Portland Turns Down Moratorium on Utility Poles
Neighbors contend the poles, which provide denser wireless Internet coverage, emit non-ionizing radiation that could cause cancer and other health problems
Citing health and livability concerns, they asked the Council to hire an independent engineer to assess Portland’s regulations and require a 1,500 foot setback of the poles from schools.
Clearwire intends to locate a utility pole on SE Cesar Chavez Blvd. to provide denser wireless Internet coverage, and will choose the exact location by December 2.
“Clearwire is torturing the residents of Woodstock and Eastmoreland,” Kimberly Koehler, who lives in Eastmoreland, told the Council. “Give us our moratorium.”
But City Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who oversees the Office of Cable Management and Franchise, refused. “That doesn’t mean we won’t do anything,” she said, adding later, “We’re advocates for the citizens.”
According to Fritz, Portland cannot adopt strict regulations because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which preempts local and state governments from citing health and environmental factors in the placement of cell phone towers, transmitters and other wireless devices. If the city did otherwise, it could face a lawsuit from companies such as Clearwire. “There’s a lot of things that we’ve considered and haven’t able to do,” Fritz said.
However, city officials in Bend have a different opinion of that 1996 law. Its Planning Commission is currently changing regulations to restrict utility poles in high visibility and high density residential areas. After soliciting public input, the commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on December 13.
That same ordinance also prohibits the installation of utility poles in certain residential areas and historic districts. Camouflaging and screening are required, and wireless companies are encouraged to co-locate, rather than “put up a whole bunch of new towers,” said Aaron Henson, city planner. “We’re trying to strike a balance between the needs of the wireless industry and the aesthetic concerns and other concerns of citizens.”
Bend’s ordinance is based upon one passed by the Mosier City Council three years ago. It effectively stops pole construction anywhere in the city, particularly in the public right of way, according to Dan Kearns, city attorney.
Portland could change its zoning codes, limiting utility poles in the public right of way, but that could take years to accomplish, Fritz said. Another option is locating utility poles in parks.
Fritz insists she’s doing her best to make the process transparent by giving neighbors the latest information so they can contact wireless companies. But that message isn’t coming across. Many neighbors are extremely frustrated, and question whether she represents their interests.
“Her office talks a good story,” said Deena Raphael, who lives in the Irvington neighborhood and opposes a utility pole on NE Stanton St. “I think all they care about is money.”
The Office of Cable Franchise and Management does collect approximately $5,000 each year from wireless companies for each pole in the public right of way.
After failing to get the moratorium, neighbors refuse to give up and are counting on their activism to stop the construction of utility poles. “Oftentimes what will kill a tower is giving it more process because it takes time,” Kearns said. “Time is at a premium for these people.”
It also may be time, he said, for Congress to reexamine the Telecommunications Act. “That was 10 years ago. There’s been a lot of studies and a heck of a lot of towers since then.”
Neighborhood associations in Woodstock, Eastmoreland, and Mt. Tabor are lining up against the utility poles for the wireless antennas. “People are hopping mad,” said Beverly Kupel, 68, a Woodstock resident who’s concerned about the Cesar Chavez Blvd. pole. “We’re doing anything we can to stop it.”
Earlier this week neighbors gathered for a meeting at SE Uplift hosted by Respect PDX, a neighborhood coalition created by residents of the Beaumont-Wilshire neighborhood, after a wireless antenna was proposed on top of Beaumont Middle School. Neighbors fear the poles and antennas will impact the neighborhood’s character, property values, their quality of life and their health. Non-ionizing radiation, which is emitted by wireless signals sent by radio frequencies, could cause headaches, anxiety, insomnia and, potentially, cancer.
However, many studies indicate there’s not enough evidence to prove that non-ionizing radiation can cause serious health effects. The National Cancer Institute found that people using cell phones were at no higher risk of having a brain tumor, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer found no increased risk of brain, head and neck tumors. According to the World Health Organization, there’s no conclusive evidence showing wireless devices cause adverse health effects.
Nevertheless, there are enough studies to raise doubts and that should be more than enough proof, Kupel said. “I’m very worried about this thing being placed near where children are.”
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Printer-friendly version
Comments Welcome
If you'd like to submit a comment on any of the stories that appear in The Lund Report, you'll need to become a subscriber and share your name and email address with us.
You can also send us story tips anonymously.
Intl. Agency for Research on Cancer, the W.H.O. and the National Cancer Institute. All of these organizations are severely compromised because they receive huge sums of money from the telecom industries. There are CEO's from telecoms on the Board of the W.H.O. and the other agencies have been quarterbacking for the telecoms for years however that is all beginning to change. The W.H.O. did acknowledge a 40% increase in brain tumors from the Interphone study that came out 4 years late because they were trying to figure out how to soften the blows within the results. Most of the studies that are looked at by these organizations are industry funded studies. It's all money folks. There are thousands of studies world wide that absolutely confirm biological damage from RF the same frequency and dose as that of cell phones, towers and wi fi. The media, especially this author has not done her homework. Check: wwwdotmagdahavasdotcom
You can learn more about the noise aspect of the wimax installations if you go to respectpdx.org -- a few of the neighbors in the NE Fremont/Beaumont neighborhood have an ongoing lawsuit regarding one of the very noisy towers in their neighborhood. They specifically document the noise issues to surrounding neighbors in their suit. You can contact Anne T at respectpdx.org for exact locations of the towers that are problematic. You raise a good point about boycotting Clear -- all it takes is someone (like you!) to get the ball rolling. From the response we have seen in the Irvington neighborhood, it wouldn't take a lot of convincing to get folks to not buy Clear products. So, join the growing band of advocates against these things in neighborhoods and near schools and "be the change you want to see." I'm sure the technology will be developed (or already exists) to make your regular or G4 reception better if we just draw a distinct line in the sand around homes and schools. If no one complains, if no municipal ordinances are changed, if there are no financial consequences... then Clear and other carriers can use old, untested, outdated technology to roll all over us.
I haven't heard anyone complaining that they don't have "enough" cell phones and Internet in my neighborhood -- one with a proposed wimax tower in the works. This installation is for G4 service (not cell phone/regular internet) -- I don't want G4, sure don't need it, and can call 911 on my landline or iPhone. To the individual who says we are a bunch of uninformed complainers -- have you ever seen or HEARD one of these neighborhood wimax towers? I suggest you check one out before you suggest that they are no big deal. They are very noisy, they have large cooling fans running 24/7, they are about 100 feet tall with 7 foot circumference creepy looking hardware spiking out on top and they have a large refrigerator-size "box" strapped on the pole about 10 feet off the ground. If one of these was smack dab in front of your house, you would complain. No one really knows what the long term health effects from exposure are to vulnerable populations. Until we know more certainly, let's not create another Garron Gastric Bubble or other product that has to be removed from the market after years of epidemiological evidence says that we are harming lots of people. It should be the G4 carriers who have to demonstrate safety of these installations in school zones and residential neighborhoods -- or at least, we should have to give informed consent to being included in Clearwire's longitudinal-designed experimental group.
These people have absolutely noting better to do and are completely ill informed. They all want their cell phone and internet though, how the heck do you think you get the service to use these things, the clouds....knuckle heads. You get more radiation from standing in front of your microwave watching your coffee heat up.
Contrary to your contention, the people in my neighborhood who are fighting these poles are all very busy, mostly very educated people. Have YOU ever had one of these boxes mounted at your bedroom window height, just a few feet from your house?
In terms of cell phones and wireless internet--sold at a high premium to the users--no thanks. I get adequate coverage now without these poles.
Perhaps you work for the installing company?
Thanks, anonymous, for your informed opinion.
First off, many people already have internet connections through their phone company and aren't clamoring for a wireless version too. Secondly, many people already have cell phones, and these towers that Clearwire/Sprint is proposing to erect are not for cell phones, though the towers that are erected for that purpose are ugly and probably equally unhealthy.
And you shouldn't be so quick to slam people. Some folks who don't want these towers don't have or want cell phones.
And microwaves are on their way out. Haven't you heard?
(from a recent Pew report)
"For example, the proportion of people who rate a clothes dryer as a necessity fell by 17 percentage points in the past three years. There are similar declines for the home air conditioner (16 points), the dishwasher (14 points) and the television set (12 points)...The microwave, a kitchen staple since the late 1980s, is currently viewed as a necessity by less than half the public, a 21-point drop in the past three years. "
Not to mention that the radiation from the towers would be in addition to radiation from standing in front of your microwave, if you do that. One of the problems with the epidemiology of all these things is that cumulative effects (and possible interactive multiplicative effects) are rarely studied, because such studies would be difficult and expensive to organize.
I hadn't understood the G4 aspect. Does anyone know of extant G4 towers where one could go to assess the noise claims?
It is interesting, as a friend who is skeptical of the opposition points out, that there does not seem to be a call actually to boycott Clearwire. The proposed tower on SE Cesar E Chavez Blvd near Holy Family School and Trinity Lutheran Church (and my house) is in an area where it actually is quite difficult to get high-speed internet by any means except cable, or more recently, Clear -- and at my place anyway that is a weak signal, apparently from the tower located on Woostock Blvd by the Chase (formerly Washington Mutual) Bank.
CL