WASHINGTON-A freshman Florida congressman concerned with constituent complaints about wireless tower proliferation is considering legislation to overturn the antenna siting provision of the 1996 telecom act.
“I am … researching the possibility of developing legislation which repeals the provision prohibiting local authorities from taking health into consideration until such time as the FCC standards are implemented,” Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) told Candice and Gary Brown in a March 20 letter.
The Browns started a group known as Families Against Cell Towers at Schools, or FACTS, in Boca Raton that has been active in challenging cellular and personal communications services antenna siting.
Just last month, Sprint Spectrum L.P. withdrew a proposal to construct a 150-foot cellular tower at an elementary school in Boca Raton after loud protests from community activists.
“It’s unconscionable. It’s unconstitutional. And it’s unsafe,” said Gary Brown, referring to antenna siting at schools and lack of health-related research on wireless emissions.
The siting dispute in West Palm Beach County is not isolated; moratoria and ordinances restricting antenna siting are in place all over Florida amid a fire storm of citizen opposition.
School boards in Florida tend to be siding with wireless carriers because they can collect up to $180,000 over five years for the right to site a single tower on school property.
But Wexler said he was told any bill to repeal the antenna siting measure would be “dead on arrival,” given Congress’ reluctance to tamper with the massive telecom reform act.
“I have nothing against siting,” Wexler told RCR.
Wexler said his concern is the erection of wireless towers near schools before stricter federal radio frequency radiation emission guidelines take effect.
The telecom bill forbids state and local officials from blocking antenna siting for health reasons if carriers comply with federal RF emission guidelines.
The new RF guidelines adopted by the Federal Communications Commission last August were to go into effect Jan. 1 this year, but the date was extended to September to give federal regulators time to address challenges to them and to give carriers time to transition to the new RF guidelines.
But the wireless telecom industry is supporting efforts to delay the implementation of the new RF emission guidelines until January 1998.
In addition, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and the Personal Communications Industry Association are aggressively lobbying the FCC to pre-empt state/local regulation and taxation of wireless antenna siting.
The new RF guidelines, though more stringent than those currently in place, remain the subject of debate with regard to safety.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which helped craft the new RF standard, has sent out mixed signals. After the wireless industry complained about an EPA official’s statement several months ago that the new standard does not protect against long-term, non-thermal bioeffects, a higher-ranking EPA regulator declared the standard adequately safe.
Nevertheless, the EPA is still believed to support the notion that the new RF guideline does not-cannot-guarantee long-term safety protection because insufficient research exists on pocket phone RF bioeffects research.
