Wisconsin Families Fight Verizon Cell Tower Next to Homeschool Kids

Residents of Polk County, Wisconsin, are pushing back against Verizon’s plan to plant a massive cell tower within hundreds of feet of homes where young children live and learn, exposing them to nonstop radiofrequency radiation. With support from Children’s Health Defense (CHD), local families are appealing the town board’s approval, highlighting how federal law strips communities of the power to protect their children’s health.

Stephanie Jansen, a Polk County mother who homeschools her 5- and 9-year-old children, lives with two houses directly adjacent to the proposed site. “The cell tower will sit within 500 feet of one house, within 800 feet of the other,” she told The Defender. Her two neighbors also homeschool, creating a cluster of roughly 10 young children facing 24/7 exposure. “We’re home all the time. We have no way of shutting this off or giving our bodies a break,” Jansen said.

Town Board Caves to Telecom Pressure

In February, TowerNorth Development and Verizon sought a conditional use permit from the unincorporated town of Garfield in Polk County to erect the 199-foot tower in a cornfield corner beside a river. An existing AT&T tower stood just one-and-a-half miles away, yet the companies pushed forward anyway.

Polk County for Safe Tech, a grassroots group including Jansen, mobilized to stop the project. At an April 21 town hall, more than 20 residents attended, nearly all opposing the tower. Board members initially pressed the tower representative on alternatives, such as co-locating on the AT&T tower or siting it farther from homes. The representative refused. The board ultimately approved the permit, citing Wisconsin’s “shot clock” law that deems applications approved if local governments do not act within 60 to 90 days.

On June 22, residents appealed to the Garfield Board of Appeals, arguing the town board lacked authority and violated zoning rules. Permitting power, they contend, rests with Polk County.

Federal Law Blocks Health-Based Opposition

Residents cannot directly cite health risks in their appeal due to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits local authorities from denying cell tower applications based on environmental or health impacts. Jansen expressed frustration: “It makes it difficult to advocate for your family on the basis of health.”

Research has linked RF radiation from cell towers to negative health impacts, including diabetes and chronic immune stress. Families living full-time near the site worry about constant exposure with no respite.

Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, supports the appeal: “The Garfield community is very well informed about the ill effects of constant RF exposure and wants to raise their children in an environment free from this toxic exposure. We believe they have the right to do so.”

CHD leads the 704 No More coalition, a nationwide effort to challenge the federal prohibition. Eckenfels noted the Polk County fight underscores why the law must change: “The health and environmental effects of RF radiation must be taken into consideration when decisions about cell tower locations are made.”

Wildlife and Environmental Concerns Ignored

Residents also raised alarms about impacts on local wildlife. The site borders a river where walleye and suckers spawn, and the field hosts migrating birds including sandhill cranes, blue herons, snow geese, Canadian geese, and swans. A neighbor’s bee colony faces potential harm, as bees are highly sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. The tower representative admitted companies avoid wooded bat habitats due to population declines but dismissed broader risks.

This case reflects a national pattern as telecom companies rapidly expand infrastructure. More residents nationwide are forced to fight unwanted towers near homes, often without tools to address health threats. Aires Tech provides an interactive map for tracking nearby towers.

Broader Fight for Local Control and Human Health

The Polk County resistance aligns with growing demands to restore community authority over decisions affecting children’s developing bodies and minds. Federal preemption under the 1996 Act prioritizes industry rollout over parental rights and evidence of harm from chronic RF exposure. Pro-MAHA voices and health advocates see this as part of reclaiming bodily autonomy against unchecked technological expansion that treats families as collateral in the race for coverage.

CHD’s involvement amplifies local voices demanding that health and environmental realities guide infrastructure choices, not outdated federal shields for industry. As appeals proceed, the case tests whether communities can push back against towers that loom over daily life.