WASHINGTON-The grass-roots backlash against antenna siting continued last week as lawsuits driven by environmentalists, soccer moms and organized labor were filed in three federal circuits to overturn the 1996 federal radio-frequency radiation exposure standard, while House legislation was uncorked to return full oversight of antenna siting to state and local authorities.
The lawsuits and legislation, combined with last week’s public-relations disaster on blocked wireless 911 calls, have put the wireless telecom industry on the defensive.
Challenges to the Federal Communications Commission’s new RF standard were filed in Washington, D.C., San Francisco and New York City. The three suits were filed by environmental lawyer John Schulz, one of the original Nader’s Raiders.
Meanwhile, Reps. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) co-sponsored a companion bill to repeal siting pre-emption legislation introduced recently by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and James Jeffords (R-Vt.).
The new RF standard, brokered by former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and Environmental Protection Agency head Carol Browner, has been harshly criticized by consumer advocates for being too weak and by the industry for being too strict.
In the 1996 ruling, the FCC dropped its original plan to adopt the RF exposure standard of the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Instead, the FCC fused together select portions of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard and guidelines recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
Antenna siting moratoria have been enacted throughout the country in recent years with the rollout of new personal communications services systems and the expansion of existing cellular telephone networks. The wireless industry estimates 100,000 antennas must be installed to comply with the federal mandate of telecom competition.
But consumers seem less concerned about lower mobile phone bills and more worked up about health, real estate and aesthetic issues as towers pop up across the national landscape.
“Many have said that concerned members of the public are mere amateurs in this debate and have been advised that the RF issue is best left to the industry professionals and the federal government who profess to know what’s best for America’s health and safety. I remind you … that it was professionals that built the Titanic-but that it was amateurs that built the Ark,” said Cathy Bergman-Venezia, president of the watchdog group EMR Alliance.
Tim Ayers, a spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, said the uproar over antenna siting could disrupt the balance achieved between industry and local and state officials in the 1996 telecom act.
“This has not been an ill-considered issue,” said Ayers. “Congress considered this for years and came up with a solution having federal government responsible for health and safety and local officials responsible for zoning. It seemed to be a logical division of labor. We do not anticipate that Congress will revisit it (antenna siting pre-emption). What we have in place has all the safety requirements that are needed.”
Nevertheless, given the heightened level of the debate on antenna siting and related health concerns, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) intends to ratchet up pressure on federal regulators who oversee phone safety with another query to the Food and Drug Administration this Friday.
In response to his probe earlier this year, the FDA reported there was no major cellular cancer research conducted or sponsored by the federal government.
To combat the consumer revolt, the wireless industry has countered with a print and radio ad campaign here stressing public-safety benefits of wireless technology.
