This user has not filled out their profile yet.

Cellphone towers at local schools...

Posted 5 years.

1 Comment

  • Kathy Wesson - 5 years ago

    Henrico County’s supervisors must not realize that the World Health Organization classifies radiofrequency radiation (RFR) as a possible carcinogen, in the same category with DDT and lead? The WHO could have classified it as probably not carcinogenic, but they listed it as a possible carcinogen because there are still many questions about its safety.

    FCC guidelines were developed in 1996, before the WHO classification, before the explosion of wireless technology, and before clearly understanding how RFR biologically affects human tissue, particularly childrens’ rapidly growing cells. In addition, the guidelines are not biologically based, but rather based on physics.

    Much research suggests there is a cumulative effect of RFR on the body. According to antennasearch.com, there are already 48 antennas within a mile of Pemberton and Byrd. To that, add wifi blanketing the classrooms, wifi in the home and elsewhere, and ubiquitous use of cell phones and other wireless devices, and there is no question that the cumulative load is heavy on these students.

    Landmark court cases lend credence to the issue of possible danger from cell towers and antennas. To name but one - in 2011, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Vatican Radio must pay the town of Cesano, Italy for health damages resulting from its transmitting towers. A regional study found that children in this town were six times more likely to develop leukemia than their peers elsewhere.

    Even if we cannot say with certainty that there is a risk associated with RFR, health questions surrounding cell towers should at least preclude the Henrico School Board and Henrico supervisors from allowing a tower near its schools.

    Is it worth risking our childrens’ health to saturate them with radiofrequency radiation? The Precautionary Principal would say no.

    I urge parents and the Henrico Board of Supervisors to rethink their decision. Is possible loss of good health for roughly 1,300 children - or even one child, for that matter - worth the reward of $122,000?

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment