Cell Towers

[Rick 0920]

I hope some of you have any info to offer on this. I am on the CDD board in the community that I live in. We are considering leasing a portion of the property for a cell phone provider so they can install a tower. Have any of you learned of any safety or health concerns that could occur by cell towers. I know there have been studies of cancer-causing agents from some people exposed to very high voltage lines. I just haven't heard of any of these incurred by cell towers. All input is greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance. Rick

 

[hbiss]

I just haven't heard of any of these incurred by cell towers.

As much as some people tried, nothing has been proven. Consider that the cell phone in your hand or pocket, because it is so close to you, exposes you a much higher level of RF than standing near a cell tower at ground level. The controversy should be with the phones themselves though nothing conclusive has been proven there either.

There is a big hoopla over the new 5G with all kinds of dire consequences. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Anytime someone wants to erect a cell tower, at the town board meeting you are always going to see the tin foil hat crowd in attendance. Pay them no mind.

-Hal

 

[zbang]

I wouldn't be much concerned about H&S, I would, however, be very concerned about the leases and contracts.

Two main things-
First, the condo assn or whatever owns the land should have the lease directly with the cell phone company, do not sell it to a site leasing company or pass it through a 3rd party.
Second, get a real commercial property attorney to do the lease, do not use a boilerplate lease or a general-practice business attorney and do not accept whatever the phone company offers without the approval of your own attorney. I cannot stress that enough. That lawyer might cost a few thousand dollars, but they'll know what color to fill in the dots over the 'i's and exactly how to cross the 't's.

 

[tom baker]

Agreed on the lease. The city where I worked had multiple towers on city property, we had a consultant who once managed 1200 sites for T-mobile on our side. He knew the leases and how to review for property owners benefit.
The cell company will often lease tower space for other companies to co-locate, your lease should reflect that to your benefit

 

[cadpoint]

Did they approach your neighborhood? Or does reception lag for your neighborhood and the community feels the need?
You need a real good Lawyer, you can read all about it and the pro's and con's on your favorite search engine.

The first question asked can be answered to the fact a tower can be from 22 to 45 miles apart. So maybe your community is
dropping within that area?! Jacksonville as I've heard is Huge.
Unrelated to the second question but what your community might consider is Traffic to site. When the Big one hits your fine city,
The community will be happy to know that power is coming on and staying on at the site with the use of correctly sized generator(s).

The POCO will be close behind but it might be a couple of days. HMMM Telco's have refueling contracts, and contract workers that
will show up 24/7. Usually Dawn to late night within traffic availability limits.

Once your let one Service tower in, others might want to lease off the tower and have completely separate
alternate power or get Sized into existing power at your site. Daily power requirements and availability is a big aspect of a towers placement!

T-Mobile is one of the biggest suppliers, then everyone else (and their out-front), I can't remember the order after that. Maybe
ATT, So if your community is all running on the cheap versions of cell service, Consumer Cellar, Cricket and Walmart and the like, the cell tower
might or might not be back while the other services are!

Cellar tower rehab is now under the umbrella of Homeland Security (since 9/11) it's something the Telco's have to address in the course of their
business.

 

[retirede]

I wouldn't be much concerned about H&S, I would, however, be very concerned about the leases and contracts.

Two main things-
First, the condo assn or whatever owns the land should have the lease directly with the cell phone company, do not sell it to a site leasing company or pass it through a 3rd party.
Second, get a real commercial property attorney to do the lease, do not use a boilerplate lease or a general-practice business attorney and do not accept whatever the phone company offers without the approval of your own attorney. I cannot stress that enough. That lawyer might cost a few thousand dollars, but they'll know what color to fill in the dots over the 'i's and exactly how to cross the 't's.

I don’t think hardly any telecom providers lease the tower ground from the property owners. Crown Castle, American Tower, etc. lease the ground, erect the tower, then lease capacity to the telcos. Last time I read about this, that’s how 75% of them were structured.

 

[zbang]

Agreed on actual tower structures, however the terminology is somewhat loose outside the industry- a cell "tower" could be a few antennas attached to an existing building. That's another reason to have a good lawyer involved.

 

[tom baker]

I don’t think hardly any telecom providers lease the tower ground from the property owners. Crown Castle, American Tower, etc. lease the ground, erect the tower, then lease capacity to the telcos. Last time I read about this, that’s how 75% of them were structured.

That’s the way it is here. The tower owners then lease tower space to multiple cell companies. Each cell company has its own shelter

 

[Jerramundi]

Leave up to a vote by everyone who would live within range. If the public says no tower, then no tower. Period. That's how I see it.

I feel for these people that believe in Democracy and go to these town meetings only to be shunned. For now, the consensus seems to be that they are safe, but who knows what science will reveal in the coming decades.... or whether or not current studies have been "influenced," which is far from being conspiratorial. It's well documented history that big money can influence these studies. Period.

Leave it up to the people who would potentially be affected. End of story.
If the majority say no tower, tin foil hat or no tin foil hat, that's the answer. Full stop.

 

[petersonra]

The important thing is to get a lawyer familiar with this type of thing FIRST. Just any lawyer is not the answer. Pay what it takes to get competent legal advice.

A lawyer in that field probably has a pretty good idea what the lease might be worth too. Average lawyer likely clueless about that kind of thing.

 

[retirede]

Leave up to a vote by everyone who would live within range. If the public says no tower, then no tower. Period. That's how I see it.

I feel for these people that believe in Democracy and go to these town meetings only to be shunned. For now, the consensus seems to be that they are safe, but who knows what science will reveal in the coming decades.... or whether or not current studies have been "influenced," which is far from being conspiratorial. It's well documented history that big money can influence these studies. Period.

Leave it up to the people who would potentially be affected. End of story.
If the majority say no tower, tin foil hat or no tin foil hat, that's the answer. Full stop.

I don’t want turn this political, but that’s friggin nonsense. If the property owner wants to lease it, and it doesn’t violate any zoning laws, etc., he has that right.

 

[Jerramundi]

I don’t want turn this political, but that’s friggin nonsense. If the property owner wants to lease it, and it doesn’t violate any zoning laws, etc., he has that right.

I'm not making it political.

OP asked what scientific consensus on it was and since I'm not an engineer, I acknowledged that, from what I've read, the scientific community says they're safe... but with the stipulation that studies can be influenced by power, money. It's happened before, countless times.

I simply said I feel for these small town folk that would live within range, believe in Democracy, show up to these town meetings believing they have a voice, only to be shunned away... and that a vote would be the most ethical decision, IMO.

I didn't say anything about the rights or lack thereof of the property owner.

 

[petersonra]

and that a vote would be the most ethical decision, IMO.

How about anytime you want to plant some flowers in your yard or paint your house it gets submitted to a vote of people who have no property rights in your yard?

You think that's ethical?

 

[Jerramundi]

How about anytime you want to plant some flowers in your yard or paint your house it gets submitted to a vote of people who have no property rights in your yard?

You think that's ethical?

Ridiculous comparison. No one is potentially impacted by the flowers in my yard or the paint on my house.
Call it intuition, but something tells me 50 years from now, there might (emphasis on *MIGHT*) be some late night commercials featuring some class action lawsuits, lol. They thought asbestos was safe at first. Doctors used to recommend cigarettes. It's not a farfetched concern.

It's the OP's choice to put up to a vote or not. I'm not saying OP should be FORCED to put it to a vote, but merely suggesting that, IMO it would be the right thing to do. You can disagree with me about that and that's fine. I support your right to do so.

No need to derail this discussion any further.
I don't think merely suggesting that the OP put it to a vote merits 5 pages of debate.

 

[zbang]

OP asked what scientific consensus on it was and since I'm not an engineer, I acknowledged that, from what I've read, the scientific community says they're safe... but with the stipulation that studies can be influenced by power, money. It's happened before, countless times.

Unless the current and respected studies are shown to be faulty, we have to take them as written.

This is not something that would be subject to a "community" vote other than by the owners/shareholders of the land and by the public if there are land-use or zoning approvals, and in both of those there are prescribed ways to have those votes. If the land is owned by an HOA or community organization, it's highly likely that their bylaws require procedures and votes to enter contracts. (I'm surprised this is even being discussed.)

And another thing... we don't know if the OP was taking about some antennas on the roof, a single-use cell tower, or a multi-use structure. Urban sites tend to use existing buildings, suburban are often single or dual-use column towers (one cell company may lease to another); only more rural sites tend to be many-use antenna structures (note that all of this are intentionally vague).

 

[Jerramundi]

@zbang If it were my private property, and I were making this decision, I would put it to a vote.
That's just my position on this particular issue.

Carry on. Let the engineers among us contribute and those that have worked on cell towers speak.
I've worked on them, but only as a grunt.

 

[Jerramundi]

@zbang Now if you want my experience based advice...
If you plan to put in a ground ring and leave the trench uncovered when you go to lunch, don't, lol.

 

[winnie]

My understanding of the science is that there _is_ evidence of health effects, but they are subtle.

The strongest studies done on this topic are the 'National Toxicology Program' study of cell phone radiation. This was a large study, operating at fairly high levels of RF, and the effects were somewhat confusing to my slightly educated read. Note that I read this a couple of years ago, and memory fades.

See https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html

What I recall is that they did detect a statistically significant increase in malignant heart tumors, but only in _male_ rates, and paradoxically the average lifespan of the exposed rats _increased_. (You read that right, more cancer but a longer life span, and I'm pretty sure that the increase in cancer was not simply 'if you live long enough you will get cancer'.)

The other thing that I found interesting was that when they tested at the same level of RF and the same frequency band, different _modulation schemes_ resulted in different outcomes.

This tells me that there _are_ health effects, but that they are subtle, depend upon mechanisms which we don't understand, will be entirely different for different cell phone technology, and are as likely to be a net health benefit as harm.

-Jon

 

[synchro]

We are considering leasing a portion of the property for a cell phone provider so they can install a tower. Have any of you learned of any safety or health concerns that could occur by cell towers.

Cellular providers deploy new cell sites because of a lack of anticipated capacity or coverage. If anything, I think having a local cell site would only increase safety, particularly during emergencies, disasters, etc. that require reliable communications for 911 calls, etc.

 

[ggunn]

There is a big hoopla over the new 5G with all kinds of dire consequences. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Didn't you hear? 5G started COVID-19!!!