.
Feedback

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 
91944 
director@electrosmogprevention.org 
www.electrosmogprevention.org 

 

Larry Ansley January 23, 2013 at 01:34 pm
No where in this article explains "the science to prove any of the science" to provide proof! Mant tests have been done all coming back with no evidence that RF causes these problems. This is just mor FUD!!!
L
Jay Berman January 23, 2013 at 02:24 pm
It's a bunch of lies ... a cell phone tower puts out between 100mw and 4 watts ... its nothing ... your WiFi router puts out about 400Mw, your cell phone about 80 to 100Mw (milliwatts) truly insignificant .. AM radio station antenna up to 50,000 watts, that is significant but you can stand next to that tower and it won't hurt you ... (I don't suggest you climb the tower and grab the antenna !! That will hurt you)
I have been working with RF since 1975 .... some pretty powerful ... I'm perfectly healthy ... Everyone on Earth has been exposed to both natural and generated RF their entire lives ... constantly .... our life spans have increased over the years ... Some people make money by fear, this is all this is ...
Susan Brinchman January 23, 2013 at 02:34 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 08:35 pm
Before start shouting. What did the survey actually find? What are the measurement result at the site?
Susan Brinchman January 25, 2013 at 05:40 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 06:22 pm
I wonder if it impacted your reasoning skills? :)
Chris January 26, 2013 at 07:59 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.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Rick Moore June 17, 2013 at 11:18 am
The consequences are fully articulated on DEMA's website. Prop A would be a tragic setback andRead More embarrassment for our city.
Encinitas YES on A June 17, 2013 at 01:20 pm
DEMA's website is hardly a resource for anything "articulate" on Prop A, unless you countRead More baldfaced lies as "consequences." Not only was DEMA's board not "unanimous" on the vote against A as Dody Crawford claimed (and later had to take back publicly), most downtown merchants have no clue what DEMA is saying on their behalf: the few I spoke with were horrified. Folks, read the initiative for yourselves and you'll see that only major zoning changes fall under Prop A: not the boat houses, not the La Paloma, and not the SRF (whose membership is very solidly a "Yes" on A.
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits. "In the 26-yearRead More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative! Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause." We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm
YES on PROP A which is NOT deeply flawed and very well written.
Robert June 3, 2013 at 04:16 pm
Thanks for tweeting this, Encinitas Patch. Exactly the kind of hard-hitting local coverage you can'tRead More get from legitimate news sources.