Mary Pat, why are you being so freakin granola? Grow some balls, there is no evidence of health problems from towers. Many of these towers are several stories away from areas of the buildings used by children (such as on supports well above the roofs of the buildings). Furthermore, I think it would be more beneficial to ban children from using cellphones all together. Also, those companies pay rent to the property owners of the land where their towers are, so Ms. Clark, How do you plan to make up for lost revenue from the lost rent from the cell carriers? - and - Are you willing to have entire areas lose cell phone service, which will happen?

MPC says "Why take a chance?"
Well IF you actually believe that, why no concern for adults in proximity to the towers Ms Clarke?

you just told a grown woman to "grow some balls".

i didn't read anything about towers being removed, so people losing service isn't a problem. as far as property owners losing rent money, the article states that the property in question is owned by the city, this is not about fixing a cell phone tower problem as much as not adding more of them.

Kids and teachers need access to the data that streams through these towers. It's an educational and practical necessity. To give that up in fear of phantom risks is harmful to children.

So suddenly there's a concern over city parks and schools and rec centers in the city?? I was under the impression that many of these places are, or already have been closed.
I also find it hard to believe that the city's finance department doesn't have this information available to discuss how much the city makes from this.
I'd like to see Adam follow up and provide this information, along with where the money actually goes.

This article refers to one source, The American Cancer Society, for guidance as to whether or not cell towers are harmful. Their perspective is not in alignment with the actual scientific evidence. There now are 1000's of studies that show that this type of microwave radiation is harmful, particularly to children. There is no shortage of evidence.

http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/

http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp

http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Sutro-Tower-EMF-Cancer29may00.htm

http://www.slideshare.net/nehakumar01/cell-tower-radiation-report-2010-dot-india

A couple of more. There are 1000s if you look.

Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk
from Mobile Phone Base Stations
VINI G. KHURANA, LENNART HARDELL, JORIS EVERAERT, ALICJA BORTKIEWICZ,
MICHAEL CARLBERG, MIKKO AHONEN
INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH 2010;16:263–267

Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the ...
www.lambtonshores.ca/Docs/BrazilStudySmall.pdfShare

Baltimore Matt..you are sadly informed and akin to an Ostrich. For whatever reason people like you are abundant and rather than erring on the side of caution insist there is no problem despite the fact there have been thousands of studies conducted and peer reviewed however very little of this research has been conducted in North America. So for this reason you claim no problem? It has repeatedly been shown that biological health effects are happening at levels 70-80 percent lower than what the FCC/Health Canada deem as safe. Wake up!.

Indeed, the microwave, your cell phone and your wireless router are all sending microwave radiation into your head and home and indeed you should all be concerned as the United States is ignoring the scientific that exists and continues to be presented.
the following link is the Council of Europe's Parlimentary Assembly Resolution which says among other things Electromagnetic Fields " appear to have more or less potentially harmful, non-thermal, biological effects on plants, insects and animals as well as the human body, even when exposed to levels that are below the official threshold values"
http://assembly.coe.int/mainf.asp?link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta11/eres1815.htm

Able Baker you wanted evidence and there is plenty. go the the EMF portal if you want to see each study summarized.

Parents out there may be interested in this video by the Citizens for Safe Technology where Medical Doctors discuss the evidence. http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/video-and-resources,8,0

Children absorb the radiation more than adults and their brains and bodies are developing so they are more effected, just as the fetus's are.

MaryJane:

I see you have arrived back from California to continue to post your pseudoscience on this blog.

Please let us know how you are progressing with middle school math. Have you learned how to calculate a weighted average yet? It would do you some good before getting over your head with epidemiology and electromagnetism.

Do you understand how the height of the transmitter and the directionality of the signal determine the exposure at various distances? Here's a hint -- the signal intensity is not necessarily greatest near the base of the antenna. There is a good engineering reason for that, but I suspect you are clueless.

The misunderstanding height of the signal, the inverse square law and its directionality is one of the most obvious signs of ignorance. It is the reason most, if not all, cell tower studies are worthless.

You do little other than parrot the misleading information on activist websites. I do not believe you do this with malice -- I am quite certain you are grossly uninformed and incapable of consuming knowledge.

I'm not really interested in this debate, but I thought I'd pay a courtesy call to return your favor. Looks like Baltimore Matt and Able Baker are onto the science fraud.

For people new to this issue, you should know that the industry pays people to lurk on sites and to participate, demean and mislead so that actual informed debate is disrupted. The industry fears that facts will come out because this could affect their bottom line (billions each year in profit.) They hire people to say nasty things about individuals and to make untrue statements that sound significant like "directionality of signals, etc." I'm sure Mary Jane is fully capable of defending herself but I could not keep quiet. What is truly amusing is Malaprop's name. A malapropism is using a similar sounding word instead of the correct one to mislead or amuse! How very appropriate.

Wireless Hazards Panel - Columbia University Law School

http://vimeo.com/8521392

"Wireless Hazards Panel - Columbia University Law School"

Listen to the attorney discuss various "emerging opportunities" for lawyers. It should be obvious that trial attorneys are among those behind the pseudoscience. They stand to reap windfalls should they be able to manipulate a favorable outcome from a misinformed jury.

Notice also Camilla Reese promoting her website which contains links to various RF shielding products.

The fraudulent science parroted by E Brown, MaryJane, sharon and others is all about making lawyers, consultants, RF shielding vendors and other activists rich from the good work of other people.

The gullible will fall for the consultants and RF shielding, but all of us will ultimately subsidize whatever the lawyers extract.

Someone needs to expose these opportunists for what they are.

The only gullible person is the one who refuses to look at the science in front of their face because it is such a pain to consider the alternative, scary indeed, takes courage to face the truth.

http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/Six-Studies-Showing-IllHealth-Effects-From-Masts,60,2682

link to studies showing ill effects from cell tower masts

"There are no known studies relating to health effects of masts that do not show such ill-health effects. In this respect, any statement by industry or official sources that claims (or suggests) that:

(a) There is no evidence of ill-health effects from masts; or
(b) The overwhelming evidence is that masts do not cause ill-health effects;

is completely and blatantly untrue.

Dr Grahame Blackwell"

Glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, leukemia, DNA damage, chromosomal abnormalities, blood brain barrier leakage, calcium efflux, sperm head abnormalities, DNA and RNA oxidative damage in the mitochondria, reproductive abnormalities, Alzheimers, breast cancer risk, increase in primary malignancies, changes in corticosterone levels and immune system function.

http://vimeo.com/54189727
RESONANCE is a sensational eye opening documentary which reveals the harm we are doing by existing in an ocean of man made wireless frequencies.

Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2012 Dec 6. [Epub ahead of print]
Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis in radio and TV broadcasting stations workers.

The results indicate that exposure to radiofrequency EMF may affect the neurovegetative regulation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23224733?dopt=Abstract

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_022.pdf

The 2010 report on health effects of RF
Still llots of unknowns but peliminary evidence seems important for example.. Increased DNA damage was shown after RF field exposure in human lens epithelial cells(hLECs) (Yao et al. 2008). This effect was blocked by superimposing electromagneticnoise (2 μT). Twenty-four hour intermittent exposure (1.8 GHz, 1, 2, 3 and 4 W/kg) wasused, and the alkaline comet assay and microscope detection of the phosphorylated formof histone variant H2AX (gammaH2AX) foci (a novel and very sensitive method to detectDNA strand breaks) was applied. DNA damage was significantly increased (p<0.05) after3 and 4 W/kg exposures."

or on page 23,
"In addition, markers of apoptosis were
detected after a 24-h exposure, including a significant decrease (p<0.01) in mRNA levelsof Bcl-2 and survival genes. On the molecular level it was also shown that RF fieldinduced a transient increase in Egr-1 mRNA level paralleled with the activation of theMAPK pathway (Buttiglione et al. 2007)."

and all two years ago- before the 2011 Class 2 B statement.
More research is out and this month they will hopefully be presenting a new opinion taking into account new data.
Funny but in 2010 about ELF fields they state" The epidemiological studies indicate an increased risk ofleukaemia in children exposed to ELF fields." and " Further epidemiological and experimental investigations
of the apparent association between ELF and the development of Alzheimer's diseaseshould be given priority."

hmm shall we let the RF debate go as the ELF debate goes.... ? and wait years until more research is done.. and still wait.. possibly resulting in long term exposure of a deadly pollutant. That is the question.

http://www.childhoodcancer2012.org.uk/slides/session7.3-henshaw.pdf

Childhood Cancer 2012 Conference presentation on EMF and Childhood Cancer.

What the Military Kept from the Public on Microwave Radiation

http://socialmediabar.com/death-lies-and-mutations-what-the-military-kept-from-the-public-on-microwave-radiation-part-1

this just out... not good ...
Effects of Electromagnetic Fields of Cellular Phone on Cortisol and Testosterone Hormones Rate in Syrian Hamsters http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?l=e&aid=20315

There was no significant difference of testosterone and cortisol serum levels between the control group and the group exposed for 10 days. However, compared to the control group the testosterone and cortisol levels increased in the group exposed for 50 days.
The authors conclude that long-term (50 days) exposure to cellular phones could impair endocrine homeostasis.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44736879/Cell-Tower-Radiation-Report-sent-to-DOT-Department-of-Telecommunications

a 2010 report on cell tower radiation

Dr. Annie Sasco, Ph.D. (Epidemiology) with three Harvard degrees, the former Director of WHO's IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) for 22 years, has stated publicly that: "Contrary to Industry claims, there is CONCRETE evidence that EMR from wireless technology and cell phones causes cancer." http://www.safeinschool.org/2012/04/mobile-phones-are-safe-not-interview.html