|
Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center Page 2 of 6
<br />criticized as being "an arm of the industry". Many who work for the FCC are either
<br />past, present or future employees of the very industries they are supposed to
<br />regulate. With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake,
<br />critics have stated "you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they
<br />want them to show."
<br />Our federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide,
<br />and the blood supply were "safe", but which were later found to be harmful.
<br />With a $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, " you can bet that their studies are
<br />going to show whatever they want them to show."
<br />Cathy Bergman-Veniza, at Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center
<br />Conference, 1996
<br />The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-
<br />1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective in the world.
<br />More progressive European countries have set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower
<br />than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts, Russia, Italy, and Toronto,
<br />Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland, at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1
<br />mircowatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed
<br />yet more stringent levels, at.02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the
<br />U.S. standard. 3, 4
<br />Contrary to what the communications industry tells us, there is vast scientific,
<br />epidemiological and medical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and
<br />microwave radiation emitted from cell towers, even at low levels, can have profound
<br />adverse effects on biological systems. 5, 6, 7, 8
<br />There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation,
<br />even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems.
<br />Scientists and advocacy groups say that the current FCC "safe" standards are
<br />based on 1985 research, and fail to consider more recent research that found brain
<br />cancer, memory impairment, DNA breakdown, and neurological problems with RF
<br />at much lower levels. The earlier studies considered only the "thermal", or heating
<br />effects of the radiationin other words, the level at which the radiation would heat
<br />tissue, or " cook" a person, in the same exact manner that a microwave oven works.
<br />The FCC levels may ensure our tissues are not "cooked", but they fail to address
<br />long-term chronic exposure at low levels, or what is called "non-thermal" effects.
<br />Doctors say that RF radiation is wreaking havoc with normal biological cell
<br />functions. "RF alters tissue physiology", says Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist
<br />who found genetic damage in a $28 million research program, paid for by the
<br />industry. He now fights to have safety levels lowered. 9
<br />In 1998 the Vienna Resolution, signed by 16 of the world's leading
<br />bioelectromagnetic researchers, provided a consensus statement that there is
<br />scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposure are
<br />established. It says existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable
<br />exposure standards. No safe exposure level can be established at this time.
<br />The world's leading electromagnetic researchers say existing scientific knowledge is
<br />inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. The Vienna Resolution, 1998
<br />The Salzburg Resolution, adopted in 2000 at the International Conference on Cell
<br />Tower Siting, would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than A mW/cm2
<br />10,000 times more strict than the current U.S. standard. This limit takes into
<br />account the growing evidence for non-thermal RF bioeffects. 10
<br />http://www.mountshastaecoloo, org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone Tower R... 1/1-9/2014
<br />t,Y
<br />
|