The Manhattan Times

The Department of Buildings has issued violations to the owners of 165 Pinehurst Ave. for cracks in the side of the building it believes were caused by cell phone antennae located on the roof. Residents of the building also fear that the emissions from the equipment might be radiating into their homes.   

When your cell phone rings, you don’t think about how that call got to you. It most likely came from an antenna mounted on the roof of a private building. The panels, scattered on rooftops across the city, bounce the calls and text messages that are part of daily life from phone to phone.

However some of the residents of 165 Pinehurst Ave. are concerned that there are too many antennae on their building, weighing down the roof and sending too many electrical waves into their homes.

In 2006 T-Mobile contracted with the landlord, Shahram “Sam” Mobassen, to install three panels on the building and this fall AT&T installed seven more.

“It looks like a small city up there,” said Carol Dunn, who has lived in the building for 20 years, describing the I-beams, frames, power stations and rectangular antennae panels that are invisible from the street.

The building is in the perfect spot for relying cell phone calls, the geographically highest point on the island with a southern exposure overlooking Bennett Park.

“We thought the roof was too weak” to hold all the equipment, Dunn said. She sought help at Community Board 12 from Housing and Human Services Committee Chair Cheryl Pahaham.

On Dec. 18 a Department of Buildings inspector accompanied Dunn and Pahaham onto the roof for a look.

The inspector found four cracks in the parapet walls, and a violation notice issued to the landlord that ties the fractures to the cell panels.

Besides the weight, residents are worried about the electrical waves coming out of the antennae.

Dunn said a resident on the sixth floor has had trouble sleeping since the newest panels were installed, and a resident on the fifth floor complains she hears rattling from the array during high winds.

The Federal Communications Commission is responsible for regulating and enforcing the output of towers and panels. Calls to the FCC were not returned by press time, however information from the commission’s Web site is enlightening.

According to http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html, each installation is only allowed to emit a certain amount of radiation, but it’s unclear if multiple antennae arrays at one location emit a greater concentration of unseen electromagnetic rays.

A typical installation, like the one at 165 Pinehurst Ave. consists of three panels, two which receive information and do not emit, and one that sends out information. According to the FCC the typical “digital” cell antenna panel is allowed to emit 1000 microwatts per centimeter squared as averaged over a thirty minute period. But in urban areas that amount is much lower because the “footprint” of each array is smaller, and there are more of them scattered about. The farther one gets from the wedge-shaped focused energy of the panel the effect drops precipitously.

Curious about how much their building’s antennae radiated, a resident who is an electrical engineer tested the amount of energy coming into the building. Based on those results, “we think there’s a good chance we’re being exposed to a large amount of radiation,” Dunn said.

Those unofficial tests found 7,000 microwatts per centimeter squared in a living room on the G-line facing Bennett Park and 18,000 microwatts on the roof.

The FCC says the energy is directed in a wedge shape towards the horizon and poses little risk unless someone is standing right in front of the array.

“We don’t actually believe the scientists who say the beam is going up or out because we’re getting readings on the ground,” Dunn said.

While the results of the test are open to debate – Were the readings taken correctly? Was the instrument correctly calibrated? Were the levels the results of the antennae at 165 Pinehurst Ave. or other buildings? – if the numbers are correct, a lot of energy is humming above the building.

In its documentation the FCC addresses building antennae specifically: “When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that RF levels greater than 1 [microwatt per centimeter squared] could be present on the rooftop itself. This might become an issue if the rooftop were accessible to maintenance personnel or others. However, exposures approaching or exceeding the safety guidelines are only likely to be encountered very close to and directly in front of the antennas.”

Pahaham is trying to get in touch with engineers from the FCC to discuss the resident’s concerns, and has invited the Department of Health to her committee’s Jan. 7 meeting.

The landlord did not return calls seeking comment, but Frank Ricci of the Rent Stabilization Association, a lobby group for landlords, said when a cell phone company approaches a landlord, the lease agreement to locate the antennas is lucrative.

“Building owners in New York City have a really rough time making it,” Ricci said – especially if tenants are rent-stabilized and have been there for years. The contracts could mean $1,000-$2,000 a month per installation.

“Over the course of the year it’s the difference of an oil bill,” Ricci said.

There is no regulation as to the number of antennae, he said, but there are building codes. The panels can’t interfere with firefighter access and there other guidelines for placement.

And, he said, the issues are still being debated.

“As far as I know there’s no study that proves harm” from cell phones antennae, he said. “It’s been a hot topic of conversation at City Hall and in Albany.”

Citing a lack of enforcement by the FCC, in September Brooklyn Council Member Vincent Gentile introduced legislation for the city to regulate the emissions of the towers.

“Almost 2,600 new antennas were put up in the city since 2005, and we know that their emissions can be harmful,” Gentile said when the bill was introduced. “So why aren’t we making sure that antennas placed next to families’ homes, children’s schools and public playgrounds follow FCC guidelines? It’s a huge gap in protecting public heath and safety, and this legislation is going to try to close that gap.”

The bill, Int. 1087, calls for the Department of Buildings to create a report on the radiofrequency radiation emitted by each of the city’s cellular antennas and related equipment every six months. When and if emissions from that equipment are found to exceed regulations the DOB would have to notify the Council member and community board in whose district the equipment is located as well as the FCC.

Dunn said it’s important to address this now, before even more cell sites are added to the city.

“Our point is not to have everyone give up their cell phones,” she said. “In the future I can just see it’ll be very hard to get away from cell phone towers.”

Calls to T-Mobile and AT&T were not returned in time for this report.