Cell phone towers overshadow resident concerns
Katy Jordan
|
The City of Boston came under fire this week as concerned residents voiced their opposition to the placement of cell phone towers around some parts of the city, bemoaning a lack of municipal oversight, citizen input, and the cell phone industry's regard for the possible health risks.
Boston city councilor Charles Yancey called a meeting at City Hall to address the "overwhelming citizen response" to the towers. During the June 9th hearing, Yancey acknowledged the concerns of Hub residents, calling the towers "inescapable" and "obtrusive," while briefly commenting on potential health effects.
 |
North End resident and mother Dr. Juliet Jacobsen, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital whose roof deck has recently been adorned by a large tower, addressed the council, warning that consumer safety has been entrusted to the industry, a fact which lacks necessary government oversight.
"I'm speaking as a mother, as a resident, and as a physician," she said.
"We noticed that (health) studies procured by Verizon have always turned out very favorable for Verizon," she said. "I'm wondering, who is watching that they're not telling lies?" she said.
|
Jacobsen said that Verizon Wireless had placed the tower on her roof to "expand coverage" in her neighborhood - this after announcing on its website that there was already full-coverage in the North End, she said.
There are currently 205 points around Boston which host the large cell phone towers. Often, they are disguised as flag poles or utility poles, an effort which adds to their aesthetic appeal, but one which disarms residents from keeping their distance, opponents say. With long-term health effects unknown, critics say the towers could be lurking near work sites and homes, which could affect those who unknowingly spend long periods of time exposed to them.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has also acknowledged possible harmful effects. In 2007, WHO released a study stating that possible longterm disorders associated with electromagnetic radiation include "childhood cancers, cancers in adults, depression, suicide, cardiovascular disorders, reproductive disfunctions," and several others.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - whose own safety standards have not been updated since 1996 - states that the towers pose no immediate health risk, and that they do not give off enough electromagnetic radiation, or radio frequency energy (RF) to create negative "biological effects."
"Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated," said the FCC's website. However, "RF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature," the website said.
Janet Newton, president of the Electromagnetic Radiation, or EMR Policy Institute, a Vermont-based non-profit which examines the health hazards of radiation, told the city council that the FCC's findings were flawed, and that its current standard of "safe distance" was anything but.
"Distance from these sights is your friend," said Newton, adding that epidemiologists have recommended keeping antenna sights at least 1500 feet from school yards and dense residential areas.
"The FCC standard is based on the model of an average man, six feet tall and 185 pounds," said Newton, of the amount of radiation a human being can safely absorb. "The FCC does not take children, pregnant women and elderly into consideration."
|
Federal laws do not currently mandate distances beyond those proposed by the FCC, though a spokesman for 3G Networks present at the city council meeting offered that close proximity to the towers were still safe, according to the FCC's findings.