They are working hard. This post, though, raised my ire.

I don’t look at their blog very often – because I know what it will say. And while I agree that they are welcome to fight the tower based on aesthetics and the perceived threat to property values, I do think they are weak in their argument on health risks. (I also think their property value argument is overblown and they overestimate the potential negative effect of the tower. Yes, there is some anecdotal evidence that some buyers will not want to be near a tower, but there is also evidence that other buyers value good cell coverage.)

(One ironic thing is that the closer you are to a tower, the lower the RF emitted from the cell phone that is two inches from your head, and the RF from the phone may turn out to be the bigger risk to your health.)

You can always find some study by some obscure professor that will back up just about any hypothesis. And from reading an abstract you don’t always see what flaws may have existed in the study.

For example, the Cranford Cell Tower Haters Club cites a study that found higher incidences of leukemia and what-not when they looked at kids near a TV tower and cell tower. The TV tower is a much different animal as are FM towers since they are different wavelengths and they are much higher in power than a cell tower.

A while back when I started this blog, I found a good article from the American Cancer Society – a group that shouldn’t be in any wireless lobby’s pocket. The article didn’t damn cell towers, and the only instance of RF problems was in a study with microwave towers and involved higher levels of exposure, which again, are quite different from cell towers.

You can read it for yourself here.

So, in the name of rebuttal, here are some links that maybe the residents can read to arm themselves for their fight. So as a public service, I have done a few more minutes of Googling (or in this case AltaVista-ing.)

www.pps.k12.or.us/news-c/faq/cell_phone.pdf

www.wirelessweek.com/article.aspx?id=105028

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q79.html

http://www.livescience.com/health/061212_bad_phones.html

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/284/23/3001

www.emory.edu/KomenEd/PDF/Possible%20Risk%20Factors/Cell%20Phone%20Risk.pdf

So there you go, cell tower haters, you may want to consider backing off the health arguments and stick with the property value and aesthetics. The less you come across as tinfoil hat wearers the better you will do.

Now if you can just stop the morons who post on CranfordTalk from libeling the CSC members you will be on your way to having some serious credibility.

Good luck.

(For the record, I am not against cell towers and think that the cell coverage in Cranford is not that great – it could use some additional towers and the money that they generate. And yes, I don’t find them beautiful, but I don’t think they cause health hazards and would accept one in the vicinity of my home provided it wasn’t hideous.)

(Also for the record…I’m not a member of the CSC; No one in my family has ever even visited it. I casually know a couple of people who are members and they seem okay. So shut up with your “Cranford Pundit is an evil shill” nonsense – and I don’t work for Verizon or any of the other cell companies either. So there.)

Advertisements