They can also see several of the dozen cell
phone antennas that were mounted on the building last summer. The
controversial devices haven’t been activated after complaints from
school parents and borough residents.
If the Nextel antennas are
ever turned on, the Kaszubas say they will no longer sit outside on
their porch, enjoy yardwork or chat outside with neighbors, because
they fear radiation will harm them.
“We would probably have to
move,” said Mrs. Kaszuba, who was born in the Second Avenue home 70
years ago. “I don’t want to get sick.”
As telecommunications
companies work to expand and improve their networks, local opposition
has sprung up in many communities like Jessup. Cell phone antennas —
like microwaves, garage door openers, radios, television and other
common items — emit radio waves and microwaves collectively called
radio-frequency (RF) radiation. Although the consensus in the
scientific community is that RF radiation does not have negative health
effects, most experts acknowledge more studies should be done.
The
World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention have concluded that no study has linked cell phones or their
base stations to health problems, but have also acknowledged gaps in
research.
“This is the problem — you cannot prove that
anything is safe,” said John E. Moulder, Ph.D., professor and director
of radiation biology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. He has
researched cell phones and cancer and found any relationship “weak and
unconvincing.”
Dr. Moulder has advised several school districts
concerned about RF radiation to test levels before and after antennas
are activated. There will be little change, because levels are so low,
he said.
“Unless this school is in a mobile phone dead spot,
you’re being exposed to RF radiation,” Dr. Moulder said. This also
includes the television and radio station broadcasts and emergency fire
and police systems that have not shown to have adverse health effects
in the decades they have been in communities.
In many cases,
higher RF levels are caused by mobile phones, not antennas, Dr. Moulder
said. Handsets emit higher levels of RF radiation as they capture
airborne waves and magnify them for a signal.
Actually, the
safest spot for children might be immediately beneath the antennas,
said W. Andrew Berger, Ph.D., a physics and electrical engineering
professor at the University of Scranton. Antenna waves spread outward,
not down, he said.
Dr. Berger isn’t worried about RF radiation
from cell phone antennas, and like La Salle Academy students, he’s in
close range. Last summer, the university permitted Nextel to install a
macro cellular facility on top of a wing of St. Thomas Hall to “give
part of Scranton better coverage and capacity,” said Jerry DeSanto,
vice president for planning and chief information officer.
Children
are likely the most vulnerable to RF radiation, said Henry Lai, Ph.D.,
a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington. He
believes biological effects can take place at low levels, and most RF
radiation studies examine short-term exposure, not years and months —
the situation of people living near antennas.
“There about 40
studies showing effects with low-level exposure,” he said. To be safe,
he wouldn’t put any antennas on an elementary building such as St.
Michael’s, which holds preschool through second-grade students.
That’s
the view of many parents, such as Mary Durdach, who has four children
at La Salle Academy. She has helped organize the Jessup Area
Neighborhood Alliance to combine the efforts of parents, neighbors and
others against the antennas.
“The whole thing about RF
emissions, the jury is out,” Ms. Durdach said, comparing RF radiation
to cigarettes and lead paint. “Everyone was told cigarettes were safe.
It took 20 years before people were dropping dead from cancer.”
Because
the Federal Communications Commission sets a safe RF exposure level and
Nextel complies, the organization has shifted its fight to the dangers
of lightning hitting the antennas, hazardous materials such as
batteries in an accompanying Nextel power shed and the negative effect
antennas can have on property values.
“Why is there industrial
equipment in a residential zone?” Ms. Durdach said. “It’s really a big
deal, because of the hazards that come with them.”
Clarks Summit
real estate appraiser Robert Vanston said telecommunications antennas
have never come up in conversations with his clients at Prudential
Preferred Property.
“I haven’t heard anything — any negative repercussions,” he said. “It’s not like a big, massive antenna.”
Joan Kutchmanich isn’t convinced. She also lives on Second Avenue across from St. Michael’s.
“It’s horrible-looking,” she said. “The towers sway when it’s windy.”
Despite
the other angles to their fight against the Nextel antennas, the fear
of radiation and health problems remains in the forefront of JANA
members’ minds.
“If you can’t tell us it’s perfectly safe,” Ms. Durdach said, “why should we want any exposure?”
Contact the writer: epiet@timesshamrock.com
Decision awaited on zoning issue
For now, the cell phone antennas on St. Michael’s School are inactive.
Borough zoning officer Robert Grunza revoked Nextel’s permit and issued
a stop-work order last month after he and the borough solicitor
realized antennas required a special-exception zoning permit.
Mr. Grunza had mistakenly issued Nextel a permit last year, believing
only cell phone towers were regulated by borough code, not antennas.
Nextel had 30 days from the revocation to appeal Mr. Grunza’s decision to the borough Zoning Board.
Nextel attorney Michael Grab said a decision would be coming soon.