Does the City of La Mesa care about exposing our children to RF radiation?

As I walked my son to school during the last two weeks of our school year, I noticed a cell phone tower being constructed adjacent to Murray Manor Elementary, overlooking the kindergarten playground. The tower is sited on the commercially zoned property also occupied by Lake Murray Liquor, and stands less than 300 yards from where our children spend 6.5 to 10 or more hours a day.  

As any concerned parent would do, I emailed my city council members.  Two of them emailed me back.  Mark Arapostathis was very supportive, offering to push the issue with the city attorney and city manager, and Ruth Sterling recommended that we take action as a community, since she felt that was the most effective way to fight the tower's construction. 

Our mayor did not respond to my email, nor did the other members of the city council.  Mayor Madrid did respond to another concerned parent with an email I can only describe as unapologetic and confused. 

He cited the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which, I admit, is very restrictive and has ended up at the center of numerous lawsuits.  Its very constitutionality has been questioned at the Supreme Court.  Though section 704 of this act states that a community cannot ban cell towers based on perceived health threats they pose, it still gives local governments some power to make zoning decisions about where these towers are located. 

Mayor Madrid doesn't agree. "Legally, the city can do nothing on this or any other cell tower application."

I was contacted by the Assistant City Manager's office, and invited to speak with her and our City Attorney, which I will do next week.  I plan to ask them how they interpret the law, and whether they feel it is acceptable, given the scientific debate over cell tower safety, to zone these towers near our schools. 

This blog will keep you, the community of La Mesa, informed as to how our public officials are handling this issue, and why they should be concerned.  If you're interested in the issues surrounding cell tower radiation, please read on.

The precedent

Los Angeles, Santa Fe, San Francisco, Tucson, Santa Barbara, Agoura Hills, Sebastopol, Glendale, Portland, and Albany cities have all created resolutions aiming to increase local governance over the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities.  The Los Angeles Unified School District has already banned cell phone towers from close proximity to their schools, and they’re not alone.  Oregon, Florida and New York have all adopted such resolutions.  The New York State Board of Regents in 1995 adopted a policy of “prudent avoidance” of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF’s), stating that children were more vulnerable to hazards and arguing that schools should serve as role models for environmentally responsible behavior. 

The California Public Utility Commission has urged the cell phone industry to not locate towers near schools or hospitals and the EMR Policy Institute has set a minimum standard that cell phone towers be located no closer than 1500 feet from schools.  Increasing numbers of school districts in the United States, and governments internationally, have banned cell towers from being located anywhere near schools, nurseries or areas where children are convened. Why is this?  

Children are at greater risk

We know that children are more vulnerable to environmental hazards than adults, they cannot protect themselves from these hazards, and they are required to be in school.  Furthermore, no agency is authorized to intervene when children are at risk.  We are also learning that the radiation emanating from a cell phone tower is not as harmless as once widely believed.  In fact, analysts at the EPA have recommended that electromagnetic radiation be classified as a “probable human carcinogen” and the World Health Organization just last month designated RF radiation as a 2B category  - meaning it is possibly carcinogenic to humans.

Radiation

Cell phone towers emit radio frequencies (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation, for a distance of up to 2 ½ miles, while1500 feet from the tower is widely considered the “hot zone” for exposure to radiation. Cellular telephone towers release RF radiation that is in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Though it doesn’t ‘cook’ us, RF radiation from a cell tower exposes everyone within its range to its non-thermal effects. 

This non-ionizing radiation is not like X-rays or other ionizing radiation, the effects of which are immediately discernable with short term exposure.  Non-ionizing radiation’s effects are cumulative; problems emerge after prolonged exposure. 
An increasing body of scientific research has shown that even at low levels of this non-thermal radiation, there is damage to cell tissue and DNA, and exposure to this form of radiation has been linked to a broad range of serious health problems:  brain tumors[i]; cancers such as childhood leukemia[ii]; Alzheimer’s disease; miscarriage;[iii] autism; behavioral problems and ADHD in children[iv]; decreased problem solving skills and concentration[v]; increase in resting blood pressure; disrupted sleep patterns; impaired motor function, reaction time and memory; headaches; dizziness; and fatigue[vi].

Regulations governing cell tower radiation

The FCC regulates radiation emissions from cell towers.   The current US standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-1,000 microwtts 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 US.  Compare Australia at 200 microwatts, Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland at 1.  In Salzburg, Austria, the level is .1 microwatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the US. 

New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the US standard.  These standards are based only on the thermal effects of RF radiation, not the nonthermal effects discussed above.  For this reason, Dr. Gerard Hyland, Physicist and two time nominee of the Nobel Prize in Medicine has said, "Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate ... they afford no protection,"  and the Seletun Scientific Statement issued by an international panel of scientists in February 2011 agrees that "Current public-safety EMF-exposure guidelines... are inadequate and obsolete... not adequate to protect humans from haremful effects of chronic EMF exposure."

Needless to say, these safety standards have me worried for the health of my child, who will spend 8 hours a day, five days a week, for the entire school year over the next seven years of his life in the "hot zone" of a cell tower.  

Moving Forward

I assume our city is not informed as to the current debate in the scientific community regarding this radiation, or they would be much more proactive in zoning decisions regarding these towers.  After my meeting this Tuesday, I'll blog again to share with you the response of our city attorney and city manager's office.  Feel free to contact me at murraymanormom@yahoo.com to get more involved with this issue.