The First Parish Unitarian Church may someday soon attempt to lease its steeple for cell antennas. If the church signs a wireless contract it will become an accomplice in what scientists refer to as the largest worldwide biological experiment ever.
By inking a deal with T-Mobile, the church will sanction the involuntary exposure of children and families, two nursery schools, a large day care center nearby, and others in the neighborhood to manmade microwave radiofrequency radiation (RFR). All would become guinea pigs in the wireless experiment.
The current scientific evidence (yes, it’s peer-reviewed, weighty and alarming) has established proof of adverse biological effects from these RFR (and EMF) exposures. The biological effects at the cellular level include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations, cell death including death of brain neurons, increased free radical production, micronuclei formation, compromised blood-brain barrier, heat shock protein formation, immune system suppression, calcium ion efflux, increased cell proliferation, and melatonin and dopamine suppression.
The scientific evidence links biological effects to various health consequences, cancers (including brain tumors), neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS and MS), leukemia, miscarriage, and loss of fertility.
Other health effects are sleep disorders, fatigue, headaches, skin rashes, and impairment of cognitive function.
Cindy Sage, MA, co-editor of "The Bioinitiative Report," writes, "Can RFR adversely affect vital processes in the human body? The answer is clearly yes."
In 2007 an international scientific group released "The Bioinitiative Report" (www.bioinitiative.org), a 650-page review summarizing the world’s understanding about the biological effects of RFR and ELF (extremely low frequencies). This groundbreaking report concluded scientific evidence indicates the current safety standards (1,000 microwatts/cm2 for cell antennas) formulated by industry associations, mostly engineering groups and adopted by the FCC, do not protect the public.
The report recommends a new "biologically based" safety limit of 0.1 microwatt/cm2 (0.614 V/m) for outdoor, cumulative RF exposure to "reflect the current RF science and prudent public health response that would reasonably be set for pulsed RF (ambient) exposures where people live, work and go to school." This safety limit is 10,000 times stricter than the FCC limit.
In 1999 the U.S. Interagency RF Working Group identified flaws in the FCC’s current standard which is based on science as of 1986. The standard only considers exposing a 6-foot tall male (not a fetus, pregnant woman, infant, child, the ill or elderly, or people with medical or metal implants, who wear metal objects, or are electrohypersensitive).
The FCC standard is based on the false theory that a person is harmed only if his or her skin heats (the thermal effect). That standard is also based on physics and engineering models, not on biology; on short-term exposures of six minutes, not chronic 24-7 exposures (near cell antennas); on exposure from a single antenna, not multiple antennas; and on exposures at 6 feet above ground, not exposures to people inhabiting spaces above the first floor.
The FCC admitted to Congress that it adopted a standard set by industry organizations because the FCC has "no expertise" in health.
How does the power density of the microwave radiation from T-Mobile’s antennas, which may end up in First Parish’s steeple, compare with the recommendation from "The Bioinitiative Report"?
According to the San Francisco Department of Health, one T-Mobile installation would emit up to 190 microwatts/cm2 which is 1,900 times greater than the limit from "The Bioinitiative Report." This means our cells "react" at a level of exposure 1,900 times lower than the level of radiation exposure our bodies will be subjected to from the T-Mobile antenna. So, contrary to what some industry engineers and physicists claim about "harmless low watts of power," the T-Mobile antenna would "give" our cells quite a zap.
Martin Blank, PhD, of Columbia University and past president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, says that "DNA in living cells recognizes EMF at very low levels of exposure (cell antennas); and produces a biochemical stress response in the body. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention."
First Parish has no clue it is a pawn in the worldwide environmental justice struggle between the interests of the trillion dollar multinational telecommunications industry, and their allies, including the U.S. military, and the interests and rights of Americans to be protected, not harmed.
Should we be skeptical of the FCC, the American Cancer Society, and the WHO, when we are told there are no health hazards? Should we believe those who only talk about the mechanical effect (e.g., heat) and not the biological effect of RFR on the human body? Or rather should we listen to the independent experts in the life, health and medical sciences?
Articles such as "Electroshocker" in January’s Prevention magazine and "Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health" in GQ’s February issue, and the award-winning film "Full Signal" are eye openers.
Outside the U.S., the telecommunications industry’s tight grip is waning. In 2008, the EU Parliament voted 522 to 16 that safety standards for EMF are "obsolete." Belgium, Austria, Italy, Poland, Russia, China, Luxembourg and Switzerland have tightened their safety standards.
In 2008, Lichtenstein adopted the 0.1 microwatts/cm2 limit, and last November, the French government gave 16 municipalities (out of 238 requesting permission) the right to regulate antennas at the lower limit of 0.1 microwatts/cm2 (0.6 V/m), down from 1,000 microwatts/cm2.
European courts are also taking heed. In 2008, the French Versailles Court of Appeals ordered antennas be dismantled, stating the telecom company "had not demonstrated either the absence of risk or respect for any principle of precaution in locating antennas."
In his GQ article, Christopher Ketcham acknowledges that "the evidence (of health risks) is starting to pour in, and it’s not pretty. So why isn’t anyone in America doing anything about it?"
Until the time our government acts, it is groups, such as First Parish, who must act as the line of defense to protect the public from more exposures to wireless radiation. The neighbors who will be exposed to unwanted RFR are the legitimate stakeholders whose choice to reject the installation of antennas should be honored. The Los Angeles Unified School District acted last year to prohibit cell antennas on or near its property.
Olle Johansson, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, has pondered, "What happens when we, 24 hours around the clock, wherever we are, allow ourselves and our children to be used as guinea pigs, for whole-body-irradiation for the rest of our lives?"
First Parish must decide which is more important – rental money for allowing the use of its steeple for a commercial venture or risking people’s health, well-being, even their lives. We should all hope that First Parish will act as a good neighbor and reject T-Mobile’s proposed contract.
National WorkerRF Safety Crisis Video Our nations’ workers and the welfare of their families
are at risk! Watch the video to see how.
Largest worldwide biological experiment ever
Source: Wicked Local
Date: 02/11/2010
