If it is so harmless, rather than installing them at schools, why not install them at all of the municipal buildings where adult employees of the county work. The extended effect of radio and cell signal waves should be less on adult bodies and minds than on developing bodies and minds. Additionally, the adult employees would have the option to leave and pursue employment elsewhere. Children do not have the choice which school to attend.

Anonymous wrote:Why expose their bodies to bus rides or diesel emissions? Because it is the most cost effective way for some parents to get their kids to/from school. Could the school use transportation with seat belts and natural gas to reduce the risk, sure but they don't due to budgetary constraints. Why do we allow schools to have high school football programs? They are dangerous and expose the kids to the risk of head and neck injury. They do it part because the school can make money from it for improvements they normally can't make.

High school football programs in no way contribute to the public school system operating budgets. That is not why schools have football programs. It might be in Texas where you are from, but not here in Maryland.

Why expose their bodies to bus rides or diesel emissions? Because it is the most cost effective way for some parents to get their kids to/from school. Could the school use transportation with seat belts and natural gas to reduce the risk, sure but they don't due to budgetary constraints. Why do we allow schools to have high school football programs? They are dangerous and expose the kids to the risk of head and neck injury. They do it part because the school can make money from it for improvements they normally can't make.

Well why expose them, and their developing brains, to something that has to potential to harm them? Cell towers are a necessary evil but they don't need to be located on school grounds. Actually, they have no business being on school grounds.

I'm sure you'd all be up in arms if the district wanted to install large billboards advertising porn or Coke but this is somehow ok. I don't get it. It's stupid, reckless, and should never have been allowed to happen. Ever. The truth is we don't know if there are long term effects or not and we will be turning our children into a science experiment. I'm not cool with that, are you?

Why expose children to riding in cars? we know that it risky....why take them to the pool or a park or an amusement park? All of these examples are things that we can avoid by changing our lifestyle but most people choose not to.
Everything in life has risk, some known, some unknown.

But why take the chance and expose CHILDREN to all of those radio waves. Put cell towers on nursing homes instead.

Anonymous wrote:"The back woods response" seems to come from people who are not taking the time to read. Either read the research or state you do not know enough.
The only people who should be giving medical opinion are doctors. Doctors state there are health effects.

Not all Doctors state there are health effects. And just because some doctors say that it is true doesn't mean it is so.....think back to the infamous publication by Andrew J Wakefield in The Lancet. Perfectly reputable journal, not reputable research. I've read many peer reviewed journal articles that are terrible. Sometimes it's a flawed system of review.

I know plenty of doctors who don't think there are health effects. I'm not arguing either way, I'm just saying that there isn't a scientific consensus one way or the other.

"The back woods response" seems to come from people who are not taking the time to read. Either read the research or state you do not know enough.
The only people who should be giving medical opinion are doctors. Doctors state there are health effects.

Studies are showing serious health effects from towers. please see this from the Oregon State Committee on health presentation just this year. http://www.safeschoolspg.org/health.html

Did you know the Board approved 3, yes THREE TOWERS per school site.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what "deal" he is talking about. Any number of international studies show no harmful effects, and plenty of benefits such as improved in-school coverage which can be critical in an emergency. Students are exposed to greater radio signals from in-school Wi-Fi -- which also isn't a problem.

A very ignorant, back-woods response.

We don't know the LONG TERM impact on Cell Phone towers. I live in MoCo and would not want one on any of our schools either.

There is a separate PG Forum

I don't know what "deal" he is talking about. Any number of international studies show no harmful effects, and plenty of benefits such as improved in-school coverage which can be critical in an emergency. Students are exposed to greater radio signals from in-school Wi-Fi -- which also isn't a problem.

A very ignorant, back-woods response.

How? MD Public Schools? This seems like it belongs here?

wrong forum

Breaking News: PG NAACP President Calls for Halt to PGCPS Cell Tower Deal

"This is about my grandchildren"
Bob Ross, Prince George's County NAACP President Bob Ross spoke to the Prince George's County Board of Education at their August 28, 2014, meeting about their deal to place at least 73 cell towers on public school property.

Mr. Ross calls for the Prince George's County Board of Education to hold off on the building of any more cell towers until the issue can be given further study. Mr. Ross also speaks to forming a coalition of other NAACP branches (Montgomery, Anne Arundel and Howard) to further review the issues surrounding the placement of cell towers on public school playgrounds.
Read about it here .
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2014/08/breaking-news-pg-naacp-president-calls.html