Health, Safety & the Environment

According to Colin Gustafson’s and Frank MacEachern’s recent reports in the Greenwich Time, Greenwich state legislators are proposing a bill that would prohibit building cell towers within 750 feet of a school or day care because of a perceived health risk from electromagnetic radiation.  However, some Cos Cob residents believe that the cell towers should not be permitted within 5,000 feet of any schools, day cares and elderly homes due to health concerns.  Reportedly, the cell tower bill has been proposed by Rep. Fred Camillo, R-151^stDistrict, and supported by fellow Reps. Livvy Floren, R-149^thDistrict, Lile Gibbons, R-250^thDistrict, and Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-136^thDistrict.  There is no good evidence that attending school near a cell tower, such as the one proposed, creates a health risk.  During the 1980’s, some plaintiff lawyers ballyhooed electromagnetic field (“EMF”) litigation as the “new asbestos.”  A series of well-funded EMF trials were litigated against various electric utility companies around the United States in the 1990’s.  After the presentation of the scientifc evidence, judges and juries uniformly rejected plaintiff health claims.  The Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) website contains a great deal of reliable scientific information concerning health effects from radiation exposure from cell towers, cell phones, microwave ovens and hair dryers.  According to the CDC, the risk is extremely low.  The low frequency radiation that those fields emit may have a biological effect, but do not cause adverse health effects, according to the website of the World Health Organization (“WHO”), which has devoted years of study on EMFs.  So what is a biological effect?  WHO’s literature explains that “biological effects” may include “listening to music, reading a book, eating an apple or playing tennis,” none of which cause health effects.  WHO’s conclusion is that there is no health risk to the EMF radiation to which the public is exposed.  Thus, contrary to popular hysteria, there is no evidence that proximity to EMFs can “fry” a person’s brain or cause cancer.  If our legislators are going to propose EMF safety precautions, they should base their proposals on strong science rather than fear.  The “dose” or exposure from cell tower EMFs can be measured and quantified.  Once that  “exposure” is known, it is then  necessary to look to the scientific literature to evaluate the likelihood of a health risk from that exposure.  If EMF radiation posed a health risk to everyone living near a cell tower, it is a no-brainer that all cell towers should  be dismantled–not just those near schools and day cares and homes for the elderly. The cell tower issue has alway been about diminution of property value and aesthetics; it is not about our health! 

There is no shortage of bad ideas emerging from Connecticut’s legislature in Hartford that, if passed, would have a detrimental affect on our environment in our wonderful state.  According to a report by the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (“CTLCV”), these short-sighted and ill-conceived legislative proposals put forth would:

(1)  Sell off state land without following rules requiring public disclosure and public comment;

(2)  Rob clean energy and energy efficiency accounts in order to pay the costs of borrowing money to plug our current $1.3 billion budget gap;

(3)  Allow a takeover of the Department of Environmental Protection by the Department of Community & Economic Development; and

 (4)  Form a commission to expedite the environmental permitting process–without designating a single environmental specialist seat on the commission.

CTLCV prepares a legislative “score card” (think “grammar school report card”) that rates our legislators’ environmental voting records.  If you want to follow what our ingenious legislative representatives are doing, log on to the score card.  If you care deeply about environmental issues in Connecticut and how these issues work their way through the legislative process, consider formally joining the CTLCV and becoming one of the “good guys”!  We need environmental watchdogs and CTLCV fills that role well.  (Full disclosure: I am a CTLCV Education Fund (the 501(c)(3) affiliate of CTLCV) Board Member.

Ignore the media hype, relax and enjoy Valentine’s Day.  We all have enough things to worry about these days than to have  to start worrying about whether we have bought the right Valentine’s Day card, the right chocolates, or the right bottle of wine to celebrate the occasion.  Just like last year, the wine pundits are offering their advice about the best wine to drink for a romantic celebration of  Valentine’s Day.  One wine writer, in an article aptly titled “Vino For Valentines!“  urges that we run out a buy a bubbly wine for the occasion. However, he cautions that the bubbly had better not be Budweiser. What nonsense!  If you and your significant other are enjoying the view of Long Island Sound at sunset on Valentine’s Day on Todd’s Point in Greenwich (or some equally beautiful coastal redoubt), listening to music in your (hopefully well-heated) car, a Budweiser might be just the quaff to make the moment memorable.  Of course, pouring champagne into wine flutes in the front seat of the car might make for a more elegant celebration. But the bottom line that it is the spirit of the occasion  that  makes the day special, not what you buy at  the store.  Another wine writer goes one step further. In an article titled “Drink Pink: Ten reasons to reach for rosé (and red) bubbles this Valentine’s Day“, Wine Enthusiast author Kelly Magyarics provides 10 reasons why your Valentine’s Day wine should not only be bubbly, but rosé!   The rose-colored bubbles go with the red roses, is one good reason, among the ten reasons she offers. Another of Kelly’s top ten reasons is that rosé wine is sexy.  A colleague of hers (Jill Zimorski, Beverage Director for José Andrés’ Think Food Group in Washington, DC)  offers,  “It’s like a sports bra versus a lacy push-up; they both achieve the same purpose, but one is definitely sexier than the other”.  According to Jill, the rosé makes for a fuller more voluptuous wine.  Lacy push-up bras and bubby rosé on Valentine’s Day?  I have heard lots of wildly creative ways of describing  wine’s bouquet.  But this is the first lingerie analogy I have found!  What should we expect for next year–”Victoria’s Secret Push-up Pinot Noir”?  Pass me a Bud!