They Know It's Harmful.
They're Building It Anyway.
Peer-reviewed studies. Federal court rulings. SEC filings from the carriers themselves. The evidence is overwhelming — and they're counting on you not reading it.
Think This Doesn't Affect You?
You don't have to live within a mile of this tower for it to matter. Here's why every Salina and Liverpool resident should care.
Your Kids Go to School Here
Long Branch Elementary, Lakeshore Road Elementary, Liverpool Middle — they're all nearby. Even if your house isn't in the shadow of the tower, your children may be spending their days in it.
Children Absorb 10× More RF
Peer-reviewed research shows tower signals produce 10× more cumulative daily RF energy absorption in a child's brain than a phone call. Children have thinner skulls and developing nervous systems.
What the Research Says
The wireless industry says cell towers are safe. The independent science says otherwise. Here are the studies they don't want you to read.
Ramazzini Institute Confirmation
Italy's Ramazzini Institute independently replicated the NTP findings, discovering increased tumor rates at RF exposure levels equivalent to those from cell towers — not just phones.
View the ResearchEHT v. FCC — Court Orders Review
In 2021, a federal court ruled that the FCC's decision to maintain 1996-era radiation limits was "arbitrary and capricious," ordering the agency to address evidence of harm to children and the environment.
Read the RulingTelecom Companies Warn Their Own Investors
AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile disclose in SEC 10-K filings that they face potential litigation risk from the health effects of wireless radiation. They warn investors — but not residents.
See the FilingsChromosomal Damage Near Towers
A 2024 peer-reviewed study found significantly higher chromosomal aberrations in the blood of people living near base station antennas, indicating potential DNA damage from chronic exposure.
View the StudyNIH: "The Assumption of Safety" Is the Justification
A 2023 peer-reviewed study published in Frontiers in Public Health and indexed on NIH/PubMed found that over 90% of existing studies show biological effects from RF — yet "no evidence of harm has been misconstrued as evidence of no harm" to justify the 5G rollout.
Read on NIH73.6% of Cell Tower Studies Found Harmful Effects
A 2022 systematic review in Environmental Research by Balmori analyzed all available studies on people living near cell towers and found that nearly three out of four reported harmful health effects — including cancer, neurological symptoms, and reproductive harm.
View on PubMedCell Tower RF Exposure to Children's Brains Exceeds Cell Phone Use by 10×
A 2023 study by Lee & Choi in Environmental Research found that continuous 24-hour downlink signals from cell towers produced more than ten times higher cumulative daily RF energy absorption in a child's brain compared to a 10-minute phone call.
View on PubMedAll research cited above is compiled by the Environmental Health Trust and Environmental Health Sciences, nonprofit research organizations whose work has been presented at the American Public Health Association and cited in federal court rulings.
How Close Is Too Close?
Multiple peer-reviewed studies and expert bodies recommend minimum setback distances for cell towers near homes and schools. Here's what the science says.
3,000 ft
Bare Minimum Setback
Multiple peer-reviewed studies (Levitt & Lai 2010, Dode et al. 2011, Pearce 2024) and the New Hampshire State 5G Commission recommend cell towers be a minimum of 3,000 feet from residences, schools, and hospitals — and many of these towers are designed to be equipped for 6G.
Why Children Are More Vulnerable
Thinner Skulls
Children have thinner skulls and more conductive tissues, allowing RF radiation to penetrate deeper into critical brain regions.
10× More Exposure
Continuous cell tower signals produce over 10× more cumulative daily RF energy absorption in a child's brain than a 10-minute phone call.
Group 2B Carcinogen
The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies RF radiation as a Group 2B possible carcinogen. Children face a lifetime of exposure.
U.S. Communities with Setback Policies
Shelburne, MA — 3,000 ft from schools, 1,500 ft from homes
Copake, NY — 1,500 ft from residences and churches
Williamson County, TN — 1,500 ft from schools
Bar Harbor, ME — 1,500 ft from schools
Calabasas, CA — 1,000 ft from homes and schools
Bedford, NH — 750 ft from residential
Scarsdale, NY — 500 ft from homes
Mason, OH — No small cells in residential areas
Copake, NY already has a 1,500-foot setback — a New York State precedent.
International Bans Near Schools
Russia — Cell towers banned near schools; existing sites being relocated
Greece — Banned on school grounds; stricter limits within 300m
France — Radiation minimized within 100m of schools and daycares
Bangladesh — Banned on schools, colleges, playgrounds, and residential areas
Israel — 100m minimum setback from schools and homes
Chile — Banned in "sensitive areas" — kindergartens, hospitals, nursing homes
Queensland, AU — Banned on school property; 200m setback
India — Towers removed from near schools, orphanages, and hospitals
The U.S. has no federal setback requirement for cell towers near schools.
Worldwide RF Radiation Limits — Country Comparison
Most countries set wireless radiation limits 100× to 1,000× stricter than the United States. The FCC's limits haven't been updated since 1996.
Full Report: Worldwide Wireless Radiation Limits (PDF)U.S. School Districts That Have Banned Cell Towers on School Property
If these communities can protect their children, so can Salina.
The Language Tells You Everything
When you search the effects of 5G and RF radiation, pay attention to how they phrase things. The language itself is the tell.
What Industry & Regulators Say
"Considered" safe
"No conclusive evidence" of harm
Effects "may" exist
"Not proven" to cause cancer
"Within acceptable" limits
"Further research is needed"
Hedging. Deflecting. Leaving the door open. This is the language of liability protection, not science.
What the Research Actually Says
"Clear evidence" of cancer — NTP Study
RF radiation DOES cause tumor growth — Ramazzini Institute
The FCC's limits ARE arbitrary — Federal Court
Telecom companies ARE warning investors of risk
DNA damage IS occurring near cell towers — 2024 Study
Wildlife IS being harmed — Peer-reviewed research
Declarative. Measurable. Verifiable. This is what happens when you stop "considering" and start testing.
While they "consider" , the people on the ground fighting for your rights are declaring IS and ARE. It's that obvious.
NYSTA Produced No RF Emissions or Propagation Studies
On May 8, 2026, NYSTA produced 81 documents in response to FOIL Request #R000082-032026. The set includes engineering reviews, construction drawings, structural analyses, and SEQRA documents. It does not include the RF emissions or propagation studies that any siting analysis is supposed to rely on.
Verizon’s Own Drawings Reference an RF Document — That Document Is Not in the FOIL
The Verizon Construction Drawings produced in the FOIL response (sheet C-3) reference an “RF Antenna Design Sheet dated 1/2/25, RFDS Project ID 17326150.” That document is not in the production. AT&T’s RF Design Sheet (RFDS) is also not in the production. T-Mobile is referenced as a future co-locator throughout the engineering files; no T-Mobile RF documentation appears.
An RFDS is the document that defines:
- The frequencies and channel counts on each antenna face.
- The transmit power per channel.
- The mechanical and electrical down-tilt of every antenna.
- The propagation map — the predicted RF coverage on the ground.
- The compliance calculation against FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF exposure limits.
Without an RFDS, there is no documentary basis for the “coverage objective” the tower is supposed to serve, no propagation map showing the predicted ground-level RF, and no FCC Bulletin 65 compliance worksheet showing public-exposure limits are met at the nearest residence.
Source: US-NY-2029_T3U250002_VERIZON_DRAWINGS.pdf sheet C-3 (Drawing Notes).
The “Coverage Objective” Document Doesn’t Exist Either
Under FOIL Item 7, we asked for the engineering or planning analysis showing why this specific site was chosen over alternatives. Per RAO Jill Warner’s May 8, 2026 cover letter: “No records responsive to Item 7 were located.” There is no Alternative Site Analysis, no Coverage Objective study, and no carrier dead-zone analysis in the production. The full breakdown of that admission lives at /the-facts/loophole-kings and the full FOIL catalog is at /the-facts/foil-evidence.
We’ve filed a follow-up FOIL targeting the Verizon RFDS (Project ID 17326150) and any AT&T or T-Mobile RF studies. If those documents exist, NYSTA has not yet produced them. If they don’t exist, the public-exposure question for this tower has no documentary answer.
What’s Actually on the Tower — AT&T’s Equipment Manifest
The 93-document FOIL production includes Airosmith Engineering’s sealed Mount Analysis Report for AT&T (December 20, 2024). It documents every piece of antenna and radio hardware AT&T installed on the tower.
AT&T Equipment (Per Airosmith Mount Analysis, 12/20/2024)
| Qty | Equipment | Type / Band |
|---|---|---|
| 8× | Commscope NNH4-65C-R6H4 | Panel antennas |
| 4× | Ericsson AIR 6472 | Band 77 / C-band 5G |
| 4× | Ericsson 4490 | Bands 5 + 12 |
| 4× | Ericsson 4890 | Bands 25 + 66 / AWS |
| 4× | Ericsson 4494 | Band 14 / FirstNet — 1 of 4 Ericsson radio types |
| 3× | Raycap DC9-48-60-24-8C-EV | Surge protectors |
Plus T-Mobile and Verizon equipment (their RFDS documents are not in the FOIL production). The mount’s demand-capacity ratio under loaded condition: 71.4% (Pass).
The Full Licensed RF Spectrum — Per the FAA’s Own Filing
FAA 7460-1 Determination of No Hazard 2024-AEA-11624-OE, filed 11/12/2024 by Mitchell Henry (Phoenix Tower International), discloses every RF band that PTI applied to operate from this tower. The list is not on AT&T’s drawings — it is on the FAA aeronautical study.
Microwave Backhaul
- 6–7 GHz
- 10–11.7 GHz
- 17.7–19.7 GHz
- 21.2–23.6 GHz
- ERP up to 55 dBW
Cellular
- 614–698 MHz, 698–806 MHz
- 806–901 MHz, 901–941 MHz
- 1670–1675 MHz, 1710–1755 MHz
- 1850–2025 MHz, 2110–2200 MHz
- 2305–2360 MHz, 2496–2690 MHz
- ERPs up to 1640 W (PCS), 2000 W (700 MHz/WCS), 3500 W (paging)
Source: FAA 7460-1 Determination of No Hazard 2024-AEA-11624-OE
The “Emergency Services” Justification Is FirstNet Capability — One Band Among Many
Senator Ryan’s office relayed PTI’s claim that the tower is “intended to improve coverage for emergency service providers.” The 93-document FOIL response now documents what that actually means in hardware:
AT&T installed four Ericsson 4494 radios on Band 14 (FirstNet) — one of four Ericsson radio types on the tower. The other twelve Ericsson radios are commercial 5G/cellular. The eight Commscope panels carry both. There is no FirstNet-specific equipment package; there is FirstNet capability layered onto a commercial 5G build — standard AT&T practice on every tower they own equipment on.
Band 14 / FirstNet capability does not transform a commercial 5G site adjacent to R-O zoning into a public-safety-specific facility. It makes it a commercial 5G site that also supports FirstNet, like every other AT&T site. The honest framing: the “emergency services” justification was used to bypass scrutiny that no commercial 5G site in R-O residential-office zoning would normally pass. It is not a wholly fabricated claim. It is a materially overstated one.
The Federal Trap
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
Here's the part most people don't know: Federal law explicitly prohibits local governments from denying a cell tower based on "environmental effects of radio frequency emissions"—as long as the tower meets FCC guidelines.
That means even if you wanted to sue over health and radiation concerns, federal law is stacked against you protection, and it's baked into the law. In 1996, Congress even eliminated the EPA's funding for non-ionizing radiation research — removing the one federal agency that could have set science-based safety standards.
But the tide is turning. In 2021, the Environmental Health Trust won a landmark federal court case against the FCC. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the FCC's decision not to update its 1996 radiation exposure limits was "arbitrary and capricious" and ordered the Commission to explain why it ignored evidence of non-cancer harms, impacts to children, and environmental damage.
The fight isn't just about radiation—it's about transparency, due process, and the right of a community to be heard before a massive commercial structure is dropped in their neighborhood.
How We Fight Back
- 1Challenge the process: Was proper federal and state review actually completed?
- 2Demand transparency: Force disclosure of lease terms, radiation studies, and structural assessments.
- 3Push for legislation: New York State can close the NYSTA land loophole for future builds.
- 4Build political pressure: Elected officials respond to organized, vocal communities.
- 5Document everything: Every public meeting, every promise, every missed notification becomes evidence.
Why Silence Is Not an Option
If this tower goes unchallenged, it sets a precedent. It tells every telecom company that they can use state-owned land as a backdoor into any neighborhood in New York. Your community is next if Liverpool doesn't fight.
Let's Call It What It Is.
A company exploits a loophole in state land law. Sits on federal approval for over a year. Begins construction without notifying a single resident. Builds a 184-foot unlit tower 0.25 miles from an active landing corridor in a residential neighborhood.
This wasn't an oversight. This wasn't a clerical error. This wasn't a missed notification. At every single step, due diligence was skipped — not because it was forgotten, but because it was never intended.
This is what malicious intent looks like when it wears a corporate logo.
We're Not Alone
Communities across New York State and the country have been fighting back for years against towers just like this one.
In the News — This Is Happening Everywhere
Join your neighbors. Make your voice heard.