Help us beat the Home Owner's Association!

March 4, 2006 6:35 PM

My father and I have been fighting a small battle against our HOA who blocks every attempt to have a cell phone tower installed nearby. What can I arm my dad with to take into the next HOA meeting so that next time his request is refused on the grounds that a tower would give all of us cancer, he can respond with scientific evidence to the contrary?
posted by BuddhaInABucket to technology (26 comments total)

If there was stong evidence of that then I doubt there'd be cell towers anywnere.
posted by JamesMessick at 6:57 PM on March 4, 2006

Is the homeowner's association concerned that property values might be adversely affected due to fact that some people have irrational concerns regarding RF exposure from cell phone towers, or is the association itself concerned about RF exposure? If it is the first, they're probably right (see, for instance, "The Impact of cellular phone base station towers on property values", S. Bond et al., 2003.)

On the other hand, if the association is itself concerned concerned about RF exposure, I'd probably them at the American Cancer Society's page on Cellular Phone Towers. They conclude that "cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer." For that matter, a little calculation involving transmitter strengths and relative distances quickly shows that unless you're quite close to a cell phone tower you receive many-orders of magnitude more RF exposure from the RF transmitter in your cell phone that you do from a cell phone tower.
posted by RichardP at 7:08 PM on March 4, 2006

Not trying to be snarky but just playing devil's advocate: has it crossed your mind that the members of the homeowners association don't want an eyesore like a cell tour in the site line of nearby homes? Arguing cell towers cause cancer sounds very disingenuous to me. My guess is there's more than what the HOA is letting on.

My guess is you're located in BFE and your cell service is really lousy?
posted by photoslob at 7:23 PM on March 4, 2006

Screw them. Get your own cell phone repeater / booster. I was surprised by how inexpensive they are. Don't know if they work very well, though.
posted by frogan at 8:27 PM on March 4, 2006

Oh, the other thing about HOAs, I've learned, is that it's relatively easy to get yourself elected to the board itself. Print out some flyers, go out walking door to door, etc. Not terribly difficult, and then you have a vote on the board.
posted by frogan at 8:29 PM on March 4, 2006

HOA's are usually more concerned about the eyesore than any radiation, that's probably just a convenient excuse. Maybe one of those fake tree towers can be installed, or additional antennas on smaller towers.
posted by defcom1 at 8:49 PM on March 4, 2006

In my experience, the general population has such an abysmal grasp of basic science, that making any argument based on even rudimentary radiation physics, as such, is futile. Most people are so ignorant, that even if you carefully layout just a elementary explanation of the physics and biology involved, you've completely lost them. Being stupid becomes a convenient way for them to dismiss your "technical" evidence as being "beyond common knowledge," while shifting the focus to their "rights" as common people. I call it Democracy by Dopes (trademark pending, patent applied for), and it's a highly successful system for making stupid ideas public policy and law. Now that you know what you're up against, here are some scientific "talking points" if you still want to tilt at windmills:

1) Only ionizing forms of radiation have been repeatably shown to have the ability to cause genetic alterations in animal or plant tissue. Ionizing radiation is much more energetic than radio frequency radiation can be, and we know it in such forms as alpha, beta, gamma radiation and x-rays.

2) The only mechanism by which radio frequency energy directly interacts with living animal tissue is by very high amplitude dielectric excitation of the water molecules in the tissue. Basically, this is the mechanism by which microwave ovens cook, and if you happen to be working on the antenna array of a commercial VHF or UHF television station when it is fully excited for broadcasting by the several hundred thousand watts of RF energy it's transmitter can supply, you can have your deep body temperature raised by several degrees in a few minutes, as if you were a package of spinach in your RadarRange at home. If you stick around long enough to cook, through and through, it will not be good for you, but if you leave the area before you have literally been "cooked," you will suffer no lasting ill effect.

3) The total power of all transmitters feeding all antennas on all the cellular towers in a typical city, is a tiny percentage of even a single commercial UHF television station. If cell phone emissions were dangerous, hundreds of thousands of people living near television and radio broadcast stations would already be cancer statistics, as such stations have been on the air for many decades, and are specifically designed to blanket large metro areas with signals of much higher average power than cell phone signals can ever be.

4) People concerned about the radiation effects of cell phone use should insist on having the maximum number of cell phone towers, at the minimum possible spacing. Cell phones generate only the minimum signal level required for communication with the nearest cell tower, as a means of maximizing battery life. So having many towers close together results in cell phones automatically dropping their average sustained power output from the full output level of their transmitters (which is still a miniscule 1/4 watt [250 milliwatts] for most digital hand-held phones) to perhaps 100 or even 50 milliwatts, if that is sufficient to maintain clear communication. And, for modern tower transmitting equipment, there is a similar "step down" logic in channel power management, so the effect is symmetric on both sides of most digital cell systems links. Clearly, more towers = less power = greater safety!

5) Persons concerned about radiation exposure from cell phones should already be taking full precautions against the far more deadly ionizing radiation loads routinely presented by natural sunlight and deep space gamma ray sources. Presumably, the lead lined divers helmets and full body exposure suits they should surely don for every trip outside should effectively mitigate the small additional radiation exposure of cell phone communications, and very effectively. Can people appearing in public without effective gamma ray shielding be truly concerned about minimizing radiation exposures from such minimal sources as cell phones?
posted by paulsc at 9:00 PM on March 4, 2006

If the reasonable arguement method doesn't work threaten to erect a ham radio tower (of the legal maximum height) right on your property to make up for your (I assume) poor cell coverage. My understanding is US Federal law prohibits state, county, city and HOA laws and regulations from preventing ham tower erection by licenced hams. You don't even need to know code to get a ham license anymore. A tower right in the complex is probably more objectionable than a cell tower down the road.
posted by Mitheral at 9:23 PM on March 4, 2006

I am with the HOA. These towers are ugly and the health risk issues are far from settled (for instance, the notion that only ionizing radiation is risky is overly simplistic; high levels of non-ionizing emf are known dangers and recent studies of lower levels indicate interference with circadian rhythms among other issues). Regardless of the actual safety, the concerns about property values are real and valid. Stick with your land line.
posted by caddis at 4:05 AM on March 5, 2006

Has it not occured to them that the lack of adequate cell phone reception might get so frustrating that people sell out, thereby having an adverse effect on property values?
posted by mimi at 6:12 AM on March 5, 2006

Thank you, paulsc, for an amusing and useful analysis. Buddhainabucket, I'm afraid he sums up your problem in the 1st paragraph, but your HOA's it really is down to aesthetics & property values. So called health issues are just the rubric used to support the argument on an emotional level
posted by Pressed Rat at 6:48 AM on March 5, 2006

Alternatively, try talking to your neighbours.
posted by A189Nut at 7:25 AM on March 5, 2006

If it's about aesthetics, they can hide cell phone towers amazingly well. (often as trees). If that's an issue as well, it's fixable.
posted by Malor at 7:44 AM on March 5, 2006

Great comment, paulsc. Front page sidebar worthy.
posted by anathema at 8:39 AM on March 5, 2006

Only ionizing forms of radiation have been repeatably shown to have the ability to cause genetic alterations in animal or plant tissue.

Well, to be fair, we're not only talking about genetic alterations here. paulsc, would you mind addressing caddis' point about non-ionizing EMF? And caddis, would you mind addressing paulsc's point about TV and radion stations not causing cancer clusters? Thanks; both comments were interesting, and that American Cancer Society page was pretty good, too.

BuddhaInABucket, if the HOA has aesthetic objections as well, you're probably banging your head against the wall.
posted by mediareport at 9:07 AM on March 5, 2006

"...paulsc, would you mind addressing caddis' point about non-ionizing EMF?..."
posted by mediareport at 12:07 PM EST on March 5 [!]"

I can try, mediareport, but without study citations for the conclusions caddis posts, I'm not sure I really understand what point caddis was trying to make. I agreed already that "...high levels of non-ionizing emf are known dangers...", and I described how this was true. But those dangers are limited, as far as I know, to being "cooked," and as a licensed radio engineer who himself has been accidentally "cooked" a few times, I can tell you that it is no big deal, if you don't go much beyond "very rare." Besides, you need, literally, millions of times the amount of power that cell phone systems can produce, to have any chance of having this kind of problem. Cell phones, cell phone towers, and any kind of cell phone equipment ever used, absolutely can't generate this kind of juice.

I do know that the FDA doesn't think cell phones cause cancer, and thinks that accusations that they do puts reasonable people in the impossible position of proving a negative. The FCC has set a safe level for cell phone radiation several times the maximum power any digital handset can produce. The American Cancer Society says

"Cellular telephones are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects. However, the lack of ionizing radiation and the low energy level emitted from cell phones and absorbed by human tissues make it unlikely that these devices cause cancer. Several well-designed epidemiologic studies found no consistent link between cell phone use and the overall risk of brain cancer."

So, in the absence of any convincing double blinded study proving the implied assertion by caddis that cell systems can somehow produce damaging levels of emf, and in light of 30 some odd years of successful, safe, worldwide cell system use, I suggest we plunge recklessly ahead with enjoying the safety, convenience, and efficiency cell systems provide, unless and until damning and indisputable evidence of danger comes in, and in the meantime, that we build all the towers needed. Call me crazy...

As to the second part of that same statement by caddis, I personally don't know of any credible studies that support caddis' contention that "..recent studies of lower levels indicate interference with circadian rhythms among other issues..." Sometimes, I stay up too late watching TV, or talking on my cell phone, but I don't think this is what caddis had in mind.
posted by paulsc at 10:37 AM on March 5, 2006

Just to be clear, I do not think cell phones cause cancer, although they might. I mistrust the studies paid for by cell phone carriers and power companies, etc. Also, just because the government says they are safe is not enough. The government endorses fairly high levels of mercury and ionizing radiation as being safe. Their history in these respects is really atrocious. My best guess nevertheless is that cell phones and cell phone towers pose little or no cancer risk. That doesn't mean they and their towers are proven safe. There are more to health issues than cancer. This study found effects on circadian rhythms from electromagnetic radiation. I find this troubling even if they could not identify any specific negative health effects from this. Nothing has been proven one way or the other, although again I think the risks are probably low.

Do I use a cellphone, yes, but then I have never even come close to using all my minutes in any one month. I could probably spread out a month's allotment over a year or two. Would I want a cell tower in my back yard even if it were invisible? No, both for what I don't know about the health effects and more importantly for its effects upon my property value. If I had to choose between a cell tower and a radio station in my backyard I would take the cell tower any day. If they put one on my office building would I quit work? No. Worry? Probably not much. If I was on the HOA would I fight the cell tower? Tooth and nail.
posted by caddis at 11:13 AM on March 5, 2006

Thanks, guys. I'd agree with caddis about the FDA and government oversight bodies in general, given the long history of revolving door politics between companies and the health agencies that are supposed to regulate them. It also makes theoretical sense to me that electromagnetic radiation might be found to have effects on biological organisms aside from the "microwave" effect.

Also, paulsc, you seem to be overstating a bit with this:

30 some odd years of successful, safe, worldwide cell system use

The American Cancer Society page you linked notes, "Some uncertainty remains regarding a possible association with acoustic neuromas. Several large studies now in progress will add markedly to the evidence within a few years." The ACS page on towers specifically (linked in the 2nd comment) also notes, "No human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers or even on radio waves more generally." That's hardly a solid basis for claiming 30 years of safe use, and I think it's fair for us to keep asking questions. At the very least, the questions shouldn't be treated as unreasonable tinfoil hat territory.
posted by mediareport at 12:01 PM on March 5, 2006

FWIW, after a quick look at the study caddis cites above, I'll offer the following:

1) The wavelength of the EMF to which the first group was exposed is pretty long--probably far too long to be efficient or effective as a source of dielectric excitation of water molecules in a human body. The propagation of long wave EMF and VHF, UHF, and microwave energy is substantially different, to the point I'm not sure there is any basis of comparison for this study with studies upon which the FDA, FCC, and other regulators and risk evaluators must base their efforts.

2) The field strengths to which these groups were exposed were very high, even at the low range for the study. Generally, they were equivalent to near field exposures for high power broadcast stations, which I've already said are capable of producing millions of times the power of any cell system components. Anytime you are standing in a radio frequency field whose strength is measured in ranges of up to hundreds of volts per meter, you will probably be able to light up florescent lights without bothering to plug them in. Not a recommended place to be for people with pacemakers, either.

3) The subjects tested were on shift work schedules. I'm not sure how well controlled for other factors such a study, with about 100 subjects, could really be, but shift work is itself a major contributor to instability of body rhythms, and has been implicated by a later study as a cause of cancer itself.

As for the esthetics of cell towers, I'd say that's pretty subjective, but they generally look good to me. I see towers, and I get happy feelings of security, progress, efficiency, and safety.

On preview, in response to mediareport, I'd say that focusing on cell phone use as a principal source of danger from emf is "tinfoil hat territory," if there is no clear and present pattern of public health problems, and substantial economic or safety implications of delaying cell system buildout and adoption. It's impossible to prove a negative, when it comes to risk and benefit, and that can't be the burden for the adoption and use of any technology. But clearly, if an area does not have cell service, people in that area lack an important safety and convenience mechanism, that can easily have both life and safety risk, and economic impact. The benefits are so immediate and universal, and so tangibly great, against risks so small and improbable, that there is, I think, no question that policy makers and development regulators must err on the side of adoption and build out.
posted by paulsc at 12:25 PM on March 5, 2006

It's impossible to prove a negative, when it comes to risk and benefit, and that can't be the burden for the adoption and use of any technology.

No one here's been arguing against the adoption of cell phones, or saying they're a "principal source of danger," so calm yourself a bit. But a "clear and present pattern" of health problems can be extremely difficult to prove, especially if the negative effects are relatively low-level, which leaves room for thoughtful, non-tinfoil folks to encourage the kind of studies ACS says are now underway. That's all, paulsc. You're just a tad bit too certain in your dismissal of the concern.
posted by mediareport at 12:39 PM on March 5, 2006

Regarding the aesthetics of cell towers, it is possible to camouflage them. But the cell company would have to want the tower placement bad enough to pay for the extra cost.
posted by Brian James at 12:57 PM on March 5, 2006

"No one here's been arguing against the adoption of cell phones..."
posted by mediareport at 3:39 PM EST on March 5 [!]"

Maybe we're reading different threads, mediareport. The OP of this one is up against a HOA that is actively opposing construction of a cell tower nearby. Cell phones can't work without nearby cell towers. No towers = no cell system = no reason to have cell phones. More cell towers = better cell system. I contend that the benefits of cell systems outweigh the known and probable risks, to the point that it is worth continuing construction while those interested in admittedly small potential dangers continue to look for them, if they want to. I might even contribute to such studies, myself. In the meantiime, the HOA shouldn't object to the tower they are blocking on some supposedly scientific basis, when the preponderance of current scientific evidence is that there is no certian danger, and when there is nothing particularly novel about the levels or kinds of radio emissions cell phone systems create in use. Doing so is irresponsible, by my lights, because it perverts a reasonable benefit/risk relationship.

If the HOA wants to oppose it on more ethereal esthetic or political grounds, OK, I guess, but they shouldn't muddy the waters for that position by dragging in bogus radiation concerns, that aren't scientifically supportable. The typical standard for consideration of technical data and opinion is "a preponderance of evidence." If the HOA can irrefutably show that the cell tower being proposed would cause demonstrable health damage to some party they represent, then they can object on that basis, but they can't reasonably object to cell construction today on the vague basis that something about cell systems may eventually be problematic, because doing so incurs real costs of foregoing service in the meantime, or having poor service, for many people, some of whom they do not represent.

I wouldn't expect the cell industry or the cell user base to be taxed for an endless stream of studies of poor design about very low risks, which may or may not even actually exist, and even if which can be shown to exist, may never create harm which is preventable or which can be compensated. I wouldn't expect to wait indefinitely for universal cell coverage, and new features and capabilities while such studies are done, or aren't done, either.
posted by paulsc at 1:23 PM on March 5, 2006

I'm late to the party, but wanted to throw a few cents in to the pot. I'm a former Radio Frequency engineer and I've been directly involved in the installation of hundreds of cell towers. I've also have been involved in one way or another RF Radiation for nigh on 20 years now. When I was building sites, I would occasionally be asked by the Site Acquisition people to attend zoning meetings with them. The neighborhood concerns typically fell into 3 categores:
1) Health Concerns
2) Aesthetic Concerns
3) Financial Concerns

1) If you use a microwave, WiFi, Cell Phone, then you are exposing yourself to more RF energy than you'd receive from a cell tower. Furthermore, from a health risk perspective, I'm more worried about the CRT exposure I've gotten over my lifetime then RF Exposure (I really should get a flat screen). Additionally, everything paulsc says is consistent with my professional knowledge of the field.

2) The cell phone companies don't like to, but if forced to (i.e. they have no other location that works, and its a requirement in the lease/zoning permit) they will typically concede to beautify the area. Fencing, Screening foliage and sleek/camoflauged towers are the ones I saw used most often.

3) The cell phone company is leasing the site from somebody. So I've seen parties more interested in how the lease gets divvyed up then anything else. But this is rare, as typically there is a single land owner, and all the monies go to that land owner.

So, for the HOA question. I would use the information that paulsc provided to show that the health concern is negligble based on current data.
I would suspect that they are more worried about aesthetics/property values though. You might want to let them know that the cell phone company may be willing to do what it can to address that issue.

Finally, not quite related to the question, but when newer data technologies start coming out ... the areas that are close to the cell sites will scream compared to outlying areas.
posted by forforf at 2:53 PM on March 5, 2006

Cell Phone Antennas and Human Health
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:24 PM on March 5, 2006

As for the esthetics of cell towers, I'd say that's pretty subjective, but they generally look good to me. I see towers, and I get happy feelings of security, progress, efficiency, and safety.

It may be subjective, but that's absolutely no reason to dismiss it, humans are not robots, aesthietics very much do matter, and your views are surely in the vast minority. I think cell phone towers are hideous blights on the landscape and I'm quite sure I'm in the majority on that issue.

Some of the camouflage options do seem OK though.

Your original point on RF radiation having essentially no health risks is soundly refuted. Though I accept that a phone tower probably has much less risk
posted by wilful at 5:34 PM on March 5, 2006

Maybe we're reading different threads, mediareport. The OP of this one is up against a HOA that is actively opposing construction of a cell tower nearby.

Oh, that. I was talking about here in the thread. I'd already pretty much decided for myself that the HOA is more concerned about aesthetics (they usually are) and was using the health thing as an excuse. Anyway, I figured the conversation had moved on to more general territory, and no one I've read in that general area has seriously argued for a total ban on the use of cell phones.
posted by mediareport at 9:05 PM on March 5, 2006