Parents pulling kids from school because of cell tower

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

ENCINITAS, Calif. – Parents in Encinitas were pulling their kids out of school because of health concerns at a charter school.

“She’s been attending this school since kindergarten,” said Sonya Goodwin, a mother.  “I pulled her out of the school just after Christmas, because I have concerns about the 18 cell sites.”

Cell towerGoodwin is talking about the cell phone towers at the Innovation Centre in Encinitas.  The school is one of 11 institutions run by Julian Charter Schools.  The Innovation Centre is located on the grounds of the Encinitas Beach Chapel.  Fifteen cell antennas are located in the church’s bell tower and the rest are in the parking lot.

“Our concern is cancer – just the effects of radiation,” said Justin Boudreau, whose son Ty used to attend the third grade at the school.

Boudreau is one of 10 parents that have pulled their children from the program.

Michael Schwaebe is an engineer and environmental consultant hired to conduct a study at the school for the parents.

“I would not have my child in this school,” said Schwaebe. “The levels of radiation the levels I found were very discomforting.”

Schwaebe found high levels of radio frequency power density.

“At that level there are dozens of studies that show significant health biological effects,” said Schwaebe.

“He would like to see the readings about a million times below what FCC recommends,” said Executive Director of Julian Charter Schools Jennifer Cauzza.  She calls Schwaebe’s study unrealistic.

Working together with the church and AT&T, a scientist from UC Davis was hired to conduct another study.

“He found the levels safe,” said Cauzza.  “They were 50 times below what FCC regulations were.”Encinitas

Cauzza said she understands parent’s concerns, but what it really comes down to is choice.

“If you cannot be here with these antennas, then you can choose another program for your children,” said Cauzza.

“I feel like it’s unfair to have to choose between keeping my daughter in an amazing community versus a health risk,” said Goodwin.

“We’ve left and that’s our decision,” said Boudreau. “Had we known that two years ago, we would not have been here to begin with.

Cauzza said the Encinitas site is only temporary.

“We’re looking for a permanent site, but for now with such little real estate choices along the coast, it had to be the church.

Pastor Larry Peltier told Fox 5 the cell antennas have been at the church for the last 15 years and he has never received on complaint.

Fox 5 checked into Chula Vista, San Diego Unified, Poway and various other school districts, officials told us no cell phone sites are on any school grounds.


  • rob

    The natural level of radiation is .3 uWm2. The levels given off by these towers and by the variuos wireless devices is outrageously high and many can be seen on youtube.

      • rob

        I went by and did my own survey from the sidewalk in front of the place and from across the street even. It even shocked me how high it is and I have been surveying San Diego since Jun 2011. I had regular readings of 21000 uWm2 to a max pulse reading of 47000 uWm2. In my readings taken out in Lake Henshaw area away from cell towers a was getting readings of 0.0-0.3 uWm2, or the natural level present throughout all evolution. This is what our bodies, cells, immune systems, organs, nervous systems, brains, etc… are used to. So figuring on a high of 0.2 , multiple the high pulse by 5 ( and you haveover 2.3 million times the natural level we are used to. And at the 20000 uWm2 as a constant it is over a million times the natural level. The question is " what is best for a child of 5 or 6, or anyone? The levels we have evolved with (0.2 uWm2) or 47000 uWm2? That is why those who know this and all the studies showing the negative effects of this type of exposure call the the largest human experiment in history.

        • Mats Bladh

          Thank you for the comment, it is alike this all over the world!
          It's is not only the power of the signals our bodies and all living react to, it is also of highest importance of what the signals contain, the modulation of the wireless techniques are very stressing and disturbing on everything living (maybe not cochroaches tho)

    • Dale

      In fact 1800 new studies outlined in the 2012 BioInitiative Report show the deleterious health effects of this type of microwave radiation. These reports have been conducted by the medical and scientific community that has not received funding from the industry. The children removed from this school by their concerned parents will one day thank them for saving their lives. How embarrassing and outright stupid for Jennifer Cauzza to mention the fact that the school enlisted the help of AT&T (a leader in telecommunication service) to weigh in on the situation and study. That's like asking Monsanto if GMO foods are good for your health!! Cauzza also says that it really comes down to "Choice", when in fact she should say "What it really comes down to is "Money". Homeowners weren't given a choice when the utility companies installed the dangerous wireless smart meters on our homes that transmit microwave radiation in multiple bursts 24/7. In this case it's all about the money! I would love to see the paperwork that proves those 15 cell antennas existed in the Bell Tower 15 years ago as Pastor Peltier states. Also, his comment about not receiving any complaints other than that of the Goodwin family could be called a blatant "lie", since we know for a fact that other parents pulled their children from the school the prior year for exactly the same reason. Perhaps there should be more extensive communication between Peltier and the school staff when it pertains to such a dangerous issue. The list of complaints against cell antennas is quite substantial since the World Health Organization classified the radiation from RF as a (class 2B) carcinogen in May of 2011. Why hide the antennas from clear sight if they are not dangerous? Why all the cloak and dagger? We already know the answers to those questions- for the same reason these antennas are being hidden in garbage cans, chimneys, and disguised as plastic trees- because they are unsafe and the owners do not want the public to know how many are hidden around their neighborhoods. Fifteen antennas in one location-is one not sufficient? If it really comes down to "choice" as Cauzza says, then why weren't all the parents warned about a possible cancer causing threat in the Bell Tower, thereby giving them the so called "choice", instead of letting them find out the hard way. The declaration of the World Health Organization in 2011 states that their decision provides an official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents can legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices. What man of the cloth would turn his back on his flock instead of demonstrating regret and sympathy, and instead of making a full-fledged promise to investigate the non-industry sponsored medical and scientific data on the issue at hand. Maybe it is true that Money is the root of all evil!

  • Ali

    This makes my heart ache for the kids left in this place. I saw those towers hidden last Summer and confronted the school. Iong story short I left immediately as I knew cell towers were not a safe environment for my child. And something else, the school knew the whole time, if we hadn’t of accidently seen the sides of the bell tower down my child would still be there, under 18 cell Phone sights and I wouldn’t have known!!!! That’s just wrong!

    • armando

      also, no evidence of cancer cases from cell phone towers or cell phones themselves according to the American Cancer Society.

      • Gnarl

        Then the American Cancer Society can't read.
        In 2011 the World Health Organisation classed microwave radiation from cellphones, cell towers, wi-fi etc. as a class 2B carcinogen. Recently an italian businessman, and heavy cellphone and cordless user, won a supreme court case stating that his head tumor was caused by the microwave radiation. The supreme court judges expelled all industry funded research (that typically show no effect) and relied on independent research. A clear risk emerged from that evidence.
        There are at lease 3 studies linking celltowers with 4-5 times increased cancer risk from living within the main-beam of a tower.
        You can read, right?

  • Ellie

    The FCC standards are outdated and misleading. The public falsely believes in the FCC and that is the crux of the problem ! The standards do not take into account the non thermal effects of this radiation and there are many! And children's bodies are more vulnerable than that of an adult's. This radiation has been classified a possible human carcinogen by the conservative World Health Organization. Wiukd they spray DDT on the kids? Cel, towers and children do not mix. Period.

  • maureen

    Measurements are "50 times below what the FCC considers safe", says the Principal. Mr. Schwabe says that the FCC safety standards are 1,000,000 times too low. How can experts be so far apart? Are the FCC RF exposure standards relevant for today's over-saturation of RF microwave radiation?

    FCC RF exposure standards were created in 1996 when we were still carrying bricks as phones. They were based on one 30-minute exposure to 1,000 uw/cm2 of radiofrequency (RF) microwave radiation on an average-sized military man. The FCC says this is the limit where the man's tissue starts to heat up. The FCC uses this broad safety standard for ALL wireless devices, for ANY type of person and for ANY length of time.

    FCC RF exposure standards only considers heat (thermal) effects as dangerous. They do not consider any other health effects (non-thermal) as dangerous and thus there are no standards for non-thermal biological effects. For example, prior to the man heating up he could suffer headaches, his heart could be effected, his nerves could start to tingle, he could be getting anxious and cannot concentrate, maybe he is having problems breathing, his sperm might be dying off, cells might be mutating, etc*. But this doesn't matter to the FCC. As long as the man does not get warm then he is considered "safe", according to the FCC.

    FCC RF exposure standards do not vary for differences such as duration of exposure, distance from exposure, whether there are any other competing sources of exposure, power energy of exposure, etc. What if the man is sitting 50 yards from 8 cell tower antennas, talking with a cell phone pressed against his head, using a wireless tablet on his lap, and exposed to wi-fi 24 hours a day?

    FCC RF exposure standards do not vary for differences such as body weight, sex, age, health status, etc. Where are the FCC limits for small children, pregnant women and their fetuses, the elderly, or those with compromised immune systems? Should exposure for average-sized military man using radar equipment be the standard? Can one size fit all?

    For the 10-year time period shortly after the 1996 FCC RF standards were written there has been a 50% increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumors, according to UK's Office of National Statistics (between 1999 and 2009).

    *All these effects are found with very low levels of RF radiation. See

  • Jack

    Here is my issue, if the cell sites are powered at 50-200 watts are hurting us, what about all the AM FM radio stations putting out 50,000, 100,000 watts, and TV much more power? The TV and radio sites are close to the population for 50+ years in many cities in the US and around the world for that matter… Where is all the EMF damage as a result of the exponentially higher radio and tv? There is none.

    • Concerned Parents

      The signals from celltowers/cellphones/wifi are "pulsed" digital signals. Their waveforms have distinct "spikes". Radio and analogue TV that we've had for many years have smooth waveforms. One analogy is having medium consistent light level throughout (analogue) Vs. bright light flashing rapidly (digital). The "average" level of illumination might read the same but the impact to the human eyes would be different.

      • Mats Blad

        Also, the frequencies used by wireless technologies are up to and over the ~2,4Ghz that is used in microwave owens because they penetrate mass so good (so penetration in to body is greater than the lower tv signals ~50Mhz to ~900Mhz

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.