A consultant the Flagler school district hired to survey and analyze the health hazards, if any, of the monopole cell tower behind the bleachers at Flagler Palm Coast High School had a simple conclusion today: the tower is not a problem. It’s not close to being a problem. And the School Board’s options with it are limited to none as it is leasing space at least until 2046.
“All the measurements that were performed were less than one less than 1 percent of the occupational standards,” Anthony Handley, director of engineering for SiteSafe, told a somewhat skeptical and frustrated School Board today: board members want to be able to give parents options, such as transferring their children–or finding a way to get the tower moved.
Complaints to the Flagler County School Board about the cell tower in particular and cell towers in general haven’t been innumerable but they’ve been steady enough to concern the board. Board members hear reports of students having headaches at school but not at home. Cause-and-effect speculation centers on the cell tower and its radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, the very low level but constant emission of low-grade radiation cell towers emit to communicate with phones and tablets. Some fear that the radiation causes cancers, or heightens the possibility of cancer, for those in proximity of cell towers.
The risk isn’t zero. To the question–Can using a cell phone cause cancer?–the Centers for Disease Control responds with an equivocal answer: “There is no scientific evidence that provides a definite answer to that question. Some organizations recommend caution in cell phone use. More research is needed before we know if using cell phones causes health effects.” The American Cancer Society is equally cautious, peppering its answer with qualifiers: “At this time, there’s no strong evidence that exposure to RF waves from cell phone towers causes any noticeable health effects.”
At FPC, an emission assessment was conducted on Dec. 20 through data from 15 locations on campus, including from the bleachers. The tower has two tenants–Sprint and Verizon. None of the readings came close to triggering a concern. “The reason why the exposure levels are so low is because the antennas are elevated. The lowest antenna is mounted approximately 120 feet,” Handley said, and the antennas are directed at a horizon to cover as large a ground as possible. “Once you’re outside of the lobe, the main lobe of the exposure, the exposure levels dropped significantly.”
Within the school, the exposure is reduced even further because of the building material, Handley said, reducing exposure 10 to 100 times less than outside. “SiteSafe sees this site as fully compliant with all the FCC regulations and guidelines and limits and standards,” he said, despite the age of the monopole. Still, he said he would not use the word “safe” so much as “compliant,” which itself is a qualifying way of addressing the issue.
“The scientific community came up with a threshold where they believe that RF exposure is a hazard to humans,” he said. “There is a safety factor of 50 built into those limits. So all these facilities must be below that built-in safety factor. And again, the measurements [at FPC] showed that they were thousands of times below that limit as well. So it’s even more below what the scientific community would consider the actual hazard for human exposure.”
Handley is not necessarily an independent voice. Board member Colleen Conklin asked him point blank: “Does your site safe receive any funding at all from any cell phone tower company or any cell phone company?”
“No, not unless we do a service for them. They pay for it, but we don’t receive anything,” he said. He describes himself on his LinkedIn page as a “Professional with 20 years of experience in the wireless industry supporting the major carriers with the development of their networks/facilities and all compliance/regulatory matters related to their networks/facilities.” When Conklin asked him why standards are different abroad–in China, in Europe–he demurred, saying he focuses on the United States alone, and at one point referred to research done for “over 100 years,” even though cell phones and towers have not been around nearly that long.
Conklin was disappointed by the thinness of the analysis in so far as it directly relates to FPC and Flagler County. “We’re we’re talking about a report where really the analysis is barely a paragraph. And that that that is concerning to me,” Conklin said.
It was Board member Christy Chong who cast some doubt on the cause-and-effect theory of towers causing headaches. “if we’re concerned about health effects, I think there’s other things we need to consider, like fluorescent lighting, air conditioning,” Chong said. “My son used to complain a lot about headaches at school. And there was no cell tower nearby anywhere. So there’s a lot of factors that could play a role in headaches, allergies, those kinds of things. Stress.” (The majority of fluorescent lights are being changed to LEDs, Dave Freeman, the district’s chief of operations, said.)
Board member Cheryl Massaro suggested that once contracts expire, perhaps the tower could be moved from FPC. But that may not be as easy, given the contract in place between the carriers and the district: the contract has six auto-renewal terms, each for five year periods, with the last term expiring in March 2046. And moving a tower would not replicate the sort of coverage it is providing currently, though Conklin suggested that some sort of popular movement could lead to the contract being ended early–in exchange for convincing Palm Coast to agree to a relocation of the tower on its grounds. But in the end, that was just so much grasping at straws as board members knew that their options are almost non-existent.
Jon says
And drinking from the hose is bad now too, gtfoi… bunch of cry babies. Just like being blocked on FB by a cry baby..
Daniel Scollan says
Tough words from behind your computer. There are kids who are getting affected by this.
palmcoaster says
Were parents notified about location before approved?
Daniel Scollan says
No they weren’t. The tower has actually been there for about 14 years. They just did an upgrade at the beginning of the 2023 school year. Many students and teachers don’t know it’s there now. They don’t know that it’s a cell tower.
palmcoaster says
Were parents notified about location before approved? They need a new wireless plan in this city like other cities and counties that care for the residents and not for greed and plan towers location no less than 1,500 feet from any residence or schools, hospitals, etc. and not only 150 feet like they imposed on us. Example
Shelburne, MA – no wireless antennas within 3,000 feet of schools and within 1,500 feet of homes and no new wireless antennas in residential zones.
Copake, NY – no wireless facility may be within 1,500 feet from homes, schools, churches, or other buildings containing dwelling units.
Stockbridge, MA prohibits a tower from being built 1000 feet from a school, park or athletic field and 600 feet away from any residence.
Sallisaw, OK – no commercial wireless telecommunications towers within 1,500 feet of homes.
Calabasas, CA – no “Tier 2” wireless telecommunications facilities within 1,000 feet of homes and schools
a Concerned Observer says
Cell phones are here to stay. A large majority of people these days have ONLY a cell phone and have cancelled their brick-and-mortar telephone providers for financial and/or convenience reasons.
Every cell phone owner wants, no DEMANDS, bullet-proof cell phone coverage anywhere they happen to be at any given time. Everyone expects this level of coverage but vehemently complain if a cell tower, they mistakenly believe is dangerously close to a school or anywhere in their neighborhood, is proposed. You might ask why cell towers are erected by fire stations, schoolgrounds and the like? It’s because public outcry precludes them from locating near any home, school, or wherever anyone has an aesthetic reason why they don’t want those ugly towers spoiling their view. Cell Phone providers place Cell radios anywhere they are allowed to erect them!
I wonder how many of the complainers, so worried about electromagnetic radiation from a cell tower and radio transmitter, located hundreds if not thousands of feet away from their home or school, but have never given any thought how many hours each and every day they and their children have a cell phone pressed up to their ear, scant millimeters from their brain? Cell phones transmit energy whenever they are turned on, not only when they are in the progress of making or receiving a call. Quit wining about medical hazards from cell phone towers which you know nothing about, or use non-existent medical concerns to protest towers in your neighborhood when the real reason you don’t want a cell tower because it spoils your view.
If everyone gave up their cell phones and went back to wired telephones, the whole problem would go away. But wait, the public outcry would then go out that public safety demands bullet-proof cell phone service!
Daniel Scollan says
To Concerned Observer…You are correct, but we can be smart about this and have set back limits and still have great cell coverage. As it stands right now it’s 320 ft from the nearest classroom. It meets FCC regs, but those regs are woefully inadequate. They were put there to serve the industry…end of story.
Daniel Scollan says
Thank you… An intelligent voice!
Daniel Scollan says
Thank you…an intelligent voice.
Cecelia Doucette says
Unfortunately, your school fell prey to predatory wireless industry practices. The current FCC limits for public radiation exposure have only ever accounted for heating, or thermal, effects. The FCC has been sued for ignoring 11,000 pages of evidence of harm at the non-thermal level. The court ordered the FCC to bring public policy in line with the science, and the FCC completely ignored the court. Instead, the FCC, captured by industry, is allowing cell towers on schools and in our neighborhoods. The wireless radiation INSIDE the schools is also a major problem, it uses the same toxic radiation to send and receive signal/data from wireless access points to the devices. That was the industry’s 21st Century Classroom Campaign push: a 1:1 device in the hands of every child. They know once you have a child as a customer, you often have them for life.
And now the children and faculty are suffering: headaches, nosebleeds, skin abnormalities, gut issues, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, anger, pain, ADD/ADHD, autism, cognitive impairment, infertility, cancers, early-onset Alzheimers. The science is clear. Wireless radiation in all forms is a neurotoxin and immunosuppressant.
I urge every parent, teacher and administrator to learn about this as quickly as you can, and demand safe technology. The solution? Hard-wired technology connections to and through the premises with Ethernet cables and adapters. Teach the community how to use their devices safely. Use airplane mode as the default and only turn on the one antenna you need for as short a time as possible.
I present two free public education webinars each month to help you quickly connect the dots. The message is not “no technology” but rather “safe technology” and we know how to get there.
Celia Pugliese says
Thank You Cecelia Doucette. https://protectpalmcoast.com/fhc/
Daniel Scollan says
Thank you CC! I can’t believe you posted on this article! I have been at every school board meeting for a year reading the science to them. They finally started to listen and this was their answer…. to have an industry “hitman” come and tell them that everything was withing FCC limits. I went to the informational school board meeting and pressed this schmuck to tell the people it’s safe. He can’t do that.
I told them they wasted $6200 of tax payer money, b/c this guy and the company he works for, Site Safe, were going to tell them that the tower was in compliance. When asked if they’d ever found a cell tower out of compliance he said no. Not one tower ever! It’s a rigged game. People were lulled into a false sense of security, b/c the measurements they obtained were from 1 to 5% of the FCC limits on RFR. I told them that LA county school board put limits at their schools 10,000 times below FCC limits. The measurements found at this school would have been out of compliance by 100 times or more!
I personally know kids who get sick with migraines and stomach issues when they are at school and have them go away when they’re not. I know of 2 kids who started having seizures when they went to that school… they’ve never had seizures before. I also know of two kids who were diagnosed with CSF leaks while attending that school. And there is at least one case of leukemia there. Do you know anything about Notice of Liability from the InPowerMovement.org ? I’m looking into that now.
Thank you for chiming in Ms. Doucette!
Cece Doucette says
Daniel, I do not have experience with the Notice of Liability, but I understand some public servants have resigned rather than be held liable.
Please know the school board at a Rye, NH school just rejected the cell tower application, perhaps you can share this with your district too. Keep the facts coming:
https://www.seacoastonline.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.seacoastonline.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Flocal%2F2024%2F02%2F23%2Frye-nh-rejects-cell-tower-near-school%2F72696825007%2F
Best,
Cece
Daniel Scollan says
Thank you CeCe! I will follow up with this school board.
Lil bird says
Curious the cost of this consultation that produced an entire paragraph sized report that the district paid to study a complete nonissue.
Curious also about the results of the latest 100k study involving a local road for the 3rd time
dave says
Mobile cellular subscriptions in United States was reported at 372,682,000 in 2022. So you have to have towers to be able to use those phones anywhere and everywhere. Cell use is growing each day and people want to use their cell phones everywhere. The days of wired phones and those extremely limited “payphones” are becoming extinct. Hard wired applications are possible but there are pro’s and cons to both wired and wireless. It all depends on budget, customer requirements and distance. But, I’ll take wired anyday for control, security, and stability. But its not my money
Daniel Scollan says
Totally agree…just don’t put one at a school. It’s not necessary.
Celia Pugliese says
Oh yes School Board was told not the parents before any approval. Any way the testification of non health effects was like asking the Fox the specs approval how to build the best chicken coop…
Daniel Scollan says
100% Site Safe has a very cozy relationship with telecom. When asked if he’d ever found a cell tower out of compliance, he said no. Not one cell tower ever.
Celia Pugliese says
The only thing we some of the residents ask is this towers to be located at safe distance from homes, schools and hospitals like in other cities have done versus the service convenience location for the contractor profiteering from it, like they done elsewhere and for a reason in: Shelburne, MA – no wireless antennas within 3,000 feet of schools and within 1,500 feet of homes and no new wireless antennas in residential zones.
Copake, NY – no wireless facility may be within 1,500 feet from homes, schools, churches, or other buildings containing dwelling units.
Stockbridge, MA prohibits a tower from being built 1000 feet from a school, park or athletic field and 600 feet away from any residence.
Sallisaw, OK – no commercial wireless telecommunications towers within 1,500 feet of homes.
Calabasas, CA – no “Tier 2” wireless telecommunications facilities within 1,000 feet of homes and schools
Celia Pugliese says
School Board meeting February 20th at 6 PM… Parents encouraged to attend and ask questions.
Daniel Scollan says
I will be at the one in March
Daniel Scollan says
Stop saying we won’t have cell coverage if we don’t put a tower 300 feet from a classroom! Put it down the road at the movie theater. Coverage will be totally fine and kids and teachers won’t be getting fried 5 days a week. If you believe the industry is looking out for you and your health then I have no words.