Cancer Clusters at Cell Phone Towers

April 22, 2007
By Daniel Foggo
source: http://freesoil.org/, http://www.timesonline.co.uk

More evidence showing high-intensity microwaves are dangerous. Sometimes the convenience afforded by technology is so not worth it, especially since there are safer alternatives. Science could probably find a range of frequencies not so dangerous to support cellular phones.

SEVEN clusters of cancer and other serious illnesses have been discovered around mobile phone towers, raising concerns over the technology’s potential impact on health.

Studies of the sites show high incidences of cancer, brain haemorrhages and high blood pressure within a radius of 400 yards of mobile phone towers.

One of the studies, in Warwickshire, showed a cluster of 31 cancers around a single street. A quarter of the 30 staff at a special school within sight of the 90ft high tower have developed tumours since 2000, while another quarter have suffered significant health problems.

The tower is being pulled down by the mobile phone after the presentation of the evidence operator O2 by local protesters. While rejecting any links to ill-health, O2 admitted the decision was “clearly rare and unusual”.

Phone towers have provoked protests throughout Britain with thousands of people objecting each week to planning applications. There are about 47,000 towers in the UK.

Dr John Walker, a scientist who compiled the cluster studies with the help of local campaigners in Devon, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire and the West Midlands, said he was convinced they showed a potential link between the angle of the beam of radiation emitted from the towers’ antennae and illnesses discovered in local populations.

“Towers should be moved away from conurbations and schools and the power turned down,” he said.

Some scientists already believe such a link exists and studies in other European countries suggest a rise in cancers close to towers. In 2005 Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, said he found four such studies to be of concern but that the health risk remained unproven

There is that word again, unproven. How much evidence do scientists need before they conclude there is a problem? Can they say, precautionary principle?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Save Our Wetlands Inc.(SOWL) has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Save Our Wetlands Inc.(SOWL) endorsed or sponsored by the originator. For more information go to:www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.