Our Neighborhood vs. A Cellular Carrier

Foreword

"With these and dozens of other epidemiological studies of large populations and large numbers of workers occupationally exposed to RF/MW radiation, showing statistically significant increases of a wide spectrum of cancers, there can be little or no doubt that chronic low level exposure to RF/MW radiation produces increased cancer risk."

- Dr. Neil Cherry's (New Zealand) recent paper of March 1996, Potential and Actual Adverse Effects of Cellsite Microwave Radiation

This is a real story. The names have been omitted to protect the innocent. Everything is a matter of public record. If you want to check the record, e-mail me, and I'll tell you where I live.

The players are not really relevant to the big picture, anyway; but the scenario is. I share this in the interest of full-disclosure, and in the hope it may benefit those who are currently going through a similar situation ...

Overview

In September of 1992, my neighbor stopped by to tell me that there was to be a city council meeting that evening that I might want to attend.
The City Council would be considering his appeal to the land-use permit issued to a cellular carrier that would allow them to construct a 150 foot tall cellular phone transceiving tower in a park on the ridge over our neighborhood.
My neighbor voiced his concerns about the industrial appearance of the tower in our rural park-like neighborhood, and the controversy about the health risks from the radiation that would be produced by the installation.
I immediately agreed about the appearance, but I was unconvinced about the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, (NIEMR). After all, I was an electronic technician, I had gone to college, and worked around electronic equipment for years, and I had never heard any convincing evidence that there was any danger from electromagnetic fields.

Enter "A Cellular Carrier"

When my neighbor left, I went to the library. I had just a few hours to get up to speed on a highly charged issue. I felt comfortable with making arguments about the asthetic detriment to the community the tower represented, but I needed ammunition to deal with the controversy over biological effects of NIEMR.
I began by reviewing a report commissioned by the Cellular Carrier, that was done by an alleged expert in the biological effects of NIEMR. This report was not science, it was opinion; it was a clear case of the logical fallacies of begging the question, and appeal to authority, (with the author being the authority.) His argument was basically: there is no proof that NIEMR is harmful, therefore it is my opinion that it is safe, therefore it is safe.
I was beginning to get concerned . . .

What I Found Out

I researched the materials available to the lay person. I studied the origins of the NIEMR controversy, the politics of its development, and became aware of some of the people who were taking stands on either side of the issue. Here is what I found out.

The Controversy

In a nutshell, the controversy is this.

The only concensus among researchers in the field is there has been insufficient research done to assess the risk of biological effects of NIEMR.
Much of the research done has been funded by manufacturers of electronic equipment, or industry organizations. (That this is a clear conflict of interest appears to have eluded those in a position to do anything about it.)
Public policy and risk management is based on this inadequate body of evidence.

The Golden Rule

There is a concept known as the Golden Rule in research today.

Basically, it goes like this: Those who have the gold make the rules.
What this is saying is that because research is expensive, it is usually funded by those with an agenda. The "results" of the research are known ahead of time, and the object of the research is to prove a point not supported by the facts currently in evidence.
This means that there is no funding for research that might tend to incriminate any part of the infrastructure, only for research that tends to support the agenda of the funding body.

Modern Risk Management

Another problem is the current intrepretation of risk management. People are reduced to being numbers. A hazard is determined to be without risk if the number of people affected is small.

The Bottom Line

In the light of insufficient evidence to make a determination, the current policy is to continue the proliferation of NIEMR producing technologies until such time as more evidence is available. The problem with this approach is best exemplified by the current power distribution system in the US.

The Current Power Distribution System

The Swedish government has done epidemiological studies on the incidence of childhood leukemia and nervous system cancers related to EMF exposure, based on data they have gathered for over 20 years.
About the same time the city council was hearing our appeal, the news media was filled with reports on the Swedish studies.
These studies showed not only a clear correlation between exposure to electromagnetic fields, (EMFs), from the power distribution system and childhood leukemia, but also determined a dose-response relationship. The normal incidence of childhood leukemia is about 1 in 20,000. Exposure to low-level magnetic fields from the power system may increase this risk to 1 in 5000.
While those charged with risk management might argue this is a very small figure, try that argument on the families of those 3 children in 20,000 who would not have developed the cancer in absence of the EMFs.
Many scientists now agree there is potential harm from even low frequency EMFs, and urge more research into biological effects of NIEMR.
However, there are thousands of households in the US today living under high-tension power distribution lines, that are exposed to what are now known to be harmful levels of EMFs. This is because the right-of-ways were created too narrow when EMFs were believed to be safe. Now it would cost too much to relocate all those families, and they are left to become future subjects of epidemiological studies.
This is significant because it provides an example of how hard it is to do anything about it once the technology is installed and we are dependant on it; even if we later find out it is harmful!

Black and White Issues

Like most people, I tend toward viewing things in black and white, right and wrong, up and down, in dipoles. So many of the factors in this experience were toally subjective, and couldn't be reduced to this simple binary view - it caused me to re-evaluate my need for simple labels, and clear ethics. Some of the surprises I got that caused me to change my perspective were:

Electronics (outside of manufacturing) is not a clean and safe industry,
The mandate of elected officials to "provide for the health and welfare" of the public is compromised by popular methods of "risk management",
Industry is not required to verify a product is safe before marketing it,
Elected officials are much more interested in providing a healthy environment for businesses than in providing a healthy environment for the general public,
Ethics are relative, not absolute.

Dragged Kicking and Screaming Out of My Hermit's Cave

Despite my desire to hide in my forest, I was dragged kicking and screaming out of my hermit's lair. I had no choice but to protect my right to be in the forest without becomming a guinea-pig for some ongoing experiment to determine if it is safe for humans to live in the path of microwaves. The city wasn't going to protect my interests. The county couldn't protect my interests. The state acted too slowly, and couldn't do anything anyway. The federal government has no microwave exposure standard for the general public, so they were no help. There was nobody to protect me from this unknown risk, except me. I had to fight against the tacit approval of all governing bodies, and a multi-national corporation with a different view of the future than I held. You just can't get away from this type of stuff, it will search you out.

Epilog

Eventually the city tired of the cellular carrier's blatant tactics. It was not enough that they were supported in their questionable plan by the lack of governmental responsibility, but the cellular carrier favored an approach based upon propaganda, lies, and misrepresentation to further support their cause. Fortunately for us, the cellular carrier ended up getting caught in several misrepresentations, and the city may have violated state law and their own general plan in granting the use permit, so our attorney worked out a "compromise" with the city and the cellular carrier. The tower was moved away from our neighborhood by slightly less than 200 feet, and lowered. We can't see the tower, but the microwaves are still there . . . a hollow victory.

Although some of the City Council was concerned about our point of view from the start, what really got their attention was the 500 signatures one of our neighbors got. Never underestimate the power of politics, and never underestimate your neighbor's compassion. Given the opportunity, most people would rather do the right thing.

For really good information on fighting Cellular Installations in your community, get the book "Your Community Guide to Cellular Towers", from the EMR Alliance.

Page last updated 1/30/97