CHRIS ANDERSON,
for Gulf Islanders for Safe Technology
The cellular industry and some people claim that because we’re exposed to natural electromagnetic fields (EMF) all the time, cell towers’ EMF must be safe.
But whether Earth’s EMF is more powerful than cell tower EMFs is irrelevant and immaterial. We cannot conflate these entirely different phenomena. It’s an apples and oranges comparison. The corporate apologist sector has actively promoted many false arguments as specious, inaccurate and misleading as this one, claiming that non-natural EMF/EMR — electromagnetic fields/radiation from cell towers etc. — must also be okay.
There is absolutely no truthful comparison to be honestly made between the natural radiations to which all living inhabitants on Earth have been exposed forever, and the non-natural, pulsed digital EMR from man-made technologies. Modulated (information-carrying) microwave and radiofrequency (RF) emissions are found nowhere in nature. These two types of EMF are fundamentally different. Earth’s electric and magnetic radiation fields are what we and the entirety of nature depend on for existence. The butterfly and bird travel thousands of miles to and from exact locations guided by the Earth’s geomagnetic field. Likewise, whales and all other creatures orient via Earth’s magnetic field, but are disrupted and harmed when encountering artificial RF fields, which are xenobiotic (unnatural). These different phenomena have absolutely no comparative properties. Assurance of safety of cellular emissions by “captured,” industry-controlled agencies are provably inaccurate. See ehtrust.org/cell-tower-radiation-science/.
Deceptions from industry apologists and their supporters also include likening cell tower emissions, often around 100 or so watts per channel, to a standard light bulb operating at 100 watts of power, thereby implying cell radiations are also no problem. Don’t be fooled, warn scientists. Light bulbs and RF emissions are totally different in the real world. The novel, myriad RF technologies employ ultra-high frequencies, using pulsed digital, modulated radiation which becomes airborne and travels far and is fundamentally different and vastly more harmful than the localized 60-hertz electromagnetic fields of a typical residential power supply and related fixtures.
Yes, residential exposures, depending on specifics and proximity, can be dangerous. But much less so than radiofrequency sources. And at least we can wisely decide to avoid various RF polluters such as cell and cordless phones, Wi-Fi etc., and to locate sleep areas distant from power panels and “smart” meters, among other measures, so as to choose a safer environment for the home. We do have choices with such radiation sources.
However, we are given no choice to continue having healthy home conditions by limiting such volitional exposures when the cellular industry comes calling. Short of bunkering down behind Faraday-shielded walls, windows and roofs, there can be no avoiding significant, genetically altering trespass by the continual myriad emissions at harmful frequencies from these dangerous transmission towers that thousands of studies show cause great physical and psychological harm to people and have horrific adverse effects also on the natural world, as stated so well by the groups opposing the location of the dangerous Rogers transmission tower on Salt Spring.
Regarding adverse health effects and significant losses in property values, the informed and conscientious opponents of these Rogers transmission arrays are well informed as to the severe threat they face from these latest corporate bullies. This is especially true given the imminent arrival of the most dangerous form ever of telecom technologies — namely 5G. Opponents of the Channel Ridge tower are fighting for their absolute right to a healthy life, which must be allowed to take precedence over corporate profit-taking at their expense.