Council Considers Cell Phone Tower Ban on Some Public Buildings

Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke wants to ban wireless communication towers on city property used for the "care and education of children."

Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke has introduced legislation looking to prevent the city from placing cell phone towers on city owned property, such as parks, schools and recreation centers, that are used for the "care and education of children."

On Monday, Clarke said she wanted to look at banning wireless communication towers from some city owned property because it is unknown if the towers have adverse health effects on children.

"Why take a chance?" Clarke asked.

She said the Montgomery County Board of Education has already taken the steps to ban the towers from being placed on elementary schools and play grounds, and that Baltimore should follow suit.

But the American Cancer Society expresses skepticism on its website about these towers having an adverse impact on resident’s health.

"Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea," according to the website.    

The bill was sent to the City Council’s Land Use and Transportation Committee for a hearing at a later date. 

A budget analyst in the city’s Finance Department was not immediately available to discuss how much the city makes from agreements allowing companies to place towers on public property.  

Sign up for our newsletter, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Contact editor Adam Bednar with any news tips. Want to write on your own? Skip the middle man. Join our Local Voices.

MaryJane December 08, 2012 at 03:39 AM
Able Baker - go the emf portal. http://www.emf-portal.de/ All of electromagnetic radiation research peer reviewed that exist.. with nice pie charts.
Malaprop December 09, 2012 at 07:58 PM
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.
sharon December 09, 2012 at 10:37 PM
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.
E Brown December 10, 2012 at 07:05 AM
Wireless Hazards Panel - Columbia University Law School http://vimeo.com/8521392
Malaprop December 10, 2012 at 08:28 AM
"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.
MaryJane December 10, 2012 at 03:26 PM
Yes his name is amusing . Malaprop clearly is a hired person or persons who often name calls post after post. He posts all over the country on the subject. He refuses to face the scientific evidence and calls anything that shows the deleterious effects of EMF "pseudoscience" and those who are concerned for their health "false prophets". I offered to meet him to at Dr. Darvis's press conference last month and he never could get to responding to my offer despite asking him several times. Most importantly he was criticizing one of the Doctor's speaking and I thought the best way to address it was to ask the Doctor himself at the conference. Malaprop was unable to respond . hmmm http://ehtrust.org/national-press-club-event-on-science-of-cell-phone-radiation-11-12-12-dc-video/
MaryJane December 10, 2012 at 04:32 PM
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.
MaryJane December 10, 2012 at 05:21 PM
http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/Six-Studies-Showing-IllHealth-Effects-From-Masts,60,2682 link to studies showing ill effects from cell tower masts
MaryJane December 10, 2012 at 05:22 PM
"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"
MaryJane December 12, 2012 at 02:21 AM
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.
MaryJane December 13, 2012 at 12:56 AM
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.
MaryJane December 14, 2012 at 02:58 PM
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
MaryJane December 15, 2012 at 04:09 PM
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."
MaryJane December 15, 2012 at 04:10 PM
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)."
MaryJane December 15, 2012 at 04:18 PM
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.
MaryJane December 15, 2012 at 05:11 PM
http://www.childhoodcancer2012.org.uk/slides/session7.3-henshaw.pdf Childhood Cancer 2012 Conference presentation on EMF and Childhood Cancer.
MaryJane December 15, 2012 at 05:17 PM
Start here. Educate yourselves parents! http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/
MaryJane December 15, 2012 at 05:18 PM
Everyone should be concerned. http://microwavenews.com/
MaryJane December 15, 2012 at 05:20 PM
http://www.centerforsaferwireless.org/Children.php money verses health.. hmm
MaryJane December 15, 2012 at 05:22 PM
ahh the EMF bully is here- how much money a letter do you make? Is it the telephone or power companies who pay you?
MaryJane December 16, 2012 at 03:29 AM
Magda Havas on wireless internet in school. http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/Declaration-of-Dr.-Magda-Havas.pdf Her page http://www.magdahavas.com/category/electrosmog-exposure/
MaryJane December 16, 2012 at 03:35 AM
Another INTERPHONE study says increased risk of brain tumors with high radio frequency exposure. "The long-awaited Cardis study, published January 2, 2012 in Occupational and Environmental Medicine (available online since June 2011), concludes that there is an increased risk of glioma (a type of brain tumor) in long-term mobile phone users with high RF (radio frequency) exposure and a lower risk for meningioma (a tumor of the membrane surrounding the brain)." http://www.magdahavas.com/another-interphone-study-says-increased-risk-of-brain-tumors-with-high-radio-frequency-exposure/
MaryJane December 16, 2012 at 04:09 AM
American Academy of Pediatricians Endorses Cell Phone Safety Legislation “The AAP strongly supports H.R. 6358’s emphasis on examining the effects of radiofrequency (RF) energy on vulnerable populations, including children and pregnant women. In addition, we are pleased that the bill would require the consideration of those effects when developing maximum exposure standards. Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child’s brain compared to an adult’s brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of RF energy deeper into their brains than adults,” wrote AAP President Thomas K. McInerny, MD, FAAP. http://kucinich.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=GOUO7IY46LMQDAPJQ3VXZD6C4A
MaryJane December 16, 2012 at 04:24 AM
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
Malaprop December 16, 2012 at 03:16 PM
I'm really not into the cell tower thing -- I prefer the smart meter debate, but the AAP does not suggest in its letter that cell phones cause cancer. They are asking for research and reevaluation of exposure standards. The following link was found on the AAP website and indicates that the AAP believes that evidence does not support causality between phones and childhood tumors: From the AAP website (searching on "cell phones"): "Healthy Children Radio: Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer?" (Audio) http://www.healthychildren.org/English/news/Pages/Healthy-Children-Radio-Do-Cell-Phones-Cause-Brain-Cancer-Audio.aspx  Date: 12/14/2011 "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) discusses concerns about cell phones and brain cancer on Healthy Children Radio." When you follow that link, you find the following: "Pediatric neurologist Paul Graham Fisher, MD, FAAP, comes on the Healthy Children Radio show to talk about concerns about cell phones and brain cancer." "According to Dr. Fisher, most of the data does not point to a link between cell phones and brain tumors, but there are good reasons why children should limit their time on cell phones. In a second segment, Dr. Fisher discusses when parents would take their child to a pediatric neurologist."
MaryJane December 17, 2012 at 01:42 PM
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.
MaryJane December 18, 2012 at 02:11 AM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44736879/Cell-Tower-Radiation-Report-sent-to-DOT-Department-of-Telecommunications a 2010 report on cell tower radiation
MaryJane December 18, 2012 at 02:22 AM
Malaprop- your info is old. Get with 2012. Now in 2012 the American Academy of Pediatricians Endorses Cell Phone Safety Legislation. and furthurmore in 2012the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider its radiation standards. Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/pediatricians-call-on-the-fcc-to-reconsider-cell-phone-radiation-standards/#ixzz2FMlo5Rj8
MaryJane December 18, 2012 at 04:02 AM
Now in 2012 the American Academy of Pediatricians Endorses Cell Phone Safety Legislation. and furthermore in 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider its radiation standards. Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/pediatricians-call-on-the-fcc-to-reconsider-cell-phone-radiation-standards/#ixzz2FMlo5Rj8
MaryJane December 20, 2012 at 01:16 AM
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


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something