By:Scott Brinton
Birch and Levy-Lakeside PTA leaders said they're concerned that cellular technology isn't yet proved to be safe. And they believe the proposed site is too close to nearby elementary schools and ballfields for comfort. "All the results of the research aren't in," said Kim Rudolfsky, the Levy-Lakeside PTA president. "Years ago, they said pesticides aren't damaging to your health. ... We can't be assured of the safety of that cell tower."
Rudolfsky noted that she wasn't yet offering her PTA's position on the possible tower. The PTA has to vote on one. Her statements were, at this point, her own. But she noted that she did foresee the Levy-Lakeside PTA taking part in a "battle" against the tower.
Rudolfsky, a Verizon customer, also wondered why the tower was needed when she said the company's reception in Merrick is "fantastic."
Marcia Eisenmesser, the Birch PTA president, echoed Rudolfsky, saying, "There are health and safety issues with [the tower] with the children . ... It's just a little too close to school grounds for me." If the tower were to go through, it would sit roughly 800 feet southwest of the Birch School.
Eisenmesser also said she was concerned that Merrick was given little to no notice about the cell tower, which would sit on leased town land. "No one seemed to know about it prior," she said. "Now all of the sudden, it's before the town Board [of Zoning Appeals]. We'll do what we have to do to fight it."
Nassau County Legislator David Denenberg, a Democrat of Merrick, met with Verizon representatives on Monday. He suggested moving the tower farther west from the town Little League ballfields adjacent to the Sanitation Department. But he said Verizon adamantly opposed building the tower in another location.
Verizon couldn't be reached for comment at press time. Town of Hempstead spokeswoman Susie Trenkle couldn't comment on the proposed tower because, she said, she only learned about it when the Herald called her on Monday. She called later to say that the town would hold a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing on Oct. 13 to address the planned tower.
Denenberg said he would hold an informational meeting on the tower on Monday, Oct. 4, at 8 p.m. at the Birch School.
The legislator suggested to Verizon representatives that the tower be moved closer to the Meadowbrook Parkway. They, however, said it couldn't be built there because it would encroach on state-protected wetlands. To erect the tower there, Verizon would have to get a special permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
Denenberg also suggested building it by the garbage transfer station at the foot of the Levy Preserve. But he said that Verizon representatives were concerned about the "interaction" of methane gas from the preserve, which was once a landfill, and the cell tower itself.
The planned Oct. 13 BZA hearing will be a continuation of a hearing that was adjourned in June. Steven Kreps, of south Merrick, was one of about a dozen residents who received notice about the first hearing, which he attended. Of the tower, Kreps said, "I don't want it. There are other places they could put it, but Verizon said this is the best possible location. I don't know there aren't harmful effects from a cell tower."
In 1999 and 2000, the Central Merrick Homeowners and Merrick Park Home Owners associations fought off a proposed Sprint cell tower atop an office building across from Chatterton Elementary School. Civic leaders like Michele Walsh, Central Merrick's founding president, said they were concerned about the possible health effects of cellular radiowaves.
The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local zoning boards from considering perceived or possible health effects when ruling on cell-tower sites. But the Central Merrick and Merrick Park associations waged a media campaign that attracted local newspapers and TV stations, and defeated Sprint in the court of public opinion. Facing enormous pressure from the civic groups and elected leaders, the company backed off.
After that, the Town of Hempstead formed a committee comprising town officials and community activists that was charged with finding the best places to site cell towers.
The Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration all play roles in regulating cell phones and towers.
The FDA Web site explains that cell towers give off radiofrequency (RF) radiation, which is a form of electromagnetic energy. Other forms include gamma rays, X-rays and light.
According to the Web site, high levels of electromagnetic energy, such as that found in X-rays and gamma rays, can alter biological tissue and DNA. But the site states that energy levels generally associated with radiofrequency radiation "are not great enough" to alter tissue or DNA.
The site notes that RF levels are high within a few feet of cell-tower antennae. But on the ground, 80 to 100 feet below the antennae, RF levels drop off precipitously, and they continue to fall off farther from the tower.
The site concludes that ground-level exposure from cellular antennae "is typically thousands of times less than exposure levels recommended as safe by expert organizations. So exposure to nearby residents would be well within safety margins."
The EPA Web site states, "In recent years, attention has been focused on the possibility that long-term exposure to RF radiation may be responsible for serious health effects, such as cancer. Research continues to be undertaken on several fronts, including the study of human populations and laboratory experiments on cells and tissues, and on rats and mice. While some studies have found effects associated with exposure to RF radiation, other studies have not shown such effects."
Comments about this story? SBrinton@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 203.
