Residents: Standards Change, Radiation Effects Are Cumulative

Some held signs to protest the application, and everyone applauded after each resident spoke, because the message was clear—they do not want a cell tower in their backyard.

About 100 residents crowded into the municipal courtroom Tuesday to speak out against an application before the Zoning Board of Adjustment to build a T-Mobile cell tower at the Green Knoll Volunteer Fire Company on North Bridge Street.

And the resounding question from those residents who spoke during the public portion concerned the applicant's assertion that the tower meets the Federal Communication Commission's set standard for radiation emission.

The application currently before the board is for a 125-foot flagpole tower adjacent to the fire company, with six directional antennas and two GPS antennas, all hidden within the tower. The pole would be surrounded by an eight-foot high fence to shield the equipment from view.

Daniel Collins—a health and safety expert with Pinnacle Telecom Group, which provides technical and professional services to telecommunications companies— maintained throughout the hour-and-a-half public portion that radio frequency levels from the kind of pole being proposed would be at 0.06 percent, which is 1,500 times less than the FCC's safety concerns for exposure to radiation.

But residents maintained that they were concerned about any level of exposure at all.

"My concern is that it has been pointed out that the current knowledge of what radiation does is not exact, and that standards can change," said Arthur Roswell, of Edgewood Drive. "There are children there."

This sentiment was echoed throughout the evening, as residents questioned how the tower would fare, and how safe residents would be, if the standards were to be lowered.

"The United States allows 580 to 600 micro-watts," said Kim Barber, of Foothill Road, adding that other countries only allow 200 micro-watts in residential areas, while still others allow 10. "The U.S. allows more than most. What if, in 20 years, we say, oops, we've already exceeded the limit?"

Collins said the 0.06 percent level translates to about 60 micro-watts of radiation being emitted from the tower, which is less than what is emitted when people hug.

"If I go home and hug my wife and two kids, I've fully exceeded the FCC limit," he said. "We have done measurements of entire areas, and have found that cumulative effects are not significant. The radiofrequency levels from any tower are not important, and collectively, they are not important. Cellular towers are among the lowest exposures in everyday life."

What's more important, Collins said, are the levels of radiation residents encounter when they walk into their own homes. The radiofrequency levels inside a house, he said, are at about 3 to 7 percent of the FCC standard.

And for that reason, residents said, they do not want to add additional radiation exposure through an unwanted cell tower.

"What did the FCC study to establish safety?" asked Jocelin Masin, of Morningside Drive. "Were the tests conducted on people? We can't extrapolate from mice that radiation has the same effects on people."

Collins said the FCC relied on thousands of experts who study radiofrequency measures to determine the effects before setting the standard.

"So people have never made a mistake," Masin said to applause from the crowd. "We have a choice to say yes or no on this, and if we can't say there is conclusive evidence in the studies, maybe we should take a step back."

With Collins citing studies examined by the FCC to determine its standard, Andrew Leven, of Holmes Court, questioned whether any consideration had been given to the International Association of Firefighters' [IAF] determination in 2004 that cell phone antennas should not be placed at firehouses.

Collins said this conclusion was not based on any technical or scientific evidence, and that the exposure to radiation firefighters get from their own equipment is far more significant.

"The conclusion is that this was a political- or emotionally-driven conclusion," he said. "A lot of what was produced as studies is not accepted in science."

But Leven said he had the report from the IAF, and was looking at references to many different highly-regarded organizations.

"They [looked at studies from] the World Health Organization, the FDA [and others]," he said. "So you're saying they're all wrong, and you're right."

"Is it fair to say that there are groups that are not wackadoos that have concerns about the FCC standard?" he added.

Zoning board attorney Lawrence Vastola questioned then whether the residents would like the township to adopt its own standard, which is something that cannot be done.

"We understand the FCC standard occupies the field," he said. "Do you think the board should ignore the FCC standard and adopt its own? If the testimony is that they comply and there is not testimony that they don't, the board is sort of in a corner."

Also of concern was the possible radiation effects on pregnant women in the area. Foothill Road resident Ronghua Li said she is concerned about the long-term effects the radiation could have on a fetus.

"Do you have evidence to prove that women being exposed to the radiation will not cause fetal death?" she asked. "It takes much less than this to harm the fetus. Just like x-rays, it is only okay to be exposed to the radiation briefly."

Collins said the accepted FCC standard is based on a long-term study, and is designed to be safe in all conditions.

"The radiation emitted is less than when your husband stands next to you," he said. "No one has suggested that a level 1,500 times lower than the standard is a danger to anyone."

Aside from the effects on humans, Mark Segal, of Foothill Road, said he had looked at a study from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and was concerned about effects on birds flying into the pole itself, as well as radiation effects on wildlife.

But Collins said specifics are given only for towers that are built at about 300 feet.

"When you build the tall towers, you have to light them at night because birds don't see them, and they fly into them," he said. "That could affect 350,000 birds a year. But 71 million fly into windows."

As for a question about radiation effects on bee colonies and other animals, Collins said there was a recent collapse of a bee colony that was attributed to a nearby cellular facility, until it was discovered that there was actually a virus that killed them.

Still, the most resounding question throughout the evening was the concern about the FCC standard, and the possibility that that could change in several years, making the percentage calculated for the new tower actually too high. Collins said that, if the standard were to change, all towers in the country would have to be reevaluated anyway, but residents did not like the idea that there could be effects they wouldn't have known about.

"Things that were safe 20 to 30 years ago are subject to change," said Thomas Sepesi, of Cedar Street. "We don't have long term studies, and standards as a rule do change."

While residents had time Tuesday to ask questions of Collins and T-Mobile's engineer who spoke about the structure itself, the board emphasized throughout the evening that that meeting was not the time to make general comments about the application, only to ask the professionals for information.

But one man made it clear that he did not have a question, only a comment, when another woman was cut off because she was expressing her opinion rather than asking a question.

"When is it time to speak about our town?" he shouted out. "We don't want the tower."