By a vote of 6-1-3, the La Jolla Community Planning Association (LJCPA) approved the installation of 17 cellular antennas on the roof of a neighborhood clubhouse at its Feb. 2 meeting.
The lively discussion entailed warnings of legal issues from representatives of Cingular Wireless and Verizon Wireless. A professor of radiological science at University of California, Irvine (UCI) spoke on related health issues.
Opposition arose from the Wireless Consumer Alliance Inc. over potential health risks, and a Rancho Santa Fe Realtor cited the negative impact on property values. More than half of the neighbors welcomed the cell phone reception the towers would bring, while a minority living close to the clubhouse at 1570 La Jolla Alta Drive protested the installation.
A Cingular representative began the discussion by stating that the LJCPA was violating federal law, because cities have no authority to determine where cellular towers are placed under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The trustees decided to hear the entire presentation, rejecting an early motion to only consider land-use elements and not health-related issues.
The motion that passed, however, reflected these initial objections. The board voted to approve the towers based on land-use issues and did not take a stance on health matters.
“I think that there are very legitimate concerns amongst the community, but I don’t think the members of this board have the knowledge or qualifications to decide on whether or not cell phone towers present a health risk,” a trustee stated. “We do have this limited ability to judge land-use issues, so that’s what I believe we should be challenged with tonight.”
Cingular brought in Joey Jones, professor of radiological sciences at UCI, to assure the crowd that there is no scientific evidence proving that cell-phone towers pose a health threat to the public.
Electro-magnetic radiation is divided into two categories: non-ionizing radiation that does not accumulate, and ionizing radiation that is cumulative, Jones explained. Ionizing radiation may cause cells to mutate, causing cancer, but non-ionizing radiation does not affect the cells and does not build up in the body. The radiation emitted from the cell-phone towers is non-ionizing, similar to radio and microwave radiation, according to Jones.
“The group of people in this room ” all the cells collectively ” are generating more electro-magnetic radiation than the proposed cell towers,” Jones said. “Let’s get our priorities correct. I’m more concerned about getting on the I-5 freeway.”
Jones cited an experiment that he had conducted for Verizon in which he had Verizon turn its cell tower site on and off to record the impact of radiation on the surrounding area. The scientist could not determine when the cell site was on or off “because the collected radiation surrounding us overwhelmed radiation from the cell phone tower,” he said.
Furthermore, national standards set for radio emissions are thousands of times below the danger level, Jones said. Both the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) have established such standards.
A Wireless Consumer Alliance Inc. spokesman refuted Jones’ arguments about standards for radiation emission, stating that the IEEE and ANSI are not government agencies but industries operating in the field.
“It’s true that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted recommendations from ANSI,” said Carl Hilliard, deputy mayor of the City of Del Mar and president of Wireless Consumer Alliance Inc. “The irony is that the FCC is not a health agency. It’s an agency designed to control the spectrum, to make sure that there’s no interference between various stations.”
Hilliard also reiterated that a lack of scientific evidence does not prove that cell phone towers are safe.
“We can’t tell you that there is a risk of harm, but we can’t tell you that they’re safe,” Hilliard said. “We’re in a spot where we’re asking ‘are they safe or not’ ” it’s like early tobacco or asbestos studies. We don’t know for sure.”
Three hundred and seven residents of 583 in the area signed a petition calling for installation of the antennas.
“We have home-based businesses; we have kids that need to be picked up from school, soccer and music lessons,” said Gary Roth, president of the La Jolla Alta Master Council. “We cannot communicate in our community because we don’t have coverage.”
Eight homeowners living across from or near the clubhouse pleaded against the installation.
“Why aren’t the cellular towers placed in a commercial area where people work for eight hours and then go home?” a representative of the group asked, adding that a significant percentage of the neighborhood is elderly and may not leave their homes all day.
“We’re the small minority that will have to put up with the direct influence of this thing,” the neighbor said. “We’re not part of the organization that will benefit financially; we’re not the people six blocks away who have no health concerns; we are right across the street.”
Another neighbor, Beverly Cram, who lives three blocks from the proposed installation, cited a March 2005 article by the University of Washington Alumni Magazine stating that one in three non-industry-sponsored research studies concluded that cell phone radiation does cause biological effects. The article also spoke about the constraints of industry-related research on cell-phone radiation, she said.
“I want to state that science, by definition, is an evolving thing,” Cram said. “It’s a very open question. It’s not a closed issue in science.”
In exchange for building the cellular antennas, Verizon and Wireless will construct a new recreation center for the neighborhood.
The LJCPA is an advisory body to the city council, which will make the ultimate decision.
In other news, LJCPA has changed its meeting time. The association will now meet at 6:30 p.m., instead of 6 p.m. The LJCPA meets the first Thursday of every month at La Jolla Recreation Center, 615 Prospect St. For information call (858) 456-7900.