Thursday, Sept. 27, 2007 | 7:52 a.m.
They are disguised as flagpoles, lampposts and palm trees. They are hidden behind billboards and inside church steeples. And if they haven't yet, chances are they are coming to a neighborhood near you.
.
As cell phone use grows across the country, cell towers are penetrating deeper into our worlds. Residential areas are becoming increasingly saturated with the towers, often over the protests of neighbors concerned about sightliness and safety.
Brian Rakvica is one such neighbor. He opposed a new tower at a day care near Serene Avenue and Paradise Road. He even gathered the signatures of about 40 neighbors who didn't want the tower in their back yard.
Still, Clark County commissioners, by a 5-2 vote last week, approved a permit for the tower, saying they have little discretion when it comes to nixing proposed towers.
The case is a microcosm of the tension that comes with the influx of the towers.
Nationally, cell sites increased from 913 in 1985 to 195,613 by the end of last year.
As towers encroach on residential space nationwide because of the demand for cell service, there are limited places to put them. Thus, they are popping up at parks, schools, churches and other places that tend to be mixed with housing.
In Clark County there are 725 cell towers and antennae, according to county data. Of those, 157, more than 20 percent, are within 100 feet of areas zoned residential. Twenty-eight are at churches, parks and educational facilities, including day - care centers.
Rakvica and others say that's a problem.
First, he said, it destroys the residential nature of neighborhoods. Second, he said, there are health concerns.
Cell towers emit radio frequency energy. Directly in front of a cell antenna, the energy is strong enough to heat human molecules to dangerous levels. But the strength of the emissions drops significantly with distance, and the thermal effects disappear. The question, then, is whether radio frequency energy that does not produce thermal effects can cause other problems.
Many researchers say there is no evidence of any problems.
"As far as we know, there is no evidence that there are any health effects from living near a mobile phone tower," said John Moulder, director of radiation biology at the University of Wisconsin.
The World Health Organization says there is no convincing evidence that the weak radio frequency signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.
But some researchers say more research is needed to determine whether there are long-term effects.
"The rate at which we are being exposed to these types of radiation in the last 10 years has skyrocketed," said David Carpenter, a professor of biomedical sciences at State University of New York at Albany. "The question that's uncertain is are there health hazards when people have background ambient exposures.
"Our point of view is that there should be caution and people should reduce their exposure to the greatest degree possible."
James Burch, a professor of environmental and occupational epidemiology at Colorado State University, agreed.
"Prudent avoidance when it can be achieved without significant expenditure is always a reasonable approach to take," he said.
But avoidance isn't always an option for local government.
The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 bans the county from denying cell tower permits solely because of health concerns, said Deputy District Attorney Rob Warhola, who advises the county on land-use issues.
In fact, if a service provider has a significant gap in its network and there are no alternative sites for a tower, the county has little choice but to approve the request, he said.
In the day-care case, Rakvica argued that the 50-foot tower didn't fit with the neighborhood's residential fabric.
Duffy Daugherty, representing a provider called Cricket, countered that argument by offering to disguise the antenna as a flagpole that would replace an existing flagpole.
Such stealth designs have become a popular way for service providers to navigate through controversy.
"Sometimes people who want service don't want the infrastructure," said Joseph Farren, a spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. "Our carriers work very hard trying to meet those dual wants."
The recent controversy over the day-care cell tower added a wrinkle to the debate.
Cricket, which does not offer service here now, is trying to break into the Las Vegas market. For Rakvica, that made the issue black and white. In approving the tower, commissioners "are concerned about a hypothetical customer rather than the people who already live there," he said.
Commissioners Bruce Woodbury and Tom Collins voted against the tower. Woodbury, whose district includes the day - care center, said he agreed with the residents' concerns. He expects the debate to continue for a long time.
"It's not going away," he said. "There is going to be more competition, more providers ... and there is going to be an ongoing need for the service."
archive
