This drama isn't about money, big companies, health or technology. It's nothing more than overcooked paranoia.

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.

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).