The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the size of the Manhattan phone directory. At the time it was being debated, most people, including many legislators voting on it, thought it was only about complex deregulation schemes. But deep within its pages, in Section 704, lay a stealth clause about the siting of cell-phone towers.
Inserted at the behest of the telecommunications conglomerates, whose representatives helped write the legislation, Section 704 states that although communities reserve their rights over the general placement, construction, and modification of towers, they cannot ban them outright. Nor can they unreasonably discriminate among providers, or set zoning regulations based on "the environmental effects of radio-frequency emissions, to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) regulations concerning such emissions." As for health effects on humans, the intent was to include them in the catch-all category "environmental effects," although no other industry, including the U.S. military, interprets the term in that way. Section 704 further states that all refusals must be "reasonable" and in writing.
The situation is dividing communities around the country, often pitting neighbor against neighbor when one is tempted by the licensing revenues of siting such a facility on their property, while adjacent landowners raise concerns about property devaluation and health endangerment. Communities used to be able to turn down such towers, but now this is no longer so. The telecommunications industry, having poured millions of dollars into campaign contributions to both parties, has enormous influence.
The scientific community is divided regarding safety, and the science itself—bioelectromagnetics—is arcane and complex. Concern about the safety of this part of the electromagnetic spectrum spans decades, fueling both government and industry research, although nowhere near enough, or of an appropriate kind. Nevertheless, that research has turned up disturbing results, and an abundance of controversy.
Radiation is a natural part of the universe. The electromagnetic spectrum is divided into ionizing and nonionizing radiation, with the former consisting of very short wavelengths, like X-rays and ultraviolet light, which have enough power to knock electrons off their orbits. These bands have the ability to do permanent damage at the cellular level, causing cancers and genetic mutations. Nonionizing radiation—emitted by powerlines, radios, TVs, cellular phones, microwave ovens, and many other sources—consists of longer wavelengths that can have less power, and has mistakenly been assumed to be harmless, apart from its ability to heat tissue. We have encircled the earth and infused the atmosphere with these nonionizing bands in ways that don't exist in nature—using abnormal exposure strengths and unusual characteristics such as alternating current, digital signaling, modulation, and odd wave forms—all without understanding the full bioeffects.
It has been known for decades that the human anatomy is resonant with—or acts as a perfect antenna for—FM radio frequencies, and that our bodies reach peak absorption in the ultra-high frequency (UHF) ranges, right where television and cellular-phone transmissions occur. The FCC standards for radio-frequency emissions are based on thermal effects, or the RFs' ability to heat tissue, in the same way a microwave oven cooks food. But the case for nonthermal hazards from RFs is substantial. Decades of research have found alarming effects: numerous cancers, immune system suppression, and birth defects, among others. Some research has found detrimental effects based on frequency alone, not on power density. And bioelectromagnetics researchers often note puzzling "nonlinear effects," which indicate that the most profound bioreactions occur at the lowest exposures. This body of research argues for fewer towers.
In 1992, Cletus Kanavy, chief of the Biological Effects Laboratory at the Kirkland Air Force Base in New Mexico, published a paper on RFs, stating, "The principal...biological effects of greatest concern are behavioral aberrations, neural network perturbations, fetal tissue damage (inducing birth defects), cataractogenesis, altered blood chemistry, metabolic changes and suppression of the endocrine and immune systems..." Kirkland set an exposure standard 100 times more stringent than what the FCC uses for civilian exposures. The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory did the same for its lab researchers.
When industry engineers show up to present applications for installations, they liken their technology to remote-control devices, such as garage-door openers or TV remote controls. They say that the power density 100 feet from antennas is equivalent to that of these familiar devices, pointing out that power density decreases rapidly with distance from an antenna. But density is only one factor of radio-wave propagation among several variables that determine safety.
Industry representatives also point out that the RF emissions of cellular towers are far below the federal standards, which they often are. They liken the power output of the technology to 100- and even 25-watt light bulbs, hoping to assuage people's fears with familiar comparisons. What they leave out is that 100 watts is the power output per channel, and one antenna may host dozens of channels. As user demand increases, channels can be split. Plus, unlike 60-hertz light bulbs, these installations function in the microwave, UHF bands, where questions about safety go back to the 1940s and remain unanswered today.