Letter to The Editor: Sedona Wireless Master Plan,
Cell Tower Numbers, FCC Database

Fyi

The American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team

Our team is made up of doctors and master’s-prepared nurses with deep knowledge of cancer care as well as journalists, editors, and translators with extensive experience in medical writing.Cellular Phone Towers

Cellular (cell) phones first became widely available in the United States in the 1990s, but since then their use has increased dramatically. The widespread use of cell phones has led to cell phone towers being placed in many communities. These towers, also called base stations, have electronic equipment and antennas that receive and transmit radiofrequency (RF) signals.

How do cellular phone towers work?

Cell phone base stations may be free-standing towers or mounted on existing structures, such as trees, water tanks, or tall buildings. The antennas need to be high enough to adequately cover the area. Base stations are usually from 50-200 feet high.

Cell phones communicate with nearby cell towers mainly through radiofrequency (RF) waves, a form of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and microwaves. Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, they are forms of non-ionizing radiation. This means they do not directly damage the DNA inside cells, which is how stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light are thought to be able to cause cancer.

At very high levels, RF waves can heat up body tissues. (This is the basis for how microwave ovens work.) But the levels of energy used by cell phones and towers are much lower.

When a person makes a cell phone call, a signal is sent from the phone’s antenna to the nearest base station antenna. The base station responds to this signal by assigning it an available radiofrequency channel. RF waves transfer the voice information to the base station. The voice signals are then sent to a switching center, which transfers the call to its destination. Voice signals are then relayed back and forth during the call.

How are people exposed to the energy from cellular phone towers?

As people use cell phones to make calls, signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station. The RF waves produced at the base station are given off into the environment, where people can be exposed to them.

The energy from a cellular phone tower antenna, like that of other telecommunication antennas, is directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter. Base station antennas use higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, but much lower levels than those from radio and television broadcast stations. The amount of energy decreases rapidly as the distance from the antenna increases. As a result, the level of exposure to radio waves at ground level is very low compared to the level close to the antenna.

Public exposure to radio waves from cell phone tower antennas is slight for several reasons. The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted high above ground level, and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly.

At ground level near typical cellular base stations, the amount of RF energy is thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure set by the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and other regulatory authorities. It is very unlikely that a person could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these limits just by being near a cell phone tower.

When a cellular antenna is mounted on a roof, it is possible that a person on the roof could be exposed to RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. But even then, exposure levels approaching or exceeding the FCC safety guidelines are only likely to be found very close to and directly in front of the antennas. If this is the case, access to these areas should be limited.

The level of RF energy inside buildings where a base station is mounted is typically much lower than the level outside, depending on the construction materials of the building. Wood or cement block reduces the exposure level of RF radiation by a factor of about 10. The energy level behind an antenna is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front. Therefore, if an antenna is mounted on the side of a building, the exposure level in the room directly behind the wall is typically well below the recommended exposure limits.

Do cellular phone towers cause cancer?

Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer.

First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.

A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.

Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low – well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different from the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.

Studies in people

Very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk.

In one large study, British researchers compared a group of more than 1,000 families of young children with cancer against a similar group of families of children without cancer. They found no link between a mother’s exposure to the towers during pregnancy (based on the distance from the home to the nearest tower and on the amount of energy given off by nearby towers) and the risk of early childhood cancer.

In another study, researchers compared a group of more than 2,600 children with cancer to a group of similar children without cancer. They found that those who lived in a town that could have exposed them to higher than average RF radiation from cellular phone towers in the previous 5 years had a slightly higher risk of cancer, although not of any certain type of cancer (like leukemia or brain tumors). This study estimated the children’s possible exposure based on the number of towers in their town and how strong the signals were from the towers. It did not look at actual exposure of any individual child based on how far their home or school was from a tower. This limitation reduces confidence in the results of the study.

One study looked for signs of DNA and cell damage in blood cells as a possible indicator of cancer-causing potential. They found that the damage was no worse in people who lived near a cell phone tower as compared with those didn’t.

The amount of exposure from living near a cell phone tower is typically many times lower than the exposure from using a cell phone. About 30 studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors in people. Most studies to date have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors, although these studies have had some important limitations. This is an area of active research. For more information, see Cellular Phones.

Studies done in the lab

Laboratory studies have looked at whether the types of RF waves used in cell phone communication can cause DNA damage. Most of these studies have supported the idea that the RF waves given off by cell phones and towers don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, it’s not clear how cell phones and towers might be able to cause cancer, but research in this area continues.

1,000 respondents completed the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy’s June 2014 survey “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas–Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” 94% of respondents reported that cell towers and antennas in a neighborhood or on a building would impact interest in a property and the price they would be willing to pay for it. What’s more, 79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas.

Dr. Sandy Bond of the Appraisal Institute, which has 91 chapters throughout the world, states her study of the distance to cell phone towers on house prices found reductions range from 2% to 20% with the percentage moving toward the higher range the closer to the property.

Folks, the City and its Consultant CityScape have pre-selected potential tower sites on City-owned property without first hearing from Sedona property owners about their strategy. Once the sites are cast in concrete, how many nearby residents will see their property values diminish and their ability to sell their home adversely affected one day?

The County of Yavapai has a sane ordinance for its unincorporated areas that does not pre-select and force sites upon residents. Its Planning and Zoning Ordinance–SECTION 605 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES– states: “m. Prior to applying for a new facility, the applicant shall meet with community groups and interested individuals who reside or own property within one thousand feet (1,000′) of the proposed site to explain the proposed project. The purpose of these meetings is to inform and educate the community on wireless communications, and the restrictions placed on Yavapai County by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as to solicit suggestions from these groups about the applicant’s proposal and impact mitigation measures.”

As you readers may be aware, the City Manager’s Office of the City of Sedona merely sends out notification letters to residents living within 300 feet of the 15 to 20 pre-selected potential tower sites on City-owned property.

Isn’t so-called “Carolyn in Uptown” an alias for a City employee? I know of no Carolyn. She makes non-factual statements. Even mistakenly mentioned the FED’s mandate instead of that of the FCC.

Nearly 20 people expressed serious concerns about the City’s draft wireless communication master plan and ordinance during the Planning and Zoning Commission PUBLIC HEARING on June 1, 2017. None were brainwashed zombies.

Some comments: “”This is not the least negative impacts to the community.” “The City is inviting them in.” “Public safety is not one area that’s preempted by the law.” ‘”We don’t need to lie down and accept this.” “Why is the City not challenging this?” “Who determines what we need here? The Telecommunications Industry.” “Japan and Europe use a mesh network. It requires very little RF exposure.” “The towers will be eyesores that hurt beauty and property values.” “The City is the entity that is doing this.” “Why is the City not challenging this?”

In my opinion the City and Consultant, CityScape, are doing a woefully inadequate and unacceptable job.

FYI:

1) Not all existing wireless facilities in Sedona have been identified. This means Consultant CityScape is in violation of Task A in the contract with the City (Research and gathering of required tower/antenna data and mapping). The FCC’s database has 44 registered towers/antenna for Sedona, Arizona. CityScape on the other hand, is missing one-half. It states there are 22 (23 at one time). Not counting all towers results in a larger number required in error; this affects the health, safety, and welfare of Sedonans. And what happened to the Community Meeting required under Task D, I wonder? Is this to come after everything is cast in concrete?

2) CityScape and the City Manager’s Office have chosen Urban Density coverage for Sedona vs. Rural Density. Urban Density coverage creates the requirement of twice as many towers. Urban Density results in additional adverse effects on health, safety, welfare, aesthetics, the environment and property values. There is no law that requires little Sedona to have Urban Density coverage.

3) The draft WMP states the City is identifying a “solution for the wireless industry?” Whatever happened to a solution that’s best for Sedona, its residents, businesses, their property values and the City’ unique beauty, I wonder? Folks, the wireless telecommunications industry’s structure is that of a tight oligopoly that operates as a monopoly.

4) The City of Sedona has a budgeted negative cash flow of $9,989,641 for the current fiscal year, and I’ve heard it is looking for more money. Vertical Consultants, cell tower lease experts, indicates lease rates vary greatly and can be well over $45,000 per year. As none of the City’s potential sites are in the ROW (entitled to just $50/year under the State of Arizona), the City will be lining its coffers with huge monthly rents notusnimilar to the Methodist Church.

5) There are 10 properties Other than City-Owned that are potential tower sites. The City didn’t have effective regulations that pertained to the Methodist Church, and little, if anything, will be changed with regard to these new 10 properties (unknown as yet), in my opinion.

6) “The effect of distance to cell phone towers on house prices” article in the Fall 2007 Appraisal Journal states the percentage decreases….range from 2 to 20%, with the percentage moving toward the higher range the closer the tower to the property.” The City is opening the door to expensive lawsuits and paying compensation unless it drastically changes its proposed wireless ordinance and draft WMP in my opinion.

7) There won’t be a tower in front of my house. The ROW is minimal. The road is barely wide enough for two cars going in opposite directions to pass, and there’s no sidewalk. Under no circumstances will I sign a contract to have a mini-cell tower on my property.

8) As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I feel Yavapai County’s Planning and Zoning Ordinance for the unincorporated areas–SECTION 605 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES–is adequate. I believe the City should take the County’s approach: not be dictators, not pre-select 10 potential municipal-owned sites and force them upon property owners. Just basically stop being so GD intrusive.

The City does not have funds to complete non-wastewater capital projects beyond the next couple of years because savings set aside during past years are under siege. Thus, City Hall is looking into Revenue Bonds. The City’s bond rating is just two grades above non-investment grade. This pathetic rating is a result of continuous poor budgeting practices.

Notwithstanding an increase in City revenues over last year, there’s a budgeted negative cash flow of $9,989,641 this fiscal year.

Both Vice Mayor Martinez and Councilor John Currivan voted against the 2017-18 City budget. Councilor Currivan, who graduated from Cornell Law School summa cum laude, spoke out importantly against adopting it.

The almost $1,000,000 saved on bond refi’s was not principal. It was interest due and owing in future years.

The City’s bond rating of A is two grades above non-investment grade. The City lost its AAA prime rating several years ago.

Steve Segner was a commissioner on the former Budget Oversight Commission. Chair Peter Fagan stated its study found residents pay more of the City’s bills than tourists. In addition to City sales and bed tax collections, City sewer taxes, shared county vehicle license fees, shared state income taxes, and shared state sales taxes were included in calculations.

F.Y.I., according to Sedona’s 2017-18 proposed budget, the estimated visitor population is 55.4%. Visitors pay only 24.6% of the Wastewater costs while residents (44.6%) pay 75.2% of WW costs.

U.S. Dollar and Equity Markets face high risk in the near future from the impact of deteriorating domestic economic activity. This is not good news for the cyclical nature of Sedona’s tourism revenues nor the City’s budgeted negative cash flow of $9,989,641 for this fiscal year.

The livability in once beautiful Sedona has gone to hell ever since the Chamber and the Lodging Council’s entitlement mentality invaded City Hall.

The City recently did a survey of Sedona residents asking if they are in favor of a sales tax increase. Unfortunately, increasing taxes is reductive.

Very high taxes and fees is a major cause of Sedona’s population decrease from 11,400 in FY 2010 to a little over 10,000 today (it’s stagnating now). Sedona’s median age was 50.5 in 2011 but is 58.0 today. Younger people are fleeing. What’s more, there are still business vacancies. The town is booming for the few.

The City’s budget does not save money. There’s a budgeted negative cash flow of $9,989,641 for the current fiscal year. The City is looking at either a tax increase or revenue bond indebtedness.

The estimated visitor population of 55.4% pays 24.6% of the costs of the wastewater plant operations while residents (44.6%) pay 75.2%. Visitors are not paying their fair share.

UPDATE to my August 2 Letter to the Editor:

1) CELL PHONE RADIATION AFFECTS BRAIN GLUCOSE METABOLISM AND CAN CAUSE BRAIN DISORDERS. A new study links cell phone tower radiation to diabetes. A renowned professor at King Saud University’s College of Medicine in RIYADH has warned of radiation danger from cell phone towers, saying that the radiation emissions from towers can cause many health hazards because of their dense installations and unscientific proliferation. Prof. Sultan Ayoub Meo has proved that radiation from towers also causes diabetes mellitus.

2) IS 5G HARMFUL TO OUR HEALTH? Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, UC San Diego School of Medice, whose research group has received hundreds of communications from people who have developed serious health problems from electromagnetic radiation following introduction of new technologies, published an open letter last Thursday stating that “many people will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result.”

F.Y.I. 5G , short for 5th generation, are small cell towers–mini towers. The City of Sedona’s proposed wireless strategy allows them to be put any old place in anybody’s neighborhood.

Consultant CityScapes statement that 22 towers exist in or near the perimeter of the City is untrue. The FCC’s cell tower data base lists 44 cell phone and antenna towers registered in Sedona, AZ, and adds that not all towers must be registered.

THE DRAFT SEDONA WIRELESS MASTER PLAN unbelievably and with bias states the potential City owned properties [20 new cell tower macro sites] are identified that can be part of a network and the deployment solution FOR THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY. Incidentally, the City of Sedona has a budgeted negative cash flow of $9,989,641 for the current fiscal year (2017-18). The average yearly cell phone tower lease rate payment in the U.S. in 2016 was $45,000+ according to Vertical Consultants, cell tower lease experts. However, Vertical Consultants indicates lease rates vary greatly and can be well over $45,000 per year.

http://www.anticelltowerlawyers.com/know-your-rights/individuals-associations.html advises: “As an individual or an association, you have the right to fight against sustaining the adverse consequences which you may suffer…”

I made no false statements. As mentioned on August 23, the population of Sedona decreased from 11,400 in FY 2010-11 to a little over 10,000 currently. Bank foreclosures did it. I remember former City Finance Director Barbara Ashley announced to the City Council when the number of foreclosures exceeded 100. Sedona’s median age has risen from 50.5 in 2011 to 58.0 currently. Now days families with kids and the younger crowd are losing interest in living here.

Sedona’s sewer fees were already the highest in the Verde Valley Region BEFORE they began rising every year (effective July 1, 2010). Residential fees today are $61.11/month NOT $48.00. The estimated visitor population of 55.4% pays only 24.6% of the cost of wastewater plant operations. Rip-off sewer fees and over-the-top tax assessments from the Sedona Fire District are reductive and hurting Sedona. A number of small businesses in town are struggling to make ends meet. Kudos and the Verde Valley Association of Realtors both moved to Cottonwood. The Biddles Outdoor Center downsized drastically. Increasingly more out of state corporations are doing business in Sedona. Some examples: Marriott Courtyard, Marriott Residence Inn, Oxford Hotel, Whole Foods Market, etc. Sedona’s small town character be damned.

The April 26, 2017 City Council meeting covered the long range forecasts for (1) the City General Fund and (2) the Capital Improvements Fund. Based on the revenue and expenditure assumptions the City’s non-wastewater capital reserves were projected to go negative in Fiscal Year 2018-19 and then go downhill from there.