What is the reason for this site?

I created this web site to help educate people who, like myself, find themselves with a cell tower being proposed on a neighbors property. It took me several months to educate myself on the various problems with cell towers and possible ways to fight them. There are many other sites on the internet that have been devoted to the same crusade and you will find links to them here. In addition to what other sites are offering. I am also providing a news forum to help in exchanging of ideas and a web page that will allow you to easily contact your Senators and Representatives. It is my belief that if enough people all group together and petition congress to change the laws, something will finally get done.

Telecommunications Act of 1996

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a gift to the wireless industry, and a great loss of rights to the American Public. There are many people who belive that this was a violation of the 1st, 5th and 10th ammendments. I believe that the injustice is in the interpretation of the Act, more than the act itself. The Add Hoc group tried to take the issue to the Supreme court but they would not hear the case due to time constraints. A full copy of the TCA can be viewed here (300k). The section dealing with cell towers is section 704.

1st Ammendment

The 1st ammendment was violated in that wireless companies will argue that people can not talk about health effects. The wireless companies did try to get legislation preventing people from discussing health effects at hearings, but they were not successful. They still continue to argue that health effects can not be mentioned. People have been thrown out of hearings for the mention of health effects (illegally) for fear of the wireless companies. There have been legal cases where the decisions have been reversed by higher courts because it was determined that it was partially based on health effects.

If you are concerned about the health effects from these towers, you need to mention it in your arguments, but keep it out of the argument against the tower. You want to mention it, because if the tower is approved and health problems arise, you were on record as having a concern and therefore have recourse. You do not want the chance that it will be construed as part of the decision denying a tower however.

5th Ammendment

The 5th Ammendment was violated in that some wireless facilities result in a taking of property rights. Sometimes the wireless companies will try to site a tower that has part of the fall zone on a neighbors property or require that a neighbor must provide the buffer of trees to screen the view of the tower. This is a taking of property rights without compensation.

10th Ammendment

The 10th Ammendment was violated because the federal government does not have jurisdiction over local governments on such matters. The 10th Ammendment reads as follows:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

The rights granted to the wireless companies by the TCA of 1996 were not granted to it by the constitution and the local governments did not give up those rights.

What the TCA of 1996 says

Briefly, the special paragraph of the TCA that has caused so much problem for American Citizens says that a cell tower permit can't be denied on the basis of health effects, so long as it complies with the FCC's limits It also says that the local governments can't deny service to a provider. Everything else remains in the jurisdiction of the local governments.

Health

The data that the FCC is using to set its standards is outdated (1985). The FCC set a limit for thermal effects. They defered the setting of biological limits (non-thermal) to the nations health agencies (EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc.). This sounds appropriate, but at the same time they cut the funding of research into these health effects to zero. They also made the local governments responsible for making sure the wireless companies comply with the FCC limits (in the past the FCC would check for compliance). Most local governments don't know that they are responsible for this.

Wireless companies will tell you that their equipment is completely safe. This is far from the truth. No one has ever established a level that can be considered safe. There are hundereds of scientists around the world that have spoke out about the dangers and made the results of their experiments public. There was a meeting in Salzburg where they shared their results and published recommendations for the world. Dr. Henry Lai of the University of Washington has shown that the effects appear to be cumulative and can affect DNA (double and single strand breaks). Leukemia, Cancer, Sleeplessnes and depression are just a few of the effects the wireless companies don't want you to talk about.

The US is one of the few countries that still has such high "thermal" limits for exposure to this Microwave Frequency radiation. Sweeden, New Zealand, Austraila, Italy and Russia all have set limits of 100 to 1000 times lower than that of our government.

The wireless industry tried to exempt themselves of liability. They tried to get Senator McCain to add a paragraph to the legislation making 911 our national emergency phone number that would make them exempt from any health related issues relating to the opperation of their equipment. The text was eventually removed from the bill before it became law.

Lloyds of London recently declined to issue insurance for such liability. Many wireless companies are now changing to LLC (limited Liability Corporations) to avoid some of this liability. Tower companies are being setup to issolate the wireless companies from the liability. If there is a significant claim, the person filing suit may end up owning a tower, but not much else. The contracts with private citizens do not indemnify the property owner from liability. The property owner is left as the only one not protected from liability.

There are many people on this planet that have Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity (EHS). This makes them extremely sensitive to microwave frequency radiation. Often this occurs when someone has been exposed to higher than normal levels at some point causing them to now be overly sensitive to exposure. However it occurs, these people are forced to avoid EMF (Electro Magnetic Fields) and locating a cell tower in their neighborhood and telling them "there is no effect" is the ultimate in injustice.

For a radio broadcast discussing health issues of wireless technologies, listen to this file.

Aesthetics

In addition to health, the other major objection to Cell Towers is that no one wants to look at them. If you live under high voltage power lines, you most likely don't have an objection to health or the addition of another tower. If you live in a neighborhood with underground power, views and no commercial structures, then you likely have a very strong objection to the addition of a cell tower. Aesthetics is currently the only argument that you can win a denial on. As a result, some wireless companies are using stealth technologies to make the towers look like trees, lamp posts or other more pleasing things to look at.

This brings up the health issue again because if you are concerned about the health effects, you will want to know where the towers are. It is not right to spend the afternoon sitting on a bench, develop a severe headache and then find out that the bench was a wireless antenna and equipemnt.

The message here is that only the local residents can define what they want to see in their community and health needs to be a part of the equation (Contact your Federal Representatives).

Rights

Know your rights. The wireless companies will tell you that you don't have any, but they are almost always expanding on the rights granted them by the federal governments. Often the local governments, out of fear from the wireless companies, take direction from the wireless companies. More and more, the local governments are realizing that they do have some authority and the courts are finding in favor of denials than the wireless companies.

Be cautious when it comes to your local planners. They are supposed to be neutral, but in my experience, they appear to work for the wireless companies. I will assume this is ignorance of what their job truly entails, and not a conspiracy. Either way, you need to be prepared for a battle.

What can be done?

If you don't currently have a cell tower proposed near you, the first thing to do is to talk to your neighbors about the subject. If you don't talk about the issue, an uneducated neighbor could make the wrong decision and sign a lease with a wireless provider. It is best to talk about it first, before someone gets tricked into signing a lease. If everyone in the neighborhood agrees that a cell tower is needed and wanted, then great! Everyone is happy. If just one neighbor wants to collect the rent from a tower on his property at the expense of his neighbors, that is wrong.

If you are faced with a battle and that is why you made it to this site, then you need to do research (lots of it!). Here are just a few of the things to look into:

Permitted or Conditional Uses - Learn the code for your particular case. Permitted uses are difficult to win, but not impossible. A permitted use does not mean that the wireless companies have complied with all the laws or received all the preliminary permits (right of way permits) or complied with all the requirements (FCC NIER Report).

Alternate Sites - what would be a better site? The 'least intrusive' site can not be denied (per the TCA).

Need and Coverage Maps - The wireless companies usually need to supply a coverage map showing what areas the proposed tower will cover. Does it already have coverage? Will it be seamless with surrounding towers (can you drive from one to the next without dropping a call)? The wireless companies have the right to provide service. It is up to you to make sure their request is reasonable.

Still Stuck? - Email me and I will try to help. (mikem at cell-out dot org). The case we won, currently has only set a Snohomish County precedence. If Cingular elects to take this to a higher court, We will make sure that their loss will be used on a national level. The footnote MFHA and Snohomish County vs Cingular will be used in battles across the country.