I submitted the following response to the FCC, Wireless Investment Partnership and Federal Airways & Airspace after receiving their response to my request for an environmental review for the proposed cellular tower on Lindell Street.
This is a reply to the Response to Pleading from Federal Airways & Airspace representing Wireless Investment Partnership, dated April 10, 2019. I have several items in the Response to Pleading and the Nepa Compliance Review to present. Please see those items below:
I take exception to the statement in “Response to Pleading” dating 4/10/2019 that the document addresses the concerns that were raised in the pleading. This document only addressed the fact that the applicant submitted the necessary documentation for the application.
I take exception to 2.8 of the NEPA Compliance Review. “No public controversy regarding potential adverse environmental impacts concerning the proposed tower construction project is anticipated.” When the base of the tower is within 250’ (303’ tall tower) of a residence I don’t believe an adequate environmental evaluation was completed. It is easily seen in the aerial photos shown in the NEPA Compliance Review that there are 3 residences within 650’ of this proposed tower site. Property lines are even closer. There are several more residences within 1000’ or less. My neighbor’s residence is 220’ from the north boundary of the proposed tower site. The tower is 303’ tall. His residence is within the drop zone of this tower. His property line is 125’ from the site. He is in danger not only of the tower but of any objects that could fall from the tower such as ice. It is not unknown that a tower can fall. We had one that fell in this area some years back that killed 3 workers. My residence is 580’ from the center of the tower. My property line is 374’ away. My wife and I are avid landscapers and spend most summer, spring and fall days outdoors working in our yard. We are within direct line of sight of these antennas. We will be inundated with radio frequency radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. I consider this to be a significant environmental impact. I have attached a study completed in Germany “HF-Radiation of GSM Cellular Phone Towers in Residential Areas”. In this article it is suggested that an exposure level above 1000 u W/m² to be the average threshold value for non-thermal biological effects. In the study this value was exceeded at 300 meters and less. Values up to 100 meters exceeded 10,000 u W/m². These were all recorded at line of site which is the circumstance we have here.
I take exception to 3.0 of the Environmental Assessment. “Based upon K&K’s investigations, no significant effects upon the quality of the human environment resulting from the proposed project are identified. Therefore, Preparation of an Environmental Assessment(EA) should not be necessary for construction and operation of this facility.” An Environmental Assessment and review are absolutely necessary to insure the health and safety of the local population. Many studies have shown that negative health effects on humans can occur in distances of 300 meters or more to antenna towers that produce radio frequency radiation. Few studies have been done in the USA regarding constant, long term, low level radio frequency radiation. However, you can find several completed in Europe and Asia. Many countries have now put regulations on distances from schools and health facilities to cell towers. The Simple English Wikipedia describes the environment as “Environment is everything that is around us. It can be living or non-living things. It includes physical, chemical and other natural forces. Electromagnetic environment is radio waves and other electromagnetic radiation and magnetic fields.”
I take exception to the statement in the pleading response “There may be some populated areas where nighttime use of medium intensity light systems may cause significant environmental concerns. Using the dual lighting system should reduce/mitigate those concerns”. The term mitigate does not resolve the issue. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the term mitigate means “to make less severe or painful, to become less harsh or hostile”. This tower is very close to the general population of northern Memphis. It has a city address. As a small rural town, it does not have abundant lighting such as major street lighting and business lighting. Any tower lighting this close to the populated area will cause a significant impact on the nighttime environment. As mentioned before there are several residences within a few hundred feet that will be needing darkened curtains for their bedrooms.
I am concerned that property valuations will be reduced by the installation of this tower. Who wants to live that close to a cell tower with blinking lights and RFRs . Being one of those residents I intend to have my property appraised before and after if the tower is to be built in this location. If a discrepancy is determined, then an amount equal to that discrepancy plus cost of appraisal will be litigated. The local realtor revealed to me that they were already approached by one of the residents nearby that they might be putting their home up for sale if this tower erection comes to fruition.
The FCC guidelines for RFRs from Cell towers is based on thermal skin temperature criteria only. This would serve the workers and maintenance personnel in near proximity to the operating antennas. This criterion however does not in any way protect humans and animals from chronic, long term effects of radio frequency radiation that exist beneath these antennas. The FCC’s current guidelines were established in 1996 and are out of date in today’s modern cell phone era. Cell phones and base stations have advanced considerably since then. I had a bag phone in 1996 and few people had any kind of cell phone. I know of no one today that doesn’t use a cell phone. Parents are giving very small children cell phones now. The total amount of radio frequency radiation in today’s world is many times what it was in 1996. We need new and updated safety regulations regarding RF exposure implemented in this country ASAP.
I have attached a letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency addressed to Janet Newton “President of The EMR Network” issued March 8 2002. The letter discuses EPA’s role in advisement of the FCC in establishing radiofrequency, radiation exposure guidelines. It also addresses the question as to whether the current exposure guidelines apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations as those that a person or animal might endure if in near proximity and line of sight of the antennas atop these towers. Excerpt taken from this letter “The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations. They are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that result in tissue heating or electrical shock and burn. The hazard level (for frequencies generally at or greater than 3 MHz) is based on a specific absorption dose rate, SAR, associated with an effect that results from an increase in body temperature. The FCC’s exposure guideline is considered protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified”.
We have no information on what types of antennas that will be installed or what radio frequency radiation that will be emitted from this tower. FCC regulations do not require that the tower company inform the public as to what service will be accommodated by this tower. Also, modifications and additional antennas are allowed without notification. Even a 20% increase in height is allowable without notification to the public. We will therefore assume that the worst-case scenario of the maximum number of antennas with high-frequency radiation will exist and be installed at the time of erection or thereafter.
I have lived at this location since 1990 and have seen the EVAC helicopter fly through the airspace where this tower is proposed many times. This airspace is a common flight path for the EVAC chopper when it arrives or leaves to or from the west on its way to our local hospital. Scotland County Regional Hospital is just 1460 m from this tower.
From the FCCs rule page in interest of Request for Environmental Review “Your Request for Environmental Review must state the specific reasons that you believe the proposed construction may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, as required under the Commission’s rules, and also provide contact information for the person making the request. A Request should be supported by factual detail with respect to the location, nature, and extent of any potential significant impact. If the applicant submitted an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the application, your Request for Environmental Review must describe why the EA does not adequately evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts. Pleadings that do not meet these standards may be subject to dismissal.”
I believe I have made a substantial position that the installation of this tower at this location will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Memphis is a very small town and there are many locations around the perimeter that do not require a location this close to residences. It is my belief that whoever chose this spot did not do their due diligence and search out a site that is environmentally friendly to the local population but still adequately fulfils the needs for the tower. I do not want this tower in this location. We have another proposed tower within 2200’ of my home just to the northwest. I do not want another one showering radio frequency radiation on me 7/24/365. I have a substantially bad irregular heartbeat and recent studies have shown that radio frequency radiation can influence the electrophysiology of the heart muscle. I do not need any negative influences on my health such as could be caused from an antenna tower within 600’ of my home. No one is 100% certain that cell towers cause negative health effects on individuals within near proximity but also no one is 100% certain they do not. We should err on the side of safety at this point since this tower has not been started and can be moved to another location.
Many doctors and scientist are claiming that 5G is much more dangerous than 3G or 4G. I assume that this tower is available for a future 5G antenna. This situation scares me even more. The following is an excerpt from the (Scientist and Doctors Moratorium on 5G):
“Appeal and this week’s declaration identify health concerns from exposure to radiofrequency radiation including … increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
There is a more appropriate location for this tower within the parameters that you are working within. I believe the above statements have substantiated the fact that a full and thorough Environmental Review of the proposed tower location is necessary at this time.
18824 W Lindell Rd
Memphis, MO 63555