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.
http://www.emf-portal.de/ All of electromagnetic radiation research peer reviewed that exist.. with nice pie charts.
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.
http://vimeo.com/8521392
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.
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/
link to studies showing ill effects from cell tower masts
(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"
RESONANCE is a sensational eye opening documentary which reveals the harm we are doing by existing in an ocean of man made wireless frequencies.
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
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."
"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)."
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.
Childhood Cancer 2012 Conference presentation on EMF and Childhood Cancer.
http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/
http://microwavenews.com/
money verses health.. hmm
http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/Declaration-of-Dr.-Magda-Havas.pdf Her page http://www.magdahavas.com/category/electrosmog-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/
“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
http://socialmediabar.com/death-lies-and-mutations-what-the-military-kept-from-the-public-on-microwave-radiation-part-1
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."
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.
a 2010 report on cell tower radiation
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
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