Cell Towers on School Property

Peer reviewed studies to justify your concerns?

Cell towers are already everywhere.  4G antenna are smaller and attach to buildings. Wifi in your house sends waves bouncing around all over the place.

I have yet to see a peer reviewed study on cell towers or transmission lines for that matter causing cancer.

That tower is probably paying a good chunk of teacher's salaries or for the new computers in the library at that school.  So that's a good thing.

So how many peer-reviewed studies did we wait for before we decided that above-ground nuclear testing was a bad idea?  How about applying even the smallest amount of common sense to this situation?  You really want to wait for peer-reviewed studies to establish conclusively that exposing our children, right as they are in their peak growth ages, to a steady dose of high EM radiation is a bad thing?  That's utterly brilliant.  Let's make our kids guinea pigs in this cell tower study !!

The strength of the signal falls off with the square of the distance.  And we're talking microwave frequencies, not ionizing radiation.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of biological effects.  But if there is a risk, kids are getting more exposure from their own phones -- which most of them carry these days -- than from towers or wi-fi routers.

Dang it, you beat me to it.  I'm not sure what the numbers are but the cellphone in their pocket is hitting them with far more RF than the tower, even if it's just outside the building.

The wireless access points for the computers in every room are cranking out serious power to handle the hundreds of iPads and laptops as well which are also hitting them with far more RF than the cell tower.

The tin foil beanie just deflects the beams to the rest of their bodies.  What they need is a full-body tin-foil suit every day.

So then you don't allow your children to have cell phones.  And I'm assuming you don't have one either.  And you have basically gotten rid of every single RF device in your house because it emits significantly higher levels than a cell tower, right? 

I'm sorry to the OP for making fun of your concerns.  It's just that I've heard this same line from a lot of people opposing cell towers or transmission lines or wind farms, but I have yet to see a peer-reviewed study that holds-up to the slightest scruitiny. 

We should have made a separate thread to make light of this point. 

I apologize.

I'm sure this isn't peer-reviewed to anybody's satisfaction, but here's a study of a sort:

http://weepnews.blogspot.com/2008/07/kempten-west-study-2007-english-version.html

And no, my kids don't carry cell phones.

The problem I have with that study is that they only took a single initial sample, rather than repeating the baseline over several tests and several months.

Basically, it reports physiological changes and attributes them to the installation of a nearby tower.  But a) it didn't look to see if those levels rise or decrease naturally, and b) didn't report on or investigate other potential causes, such as changes in diet, other environmental differences, and so on.

You're only saying that because you own shares of Alcoa and Alcan. I smell a profit

And it was done only 5-6 months later so there is the potential for seasonal variation.  I agree with you.  No repeats on the initial.  No repeats on the after.  WAY too many variables not taken into account.

same with color TV

I read through that report and it looks there would be a lot of scientific errors to testing only 28 people, all in the same building, then testing melatonin and serotonin without controlling for what they've had in their diet, etc.

I'm not saying it's nothing.  I'm just saying there should be an actual study done somewhere that shows this to be harmful.  There are lots that say it isn't harmful.

and alternating current electricity - nice try Thomas Edison