The Science on Big Tobacco and Big Energy:
What About Big Wireless? 2

Tomorrow’s talk at the Glendale Library will focus on how powerful interests worked to discredit science on the hazards of smoking and then on climate change.

What about the pushback encountered when citizens question the public health consequences of proliferating wireless, microwave-radiating, technology?

A paper just published by the National Research Council of Canada, in Environmental Review: Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays, calls accepted standards into question and says that current exposure guidelines aren’t protecting public health.

Excerpts:

With the increase in so many RFR-emitting devices today, as well as the many in the wings that will dramatically increase total exposures to the population from infrastructure alone, it may be time to approach this from a completely different perspective.

…It might be more realistic to consider ambient outdoor and indoor RFR exposures in the same way we consider other environmental hazards such as chemicals from building materials that cause sick building syndrome. In considering public health, we should concentrate on aggregate exposures from multiple sources, rather than continuing to focus on individual source points like cell and broadcast base stations. In addition, whole categorically excluded technologies must be included for systems like Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, smart grids, and smart metering as these can greatly increase ambient radiation levels. Only in that way will low-level electromagnetic energy exposures be understood as the broad environmental factor it is.

Radiofrequency radiation should be treated and regulated like radon and toxic chemicals, as aggregate exposures, with appropriate recommendations made to the public including for consumer products that may produce significant RFR levels indoors. When indoor consumer products such as wireless routers, cordless/DECT phones, leaking microwave ovens, wireless speakers, and (or) security systems, etc. are factored in with nearby outdoor transmission infrastructure, indoor levels may rise to exposures that are unsafe. The contradictions in the studies should not be used to paralyze movement toward safer regulation of consumer products, new infrastructure creation, or better tower siting. Enough good science exists regarding long-term low-level exposures — the most prevalent today — to warrant caution.

The present U.S. guidelines for RFR exposure are not up to date. The most recent IEEE and NCRP guidelines used by the U.S. FCC have not taken many pertinent recent studies into consideration because, they argue, the results of many of those studies have not been replicated and thus are not valid for standards setting. That is a specious argument. It implies that someone tried to replicate certain works but failed to do so, indicating the studies in question are unreliable. However, in most cases, no one has tried to exactly replicate the works at all. It must be pointed out that the 4 W/kg SAR threshold based on the de Lorge studies have also not been replicated independently. In addition, effects of long-term exposure, modulation, and other propagation characteristics are not considered. Therefore, the current guidelines are questionable in protecting the public from possible harmful effects of RFR exposure and the U.S. FCC should take steps to update their regulations by taking all recent research into consideration without waiting for replication that may never come because of the scarcity of research funding. The ICNIRP standards are more lenient in key exposures to the population than current U.S. FCC regulations. The U.S. standards should not be “harmonized” toward more lenient allowances. The ICNIRP should become more protective instead. All standards should be biologically based, not dosimetry based as is the case today.

…Citizens and municipalities often ask for firm setbacks from towers to guarantee safety. There are many variables involved with safer tower siting — such as how many providers are co-located, at what frequencies they operate, the tower’s height, surrounding topographical characteristics, the presence of metal objects, and others. Hard and fast setbacks are difficult to recommend in all circumstances. Deployment of base stations should be kept as efficient as possible to avoid exposure of the public to unnecessary high levels of RFR. As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft (~500 m) from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft (~50 m). Several of the papers previously cited indicate that symptoms lessen at that distance, despite the many variables involved. However, with new technologies now being added to cell towers such as Wi-Max networks, which add significantly more power density to the environment, setback recommendations can be a very unpredictable reassurance at best. New technology should be developed to reduce the energy required for effective wireless communication.

Takeaways:
1. Limit the number of wireless devices you are exposed to and their proximity.
2. A 1,500 ft. setback for cell towers is validated above.
3. The FCC and other official bodies have standards far more lenient than many scientific studies warrant
4. Smart meters contribute to overall background radiation.