This is a carousel. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigate

Brookfield Town Hall on Wednesday, August 4, 2021, Brookfield, Conn.

A cell tower on Old Waterbury Road in Southbury, Conn.

BROOKFIELD — The first selectwoman has suggested local officials should consider a moratorium to block the proposed construction of a AT&T cell phone tower in town. 

Tara Carr said she's concerned about the cell tower's effect on the health of residents and wildlife, although federal agencies say its highly unlikely that cell towers could expose humans to radio frequencies greater than the permissible limit. The town does not have the authority to stop the state body responsible for approving the tower, which other officials say would improve communications for emergency services. 

"True, there are parts of Brookfield where cell phone coverage is degraded depending on a service provider," Carr said at a Board of Selectmen meeting this month. "But I am not in favor of a tower that will ultimately host tech that produces an overlay of various microwave radiation frequencies and wave lengths of pulse modulated microwave radiation.

"There is no conclusive evidence suggesting that radiation technology is not harmful (to) human health and wildlife and therefore no evidence it would not be harmful to the residents of Brookfield and our environment," she added. "I cannot in good conscience support anything that could possibly harm out people, our animals, including bees, cows and horses, for example."

The proposed 165-foot tower would be owned and operated by a company contracted by AT&T, Homeland Towers, and situated on a 3.99 acre-property at 60 Vale Road within a 3,150 square foot, fenced off equipment compound, the company said when it presented the plans to the public over the summer.

The Vale Road plot, which includes a one-story office building, a parking area, and a detached garage, is surrounded mostly by other industrial properties with business and residential properties located to the south. 

The nearest residence to the proposed tower location is about 1,270 feet away, and the site is roughly 123 feet from wetlands, according to Homeland Towers.

Carr's comments came after months of public and written testimony offered by Brookfield residents to the Board of Selectmen and other local bodies covering concerns that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems, even while little evidence exists to support the statements.

The federal government in the U.S. began regulating radio frequency exposure in 1985 under U.S. Federal Communications Commissions regulations most recently updated in 1996 to establish a “maximum permissible exposure” limit for communications transmission equipment.

The FCC describes its maximum allowable level, set at 580 microwatts per square centimeter, as being “many times greater” than frequency levels typically found near a cell tower, adding: “Thus, the possibility that a member of the general public could be exposed to [radio frequency] levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote.”

North of the U.S. border, the official position from Canadian health officials makes a similar determination. In a statement on the Canada Health Services website, the federal agency notes that “based on the available scientific evidence, there are no health risks from exposure to the low levels of radiofrequency EMF which people are exposed to from cell phones, cell phone towers, antennas and 5G devices.”

Citing evidence by multiple international and national authorities, the American Cancer Society notes it “does not have any official position or statement on weather or not radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers or other sources is a cause of cancer.” Sill, recognizing the widespread concern “that living, working, or going to school near a cell tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems,” the group says “at this time there isn’t a lot of evidence to support this idea. Still, more research is needed to be sure.”

According to the World Health Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations, "studies to date provide no indication that environmental exposure to RF fields, such as from base stations, increases the risk of cancer or any other disease."

Even if Brookfield officials wanted to block the construction of the tower, Selectman Steve Dunn said the town "has virtually zero capability to stop it," adding the only way to block the tower's construction would be for residents to work through the Connecticut Siting Council, the FCC, or members of the U.S. Congress and state representatives and senators. 

“Towns cannot stop the (state) Siting Council from approving the tower,” Dunn said. 

Under state and federal laws, only the Connecticut Siting Council holds jurisdiction over reviewing power facilities, transmission lines, hazardous waste facilities and other forms of infrastructure, including telecommunications sites such as cell phone towers.

The state regulatory body, initially established in 1972 following the passage of the U.S. Public Utility Environmental Standards Act, held a public hearing on the proposed Brookfield project on Nov. 3. Members of the public may submit written comments to the agency until Dec. 3.

“We can discuss moratoriums and we can waste time passing moratoriums, they won’t be effective because we do not have the ability to affect it,” said Dunn, adding the tower construction would also serve as a key component for upgrades to communications systems used by police, EMS crews, and firefighters in the town.

Earlier this year, voters approved a $5.9 million capital project to overhaul the town’s 1986-era emergency communications system. Voters also approved $39,000 in U.S. American Rescue Plan pandemic relief money to hire a consultant to aid in the process.

The town would install two antennas and a 36-inch diameter dish antenna “at the top of the proposed monopole for emergency communication services,” according to plans described in Homeland Towers' report.

Adding to the frequencies carried by the 12 AT&T panel antennas and other wireless network technology to be installed on the tower, the report outlines how the infrastructure would support the instillation of FirstNet technology.

Carr affirmed the need for the communications' upgrade but argued the town could build its own structure.

"We do need a structure for our new communications system. However I would prefer our new equipment not be coupled with additional cellular antennas or any other potential harmful devices," she said.

"You want to spend $4 to $5 million to build a tower for our police when we can simply hook on to someone else’s tower?" Dunn asked Carr.

Reached for comment Wednesday, Brookfield Volunteer Fire Co. 1 Chief Andrew Ellis said he supports the tower proposal, explaining the FirstNet equipment and emergency communications upgrade are essential to supporting not only communications between first responders, but also the medical equipment used to save lives.

Police Chief John Puglisi could not be reached for comment, but Ellis said he and police chief recently explained to Carr why they felt it would be important.

“We rely on the tower for communications as well as cell coverage.” Ellis said. “The south end of town is like a black hole for communications.”