This is a reprint of a letter written by William Goldstein, General Counsel of Maharishi University of Management. This letter recently appeared in the Fairfield Ledger as a PAID advertisement. I am publishing it here for free.
June 15, 2009
Dear Mr. Rooney:
Big Tobacco and Big Cell Towers
A very significant thing happened last week. In addition to your letter to our community printed in the Thursday Fairfield Ledger, the House voted 301-97 to pass federal legislation stringently regulating the tobacco industry, following the Senate’s 79-17 vote. That marked a great achievement after a decades long battle.
But even more noteworthy is that, contrary to its competitors, Phillip Morris – the nation’s largest tobacco company – came out in support of the bill saying it was behind tough but fair regulation. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., sponsor of the bill and committee chairman at the memorable 1994 hearing where tobacco industry executives denied nicotine was addictive, relished the long-sought victory:
“I think we are today at the last gasp of the tobacco industry’s efforts to protect their profits at the expense of the health and lives of the American people and to get children to take up this habit.€
That 1994 hearing seems to have taken place so long ago. We have learned so much so quickly on the science of cancer and smoking. But it was only 15 years ago that what we now know to be a dishonest corporate statement was glibly justified on the basis of their being a lack of any credible scientific evidence that smoking was addictive. The profit motive overrode any sense of corporate responsibility, of honesty, or of prudence.
The smoke is clearing now, but only after millions of dollars of lawsuits, cigarette taxes, thousands of lung cancer deaths, and surgeon general notices. The federal government is only now stamping out the last vestiges of that smoky 1994 thinking.
Any Lessons Learned?
It would be comforting to think that we, consumers and corporate executives, have learned something from that costly exercise. Consumers cannot wait until the government creates laws to take responsibility for their health. Corporations cannot wait for government to create laws to take responsibility for their customer’s health. The consequences are potentially fatal for both.
The painful reality is that if we do not self-regulate but wait for government regulation to recognize and fix such a problem, the human and social costs will be so mammoth that we will never make them up, let alone recapture the lives of those who have been compromised by our shortsightedness. And we will have Big Brother mandating solutions to the problem that we could have better and more quickly fixed ourselves.
No Credible Evidence of Health Risks?Your statement, Mr. Rooney, that €œto date, there is no credible scientific evidence that cell phone towers pose a risk to people’s health€ is a public statement you may feel compelled to make. You may feel confident that it is true. You may feel that, if it were not true, your corporation’s interests would be at serious risk. You may not wish to entertain any risky discussion on the possibilities that it is not true now, or may be revealed as untrue in the future. You may fear you will be viewed as a traitor to your industry if you should truly and openly engage on this real debate.
However, whatever is the case, a large and growing number of developed countries and thousands of scientists and doctors have, with the support of voluminous and expanding scientific research, come to a contrary conclusion. The evidence is not merely credible. It is mounting and of very serious concern. We can not put our heads in the sand, however inconvenient this truth may be.
The Credible Evidence
To illustrate this point: The national laws, among others, of New Zealand, Italy, China, Bulgaria, Hungary, Russia, Switzerland, Austria, and New South Wales, Australia are considerably more stringent than the current laws in the US and would likely not permit the Depot Street tower installation, which is sited within 1500 feet of three schools (St. Mary’s, Lincoln Elementary, and Maharishi School) and within 50 feet of residences and offices.
The European Parliament, representing all the member nations of the European Union, €œconcerned about the continuing uncertainties about possible health risks concerning electromagnetic radiation,€ adopted a report on April 2 of this year, by a vote of 559 to 22 providing that antennas, mobile phone masts and other electromagnetic emitting devices should be set within a specific distance from schools and health institutions. The Parliament called for stricter regulation and protection for residents and consumers. €œIndustry actors are being encouraged to use their power to give better protection to people living nearby and to prevent a proliferation of poorly positioned masts and transmitters. The placement of antennas, mobile phone masts, and high-voltage power lines should be negotiated between industry actors, public authorities, and residents’ associations in order to minimize health risks and legal action cases. This will also ensure that EMF-transmitting devices are kept clear of schools, crèches, retirement homes, and health care institutions.€
The adverse health effects documented at levels below the FCC guidelines you claim your tower is in compliance with include altered white blood cells in school children; childhood leukemia; impaired motor function, reaction time, and memory; headaches; dizziness; fatigue; weakness; and insomnia.
This is based on numerous epidemiological studies of people living near cell phone antennas in places including Spain, the Netherlands, Israel, Germany, and Austria. In all of the studies, exposures are orders of magnitude below the FCC guideline. [I will transmit to you separately the reference and citations to these studies]. In 2007, Dr. Henry Lai, at the University of Washington, had already documented over 40 scientific studies showing adverse biological effects of radio frequency radiation at low intensities below the FCC standards [citations separately transmitted].
Compliance with the current FCC standard is not an assurance of benign health effects, nor would it protect US Cellular from liability for injuries resulting from the tower’s emissions, any more than smoking before (or after) the Surgeon General’s warning protected Phillip Morris from liability. In this case, the FCC regulation is only based on the short-term thermal or heating effects on the body over a six-minute period, not on long-term effects, i.e., it is not valid for school children exposed eight hours a day, five days a week in a classroom several hundred yards from the antenna. Nor does the FCC standard claim to account for dangerous non-thermal biological effects. The studies have demonstrated that both long-term thermal and non-thermal effects pose serious health risks.
As Norbert Hankin, Chief EMF Scientist of the US Environmental Protection Agency stated:
€œThe U.S. Federal Communications Commission, (FCC’s) exposure guidelines are considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism, but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.€
In light of even the above small sampling of the global record, no one can fairly claim that there is no €œcredible evidence€ that cell phone towers, at certain radiation levels, do not pose a health risk. The European Union, numerous individual nations, and a proliferation of provinces and cities throughout the world have not based their independent protective actions on mere rumor. And the thousands of scientists and doctors who have studied the issue and expressed their serious concern cannot all be charlatans.
Better Safe Than Sorry
The real question is not whether the RF emissions of cell phone towers are safe, but what the safe radiation levels are. The answer to that question is currently a moving target. In this uncertain environment, what is a responsible corporation to do? Deny any credible evidence exists of a health risk? With all due respect, it does sound like the tobacco hearings of 1994 all over again. Whether that is entirely justified remains to be seen. But pardon my skepticism for those of us who have had to deal with the impact of corporate deception on the health of their loved ones. We cannot wait to see how the science finally sorts out — we cannot as a society again take that risk. We already know enough to know better.
You must, in all decency, go the extra mile with us and dialogue with us to diligently seek every possible accommodation with the communities and customers you serve who have legitimate and scientifically-based concerns about their children’s safety and the services they buy from you.
The dawning of corporate responsibility seen in Phillip Morris’s bold move sets a precedent we can all admire, however little and late it may have come. I do hope that US Cellular will see a similar opportunity here, at a more propitious time in the curve where much of the possible damage to human life from their industry has not yet materialized.
Let Us Meet
I have asked to have a community meeting with US Cellular to seek an accommodation which may include, among other things, the selection of an independent mutually selected board to review the safety of the tower, review the contamination studies of the alternate sites, weigh the advantages of those sites, identify the costs of sanitization (which costs would not be borne by US Cellular), and/or devise modifications in the microwave pathways to mitigate the impact of emissions on the schools and those near to the tower. I have not received a substantive reply to date, except to receive a copy of a report from a company hired by US Cellular to determine if the tower complies with the FCC’s problematic standards.
The University has received commitments from competitors of US Cellular that they will not use towers closer than 1,200 feet to schools or residences. Whether market forces, public awareness, government intervention, enlightened corporate responsibility, or a combination of them all will bring the needed evolution about is unclear. But I have little doubt the evolution will occur.
We would prefer to remain with our current vendor and say that we have grown through this process together with you. However, if you close the door to continued discussions on how we can accommodate our concerns, we will terminate the University’s contract with US Cellular, and so will many other residents of Fairfield.
Let us meet and work this out.
Very truly,
William Goldstein
General Counsel
Maharishi University of Management
Related articles by Zemanta
- Protest shuts down cell tower construction (cbc.ca)
- Police escort cell tower crews through protest (cbc.ca)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=95386ec6-d148-433c-8321-6d96060cc4c9)
Here, here!!
1. Why is a comparison to tobacco companies even remotely legitimate? Does Mr. Goldstein think that comparing telecoms' lack of evidence to the wanton misrepresentation and squashing of research by tobacco companies will endear him to US Cellular?
2. What was the contract that MUM entered into? Could it at all be possible that the reason US Cellular is building a tower is to provide better service to a large customer base on campus? Is it possible that having a tower closer to campus will reduce handset power output? Is it possible that they found their bandwidth utilization to be greater than expected and therefore needed to scale up?
3. What location does Mr. Goldstein propose as an alternative to the current Depot location for the tower? Are there uninhabited locations around Fairfield from where the cell tower could operate effectively?
4. If the contract is switched to a different carrier, doesn't the same problem resurface thanks to the large number of users on campus on this new carrier?
5. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE?! MUM is allegedly a university (albeit of something called "management"), but we used to actually have real science there. Given the amount of research done on the effect of consciousness and measurement of brain-waves, couldn't there be a team that actually tests the output of towers and correlates this to brain effects? MIU published many many papers on brain effects of transcendental meditation. Why not test this with cell towers? Couldn't take more than a few weeks to even do a completely cursory study and see if there are real effects from, say, meditating under cell towers.
6. Mr. Goldstein's incendiary and threatening approach to dealing with US Cellular just tells me that the university is either desperate or not really interested in finding out the truth. I know it's hard to deal with corporations (did it for a lot of years). But it's definitely possible, and it requires a bit of finesse (same as with court cases, Mr. Lawyer!). I've called US Cellular and was able to get a fair amount of information. I'll be writing up my findings later this week.
If anyone's interested in delving into the science (vs. holding fast on opinion) please feel free to contact me and I would be very happy to collaborate.
Just one more point of clarification: most of the studies that I've been able to find so far are related to the handset. There are almost no studies of cell phone towers (there are a few related to TV towers which put out a lot more power).
Please keep in mind that this discussion is about the tower, and not the handset. The handset is definitely dangerous and will probably eat your dingoes.
For anyone williing to take the time to do some investigation, Look up the article in the American Trial Lawyer Fall 2008 issue, very enlightening article. Read the Swedish study Black on White, and if you'd like more information there is a wealth of information if you google Radiowave Sickness, also a book by Dr. Fisher, The Invisible Threat, and studies on immunology by Olle Johansson, PhD, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, and
The Largest Biological Experiment Ever
by Arthur Firstenberg
(original in Eldorado Sun)
In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally becomes ill if a cell phone is brought within about four meters (13 feet) of her.
Mrs. Brundtland is a medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway. This sensational news, published March 9, 2002 in Dagbladet, was ignored by every other newspaper in the world.
I find it hard to believe that the research you all have done has not led you to the BioInitiative Report (publ. 2007) It is a review of over 2,000 studies of the non-thermal biological effects of emf/rf. The conclusion of the report is that our exposure standard is a thousands times higher than it should be. I started researching this issue after I moved into a house that was 300 feet from antennas. My prominent symptom was that I could not sleep for more than four hours a night. I typically sleep at least eight hours a night and resumed this pattern after I moved away from the antennas.
There are a few theories, from the scientists finding effects, for the wide range of symptoms.
One is that emf/rf exposure induces a stress response. For the short term a stress response may be beneficial and even lead to feeling good, but it is when this becomes chronic that it leads to many health problems.
Another is that the pineal gland is over stimulated, particularly at night. The pineal gland evolved with diurnal exposure to emr from the sun. Our wireless antennas create a 24/7 exposure and at a much higher level than the emr from the sun.
And it may be that there is a certain population that is genetically or otherwise more sensitive to emf/rf. Some theories on this are that some people have more mast cells, which tend to be reactive to emf/rf and that some people may have more heavy metals in their bodies, which also tends to be reactive to emf/rf.
Please refer to http://www.bioinitiative.org and http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp for more on the studies.
People in the dark ages killed alchemists for being witches or wizards because they were afraid of a technology they didn't understand. Lets all take a look at history and not repeat these witch hunts because we're too uneducated about the technology and afraid of the unknown. And for God's sake, don't cry wolf and create a riot because of something you read online.
This drama isn't about money, big companies, health or technology. It's nothing more than overcooked paranoia.
I found your web site when I was searching for something unrelated, but this page was one of the first sites listed in Bing, your website must be amazingly popular! Continue the awesome job!
Wow! You really covered this topic well. Are there other resources that I should check out?
Just noticed a webcam site called Chat Spasm, a 24/7 webcam party site.
I dunno, Sundar. You're proposing that it's the consumer's responsibility to do the research to scientifically prove harm from a product, and not the producer's responsibility to provide a provably safe product?
Goldstein cited various sources of research already done. Does he need to reproduce the studies too?
This is a point that I find myself at odds with Sundar on (which I would not expect) – the point that it is the responsibility of consumers to prove a product is safe or unsafe. If you are a corporation profiting from a technology, then it should be your responsibility to prove that technology/product is absolutely safe. Of course the responsibility should include oversight that ensures the "proof"/research is independent and doesn't not involve a conflict of interests.
Actually Eddie Goldstein did not cite any sources. He made claims to their existence. A list of citations would have been wonderful. I've actually searched for hours to find any convincing information that does not lead in a circle in an attempt not to write this off an just unjustified complaining. But there is a lot of noise and very little substantial information (i.e., there's a dearth of solid science). That said, I've found a number of studies including those which *do* link high-frequency, high-power radiation and leukemia in children. But the context of those studies was different (high-power TV antennae).
To answer your questions:
1. I really don't know why you think I'm saying this. But in any case, the consumer is responsible for their own health. The producer is responsible for providing a socially responsible service, and not sell products which advertised as safe. The disclaimer in cellphone manuals covers their asses thanks to the tobacco industry's downfall.
2. Goldstein does not need to reproduce the studies, but he should at least footnote his document so that we know that he's not just making stuff up. I'm holding him to the same bar (no pun intended) as he does US Cellular – he's saying they're disregarding evidence which they say is sufficient.
Anyway, a full post is coming soon, which can be bashed endlessly also
Having re-read my statements I'm still unclear on where I propose that consumers should prove a product is safe. I said that MUM should. They're a university. Universities do studies and research the toxicity of products all the time. They get grants to do this since the government is ultimately responsible to the people to ensure that companies are not killing them in their sleep. Most research conducted by the gov't has lots and lots of conflict of interest. But still they fund universities and independent organizations to determine the efficacy of products. (Or sometimes they squash that research, but hey, that's the game right?!)
To be completely clear: Consumers do NOT need to do their own research (coz it's freaking expensive!). Companies are NOT going to be good citizens always. This is a given – profit is the motive in the US and that's the reality. However the corollary is that companies are not always criminal in their actions, sometimes they do things in good faith. BTW absolute safety is something we're not going to get.
What *is* possible is a metered and civil discussion about the reality of what's going on. There's some basic physics in this equation. And there's some basic community sensibility. And there's the profit/service motive. I don't believe it's all that complicated to get these three lined up
Sundar, please see the BioInitiative Report which includes studies on cellular base stations – http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm ____This research is part of what prompted the European Parliament to take action. ____Also, the LA County Board of Supervisors and LA City Schools – go to http://www.cloutnow.org and see to the right of the page the links to the resolutions passed just this month. ____Be sure to read the letter from Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University in support of these resolutions.__http://www.cloutnow.org/lausdpdf/ColumbiaUniversi...
Sundar, please see the BioInitiative Report which includes studies on cellular base stations – http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm ____This research is part of what prompted the European Parliament to take action. ____Also, the LA County Board of Supervisors and LA City Schools – go to http://www.cloutnow.org and see to the right of the page the links to the resolutions passed just this month. ____Be sure to read the letter from Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University in support of these resolutions.__http://www.cloutnow.org/lausdpdf/ColumbiaUniversi...
Sundar, please see the BioInitiative Report which includes studies on cellular base stations – http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm ____This research is part of what prompted the European Parliament to take action. ____Also, the LA County Board of Supervisors and LA City Schools – go to http://www.cloutnow.org and see to the right of the page the links to the resolutions passed just this month. ____Be sure to read the letter from Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University in support of these resolutions.__http://www.cloutnow.org/lausdpdf/ColumbiaUniversi...
rhonda, thanks for the information. I'm assuming that the article you refer to is the one that's available online on scribd here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11242755/Cell-Phone-Cor... />
The article is about handsets, not towers. A very good resource for understanding the difference, by a local engineer, is Robert Palma's Blog. Robert has spent an enormous amount of time researching and documenting his findings. He presents both the physics and the emotion. He states that he uses his cellphone for 3 minutes a month.
I don't know about Radiowave Sickness, so the following should be considered my ill-informed opinion. What I've found online on radiowave sickness does not seem too scientific (symptoms seem to include everything from headaches to deteriorating fillings), and it covers everything from 60Hz EMF from \”dirty power\” to microwaves. There may be something to this Radiowave Sickness thing, but I get the sense that someone is spreading bad information. But as I say I know almost nothing about it so I'd love to be educated by someone (I've read 10 pages of google-found docs, and they don't give me a sense of clarity).
The Largest Biological Experiment by Arthur Firstenberg primarily talks about handset problems and the microwave radiation absorption. It alse refers to Radiowave Sickness. There is a reference to \”Cancer Trends During the 20th Century\”, by O. Johansson and O Hallberg. Firstenberg misrepresents the findings of this study as indication that there's correlation between cell towers and lung cancer. This is simply false. The study is about RF emissions, with a focus on TV and radio towers, which emit at much higher power (\”Since the cancer mortality trend-breaks coincide with expansion
or disruption of public broadcasting in Sweden, studies regarding the influence from electromagnetic fields on cancer and asthma development cannot be further delayed.\”).
There's a really simple equation here for me – if we want to have a cell-phone-free zone in Fairfield, that should be allowed. But if MUM or whatever location both wishes to have cell-phones AND is pushing to not have a cell tower (as Mr. Goldstein seems to imply) this is a disingenous argument. Either ban cell-phones on campus, in which case there's no controversy (except for not having ubiquitous communication). Or live with the consequences of your use of technology (as we do in many other areas).
As far as Gro Brundtland goes, I aquiesce that EMF could be an allergen just like anything else. But the issue at heart here is whether the health impact of keeping the tower at the Depot location is worse than moving it further away. The question is NOT whether to have a cell tower AT ALL. Moving the tower further away = increase radiation at the phone = proven health hazard.
Lastly, US Cellular is a CDMA operator. CDMA does not used pulsed transmissions. Pulsed radiation, which has micro-secord amplitude increases, has been linked in many of the studies you reference rhonda, and in this particular case it's not relevant (it may be if Goldstein decides to move away form Us Cellular to any GSM-based provider).
fantastic article. We moved due to living near cell tower, at great cost to family. The rooms with highest radiation were lived in by two family members who got cancer, the only cancer ever on record in the family. This is THE major health issue in USA in my opinion. Thank you for adding your voice.
With all due respect I don't think anyone is calling for a witch hunt. The timeline of your "dark ages" analogy doesn't recognize the past 100 years. There you will find examples of society rushing to embrace technologies that are later "discovered" to be harmful to humans and/or the environment. Let's not choose one extreme position over the other.