cellular antenna
In case you don’t know what NIMBY is:
Not In My Back Yard. We all want great cell phone reception. We want to be able to talk about everything and nothing everywhere we go, but we don’t want those darn antennae in our neighborhoods or on our schools, or anywhere we can see them. And not just because they’re eye-sores. Because we’re afraid of them. We may not be sure why, but our intuition tells us these antennae may not be the best for our health or our kids’ health.
Well guess what? A court in Israel has just confirmed what your gut has been telling you: “Cellular Antennae are Dangerous to Health” [Hamakor, 27.2.09, page 1]. A group of tenants sued Pelephone (Motorola), after it put antennae on their buildings and the antennae interfered with other electrical appliances.
The judge issued harsh criticism of the cell phone company’s policy regarding antennae placement and put the burden of proving safety ON THE CELL PHONE COMPANY.
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
The judge, Malka Aviv, of the Jerusalem District Court said in her ruling that if there was enough electrical interference to completely disrupt the functioning of household appliances, the human body was no match for that kind of radiation. And that there is enough evidence of health risks from cellular technology for the court to act to ’save life’ or ‘pikuach nefesh’, the term in Jewish law that puts saving a human life above all else. It is a supreme value of Judaism.
The plaintiffs weren’t claiming health problems. Their complaint was that their TV and stereo system didn’t work, they were unsuccessful in evicting the cell phone company or getting a new tenant for the space the tenants had occupied.
The suit did note that the antennae were installed without proper municipal permits. Judge Aviv pointed out that the plaintiffs were constantly exposed to radiation, the effects of which may become apparent at any time now or in the future.
As she said, it’s the court job to use logic to fill in the blanks in the absence of absolute proof – or at least that’s what I understood her to stay.
I, for one, am grateful for the ruling. The question is: will it hold up as it seems based on so much subjective reasoning on the part of the respected judge?
If nothing else, it puts the issue back on the table for scrutiny and debate.
A strong statement from a court of law, which I hope will go far to convincing the naysayers, and wake the complacent.
Filed under: cell phone lawsuits, cell phone towers | Tagged: cell phone antennae, cell phone company lawsuit, cell phones and health, Israel
Can you imagine that? Good thing we don’t have any activist judges here in the United States. Babies are exposed to more EMF from a wireless transmitter that worried parents keep near their beds than a five carrier cell tower powered up on full blast can produce. The transmitter is usually just a few feet away — while the big evil cell tower has exponentially more separation.
Cell Towers NIMBY = Needed in my back yard
It’s true that we need cell phone antennae if we want good reception. And we do. We all do.
It’s also true what Steve says about baby monitors and other sources of EMF.
I’d like to make a few distinctions here: EMF and cell phone radiation aren’t the same thing.
Baby monitors obviously use some form of wireless communication in addition to the EMF.
A baby monitor is near the baby for all the time the baby is in his crib – which is a considerable
amount of time during very critical stages of development. I’m not well-versed on the technology
of baby monitors and will invite Steve Kazella to enlighten us with a guest post. But exposure
to baby monitors and bedside digital clocks are a real health concern. Not to diminish that
issue at all, but most of us do not spend the bulk of our hours near a baby monitor, but many
people do spend hours a day on a cell phone. There are those who don’t even have a landline
and use a cell phone exclusively. These are all issues, and I don’t want to sweep anything under
the rug.
We are trading health and quality of life for technology and convenience. It’s a choice we’re
making as individuals and as a society. What can we as individuals and a society to mitigate
these risks? First thing, is to acknowledge them, rather than dismiss them by pointing at
something that may be perceived as worse. We need to become aware and address as
many of these concerns as we can – not one at the expense of the other.
Our homes are full of EMF. EMF exposure is considered a health hazard by well-known environmental
scientists.
Cell phone radiation is MICROWAVE radiation. This radiation is being emitted directed at our heads (eyes, ears,
and brain). Recent studies in Israel attribute cell phone use to the 5-fold increase in salivary gland tumors.
A study done in Netanya, Israel indicates a 10-fold increase in breast cancer among those living within 300
meters of cell phone towers, and 4-fold increase in cancer overall, compared to the rest of the population.
This is why not in my backyard. But they’re there and they’re not going anywhere. If anything these towers will
proliferate with new technology and in order to reduce our direct exposure by cell phone. If the phones have
better connectivity, they need less power to connect your call.
The bigger question is this: where are our legislators who are supposed to safeguard the public health?
Why is there no legislation for accompanying technology to make our EMF and cell phone radiation rich
environment safe?
It’s a given that we live in a wireless world, so why not develop the technologies to protect us from
the very hazards we’re creating?
For the EMF in your home, I recommend getting salt lamps – and LIGHTING them! It’s the heat from the
bulb that causes the mineral to emit positive ions, which help to balance all the negative ions produced
by the wiring, appliances and other electrical devices in your home.
The SafeCell cell phone radiation product keeps you safe from the negative effects of cell phone radiation.
My happy customers tell me that they no longer get headaches, hot ear and even feel more alert througout
the day. It is the only proven product on the market, and can last a lifetime.
What about all the environmental radiation from wireless modems, other people’s cell phones (passive
radiation)? I recommend the Q-Link from Clarus for body-worn protection from EMF’s.
To more info and purchase, contact me at esti@safecell.co.il for details.
Estiallina thanks for the detailed reply… Sometimes the biggest fear, especially with wireless that people have is the fear of the unknown.
Bottom line — in my opinion, cell towers and cell phones save lives. For example, in the last week we have had two extremely rare tornado warnings in our county. Both times we were notified well in advance because of my cell phone.
Absolutely true and good point. Again, i think we can enjoy the technology and be prudent with it.
Cell phone radiation exposure should be minimized by using them for emergencies and short
‘need-to’ calls only. They are not meant for long-winded conversations and business negotiations.
Unless, of course, your phone is protected.
I thank Steve Kazella for his contribution to this blog and welcome all thoughtful comments and
debate on the subject.