Cell Phone Tower Data Links

Cell Phone Tower Data

Did you know the International Fire Fighters Association oppose Cell Towers on their sites “until proven not hazardous to health” [www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp]?

Did you know studies in Europe they are suggesting 1000-1500 feet distance from Cell Towers due to Radiation?

Did you know that the Telecom Act of 1996 bands talking about health concerns to the City in making decisions on Cell Tower Sitings?

1. Cell Tower Safety: This is a key report we found that calls the safety of cell phone towers into question: http://www.bioinitiative.org/ Sections can be printed out for municipalities approached by Telecom Companies. http://bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

2. Put Towers where safe:

3. Resolutions to Regulate Cell Tower Sitings [ www.cloutnow.org/lacbos/ ]

4. Studies show living within ¼ mile of such antennas increases cancer 3 to 4 times. [Cell Phone Towers: How Far is Safe? www.emf-health.com/articles-celltower.htm ]
http://www.emrnetwork.org (Santini 2002)

5. Antenna RF radiation danger zone extends far beyond Camp Herms scout camp to Arlington Park and Neighboring community, exposing many neighbors, boy scouts, and highly used park for infants, toddlers, school activities at Madera and other school, day camps, city summer camps, etc. http://www.emrnetwork.org (Santini 2002)

6. International Association of Fire Fighters Resolution: oppose Cell Towers on their sites until proven not hazardous to health [www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp] http://www.iaff.org main site.

7. Health Impacts
Documented adverse health effects of cell & other radio-frequency (RF) antennas:
– significant increases in leukemia & bladder cancer in children & adults
– decreased immune function & sperm counts
– DNA damage
– impaired nervous system activity
– slowed motor skills & reaction time in school children
– loss of concentration
- sleep disorders & decrease in REM sleep (important for memory & learning)
http://www.wave-guide.org/library/studies/html ; Santini 2002
- Cancer, tumors, Alzheimer’s

8. Growing evidence shows that even small emissions from cell phone towers are “dangerous to human health” [Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiation. http://www.mountshastaecology.org/Archive/Health_Effects_from_Cell_Phone_Tower_Radiation.html

9. “As a general rule, cell towers should not be placed near schools.” They should not be placed near residential areas, public parks, nursing homes, etc. [www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35421-2004Dec29_2.html http://repfloren.com/?p=163 ]

10. Sites for Cell Tower Information:
There is an excellent, well-researched article by Christopher Ketcham in the February 2010 issue of GQ entitled "Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health." It is now available online at their website at

11. Property Value Impacts
Cell antennas decrease surrounding property values. http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/emf-l/Mar2000/Re-Cell-Phone-Antennas-&-property-values-(Jonsson)(Carman)--.html

Study by Sandy Bond (PhD, Appraisal Institute and Realtors), The Appraisal Journal 2005, 2007 – www.appraisalinstitute.org.

The California Association of Realtors maintains that “sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of the property,” including “known conditions outside of and surrounding” it. This includes “nuisances” and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses.

** Slide set available as well from Los Angeles County Work.

12. From Ken Cook, President, Environmental Working Group:
Earlier this week EWG Senior Scientist and lead author of the report, Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., testified at a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health. She was one of five expert witnesses called to discuss the possible health hazards of cell phone radiation and to recommend a course for the future.

Click here to explore EWG's cell phone report and to see Olga prepare for her Congressional testimony.

13. Other sites:

14. Glendale, California Blog: 9th Circuit Court & Zoning:

With reference to the 4 Night Circuit Court of Appeals decisions an links to wireless facilities siting ordinances in Richmond and Albany, California. Glendale and Agoura Hills, California have moratoriums on new cell antennas until better guidelines for siting and regulating antenna are put in place. http://sunroomdesk.com/wireless-facility-issues-links-and-background/

15. Recent 4 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions and Rulings on Wireless Citing:

1. Sprint v. City of Palos Verdes Estates – October 2009 Ruled that the city’s aesthetic objections were valid, and consistent with its zoning practices. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/10/13/05-56106.pdf

2. T-Mobile USA v. City of Anacortes, Washington – July 2009. Required local

governments to identify feasible alternatives to disfavored locations. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/20/08-35493.pdf

3. Sprint Telephony v. County of San Diego – September 2008 - Upheld San Diego County’s wireless ordinance (the Supreme Court denied Sprint’s appeal). http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/09/10/0556076.pdf

4. Metro PSC v. City of San Francisco – March 2005 http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/03/07/0316759.pdf

Upheld “least intrusive means” as a municipal standard for wireless facilities

16. CL Newsletter Fall 2009: Colantuono & Levin, PC C&L Newsletter Update on Public Law (Los Angeles): Call Tower Aesthetics Fair Game by Scott E. Porter article. “On October 14, 2009, the 9th Circuit decided Sprint PCS Assets LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, deciding that California law does not prohibit cities and counties from denying approvals for proposed cell phone antenna in rights-of-way based upon aesthetic concerns.” “The city denied two on aesthetic grounds.”

“California Supreme Court decide the issue, the 9th Circuit concluded neither section limits local authority to regulate aesthetics pursuant to their constitutional police power.” “The court concluded there was insufficient evidence in the record that there was a “significant gap” in coverage” “Moreover, there was insufficient evidence in the record before the 9th Circuit that any gap was “significant”. SPorter @CLLAW.US

17. FCC 90 and 150 Day City Approval
From site:

November 18, 2009
FCC Issues Declaratory Ruling Establishing Timeframes For State And Locality Processing Of Applications For Wireless Towers

Washington, D.C. – In a Declaratory Ruling (“Ruling”) adopted today, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) cleared the way for broadband deployment by establishing timeframes of 90 days for collocations and 150 days for all other tower siting applications reviewed by state and local governments. This action will assist in speeding the deployment of next generation wireless networks while respecting the legitimate concerns of local authorities and preserving local control over zoning and land use policies. Read more here. For those who wish to view the FCC Commissioners' deliberations today, here
is the link: http://www.fcc.gov/openmeetings/2009_11_18-ocm.html
- News -

18. Effects on People living Near antennas: 
'Information & Research - Evidence' section:   http://www.antennafreeunion.org
19. Chemical Injury Information Network suggested article that they published on the subject of EMF's from Prevention magazine: http://www.prevention.com/health/health/healthy-lifestyle/is-dirty-electricity-making-you-sick/article/9e60d47569225210VgnVCM10000030281eac____

20. Boy Scouts have been logging forests in their Camps all over the country. Some reporters' group in Seattle Hearst newspapers published several articles about this. Will T-Mobile Cut down trees? www.seattlepi.com/specials/scoutslogging/