Fair Use Statement

When U.S. Cellular offered me $500 a month to put a cell phone tower in my yard, I refused instinctively. Only now that our neighbor Sun Valley Floral Farms has agreed to locate the tower on their property have I discovered just how little control we have, as citizens, in preventing the siting of cellular communications facilities. While I too marvel at the convenience of wireless communications, the actual implications of the electromagnetic frequencies that provide wireless "coverage" are beyond inconvenient.

There is a growing body of research identifying the dangerous effects of exposure to low level electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on human (and other animal) tissue. There is evidence for cancers, immune disorders, hormone disruption, mood and sleep disturbances all resulting from radio frequency and microwave radiation (RF/MW). Given this information, it seems appropriate to raise these health concerns in the debate about (if and where to) site a cellular tower in our community. In fact it is illegal for local government to use health concerns as a valid argument against siting a cellular tower.

How could that be?

The only agency with authority to regulate cellular tower emissions is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC1. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in an effort to promote national wireless services, prevents local governments from prohibiting, directly or indirectly the provision of such services. Local governments are specifically preempted from regulating placement on the basis of the environmental effects of radio-frequency emissions, provided the facilities comply with the FCC emission standards. Frighteningly, the RF radiation limits for human exposure are based on old research (1986). The FCC follows guidelines established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a private organization comprised of industry, military and some governmental representatives. These standards are based primarily on acute exposures and those which cause thermal effects. More recent research shows non-thermal, intra-cellular effects that increase with chronic exposure.

The very nature of electromagnetic radiation coupled with the rapid increase in the public's use of wireless communications devices warrant a review of the standards, as well as new protocols for future research and monitoring.

In actuality, the relevant organizations are moving to the contrary. The IEEE is proposing to relax RE standards (increase emissions), the NRCP has been disbanded, and the EPA is no Ionger funded for such research. Here we are then, in a quandary: the federal agencies are not taking responsibility for protecting public health and safety and no one else is empowered to do so.

While my initial alarm at the thought of having a cell phone tower next door has only increased since reading the health research, I am most outraged at the Iaws that have been implemented to fast track wireless communications coverage. Many communities around the United States have been involved in protracted struggles to keep cell phone towers out of their schools and neighborhoods.

A number of European countries have heeded the current research making more protective standards and reducing the power of the transmission towers. There have been legal challenges to the FCC for violation of the 10th Amendment. Legislators in Vermont and Colorado have introduced bills to authorize independent federal research on RF exposure and to strengthen state and local authority over the placement of communications facilities.

As a resident of the Bottoms I fully appreciate the concerns over the visual impact of such a large and un-cow-like structure in this pastoral landscape. I also have concerns about the decreased property values associated with the tower (particularly as the consequences of long term RF exposures become evident}.

Most important to me, however, is that Humboldt County, along with hundreds of other towns and counties in other states take on the challenge of restoring local control and ensuring public health and safety. The cellular communications industry is growing so quickly while there are so many unanswered questions and concerns. This needs to be recognized.

If we as a community are relying on the county to evaluate the environmental impacts of this project and they are not even allowed to consider EMR related health issues, then we need to change that. I strongly support the opinion that the cell tower is a visual intrusion... let's not forget the penetrating intrusion of the invisible.

JESSICA DOREMUS "THE ARCATA EYE" For more info. visit these web sites:
Council on Wireless Technology Impacts - http://www.energyfields.org
Electromagnetic Radiation Network - http://www.emrnetwork.org