August 27, 2010.  Cell antennas and towers near homes affect property values says Andrew J. Campanelli.

On August 27, 2010,  The New York Times published an article about a lawsuit against a cell phone provider.

It has started a chain reaction that might have some some real estate agents “thinking”….buy high, erect a tower = sell low…

TINA CANARIS, an associate broker and a co-owner of RE/MAX Hearthstone in Merrick, has a $999,000 listing for a high ranch on the water in South Merrick, one of a handful of homes on the block on the market. But her listing has what some consider a disadvantage: a cell antenna poking from the top of a telephone pole at the front of the 65-by-100-foot lot.

“Even houses where there are transformers in front” make “people shy away,” Ms. Canaris said. “If they have the opportunity to buy another home, they do.” She said cell antennas and towers near homes affected property values, adding, “You can see a buyer’s dismay over the sight of a cell tower near a home just by their expression, even if they don’t say anything.”

By blocking, or seeking to block, cell towers and antennas over the course of the last year, Island homeowners have given voice to concerns that proximity to a monopole or antenna may not be just aesthetically unpleasing but also harmful to property values. Many also perceive health risks in proximity to radio frequency radiation emissions, despite industry assertions and other evidence disputing that such emissions pose a hazard.

The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. Cell tower activists are now targeting their efforts to prove real estate property values depreciate after the installation of a cell tower.  It might be surprising to soon learn that instead of doctors and scientists who testify in court as to the negative health effects of microwave radiation – real estate agents hold the most power in court to hold up the erection of a cell tower.

Andrew J. Campanelli, a civil rights lawyer in Garden City, said a group of residents had hired him to oppose the cellular company’s application. “They were worried about the property values,” Mr. Campanelli said. “If your home is near a cell antenna, the value of your property is going down at least 4 percent. Depending on the size of the tower and the proximity, it is going down 10 percent.”

Here are some links to websites that show devaluation of real estate from cell towers.

Industry Canada
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.html
Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers In Our Neighborhood)
http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value

April 28, 2010.  The BRAG™ Antenna Ranking of Schools report (Download 7MB PDF), released April 28, 2010, documents the density and proximity of antennas near schools in the 50 State Capitols and in Washington, D.C.  The more antennas that are near schools the greater the potential exposure of students and teachers to radio frequency radiation from external antennas.

Studies are beginning to document adverse biological and health effects for people who live near cell phone and broadcast antennas.  Some studies show an increased risk of cancers for those living within 350 to 400 meters of cell phone antennas at exposure levels well below federal guidelines in the US and Canada.  Other studies show an increase in symptoms that have been classified as “electrohypersensitivity”.  These symptoms  include difficulty sleeping, fatigue, pain, poor short-term memory, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, irritability and depression, skin problems, dizziness, nausea, and ringing in the ears.  Hence, exposure to microwave radiation may interfere with learning and may not be conducive to a  good learning environment.  Younger students are more vulnerable than adults to this type of radiation.

For these reasons it is important to minimize exposure of students to microwave radiation.  This can be done by placing cell phone antennas at least 1,500 feet away (approximately 460 m) from schools and by using wired rather than wireless (WiFi) connection for internet access within schools.

If your school is not included in the Original BRAG™ Antenna Ranking of Schools Report, this document shows you how to BRAG™ rate your school.  The 18-page pdf takes you through the steps required to rate your school.  If you decide to rate all the schools in your community/city you can rate your community as well.

This would make an ideal science project and, if properly coordinated,  it would provide a snap shot of the distribution of antennas near schools across the U.S.

This activity would raise awareness of the vast number of antennas that have become “neighbors” in our communities.  It should also begin to ring warning bells for policy makers.  Do we really want to place microwave transmitters near school?  Is this sensible policy?

Click HERE to listen to a news release from Public News Service.

Click HERE to listen to WSJM News report.

Click HERE to read article from KSPR radio.

Click HERE to read Our Times Press article.

April 21, 2010, Washington, D.C. A new report, “The BRAG™ Antenna Ranking of Schools” (‘BRAG™ Ranking’), will be unveiled April 28th  by Professor Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University, Canada, along with Jim Turner, Esq., Chairman of Citizens for Health, Camilla Rees, Founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org, Janet Newton, President of the EMR Policy Institute, The ElectroSensitive Society, and Christine Hoch, Executive Director of Moms for Safe Wireless. The BRAG™  Antenna Ranking of Schools report will be introduced in a Media Teleconference on Wednesday, April 28th at 2:30 p.m. Eastern. RSVP to Emily@electromagnetichealth.org for dial-in instructions.

This long awaited BRAG™ Report documents antennas near more than 6,000 schools in the United States and provides recommendations on how to reduce exposure to electrosmog in school environments.

For more information and to view the 7-page Media Advisory, click here.

“The BRAG™ Antenna Ranking of Schools” — Can Your School Brag?

• TO REGISTER for the Media Teleconference Call on Wednesday, April 28th at 2:30 p.m. (Eastern) please RSVP to Emily@electromagnetichealth.org. Dial-in instructions will be sent.

• To REGISTER for the 1st Teleclass for Parents, Teachers and School Administrators with Magda Havas, PhD the following week – Friday, May 7th at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern).   Please contact Emily@ElectromagneticHealth.org. Capacity is limited. For notice of future teleclasses, sign up for the Face Book page, Campaign for Radiation Free Schools.

February 2010. Lakehead University hosted a public lecture during their ‘Research and Innovation Week’ and invited Drs. Henry Lai (University of Washington), David Fancy (Brock University) and Magda Havas (Trent University) to address the Thunder Bay audience about wireless exposure and the possible health effects. Read what Thunder Bay News Watch has to say about the event.

Dr. Lai spoke about the “Biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields” and mentioned studies showing genetic and molecular effects, changes in the blood brain barrier, changes in calcium flux. He said electromagnetic energy can affect the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, the immune system, as well as hormones and reproduction, and it can generate behavioural changes and subjective symptoms. He showed that radio frequency radiation induces oxidative stress in cells by way of the Fenton Reaction that involves iron, hydrogen peroxide and the production of hydroxy free radicals leading to cellular damage. The free radicals can lead to functional changes, cell death, or cancer. These are some of the mechanisms leading to the symptoms described in the literature.

Drs. Lai and Singh were the first to show DNA damage in rats exposed to cell phone radiation. The comet assay is one of the most sensitive tests that shows fragmentation of DNA. The fragments resemble a comet and hence the name.

At least 60 peer-reviewed papers report biological effects at very low intensities of radio frequency radiation but these are all of short exposure. Long-term exposure data are scarce. What these long-term studies show are the following:
1. effects differ based on exposure duration.
2. some effects occur only after either prolonged or repeated exposure but not after short-term exposure.
3. some effects disappear after prolonged or repeated exposure (due to habituation).
4. an organism becomes more sensitive after repeated exposure.

Dr. Lai reviewed the scientific literature dealing with the biological effects of cell phone radiation. He found that results were dependent on source of funding. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the non-industry funded studies showed an effect of cell phone radiation while only (28%) of the studies funded by industry reported similar results. Huss et al. 2007 came to the same conclusion and stated that “The interpretation of the results from existing and future studies of the health effects of [radio frequency] radiation should take sponsorship into account.”

Dr. David Fancy spoke about “Electrosensitivity: a first person perspective”. Dr. Fancy’s sensitivity lead him on a journey that took him through periods of great illness to good health. He now provides information to those with sensitivity on how to cope and how to recover their health. David Fancy is an inspiration to those who suffer from electrohypersensitivity because he found a way, not only, to desensitize his body but also to improve his health. Dr. Fancy comments on the role of the WHO and other government agencies regarding EHS. Click here to down load his presentation as a pdf.

Dr. Magda Havas spoke about “Electrosmog and Electrosensitivity” and presentation some of her studies showing how radio frequency radiation can affect the heart (rapid or irregular heart rate) and the blood (rouleaux formation blood cell stick together like a stack of coins); how exposure to compact fluorescent lighting can cause skin rashes; and how dirty electricity may conribute to higher blood sugar among diabetics and tremors among those with multiple sclerosis.

Based on an estimate of 3% of the population with severe sensitivity and another 35% with moderate to mild sensitivity, as many as 1 million people in Canada may be severely affected by electrosmog and another 12 million may have mild to moderate symptoms when exposed to this type of radiation. If these values are even close to the real values, we have an emerging human health crisis that is escalenting according to Hallberg and Oberfeld (2006), who state that the prevalence of electrohypersenstivity (based on self-diagnosis) may reach 50% of the population by 2017.

While not all students at Lakehead are pleased with the decision to limit WiFi on campus (yes limit as some places, like the student pub, are allowed to have WiFi), students at other institutions would welcome studying in a wireless-free zone. Dr. Havas quoted from an email sent to her in November 2009 from a student at Carleton College in Northfield Minnesota who experiences seizures on campus after extended exposure to WiFi. He would like to know how to convince his college to remove WiFi.

The organizers of this event invited industry representatives, scientists affiliated with other universities who hold different views on this subject, as well as scientists from Health Canada to give presentations but all invitations were declined. Why are these people unwilling to appear in public to present their perspective on this issue? How can we have an open debate if one side is not willing to participate. Isn’t this what we value about democracy and isn’t this one of the important roles of a university to provide a forum for free and open discussions about things that matter?

Dr. Fred Gilbert, President of Lakehead University, has taken an unpopular stance regarding wireless technology because he does not think it is as safe as some would like us to believe. He has provided fibre optic connections in place of wireless routers for student and staff access to the internet. The National Library in France has done the same thing.

Interestingly, fibre optics provide much faster and more secure service than wireless and may very well be the ideal form of interconnectivity in places where there is a high volume of traffic and where security and speed are important. See Google offers alternative to WiMax. Fibre optics also has the advantage of not contributing to electrosmog and not making people ill. Here we have an example where the best technical solution (fibre optics) is also the best for our health. It doesn’t get better than this.

Date: January 11, 2010

To: Second Open letter to School Boards, Teachers, and Parents

From: Dr. Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D., Trent University, Peterborough, Canada.

Re: ALERT: Wireless routers in schools may be harming students and staff

Very little research has been published on the health effects associated with wireless routers used in schools and on the effects of cell phones on children. Studies have focused entirely on adults and these studies are showing an increased risk of several types of tumors, including tumors of the brain, the eye, the nerve leading to the ear, and the salivary gland with mobile phone use. These tumors appear on the same side of the head used to listen to the cell phone and appear after 10 years of moderate to heavy cell phone use. One of the most recent studies by Hardell and colleagues (2009) reported that the highest risk was for those who started using a mobile phone before the age of 20.

Other studies are finding an increased cancer rate for those who live within 300 to 400 meters of cell phone antennas. The cancer rates are higher and the cancers grow more rapidly than in populations further from these antennas.

This is particularly disturbing for the following reasons:

1. Younger children are beginning to use cell phones and they are much more sensitive to this radiation than adults.

2. Tumors are developing in adults at a much faster rate than expected with cell phone use and this is likely to be even faster for children whose cells are dividing.

3. A growing number of schools are installing wireless routers for internet access. The same frequencies are used for wireless routers in schools as are used for mobile phones (cell and cordless phones). These frequencies are between 2.4 and 6 GHz in North America. Consequently children are receiving a double dose of microwave radiation from both wireless routers and mobile phones.

4. Some of these children may be exposed to wireless routers at home as well and they may be living near cell phone antennas giving them around the clock microwave exposure.

Studies also are documenting reproductive problems for men who use cell phones. There is a decrease in sperm density, motility, and viability. While sperms are produced every few months, females are born with all of their egg cells and are much more vulnerable to damage as a result. To date there have been no studies on the effects of microwave radiation from mobile phones and wireless computers on egg cells and reproductive success in women.

The purpose of this open letter is to alert those who are responsible for the health and safety of children to think twice before installing wireless microwave technology in schools and exposing students and staff to radiation that could be potentially harmful.’

Click here for pdf without live links.

December 2009. If you are a student who is sensitive to electromagnetic energy or who does not want to be unnecessarily exposed to microwave radiation then this is definitely one university you should consider attending.

Lakehead University has opted for a fibre-optic network rather than a wireless network to provide access to the internet for students attending the campus in both Thunder Bay and Orillia, Ontario, Canada.

This is the first university in North America that has opted for the precautionary principle and that places the health and safety of students and staff above the convenience of wireless technology. Despite this policy students have access to the world wide web and have adequate cell phone access as well. What they don’t have is unnecessary exposure to microwave radiation.

We look to universities to provide leadership in society and this is one university that does just that. Despite lucrative, multi-year contracts offered to universities by cell phone providers for erecting cellular antennas on campus property, Lakehead has refused to place their students and staff at risk. In their policy report, effective November 10, 2009, they state “Cellular communications antennae will not be placed on University Property.”

If you study or work on a university campus and if you have wireless access or see antennas on campus property, ask your administrators to guarantee the safety of these installations in writing. If they refuse, then these installations should be removed and replaced with a fibre-optic network that will be faster, more secure, and safer than wireless. If your university won’t allow asbestos insulation to be used then they shouldn’t allow wireless technology to proliferate either because both are harmful to human health.

December 2009. The January issue of Prevention Magazine steps up to the plate to highlight “Dirty Electricity” and the health effects that are related to electromagnetic radiation. This article features the work of Sam Milham and Lloyd Morgan at La Quinta CA, where a cancer cluster among teachers was associated with the amount of dirty electricity in their classroom. Cancer clusters are showing up elsewhere but no one is measuring dirty electricity and perhaps they should be.

In the featured article, Magda Havas’s research is discussed and finds proof that exposure to transients may elevate blood sugar levels among people with diabetes and prediabetes and that people with multiple sclerosis improve their balance and have fewer tremors after just a few days in a transient- free environment.

Her work also shows that after schools installed filters to clean up transients, two-thirds of teachers reported improvement in symptoms that had been plaguing them, including headache, dry eye, facial flushing, asthma, skin irritation, and depression. The article is catching the attention of many politicians and news media outlets. The magazine’s deputy editor was recently interviewed on the FOX News channel about this highly controversial issue. The interview is provided below.

November 2009.

Open Letter to Parents, Teachers, School Boards Regarding Wi-Fi Networks in Schools and Cell Phone Antennas near Schools

by Magda Havas, 2009

It is cheaper but is it safer?

More and more schools are providing internet access in schools but, instead of going to a wired system, they are opting for the less expensive wireless networks, which generate microwave radiation.

Is this exposure to microwave radiation safe and should children be exposed? What are the immediate and long-term biological and health effects and where are the studies documenting the safety of this exposure?

After decades of research that established the harmful effects of asbestos,school boards are having it removed from school buildings at considerable cost. Will wireless internet and cell phone antennas on school property experience the same fate? Read the open letter and decide for yourself. Click here for pdf.

2006. Schools and offices are notorious for poor power quality, also known as dirty electricity, generated by tube fluorescent lighting, computers, and other electronic equipment. Since children are sensitive to environmental contaminants be they chemical, biological, or physical, it is important to keep the school environment as clean as possible.

Increasingly pesticides, certain cleaning agents, asbestos fibers, are no longer used on school property. Students may no longer bring nut-products to school because of peanut allergies. Yet few schools are even questioning the effects of wireless technology that envelops the school with microwave radiation.

If you are a parent, or a teacher, or are simply concerned about the health of children read the article on dirty electricity in schools. Click here for 4 page pdf.