The rise of smartphones is bringing with it an onslaught of antennas, as more than 100 wireless data-supporting devices are being proposed throughout southern Santa Barbara County, from the sandy streets of Carpinteria to the student ‘hoods in Isla Vista. But since the small devices would mostly be installed on existing utility poles and because the company installing them, San Jose’s NextG Networks, is considered a public utility by the state, there’s very little public review required and limited means of appealing them once approved. That seemingly secretive ease-
fueled by fears that the antennas might emit a dangerous form of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation-is riling some residents, though it’s likely that only a fraction of people who live, work, or play near a proposed antenna have any idea about it.
Particularly vocal are parents of children at Montecito Union School, where a letter-writing campaign is in full swing to oppose a new antenna across the street from the playground. “We feel it is wrong and insidious to be able to do this,” said Sarah Wilson, a neighbor of the school whose four-year-old will be attending next year. “We all want cell phones and good signals, but there are safer places they can put them rather than in areas densely populated by children. : Until the scientists, who have been questioning levels of EMF since 1996, say, ‘No problem, we think this is completely safe,’ then we feel it’s wrong to put our children’s health at risk.”
Then there’s a neighborhood in eastern Goleta, where one man woke up to find an antenna proposed for a pole a mere 25 feet from his bedroom on Los Verdes Drive. Yuri Zelez, a family therapist by day, spent last Saturday gathering more than 35 signatures in opposition and spoke out against it on Tuesday before the County Board of Supervisors. “We’re trying everything we can to stop this from happening,” said Zelez, who was told by county staffers that the antenna was a “done deal” and that it would be installed within three weeks. “I’m not against technology, but why put it in the residential neighborhood? We’re talking about constant contact-I am going to be bombarded by this 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
Because of the uproar, the Board of Supervisors will be discussing the 39 antennas proposed for the county in a public forum on October 20. But in the cities of Santa Barbara (70 antennas proposed, though most sent back with a request that the control box be put underground), Carpinteria (seven proposed), and Goleta (19 proposed and “pretty much in the bag” according to one planning official), the antennas march forward with citizens mostly unaware. Not that there is much that could be done anyway. NextG’s public utility status grants numerous exemptions because its technology is deemed an “essential service,” and the technology is governed by the Federal Communications Commission, the sole governmental entity tasked with setting public health and safety standards for such devices. So despite EMF concerns, official appeals cannot be based on health, only on aesthetics and evidence that further coverage is unwarranted.
“We can’t go beyond FCC regulations. We’re preempted in that regard,” said county planner Dave Ward, who’s helped process these applications and requested that NextG at least show its technology does comply. “As you can imagine, it’s frustrating for the public to hear that the level of review is focused on aesthetics. I don’t think we’ve been able to satisfactorily satisfy their concerns.” Although the technology and placement of antennas on existing utility poles is new, Ward says they’re covered under the county’s wireless telecommunications ordinance. “It’s not something we’ve seen in the past, but it does fit within our ordinance,” said Ward, who explained that county policy requires a sign marking each proposed antenna and that residents within 300 feet of a site be notified.
Being handcuffed by FCC regulations doesn’t sit well with Montecito’s Cindy Feinberg, whose son is at Montecito Union and whose daughter is ready to start next year. Years ago, Feinberg fought to have electrical wires moved away from the campus after high EMF levels allegedly triggered a “cancer cluster” at the school in which six kids got lymphoma or leukemia from 1981 to 1988, a rate five times more than normal. “It’s a sore issue with us,” said Feinberg. “People can go out there and say EMF doesn’t hurt, but we have firsthand experience which shows that, in all likelihood, it does. We don’t want to go down that road again.” Feinberg and Wilson believe that the technological advances have outpaced the ability of the FCC to safely regulate them, and say standards are stricter in Europe and Australia. “I’m worried that it’s going to be like cigarette smoking in the ‘50s and ‘60s, when everyone thought it was fine and that they wouldn’t let us do it if it was bad for us,” said Wilson. “It’s going to be the cigarette smoking of the 21st century.” Echoed Feinberg, “It’s like the tobacco industry all over again. We’re just basically being guinea pigs.”
NextG’s spokesperson Sharon James was emailed questions on Monday and had not replied as of Wednesday’s press deadline despite repeated inquiries. In general, NextG uses the two- to three-foot-tall, omni-directional “whip” antennas and accompanying control boxes-referred to collectively as “nodes”-to establish wireless networks in a selected community and then leases the coverage to big cellular companies such as AT&T. The company has successfully created similar networks in other parts of the country, and James has repeatedly cited San Diego as a successful California community network in her meetings with county planners.
But one place where NextG hasn’t been successful is Long Island, New York, where a wave of outrage occurred when the company proposed 170 antennas throughout the 22 communities that make up the Town of Hempstead. According to a September 10 story in Newsday, the community of Merrick filed a $100-million lawsuit against the company because property values would be driven down by the perceived health risk. NextG then ceased negotiations with the town government, explaining to one resident that the money they would have used to re-site some of the controversial antennas now had to be spent on legal defense.
The property value argument is also starting to be mentioned in Montecito, home to some of the country’s priciest real estate. “It may affect the price of your house-it does in Europe,” said Wilson, who speaks with a British accent. “Certainly, you don’t buy a house with an antenna overlooking your yard.”
Whatever the opposition, there may be some hope. About two years ago, Montecito resident Don Miller successfully led a letter-writing charge to block the construction of a cellular tower near Cold Spring School. “We made so much of a fuss that they just dropped it,” recalled Miller. But he’s acutely aware that the fight is different this time. “NextG is listed as a public utility company, so the review process is very limited,” he explained. “It’s almost like the electric company coming in and stringing a new wire. It’s scary.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
We've got to get Congress to repeal the telecommunications act of 1996. It was written by John McCain, who according to the New York Times, was "too close" with a female telecoms lobbyist. McCain voted against the bill because it got watered down slightly against his wishes. But it still in effect is a law that says wireless is always safe. They say you can't legislate morality, but legislating physics is as dumb as a law that says pi=3.
Meanwhile, start putting metal screens over all your windows...
truth_or_consequences (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GET INVOLVED!!
Montecito Assocaition meeting next Tuesday @ 4 pm - 10/13/09. Next G cell antennas on agenda. Be THERE!
Then of course the County Board of Supervisors meeting at 9 am - October 20th, special permit review and public comment discussion.
BE THERE, this is important.
If not write letters, send e-mails, call : complain, complain & complain to the Board of Supervisor's and Congress Woman Louis Capps.
You stand to loose the two most important items in your life:
FAMILY & HOME
( who would buy your house if there was a cell tower / antennas ouside your bedroom window, you have to legally disclose that, new buyer has two years to realise if you didn't disclose)
what could be more important?
The county needs to enact a moratium on their cell tower / antennas ordinace / policy. A full review needs to be done, update their policy regarding most recent legal cases, this needs to be done. WITH PUBLIC INPUT!!
The Board of Supervisors are our elected officials :
THERE FOR US BY US
Tell Them NOW!!!
chainsaw (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are many disturbing elements here - until it was brought to the Supervisors Wednesday this was slated to be approved by Planning today, with NO public input. That's right, one morning you wake up and there's a truck outside installing one of these and say goodbye to your property value. There was NO noticing in our neighborhood whatsoever - a neighbor who will have an antenna 30 feet from his property was not notified nor any of his neighbors. When Planning received this application and looked at the locations don't you think some alarm bell would have gone off being that close to schools, playgrounds, etc. given the history at Montecito Union?
clubted (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
are you kidding me? If you folks had any clue about how much radiation you are being nuked with by city, county, and state entities, you wouldn't be complaining about this minor threat. Take it from someone qualified, you have much bigger problems than this. Have someone do a spectrum analysis in your neighborhood.... even better, have them do it in your living room.
youarealreadybeingnuked (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
welcome to the united states of corporate america.
If one of those was 25ft from my bedroom, can't say I wouldn't take a chainsaw to it.
spacey (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Think about toasting a marshmallow over coals. At 2 or 3 inches from the coals, it toasts very nicely in a relatively short time. At a foot from the coals, it takes quite a bit longer. At 3 feet from the coals, the marshmallow will dry out from age before it will toast. The principal is precisely the same for RF emissions from a wireless antenna. You wouldn't want to stand right in front of an antenna for very long. You'd begin to get rather warm. But at 25 feet, you're very unlikely to ever get the least bit toasty.
Why are people comfortable putting a baby in a crib next to a baby monitor or standing in front of a microwave but are scared to death of an antenna yards and yards (usually hundreds of them) away. Come back and comment after you've done the spectrum analysis (i.e., get someone to come out with a meter and see how much the relative amounts of RF energy you are being exposed to from various sources really are).
There's plenty of opportunity to offer public comment at the PUC, the FCC and Congress, but if you expect anyone to listen to you, you need to base your arguments on facts rather than irrational pseudo-science.
Walton (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You people are pathetic.
If you had ANY credible evidence of the stupid stuff you're alleging, you'd show it and be done.
You can't, because there isn't.
Wolley_Segap (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Wolley Segap.....Keep hearing this argument "If there was any evidence of harm...." If you were actually interested at looking at all the info out there from both sides and not with blinders on, you would know there are thousands of independent scientific study that show adverse biological effects from EMR with continued low level exposure. Panels of scientists have come together every year for many years now signing resolution after resolution calling on world governments to impose much stricter limits to protect health and environment. Many countries have and continue to improve upon so why is US/Canada doing nothing to protect its citizens. And let's be clear, we are not talking about about just cell phones here, we are talking about blanketing our communities with powerful 4G networks that will penetrate through everything and reach for miles and miles with every transmitter, leaving no where free of EMR. Who knows what 5G will do! Who gives these companies the right to play guinea pig with my family's health! The tobacco companies had the science long before the public was given certainty of the harm caused by their product. This was done by using their most trusted weapon - doubt. As long as there are hundreds of billions to be made, these goliath industries will plant doubt to stall change that would puts peoples' health before profit. Sadly our youngest will pay the biggest price for our addiction to telecommunications, having being exposed from day one for many more years than us adults, cancers and chronic conditions will show up much earlier. No one wants to give up our wireless gadgets, but if no one can make the technology safer, and it has to infiltrate every aspect of our environment with negative effect, than I believe many would choose to go back to plugged in computers and corded phones. I have made these changes easily to my home environment; however I can do nothing about the giant tower 200m from my front door that came after. Do all of us a favor and do a thorough look at all the research before adding any comment.
tamster (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Matt and concerned citizens for finally bringing this to the public's attention. Unfortunately the County has a conflict of interest in the monitoring of these antenna locations because taxpayers are providing staff jobs and the County is charging lucrative fees for the permits. I attended MUS and was aware of the "cancer cluster" a few years after the power station was built next to the school,. thus I was alarmed when an antenna was proposed near our residence inside our community park next door to a day care center in Isla Vista six years ago. The park lost the bid to the church where the daycare was located but the low income free child care place had no one complaining but me! County said "Sorry FCC Is In charge not us", but I said "FCC is run by the telecom Industry!" We need to employ the Precautionary Principle as they do in the EU. Take back local control- fight for your rights! Turn off phantom power sources in your home and don't let your kids store their cellphones on them when on. Also contact Capps and Obama tell them "Be better safe than Sorry" and use the PP instead of the "whatever makes money until damage is done" philosophy..
DorothyD (Dorothy Dent)
October 11, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG teh raideashons!!
This quote made me lol:
"People can go out there and say EMF doesn't hurt, but we have first hand experience shows that, in all likelihood, it does."
This is a perfect example of Jenny McCarthyism. Essentially, science shows us that this type of radio frequency is no danger to us when properly installed but my "hunch" trumps science. This is the same argumentation the anti-vaccine quacks cling to.
Thanks Walton and Wolley for attempting to increase the IQ level of the thread.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ROFL!
"People can go out there and say EMF doesn't hurt, but we have firsthand experience which shows that, in all likelihood, it does. We don't want to go down that road again."
Yeah, right. And I have first-hand evidence that it 100% does NOT harm you. I have been working in the land mobile radio/cellular/paging fields for well over 30 years. I have been on roof-tops with many transmitters running, and I have not suffered any effects at all. Everyone I know in the industry can relate the same thing. Of the dozens, maybe hundreds of technicians and engineers I have known over the years, NONE have experienced any effects of RF exposure. EVER.
(Well, yes, physically touching an antenna that is active will likely cause a burn, just like sticking your finger in a socket. But only stupid people do that too.)
Those of you fighting things like this are woefully uninformed, and instead of sitting down and figuring it out, you just go in and say it's bad when the truth is, you don't know the first thing you are talking about.
The "studies" that keep getting quoted are NOT done by RF engineers, nor are they done by reputable medical people who have also researched how RF works. They are all done by quacks out to make a name for themselves.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want these towers in your neighborhood, then you WILL NOT have cellular phone coverage. PERIOD.
Jim Barbour
wd8chl (anonymous profile)
October 31, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)