[NBLUG/talk] Cell Tower Upgrades in Sebastopol - Update

Jesse Barnes jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org
Wed Dec 7 14:01:21 PST 2011

Cool, thanks for the summary.  I agree on having a reasonable
discourse.  And I don't doubt the theoretical possibility of human
health effects or human perception of EMF (after all other animals have
facilities for this).  Nor do I doubt the sincerity of those who
believe EMF is harming them.

I just haven't seen a case that makes me a believer, and my inherent
bias (working in the computer industry) makes me very skeptical of
the claims of the EMF safety network. :)


On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:56:45 -0800
Christopher Wagner <waggie at waggie.net> wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the discussion on the topic, it's good discussion to 
> hear.
> Even though I disagree with them, I believe wholeheartedly that the 
> opposing arguments should be given respect and due consideration.  As 
> pointed out, potential health effects are something we do want to 
> consider in all of this. I believe that the health effects many members 
> of the public discussed last night that they attribute to EMF radiation 
> can easily be explained by other (and more plausible, in my not so 
> humble opinion) causes.
> Two of the members of the public, teachers at the charter school 
> downtown, spoke with elegance and passion about what they believe is the 
> cell tower causing a high pitched noise that is "rattling inside their 
> head". They were concerned that the effects would be even stronger on 
> children, and what it might be doing to them, being (medically speaking) 
> more vulnerable.  My thoughts are that there probably IS something 
> causing this, but that it's much more likely to be some sort of 
> mechanical problem with equipment or appliances at the school (perhaps 
> HVAC equipment).
> At the discussion last night at the city council, the health effects on 
> humans were not part of the actual debate on the topic, though they were 
> spoken to by a number of the members of the public during the public 
> comments portion of the meeting.  The main issues raised by the 
> appellant (The EMF Safety Network) seemed to be two things: 1) The 
> mistakes noted in the application, and 2) the potential effects on the 
> nearby wetland preserve.
> I will also note that I observed many people exhibiting rude behavior at 
> the council meeting during the time which myself and other supporters of 
> the upgrade were speaking.  The phrase "full of crap" sticks in my mind 
> in response to a statement by the applicant denying that cumulative 
> effects from the tower exist.  This sort of unprofessional behavior does 
> not lend credit to the EMF Safety Network's cause.
> Anyway, that's my two cents.  Thanks again everyone.
> - Chris
> On 12/07/2011 12:27 PM, Steve S. wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Jesse Barnes<jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>  wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry I  missed this... Btw has anyone at a council meeting or
> >> otherwise tried to comprehensively debunk the folks worry about EMF and
> >> human health?
> > Unfortunately, it can't be done.  There does not (yet) exist a
> > comprehensive, rigorous study demonstrating that there are no worries.
> >   In part, of course, that comes from the difficulty in proving a
> > negative.
> >
> > However, there are occasional studies that indicate the issue deserves
> > further attention...
> >
> >  From a recent IARC 13-nation study, reviewed by WHO:
> > " ... some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who
> > reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use ...
> > IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly
> > carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal
> > association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or
> > confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence."
> > ( http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/ )
> > WHO goes on to say that they are conducting further studies.
> >
> > Of course, this is talking about the risks associated with plastering
> > the phone to your ear, not simply the ambient signal from towers...
> >
> > No, I'm not saying that we should ban cellphones/towers/etc, or even
> > apply draconian restrictions.  I'm just saying that the folks who have
> > extreme worries have at least SOME evidence, and aren't just nutters
> > who can be dismissed out of hand or "debunked" by any
> > rational/informed argument.
> >
> >
> > - Steve S.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at nblug.org
> > http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nblug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20111207/aea97232/attachment.pgp>

More information about the talk mailing list