Subject: Re cellular tower!! - ISRAEL (fwd)
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 102857 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
.....Ingrid gets an "A"!!!!!..... guru
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:54:00 +0200
From: "HIGH, INGRID"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: cellular tower!! - ISRAEL (fwd)
Roy and everybody,
but doesn't he miss one point here, with these towers there is also a
powersupply ( - with a transformer?), and I have understood it from a
case here that if a tower is on top of a building then the powersupply
is most likely to be right on somebody's roof - or close to a wall. A
woman here found her problems distinctly related to her distance from
that "black box" outside her flat rather than to the aerials
themselves..
- there are so many things about this issue ....
warm greetings,
Ingrid High
----------
From: Roy L. Beavers
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: cellular tower!! - ISRAEL (fwd)
Date: 28. May 1998 11:53
Hi everybody:
In his message below, Dr. Goldsmith provides (I think) a well
balanced bit of advice to a fellow citizen in Israel about the
current state of knowledge concerning the cell-phone towers.
As I have shared my thoughts with some of you in private somewhat
to the same effect, let us here begin to seek balance and objectivity
in how we pursue this subject.
As I see it, the problem is that (unlike the power line scenario) we
simply don't have enough evidence in the cell tower scenario to say --
as we are on the verge of saying -- that these ARE health harmful.
As far as I am concerned the evidence is there in the power line case,
but to this point too LITTLE research has actually occurred on the
cell-phone antennas to allow such a judgment.
Remembering that one of MY goals with this list is to SPUR the
government
into doing its job of protecting its citizens rather than the "vested
interests," I do not quarrel with those of you who are vigorously
pursuing
the cell-phone antenna issue in your communities ... because I believe
it
will serve to heighten the governments interest in the whole EMF issue.
But we do want to be as accurate as possible in our "activism."
In his message below, I consider that Dr. Goldsmith has probably struck
the proper balance..... I thank him for sharing this with me as his
"within Israel" conversation was taking place.... When I am "cut in"
to such discussions (by cc's) it often then becomes possible to share
the
info with the larger EMF-L audience ... as in this instance.....
Cheerio....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle
...
than to curse the
darkness...............................................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 09:54:15 +0300 (IDT)
From: John Goldsmith
To: tomer@actcom.co.il, "Roy L. Beavers"
Cc: John Goldsmith
Subject: Re: cellular tower!! - ISRAEL
Dear Tomer:
It is possible that there is no health risk from having a cellphone
tower atop the building in which you live. However, if I were
concerned,
as you are, the following must be considered in order to evaluate the
possibility:
A. The height and configuration of the tower. If it is elevated
several tens of meters, and its broadcast direction is away from the
ground, a resident in your building should not be exposed. What then
becomes of concern is the possible exposure of neighbors.
B. The power of the broadcast. Data are being accumulated as to
their being small increased risks for leukemia for residents near
(1-3km)
TV and FM broadcast facilities. But the power of these transmitters in
above 500 kilowatts. In the vicinity of a cluster of three Swiss
Shortwave stations of 150 Kw of 22 MHz, disturbance of sleep and related
symptoms were reported. It is my understanding that the power of
cellphone broadcasting is substantially less than this.
C. The existing exposure standards, which are often cited by the
cellphone companies, are so far out of data as to be almost irrelevant.
The organizations setting these standards affirm that only thermal
effects
(absorption of enough RF to heat the tissues) are relevant, so such
standards will not provide protection from symptoms or cancer risks if
present.
D. In part as a result of "consensus by a group of email
correspondents" and in part as a result of public hearings in various
parts of the world, there is beginning to be convergence of acceptance
of
exposures less than 0.1-2 microwatts/cm2 as being unlikely to produce
any
health risks. Also there is beginning to be agreement on not having
residences, schools, kindergartens, or places of public assembly closer
than _____ m from a broadcast facility beam. (say 100 m) Industry
could
have saved itself a lot of trouble if they had been more forthcoming in
developing such guidelines.
E. One possibility would be to insist on seeing an environmental
impact assessment for the tower. That would focus the issue, and there
are a number of us willing to help in assessment of such documents.
F. We would encourage you to insist on independent monitoring of
the
exposure once the facility is installed to assure that the guidelines,
however they may be set, can be enforced.
I hope that this is helpful.
John R. Goldsmith, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor of Epidemiology
FAculty of Health Sciences
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html