To the Editor:

Last May, there was a flurry of letters in Town Topics in which residents complained about how difficult it was to get reliable cellphone service in parts of Princeton. The mayor and Council held a special meeting with various providers to see if new towers could be built.

About seven weeks ago, I read in the Municipality of Princeton newsletter (December 14, 2023) that four new cell towers are in the planning stage to be erected in four different neighborhoods in Princeton. I am concerned that the risks involved in improving cell service may be greater than is perceived.

I am aware that there are thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies (including a U.S. Toxicology Program 16-year, $30 million study) that show a wide range of “statistically significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, and infertility,” as well as other ill-effects of microwave radiation emitted by cell towers and cellphones.

I am also aware that some people report everyday effects of microwave radiation without fully recognizing the possible source of their symptoms, such as headaches, memory loss, nausea, heart arrhythmia, tightening in the chest, dizziness, tinnitus, diminished concentration, poor sleep, severe fatigue, impaired immune function. It seems that these effects may come not only from cellphones but also from routers, smart meters, Wi-Fi, cordless phones, microwave ovens, baby monitors, or “smart” anything in one’s home.

I am concerned that, in 2011, the World Health Organization named wireless radiation as a “Group B, Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans” category, with many experts arguing that it should be placed in Group One as a known carcinogen.

I am also concerned that the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) safety standards have been the same since 1996, years before wireless radiation became ubiquitous. Our exposure is now vastly greater than when these thresholds were established decades ago. I think it would be wise to establish the safety of a technology before implementing it. Instead, what we have is a government requiring that it be proven harmful before stopping implementation.

I find it to be of interest that the insurance industry places exclusions in their policies so that health damages from electromagnetic radiation are not covered.

These few observations hardly scratch the surface of my worries. The safety concerns about not having continuous cellphone service, may not be commensurate with other safety issues, not only for human beings, but also for the birds, insects, pollinators, and all the creatures with whom we share the Earth.

This is a worldwide issue. For information about the regulations of various countries, see Environmental Health Trust (ehtrust.org). For the environmental impact of this radiation on wildlife, see wildlifeandwireless.org.

If we continue down this path, we may not only be putting our own lives at risk in the long run, but also in lives of our children and every living being.

Deborah Hunsinger
Ross Stevenson Circle