How is it possible that a new cell tower in my neighborhood will decrease my overall exposure to RF emissions?
Actually, the larger risk of RF exposure comes from the cellular handset itself rather than a cell tower that is nearby. The inverse-square law states that “the RF energy at a distance from a source drops by the square of the distance from the source.” RF exposure to cell phone users is reduced by putting a cell tower in your neighborhood because the handsets will operate at significantly lower power levels. If you have a quarter-watt handset next to your head, it delivers significantly more energy to the user than does the 100-watt RF equipment that is on a cell tower that is a 100 feet away and 100 feet above the ground because of the inverse-square law. When you put a new cell tower in your neighborhood, the handset’s RF emissions is significantly reduces from a level that is 1,000 times below the FCC-defined safety level to a level that is 1,000,000 times below the safety limit.

There is no personal attack being made here. We do not want to be a part of anything other than a true grassroots movement to work together, unite our county and help our schools keep cell towers off their grounds in light on the large body of evidence that RF radiation, even at low amounts, is dangerous and children are the most vulnerable to its effects. We are talking about a 30-year lease of school property - that means our children AND grandchildren could be affected by the results. No one should have the right to sneak a decision that important past an entire community. But, it really adds insult to injury when you not only try to sneak it past them the first time and then mislead them and make them look foolish after the fact. These people are not stupid and when they understand what has happened they will be very upset. And they have the power and the resources to do something about it. http://www.getthecelloutatl.org

It's possible that there is very little American evidence, as we are driven by profit. However, there have been several studies conducted in countries like New Zealand and Germany that do show evidence of harm -- enough to certainly give a person pause.
http://no-celltower.com/German%20RF%20Research%20Article.pdf

"Much experimental evidence of non-thermal influences of microwave radiation on living systems have been published in the scientific literature during the last 30 years – relating both to in vitro and in vivo studies – and were reviewed just recently by the STOA commission for the European Parliament (STOA 2001). From the use of microwave wireless technologies e.g. the following non-thermal biological effects have been reported:
Changes in the electrical activity in the human brain (VON KLITZING 1995)  Increase in DNA single and double strand breaks from RF exposure to 2.45 GHz (LAI & SINGH 1996)  Increased lymphoma rates (2 fold) in transgenic mice exposed twice a day exposed to 30 minutes of cell phone (GSM) signals over 18 month (REPACHOLI 1997) 
Increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier in rats (PERSSON 1997)
Production of heat shock proteins and cancer risk (FRENCH 2001) 
Higher risk of uveal melanoma (STANG 2001)

Here's another interesting article on the subject:
http://www.cell-phone-tower.com/Cell_Tower_Dangers.html

Beyond this, one has to ask, is it necessary to have a tower at both Lakeside AND Briarcliff ES?

Nancy, in addition, our school system HAS plenty of money. The consolidated budget is over $1.2 Billion annually. This is well over $12,000 per student. Rather than scrabble over essentially a small amount of money for cell tower rent, we need to force the board to adhere to their fiduciary responsibility and root out waste, fraud and abuse. Let's start with making them show the public EXACTLY how much they spend on legal fees every year -- it's millions upon millions. Don't believe their 'poor mouthing'.

(BTW, that $1.2 Billion is in ADDITION to the over $125 Million they stand to collect in SPLOST penny sales taxes each of the next five years - having already collected and spent over $1.5 Billion in past SPLOST construction dollars.)

Nancy, that is a very bold statement. You don't really believe that there is zero evidence that cell towers are dangerous, do you? Because if that were true, why would any of us be discussing this issue at all? There has been plenty of evidence and it has led other countries, who have to cover the cost of healthcare for their citizens to take a slightly different approach than the stick your head in the sand one that we appear to have here. In the U.K., no one under 14 is allowed to use a cell phone. In Canada, they are removing all wireless devices from their schools due to the health risks. In Germany, the home of T-mobile, they do not put cell towers anywhere near the ADULTS, or their children, or the schools .... and they will not even allow cell towers near their cattle because they do not want to take a risk of getting cancer by eating the tainted beef. They will not do any of the things in their own country that they are doing here and sadly, that still doesn't make them the bad guy because they could very easily have been stopped YEARS ago when they started putting towers at schools if school boards like ours would have just said NO.

By the way, there is major site testing and construction going on in the backyard right now of the leader of your protest. Trees down, temporary structures are built and being moved all around, someone testing the electric at the corner, the water / sewer guys are camped outside the home of our board member. But, we shouldn't really have to point all this out... especially if this is what you guys wanted all along. Enjoy it!

Jonathan, I suggest you read some of the nightmare comments that were allowed on the Patch in response to my blog many months ago as I tried and tried to alert the Tucker community and all the other schools. They were insulting, personal and uncalled for and they were obviously being made by a paid industry blogger, not a local resident. But, yet those comments remain. Any of my comments here should absolutely be taken as the truth and the person I was referencing has put her own name out there as a credible, trustworthy source of information. If that is not the case, then there is no reason to start leaving names off now. And it should be your obligation to find out if this is the case or else you are being played like everyone else. Yes, I'm mad. Isn't it about time the rest of you get mad, too? This is a violation of your rights, my rights and most importantly the rights of innocent children to attend a school that is safe.

Cere:
My comment to you was not meant to demean or mock. If you took it that way, I sincerely apologize. It’s just that I follow your blog and have come to expect more relevant links from you in your responses. I don’t always agree with you, but you normally provide very good, up to date references on your school blog. But here you cited a study done in 1997. Would you accept having your child using a 1997 science book in school? I wouldn’t. But, I agree that the “no evidence” comment was too absolute.
As for being open minded, I try to read every link that folks provide with their comments. More often than not, they seem to reference that same, generally out-dated papers, articles and studies concerning cell phones. With cell phone technology changing as quickly as it does, these just don’t seem to be as relevant today. Cell phones today generally use a higher frequency and lower power – RF factors that are less likely to cause cell damage.

If you want to know what is really outdated: try the FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is the gospel that we are all being held accountable to when clearly the use of cell phones both in duration of time, age of the end user and widespread use throughout our communities when "mobile" or at home has changed. Should the safety standards be updated to reflect what we know today so that we are not being forever bound by what we "thought" was safe in 1996 based on the way people used their phones more than a decade ago?

One thing that hasn't changed is that microwave radiation can and does cause cancer. You wouldn't expect a sane person to put a child in a microwave oven - why should we be expected to sit them under a cell tower all day and not expect any adverse consequences? Low level does not mean "safe." A prior belief in the research community that no longer exists today is that if the radiation was not enough to actually heat tissue, it was not able to cause damage. We now know that is not true and that at even the lowest levels, RF radiation causes changes to biological material. The extent of these changes and how long one must be exposed to the low levels before harmful effects are realized is still being debated. But, until the jury is back on that one, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Isn't the label of "possible carcingen" enough to warrant caution when children are concerned?