T-MOBILE MEDIA CAMPAIGN

Pursuing its own interest, T-Mobile has started a media campaign placing emphasis on the money to be earned from the cellular tower, as well as the need for the tower to improve cell phone reception, while making light of, or outright ignoring, the potential health hazards to students and the surrounding community. Moreover, all the media reports as of the posting of this blog entry have completely ignored the fact that other school communities have successfully argued against having cell phone towers on their school grounds because of the incomplete state of the science surrounding the potential health hazards to children as well as adults due to a 24/7 exposure to cell towers. T-Mobile campaign by "9NEWS NOW" can be seen on:

http://picasaweb.google.com/googabh/Jan112010_3?feat=directlink. You can also see the full report on: http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=95703.

T-Mobile campaign by The Gazette, and the Black and White:

http://www.gazette.net/stories/01062010/bethnew194202_32557.php and
http://www.theblackandwhite.net/2009/12/02/proposed-cell-tower-sparks-parent-debate/.

Concerning the Black and White, below we have reproduced a comment submitted by a neighbor to the online newspaper in response to the above-hyperlinked article. As of the date of this blog entry, that same “comment” has not been published. Because the author of the comment directly addressed the lack of accurate reporting, and because the act of not publishing critical “comments” may or may not be a form of censorship, we decided to reproduce it below so you can decide for yourself whether or not you feel the online newspaper is censoring critical observations about its form of journalism.

Blogger's Note :
After the posting of this blog the Black and White decided to post the critical observation we reproduced below.  The makers of this blog applaud the Black and White editors for this decision.



Link to Pyle resolution

Link to Wootton decision
 

2000 dollars is a lot of money, but journalistic accuracy has a lot more worth. First, the T-Mobile presentation was not held during the PTSA meeting, it was held after the meeting had ended. The T-Mobile presentation was held for the benefit of the local and school community. Second, no shouting occurred, except that some people were seriously concerned about the issues and upset that their questions were not being answered. Third, the issue being ignored by T-Mobile representatives was that the science surrounding adverse health effects of radio frequency emissions of cellular towers has yet to be resolved because it takes about 30-40 years for those studies to be completed. In addition, the community articulated two alarming facts (disputed by the T-Mobile representatives): 1. that the World Health Organization (WHO) maintains that "there are gaps in knowledge still needing to be filled before better health risk assessments can be made on the possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum." http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/en/, and 2. the FCC maintains "the possibility of 'non-thermal' biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known. Further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health." http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf.

We all know that Wootton High and Pyle Middle School vehemently opposed a cell tower on their school grounds and made similar health arguments to the ones that were made at the November 17 meeting. Because T-Mobile rejected any opposing argument, I decided to research this issue further. What my research revealed was that other very credible authorities have also raised the same concerns, for example: 1. Resulting from a study requested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a committee of the National Research Council of the National Academies has concluded that important additional research needs to be done concerning “exposure to juveniles [and] children from … base station antennas” and the effects of radio frequency exposures. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12036.html. 2. In addition, the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) concluded that existing studies “have too many deficiencies to rule out an association” between radio frequency exposure and negative health effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253668/. 3. Likewise, the University of Ottawa’s McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment concluded that “base stations give rise to whole body exposure 24 hours a day, for those who remain in the neighborhood. More studies of health effects need to be done….” http://www.rfcom.ca/primer/bases.shtml. 4. Finally, the American Cancer Society points out that “Cellular phone towers ... are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects. In particular, not enough time has elapsed to permit epidemiological studies.” http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phone_Towers.asp?sitearea=PED.--Since paranoia seems to be the assumption, I do indeed hope all these organizations and the principals at Pyle and Wootton are not paranoid ....”

(sender’s name omitted)