Cellular Phone:
Phone Masts in Church Spires

Back



Posted:
20 March 2000

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 04:48:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
Subject: Re: Phone masts in church spires (McKeever)(Beaver)..

........I will also post Chris's excellent work (below) on the website, under "Cellphones" file for future reference....

New subject:  I am receiving some mail which tells me that some of you are not aware of the "Virginia Decision" already posted on the guru's website, filed in the "Legal/Law" file.....  That is the Federal Court decision which "threw out" that part of the 1996 Telecom Act that attempted to prevent local decision from controlling the placement of cell towers....

We have Al Gore and his "buddy" telecom lobbyists, BIG $$$$$$contributors, mostly, to "thank" for that "attempted" end-run of the Constitution. Anyway, in at least one federal court, that portion of the 1996 law is no longer enforceable......  A few of us said that it would not be enforceable -- from the day it was enacted.....!!!

Cheerio......  (Very helpful paper below for those who are struggling with the cellphone tower issue....)

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness

People are more important than profits!!


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 07:53:27 -0800
From: Christopher Beaver <idgfilms@earthlink.net>
To: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
Subject: Re: Phone masts in church spires (McKeever)..

Dear Roy,

I'm sorry this is as long as it is.

Libby Kelley and I, and others, have been besieged by requests for help such as Ms. Mckeever's and  I haven't quite figured out how to keep sharing the information I have out of my own pocket. I can't keep copying and mailing documents and studies without the well going dry.

It's goes in stretches but I'd say we get about one request just like Ms. Mckeever's every few days. Often we enclose more including Dr. John Goldsmith's commentary, "End of Innocence for Radiofrequency Radiation." My hope is that others will draw on the documents included in the body of this e-mail for their own struggles. And that the texts will be localized and improved, made more rigorous, more decisive. If your brave forum is not the venue, then I don't know what is.

I've cleared the note to me from Dr. Cherry with Dr. Cherry for distribution and remember clearing the CARE summary with Deb Carney for public distribution. The one-page summary and sample press release I wrote may also be duplicated or used as the basis for other documents by anyone...except telecommunication corporations. (That'll be the day.)

Thank you in advance, Roy, for your understanding and support, thank you to the other respondents for your patience with this long e-mail.

Christopher Beaver

Dear Liz:

Here's some documents and some watchwords for your struggle.

Please look in Roy's archives regarding a recent defeat of a Sprint plan to place nine antennas in the shape of a cross on the facade of a church near Delores Park in San Francisco's Mission District to see what took place. Two years ago our neighborhood defeated a PacBell plan to install three antennas in the steeple of a church one hundred and fifty feet from my apartment.

The first watchword I got from George Brooks-Robertson out here is that you must dominate the floor in any meeting that involves this issue. Since the telecommunications industry has trillions of dollars and will lie, distort, and intimidate in their efforts to enforce their will on the public, you are permitted to shout.

Watchword number two, organize: gather signatures on petitions, get phone numbers and addresses and be willing to devote time and energy to this. The farther you go up the government ladder in terms of permits and appeals, the greater chance you have to lose.

Watchword number three, keep your opponents informed of every move. The corporations may back down from public relations nightmares and many churches actually do care about their neighbors. You never know when you will turn the tide.

Here are Four documents that we photocopy and circulate to make our point about the potential health hazards we face:

1, a one-page summary of health effects specifically from antenna or antenna level radiation exposures to the general public. There is far more information than this available at the web-site for our local California Council on Wireless Telecommunication Impacts. Please look there as well: www.ccwti.org/home1.html

HEALTH HAZARDS
FROM CELLULAR PHONE ANTENNAS

Children, senior citizens, and those with weakened or damaged immune systems are the most vulnerable to radiation from cellular phone and television transmission antennas.

Unlike television sets and microwave ovens, cellular antennas produce continuous,  twenty-four hour a day exposures to low levels of electro-magnetic radiation. It is the constant quality of the exposure that makes them especially dangerous. This effect is most pronounced for infants and children. whose cells and DNA replicate at higher rates during early childhood development than later as adults.

Among the health effects reported along the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation are: breast cancer, childhood and adult leukemia, malignant melanoma of the skin, cancer of the lymph system, learning disabilities, sleep disruption and other nervous system disorders including brain tumors. To focus solely on the potential cancer risks from cellular phone antennas we cite the following:

1. Source: Neil Cherry, Lincoln University, New Zealand, “Potential and Actual Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation at Levels Near and Below 2 Microwatts/cm2,” February 1997: ...according to international criteria, radio-frequency /microwave radiation is a highly probable carcinogen...this should require the placement of telecommunication transmission sites (radio, TV, cell sites) some considerable distance from residences, schools, kindergartens, hospitals, etc.

2.  Source: The EMF Book by Mark Pinsky, 1995: Researchers have found that cancerous cells grow and reproduce more rapidly when they are exposed to EM [electromagnetic] fields or EM radiation than when they are not exposed.

3.  Source: A. Maes, M. Collier et al. “954 MHz microwaves enhance the mutagenic properties of mitomycin-C.” Environmental Molecular Mutagen 28: 26-30, 1996. This study found that exposure to electromagnetic radiation in the range of cellular antenna transmissions increased the cancer-promoting properties of a known cancer-causing chemical, mitomycin-C.

4. Source: Sianette Kwee, “Changes in Cell Proliferation Due to Environmental Non-ionizing Radiation,” Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg., 1998: Contrary to previous assumptions, our results showed that there can be an effect [from microwave exposures] at very low Specific Absorption Rate values.

5. Source: John Goldsmith, M.D., MPH, “TV Broadcast Towers and Cancer: The End of Innocence for Radiofrequency Exposures,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 32:689–692, 1997: The notion that non-ionizing radiation, and in particular radio-frequency radiation, was harmless "the assumption of innocence" is no longer tenable.

6. Source: Dr. Gregory W. Lotz, chief, Physical Agents Branch, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, September, 1997: To err on the side of caution, wherever children gather, put the antennas someplace else.

Presented by Christopher Beaver, Noe Valley Families Tel: 415-824-5822, Fax: 415-824-0406, E-mail: IDGFilms@earthlink.net

Document number 2. A statement by Dr. Neil Cherry to me concerning the potential health risk as well has Dr. Cherry's sense of the religious significance of the antennas. To me, the church is being asked to bow down, literally, and worship money in the shape of the cross. I believe Jesus rejected a similar offer during His forty days in the desert. Here is Dr. Cherry's personal note:

Subject: Re: 6 Antennas planned for nearby church steeple
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:41:34 +1300
From: "Cherry, Neil J" <cherry@kea.lincoln.ac.nz>
Organization: Lincoln University
To: Christopher Beaver, idgfilms@earthlink.net

Dear Christopher,

With the evidence I have summarized in my report on Actual and Potential Hazards from Radiofrequency Radiation, you can see why I recommend that mobile phone antennae should be kept 200 to 300 m away from residences, depending on their output power.  Your apartment is far too close for comfort.  I also find that associating a highly probable carcinogenic source with the symbol of Christ and the Gospel is highly sacrilegious.

Health hazards close to antennae include potential sleep disruption, memory loss, learning difficulties, chronic fatigue syndrome, immune system impairment and cancer.  Some are more susceptible than others. Risk is proportional to exposure.  Standards are a farce because they totally ignore the possibility shown by epidemiological studies of adverse health effect from chronic exposure to low level RF/MW radiation.

When people make the claim that thousands of studies have found no low level effects, they are correct, because thousands of studies have been funded by the military to determine the thermal effects of high exposure to attempt to define the thermal limit which would produce no appreciable heating.  Very few have been carried out on chronic exposure of large populations.  However, many of these do show increases in adverse health effects.  We now have the complete trail from biophysics of absorption, biochemistry of cellular changes, animal experiments and public health studies, forming a compelling set to establish that RF.MW is carcinogenic, especially with melatonin reduction, enhancing free radical lifetimes, enhancing DNA damage, accelerating cell death, propogating potentially tumorogenic cells, and creating reproductive and miscarriage risks.

I would he happy to strongly stand behind my analysis and reviews and to present them to your authorities for the cost of expenses only, including airfares and accommodation.

Your situation is far too common in many countries.  I fully appreciate the stress you are under.

Warm Regards

Neil Cherry

3. Number three is from Deb Carney with Canyon Area Residents for the Environment in Golden, Colorado. This is for those people who demand to know, where, if antenna exposures are so hazardous, are the dead bodies. (Even one scientific apologist for PacBell in a public meeting had to note in response to this question that we usually try to set the standards so people aren't in fact dropping dead in the street.)

1999 Summary of Brain Cancer Audit in Vicinity of Lookout Mt. Antenna Farm, Golden, Colorado

To Those Concerned:

The full report (not attached here) is 26 pages long. Statistically significant numbers of brain cancers were found in the 2 block groups closest to the towers.

Block group #3 is closest and much of it is up at about the same elevation as the towers. Less than 1 malignant brain cancer was expected in this population of 1700 some folks. They found 4 brain cancers! This is the block group with the highest electromagnetic radiation readings.

The Colorado Dept. of Health had our electromagnetic radiation readings that showed much of block group 3 ranges from 1-10 microwatts per centimeter squared. Instead of looking at these readings, they chose to assume that distance and line of sight would be the best indicators of exposure even though many of the other block groups closest to the towers are down on the flats, almost 2000 feet lower. (and of course, have much lower EMR readings). Block group 2, which is down below but close to the towers had an unusually high number of nonmalignant menningiomas.

We have forwarded this study to Dr. Goldsmith in Isreal. We believe that he will understand the significance. The Director of the Jefferson County Dept. of Health, Dr. Johnson, has sent a letter to the County Commissioners recommending that the ALARA (as low as reasonably acheivable) be applied to this situation rather than the FCC standards.

We have calculated the EMR from the proposed Supertower. These calculations have been verified by the County's independent consulting engineer. The amount of radiation in block group 3 will quadruple in area. Our grade school with 600 children will get over 7 microwatts per centimeter squared. 5000 human beings will be exposed to EMR at levels that are unprecedented through most of the world. We are beginning to refer to ourselves as "lab rats".

The rezoning hearings begin on March 10. We would like to encourage any scientists or others whose opinions carry clout out there who are willing to send a letter to our county commissioners via me.

Deborah Carney, attorney for
Canyon Area Residents for the Environment
21789 Cabrini Blvd, Golden, Co. 80401

Number 4, a sample press release from our campaign. This served as a handout to church members we met as they entered church, and to anyone who would listen...and some who would not. The picket line lasted for nine weeks and our numbers were increasing when PacBell backed down.

SAMPLE PRESS RELEASE USED IN  CAMPAIGN

SUPERVISORS TOM AMMIANO, SUE BIERMAN & LELAND YEE TO VISIT NOE VALLEY PICKET LINE AGAINST CELLULAR PHONE ANTENNAS

IMMEDIATE RELEASE, OCTOBER 25, 1997 - NEW INFO.

Contact: Lisa Jaicks 642-9420, Christopher Beaver, Judy Irving
        824-5822, or Jorge Bustamante 826-7840

Noe Valley Families Against Cellular Phone Antennas in the steeple of Noe Valley Ministry have invited the San Francisco Supervisors to make a fact-finding visit to their on-going, weekly picket line.

Supervisors Sue Bierman and Leland Yee have both accepted the invitation and plan to visit the Ministry picket line at 1021 Sanchez Street, on Sunday, October 26, 1997 at 9:15 AM. The picket line, which is attended by neighbors, parents, and children, is designed to make a direct appeal to the Presbyterian congregation.

975 Noe Valley residents have signed a petition opposing the six antennas in a high-density residential district, especially in or near buildings where children gather, as is the case with the Noe Valley Nursery School located in the Ministry. Despite a promise to honor neighborhood wishes, the Ministry has given PacBell and Cellular One the okay to proceed.

To date more than 226 communities nation-wide, including Denver, have placed a moratorium on the construction of new antennas until zoning issues including health and safety have been resolved. In the opinion of Dr. Gregory Lotz of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, there’s enough scientific information to cause concern: “to err on the side of caution, wherever children gather, place the antennas somewhere else.”

The picket line begins at 9:15 AM, October 26, 1997 at Noe Valley Ministry, 1021 Sanchez.
(End)

Finally, I can remember one day watching the engineers from PacBell measuring the church for its antennas and the new large-scale electrical system to support the antennas. They were pointing at some of the signs in our neighborhood that opposed the antennas and laughing. I'm sure you can empathize with how that must have made me feel. It's only by way of saying that the phone companies, just like the tobacco companies, are not in this for their health.

What neither PacBell nor the church knew in our struggle, and something I've never said in public until now, is that at least one member of our group was willing to commit civil disobedience before he would permit those antennas to be installed in the steeple of the Presbyterian church in Noe Valley.

Good luck with your efforts, very best wishes, and never give up,

Christopher Beaver


Back to Top

Back