Residents concerned about the possible health effects of a new cell phone tower are launching an appeal to stop it being put up.

A bid by Digicel to put a mobile cell tower at 49 South Road, Devonshire, was approved by the Development Applications Board (DAB) last month.

More than 230 objections were received by the Department of Planning against the installation — a movable cell site on wheels with a 65-foot antenna capable of extending to 100ft.

Nicole Renaud, a mother representing local residents, said they now intended to appeal the decision to approve the tower.

She said they would be collecting signatures for a petition against the tower at Lindo’s in Devonshire tomorrow (WED).

Anyone who would like to sign the petition or learn more about their concerns is encouraged to stop by.

Mrs Renaud said she and others had canvassed the area before the tower was approved and only a handful of people did not sign their objection letter.

“Only one person said he wouldn’t mind having the tower on his own roof as he doesn’t have good service — one out of 230 people,” she said.

“There have been numerous studies which have produced evidence that emissions from radiofrequency (RF) radiation are harmful. Research also shows that cell towers negatively affect property value.

“Are we willing to take the chance and allow towers to be erected in our neighbourhoods causing 24/7 radiation exposure to those living nearby and possibly decrease the value of our homes, the biggest investment for many Bermudians?

“We’re not anti-technology, it can be used for great purposes, but people need to be aware of what comes along with these devices.

“Owning a cell phone is a choice. Having a cell tower put next to your home is not. Do the research and educate yourselves. We must say no.”

A local doctor also raised concerns about the possible health risks of radiation from cell phone towers.

The specialist, who asked not to be named, said there were already too many wireless antenna that were emitting radiation across the Island, and that this could potentially be harmful to residents.

“It could well result in poor well-being and health for the women and children exposed to a radiation-emitting antenna,” the doctor said. “Placing this close to homes can only be considered as a disregard for Bermudian families’ health. No radiation is safe for any baby in utero.

“Perhaps telecoms companies might find an alternative, like fibre-optic cabling, to help lower the existing tower-to-tower radiation levels.”

A review by the Department of Health stated that the estimated radio frequency emissions from the tower would be 130 times less than the maximum permitted exposure limit as set out by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These guidelines are used in Bermuda in the absence of local regulations.

“The concerns of objectors, specifically as they relate to potential ‘non-thermal’ health effects have also been raised in many countries throughout the world … the consensus view is that there is no convincing evidence they cause adverse health effects and research is ongoing where gaps remain,” the report states, adding that the nearest residential building outside of the property is 208 feet from the base of the tower.

But the concerned doctor said there were valid potential health risks from wireless antenna.

“We are advocating for protecting women’s and children’s health, demanding no more towers,” the medic said. “There are already far too many towers in Bermuda emitting far too much radiation for health.

“If fibre-optic costs more, it is well worth it for the health of our babies and their mothers — for our families’ health.”

The doctor pointed to research projects on the effects of radiation and the risks of electromagnetic fields.

A scientific panel in Norway in 2009 discussed EMF risks and the public health implications and agreed that “the elderly, ill, genetically and/or immunologically challenged, children and foetuses may be additionally vulnerable to health risks; their exposures are largely involuntary”.

Last year, Dr Martha Herbert, an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and a paediatric neurologist and neuroscientist at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and Cindy Sage, an environmental consultant and public policy researcher, released research into possible links between autism spectrum conditions (ASCs), electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures.

The two-part paper, Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a Pathophysiological Link, states that “disruption of fertility and reproduction associated with EMF/RFR may also be related to the increasing incidence of ASCs”.

One resident of Devonshire Bay contacted The Royal Gazette to voice his support for the controversial tower.

“I’m constantly using my cell phone for work and there’s barely any signal in my neighbourhood — it’s a constant headache,” said the father of one, who asked not to be named.

“Cell towers have a bad reputation but if you look at where this thing is planned it’s a long way from anybody’s house.

“People are being completely over the top with these knee-jerk concerns about radiation.”

A spokeswoman for Digicel Bermuda said they did not wish to comment on the tower or the residents’ plans to appeal.

After a hearing last month at which objectors raised concerns with the DAB, Digicel Bermuda chief executive Alistair Beak said the tower was safe and necessary to remedy weak phone reception.

“The Department of Health had no objections to the planned site after conducting a full review,” he said at the time. “Although health concerns were repeatedly raised, the site will operate at levels 130 times lower than USA Federal Communications Commission guidelines.

“The location of the tower itself is well hidden, which will minimise the visual impact on the surrounding area.”

The Department of Planning did not comment on the residents’ plan to appeal.

“Decisions on the grant or refusal of planning permission are made by the Board, not the Department,” a spokeswoman said.

The Department of Health and Bermuda Regulatory Authority were asked whether regulators monitored the radioactivity levels from these towers.

“No radioactivity is emitted from these towers,” a spokeswoman said on behalf of both bodies. “Radio fields are non-ionising electromagnetic waves.

“For any tower application submitted to the Department of Planning, the Regulatory Authority is consulted.

“The installation is inspected and monitored by the Regulatory Authority and must comply with the FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields to be granted approval.

“There is an occupational standard in the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 2009 and (the relevant) employers have a duty to comply with Health Canada Safety code 6. Compliance with SC6 not only protects staff working on RF towers but also protects the general public.”

A spokesman for the Department of Telecommunications said neither they nor Government received money from telecoms companies for cell towers.