Parents Have 3 Weeks to Convince Sprint to Move Cell Tower

The parents of students at Poinciana Elementary School in Collier County, Florida have three weeks until Sprint’s 75-foot tower will be turned on. In those three weeks they are determined to convince Sprint to move the tower to another location away from the school. There is now a sign hanging on the cell tower warning people to stay away from it because the radio frequency emissions may exceed exposure limits. But the FCC, even though they aren’t technically working right now, still have rules in place to limit the amount of RF emissions so people in close proximity to the tower aren’t affected.

Parents gathered at a school board meeting last night to discuss the tower but there’s nothing that the school board can do because Sprint operates the tower and doesn’t want to move it. If Sprint does agree to relocate the tower, it could cost at least $200,000, and it’s still an issue of who would pay for it to be moved. 

Should Parent Concerns Be Considered When Deciding About Cell Tower Construction?

This is a question that many school boards, including the Anne Arundel County Board of Education, has been considering when it comes to the decision about constructing cell phone towers on school property or near the property. Because the FCC and other government entities have developed strict standards for cell towers in order to keep the radio frequency emissions low and there hasn’t been any conclusive studies linking cell towers and negative health effects, why should these towers be a concern?

The Capital Gazette explains in the case of Maryland’s Anne Arundel County that, “ Essentially, the objections to Milestone Communications’ proposal for a 99-foot-tall monopole antenna at Piney Orchard Elementary School in Odenton represent fear of the unknown — a reasonable thing when it comes to the evolving understanding of health risks.”

However, the school board believes these towers are a necessity because they will provide funds for education as well as meet the demand for cell phone reception throughout the county. Many towns have begun taking legislative steps to ban cell towers being built on or near school property.

“Parents are capable of weighing concrete financial gains and cloudy potential for health risks. It’s easy to see parents at Piney Orchard saying no thanks to a tower on their 18-acre school yard, while parents at Broadneck High, another targeted school, might be OK with one on their 62-acre campus,” the Capital Gazette explained. 

New Legislation Could Prohibit Cell Towers on School Property in Maryland

The members of the Anne Arundel County Against Towers at Schools will be relieved about the new legislation, Bill No. 78-13, that would prohibit cell towers from being built on public school property and restrict them to be beyond 500 feet of a building. This bill was introduced on September 16, 2013 by Mr. Benoit.

Regarding telecommunications facilities, the legislation dictates that the facility must comply with the following requirements.

For a facility not attached to a transmission line pole or tower that is located within 100 feet of a transmission line right-of-way:

 (i) the principal structure shall be located at least 500 feet from any offsite dwelling AND MAY NOT BE LOCATED ON A LOT CONTAINING A SCHOOL;

 (ii) the facility may not exceed 199 feet in height;

 (iii) the principal structure of a facility that is permanently located on the ground shall be a monopole; and

 (iv) accessory structures shall be located within 50 feet of

Milestone Communications, the leading developer of wireless towers in partnership with school and government landowners, has been working alongside the school board officials of Anne Arundel County to construct a cell phone tower at the Piney Orchard Elementary School in Odenton, MD. This bill is supposed to clarify the existing County Code, which already bans cell towers being built within 200 feet of a school. 

Boulder Creek Residents Don’t Approve of Disguised Cell Phone Tower

In an attempt to appease residents in many towns companies began proposing to disguise cell phone towers as everyday objects like trees, flag poles, crosses, or clock towers. However, this tactic doesn’t always please the members of the community. This is true of the members of Boulder Creek, California who are opposed to the 50-foot cell phone tower that Verizon has proposed to build downtown.

“They say [the tower] is going to blend into the trees. These monopines are bluish in their needle color, so when they are placed right in front of [real] trees they’re actually going stand out more because they’re going to appear a different color,” says resident Rachel Wooster. (Source: SantaCruz.com)

There will be a hearing on September 20^th to determine whether or not Verizon can construct their tower in the planned site. If the County Zoning Administrator approves the tower at this meeting then residents will still be able to appeal the decision to the Planning Commissions, and then to the County Board of Supervisors who have the final say in the matter.

Residents Will Consider Moving If Cell Tower Is Constructed At Local School

Milestone Communications, the leading developer of wireless towers in partnership with school and government landowners, has been working alongside the school board officials of Anne Arundel County to construct a cell phone tower at the Piney Orchard Elementary School in Odenton, MD. State Senator Jim Rosapepe and State Delegates Barbara Frush, Joseline A. Peńa-Melnyk, and Ben Barnes asked the Board of Education to terminate the 2012 lease with Milestone Communications.

The members of this community have started the Anne Arundel County Against Cell Towers at Schools to collectively voice their opposition regarding cell sites being built on school property. The group’s mission statement explains, “We are a community advocacy organization that is opposed to constructing cell phone towers on Anne Arundel County school properties.”

This group of concerned residents believes that the radio frequencies emitted from the cell towers will have adverse health effects on the nearby students; even though the FCC, the American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization have found no causal link between cell tower radio frequencies emissions and negative health effects.

One group members, Jen Beers, said that her and her husband would consider moving if the cell tower project continues. “For the long term, my child would never go to that school,” said Beers, the parent of one child at the school. “It’s not the Board of Education’s place to go and make deals that force people to make life decisions they weren’t planning on making.” (Source: Capital Gazette)

Milestone Communications has followed the federal regulations when creating the plans for this cell phone towers and they have followed the guidelines to regulate the amount of exposure so it is much less than anything that could cause health problems.

Milestone Communications has plans to construct several cell phone towers at school sites throughout Anne Arundel County, with the first at Piney Orchard Elementary. But a company spokesman said no request for a construction permit has been filed.

The Facts About Wireless Networks and Your Health

There are often rumors and misinformation circulating about wireless networks and how they affect your health. Members of communities with cell phone tower proposals often oppose the construction because they believe the radio frequencies emitted from the tower will harm them. How true is this though? The PCIA released a fact sheet entitled, “Wireless Networks and Your Health: THE FACTS.” Below you will find the PCIA’s “Facts” and “Conclusions” concerning this topic:

FACTS

• Wireless devices and facilities must adhere to radio frequency (“RF”) emission guidelines established and enforced by the Federal Communications

Commission (“FCC”).

• Under federal law, state and local governments may not regulate the placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects of RF emissions if the facilities comply with FCC regulations governing RF emissions.

• RF emissions from wireless facilities generally are significantly lower than permitted.

•There is no credible scientific evidence that RF emissions from wireless base stations and wireless networks have adverse health or environmental effects.

CONCLUSIONS

• The World Health Organization has conducted a review of all available studies and concluded that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.”

• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that based on all available evidence, there is “no increased health risk due to radio-frequency (RF) energy.”

• The National Cancer Institute has concluded that despite the rise in cell phone use, brain cancer rates did not increase between 1987 and 2005.

• The FCC has concluded that “[t]here is no scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss.”

Would You Live In A Town Where Wireless Signals Were Illegal?

Did you know that there is a place in the United States where wireless signals are actually illegal? In Green Bank, West Virginia, with a population of 143, wireless signals are illegal. There is no WiFi, radio, Bluetooth, electronic transmitters, and even electric blankets are banned. First responders are even limited to using short-distance CB radios. Why is this though?

Lucas Reilly of Mental Floss explained that, “The remote town is smack in the center of the National Radio Quiet Zone, a 13,000 square mile stretch of land designated by the Federal Communications Commission to protect two government radio telescopes from man-made interference. The rules, though, are most strict in Green Bank’s neck of the woods. So strict, actually, that a policeman roves the streets listening for verboten wireless signals.”

This small town is home to the largest steerable radio telescope in the world, the Green Bank Telescope. The National Radio AstronomyObservatory said that this town “operates the world premiere astronomical telescope operating from centimeter to millimeter wavelengths.”

Scientists are able to use this telescope to listen to radio energy that has traveled light years, which tells them a lot about how the stars and galaxies are formed. Any kind of radio signals could interfere with these scientific discoveries.  

Virginia Residents Voice Concerns Over AT&T Cell Tower Location

Members of the Albemarle County of Virginia would like to see a new location set for an AT&T cell phone tower. As of now, the plan is to construct the tower in the middle of a residential area making neighbors upset over this prospect.

The members of this community believe that the cell tower will cause adverse health effects. Tonight at 6:30pm, there will be a meeting help at Boardus Memorial Church for the community to voice their concerns. This is the first cell phone tower to be built in the middle of a residential community in Albemarle County.

The American Cancer Society explained that, “Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea.”

In fact, there are several points the American Cancer Society shared that would argue against cell phone towers being able to cause cancer:

• The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.
• RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.
• Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low – well below the recommended limits.
• 
  

Pennsylvania Township Puts Limits On Cell Phone Tower Placement

The Horsham Township Council is working to put limits on where wireless communications facilities can be built. Under the current ordinance, a 130-foot cell phone tower could be built almost anywhere, including the backyard of the town’s residents. However, the township’s council is working to prevent this from happening and decrease the likelihood that a cell phone tower would be built in a residential area.

This new ordinance is setting height, co-location, and visual requirements. Many of the members of the Horsham community believe that a cell tower built in the residential area would hurt the character of them town.

Theresa Katalinas, editor or the Hatboro-HorshamPatch, reported, “Besides keeping wireless communication equipment out of residential areas, the proposed ordinance sets the height of tower-based facilities at a maximum of 130 feet high; prevents artificial lighting ‘except as required by law’; and requires that an applicant ‘demonstrate that a significant gap in wireless coverage exists.’”

This new ordinance will also give the township the ability to deny any application for the construction or placement based on the visual impact to the community. This 23-page amended ordinance will be shared at a public hearing on November 13^th and could take effect 30 days after it is approved. 

Lake Lawrence Residents Raise Concerns Over Cell Tower Proposal

The nearby residents of Lake Lawrence, Washington are concerned over the possible health and environmental effects that a new cell tower might have. On July 25^th, American Tower notified residents of a possible 180-foot monopole built on a nine-acre parcel. While some residents are worried about this tower, others are excited about the prospect of having better cell phone reception in the area.

AT&T will be the first wireless carrier on the pole but other carriers will be able to lease space on the cell tower to provide better reception to their customers. Alison Baker, a nearby resident of the potential cell tower site, is concerned about her the effect the radio frequency will have on her health as well as the effect the electromagnetic field will have on her bees.

“I’m a beekeeper and electromagnetic frequencies — bees, birds, insects, all go by electromagnetics. That’s how they determine direction. So to have it on a piece of property that borders a wetland as well as (what’s) considered a buffer zone, that is a huge concern to me.” (Source: Nisqually Valley News)

The FCC reported that, “According to the FDA and the World Health Organization (WHO), among other organizations, to date, the weight of scientific evidence has not effectively linked exposure to radio frequency energy from mobile devices with any known health problems.”

While cell towers may have an electromagnetic field, it can only affect bees that are in extremely close proximity. In fact, if there is just a cell phone (not a tower) near the beehive, the worker bees will be unable to return.

Resident of Clearwood, Kali Phoenix, who lives about seven miles from the proposed tower site is excited for the possibility of a cell tower because they have no service. “She said the lack of cell phone reception in the area poses a public hazard, because it delays response times during emergencies when people trying to call for help can’t get good reception,” the Nisqually Valley News reported.

New Jersey Residents Believe Cell Tower Is Dangerous To The Township

The members of Little Falls, New Jersey gathered at a town hall meeting on Monday to voice their opposition to the prospect of a 150-foot monopole to be built at the justice complex. The cell tower is being considered because it would provide the city with extra revenue as well as a place for police dispatch and emergency communication equipment.

Despite the reasoning behind this proposed cell tower, residents of Little Falls are not pleased and believe the cell tower will have a dangerous impact of the land values surrounding the cell tower.

Matthew Kadosh of North Jersey reported that, “‘It also provides the township with a long-term solution for emergency communications other than the State Police Emergency Network (SPEN) that Little Falls is pursuing, should the costs to participate in that network increase exponentially, or if other technology needs arise,’ township administrator Joanne Bergin said.

While the residents understand the need for better cell phone coverage and the dispatch service, they also believe there has to be another way to achieve this without constructing the 150-foot pole.

“Council President John Vantuno addressed the residents’ comments on the cell tower. ‘We’re going to look at the RFP’s (request for proposal) and take everyone’s voice into consideration,’ he said,” Kadosh reported. 

Wireless Technology and Your Health

Many people fear the effect that cell phones have on their health and believe they have a negative impact in the long run, but the CTIA, an international trade association that represents the wireless communications industry, took the time to look into wireless technology and how it affects your health. People hear the words “radiation” and “cell phones” and assume it’s the same radiation that is associated with medical x-rays.

The CTIA explains that, “Medical X-rays in large enough doses can ionize (i.e., affect electrons around atoms and molecules) and thereby damage biological material. Therefore they are known as ‘ionizing’ radiation.’ As the FDA points out on its website, radio frequency waves do not have enough energy to ionize biological material and therefore are categorized as ‘non-ionizing.’ As the FDA notes, other types of non-ionizing radiation include ‘visible light’ and ‘infrared radiation (heat).’”

The FCC also reported that currently there is no scientific evidence establishing a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Wireless phones include both cell phones and the cordless phones. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has even conducted extensive research and concluded that, “To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”

Members Of Starks, Maine Worry Over Health Effects of Proposed Cell Tower

The residents of Starks, Maine are worried about the possible construction of a telecommunications tower because of the health effects it could have on their children and the farmland. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits government entities from making decisions on the construction of towers based on health concerns. However, there is no evidence that suggests there are negative health effects from close proximity to a cell tower.

Rachel Ohm of the Morning Sentinel reported that, “The proposed tower has become a controversial issue in the town of about 650 people since the company filed a building application with the planning board on June 6.”

The American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization have similar views on the health effects of cell towers and believe they pose little risk. The FCC also limits the amount of RF waves that can be transmitted from the towers, which construction companies must comply with.

Washington Residents Seek Stricter Cell Tower Standards

Members of the Yakima, Washington community have sought out stricter standards of cell phone towers, which is why there is a public hearing at the Planning Commission tonight to let both sides share their views. The telecommunications companies believe that stricter regulations will make it difficult to install new towers at a quick pace, which will hinder their ability to keep up with the demand for wireless service.

Currently the city of Yakima has very limited regulations when it comes to the construction of cell phone towers. The residents want to restrict cell tower standards to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the community as well as the property values. 

Tucson Arizona Residents Oppose Cell Tower For Many Reasons

AT&T proposed to build a cell tower that is 65-foot tall in the Tucson, AZ area; however, three neighborhood associations have expressed their opposition towards this tower saying it will be too close to home and pose safety issues. AT&T planned to disguise this cell tower as a palm tree and plan several other palm trees in the same area to create a more aesthetic appeal. The residents feel that the tower and these palm trees will block their view of the mountains.

Sonu Wasu reported for the Tucson News Now that, “The zoning officer felt cell towers can be lightning rods and being so close to homes created a big concern of lightning strikes in the neighborhood. Noise was also listed as a concern in the document.  Residents said the cooling units around the cell towers would be very loud and have to be running day and night.” These are concerns of neighbors of this community even though the proposed cell tower is 300 feet away from the closest home.

AT&T’s proposed tower complies with the FCC health and safety guidelines and AT&T had invested about $80 million in the Tucson community within the last three years and because data traffic had increased, there is a need for more towers. 

Mark Your Calendars For The Wireless Infrastructure Show

The 2013 Wireless Infrastructure Show will be held on October 7-10 in Hollywood, Florida. This is a convention where you can network, gain insight, generate buzz, or focus on trade show exhibits.

The Wireless Infrastructure Show answers the questions: Who attends?

More than 2,000 thought leaders and industry innovators from across the entire wireless infrastructure ecosystem and nearly 100 exhibitors attend the Wireless Infrastructure Show. Network with infrastructure owners and operators, carriers, investment community representatives, government officials, equipment manufacturers and service providers.

Past participants include representatives from Qualcomm, American Tower, Crown Castle, AT&T, Bank of American Merrill Lynch, Sprint, JP Morgan, Black & Vetch, Ericsson, T-Mobile, BB&T Atlantic Risk Management, and Intel. This is the premier industry event that focuses on companies, equipment, and technologies that will enable the next generation of wireless. You can register for this event by clicking here. Mark your calendars and make sure to attend this event held by the PCIA!

Residents Sue City to Stop Construction of Tower On Church Property

In Durham, North Carolina eight residents are suing the city as a way to block the proposed installation of a 120-foot cell phone tower on the property of a North Carolina church. The lawsuit was filed on July 3^rd. Ray Gronberg reported in the Herald Sun that, “the lawsuit argues that Durham’s land-use regulations delegate too much authority to administrators when it comes to weighing applications for tower placements.”

The members of this community don’t believe the tower is compatible with the surrounding area and will potentially affect property values and safety. This tower is designed to be dressed up as a tree to make it more aesthetically pleasing. The lawsuit filed by the residents didn't challenge the city’s decision; it did, however, ask a judge to apply to the case a doctrine that says cities and counties must use court-like procedures when an application requires a judgment call about issues like appearance and effects on property values.

“That means among other things taking evidence using rules similar to those that would apply in a civil-court proceeding, and allowing the cross-examination of witnesses. Administrative rulings under that doctrine should be limited to issues where the answer to a question is clear-cut – such as whether there’s a wide-enough buffer between a new structure and its neighbors,” Gronberg explained. 

Starks Residents File A Cell Tower Moratorium

A group of residents from Starks, Maine are asking their selectmen for a moratorium on telecommunications towers. This is in response to an application that was submitted by a Massachusetts company to build a cell tower on Abijah Hill Road. There were 38 signatures on the moratorium, which would prevent the town from approving construction on the tower for a period of 180 days.

This moratorium would retroactively apply to any applications that have been submitted recently, such as Bay Communications II LLC’s application that they submitted June 6^th. However, the company has already entered into a lease agreement with the owner’s of the land so the company’s plan could be protected and the moratorium wouldn't apply.

Rachel Ohm reported for the Morning Sentinel that, “Such a law could prevent towers from being built in clusters or additional towers from being built before existing ones are fully used,” Planning Board chairman, Kerry Herbert, said.

Cell Phone Reception to Improve in Summit, Colorado

AT&T was given permission by the Summit Board of County Commissioners to apply for a new cell tower at the landfill. This would extend coverage into Summit Cove if it were constructed. The cell tower would be an 80-foot structure on county-owned property along Highway 6. The construction of this tower would improve cell phone service in the nearby neighborhoods as well as the Keystone area.

There are current AT&T customers who do not have good service in parts of Summit Cove and this tower will help eliminate that problem. The County commissioners hope AT&T will allow other cellular providers to use the tower so there is acceptable cell coverage for the members of the Summit Cove.

Caddie Nath reported in the Summit Daily that, “Verizon Wireless is also moving forward with a new 60-foot monopine cell tower in Keystone’s Mountain View Plaza condominium subdivision. The structure, which the Snake River Planning Commission approved in April, will replace six existing roof-mounted antennas.”

The timeline regarding both of these towers isn't clear yet but hopefully the construction will begin soon in order to bring the best cell phone coverage to the area.

Resident of Cape Girardeau Believes Cell Tower Is Necessary

While many people have their reservations regarding cell phone tower construction, some residents of Cape Girardeau, Missouri are in favor of the cell tower. John Heuer wrote for the Southeast Missourian that, “While this cell tower is not on the major scale such as the previously mentioned facilities, the proposed cell tower will benefit businesses, citizens, emergency personnel and visitors to downtown Cape Girardeau.”

Heuer does own the property where the proposed cell tower could be located so his opinion may be biased, but he does make many valid points regarding cell phone reception. “It is common knowledge that cell service in downtown Cape Girardeau is very poor and often nonexistent. The lack of cell service often is a deterrent for business people and families to eat or shop in downtown Cape Girardeau for fear of missing an important call or an emergency call from a loved one. Perhaps those against the proposed tower have not considered the outcome of a serious accident in downtown Cape Girardeau, when seconds matter, and not having the ability to call 911,” Heuer explains.

Poor cell phone reception does matter when there are just minutes to save someone’s life. If the residents are opposed to the tower because of aesthetic reasons, there are always way to disguise it. Cell towers are now being disguised as pine trees, crosses, clock towers, and flag poles. The construction of the tower will increase cell coverage and put resident’s minds at ease while they are in the downtown area of Cape Girardeau.