Since 1996, when The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed in Congress, signed by President Clinton, it has been impossible, legally, to object to the placement of a cell tower or cellular equipment
on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions [1] to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC] Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”[2] (Section 704, Telecommunications act of 1996, Section 7B(II)(iv)
[CEP Notes:
[1]aka, the health, safety, or environmental impacts of the radiation emitted by cell towers.
[2] FCC https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/human-exposure-radio-frequency-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs-sites; Sage Reports: http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=216; Cornell Law School 47 CFR § 1.1310 – Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/1.1310
As a result, local governments have been left to find other ways to deny cell tower and cellular antenna applications where citizens didn’t want them, including use of local ordinances.
The Act, in 1996, was intended to allow the new wireless telecommunications industry to thrive and be allowed to place cell towers throughout the United States, to facilitate the emergence of cell phone usage.
The problem is that in 1996, the FCC, in response to this Act, quickly put together rf radiation guidelines based on obsolete industry science, allowing what is now thought by scientists studying wireless and health to be in the vicinity of millions of times higher than is recommended as a maximum exposure to rf radiation. The FCC guidelines are based on thermal effects only, as interpreted by the industry scientists at the time, and not on the non-thermal effects of rf radiation (otherwise known as non-ionizing radiation). The non-thermal effects are quite significant, documented by many thousands of non-industry (independent) scientists, with well over 27,000 scientific studies published in enumerable scientific and medical journals, and collected in EMF Portal, www.bioinitiative.org,
Numerous legal attempts and recommendations have been made to change this Act, but it is still in place in 2019. Municipalities rightly concerned about the environmental effects have had to find other reasons to deny applications for cell tower applications within residential and other undesirable areas.
From Physicians for Safe Technology:
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act: Environment Dismissed
The language was codified in Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits discussion of environmental concerns or health concerns (by lack of substantial evidence) in the placement of cell towers. This is despite growing awareness and scientific confirmation of both environmental and health effects from exposure to cell tower radiation and all radiofrequency wireless devices.”
Telecommunications Act of the 104th Congress, January 3, 1996
Telecommunications Act of 1996
An Act
To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies….
SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS.
(a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY– Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
(7) (A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
(B) (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof–
`(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and
`(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
`(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
`(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
`(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
`(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.
5G and the FCC: 10 Reasons Why You Should Care (A must-read, must-share NRDC blog post)
Comments are closed.