After going to great lengths on their website to remove any fear anyone has over cell phone safety here's the quote that follows which sums up the position of the FDA on this issue: "There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe."
How's that for a vote of confidence? Does that make you want to run out and extend your cell phone contract?
Wouldn't we want to establish proof of safety first, before something is placed on the market? We don't do this with pharmaceuticals or food or anything else. Why are cell phones exempt from proof of safety? Any medical professional will tell you tumors take 10, 15 even 20 years to develop. Cell phones have been on the market since 1983. However, only in the last 5-7 years has this market really exploded. Today's cell phone is a different technology than back in 1983, too. So we won't know for another five, 10 or 15 years if we're all participating in somebody's giant experiment or not.
In the meantime, use your cell phone safely and minimally.
4 comments:
A cell tower is coming on Park Ave in Edison NJ. The Edison city zoning board will probably accept the variances proposed by Omnipoint (read T-Mobile). The city ordinance states the closest homes should be 1000 feet away, but in the end the tower would be less than 100 feet from the first homes. A large community of about 250+ homes will be exposed to the tower (<1000 feet), and will face both health issues as listed in this blog, and property value decreases because the tower will be visible to all home buyers. The latest can help motivate more residents to fight the construction of the tower. Do you know which litigations proved that property value goes down and by how much? Regarding health, how can we get information on joining one of the seven class action lawsuits you mention? Even if we don't stop the tower, we will feature a nice "cancer cluster" within 5-10 years of T-mobile putting up their tower, as the population is extremely dense in the area of the tower. Let our numerous cancers and our other future health problems help the USA realize as soon as possible than Cell towers (and cell phones) are a great risk to people... But if you can help us NOW, please answer and give us advices...NO TO THE EDISON CELL TOWER! NO TO T-MOBILE! We want the right to live, for us and our children. Let the Edison city leaders (2007-2008) be remembered as the ennemies of Edison residents IF they allow that tower to be installed here! But if Edison City (Leaders, zoning board) fights Omnipoint/T-Mobile as other cities dare to, God bless them!
Thanks for your comments. So sorry to see this happening in your neighborhood.
You don't need to join the class-actions lawsuits. Since they are class-action you are automatically included.
Unfortunately, I don't have any information on how property values are affected. But I hear that all the time.
I would arm yourself with all the information possible to try to stop or delay the process.
There's a great DVD which you should get called "Public Exposure." It's put out by Ecological Options Network (EON). Their website is www.eon3.net. Lots of good information can be found on this DVD that would help you. I also just submitted an article for publication about cell phone towers. It has 6 good solid studies referenced on the issue of cell phone towers. I beleive this would be very valuable to your efforts. I'll email you as soon as the paper is accepted and published which should be any day now. Please stay in touch and keep me posted. Good luck with your efforts.
Thank you, we can use some help...
We just found we have neighbors in NJ, in Cranford, leading an organized battle against a cell tower:
http://residentsact.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-are-we-opposing-this-cell-tower.html
Their postings are quite useful for us...
I found this about property value:
"In some cases, regulators have denied an application to build a tower as a result of the anticipated diminution of property values. Courts have upheld some of these decisions. For example, in AT&T Wireless v. City of Virginia Beach, 979 F. Supp. 416, (E. D. Va. 1997) modified, 153 F. 3d 423 (4th Cir. 1998) the U. S Court of Appeals upheld the city's denial of a tower. It noted that the city's action rested on the traditional basis of zoning in seeking to preserve a neighborhood's character and avoid blight. In Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, 24 F. Supp. 2d 359, 364 (D. N. J. 1998), a federal district court upheld a denial of a tower that the municipality had determined would reduce the value of neighboring properties. Similarly, in Sprint Spectrum v. Willoth, 176 F. 3d 630, 639 (2d Cir. 1999), the U. S. Court of Appeals upheld a New York town's rejection of a tower proposal, which was partially based on their anticipated effects on property values. (OLR memo 99-R-0 655 describes this case in greater detail. )"
I will check back here periodically.
Great work.
Post a Comment