More than 100 parents, teachers and students joined with local residents Friday outside the North Oakland Community Charter School (NOCCS) to protest nine Verizon cell phone antennas planned for a site, owned by McGrath Properties, across from two elementary schools, homes and a city park.

Citizens called on McGrath, the Oakland City Council, and Verizon for a precautionary health approach with banners such as, “Keep cell antennas away from school kids until they’re proven safe!”


“I don’t want to experiment with my child’s health, only to learn years from now, that this was an incredibly risky thing to do,” said Dr. Terese Gjernes. “Kids will be there every day for a long time, up to nine years at the school. We need long-term epidemiological studies to confirm that this is safe.”

Some local families are concerned about the potential health risks of the towers, citing preliminary research that has linked electromagnetic field radiofrequency (EMF RF) emissions to long-term health problems, including cancer.

The National Research Council has called for more research into the safety of cell phone towers and antennas, particularly as it relates to vulnerable populations, such as children. Last month the President’s Cancer Panel said more study of EMF radiation is “urgently” needed.

Mariah Landers, a NOCCS teacher, told the chanting crowd what drove her to oppose the proposed telcom facility. She grew up in Merced, Calif., where Chromium 6 leached into her groundwater. She said many of her family members and neighbors have become ill and have died from cancer from the chemicals.

“Just like they told us Chromium 6 was safe,” said Landers, “Verizon is telling us the same thing about cell antennas.”
 
The Oakland group opposing the cell phone towers is not alone in sounding the alarm for school-aged children. The European Parliament, the Los Angeles Unified School District and other entities have called for a precautionary approach, recommending 1,500-foot buffer zones around schools and day-care centers until more research is complete.

Here, two schools with more than 500 children enrolled are within 300 feet of the proposed towers. On March 23, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors joined dozens of cities around the country in restricting cell phone antenna placement when it adopted Resolution 102-10, which calls for further study of the health impacts of EMF RF radiation.

Some parents also question whether nine antennas are necessary since Verizon’s own map shows strong coverage in the area, which straddles Oakland and Emeryville. Verizon was invited to the rally to answer the citizens’ concerns but did not send a representative.
 
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits municipal governments from considering communities’ concerns about health when deciding whether to grant permits.

Local representatives can, however, deny projects based on other criteria if a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. City Council President Jane Brunner said to the group opposing the towers, “You’ve been thrown a dead-end here,” as residents can only question the design of the towers because the inaccurate zoning code lists the area as HBX2, as a mix of businesses and housing.

The area consists mostly of homes and schools. If the proposed site were designated as residential, Verizon would be required to apply for the more stringent CUP.
 
Parents of the adjacent schools and residents in the neighborhood have organized an appeal to the Oakland City Council, which is scheduled to vote on whether to approve the placement of the antennas on a contaminated building at their June 15 meeting.

Many families strongly recommend the council deny the project because, in addition to posing unacceptable risk to children, the current design plan does not take into account the historic character of the building, fire safety of the antennas on the remediation site, nor how the design affects the solar panels on NOCCS.

They also call for the council to negotiate with the building’s owner and Verizon to find an alternative site safely away from vulnerable populations.
 
Hannah Latham, Gordy Slack and Rachel Swain contributed to this article.