Hello everyone, LUCHA received their nine wireless antenna cluster building permit, right after Maldonado told us that he would place a hold on the permit. Maldonado has asked LUCHA to hold a Community Meeting. Paula and I have been in touch with LUCHA several different times via several different ways but they have not been forthcoming with any information. We remain extremely concerned and consider this antenna to be the greatest threat to our community well-being at this time. If you have any doubt about the potential loss of your Real Estate value, talk to an experienced Realtor, or read some of the links below. My research clearly indicates that placement of industrial structures and/or equipment in residential areas has a negative impact on home values. Add in a health risk originating from that industrial source and value decreases at a greater rate. Those effects are immediate. If you have any doubt about the health risks, visit some of the links below. Not one study states that we are safe from long-term health risks. So, we have lost the battle because they got their permit, but we haven't lost the war. We must rally to fight against this threat. For starters, those of you who have not written the Alderman, please email him, call him, or stop in on Monday for Ward Night. Have your voice heard. He has power and we must ask him to use that power to protect us. Signing a petition and expressing your protest was an important first step, but taking subsequent action is more important. I have seen Aldermen stop permitted construction. I have asked Maldonado to support our opposition, and he remains silent. He promised us that he would place a hold on the permit and then the permit was issued. Won't you reach out to communicate your concerns? As an Alderman with over a dozen Real Estate investments, among the highest of any Alderman, it should be easy for him to understand our concerns about suffering a loss of value on what to many of us is our biggest investment. I'll be in touch with plans in the near future. If any of your have any ideas about how to move forward I would be happy to hear from you. This is important and we are running out of time. Make your voice count. Kurt Gippert Sorry for the jumble of links below, but I don't have time to organize them or tell you which are the best. But I've looked through many of them and I am terrified. There is no reason to take this risk. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Health study as reported in a NBC Chicago report: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Are-Kids-at-Risk-Scores-of-Chicago-Area-Schools-Allow-Cell-Towers-on-Their-Buildings-Grounds-395744921.html It turns out the National Toxicology Study was done in Chicago at the Illinois Institute of Technology. And its findings were reported worldwide. Abstract here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/23/055699 “This is by far the largest study that’s ever been done in the world by at least a factor of three on cell phone radiation,” said Dr. David McCormick, who ran that project. “We built a special laboratory for the program, at a cost of about $10 million.” During the study some 3,000 rats and mice were continuously exposed to high levels of RF for two years. McCormick says about 8 percent of the animals developed brain tumors and other complications. Otherwise known as malignant gliomas in the brain and/or schwannomas of the heart http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2014/07/25/cell-towers-antennas-problematic-for-buyers http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/the-lo-down-on-cell-towers-neighborhood-values-and-the-secretive-telecoms/ https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=1&ref=realestate ??? very technical ??? http://www.prres.net/papers/Bond_Squires_Using_GIS_to_Measure.pdf @ approx 6 min: http://glendale.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=12&clip_id=1227 Indeed, 27 Burbank real estate professionals in December 2009, signed a petition/statement offering their professional opinion that the proposed T-Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon Park would negatively impact the surrounding homes, stating: "It is our professional opinion that cell towers decrease the value of homes in the area tremendously. Peer reviewed research also concurs that cell sites do indeed cause a decrease in home value. We encourage you to respect the wishes of the residents and deny the proposed T-Mobile lease at this location. We also request that you strengthen your zoning ordinance regarding wireless facilities like the neighboring city of Glendale has done, to create preferred and non preferred zones that will protect the welfare of our residents and their properties as well as Burbank's real estate business professionals and the City of Burbank. Higher property values mean more tax revenue for the city, which helps improve our city." (Submitted to City Council, Planning Board, City Manager, City Clerk and other city officials via e-mail on June 18, 2010. To see a copy of this, scroll down to bottom of page and click "Subpages" or go here: http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value/burbank-real-estate-professionals-statement ) http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/48444.pdf https://www.emfacts.com/2006/05/santa-cruz-preschool-closes-citing-cell-tower-radiation/ https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/may/25/houseprices.uknews https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/reasonable-discrimination-allowed *****In addition, the evidence shows that opposition to the application rested on traditional bases of zoning regulation: preserving the character of the neighborhood and avoiding aesthetic blight. If such behavior is unreasonable, then nearly every denial of an application such as this will violate the Act, an obviously absurd result. https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/we-have-coverage *****There is a burden of proof to be met by the applicant that a truly “significant” gap in coverage actually exists in the location where the applicant proposes to install a wireless facility Advice to residents opposing proposed wireless facilities: recommend that your City suggest available alternative, and less intrusive sites than the location proposed, when needed. Residents, also feel free to suggest alternative and less intrusive sites during the development, evaluation, public hearing process and/or appeal process. It's within your right. Print out the wireless applications of examples requiring such information, below, and get your cities if they haven't already to update their wireless ordinance to require such information. Also find out and document if there is no "significant gap" in your area. Just last year, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Sprint PCS Assets v. the City of Palos Verdes (October 2009) and T-Mobile v the City of Anacortes (July 20, 2009), explained that the “effective prohibition”P1P inquiry involves a “two-pronged” analysis requiring: (1) the showing of a “significant gap” in service coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations. In T-Mobile v the City of Anacortes, the City conceded a significant gap existed, so the Court stated that the provider then had the burden of showing the lack of available and technologically feasible alternatives to close the gap, for instance, exploring and researching reasonable and viable alternative locations (called the “least intrusive means” standard). P2 The Ninth Circuit noted that this standard: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/alternative-locations *****allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the last one remaining after a series of application denials.P3 https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/aesthetics-and-safety *****The R-1 Single Family Residential zone is intended for neighborhoods of single family dwellings separated from multiple family and non-residential uses. The R-1 zone is appropriate for very low density single family development and, with limited exceptions, is generally not appropriate for non-residential development. https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/science-research-health-effects *****The FDA also helped the FCC establish its current RF exposure guidelines. On its website discussion of cell phone health issues, the FDA explains that: RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat) and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies. While RF energy doesn’t ionize particles, large amounts can increase body temperatures and cause tissue damage. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because there is relatively little blood flow in them to carry away excess heat. The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations….The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified. …The exposure guidelines did not consider information that addresses nonthermal, prolonged exposures, i.e., from research showing effects with implications for possible adversity in situations involving chronic/prolonged, low-level (nonthermal) exposures. Relatively few chronic, low-level exposure studies of human populations have been reported and the majority of these studies do not show obvious adverse health effects. However, there are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur. Since EPA’s comments were submitted to the FCC in 1993, the number of studies reporting effects associated with both acute and chronic low-level exposure to RF radiation has increased. …The FCC does not claim that their exposure guidelines provide protection for exposures to which the 4 W/kg SAR basis does not apply, i.e., exposures below the 4W/kg threshold level that are chronic/prolonged and nonthermal…there is uncertainty about possible risk from nonthermal, intermittent exposures that may continue for years. ….Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures. (Source: 2002 EPA letter re: limitations of FCC RF radiation exposure guidelines: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf) Campanelli***** http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/questions-answers/ Campanelli***** http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/anti_cell_lawyer_1_018.htm http://gattonweb.uky.edu/Faculty/blomquist/LE%202016%20Locke%20Blomquist%20towers.pdf www.stopthecelltower.com/uploads/1/.../fact_sheet_on_property_value_impacts.docx file:///C:/Users/K/Downloads/Snapshot-5256.pdf http://www.sedonasmartmeterawareness.com/PROPERTY-VALUES.html https://takebackyourpower.net/real-estate-survey-results-cellgrid-towers-impact-propertys-desirability/ https://professional.sauder.ubc.ca/re_creditprogram/course_resources/courses/content/330/11_Bond%20-%20The%20Effect%20of%20Distance%20to%20Cell%20Phone%20Towers.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Appraisal-Journal/135216933.html 1.82% @ 100 feet away***** http://le.uwpress.org/content/92/1/131.refs https://dscelltower.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/cell-towers-and-our-real-estate-values/ http://www.keithvaluation.com/research/cell_tower_study.pdf http://www.prres.net/Papers/Bond_The_Impact_Of_Cellular_Phone_Base_Station_Towers_On_Property_Values.pdf http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/171851340.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5011857/The-impact-of-cell-phone.html http://www.coolharts.com/Cell%20Tower/The-Impact-of-Wireless-Towers-on-Residential-Property-Values1.pdf http://www.cnbc.com/id/49917076 http://www.aacoacts.org/property-values/ *****Includes letters of protest from professionals Children and Seniors***** http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_208_e_28944.html http://jdhall.com/cell-phone-towers-in-charleston-sc-property-values/ 100 times less exposure in Switzerland than Canada ***** https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/06/17/cellphone_towers_often_unwelcome_neighbours.html *****German Study https://www.springerprofessional.de/wireless-towers-and-home-values-an-alternative-valuation-approac/12076686 https://www.thelundreport.org/content/construction-t-mobile-cell-towers-halted-neighbors-still-have-concerns ******Germany, Australia, Israel, and Sweden http://afrmortgage.com/blog/items-that-may-be-detrimental-to-resale/#.WNgInPnyvIU http://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=1&topic=5433 *****LONG GROVE, IL 2016 http://www.longgrove.net/sites/default/files/01e%20-%20PCZBA%205.3.16%20William%20Blackburn%20Petition%20Opposing%20Cell%20Tower.pdf 01e - PCZBA 5.3.16 William Blackburn Petition Opposing Cell Tower.pdf http://www.liveindia.com/news/radiation3.html Nigeria***** http://infinitypress.info/index.php/cas/article/viewFile/872/494 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7020921612.pdf *****Other municipalites have elected to prohibit antennas in residential neighborhoods http://www.cityofnewnan.org/document_center/zoning/Art__3_Ch_37_Telecommunication_Towers.pdf http://www.ranchosantafereview.com/sdrsf-cell-tower-contract-homes-2016feb08-story.html 2010 Study finds current ICNIRP RF safety standards in Europe (similar to FCC's) may be non compliant with existing safety standards, in respect to cell tower exposure, by G Verneeren (2010), The influence of the reflective environment on the absorption of a human male exposed to representative base station antennas from 300 MHz to 5 GHz: http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/55/18/018 Flaws with FCC Guidelines: Excerpt from "Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Harcourt Brace" (1995) by B. Blake Levitt: http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/fcc_flaws.pdf VIDEO - Watch this enlightening and disturbing clip from the "Radiant Day" documentary by Norwegian (NRK) television (with English subtitles) about the harmful effects of cell towers; this particular clip reveals the conflict of interest in the membership of the engineering association that sets our RF safety standards -- many of its members are from the telecom industry: http://www.youtube.com/user/BurbankACTION#p/f/1/AHhfjQ1_JVw and to watch the complete original documentary (with English subtitles), go here: http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/428197/ (video will take some time to load, so please be patient, this documentary is definitely a must watch). VIDEO: Watch the "Full Signal" documentary: www.fullsignalmovie.com and/or contact its director Talal Jabari to arrange for a screening in your community. VIDEO: Interview (40 minutes) with Environmental Consultant Cindy Sage regarding Bioinitiative Report and non-ionizing radiation, including warnings about cell towers and how our standards of safe levels need to be changed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tZDor-_co0 or http://videos.next-up.org/BioInitiative/InterviewCindySage/012008.html Are there studies finding adverse health effects, including cancer, in those living near cell towers (mobile phone base stations) compared/in contrast to those living further away? Yes! In contrast, most of the studies examining base station exposure on humans in laboratory settings were SHORT-TERM (not realistic) exposure and did not yield the same results. Here are some of these studies, as well as articles about health concerns from cell tower radiation exposure: New study: An NIH study of cell phones and the brain showed definite effects on the brain and nervous system from cell phone use. The lead researcher, Nora D. Volkow, said "I confess that after the findings I changed my behavior". She now uses it on speakerphone or earphone. She says "We have a responsibility to investigate whether there are or there are not long lasting consequences from repeated stimulation after five or ten years of cell phone exposure. Watch the ABC World News report on Feb 22, 2011: http://abcnews.go.com/watch/world-news-with-diane-sawyer/SH5585921/VD55113679/world-news-222-new-zealand-earthquake-the-search-for-survivors. The cell phone story is at 14 minutes 25 seconds. You can click to it on the progress bar by going to 14:25. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), "Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism," 2011; 305(8): pages 808-813: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract New study: Important review of the biological effects for those living near antennas: "Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays," by Blake B. Levitt and Henry Lai, published in Environmental Reviews, a journal of the Canadian National Research Council. Received 30 April 2010. Accepted 6 August 2010. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at er.nrc.ca on 5 November 2010:: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blake_Levit-Henry_Lai.pdf New study finds "an increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances less than 500 (1500 feet) meters from base stations in 80% of the available studies," by Khurana et al. (2010), "Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations": http://www.brain-surgery.us/Khurana_et_al_IJOEH-Base_Station_RV.pdf New peer-reviewed study finds adverse health symptoms increase for those living closer to cell tower, and current exposure limits do not provide adequate protection, by Horst Eger and Manfred Jahn (Feb 2010): English-language version: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/horst-eger-manfred-jahn-study-feb-2010 (translation to English by Katharina Gustavs) Very new study finds that the the longer these rats were exposed to cell phone radiation, the shorter their lives; this study funded by the telecom industry has disturbing implications, by Bartsch, Küpper, Scheurlen, et.al, Neuro Endocrinol Lett., August 2010: http://www.emf-portal.org/viewer.php?l=e&aid=18588 (Thanks to Dr. Horst Eger for alerting us to this study.) 10 out of 14 peer reviewed studies show health effects from wireless base stations (as of end of 2007): http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/10%20out%20of%2014%20peer-reviewed%20studies%20on%20base%20stations.pdf. Another summary of research findings: http://www.chronicexposure.org/basestations.html Powerwatch UK also has a helpful list of studies: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp More studies can be found on this website: http://www.emf-portal.org/ Nalia, Germany, study finds increased cancer risks within 400m (1200 ft) of mobile phone masts:"The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer," by Horst Eger, et al, published in Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft, April 17, 2004: http://www.vws.org/documents/11GermanreportInfluencemastcancer.pdf and summary: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041118_naila.asp. Germany, study finds adverse health symptoms for people living 500m (1500 ft) within cell phone towers: "Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional study in Germany," by Blettner M, et al, published in Occup Environ Med, Feb. 2009: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19017702?log$=activity Austria, Study shows health effects from living near cell phone base stations: "Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations" by Hutter HP, et al, published in Occup Environ Med, May 2006: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16621850 France, Study documenting adverse health effects for those living near mobile base stations (cell towers) recommends stations should not be less than 300 meters (900 feet) away from populations: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/RogerSantiniStudyHeealthPeopleLivingMobilePhoneBaseStations2002.pdf Israel, Study finds more cancers among population living within 350m of cell phone transmitter station: "Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station," by Ronni Wolf, MD and Danny Wolf, MD, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, April 2004: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050207_israel.pdf Egypt, Study reveals health effects from living around mobile phone base stations: "Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations," by Abdel-Rassoul G, et al, published in Neurotoxicology, Mar. 2007: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16962663 and summary also here: http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=1471&Title=Living%20near%20mobile%20phone%20base%20stations%20-%20research%20worries There are a host of other studies, reports, and conferences documenting the harmful effects of cell tower radiation. New: All-star panel of EMF and environmental health experts discuss harmful effects of RF radiation at Commonweal in San Francisco, CA, November 18, 2010. Read more and watch video here: http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cc-video/ Austria, Adverse health effects and cell phone base stations: http://expelcelltowers.org/download/CellTowerSitingHealthIssue.pdf Dutch study finds 3G cell phone towers cause health problems: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3157676.stm Health effects associated with mobile base stations: http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/cherry/neil_cherry1.htm Cell tower removed by phone company after residents die of cancer: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23407354-orange-to-remove-mobile-mast-from-tower-of-doom-where-cancer-rate-has-soared.do International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has unanimously concluded that power-frequency magnetic fields are possible human carcinogens. This finding, announced on June 27 (2001) in Lyon, France, is based on the consistent association between childhood leukemia and residential exposure to extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMFs): http://www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a01issue.pdf Lists of studies on RF radiation health effects on humans, biology, animals and plants: http://www.livingplanet.be/emrlinks.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Dept. concerned over potential adverse cell tower radiation effects on wildlife populations: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/manville_wildlife_towers.pdf Cell phone towers and its adverse effects on wildlife: http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/Balmori+2009.pdf and http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/lebm_balmori.pdf and http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/beebe_hill/balmori_amphibian.pdf Firefighters report adverse health effects from wireless towers on their stations; International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, pass moratorium on installing cell towers above fire stations: http://www.labornet.org/news/0904/celltower.htm and http://www.iaff.org/hs/Resi/CellTowerFinal.htm Communication Workers of America also concerned about health effects from RF radiation exposure: http://www.cwa-union.org/pages/Microwave_and_Radio_Frequency_Radiation Opposing cell towers near or in schools due to harmful RF exposure, May 22, 2009 letter to Los Angeles Unified School District from Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons: http://www.cloutnow.org/lausdpdf/ColumbiaUniversity.pdf Threat of harmful effects on human health and public safety from proposed Beebe Cell Tower: statement to Connecticut Siting Council at Oct. 12, 2006 public hearing from EMR Policy Institute, includes radiation exposure levels from site, and studies on health effects of low-intensity RF radiation: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/health_statement.pdf Nov. 2009, international scientists and medical doctors issue Porto Alegre Resolution addressing low-level RF radiation exposure effects and including recommendations about tower siting: http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Porto_Alegre_Resolution.pdf Other doctor initiatives: http://www.chronicexposure.org/doctorinitiative.html Cellular Towers: A Medical Issue by Blake Levitt: http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/waveguide_3/medical-issue.html The largest biological experiment ever by Arthur Firstenberg, from the March 2007 Idaho Observer: http://proliberty.com/observer/20070307.htm Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation by Karen J. Rogers: http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_Radiation.html The Radiation Poisoning of America by Amy Worthington: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/AmyWorthingtonTheRadiationPoisoningOfAmerica17112007.pdf Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard (includes studies about cell tower radiation and biological effects): http://www.emrpolicy.org/resources/books_videos/cell_towers_levitt.pdf Alaska Supreme Court case reveals problems with FCC RF radiation safety standard: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/radio_frequency_radiation Article on mobile phone towers and radiation: how dangerous are they? Author Eileen O'Connor cites various studies proving health and cancer risks for those living near towers: http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=970 Breast Cancer Fund, on the health effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation: http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/chemicals-glossary/nonionizing-radiation.html and write to the FCC to update their standards: https://secure3.convio.net/bcf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=158 EM-Radiation Research Trust, United Kingdom: http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20061101_base_stations_health_concerns.pdf San Francisco Medical Association Journal, "Microwave And Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: A Growing Environmental Health Crisis?" by Cindy Sage, about RF radiation exposure in our environment, including cell towers: http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=1770&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&SECTION=Article_Archives. Pediatrics Journal, American Academy of Pediatrics: Study reveals children have higher sensitivity and absorption of radiation from electromagnetic and radio frequency fields: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/2/e303 Latest studies on EMF and health, "Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Special Issue," Pathophysiology (Journal of the International Society of Physiology), August 2009, Vol. 16, Issue 2-3, Pages 67-250, edited by Martin Blank: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/patphy/issues/contents?issue_key=S0928-4680%2809%29X0003-9 Eileen O'Connor's Breast Cancer Story: http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1557 Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization – New Book by Sam Milham, MD, MP: http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/sam-milham/ What does the telecom industry know about low-level RF radiation and its health effects? What are they not telling us? Industry bias and cover-ups revealed in this enlightening investigative report, Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health by Christopher Ketcham, GQ Magazine, February 2010: http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation Industry bias also shows up in cell phone studies: http://www.physorg.com/news174810947.html Microwave News investigates and exposes industry bias: http://www.microwavenews.com/docs/mwn.7-06.RR.pdf Long-term industry suppression and denial regarding research showing harmful effects of cell phone radiation. Read the illuminating Wake-up Call investigative report and cover story by Rob Harrill, Univ. of Washington Alumni Magazine, March 2005: http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html T-Mobile knew since 2000 about adverse health effects from cell phones and wireless base stations: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/phone_cancer_report_buried.htm T-Mobile & Ecologic Institute Germany study finds adverse health effects from cell phone and base stations: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php Swisscom Telecom company patent reveals dangers of wireless networks on DNA and health (thanks to Drs. Horst Eger and Dr. Manfred Jahn for referencing this patent in their Feb. 2010 study, and providing us with a copy, scroll to the bottom of this page and see "Attachment"); you can also read the Patent here with additional details: World Intellectual Property Organization website: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2004075583, and here, European Patent Office website: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=AU&NR=2003303939&KC=&FT=E. View/download PDF Version of the patent document: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20040902&DB=&locale=&CC=WO&NR=2004075583A1&KC=A1 Dr. George Carlo talks about the wireless technology and its relationship to brain damage, cancer, and mental illness: http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0612185/cg185_cellphone.shtml Health study as reported in a NBC Chicago report: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Are-Kids-at-Risk-Scores-of-Chicago-Area-Schools-Allow-Cell-Towers-on-Their-Buildings-Grounds-395744921.html It turns out the National Toxicology Study was done in Chicago at the Illinois Institute of Technology. And its findings were reported worldwide. Abstract here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/23/055699 “This is by far the largest study that’s ever been done in the world by at least a factor of three on cell phone radiation,” said Dr. David McCormick, who ran that project. “We built a special laboratory for the program, at a cost of about $10 million.” During the study some 3,000 rats and mice were continuously exposed to high levels of RF for two years. McCormick says about 8 percent of the animals developed brain tumors and other complications. Otherwise known as malignant gliomas in the brain and/or schwannomas of the heart http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2014/07/25/cell-towers-antennas-problematic-for-buyers http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/the-lo-down-on-cell-towers-neighborhood-values-and-the-secretive-telecoms/ https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=1&ref=realestate ??? very technical ??? http://www.prres.net/papers/Bond_Squires_Using_GIS_to_Measure.pdf @ approx 6 min: http://glendale.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=12&clip_id=1227 Indeed, 27 Burbank real estate professionals in December 2009, signed a petition/statement offering their professional opinion that the proposed T-Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon Park would negatively impact the surrounding homes, stating: "It is our professional opinion that cell towers decrease the value of homes in the area tremendously. Peer reviewed research also concurs that cell sites do indeed cause a decrease in home value. We encourage you to respect the wishes of the residents and deny the proposed T-Mobile lease at this location. We also request that you strengthen your zoning ordinance regarding wireless facilities like the neighboring city of Glendale has done, to create preferred and non preferred zones that will protect the welfare of our residents and their properties as well as Burbank's real estate business professionals and the City of Burbank. Higher property values mean more tax revenue for the city, which helps improve our city." (Submitted to City Council, Planning Board, City Manager, City Clerk and other city officials via e-mail on June 18, 2010. To see a copy of this, scroll down to bottom of page and click "Subpages" or go here: http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value/burbank-real-estate-professionals-statement ) http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/48444.pdf https://www.emfacts.com/2006/05/santa-cruz-preschool-closes-citing-cell-tower-radiation/ https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/may/25/houseprices.uknews https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/reasonable-discrimination-allowed *****In addition, the evidence shows that opposition to the application rested on traditional bases of zoning regulation: preserving the character of the neighborhood and avoiding aesthetic blight. If such behavior is unreasonable, then nearly every denial of an application such as this will violate the Act, an obviously absurd result. https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/we-have-coverage *****There is a burden of proof to be met by the applicant that a truly “significant” gap in coverage actually exists in the location where the applicant proposes to install a wireless facility Advice to residents opposing proposed wireless facilities: recommend that your City suggest available alternative, and less intrusive sites than the location proposed, when needed. Residents, also feel free to suggest alternative and less intrusive sites during the development, evaluation, public hearing process and/or appeal process. It's within your right. Print out the wireless applications of examples requiring such information, below, and get your cities if they haven't already to update their wireless ordinance to require such information. Also find out and document if there is no "significant gap" in your area. Just last year, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Sprint PCS Assets v. the City of Palos Verdes (October 2009) and T-Mobile v the City of Anacortes (July 20, 2009), explained that the “effective prohibition”P1P inquiry involves a “two-pronged” analysis requiring: (1) the showing of a “significant gap” in service coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations. In T-Mobile v the City of Anacortes, the City conceded a significant gap existed, so the Court stated that the provider then had the burden of showing the lack of available and technologically feasible alternatives to close the gap, for instance, exploring and researching reasonable and viable alternative locations (called the “least intrusive means” standard). P2 The Ninth Circuit noted that this standard: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/alternative-locations *****allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the last one remaining after a series of application denials.P3 https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/aesthetics-and-safety *****The R-1 Single Family Residential zone is intended for neighborhoods of single family dwellings separated from multiple family and non-residential uses. The R-1 zone is appropriate for very low density single family development and, with limited exceptions, is generally not appropriate for non-residential development. https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/science-research-health-effects *****The FDA also helped the FCC establish its current RF exposure guidelines. On its website discussion of cell phone health issues, the FDA explains that: RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation. Other types of non-ionizing radiation include visible light, infrared radiation (heat) and other forms of electromagnetic radiation with relatively low frequencies. While RF energy doesn’t ionize particles, large amounts can increase body temperatures and cause tissue damage. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because there is relatively little blood flow in them to carry away excess heat. The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations….The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified. …The exposure guidelines did not consider information that addresses nonthermal, prolonged exposures, i.e., from research showing effects with implications for possible adversity in situations involving chronic/prolonged, low-level (nonthermal) exposures. Relatively few chronic, low-level exposure studies of human populations have been reported and the majority of these studies do not show obvious adverse health effects. However, there are reports that suggest that potentially adverse health effects, such as cancer, may occur. Since EPA’s comments were submitted to the FCC in 1993, the number of studies reporting effects associated with both acute and chronic low-level exposure to RF radiation has increased. …The FCC does not claim that their exposure guidelines provide protection for exposures to which the 4 W/kg SAR basis does not apply, i.e., exposures below the 4W/kg threshold level that are chronic/prolonged and nonthermal…there is uncertainty about possible risk from nonthermal, intermittent exposures that may continue for years. ….Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures. (Source: 2002 EPA letter re: limitations of FCC RF radiation exposure guidelines: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf) Campanelli***** http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/questions-answers/ Campanelli***** http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/anti_cell_lawyer_1_018.htm http://gattonweb.uky.edu/Faculty/blomquist/LE%202016%20Locke%20Blomquist%20towers.pdf www.stopthecelltower.com/uploads/1/.../fact_sheet_on_property_value_impacts.docx file:///C:/Users/K/Downloads/Snapshot-5256.pdf http://www.sedonasmartmeterawareness.com/PROPERTY-VALUES.html https://takebackyourpower.net/real-estate-survey-results-cellgrid-towers-impact-propertys-desirability/ https://professional.sauder.ubc.ca/re_creditprogram/course_resources/courses/content/330/11_Bond%20-%20The%20Effect%20of%20Distance%20to%20Cell%20Phone%20Towers.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Appraisal-Journal/135216933.html 1.82% @ 100 feet away***** http://le.uwpress.org/content/92/1/131.refs https://dscelltower.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/cell-towers-and-our-real-estate-values/ http://www.keithvaluation.com/research/cell_tower_study.pdf http://www.prres.net/Papers/Bond_The_Impact_Of_Cellular_Phone_Base_Station_Towers_On_Property_Values.pdf http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/171851340.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5011857/The-impact-of-cell-phone.html http://www.coolharts.com/Cell%20Tower/The-Impact-of-Wireless-Towers-on-Residential-Property-Values1.pdf http://www.cnbc.com/id/49917076 http://www.aacoacts.org/property-values/ *****Includes letters of protest from professionals Children and Seniors***** http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_208_e_28944.html http://jdhall.com/cell-phone-towers-in-charleston-sc-property-values/ 100 times less exposure in Switzerland than Canada ***** https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/06/17/cellphone_towers_often_unwelcome_neighbours.html *****German Study https://www.springerprofessional.de/wireless-towers-and-home-values-an-alternative-valuation-approac/12076686 https://www.thelundreport.org/content/construction-t-mobile-cell-towers-halted-neighbors-still-have-concerns ******Germany, Australia, Israel, and Sweden http://afrmortgage.com/blog/items-that-may-be-detrimental-to-resale/#.WNgInPnyvIU http://www.mast-victims.org/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=1&topic=5433 *****LONG GROVE, IL 2016 http://www.longgrove.net/sites/default/files/01e%20-%20PCZBA%205.3.16%20William%20Blackburn%20Petition%20Opposing%20Cell%20Tower.pdf 01e - PCZBA 5.3.16 William Blackburn Petition Opposing Cell Tower.pdf http://www.liveindia.com/news/radiation3.html Nigeria***** http://infinitypress.info/index.php/cas/article/viewFile/872/494 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7020921612.pdf *****Other municipalites have elected to prohibit antennas in residential neighborhoods http://www.cityofnewnan.org/document_center/zoning/Art__3_Ch_37_Telecommunication_Towers.pdf http://www.ranchosantafereview.com/sdrsf-cell-tower-contract-homes-2016feb08-story.html 2010 Study finds current ICNIRP RF safety standards in Europe (similar to FCC's) may be non compliant with existing safety standards, in respect to cell tower exposure, by G Verneeren (2010), The influence of the reflective environment on the absorption of a human male exposed to representative base station antennas from 300 MHz to 5 GHz: http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/55/18/018 Flaws with FCC Guidelines: Excerpt from "Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Harcourt Brace" (1995) by B. Blake Levitt: http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/fcc_flaws.pdf VIDEO - Watch this enlightening and disturbing clip from the "Radiant Day" documentary by Norwegian (NRK) television (with English subtitles) about the harmful effects of cell towers; this particular clip reveals the conflict of interest in the membership of the engineering association that sets our RF safety standards -- many of its members are from the telecom industry: http://www.youtube.com/user/BurbankACTION#p/f/1/AHhfjQ1_JVw and to watch the complete original documentary (with English subtitles), go here: http://www.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/428197/ (video will take some time to load, so please be patient, this documentary is definitely a must watch). VIDEO: Watch the "Full Signal" documentary: www.fullsignalmovie.com and/or contact its director Talal Jabari to arrange for a screening in your community. VIDEO: Interview (40 minutes) with Environmental Consultant Cindy Sage regarding Bioinitiative Report and non-ionizing radiation, including warnings about cell towers and how our standards of safe levels need to be changed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tZDor-_co0 or http://videos.next-up.org/BioInitiative/InterviewCindySage/012008.html Are there studies finding adverse health effects, including cancer, in those living near cell towers (mobile phone base stations) compared/in contrast to those living further away? Yes! In contrast, most of the studies examining base station exposure on humans in laboratory settings were SHORT-TERM (not realistic) exposure and did not yield the same results. Here are some of these studies, as well as articles about health concerns from cell tower radiation exposure: New study: An NIH study of cell phones and the brain showed definite effects on the brain and nervous system from cell phone use. The lead researcher, Nora D. Volkow, said "I confess that after the findings I changed my behavior". She now uses it on speakerphone or earphone. She says "We have a responsibility to investigate whether there are or there are not long lasting consequences from repeated stimulation after five or ten years of cell phone exposure. Watch the ABC World News report on Feb 22, 2011: http://abcnews.go.com/watch/world-news-with-diane-sawyer/SH5585921/VD55113679/world-news-222-new-zealand-earthquake-the-search-for-survivors. The cell phone story is at 14 minutes 25 seconds. You can click to it on the progress bar by going to 14:25. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), "Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism," 2011; 305(8): pages 808-813: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.abstract New study: Important review of the biological effects for those living near antennas: "Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays," by Blake B. Levitt and Henry Lai, published in Environmental Reviews, a journal of the Canadian National Research Council. Received 30 April 2010. Accepted 6 August 2010. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at er.nrc.ca on 5 November 2010:: http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Blake_Levit-Henry_Lai.pdf New study finds "an increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances less than 500 (1500 feet) meters from base stations in 80% of the available studies," by Khurana et al. (2010), "Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations": http://www.brain-surgery.us/Khurana_et_al_IJOEH-Base_Station_RV.pdf New peer-reviewed study finds adverse health symptoms increase for those living closer to cell tower, and current exposure limits do not provide adequate protection, by Horst Eger and Manfred Jahn (Feb 2010): English-language version: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/horst-eger-manfred-jahn-study-feb-2010 (translation to English by Katharina Gustavs) Very new study finds that the the longer these rats were exposed to cell phone radiation, the shorter their lives; this study funded by the telecom industry has disturbing implications, by Bartsch, Küpper, Scheurlen, et.al, Neuro Endocrinol Lett., August 2010: http://www.emf-portal.org/viewer.php?l=e&aid=18588 (Thanks to Dr. Horst Eger for alerting us to this study.) 10 out of 14 peer reviewed studies show health effects from wireless base stations (as of end of 2007): http://www.mast-victims.org/resources/docs/10%20out%20of%2014%20peer-reviewed%20studies%20on%20base%20stations.pdf. Another summary of research findings: http://www.chronicexposure.org/basestations.html Powerwatch UK also has a helpful list of studies: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp More studies can be found on this website: http://www.emf-portal.org/ Nalia, Germany, study finds increased cancer risks within 400m (1200 ft) of mobile phone masts:"The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer," by Horst Eger, et al, published in Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft, April 17, 2004: http://www.vws.org/documents/11GermanreportInfluencemastcancer.pdf and summary: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20041118_naila.asp. Germany, study finds adverse health symptoms for people living 500m (1500 ft) within cell phone towers: "Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional study in Germany," by Blettner M, et al, published in Occup Environ Med, Feb. 2009: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19017702?log$=activity Austria, Study shows health effects from living near cell phone base stations: "Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations" by Hutter HP, et al, published in Occup Environ Med, May 2006: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16621850 France, Study documenting adverse health effects for those living near mobile base stations (cell towers) recommends stations should not be less than 300 meters (900 feet) away from populations: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/RogerSantiniStudyHeealthPeopleLivingMobilePhoneBaseStations2002.pdf Israel, Study finds more cancers among population living within 350m of cell phone transmitter station: "Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station," by Ronni Wolf, MD and Danny Wolf, MD, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, April 2004: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050207_israel.pdf Egypt, Study reveals health effects from living around mobile phone base stations: "Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations," by Abdel-Rassoul G, et al, published in Neurotoxicology, Mar. 2007: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16962663 and summary also here: http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=1471&Title=Living%20near%20mobile%20phone%20base%20stations%20-%20research%20worries There are a host of other studies, reports, and conferences documenting the harmful effects of cell tower radiation. New: All-star panel of EMF and environmental health experts discuss harmful effects of RF radiation at Commonweal in San Francisco, CA, November 18, 2010. Read more and watch video here: http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cc-video/ Austria, Adverse health effects and cell phone base stations: http://expelcelltowers.org/download/CellTowerSitingHealthIssue.pdf Dutch study finds 3G cell phone towers cause health problems: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3157676.stm Health effects associated with mobile base stations: http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/cherry/neil_cherry1.htm Cell tower removed by phone company after residents die of cancer: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23407354-orange-to-remove-mobile-mast-from-tower-of-doom-where-cancer-rate-has-soared.do International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has unanimously concluded that power-frequency magnetic fields are possible human carcinogens. This finding, announced on June 27 (2001) in Lyon, France, is based on the consistent association between childhood leukemia and residential exposure to extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMFs): http://www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a01issue.pdf Lists of studies on RF radiation health effects on humans, biology, animals and plants: http://www.livingplanet.be/emrlinks.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Dept. concerned over potential adverse cell tower radiation effects on wildlife populations: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/manville_wildlife_towers.pdf Cell phone towers and its adverse effects on wildlife: http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/Balmori+2009.pdf and http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/lebm_balmori.pdf and http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/beebe_hill/balmori_amphibian.pdf Firefighters report adverse health effects from wireless towers on their stations; International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, pass moratorium on installing cell towers above fire stations: http://www.labornet.org/news/0904/celltower.htm and http://www.iaff.org/hs/Resi/CellTowerFinal.htm Communication Workers of America also concerned about health effects from RF radiation exposure: http://www.cwa-union.org/pages/Microwave_and_Radio_Frequency_Radiation Opposing cell towers near or in schools due to harmful RF exposure, May 22, 2009 letter to Los Angeles Unified School District from Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons: http://www.cloutnow.org/lausdpdf/ColumbiaUniversity.pdf Threat of harmful effects on human health and public safety from proposed Beebe Cell Tower: statement to Connecticut Siting Council at Oct. 12, 2006 public hearing from EMR Policy Institute, includes radiation exposure levels from site, and studies on health effects of low-intensity RF radiation: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/health_statement.pdf Nov. 2009, international scientists and medical doctors issue Porto Alegre Resolution addressing low-level RF radiation exposure effects and including recommendations about tower siting: http://www.icems.eu/docs/resolutions/Porto_Alegre_Resolution.pdf Other doctor initiatives: http://www.chronicexposure.org/doctorinitiative.html Cellular Towers: A Medical Issue by Blake Levitt: http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/waveguide_3/medical-issue.html The largest biological experiment ever by Arthur Firstenberg, from the March 2007 Idaho Observer: http://proliberty.com/observer/20070307.htm Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation by Karen J. Rogers: http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_Radiation.html The Radiation Poisoning of America by Amy Worthington: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/AmyWorthingtonTheRadiationPoisoningOfAmerica17112007.pdf Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard (includes studies about cell tower radiation and biological effects): http://www.emrpolicy.org/resources/books_videos/cell_towers_levitt.pdf Alaska Supreme Court case reveals problems with FCC RF radiation safety standard: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/radio_frequency_radiation Article on mobile phone towers and radiation: how dangerous are they? Author Eileen O'Connor cites various studies proving health and cancer risks for those living near towers: http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=970 Breast Cancer Fund, on the health effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation: http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/chemicals-glossary/nonionizing-radiation.html and write to the FCC to update their standards: https://secure3.convio.net/bcf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=158 EM-Radiation Research Trust, United Kingdom: http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20061101_base_stations_health_concerns.pdf San Francisco Medical Association Journal, "Microwave And Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure: A Growing Environmental Health Crisis?" by Cindy Sage, about RF radiation exposure in our environment, including cell towers: http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=1770&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&SECTION=Article_Archives. Pediatrics Journal, American Academy of Pediatrics: Study reveals children have higher sensitivity and absorption of radiation from electromagnetic and radio frequency fields: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/2/e303 Latest studies on EMF and health, "Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Special Issue," Pathophysiology (Journal of the International Society of Physiology), August 2009, Vol. 16, Issue 2-3, Pages 67-250, edited by Martin Blank: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/patphy/issues/contents?issue_key=S0928-4680%2809%29X0003-9 Eileen O'Connor's Breast Cancer Story: http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1557 Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization – New Book by Sam Milham, MD, MP: http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/sam-milham/ What does the telecom industry know about low-level RF radiation and its health effects? What are they not telling us? Industry bias and cover-ups revealed in this enlightening investigative report, Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health by Christopher Ketcham, GQ Magazine, February 2010: http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation Industry bias also shows up in cell phone studies: http://www.physorg.com/news174810947.html Microwave News investigates and exposes industry bias: http://www.microwavenews.com/docs/mwn.7-06.RR.pdf Long-term industry suppression and denial regarding research showing harmful effects of cell phone radiation. Read the illuminating Wake-up Call investigative report and cover story by Rob Harrill, Univ. of Washington Alumni Magazine, March 2005: http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html T-Mobile knew since 2000 about adverse health effects from cell phones and wireless base stations: http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/phone_cancer_report_buried.htm T-Mobile & Ecologic Institute Germany study finds adverse health effects from cell phone and base stations: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php Swisscom Telecom company patent reveals dangers of wireless networks on DNA and health (thanks to Drs. Horst Eger and Dr. Manfred Jahn for referencing this patent in their Feb. 2010 study, and providing us with a copy, scroll to the bottom of this page and see "Attachment"); you can also read the Patent here with additional details: World Intellectual Property Organization website: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2004075583, and here, European Patent Office website: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=AU&NR=2003303939&KC=&FT=E. View/download PDF Version of the patent document: http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20040902&DB=&locale=&CC=WO&NR=2004075583A1&KC=A1 Dr. George Carlo talks about the wireless technology and its relationship to brain damage, cancer, and mental illness: http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0612185/cg185_cellphone.shtml