1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Students protest school's cell tower after fourth child is diagnosed with cancer

By mongeese · 37 replies
Mar 17, 2019
Post New Reply
  1. Kyle was ten years old when, in 2016, he was diagnosed with kidney cancer. In 2017 another ten-year-old boy, Mason, was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Some parents raised the issue with the school, noting the low likelihood of two children having cancer in the same 17,000-person town, let alone at the same school. In the last two years, two more current students and one former student were diagnosed with cancer.

    The Modesto Bee spoke with the brother of the former student, who had a brain tumor removed in a 12-hour surgery last year. “They don’t know if he will be able to walk or eat on his own again. He is 22 years old. He does not deserve this.” Parents of the afflicted students echoed the same sentiment, “kids should not be guinea pigs and we should not be taking chances with children’s lives.”

    On Monday, over two hundred students stayed home, while their parents attended a public meeting to discuss the next step. Earlier this year concerned parents hired Eric Windheim, an electromagnetic radiation specialist, who concluded that although the tower was within government standards, it probably is the cause of the cancer. “Children are still developing, and their cells are still dividing. It’s the worst possible time in their life to be exposed,” he told CBS Sacramento.

    His report was a topic of serious discussion at the meeting, but the school contradicted the report in a letter saying they had had the tower tested repeatedly and found the radiation levels to be well below legal requirements and completely safe.

    Distressed parents claim the report can’t be trusted due to the financial incentive Sprint offers the school to let them operate the tower there, about $2,000 a year for 25 years. Sprint themselves say they are confident that their tower is within legal bounds but want to work with parents and the school to make sure it isn’t harming students regardless.

    It’s difficult to say if it’s the cell tower causing cancer, if it’s some other factor or if it’s just a massive coincidence. But as parents have been saying, “if there’s even a slight possibility, then take it out.”

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al TS Evangelist Posts: 5,377   +3,772

    First of all, any issues with radiation waves from the tower can be measured to determine the validity of the claims.
    Second of all, School Boards are answerable to the community they serve so all facts in evidence should be presented to them with a motion to remove the tower.
    Third of all, and most importantly, $2,000 a year for a cell tower is chicken feed. We had one on the last college campus I was on and it commanded $10,000 per year and even that was considered cheap, especially considering the up/download of data generated just by the students!

    With so many highly creditable agencies and individuals bringing to light the dangers of these transmitted radio waves (IR) and the further dangers of 5G being identified, it may be an unfortunate time that we have to re-think the value of cell phones and any devices that use these band widths. Not saying this would be easy by any means but you have to ask if the "benefit" of these devices is worth a serious ailment and/or possible lessening of one's' lifespan???
     
    astralcyborg, tkabou, xxLCxx and 6 others like this.
  3. seeprime

    seeprime TS Guru Posts: 381   +406

    I think the issue is likely related more to environmental carcinogens and family history. Studies would need to be done to determine if only students were affected, or if others were. Do the affected students share the same water supply? Is the soil free of natural asbestos? Are they located in a high Radon area? Do the affected students families have a history of cancer? There are a lot of questions to have answered before a knee jerk reaction is called for. People react emotionally, instead of logically when it comes to their kids. That's expected.

    Sprint should pay for any new studies.
     
  4. TVPrd

    TVPrd TS Rookie

    One of the best comments to an article I've seen in a while. Logical and scientifically sound. If there were more people talking/acting like this everyday, the world would be a better place to live.
     
  5. koblongata

    koblongata TS Addict Posts: 199   +59

    Some comparison groups would be nice.
     
    Black Paper likes this.
  6. Theinsanegamer

    Theinsanegamer TS Evangelist Posts: 1,547   +1,767

    Those "dangers" are largely unfounded.

    Cell phone tower signals are not ionized radiation. You are surrounded by cell phone radiation all day, even without one in your pocket. If cell phone towers caused radiation,based on the rates seen at this one school, tens of thousands of school children a year would be diagnosed with these brain cancers, using things like your microwave or WiFi would kill you within a few years, hell incandescent lights give off EM radiation on the same wavelength as WiFi, THOSE would kill you. If cell phone radiation was so dangerous, brain cancers would be obliterating half of the world's population by now.

    We havent seen that. While cancer rates in younger individuals are on the rise, that can be accounted for by poor diet, lethargic lifestyles, and rising obesity rates. The cluster seen here could be the result of MANY things in the environment, from toxic materials int he water supply, in the school's construction, ece. If the families live in the same area, there may be something wrong with the area itself, something in the soil or their homes.
     
    mbrowne5061 likes this.
  7. FF222

    FF222 TS Addict Posts: 176   +107

    If it would be the tower, more student would have gotten stick, because obviously ALL of them get affected roughly the same way by that. This must be something else with a far more limited reach and spread than the tower, if the cases are connect at all in the first place. For what we know, this all could be just coincidence.
     
    Theinsanegamer likes this.
  8. EClyde

    EClyde TS Evangelist Posts: 1,830   +675

    Got to blame something anything as a basis for the law suits
     
    Solfan likes this.
  9. Trillionsin

    Trillionsin TS Evangelist Posts: 1,806   +407

    Screams witch hunt to me
     
    Solfan and Theinsanegamer like this.
  10. treetops

    treetops TS Evangelist Posts: 2,554   +544

    They say what are the odds, maybe take all the schools with cell towers and do the math?
     
    Solfan and xxLCxx like this.
  11. p51d007

    p51d007 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,962   +1,229

    Anyone bother to do research on the GROUND the school is built on, the area where the children live, their family histories before blaming the cell phone tower?
     
    Solfan likes this.
  12. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TS Evangelist Posts: 1,962   +577

    The American Cancer Society itself identifies mobile signals as a possible carcinogen risk. The International Agency for Research on Cancer does too. So that's good enough for me to not want a TOWER in a SCHOOL.

    Two massively significant cancer related institutions. If they have doubt then you should. They ARE experts in the area. This isn't some Jenny McCarthy hysteria campaign. This is an area with clear scientific validity of concern.

    There are warnings in cell manufacturer manuals about the risk of the radiation from phones. It's in the MANUAL. Some cities require public notices because people don't read the actual fine print. The fine print from the MOBILE manufacturers.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/berkeley-california-cellphone-radiation-health-risks
    They aren't just making up scare notices. They are just pointing out the warnings that phones ALREADY carry.

    So anyone who thinks this is a run of the mill fake hysteria campaign, you clearly haven't actually looked at what the experts AND manfacturers say about their damn products.
     
    Kibaruk, tkabou, xxLCxx and 2 others like this.
  13. Lew Zealand

    Lew Zealand TS Guru Posts: 659   +552

    This isn't a phone, it's a cell tower.

    Go ahead and post some junk about towers, but at least get that detail straight.
     
  14. MatDerKater

    MatDerKater Banned

    Cancer rates in younger individuals are on the rise, and that can be accounted for by anything other than that fkn mobile base station and/or WiFi emitting devices that modern kids are glued to all day long?

    So you are trying to say, that the increase in childhood, teen, and young adult cancer rates can be caused by every other known cause of oxidative stress in body cells, except non-ionising radiation from cell phones and WiFi devices?

    It seems to me like you don't know the slightest thing about what you are talking about (actually, I know full well that you don't), and you are just stating what you would like to be the facts of the matter, as though they were the actual facts of the matter...I.e. you don't want anything bugging you to give up your WiFi/cell phone habit, and don't want to have to think about the fact that all the electro-magnetic smog in which we live is actually pretty bad for our health, whether it ends up giving us cancer, giving us fertility problems, or any of the other associated ailments which are on a rather conspicuous rise.....

    As for 'unfounded' dangers. The US NTP, recently published results of a study of effects of cell phone radiation on rats, which showed CLEAR EVIDENCE of cancer in exposed rats. 'Clear Evidence', is the highest burden of proof employed by the review panel. The Ramazzini institute performed a similar, although much lower budget study which revealed the same results.........and bear in mind, these were studies looking at radiation from cell phones, not bloody CELL TOWERS! Having one of these things in a school yard is fkn insane, and I would have pulled my kids outta there as soon as I became aware of it.
     
    tkabou likes this.
  15. Lew Zealand

    Lew Zealand TS Guru Posts: 659   +552

    All opinion, no data.

    From the analysis website:

    "The findings in animals cannot be directly applied to humans for two key reasons:
    •The exposure levels and durations were greater [emphasis mine] than what people may receive from cell phones.
    •The rats and mice received RFR across their whole bodies, which is different from the more localized exposures humans may receive, like from a cell phone in their pocket or next to their head"

    Also, rats are not people. In this case we may generalize that they are but then again we may not, hard to know which is correct. Also these were 2G and 3G signals-- I don't know if these are lower, higher, or just different than our typical 4G signals nowadays. I haven't read the text of the actual published paper (trying to get access) as the handy website does not describe the quality of the science but the M&M and Results sections will make that evident.
     
    Drew Valadez and FF222 like this.
  16. Lew Zealand

    Lew Zealand TS Guru Posts: 659   +552

    Have access, reading papers.

    First note:

    The actual data paper seems to be unpublished. This is more than a year after the non-peer reviewed preprint was made available on bioRxiv. Kinda weird but that's from the direct links to published research about this study.

    Second note:

    "At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR (Figure 3)"

    Eat your GSM, little rats, if you want to live long!

    The point here is cherry-picking data, and this study likely has some of this. I cherry picked that tidbit there which makes it look like GSM radiation extends rat life but that's merely statistical variation. The problem is that many people, including scientists, mistake statistical variation for real signal. This is why scientific tests need to be repeated by other people using the same methods to be sure the effect is real and repeatable.

    That's the standard and there's no getting around it.
     
  17. stewi0001

    stewi0001 TS Evangelist Posts: 2,193   +1,617

    "She turned me into a newt!"
    -"A newt!?"
    "I got better..."
     
    Black Paper likes this.
  18. Adrienne Norton

    Adrienne Norton TS Rookie

    Sprint takes compliance with the Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations, including those regarding radio frequency exposure, very seriously. While we are confident this cell site in Ripon complies with federal regulations, we also understand and respect the views of the Ripon community and are committed to being good neighbors.

    Based on a variety of business reasons, we are continuing to evaluate the future of this site as part of our overall wireless network planning, including the possibility of relocation.

    We will be working with the community and local municipality to continue providing wireless service to keep the residents and businesses of Ripon connected.

    Adrienne Norton
    Sprint Corporate Communications - Network
     
  19. mbrowne5061

    mbrowne5061 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,204   +665

    Flagging them as "possible" risks lets them appropriate funding to studies meant to confirm or deny whether it is or not.

    I've already dug through pubmed, looking for cellphone-cancer links that resulted in anything more than inconclusive upon repetition of the study. I suggest everyone else do the same, see what you find. You either find 'large study, weak correlation' or 'small study, strong correlation - but follow-up studies found weaker or no correlation'. None seemed to have any causation confirmations.
     
    Michiel and Lew Zealand like this.
  20. Michiel

    Michiel TS Enthusiast Posts: 32   +14

    [quotes]The American Cancer Society itself identifies mobile signals as a possible carcinogen risk. The International Agency for Research on Cancer does too. So that's good enough for me to not want a TOWER in a SCHOOL.

    Two massively significant cancer related institutions. If they have doubt then you should. They ARE experts in the area. This isn't some Jenny McCarthy hysteria campaign. This is an area with clear scientific validity of concern.

    There are warnings in cell manufacturer manuals about the risk of the radiation from phones. It's in the MANUAL. Some cities require public notices because people don't read the actual fine print. The fine print from the MOBILE manufacturers.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/berkeley-california-cellphone-radiation-health-risks
    They aren't just making up scare notices. They are just pointing out the warnings that phones ALREADY carry.

    So anyone who thinks this is a run of the mill fake hysteria campaign, you clearly haven't actually looked at what the experts AND manfacturers say about their damn products.[/QUOTE]


    They do this because they cannot completely rule out any risk (since it's hard to prove a negative), and possibly because some studies have shown an "inconclusive" result rather than a solid "impossible" (which is again not very likely in any study in this kind of field since there are so many factors at play). Not because there's any strong scientific evidence of a risk. And it's in the manual because manufacturers don't want to get sued by people who THINK they got cancer from their cellphone, not because the manufacturers actually have any hard evidence that their product causes cancer (unlike, say, cigarettes).
    As far as we understand physics, non-ionizing radiation causes heating only. There is no known physical mechanism that would make cellphone radiation cause cancer. Now, that does not completely preclude any mechanism being found in the future, but it's stil quite a lot more likely that the cases of cancer in this story are caused by some other factor than the cell phone tower. Of course there are people who choose to "believe" otherwise. But then there are people who believe the earth is flat too.
     
  21. Bp968

    Bp968 TS Booster Posts: 101   +78

    IR? Radio waves (especially the wavelengths sprint uses) and nowhere near IR, if you mean infrared. And if you mean "ionizing radiation" then your really confused since ghz frequency radiation isn't ionizing.

    If these devices were a significant cancer risk we would be seeing *huge* increases in cancer rates (above the rates explained by better diagnostic methods) and we haven't seen that. Instead we see *billions* of people using *billions* of devices and we see a handful of ultra rich Californians constantly looking for new things to be scared or outraged about.
     
  22. Bp968

    Bp968 TS Booster Posts: 101   +78

    You can't sue the ground. Duh!
     
  23. Bp968

    Bp968 TS Booster Posts: 101   +78

    Did you actually read the study? They almost microwaved those rats. To get the same level of exposure would require you to spend your days hanging out on a live FM broadcast tower. Those rats were exposed to 6 *watts* per KG. How much do you weigh? A typical microwave puts out 700-1000 watts, so go stuff yourself in a microwave on 70% power. Yah, I'd expect that to cause cancer too (or at least hurt a bit).

    Another thing to be aware of is em radiation decreases in intensity by distance, called the inverse-square law (though this would actually require research and study. You know, that hard stuff). So the exposure the tower generates is likely next to nothing, especially directly under it (beam forming antenna like they tend to use are designed to cover a wide area not irradiate the people standing under it. Not much profit in that).
     
    Lew Zealand likes this.
  24. Jeanine Deal

    Jeanine Deal TS Rookie

    Look at all the cancer clusters around cell towers, especially the recent ones in Ripon, California, where children are getting cancer and one was told the cause was 100% environmental. Look at all the people who were heavy cell phone users and developed brain cancers on the same side of their head where they held their cell phone. Look at all the children becoming sick in school with nosebleeds, headaches, even heart attacks after powerful WiFi routers were installed. Look at all the young women who developed breast cancer just under where their cell phone was stored in their bra (despite no family history of breast cancer). Look at all the people who became sick immediately after a smart meter or transmitting public utility meter was installed on their home. Look at the fact that brain tumors are now the number one form of cancer in US teens and adolescents and connect the dots that they are the first generation to grow-up using cell phones and other wireless devices. We might not have time for viable long-term studies on this topic. We're dealing with radiation here. And so far, the radiation is winning. Just saying.
     
  25. Bp968

    Bp968 TS Booster Posts: 101   +78

    "Look at all" the what? Where are the studies? The data? "Look those people have cancer" isn't a study and isn't data, it's a panic.
     

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...