Guest column: Reconsider dangers of cell-phone towers

WILLIAM GOLDSTEIN is general counsel of the Maharishi University of Management. Contact: bgoldstein@mum.edu

The proposed construction by U.S. Cellular of an 85-foot cell-phone tower in the small town of Fairfield has aroused health-related concerns from many residents in recent weeks.

In response, the company delayed construction and met with Mayor Ed Malloy, Maharishi University and a town committee, which proposed alternative locations to the proposed site on Depot Street, which is within 1,500 feet of three elementary schools and within 50 feet of residences and offices. U.S. Cellular rejected these alternatives, stating they were "not environmentally suitable to build a tower," and resumed construction.

On June 10, Jack Rooney, president and CEO of U.S. Cellular, sent a letter to the editor of the Fairfield Ledger in which he defended this resumption and stated that the tower's radio-frequency levels were "well within the government's acceptable limits." He also wrote that "there is no credible evidence that cell-phone towers pose a risk to people's health."

However, a large and growing number of developed countries and thousands of scientists and doctors have come to a contrary conclusion, the credible evidence for which is mounting. We cannot put our heads in the sand, however inconvenient this truth may be.

The national laws of Austria, Bulgaria, China, Hungary, Italy, Russia and Switzerland, among others, are considerably more stringent in the cell-phone sector than current laws in the United States. If such laws were in effect in our nation, they would likely not permit the Depot Street tower installation in Fairfield.

The adverse health effects documented at levels below FCC guidelines, with which U.S. Cellular claims to be in compliance, include altered white blood cells in schoolchildren; childhood leukemia; impaired motor function, reaction time and memory; headaches; dizziness; fatigue; weakness; and insomnia. These results are based on epidemiological studies of people living near cell-phone antennas in Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Israel.

The European Parliament, representing all the member nations of the European Union, "concerned about the continuing uncertainties about possible health risks concerning magnetic radiation," adopted a report on April 2, by a vote of 559 to 22 providing that "the placement of antennas, mobile phone masts and high-voltage power lines be negotiated between industry actors, public authorities and residents' associations in order to minimize health risks and legal-action cases. This will also ensure that EMF-transmitting devices are kept clear of schools, crèches, retirement homes and health-care institutions."

The real question is not whether the radio-frequency emissions of cell-phone towers are safe, but what the safe radiation levels are. The answer to that question is currently a moving target. In this uncertain environment, what is a responsible corporation to do?

It must, in all decency, go the extra mile with discussion until harmony is reached with the communities and customers who have legitimate and scientifically based concerns about their children's safety and the services they are buying.

In the same week that U.S. Cellular's CEO assured Fairfield that there was no credible evidence that cell-phone towers posed a risk to people's health, the U.S. House voted 301-97 to pass federal legislation stringently regulating the tobacco industry, following the Senate's 79-17 vote. Passage of the legislation is a great achievement after a decades-long battle.

Contrary to its competitors, Phillip Morris, the nation's largest tobacco company, came out in support of the bill, saying it supported tough but fair regulation. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., committee chairman at the memorable 1994 hearing when executives denied nicotine was addictive, relished the long-sought victory, declaring, "I think we are today at the last gasp of the tobacco industry's efforts to protect their profits at the expense of the health and lives of the American people and to get children to take up this habit."

The dawning of corporate responsibility seen in Phillip Morris' bold move sets a precedent we can all admire. I do hope that U.S. Cellular will see a similar opportunity to act conscientiously here in Fairfield at a time when much of the possible damage to human life from the cell-phone tower has not yet materialized.