Foes of TV tower grasping at straws

New study inconclusive, despite some claims

Published October 5, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

What is the significance of a study of the effects of radiofrequency exposure on human metabolism?

Apparently not much, even though the subjects of the study lived near the broadcast towers on Lookout Mountain, where efforts to build a new television tower (and remove three existing ones) have led to years of legal battles.

But let one of the study's authors tell it, in the very model of academic caution: "Just like all good scientific research, more questions have been raised than answered," said James Burch, now at the University of South Carolina. "I don't know that we have the data to make the determination of just exactly what it means, or exactly what is going on, or whether it is significant."

Of course everybody knows that the human body responds to certain kinds of electromagnetic radiation - sunlight, for an obvious example. But that says nothing about whether the response is good or bad for your health. Sunshine can be either; it depends.

The changes measured by this study are within the range of normal human variation, according to Dr. Mark Johnson of the Jefferson County Department of Health and Environment. So we expect that the eventual outcome will be that this is something that can be observed, but is inconsequential for human health, like many other things about the environment, from the altitude to the temperature.

Of course, that won't keep the usual suspicions away. Deb Carney, a dedicated opponent of the new tower, said, "We are seeing warning signs. If you wait until it is absolutely 100 percent certain that it does something to us, then there has been a whole lot of harm done in the meantime."

But that argument makes sense only if you already believe, as Carney does, that the current transmitters are harming people's health. As it happens, we don't believe that. But someone who does should be fighting for the new tower, not against it, since on average, exposure will be lower if it is built than if it is not.

In any case, the controversy is producing some interesting science. In a related paper that appeared in February, the scientists used new technology to measure actual exposure inside houses near the towers. It varied, sometimes a lot, from house to house, from outside to inside, even from room to room, depending on how far from the towers the house is, how high up it is, whether the towers are visible from the house, whether the house is shielded and even whether the residents have wireless Internet.

This could be important in assessing claims about damage to health, since houses quite close together might in fact have very different exposure levels. But these findings too do nothing to negate the overwhelming evidence against panic over plans for a broadcast tower on Lookout Mountain.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News