they "flew a balloon through them to photograph the areas. "
how high tech
maybe they never heard of google earth?

wle

This is a horrible future cancer risk for Lakeside students. DeKalb needs to place these towers on vacant lots or in shopping centers so that it will not endanger its students.

The American Cancer Society simply cited one British study, but there were studies in Germany and Tel Aviv that showed a 3X and 4X cancer risk when living next to transmitter antennas.

http://www.emf-health.com/articles-celltower.htm

the british study was more of a survey - it didn't have a clear 'control' group like those living next to a tower versus those who weren't living next to a tower.

Every study will be different because every cell tower emits a different amount of radiation and every study is a different length of time. Personally, I read the studies myself and make my own conclusion - I don't let some paid off organization summarize them for me.

I simply don't see why my kids should be FORCED to take this controversial health risk by having towers blasting right by their school. It's simply unethical.

LOL there's plenty of websites on that.
http://www.whale.to/cancer/american_cancer_society_h.html

But back to the issue, yeah, whether or not the towers cause cancer is a controversy. But b/c it's a controversy, it shouldn't be forced onto high school campuses.

The EMF website cited above sells "bioenergetic" items to combat these emissions from cell towers. That is the purpose of the site - to sell these EMF solutions products. Certainly doesn't create any sense of credibility to me. It is easy to use small studies to prove whatever point you want to make. Interestingly, from page 10 of the Israeli study "It would be certainly too premature to draw any conclusions from our results before they are confirmed and repeated by other studies from other areas, particularly in view of the fact that a great majority of papers on this subject showed that RF fields and
mobile telephone frequencies were not genotoxic, did not induce genetic effects in vitro and in vivo, and were not found to be teratogenic or to induce cancers. " Note that a great majority of papers showed cancers were not induced by these towers so the bulk of the research to date disagrees with this study and the authors are up front about it. There are always outliers in any research area.

If it's premature to draw conclusions, then schools should err on the side of caution and not expose students to a health risk or expose the county to litigation.
Lawsuits like the below one WILL occur:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/wpix-cancer-bayville-school,0,7715148.story

Here's a petition for Lakeside High:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/7/no-cell-towers-at-lakeside-high-school/

I agree that schools should not expose children and the surrounding neighborhood to healthy risks. What the T-mobile rep failed to mention is that it isn't the strength of the RF radiation that is the probelm, it is the fact that, even at a low level, the exposure is for an extended amount of time all day, every weekday. And, children are in more danger because thier skulls are thinner and their bodies are still developing so RF radiation that affects DNA can pose a larger threat and has, in fact, been banned in other countries for children under 18. I will sign your Lakeside petition. Please also sign our petition for Brockett Elementary: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Stop-Brockett-Cell-Towers/

There is no reason not to do this. We need the improved cell service, the schools can use the money and there is no health risk.
Go the American Cancer Society web page that addresses cell towers and READ IT. Here's a tidbit:
The 3 expert agencies that usually classify cancer-causing exposures (carcinogens) -- the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- have not classified cell phone towers as to their cancer-causing potential.
According to the World Health Organization:
Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.
How many of you, or your kids, use a cell phone? What makes you think the RF emissions coming and going through your phone, held right next to your brain, are less dangerous than emissions from a tower 150 feet above the ground? If cell towers are such a health risk, why is it okay to build them somewhere else?
If you're really concerned about cell phone towers you might want to check out the website www.antennasearch.com. There are currently 137 towers within a 4 mile radius of Lakeside High School. Some are paging, some are microwave, but most seem to be cell phone towers. Is one more going to be a “killer?”

This is getting silly. You do realize, I hope, that you are at more risk of getting cancer from the sun than from cell towers?
By the way, how's that petition going? I noticed that of 42 signatures, only 7 are even from Georgia, and three of those are in the same family.

There are too many studies showing a correlation between cancer and cell towers to start sticking them on every school property and forcing children to be heavily exposed during the entire school year. This seems like another historical health issue like asbestos, cigarettes, lead based paint, and cocaine in cough syrup. Remember when margarine was healthy? The industry claims the product's healthy, and it simply takes a while for the public to come around. Just because heavy, irresponsible sun exposure can cause cancer doesn't mean I want my school to force my kids to smoke, or have a cell tower blasting radiation on them all day.

Jack uses the logical fallacies that have foolishly destroyed phone service in my town.

First, no person claims that towers are healthy in the sense that that improve health. The claim, accepted by almost all but a fringe group of scientists, is that towers are not shown to be harmful. It is impossible to prove that anything is "perfectly safe."

How does it follow that because cigarettes are harmful, so must be cell towers? Please explain that logic.

There are no studies that show links between cell towers and cancer unless you go to the farcical websites like electormagneticalhealth.org. Anyone with a basic engineering background would laugh themselves silly with the claims on that site.

A friend of mine measured the radiation in a pre-school near a NextG antenna. The radiation from a nearby cell phone at 1.8GHz was 30 times greater than the cell tower 60 feet away. He performed a detailed, professional analysis that showed that cell tower radiation at various distances was a very small percentage of total radiation measured in the 50MHz - 3 GHz range.

This friend, by the way, does not work for the telecom industry. He is an engineer and environmentalist, who like most professional scientists, physicians and engineers, is contemptuous of the quackery promoted by anti-wireless activists.

I would not mind in the least if a tower were placed by my son's school, and if the district received income it would help.

whatever you say Brian.
The studies have been done. It's just people choose to ignore the results because they don't like the answer.
Science is simple. The most accurate studies follow a group of healthy people before exposure, and then monitor health effects after exposure. There's an exposed group, and a control group. It's been done. Israel’s Tel Aviv University found a fourfold increase in cancer. Scientists in Naila followed 1,000 patients for 10 years living within a quarter of a mile of a tower and found the cancer risk tripled. These simple control/exposed group studies are the most accurate and least likely to be biased. They're called prospective cohort studies.
http://www.emfexplained.info/?ID=24501
Since people are generally stupid, the industry will design studies that come up with misleading results and cite those instead. Usually these are case control studies or geographical studies. They take surveys, or follow people for less than 5 years (a common cancer latency period), or misinterpret previous studies and claim that studies haven't shown anything. It all boils down to money. I don't want my kids' risk of cancer to potentially triple so their school can get $300,000 over a 10 year period of time. If the school's problem is money, they can start managing the funds they already have better without exposing my kids to a health risk. I spend enough in property taxes to have my kids attend a healthy school.

In the German study, the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. That's a big difference.
There were 1,000 people in the Naila study, and it went on for 10 years. A fourfold increase in cancer is a highly significant statistic. Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft means environment medicine society – the journal publishes studies pertaining to the environment such as EMF, radon, or multi-chemical exposure. Obviously, the results of the study do not fit your preferred view, so you’re labeling it as ‘alarmist’.

The University of Tel Aviv used 622 people near towers and 1,222 people further away and nearly duplicated the German study's results.

Again, the British study was NOT a prospective cohort study. It was a case control study with a higher opportunity for bias. It studied 1,397 British children ages zero to 4. Therefore, it could not catch any cancer with a long latency period. The Naila study and the University of Tel Aviv study
both found that the cancers correlated with cell tower radiation had long latency periods of over five years. The british study failed to mention that in Britain, local ordinances and protests often prevent cell towers from being in residential areas. Also, it did not study whether the pregnant mothers worked near cell towers. Since most exposure to cell towers occurs in commercial or warehouse districts, the study was basically useless and designed to get the 'right result'.

Brian
8:03pm on Sunday, May 29, 2011
A few things here:

"It studied 1,397 British children ages zero to 4. Therefore, it could not catch any cancer with a long latency period. "

What's important is that it studied 1397 cases WITH cancer, as opposed to 21 cases in Naila. If you assert that 4-5 years is not enough sufficient , you must then dismiss CDs alarmist link to Bayville, whose headline reads:

"Cell Phone Antennas Blamed for KINDERGARTEN Cancer Cases"

unless Bayville has a 5-year Kindergarten program.

Also, why do you claim the Naila report is a prospective cohort study? Not that it makes a huge difference -- the limited number of cases (21) -- is sufficient to declare it useless. As I read it, they searched existing records in 2004 rather than following a cohort beginning in 1994:

"The basis of the data used for the survey were PC files of the case histories of patients between the
years 1994 and 2004. "

and later in the paper:

"The basic data was taken from the medical records held by the local medical authority (Krankenkasse)
for the years 1994 to 2004. This material is stored on computer."

Finally, please clearly explain the biases and their effects on results in the BMJ report vs UMG. I will respond with reasons that the UMG article is weak, and by drawing conclusions on such limited data, could only be placed in an alarmist rag. No peer-reviewed journal would accept this report.

I have had cancer caused by the sun. And, I don't let my child outside for any length of time without sunscreen to protect her. What can I do to protect her from this form of radiation? Nothing. No one has the right to expose my child to 24/7 radiation when no studies have even been completed on its effects and no studies involving children have been conducted. Until the school system conducts a salary audit and starts spending responsibly, they do not deserve our blanket approval of ways to give them even more, especially when this has the potential to harm children. Read the lease... it mentions hazardous materials. What has this world come to that we would even try to rationalize something that puts known HAZMAT materials on public school lands, intentionally? What do you think the students will get out of this? It boils down to $37 per year per student and that's if the money were to actually stay at the school. There is no mention of what they will spend it on. Don't you think you have the right to ask before you lower your neighbor's property values and drive students away to charter, magnet and privates?

The petition went great, btw, and helped us stop T-mobile at Brockett, thanks for asking.