Saturday, November 07, 2015

Cell towers more dangerous than nuclear plant

Cell towers more dangerous than nuclear plant

To the editor:

This letter is in response to the concerns raised regarding the Seabrook Station nuclear plant, including the degradation of the concrete and possible radiation leakage that could occur. 

While this could be a big problem in the future, what should be of concern right now is the continuous radiofrequency radiation that cell towers emit into the environment. This is a very serious situation that is largely ignored in most municipalities for two reasons: Consumers enjoy their wireless devices and local officials love the revenue paid by the wireless companies. 

On May 2011 the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency radiation, the entire spectrum, from cellphones, cell towers, WiFi, and the like as a class 2B carcinogen. At least Seabrook Station serves a useful purpose: generating power without carbon dioxide which in turn provides electricity to surrounding towns. What useful purpose does a cell tower serve? To fuel the trivial entertainment needs of wireless addicts while adding electrosmog to the environment. 

In my case, the good old town of Salisbury saw it fit to add cell tower antennas to the ugly beach water tank, making it look even worse, all for the sake of revenue, despite my concerns and scientific evidence including the WHO’s May 2011 decision. As for that Salisbury selectman being concerned with public safety by wanting Seabrook Station shut down, where was his concern with public safety regarding placement of those antennas? Where was his concern for the small children, the elderly, and pets living in the vicinity of the water tank? They’re the ones more at risk from cell tower radiation. In my opinion, I’m sure that selectman, just like his colleagues, gave the antennas the green light. 

And I strongly believe in my opinion that the prospect of revenue clouded the judgment of that selectman and everyone else responsible for the needless addition of those antennas, resulting with those parties hiding behind the FCC’s inadequate and outdated guidelines that only protect against a thermal mechanism, the American Cancer Society who for many years has been doing the bidding of the mobile phone industry, and the gibberish of some “so-called” radiation safety expert who is no more of an expert than a layperson, and in my opinion his judgment was biased in favor of the wireless industry. 

And to add insult to injury, the Salisbury zoning bylaws explicitly state about protecting the health, welfare, and property values of the inhabitants and minimizing the adverse impacts of Wireless Communications Facilities. Was adding antennas to the water tank protecting the inhabitants and minimizing the adverse impacts of WCF’s? Not by a long shot.  As I’ve said in my previous letter on Aug. 10, the zoning bylaws need to be changed. 

While Seabrook Station raises a lot of concern, we should hope for the best and leave it at that. The main concern right now should be cell towers and the negative impact they have on the environment.

Arthur Lazos


No comments:

Post a Comment