A significant body of peer reviewed research has found harmful effects from cell tower radiation. Read the peer reviewed research here.
People living or working in close vicinity to a cell tower will get the highest exposures. People sleeping in homes with windows facing antennas will have more nighttime exposure. A phone can be turned off but a cell tower cannot be. Many governments and local juristictions have halted the placement of cell towers and cell antennae near schools and residences because of the higher density of radiation in the close vicinity to cell antennas.
Is a cell tower proposed at your child’s school? Go to this page with details and resources.
Read a PDF compilation of Doctors letters on cell towers near schools.
Please learn about more worker safety issues at EHT’s webpage on cell tower industry health and safety issues.
In addition to radiation concerns, cell towers also present a myriad of additional safety issues such as inadequate regulations for workers, fire risk and the placement of hazardous materials (diesel fuel and lead acid batteries) in the cell tower compound. Safety issues related prompted the the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to write the FCC in 2013 that “ensuring compliance with existing FCC RF human exposure limits by the FCC licensee is not effective and cannot/is not being enforced.” Concerned about the health of their workers the IBEW states “When there is a hazard, the hazard creator has a duty to warn others against the hazard.”
The body of research on humans is complicated by the inability to fully assess exposure because of all the variables related to exposure assessment. Please note that decades ago the lead industry argued that leaded gasoline in cars did not pose a risk to humans because it was “so low” and what they called an “environmental exposure”. However, history has shown these “low levels” added up and that leaded gas was a huge policy misstep. Current research shows that by far “the largest contributor to global environmental lead contamination has been the use of lead in petrol”. In a similar fashion, the wireless industry argues that cell tower emissions are “low” and “environmental” exposures.
CELL TOWERS & CELL ANTENNAE FAQ’s
The Telecommunications Act governing the placement of cell towers was passed in 1996 by Congress. In summary, it forbids local governments from considering environmental effects in the siting of cell towers as long as the radiofrequency (RF) emissions levels are below the FCC’s maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits, which are thermal limits, but it does preserve local governments rights regarding their placement, construction, and modification. See Section 704 of the Act (See also FCC Limits Q&A) The only valid reasons for rejection of a permit by the local government is aesthetics and lack of a “significant gap”. The 1996 TCA only allows wireless providers exemption from local zoning codes if they can prove a need, i.e. a “significant gap.”
In addition, there is section 6409a of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which prohibits local governments from denying any requests for colocation on an existing site, as long as the colocation does not extend the height of the existing tower by 10% or 20 feet, whichever is greater.
In California, there is AB 57 which went into effect January 1, 2016, which deems that new cell tower applications would be automatically approved within 150 days if the application is not processed within that time, and colocations would be automatically approved within 90 days if the application is not processed within that time.
Q: I just found out that a cell tower is planned at a business/church/park across the street from my house. Is there anything I can do to stop this?
A: Yes, there is. Organize a group of residents in the area. In order for your city or county to reject the permit, you need to prove:
- aesthetically that it does not fit in with the area
- there is no “significant gap” and therefore it is not needed. If there is no significant gap then the local government does NOT have to grant exemption from the local zoning codes to the wireless provider (For example, the local zoning code says that in the area of the proposed cell tower the maximum building height is only 35 ft, but the proposed wireless facility will be 50 ft tall. Burden of proof is on the wireless company to prove that there is a “significant gap” if they want to build a 50 ft structure – if they can’t prove “significant gap,” then they will be limited to only 35 ft.)
In AT&T vs. City Council of Virginia Beach, US Court of Appeals for the 4th District ruled that placing a cell tower is a commercial endeavor, and that the city has a right to reject it on a church property within a residential zoned area, and that it has ultimate authority over esthetics which is subjective. Read full court decision here.
The TCA does NOT force a local government or a business to put a wireless facility on its property if it chooses not to. For example, a city can decide they do not want to lease their park to a cell tower company. A business owner can decide that they do not want to lease their facility to a cell tower company. Choosing not to lease property to a cell tower company does NOT violate the TCA in any way.
It will NOT help to bring up health issues to your local government at the public hearing, because the 1996 TCA forbids consideration of health issues as long as the RF emissions are below FCC’s limits. Prior to the hearing the wireless provider will already have submitted a third party certification that says that RF emissions from the cell tower will be much lower than FCC limits. A typical report will read that the “RF emissions levels from the proposed wireless facility will be less than 1/1,000 of the FCC’s maximum permissible exposures,” which is true, however the low level relative to the FCC limit is NOT a measure of safety (see FCC Limits Q&A). It is unlikely that a person would be exposed to higher than FCC limits unless they are a few feet from the antennas. The scenarios where someone would be exposed to higher than FCC limits from a wireless facility would be for rooftop facilities where people can walk onto a roof and come really close to the antennas or persons occupying a building directly facing antennas a few feet away.
Q: I just found out that a cell tower is planned at my child’s school. Is there anything I can do to stop this?
A: Yes, there is. Organize a group of parents. The 1996 TCA only forbids local governments from considering health effects in making siting decisions. You can talk to your school board about health effects if they will listen. If you cannot convince them, you can still attend the city hearing for approval of the cell tower facility and then follow the same steps given above for fighting a proposed cell tower on a business/church/park.
Q: What is “significant gap” and how do I challenge that one does not exist?
A: A “gap” means no signal or no coverage in an area. “Significant” means over a large area affecting a lot of people. So “significant gap” means no signal over a large area. The carrier has burden of proof to show that a “significant” gap exists. Please read the very important following court cases below that have set precedents for the definition of “significant gap.” (“Significant gap” was not defined by the 1996 TCA, so it was defined after its passing by various court rulings) By reading them you will understand what “significant gap” is and how to challenge that a “significant gap” does not exist. Read through the applicant’s submitted materials, paying particular attention to the coverage maps to find inconsistencies and errors.
1) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in APT v. Penn Township. found (skip to p. 18): http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/983519.txt
First, the provider must show that its facility will fill an existing significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network. The relevant gap, if any, is a gap in the service available to remote users. Not all gaps in a particular provider’s service will involve a gap in the service available to remote users. Second, the applicant must also show that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve. This will require a showing that a good faith effort has been made to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives, e.g., that the provider has considered less sensitive sites, alternative system designs, alternative tower designs, placement of antennas on existing structures, etc.
This definition of a significant gap still stands. Omnipoint v. Newtown (Pennsylvania), was appealed by Omnipoint to the U.S. Supreme Court. The key objection by Omnipoint was the Third Circuit’s definition of “significant gap.” The Supreme Court refused to hear that appeal, thereby letting the Third Circuit’s decision stand.
2) The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found Sprint’s projected coverage maps unclear in Sprint vs. Palos Verdes in defining “significant gap”. “In any event, that there was a “gap,” is certainly not sufficient to show there was a “significant gap” in coverage”…In addition, the Court noted how Sprint already had existing cell towers throughout the city. It also acknowledged that public remarks and residents’ drive test results contained in the staff report “further illustrate that Sprint’s existing network was, at the very least, functional.” (Sprint vs. PV also allowed cities to regulate cell towers based on esthetics so long as there is no prohibition of providing wireless services to fill “significant gap”.) Skip to page labeled 14552 to read about “significant gap”
3) Ninth Circuit Ct of Appeals found that in Metro PCS vs. San Francisco, 2005, found that “[t]he TCA does not assure every wireless carrier a right to seamless coverage in every area it serves,” and that the inability to cover a “a few blocks in a large city” is, as a matter of law, not a “significant gap.” The TCA does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small “dead spots.” The existing case law amply demonstrates that “significant gap” determinations are extremely fact-specific inquiries that defy any bright-line legal rule. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/03/07/0316759.pdf
If you do succeed in obtaining a rejection of the proposed wireless facility by your local government, there are some very important procedures that your local government must follow in issuing the rejection to make it stick. In the Supreme Court Case of T-Mobile vs. Roswell in January 2015, T-Mobile was rejected, but they sued the city council because they didn’t provide a denial letter that included the reasons for rejection at the same time. The city issued the denial letter first, then it waited for the minutes of the hearing to be written and approved and thus then the reasons over 3 weeks later. Once a denial is issued, the telecom company has 30 days to appeal. If the city doesn’t provide the reasons at the same time as the denial, then the court they appeal to won’t be able to see the reasons, which they need, which takes away their ability to appeal within the 30 day time limit. Once the denial letter is issued the 30 day commencement of shot clock begins. This case does NOT mean that the denial letter and reasons for rejection have to be issued within 30 days of the hearing – that can be done after 30 days. The important point is to issue the denial letter and reasons at the SAME time. You can read more on this here.
A: Not all countries have thermal limits as lenient as the US. The reason they have more protective standards is that either they have demonstrated harmful bioeffects at non-thermal levels through their own research or they have chosen to adopt the precautionary principle because of the growing body of peer-reviewed research that has shown negative health effects at levels far below thermal limits. Here’s a chart showing RF limits of several countries:
RESOURCES ON CELL TOWER RADIATION
INDIA EPORT OF THE INTER-MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON EMF RADIATION.
The Right to a Healthy Environment: RF Radiation Exposure from Cell Towers by Katherina Gustavs.
Chronic Exposure website by PhD Mikko Ahonen documenting cell tower research and related Twitter news channel listing latest news and research papers about various microwave transmitters including radar.
US GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Department of Interior Letter on Cell Towers and how FCC limits are out of date.
US Department of Labor letter on the “alarming increase in cell tower worker deaths” dated 2014
Letter from LA firefighters to chair of the public safety committee September 20, 2014
LA Firefighter Union Asks that they “cease and desist” from constructing towers.
Letter from Connecticut Atty. Gen. and Lieut. Gov. on cell towers
Letter from Connecticut Governor on how cell towers are ugly
Congressman James Himes Letter against cell towers Jan 28, 2010
For Diamond Bar City Council, Diamond Bar, CA
Read the resolution from the city council rejecting the T-Mobile tower in Maple Hill Park.
ADDITIONAL READING
One in ten cell phone antenna sites violate FCC rules designed to protect workers from excessive radio frequency radiation. Read Lawmakers push FCC to Limit RF radiation exposure from cellular antennas
2013: Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court of the State of Rajasthan decision to remove all cell towers from the vicinity of schools, hospitals and playgrounds because of radiation “hazardous to life.”