WASHINGTON-Environmentalists have teamed up with organized labor to block antenna siting and publicize alleged health risks from pocket telephones in a potent grass roots movement that could lead to litigation and delays in the buildout of new personal communications services systems.
Environmentalists have seized upon, among other things, an Environmental Protection Agency letter to a Washington state citizen that the new hybrid radiofrequency radiation safety guideline adopted in August by the Federal Communications Commission does not provide protection against possible cancer risks posed by pocket phones.
The new standard is stricter than the existing one, combining elements of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements’ 1986 exposure criteria and the 1992 American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers RF standard. The standard goes into effect Jan. 1, but the wireless telecommunications industry wants an extension of at least one year on that date because of fears carriers cannot comply by the start of the new near. The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology is expected to give guidance on compliance in an upcoming technical bulletin.
The wireless industry initially supported the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard over a hybrid approach, but compromised after it became clear FCC Chairman Reed Hundt sided with EPA and other health and safety agencies that found shortcomings with ANSI/IEEE safety guidelines. The other four commissioners backed ANSI/IEEE, but deferred to Hundt when wireless carriers retreated. Other high-tech sectors continue to oppose the hybrid standard because they say it is unnecessarily restrictive. Environmentalists are against it because they say it is too weak.
As part of the deal with the FCC, the wireless industry supposedly was assured EPA would remain in the background on RF safety issues. Instead, EPA appears to have given environmentalists and organized labor artillery to fight against the implementation of the hybrid standard next January and to contest siting applications on public health grounds.
The new telecommunications law prevents local and state governments from rejecting applications for antenna siting for safety reasons if wireless carriers comply with FCC RF guidelines.
But David Fichtenberg, the Olympia, Wash., resident whose questions prompted the EPA letter, argues that while Congress pre-empted localities from regulating placement of antennas, it did not extend federal jurisdiction to the operation of cell sites.
“Federal health agencies and claimed reports, which are being verified, suggest that current Federal Communication Commission exposure standards may not necessarily protect” against cancer and other medical problems posed by pocket phones, said Fichtenberg.
Fichtenberg is working with others around the country who believe the new RF hybrid standard may not adequately protect citizens and telecom technicians against potential health risks, he said. Support is coming from the Communications Workers of America, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO with no shortage of money, legal expertise and political influence.
Microwave News, a trade publication, reports that CWA and environmentalists “are preparing a manual on how communities can oppose the siting of towers.” David LeGrande, health and safety director of CWA’s national office in Washington told the newsletter “that a lack of accurate information on health effects from RF/MW (microwave) radiation made the document necessary.”
“I’m not convinced that all the data from these cellular companies-the CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association) in particular-are incredibly accurate.”
Litigation is being threatened from all sides, a possibility that raises the kind of legal liability problem that jeopardizes further industry-funded research.
