Citing a lack of conclusive evidence on the safety of cell phone towers, a Loudoun County School Board committee has recommended against building them on school grounds. The recommendation follows mounting concerns about potential health risks associated with wireless radiation.
Board Chair Melinda Mansfield (Dulles) stated after the Finance and Operations Committee meeting on August 6 that studies about potential dangers are inconclusive and that children could be at risk. Mansfield emphasized the committee’s cautious approach by voting to recommend not allowing new towers on the grounds of elementary, middle, and high schools beginning in October.
“If I don’t feel like it’s safe enough for my kid, why would I deem it safe enough for your kid?” Mansfield, who also chairs the committee, questioned.
Committee member Deana L. Griffiths (Ashburn) and committee member and board Vice Chair Arben Istrefi (Sterling) joined Mansfield in voting for the recommendation, which would still permit towers to be built on school division administrative sites. The full board is expected to vote on the recommendation in September.
If approved, the ban would not affect existing towers at Rock Ridge High School in Loudoun Valley Estates and one near Woodgrove High School in Purcellville. The Woodgrove tower has been built but isn’t operational, according to Brian Stocks, the school division’s director of management and coordination. The tower is on county property, but its installation was approved by the previous board.
Prior to voting, Istrefi expressed significant concerns about erecting towers on school grounds, noting the considerable technological changes since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted its policies in 1996.
“There’s so much that we don’t know, and the information is outdated,” he said. “Cellular towers, and also the infrastructure behind these networks, have changed over a long period of time.”
In its RF (Radio Frequency) Safety FAQ, the FCC states that exposure to high levels of RF radiation can cause body tissue damage due to excessive heat. The eyes and testes are “particularly vulnerable.” However, it also mentions that evidence of harm from low levels of RF radiation is “ambiguous and unproven.”
The FAQ also claims that evidence linking RF exposure to cancer is “inconclusive,” citing a lack of independently replicated studies despite some experimental data suggesting a possible link between exposure and tumor formation in animals under specific conditions.
The FAQ explains that the FCC consulted with the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in developing its guidelines on RF electromagnetic field exposure.
“Both the NCRP exposure criteria and the IEEE standard were developed by expert scientists and engineers after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to RF biological effects,” the FAQ states. “The exposure guidelines are based on thresholds for known adverse effects, and they incorporate prudent margins of safety.”
Mansfield said that in response to concerns expressed by parents—including an online petition signed by over 800 people seeking a ban on building towers at schools—she “went down a rabbit hole” to research the issue. Her research included a New Hampshire state commission report on the health effects of 5G technology, which highlighted the commission’s difficulties in obtaining specifics from the FCC on possible radiation dangers.
The New Hampshire report acknowledged the historical pattern of products initially deemed safe later being proven unsafe and noted that both the World Health Organization and the insurance industry are hedging their bets against RF radiation due to potential harm. Among the commission’s recommendations were that libraries and schools transition from RF wireless connections for electronic devices to hard-wired or optical connections within five years and that new cell towers be set back from businesses, homes, and schools.
Maryam Esfarjani, whose son will attend Dominion High School in Sugarland Run this year, referenced the New Hampshire report during the public speaking portion of the meeting. Esfarjani, who runs an engineering consulting firm, has testified twice as an expert witness in cases on RF radiation exposure. She noted that the report found U.S. RF radiation exposure limits are higher than those in many other industrialized nations. She also cited a 2021 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia in a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Health Trust against the FCC.
The court found that the FCC “failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation unrelated to cancer.” The court ordered the FCC to provide a “reasoned explanation” that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to RF radiation unrelated to cancer.
In an interview after the vote, Esfarjani said it’s unclear whether low-level RF radiation can have long-term harmful effects, but there is evidence that it can cause cell damage known as oxidative stress. She emphasized the need for further studies and expressed optimism that the full board would approve the committee’s recommendation.
“They are an evidence-based, decision-making board. And that’s what we want,” Esfarjani said. “Until further studies are done, don’t put them on school property.”
Protecting Our Children from the Hidden Dangers of Wireless Radiation
In recent years, there has been growing concern about the potential health risks associated with cell phone-level electromagnetic radiation, especially for children. While technological advancements have brought immense convenience and connectivity, they have also introduced new challenges, particularly the unseen impact of entropic waste—a term referring to the disruptive and disorderly effects of radio frequency radiation (RFR) on biological systems. The Loudoun County School Board’s recent decision to ban telecommunication towers on school properties highlights the urgent need for awareness and action to protect our children from these invisible hazards.
Understanding the Risks
A significant body of research indicates potential health risks associated with cell phone-level electromagnetic radiation. Major studies such as the Interphone study, Hardell group studies, CERENAT study, U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), Ramazzini Institute Study, REFLEX Project, BioInitiative Report, and the work of researchers like Dr. Henry Lai collectively point towards an increased health risk from such radiation. These studies suggest that prolonged exposure to microwave radiation could disrupt hormonal balances, affect cognitive functions, and contribute to various health issues, including cancer.
The Unseen Impact on Children
Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of wireless radiation due to their developing bodies and minds. Studies have shown that exposure to wireless radiation can impact brain and hormone functions, specifically lowering testosterone levels in boys and accelerating puberty in girls. These hormonal disruptions can lead to severe consequences, especially for young children whose bodies are still developing. Parents, often unknowingly, contribute to this imbalance by giving their children cell phones and excessive screen time, replacing quality parent-child interactions with radiation exposure.
Outdated Safety Guidelines and Legal Battles
The FCC’s safety guidelines for cell phone radiation, established in the 1990s, have been found by the court system to be outdated and insufficient for protecting children. These guidelines are based on thermal risk assessments, which have been disproven as the sole measure of safety. Non-thermal effects, such as hormonal and neural disruptions, have been increasingly recognized as significant health risks.
In August 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of environmental health groups, stating that the FCC had failed to adequately review the latest scientific evidence on the non-thermal effects of wireless radiation. The court ordered the FCC to revisit its guidelines and address these concerns. This ruling highlights the inadequacy of current regulations and underscores the need for updated safety standards to protect public health, particularly that of children.
Raising Awareness and Taking Action
Given the mixed findings, it is crucial to approach the issue of wireless radiation with a balanced perspective. Here are some steps that can be taken to protect our children and raise awareness about the potential risks:
- Legislative Action: Enact federal legislation to ban the construction of cell towers on school properties and implement stricter regulations to limit children’s exposure to EMF radiation.
- Comprehensive Research: Fund and conduct extensive research into the health effects of RFR and blue light on hormonal balance and development.
- Public Health Awareness: Launch educational campaigns to inform parents, teachers, and the public about the potential risks of prolonged exposure to wireless devices and screens.
- Policy and Regulation: Develop updated safety guidelines that reflect current scientific understanding of non-thermal biological effects and ensure these guidelines are enforced in schools and public spaces.
Supporting Our Children
It is essential to support our children and communities while recognizing the potential environmental influences on their development. Free will plays a significant role in shaping identities, but we must also consider how altered hormonal states due to environmental factors impact personal choices. By educating children about the effects of exposure to toxic entropic waste, we can empower them to make informed decisions about their health and well-being.
Conclusion
In conclusion, protecting our children from the harmful effects of wireless radiation requires a comprehensive and proactive approach. By addressing the potential risks and prioritizing research, we can ensure that health decisions are based on true, unaltered identities. This effort will safeguard the well-being of future generations, allowing them to grow and thrive in a safe and healthy environment.
We owe it to our children to mitigate the impacts of entropic waste on their lives. Let’s not let our pursuit of technological advancement come at the cost of their health. It’s time to prioritize their future above all else.
Key Points:
Health Concerns and Studies:
- The proposal was prompted by concerns about the long-term health risks of RF radiation exposure. This follows studies like the 2020 New Hampshire report, which recommended minimizing wireless exposure in schools.
- There is ongoing debate and concern about the potential non-thermal effects of RF radiation on health, particularly in children.
Community Feedback:
- The community has largely opposed cell tower installations on school campuses. A petition against these towers has gained significant support, with over 800 signatures from local residents and students.
- Feedback from the public during the policy review process was predominantly against having cell towers on school property, citing health concerns.
Board Committee Discussions:
- The policy, which has been under review, included discussions about tightening the language to ensure the School Board has the final say on such projects.
- Amendments proposed by Board Chair Melinda Mansfield suggested that no new wireless facilities be considered on school campuses after October 1, but those approved prior to that date could still be built.
- The committee emphasized the need to consider health, safety, and security in any decisions about cell towers.
Advocacy and Evidence-Based Decisions:
- Maryam Esfarjani, a parent and engineer, has been vocal in advocating for halting cell tower construction near schools until more definitive evidence is provided by the FCC.
- Esfarjani’s statements highlight the committee’s recognition of the importance of evidence-based decision-making.
Why This Matters:
Public Health vs. Technological Advancement: The decision underscores the ongoing tension between embracing technological advancements and addressing public health concerns. As wireless technology becomes more integrated into daily life, such debates are likely to continue.
Precautionary Principle: The policy reflects a precautionary approach, prioritizing potential health impacts over the benefits of improved cellular coverage on school properties.
Implications:
- If approved by the full board, this policy could set a precedent for other school districts facing similar concerns.
- It may prompt further research into the health effects of RF radiation, especially in children, and influence future regulatory decisions by bodies like the FCC.
