They are in our homes, at our dinner tables, and on desks. We put them up to our ears, carry them in our hands, and slip them in our back pockets. In many ways, cellphones have become a daily part of our lives. But as the cell towers that power them continue to crop up throughout the country to meet the high demand, a controversial proposal has arrived at Gary’s doorstep, leaving residents uncertain and skeptical.
Crown Castle, a national cell tower firm with about 40,000 towers across the country, has proposed building cell towers near two Gary schools. At a recent Gary School Board meeting, a Crown Castle representative said that one of the proposed towers would be about 250 feet from Banneker at Marquette Elementary School, while the other would stand about 800 feet from Gary Middle School.
The proposal, which includes a 50-year lease paying $34,800 annually to the school district, has left the school board with a weighty decision: whether the funding is worth more than the potential health risks to elementary and middle school-age children in a district with a history of financial troubles.
It’s a question that other school districts in low-income communities have faced. While cell towers grow across the country to meet increasing demand, there is a clear financial incentive for school districts that struggle for funding as budgets get slashed. Similarly to Gary, Detroit Public Schools, a Black-majority midwestern city school district, currently has 29 cell towers, including multiyear lease agreements with Crown Castle and T-Mobile across the city, according to Chalkbeat.
“Poorer communities need money for education; they need money for their schools,” said Cindy Russell, executive director of Physicians for Safe Technology, who has advocated on behalf of similar school cases throughout the country. “That is one of the motivations for schools to put these cell towers in because they do get funding for it. But the whole question is, is it worth it? Is the health of our students worth it?”
According to the Federal Communications Commission, there has been no reason to believe cellphone towers cause cancer or other illnesses, but it has been court ordered to review that conclusion.
Gary residents are voicing their discontent, saying they aren’t willing to roll the dice on their children’s health.
“I just want to say that, you can’t put a price on a child’s health,” Gary resident Robert Buggs said during the September meeting when discussing the potential value of the towers.
His concerns were shared by Jennie Rudderham, another vocal resident, who took her opposition a step further by organizing a petition.
“Of all the sites to place a cell tower, it’s irresponsible to attach them to buildings that require the attendance of a vulnerable population [children],” she said, noting that nearly 200 residents had signed the petition in one week.
While local residents have voiced strong opposition, the effects of cell towers remain a subject of debate within the scientific community. The challenge lies partly in the high costs of conducting studies and the ethical limitations of testing radiation exposure on humans.
Cell towers have electronic equipment and antennas that receive and transmit cellphone signals using radiofrequency (RF) waves. According to the American Cancer Society, there is “no strong evidence” that exposure to RF waves from phone towers causes “noticeable” health effects. However, the group cautions that “this does not mean that the RF waves have been proven to be absolutely safe.” Instead, it calls for more research to help clarify any long-term effects.
David McCormick, president and director of IIT Research Institute in Chicago, conducted one of the largest studies in the field on the potential for cancer-causing radiation generated by cellphone frequencies on lab animals. His findings from the 10-year study unveiled some answers, and even more questions.
“I understand that this is a very complex scientific concept, and there’s no strict dichotomy. It’s not black or white.” McCormick said. “There’s not a right answer and a wrong answer there. It’s much more nuanced than that.”
Instead, McCormick recommends that Crown Castle have an electromagnetic engineer model the potential radiation from radiofrequency waves from the towers that would be in the vicinity of the school.
“The fundamental issue that people generally haven’t considered is, are people really going to be exposed to these radio frequency fields? There’s no question that these towers generate radio frequency fields,” McCormick told Capital B Gary. However, the intensity of those fields decrease with distance, he added.
“Regardless if something is potentially hazardous. If there’s no exposure, there’s not going to be an effect,” he said.
When asked by Capital B Gary about community concerns, a Crown Castle representative said that there are no known health hazards from exposure to radio frequency emissions, and that their facilities comply with FCC standards. The representative said that the installations will be able to provide more reliable cellphone coverage, stronger connectivity, and provide more revenue for the school district.
“Cell towers use non-ionizing radio frequencies, much like several things in your home, including radios, Bluetooth devices and Wi-Fi routers,” the representative said in a statement.
“Radio frequency (RF) has been extensively studied for decades, and the scientific and health communities have come to the same general conclusion — there are no known health hazards from exposure to RF emissions within the established Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines. Our facilities comply with all FCC radio frequency rules and guidelines,” the representative said.
According to the FDA and the Federal Communications Commission, the federal authorities on any potential threats from radio frequencies, there are no direct links to cell towers and cancer. Regarding cellphone towers near homes and schools, the FCC has previously stated that there is “no reason” to believe that such towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students.
However, health advocates like Russell with Physicians for Safe Technology, disagree. Russell, who leads an advocacy group of scientists and physicians focused on promoting safe technology use, echoes the community’s concerns and urges caution.
“So we just don’t have all the answers, but, what we do know, is that there’s enough evidence of harm that we should take precaution in terms of how we use wireless devices, and where we put cell towers,” Russell said.
However, there has been pushback that the FCC guidelines followed by Crown Castle and other organizations may be outdated. Safeguards have not changed since 1996 — when Motorola flip phones were the height of technological innovation.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has raised these concerns, urging the FCC to review its radiation standards, arguing they don’t adequately protect children.
In 2021, Environmental Health Trust, an environmental nonprofit that studies the effects of radiation, sued the FCC — and won. As a result, a federal appeals court ordered the FCC to revisit health impacts on children, saying that the commission failed to address evidence of non-cancer related health effects related to radiofrequency impacts on children. Since then, according to ProPublica, the FCC has taken no formal action.
Critics of the proposal have also raised environmental concerns, noting that one of the cell towers would be placed along the back edge of the Marquette Trail, near the Indiana Dunes National Park, according to Rudderham.
Another resident questioned the long-term viability of a 50-year lease, expressing uncertainty about the future of the school district over the next several decades.
The Gary School Board tabled a vote on the proposal to an undetermined date, while it reviews more information. The board has twice postponed a decision on the cell tower plan.
For more information on the potential health hazards of cellphones and radio frequency radiation, experts like McCormick recommended referencing papers from the National Toxicology Program, headed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
“My sense is it just comes down to money for a lot of them,” Rudderham said about school boards. “Frankly, our appeal is different. You know, we’re trying to appeal to other perspectives, so I hope they are in deep consideration and decide that the risk, the potential risk, is not worth what they would get out of this contract.”