Letter: Encinitas Cell Towers are Dangerous to Children

Susan Brinchman, the Director and Founder, Center for Electrosmog Prevention, writes against the placement of Cell Towers in Encinitas.

This month, ten children were pulled from an Encinitas charter school by their parents. The location was the Innovations Centre, a Julian Charter School leasing space from the Encinitas Beach Chapel at 510 S. El Camino Real. The reason? 14 so-called "stealth" cell antennas were found to be on the property, hidden from view in the steeple of the church and incorporated into parking lot lighting.

Parents hired an engineer to measure the RF radiation levels, which turned out, not surprisingly, to be within a range that many scientists say can lead to bioeffects and even potential adverse health impacts.  The Center for Electrosmog Prevention (CEP), a La Mesa-based national nonprofit that seeks to improve the public health by reducing electrosmog pollution takes a position on this scenario, which is more extreme than most, due to the number of antennas, though fewer antennas would also be of concern. CEP recommends immediate closure and relocation of this school as a precautionary measure. 

We recommend that all parents, leaders, and members of the congregation, as well as those at adjacent churches, businesses, and residences, become informed and read the BioInitiative Report 2012 Conclusions about the known bioeffects of this type of radiation, even at low levels.  . Radiofrequency radiation is now known to be a cancer risk, breaks DNA, is toxic to cells, can cause infertility, and is implicated with coronary and brain problems, along with much more. Scientist say it very well may be associated with the development or worsening of autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, and behavior disorders, along with asthma and immune system problems. Children are known to be most susceptible to this type of harm. They should be protected.   CEP supports the Resolutions of the Governing Board of Los Angeles Unified School District in 2000 and 2009, "opposing the siting of cellular facilities on or in close proximity to schools, to ensure individuals, especially children, are protected from the potential health effects associated with exposures to extremely low frequency electromagnetic [ELF-EMF] and radiofrequency radiation [RFR]". LAUSD has also banned Wi-Fi from its schools. They use fiberoptic cable so that the children will not be exposed to electromagnetic fields. CEP suggests that the County and San Diego County School District adopt and enforce similar resolutions for all schools that protect children and staff from what are now known bioeffects of exposures to electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency radiation, which is a B2 carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization.

Bioeffects are extensive from this type of radiation, include those occurring in just a few minutes exposure, with adverse health impacts predicted from chronic exposures. As Director of CEP and a parent, I am horrified that young children would attend school in classrooms and eat their lunches within just a short distance to 12+ cellular antennas that their parents knew nothing about. We are missing much-needed laws that would protect our children and the surrounding community from EMF and RFR. Until we have them, we must be vigilant and find out if our churches and schools have cell towers or antennas. We must insist on wired computers, not wireless, in our schools. In the end, health is more important. What good is an education if you lose your health getting it? I am also concerned about others on the property and nearby.

As a churchgoer, I would also be very concerned, based on the independent research I have read.  Lastly, I have a question. How many of these children have reported headaches, dizziness, breathing problems, lethargy, irritability, hyperactivity, attention problems, or learning problems? How many special needs students are there at this school, how many special education evaluations? Even with no signs, since chronic exposure may take time to show adverse health impacts according to scientists, who is going to be responsible for any future health issues that might result? I sincerely hope there are none. We must take steps that ensure this doesn't happen again to any other families. 

Susan Brinchman
Director and Founder, Center for Electrosmog Prevention 
P.O. Box 655 
La Mesa, CA 


Susan Brinchman January 23, 2013 at 05:34 PM
Article in the San Diego Union Tribune on this story, "Parents Pull Students from School Over Cell Tower" (1/22/13): http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan/22/parents-pull-students-from-school-over-cell-tower/?page=1#article-copy
Peter Sierck January 24, 2013 at 11:35 PM
Before start shouting. What did the survey actually find? What are the measurement result at the site?
Susan Brinchman January 25, 2013 at 08:40 PM
Is there any gov't guideline to regulate RF radiation based on bioeffects and health impacts found in thousands of studies? The answer is "no". Any gov't guideline to protect the population from risk of cancer? "No." There is no way to make what I am told is 20 cell antennas acceptable for children. And also, why are they hidden? Why weren't parents informed? We know the answers to those questions. Anyone taking measurements and using the FCC guidelines is going to be using something exponentially higher than the levels that show bioeffects in research. To give an example of the wide range of levels between governments (who try to please industry) and scientists: 10 000 000 µW/m2 – FCC (USA) OET-65, recommendation 9 000 000 µW/m2 – ICNIRP 1998; WHO, recommendation 100 000 µW/m2 – Russia and Italy, recommendation 1 000 µW/m2 – the Bioinitiative Report 2007, recommendation 170 µW/m2 – the Seletun Statement 2010, recommendation 3 µW/m2 – the Bioinitiative Report 2012, revised recommendation 0,1 µW/m2 – contribution from the sun at daytime during big solar storms The RF fields at the school, according to Mr. Schwaebe's report, were found to vary from 200 to greater than 20,000 μW/m2. In a previous news report (NBC), both Mr. Bushberg and Schwaebe's measurements were similar. It was the interpretation of what could be harmful that differed. Mr. B. used FCC guidelines developed in the mid-1990's as the measure of harm. Mr. S. used more current science.
Susan Brinchman January 25, 2013 at 09:22 PM
I wonder if it impacted your reasoning skills? :)
Chris January 26, 2013 at 10:59 PM
The BioInitiative Report, WHO, and other scientists have all agreed that RF/EMF radiation breaks down DNA. DNA breakage/alteration has been longed linked to cancers. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that this is NOT good for people. People just don't want to give up their TOYS in order to make the planet safe for everyone. The US GAO Government report admits that the levels the FCC set are outdated and yet, nothing is done. But then, the telecom industry is one of the biggest lobby groups in the US. By the way, the RF levels were set for heating tissues only and not non-thermal effects like DNA breakage. They were also set for 180 pound, healthy adult males. That means about 2/3 of the population has not been assessed that the FCC levels are even healthy at thermal levels. Most people think the FCC or someone in the government has tested RF radiation levels for safety but this isn't true. No one has tested and the general public is apparently a big experiment for the industries that use RF producing technologies. Most people don't "FEEL" cancer coming on until they are already ill. It is not logical to say because I don't "feel" anything from my cell tower it must be fine. How many people died of Lung Cancer claiming their cigarettes made them "feel" better. Wake up and smell the ugly truth.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »