
In the early 2000s, the Friends of Rectortown, a community nonprofit, sponsored the establishment of an historic district here. Soon thereafter, Goose Creek Association sponsored a larger, encompassing historic district - Cromwell’s Run Rural Historic District - to protect and preserve the entire area with its considerable history and spectacular view sheds across the Blue Ridge foothills to the Paris gap. A young George Washington surveyed this area and Civil War markers note that both sides camped on the land near the railroad that runs through Rectortown. Union General McClellan was headquartered here when President Lincoln sent orders to remove him from command. Claude Thompson Elementary School is an important element in this historic district.
Many of the properties in this area are under restrictive conservation easements, including our farm. We did so to protect and preserve the breathtakingly natural beauty of this area. There is no commercial development in Rectortown, aside from equestrian and agricultural related activities, and only a small post office that the residents periodically fight to maintain. A tall cell tower would detrimentally impact the value of our properties by degrading our view shed for years to come. It would be visible coming and going from Rectortown, as well as from our property and others, as well.
Positioning a tall cell tower behind the school would ruin the character of our area, and pose health issues for the students and staff at Claude Thompson, as well as the local community. It would be a highly visible, commercial enterprise that benefits for-profit companies more than the school. The school is situated on a small parcel of land that is not appropriate for a cell tower, given the potential health related issues that proximity to such towers can generate, as well as the potential for the tower to be damaged by lightning, endangering nearby properties and the school yard.
In addition, if the cell tower is leased to Verizon, it would be rewarding a company that has never been a “good neighbor” to Rectortown. Verizon operates a fiber optic cable across many of our front yards along Rectortown Road, a scenic byway, but consistently has refused to extend reasonably affordable residential fiber optic internet service to the residents here. Our Verizon landline phone service was so poor, that we cancelled it in favor of our more consistent AT&T cell phone service that works quite well.
Verizon could colocate with the existing two silo cell towers off upper Rokeby/Crenshaw Roads on the Eastview farm and the tall cell tower at Monomoy on Whiting Road in Marshall. What is the need for a cell tower at Claude Thompson Elementary School?
We are but two of the many tax paying residents of this area who stand in opposition to this proposal. Please consider our reasoning and do not vote to support this proposal.
Sincerely yours,
Florence Keenan and Sean McGuinness
keenanlori@gmail.com, seanpmcg@icloud.com