As the number of people using cell phones and other wireless devices continues to grow, so does the number of radio frequency antennas. Hundreds of antennas are attached to utility poles, commercial buildings, water tanks, billboards and county buildings, some in plain sight with appropriate warning signage, some hidden to blend in with their surroundings.
RF Check, a San Diego County, Calif. company specializing in radio frequency (RF) radiation safety and compliance, says county governments need to be aware of the damage excessive RF radiation exposure can cause to workers. The company has spent $5 million to develop a comprehensive database system that could be used in efforts to protect workers from excessive RF radiation at transmission sites.
Drew Fountain, RF Check’s chief operating officer, said the database will consist of the locations of every RF antenna site in a locality, as well as safety information that can be used to warn workers of danger zones.
He said the database will finally link all the players — service providers, site owners and workers — with the information they need to keep antennas in compliance and workers safe.
At highest risk of RF radiation are third-party roofers, painters, electricians and HVAC technicians working in close proximity of the antennas. Sometimes antennas are not turned off, and sometimes a number of different types of RF antennas owned by various companies are all located on the same site. Some are so well hidden workers don’t realize they’ve been exposed until it’s too late.
In a landmark ruling last year, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor of an AT&T Alascom telecommunications technician, who was awarded 100 percent disability after he was exposed to RF radiation in excess of FCC standards. According to the court brief, John Orchitt said he suffered head, brain and upper body injuries as a result of overexposure when another technician turned off the wrong waveguide amplifier. Orchitt was exposed to 6 gigahertz, or 90 watts, of RF radiation.
Robert Curtis, chief scientist and executive vice president of federal compliance for RF Check, represented OSHA in reviewing the FCC standard when it was presented. He said Orchitt’s case underlines the importance of being in compliance with existing laws. Orchitt did not win his case because of a physical impairment, but because AT&T Alascom was not in compliance with FCC standards.
“There has been a lot of debate about the health effects of RF. The evidence could be argued either way,” he said. “In this case the guy was exposed over the legal limit. It wasn’t 100 times over the limit, just 10% over the standard. That’s not very much, but the court declared it was black and white. You’re not supposed to go over the legal limit, but you allowed that person to be exposed over the legal limit.”
Scott Kaisler, executive vice president of research and development for RF Check, said the case has significance for all counties, even though it was a state ruling and only has binding precedence in Alaska. He said the publicity generated from the case is enough to get lawyers with similar claims to start sharing information, scientific evidence and medical experts. He said he expects to see a “tidal wave” of class action lawsuits in the future.
He said antennas around the country are violating FCC and OSHA regulations by emitting excessive levels of radio frequency radiation and many counties are unaware of the dangers to workers, especially third-party maintenance workers.
“In talking to big cities and counties thus far, I don’t think they are aware of it,” said Kaisler. “Counties have a number of different roles to play within the wireless industry, from being an FCC licensee, to being an employer, to being the contractor of third-party workers. All of these things create exposure for them. I don’t think counties have put the pieces together yet.”
Some of those roles and liabilities are:
• FCC licensees — Obligated to make sure no one, including employees and third-party workers, is overexposed to RF radiation. Counties also operate antennas for police and fire departments.
• Employers — Counties must provide a safe place to work, free of known human health hazards, to comply with OSHA.
• Site owners — Counties that lease space to commercial service providers, such as Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc. are open to “premise liability” if anyone is injured on the site.
• Regulators — Counties and city governments approve the installation and manage the growth of wireless antenna sites. Some cities have ordinances requiring antennas to be camouflaged for aesthetic reasons, making it difficult for workers to know when they are working around dangerous equipment.
Curtis said part of the reason counties are reluctant to take action on the issue of excessive RF radiation is due to the National Telecommunications Act, which he says takes away some of the power from local governments. Communities cannot regulate an antenna site based on environmental effects or human health hazards as long as the site is in compliance with FCC exposure limits.
Financial concerns are also a factor, especially at a time when counties around the U.S. are tightening their budgets. Drew Fountain, RF Check’s chief operating officer, said it is difficult for counties to afford to buy and maintain a database such as the one his company developed.
“A lot of our communities are cash-strapped, so it’s difficult for them to take any kind of proactive stance,” he said. “They don’t know where to go and they don’t have the money to do it anyway.”
National WorkerRF Safety Crisis Video Our nations’ workers and the welfare of their families
are at risk! Watch the video to see how.
Counties Could Get ‘Zapped’ in RF Liability Cases
Source: National Association of Counties
