Community members at Amity Creek Magnet School are opposing a proposed Verizon cell phone tower slated for construction at a downtown Bend church. Leaders at Trinity Episcopal Church will decide this month whether to let the wireless provider mount a faux bell tower in order to boost its 4G service to 5G. Critics, namely parents and neighbors near the church, say towers such as those can have negative health impacts, pointing to recent studies showing correlations between rare brain cancers and tumors.
Opponents of the tower also point to stricter legislation in European countries, which limit cell towers next to schools. Research into the potential health effects of towers is still ongoing, and more than a dozen cell towers are already hiding in plain sight throughout Bend.
A Changing Electromagnetic Landscape
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people are exposed to 100-million times more electromagnetic radiation than their grandparents’ generations. With 95 percent of Americans now owning mobile phones, cell towers have increasingly crept into residential communities to meet demand. The towers, at times freestanding and other times mounted onto existing structures, are virtually everywhere.
Sometimes they’re camouflaged; as is the case with a cell tower on top of the building at 1135 NW Galveston Ave., owned by Galveston Properties, LLC. That one, constructed in 2011, is disguised as a faux chimney. Towers are usually 50-200 feet high, holding electronic equipment and antennas which receive and transmit radiofrequency (RF) signals. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, funded by the World Health Organization, classified RF radiation in 2011 as a possible human carcinogen. Parents of the 180+ students at Amity Creek Magnet School, next to the church, are worried about the risk of that carcinogen.
Feeling Helpless
“I can do a lot things to protect my children — I can put a helmet on their head or feed them the healthiest food,” says Shawndi Stahl, a parent of two Amity Creek students, “but this is completely out of our hands and I feel hopeless that I can’t limit their exposure to something that later on could be potentially proven to cause cancer.” Stahl points to the lessons learned throughout history, namely the thought that lead, asbestos and even smoking were once considered non-harmful. Today, more than 30 studies have shown no correlations to cancers, while a handful of other studies show some direct dose–response relationships.
Stahl says that very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk, noting that it is still very much an area of active research. At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues, much like how a microwave heats up food. A 2016, $25-million federally-backed study showed links between rare brain and heart cancers and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. A 2004 study showed increased levels of rare brain and heart cancers in rats that were exposed to RF radiation for nine hours each day.
Some European countries and municipalities such as Belgium and France have strict limits on electromagnetic waves, limiting the placement of Wi-Fi devices at schools. In some European districts, cell towers must be 1,500 feet away from schools.
The United States Federal Communications Commission says the amount of RF energy from towers at ground level is thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by federal law. Still, critics point out that federal safety rules were put in place in 1996, when signals largely radiated from remote towers that were off limits to the public sphere. The FCC maintains that it would be highly unlikely to be exposed to RF levels in excess of these limits just by being near a cell phone tower, especially if antennas are mounted high above ground level and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly.
City of Bend code lays out the general framework for the locations of these towers. Aaron Henson, the City’s senior planner, says, “Regulations encourage cell service providers to locate new towers in commercial or industrial zones.” He notes that although city code discourages new cell towers in residential zones, “Federal law prohibits the City from completely banning them from residential zones…(and) ultimately, the cell service providers determine where they want to put new towers.” The tower on the building at 1135 Galveston, located in an area with both residential and commercial buildings, is also owned by Verizon.
Jeff Walkup, who lives 200 feet away from Trinity, is spearheading discussions with the congregation. He says: “For all of us concerned, the important question we are asking (the church) is this technology 100 percent safe? Will the children be 100 percent safe and is the church 100 percent sure?” He continues, “Is the church fully aware of the considerable disagreement within the scientific literature as to the long-term health impacts of RF radiation?”
Walkup, Stahl and other parents are petitioning the church to rethink letting Verizon place the tower at the church citing the unknown long-term health effects of non-ionizing radiation.
A Financial Decision
“This isn’t a get rich quick scheme,” says the Rev. Jed Holdorph of Trinity Episcopal. “Anytime you can increase revenue streams, you have to carefully consider them, whether they be private or nonprofit sector.” Holdorph is quick to point out the church is a registered 501(c) nonprofit, and although he would not offer specifics on how the increased revenues would be spent, the church is known for hosting community-centered and homeless outreach services. “We’re open and listening to the community,” Holdorph says. “The matter is deciding whether or not cell phone towers impact health or not…and we will take all into consideration.”
Walkup notes, “…from the perspective of some in the public, the partnership looks ethically questionable. Have you considered that by aligning the church with a commercial enterprise, with even the remotest possibility of causing long-term harm to a child, that the very sacredness, holiness and authority of the church itself is called into question?”
Verizon spokesperson Heidi Flato says the need for the tower is in reaction to feedback received from customers in the Old Bend area. “Service-related concerns ranging from slow data performance to dropped calls,” were of primary concerns. She says that once completed, the site will “add additional network capacity, improved in-home coverage and increased data throughout.” Flato also notes that the proposed tower will match the existing aesthetic of the existing 43′ – 8″ bell tower and will be camouflaged in.
While the Source was unable to verify revenues Trinity may receive, in the community of Pasadena, Calif., Verizon offered to build a 53-foot faux bell tower in a church’s parking lot and offered a $2,000 monthly stipend. An ex-T-Mobile employee familiar with the issue notes that this amount is “considerably low, and that the rent allocated could be anywhere from $5,000-$7,500—even $10,000.”
Stahl says that some parents have considered leaving Amity if the tower is approved. “I wouldn’t feel comfortable dropping my children off each day, knowing they were being exposed.” Stahl adds, “I’m not anti-cell phone and anti-technology, I just don’t think we need to sacrifice potentially our children’s health for upgrades from 4G to 5G.”
Flato says that since 2010 Verizon has spent $122 billion in improvements across the U.S and does so to ” continue to invest to be sure we stay ahead of the rapidly increasing demand for mobile data.”
City of Bend’s Henson notes, “With cell service providers upgrading from 4G to 5G, we expect to receive applications for several more cell towers in the near future, in addition to the proposed wireless facility in the Trinity Episcopal Church bell tower.” Even if the church’s board of directors approves the tower, it will still face city planning division reviews and need to meet development code criterias. Decisions can also be appealed to a hearings officer.
Stahl hopes that it doesn’t come to that and that the church will listen to the pleas of its neighbors. “What the church needs to think about is whether they want to prioritize profit or prioritize the protection of our children and the residents next door.”
This article appears in Jun 7-14, 2017.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
What is a faux bell tower ? Is it that antennae are covered with metal sheets on the four sides . Metal sheets are with holes !
I confess to taking some delight in the image of worried parents calling one another on their smartphones to discuss the (nonexistent) health threats associated with cell towers, specifically the one Verizon would like to place on top of Trinity Episcopal Church. According to the American Cancer Society web site no legitimate (I emphasize the term legitimate) and rigorously designed scientific study has found anything close to a link between any form of cancer and the low energy radiofrequency waves emitted by cell towers. The reason no link has been found is that there is no mechanism by which low energy radiofrequency waves can affect cell (in the biological, not communication sense) DNA.
Ok, the counterargument is that you can’t absolutely prove the null hypothesis, but by that reasoning, we cannot be sure there are no leprechauns, either. Or that Sasquatch and the Loch Ness monster don’t exist, for that matter. Sometimes finding nothing really does mean there is nothing to find.
We have so many more important and demonstrated things to worry about for our children, like the link between skin cancer and exposure to the sun; excess sugar in so many foods; and increased risk of contracting serious communicable diseases arising from diminishing rates of childhood vaccination. These things have been scientifically demonstrated.
I strongly suspect that those objecting to the idea of a residential cell tower (shall we refer to it as the Trinity Death Steeple?) are (rightfully) outraged at the refusal of our conservative-leaning fellow citizens to accept established science and the reality of climate change. Alas, the antiscience bias runs strong on the left too, and the fear of low energy radiofrequency waves is a prime example of it.
Now, if folks want to talk about whether or not you can hide a residential cell tower to make it look anything like a grotesque and laughable attempt to hide what is obviously a cell tower, I’m in!
Parents should get together and buy the church and wench it from the hands of Satan. Reprehensible that a church would argue for money over human life when the science is now irrefutable. Cell towers kill. Wi-fi in schools kill. There is no longer any debate about this among the relevant scientific community but as with the tobacco industry the same playbook is being used by the wireless industry in creating “doubt.” People have got to stop letting industry define the discussion as seen in this totally erroneous statement quoted in the article by a parent…”Stahl says that very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk, noting that it is still very much an area of active research.” This is not true and only plays into the hands of industry by saying that there are few studies. The studies date back over 60 years and number in the many thousands by all branches of the military and NASA. International studies are increasing exponentially every year with a virtual avalanche of supportive science confirming that we are in deep trouble as a civilization and scientists, health researchers and others working with the science of microwaves and biology say this is the “most dangerous threat to human health ever.” So, if the church wants to take over Satan’s work of killing kids and others–put a cell phone tower in. Of course, on the other side, people should dump their devices and never look back. http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org
This is in response to David Butler’s comment. Are you by chance the David Butler who is the President of the Board of Directors of the Family Kitchen, sponsored by and in cooperation with Trinity Episicopal? If you are, my question for you is would the Family Kitchen serve to gain financially from the installation of the cell phone antennae?
Why would the industry want to hide the mobile tower antennae if there was no harm from radiation?
No proof of Harm
Isn’t Proof of No Harm.
The public health argument from Amity Creek Magnet School parents would have more weight if they first vaccinated their kids.
I share their concerns, but it’s hard to believe they have done any quantitative research to reach this conclusion considering the abysmal vaccination rate at Amity Creek.
In response to David Butlers comment, I absolutely hope you are correct that I am needlessly worried about 4 high powered RF radiation emitting cell phone antennae 100 feet from my children for every moment they are at school for 6 of their critically developing years of childhood. I would be delighted to find out that my children who are growing up in an age of rapidly advancing technology with undetermined long term effects will grow to live long, happy, healthy lives and see their children, grand children, and great grand children do the same. Isnt that what we all want as parents? And isnt that what we should all strive for?
When I first heard of the cell phone tower proposal I did exactly what you did and consulted the American Cancer Society website to find the same reassurance that there was nothing to fear. I, however, was not easily convinced as I know there are instances when information cannot be published due to donor contributions or political ties. Dont get me wrong, I think the American Cancer Society does amazing work, but I also know that when human research is concerned, it is very difficult to have legitimate and rigorously designed scientific studies as you emphasize. In human studies, it is virtually impossible to factor out the influence of variables such as genetics, lifestyle, diet, socioeconomic factors, etc. as well as the difficulty in having a control group. Also, the study of diseases such as cancer may take years if not decades to develop, so the causative factors when these diseases do emerge can be difficult to determine. You mention in your comment that low energy radiofrequency waves are not harmful. I did NOT find the same conclusion (this is contrary to how I was quoted in the Source article, but understand these instances happen in reporting). I also began to question the cumulative effect of long term exposure to EMF emitting devices (cell phones, lap tops, tablets), wireless connectivity, as well as the RF radiation from cell phone towers and antennae. For all those reasons my research did not stop at the American Cancer Society. I found too many credible and valuable resources to list in this comment section, however, here are a few that influenced my opposition to this proposal:
1) Powerful and dense information from private and public institutions, physicians, policy makers and136 academic scientific studies with citations. Note:remember when they are talking about Wi-Fi they are simultaneouslytalking about the transmitter of this signal, without our ability to turn it off – a base station antenna.
https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/CEHPAC/CEHPAC%20Dec%2013%20Comments%20Part%204.pdf
2) The American Association of Pediatricians urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941318.pdf (see first search result)
3) Dr. Anthony Miller, expert witness, Toronto. Also see more links below on same page.
https://ehtrust.org/science/cell-towers-and-cell-antennae/
4) Why children are more vulnerable to RF radiation:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583
5) Other advanced countries allow far less RF radiation than the U.S. and a comprehensive resource for parents on the responsible use of technology:
http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/
6) E.U. says: Antennas, mobile phone masts and other electromagnetic emitting devices should be set within a specific distance from schools and health institutions:
https://sites.google.com/site/nomarinwoodtower/eu-says-cell-towers-must-be-distanced-from-schools-and-hospitals
7) Excellent summery of RF radiation issues by the International Association of Fire Fighters:
http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp
I sincerely feel any parent, grandparent, or caring adult who familiarizes themselves with this rapidly growing and scientifically credible body of evidence would come to the same conclusion that any risk is not worth something as trivial as faster cellular data availability in downtown Bend. It is just too close to our children at Amity Creek and the Boys and Girls Club. There is too much to lose and nothing to gain.
I agree with you, David, that we as parents have many things to be concerned about. The things you illuminate as being risky to our children are absolutely on my mind. This is whyI put sunscreen on my kids, feed them extremely healthy meals and snacks, and am up to date on all their vaccinations. The list could go on and on. The difference with this issue, however, from the ones you mention, is that I have absolutely no ability to protect my children from this threat to their health and well being. If the decision is made to install these antennae, no amount of sunscreen, no safety helmet or equipment, no nutritious food or inoculation can block the influence of RF radiation on the brains and bodies of my beloved family.
I do hope my concern about this antennae proposal is as bizarre and outlandish as believing in leprechauns, but I also know that I take my job as a mother of my radiant children incredibly seriously and would never put them or my role as their parent in the same category as the Sasquatch.
Some good points have been made. However, if the research is ‘still out’ according to arguments from both sides the common sense thing to do would be to exercise caution and limit exposure to these young developing kiddo’s. Of course separating money from a church/religion is like trying to fit a camel thru the eye of a needle. Good luck, do the right thing and Give those kids a break.
I believe every citizen needs to investigate cell towers, cell phones, wifi, headsets, etc. I have done the research and am deeply disturbed by what I discovered. I can turn off my wifi when not In use, put my phone on airplane when carrying it (or better yet get a wired landline for both) but I can not turn off the cell tower pollution slated to be built across the street from my home. The proposed 5G tower will be using higher frequency electromagnetic radiation than the existing towers. The FCC is pushing ahead with this type of radiation with absolutely no research on health effects. Their desire to lead the world in 5G technology out ways any regard for the safety of the public, especially young children. Putting such a tower next to a school is morally wrong. The Bend -Lapine school district has decided to forgo money’s from cell tower rentals to protect our children. This tower will be about 30 feet from Amity Creek School. The children will be exposed all day. RF radiation has been linked to sleep problems, ADHD, skin problems, autism, and cancer. The church needs to put the welfare of these children and the neighbors ahead of any monetary gains.
There are product to give protection against this staff, like emf shielded caps, t-shirts, shirts just whole range and all with decent shielding level, people who suffer from EMF use this clothes and materials, take a look http://emfclothing.com
This article really saddened me. I felt like it was 2004 again. First, this article surely seems one sided, and it seemed like the source just didn’t want to think about the issue. If cell towers cause cancer and hurt children, and since they are everywhere, where are the hurt children and all the cancer. Even my brother who is a Naturopath isn’t concerned. Turns out there is a really simple explanation for why cell towers are not harmful. Its called the photoelectric effect, (side note, Einstein won his Nobel Prize for his understanding of it, not for Relativity) Simply put, Radio waves do not have enough energy to do anything substantial (like knock an electron off an atom which would be required for radiation based cancer), and nothing happens if you add more of it. Look it up. Cell towers, though ugly aren’t harming us. If they were, we would already be dead.
Look to emfwarriors.com and educate the clueless about this issue.
I was impressed with the homework Shawndi Stahl did on this subject in her response to David Butler. Reading through her references educated me, but I came to a different conclusion regarding radio frequency (RF) signals as it applies to cell towers. She was impressed by a position held by the International Association of Fire Fighter (AFL-CIO) regarding these towers. If one has been a member of a union (I have been in three of them), one should be suspicious about considering unions a reliable source of scientific information. “Safety” should not be political, but in my experience, the real world of unions forces it into that arena without regard to facts.
The reference to the Environmental Heath Trust and testimony by Dr. Anthony Miller to a Toronto Council regarding RF towers also featured Juli Chawla, former Miss India and Bollywood actress, as a voice for wireless safety. With no disrespect to Ms. Chawla intended for her part in civic responsibility, her scientific credentials were not specified. This non-profit organization was more focused on cell phones. Their mission statement included: “We develop multi-media science-based tools to educate individuals, health professionals and communities about public health threats, as well as identify, evaluate and mitigate risks of cellphone and other forms of microwave radiation…” On the website, the page titled “Key Issues” has nothing about cell towers. (https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/)
Once one starts Googling it’s possible to reverse engineer a reason to “fear” or a reason to be “confident.” Which is the best posture for good mental health for parent and child? The answer should be glaringly obvious. May the rational thoughts of David Butler prevail.
Ken Sandine
I cannot agree with the parents of Amity Creek children that there should be no cell tower anywhere near that school.
The science regarding exposure is thin but reassuring. Cell tower, cell phone and wireless radiation is not the sort associated with damage to our cells, cancer or brain damage. I would like to see more research. However, there will be no careful study of any consequences of cell tower radiation as congress has declined to consider funding the large, decades long effort needed to reveal some subtle effects.
How much research would convince these worried parents? I dont think they could ever be convinced. There is excellent rock solid data on immunization safety and effectiveness but 20% of Amity Creek children are under immunizedthe second lowest rate in Eastern Oregon. If thorough study of a topic was enough to convince worried parents, the immunization rate at Amity would be 100%. Instead, We have done our own research was the ignorant claim of parents of many of the un- and under-immunized children I cared forsome of these kids attended Amity Creek!
Trinity Episcopal Church does good work with our indigent and homeless people and some extra funding could be well used.
The people who rely on cell service are exactly the families who dont send their children to Amity Creek: the poor and under educated. They dont have land lines, expensive cable and home networks and several devices per family member. The indigent families I worked with at Mosaic Medical and COPA included many from the neighborhood of Amity Creek or who ate at Family Kitchen. Their cell phones are their only connection with jobs, utilities, schools and emergency services. They dont need dropped calls.
For better or worse, our children are awash in low power radiation from cell service, their phones, games, tablets and household networks. The proposed cell tower at Trinity Church will make little difference in our childrens exposure. Come back in thirty years and we will know if we have made a good choice.
Peter Boehm MD, retired pediatrician.
Verizon Wireless withdrew their application for this project on October 31, 2017. They installed some new antennas a few blocks to the north, on the roof at City Hall instead.