Monday, March 17, 2008

New Cell Phone Antenna Graces Henry Street Building

ice skating 474

This photo of 533 Henry Street (at President) was sent to us by a reader who is alarmed by the cell phone tower that has appeared on the front of the building. He writes:
I encountered a dangerous situation today at 553 Henry street. It looks as though they installed some new cell phone antennas on the roof. But here is where it gets good--not only did they do that they also went ahead and put a huge antenna directly on the facade of the building on the 4th story. Now this is pretty scary being we have many small children walking by the building everyday. Not only will this become an issue with a good storm but looking at it makes me nervous.
The tower was put up with a permit from the Department of Buildings.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, I saw this too when they were putting it up. There are so many of these in CG and beyond. Little silver crowns on top of even the cruddiest buildings in Chinatown. This building seems an odd choice ( not that tall) seeing how the antennae is right on the roof AND the facade. Really close to the apartments on the top floors. As you all know, each landlord is PAID BIG MONEY to have these things with no kick back to tenants except radioactivity or radio waves or whatever. these things suck. Can you hear me NOW??

8:06 AM  
Blogger Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq. said...

Anon, et al:

The reason why antennas are mounted on relatively short building is that the system capacity demands required limiting, not expanding, the area served by each cell site. This is a common design, albeit a bit unusual to see it on a pole mount affixed to a building facade.

As for the issue of RF emissions, those are regulated by Congress which has delegated sole national authority to the FCC to set the standards. If they emissions meet the FCC criteria, then the site cannot be denied because of RF "radioactivity" (which, by the way, isn't the Cell and PCS frequencies, the emissions are non-ionizing, therefore not radioactive).

Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer Telecom Law Firm, PC
Los Angeles, California
CelluarPCS Gallery

PS: Before you start yelling that I work for the industry and therefore am biased, do your homework. You'll find that I work for governments. jlk

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha, No, just happy to get some info. They still are ugly and how do you know that over time kids aren't gonna sprout third arms or something. And, you are in LA. THIS is NYC...crumbling stucco and a bolted antennea isn't a good idea. But, thanks!!

7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cool, I do see more bars on my cellphone! :)

Another "Oh my" comment: the probability to get hit by a loose antenna is about the same as Mozela bakery accepting credit card ;)

7:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's "Mazola."

11:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you look diagonally across from that building you will notice another site with way more antennas (most of them you can't even see from the sidewalk). It is highly concerning.
Who wants to discover a few years from now, that they (or their children) have a fatal illness due to radio waves. Maybe the guy who likes more bars...
It is Mazzola!

1:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home