This so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) in Sacramento (https://bit.ly/3pNFQug) sickened both the 3-year old and 6-year old girls, whose bedroom was over the garage.
- View video testimony by the six year old here → https://youtu.be/slRB5W5WJ7c?t=220),
- We made a 36-hour average RF-EMR reading of 58,000 µW/m² which translates to -10 dBm (see https://ourtownourchoice.org/wewantit/#signal).
- In a flat topography like Sacramento, with no tall trees or tall houses in the way, the signal travels at least three (3) miles before it degrades to -125 dBm, where one can still make a phone call, but the industry considers to be poor coverage.
Call To Action
Go to this link for NEPA Strategies for your City or County
Go to this link for OSHA Strategies for your City or County
Go to this link for COVID-19 Community Spread Strategies for your City or County
| Densified 4G and 5G CPMRAs Discussed in Maui County | Being Forced to Drink Beakers of 4G/5G Poison | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correction: NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act | FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guideline is NOT a safety standard, just a commercial guideline | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Call to Action: The following testimony from Attorney Edward B. Myers, an intervenor in Case 18-1129, was delivered at an 11/19/19 hearing in Montgomery County, Maryland and in an 11/20/19 San Francisco hearing — and is the basis for a call to action. We suggest you contact an attorney to get him/her to write a letter to your city or county.
Donate to Fund the IRREGULATORS v. FCC Law Suit at https://bit.ly/2Ckm0iO Learn more at http://mystreetmychoice.com/, http://mdsafetech.org/ and http://ourtownourchoice.org/ Learn more here: https://bit.ly/2NVOi8J |
The FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure Guideline for pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures is, unbelievably, based on only the RATE of exposure, NOT the TOTAL DOSE of poison delivered over time. This has been a scam since day one. The 1986 NCRP Review, used to justify this nonsense, defined both Specific Absorption (the total DOSE of radiation in Joules) and Specific Absorption Rate (the RATE of radiation exposure in Watts). For the FCC MPE RF-EMR exposure guideline, the NCRP picked the latter because “it was easier to measure.” . . . right . . . (head slap!). Power Density and SAR Thresholds for Behavioral DisruptionThis, unbelievably, is the basis for our National RF-EMR Exposure Guidelines
Legend
What was the “Behavioral Disruption?”
|
From Case 18-1129, page 7:
“Congress enacted NEPA to ‘encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment’ and ‘promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man,’ among other purposes. Title 42 U.S.C. §4321.”
Corrections/Clarifications From Videos, Above
- Correction —> National Environmental Policy Act
- Correction —> Natural Resources Defense Council
- Corrections —> We are going to put that
Ruling[Order] aside - Corrections —> We don’t want the states to
preempt[pass any state laws to regulate] anything about the Internet - Corrections —> We’re having to allow you to put in some
small cells[Wireless Telecommunications Facilities] if you have a significant gap in coverage - Corrections —> All that fiber optic that has existed for years and years . . . it’s
public property[the property of a State Public Telecom Utility]
Case 18-1129 Details
- Link to Ruling for United Keetoowah et al. v. FCC
- Link to Edward B. Myers Brief in Case 18-1129
-
Petitioners:
- United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians In Oklahoma, Individually,
- On Behalf Of All Other Native American Indian Tribes,
- Tribal Organizations, et al.
-
Intervenors:
- National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, et al.
- Sharon Buccino argued the cause for petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and intervenor Edward B. Myers.
| Densified 4G and 5G in Maui County: Public Comment and Introduction |
Densified 4G and 5G in Maui County: Q &A |
|---|---|
November, 2019 Introduction to San Francisco, CA
Testimony Delivered in San Francisco on Nov 20, 2019
Paul M Testimony at 0:55 in the video
(https://youtu.be/IKEtqSRmt1g?t=55s)
"Hi, my name is Paul M. I’m here to talk to you about the case 18-1129 that was decided on August 9th of 2019. That was the case that had some Native American tribes plus some significant intervenors. One intervenor lives in Montgomery County, Maryland and the case also attracted the Natural Resources Defense Council. This was about an FCC Order (18-30) that was trying to skirt National Environmental Policy Act review, NEPA, and they were caught.
The judges didn’t buy the argument. They didn’t believe that these things were small or that an 800,000-unit nationwide rollout was not impactful to the environment. And so they found the FCC Order arbitrary and capricious and therefore vacated that portion of the Order — to make it unlawful.
Well, the Wireless Industry actually licenses its frequencies from the federal government. That makes every single small cell in San Francisco part of a federal undertaking. And we heard from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that, at this point, every Small Wireless Facility application needs to have a completed environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in order to go forward.
I’ve been listening to the tapes of this SF Board of Appeals for many, many weeks. You’ve been seeking some way to say "how do we stop this?". This is exactly how you do it. You follow the DC Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling and you say. "Excuse me, until we have substantial written evidence in the public record that such a EA/EIS review has happened by the Wireless industry and/or the FCC then every application is now deemed incomplete."
It takes a simple letter from the SF Department of Public Works to every applicant and their agent. You can do that tonight. You could actually inform the applicants and the agents here tonight. There is no need to hear any of these appeals because now everything must stop."
President Swig Comment at 6:33 in the video:
(https://youtu.be/IKEtqSRmt1g?t=5m42s)
Madame Executive Director, could you please remind the Department of Health that they made a commitment to us several months ago about an update on the 2010 commentary on the dangers of, or not, of cell phone and wireless communications. They made the commitment to have that report to us some time I believe in early December. Would you please let them know that we are anxiously and probably other members of the public, I’m going to make that big leap of faith, that we are all anxious to receive their report as they promised.
Julie Rosenberg Comment
Thank you. Any other commissioner comments, questions? Is there any public comment on that item? [Off mic] Okay. Please approach.
Paul M Testimony at 6:33 in the video:
(https://youtu.be/IKEtqSRmt1g?t=6m33s)
I did speak to Dr. Tomas Aragon on October 22 and again yesterday by phone. Later, I can share with you and I gave you an e-mail today, it’s in your packets, it’s on the dais, a list of all the people that we asked him to get in touch with. These are experts in the field. He’s reached out to two of our list. There’s actually eight more.
And so we are asking him to do the due diligence that is required before he revises this letter. We are expecting that he may actually have to take another week in December to get it done. But we have very carefully gone through the 2010 memo and we have given him contravening evidence to pretty much dispel most of that memo, so that now he has the duty to look at the science as it is now and to talk to the experts that we provided, to then put his professional judgment — not his political issues but his professional judgment — on his medical determination. We expect that to happen in early December. Thank you.
Testimony from Attorney Edward B. Myers at 20:55 in the video
(https://youtu.be/IKEtqSRmt1g?t=20m55s)
Testimony delivered at 11/19/19 hearing in Montgomery County, Maryland and again in San Francisco on 11/20/19 (read by Helen Grieco)
"I am an attorney and was an intervenor in the DC Circuit Case 18-1129. I worked closely with the Natural Resources Defense Council on the briefs filed with the Court. My reading of the Court decision is summarized in the following:
The Federal Communications Commission issued a rulemaking order on March 30, 2018 to expedite the deployment of Densified 4G/5G and other advanced wireless facilities (what the FCC called “small cell” facilities). The FCC’s order exempted all of these 4G/5G facilities from two kinds of previously required review: historic-preservation review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
On August 9, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the FCC’s rulemaking order. The legal effect of vacating the FCC’s rule necessarily means that the prior rule was reinstated and any actions taken on the basis of the vacated rule have to be reconsidered under the terms of the prior rule.
The prior rule required the FCC to apply NEPA to the construction of 4G/5G facilities. Consequently, it is not lawful for any such facilities to be constructed without prior NEPA review. While other actions of Congress and the FCC have attempted to circumscribe local authority over the construction of Densified 4G/5G facilities, in light of the Court’s decision, the localities are, nevertheless, within their rights to require the sponsors of Densified 4G/5G facilities to provide evidence that the FCC has conducted a NEPA review prior to approving any request for construction.
Moreover, inasmuch as the Court’s decision vacated the FCC’s rule, the decision applies nationwide and its effect is not limited to the District of Columbia."
Paul M Testimony at 22:50 in the video
(https://youtu.be/IKEtqSRmt1g?t=22m50s):
I’m going to finish the testimony that was from Noah Davidson because the conclusions are very important for San Francisco and please excuse my voice, I have a little bit of a cold.
"Although small cell antennas use less power than macro sites, exposure from small cells can be much higher in residences and other areas where people are, because the antennas are much closer to those areas."
They essentially are putting the same macro tower antennas and radios literally — in San Francisco — 6 to 12 feet [from residences]. RF Engineer, hired by the cities of Sonoma and Napa, Lee Afflerbach, made it known in the public record [on 9/12/19] — it’s the same equipment. So that is the problem. you have three variables that you have to jigger to figure out what you are going to do to get out of the box. You got vertical offset — how many feet off the ground is the antenna; horizontal offset — how far away is it from people; and then you got the maximum power output level. That is the one that is completely under your control. And all you need to do is provide enough maximum power output for the things the FCC has preemption for. That’s only voice calls.
The FCC in October 1st had upheld in the DC Circuit that they no longer regulate the internet. They stepped back. They pulled their own teeth. They have no preemption for data frequencies. Only voice frequencies. And it only needs less than.04 watts from the shroud of the antenna. That will do it. That will get you coverage half a mile down the street, that will get you five bars on a cell phone and that will not endanger your people. The problem is, the small cell antenna at 2620 Laguna is 7,000 watts of Effective Radiated Power — 7,000 Watts! I measured today; I went around. Next public comment, I will tell you what I found.
Attorney Ingrid Evans Testimony at 24:55 in the video
(https://youtu.be/IKEtqSRmt1g?t=24m55s):
Good evening Board Members, Ingrid Evans. I wanted to say that apellants to the next appeal 18-WR0185 join in the arguments in briefing by Ms. Roxanne Stachon as specifically Evans, Klein and Patel. I would also like to add that this case that came up earlier, the United Keetowah vs the FCC case, which was recently decided by the DC Circuit is very instrumental here and I think it is going to change the game on this and I think it is something to which the Board should pay attention. It is going to be required that these small cell towers and these wireless permits be required to do an Environmental Impact and that is something that should be done. I would request that all of these permits be delayed until DPH has gotten back to you on the health effects and an environmental impact study has been done. Thank you."
Lee Afflerbach Testimony at 1:29:24 in the video
(https://youtu.be/IKEtqSRmt1g?t=1h29m24s)
Testimony delivered at 9/12/19 hearing in City of Sonoma, CA and again in San Francisco on 11/20/19 (read by Helen Grieco)
Lee Afflerbach states in the video at 3:10:24: https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h10m24s
“To get around the capacity issue — it’s because so many people are [wirelessly] streaming video and other services like that, they [Verizon] have to have multiple sources for this. That’s why we have the smaller cells because each [small] cell is capable of almost putting out the same energy as one macro cell.”
Lee Afflerbach states in the video at 3:13:22: https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h13m22s
“One of the things the industry is doing is beefing up 4G . . . I have reviewed several hundred of these small cells the last year, year and a half, and they are all 4G equivalent. The radios that they are using are the exact same radios that are up on the macro towers. It’s not a different technology . . . the same boxes as on macro towers. I see them all the time.”
Paul M Testimony at 1:31:43 in the video
(https://youtu.be/IKEtqSRmt1g?t=1h31m43s)
I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge. You are getting a slick sales job by the Wireless Industry. I hope you can actually figure out the real answer here. These people are telling you things that are not true. I’m here to tell you we have already put into the public record — you have here the actual Case 18-1129, the Keetowah v FCC case. It was not just tribes. It was also intervenors that were fully recognized. And those people live in neighborhoods, Montgomery County, Maryland. And that ruling applies to the entire United States — upheld by the judges, by the DC Cicuit Court of Appeals.
The wireless industry is being painted into a corner. They don’t like it; they are desperate. They are going to tell you whatever story they want to tell you. Read the case. That’s all you need to do. It’s in your public record.
What else I’m saying to you is that you are also being misinformed about all these things about, oh, guess what, if you are compliant with an FCC RF-EMR exposure guideline, that implies safety . . . It does not.
You can’t get binders like this. You can’t get people getting injured after two weeks of exposure in Sacramento where they have to move the kids out of the front room into a back room and shield the house and spend thousands of dollars just to protect themselves . . . and then get Verizon in a room last Thursday with five representatives to figure out how they are going to fix the problem . . . quietly.
This is a real problem. People are really getting sick across the United States right now. And all you have to do is look at the actual information. It’s all in your public record. You have it now. And you have every reason to support all of these appeals tonight, waiting for the NEPA environmental assessment. NEPA is higher than CEQA.
Come on, folks. Take the ring, do something for your people. You got your out. You don’t have to wait for the Department of Health. You got what you need from the DC Circuit of Appeals. Yet you rubber stamp ’em, rubber stamp ’em, and rubber stamp ’em.
What are you doing?
November, 2019 Introduction to Thousand Oaks, CA
Nov 18, 2019 City of Thousand Oaks Planning Commission — Wireless Telecommunications Facility Appeal by Prof. Trevor Marshall
Thousand Oaks is a unique place to live, We live in one of the largest Biotech clusters in the World, we have microwave expertise from think-tanks like Teledyne, along with experts from just about every other Scientific discipline. This Planning Commission has available to it a staggering range of community expertise.
So far, 2,816 Thousand Oaks citizens have signed their names and addresses to the change.org petition entitled Stop Radiation-emitting Cell Sites in Neighborhoods which oppose more cell towers in this city because the are unnecessary and dangerous. Many Licensed Physicians have told you that your actions in placing cell-sites close to areas needed for living and shopping are risking our community’s health. Yet, the City of Thousand Oaks continues to approve towers and ‘upgrades’ at sites which are most definitely ruining the quiet enjoyment of streets in Thousand Oaks.
That quiet enjoyment is protected by federal laws such as Fair Housing in the 1968 Civil Rights Act and was upheld as part of the City’s police powers to regulate aesthetics with regard to siting Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). See April 4, 2019 Ruling: T-Mobile v San Francisco.
On March 5th, the City Council was advised by Dr. Kramer that non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation cannot cause "DNA change." Yet this city knows our Biotech is getting FDA approvals for treatments using this same radiation to treat cancers and other human disease. These FDA approvals have put to rest any notion that non-ionizing RF microwave radiation does not cause profound biological changes, both good and bad.bad and good.
Nobody from the City Staff, nor the Planning Commission, has called me to discuss any of the issues I raised in my appeal.
For the record, the City’s Staff report, dated yesterday, doesn’t properly address any of the issues I raised, and it makes some significant mistakes.
The overall problem with the Staff reasoning is that they seem to be living in the past, relying on outdated rationale. My appeal documented the landscape significantly changed on August 9, 2019, when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a Ruling that the FCC had to demonstrate the planned 800,000-unit so-called "Small Cell" deployment must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Further, the DC Circuit judges made it clear that considerations of Human Health have to be taken into account in the NEPA analysis, and chastised the FCC for not having adequately upgraded its radiation guidelines.
Then, on October 1,2019, the DC Circuit made it ABSOLUTELY clear that the FCC was over-reaching its authority when attempting to subjugate State and City environmental considerations, specifically:
"because the Commission’s Preemption Directive .. lies beyond its authority, we vacate the portion of the 2018 Order purporting to preempt ‘any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with [the Commission’s] deregulatory approach’ ”
The DC Circuit thus reminded the FCC that the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA) does not confer broad state and local preemption authority. Indeed, an October 2000 FCC docket (WT 99-217) expressly disclaimed any attempt to preempt local authority for making decisions on human health.
According to my reading of Case 18-1129 — see https://bit.ly/2qctWAi which has links to the Ruling and the briefs — a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its unanimous ruling writing that FCC Order 18-30:
“does not justify the Commission’s determination that it was not in the public interest to require review of small cell deployments. In particular, the Commission failed to justify its confidence that small cell deployments pose little to no cognizable . . . environmental risk, particularly given the vast number of proposed deployments and the reality that the Order will principally affect small cells that require new construction.”
The following three points show that the 8/9/19 Ruling applies to the entire United States:
-
The judges fully recognized the intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Edward B. Myers: the judges ruled against the FCC and Ruled for the Plaintiffs and the Intervenors. Myers lives in a residential neighborhood in Montgomery County, MD — not on tribal lands.
-
The judges did not buy the Wireless Industry/FCC "spin" that installing 800,000 CPMRA-WTFs across the country would be inconsequential to the environment. All one needs to do is listen to Professional Engineer Lee Afflerbach talk on the Sonoma Public record on 9/12/19 (see Appendix B). The 800,000-unit plan is not just for tribal lands; the plan is for the entire United States.
-
Every single one of the planned 800,000 nationwide 4G/5G densification installations is a part of a federal undertaking because the Wireless Carriers license their frequencies from the Federal Government.
Therefore, Thousand Oaks (and all other US counties and cities) must immediately declare any so-called "Small Wireless Facility" applications that they currently have or will receive in the future as INCOMPLETE UNTIL the applicant can place, into the public record, substantial written evidence that the DC Circuit Court-mandated EA/EIS has been completed.
In an attempt to answer the points from the DC Circuit decisions which I raised in my appeal, the Staff Report attempts to dismiss them:
"Appellant’s sixth basis of his appeal is nonsensical. City is aware of a decision in United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians .. vs FCC .. however, the decision on said case does not have any bearing on the subject project nor factors the Planning Commission should rely upon in making a decision."
This is contradicted by the intervenor himself, Edward B. Myers, in his public testimony that was entered into the Montgomery County, MD public record:
I am an attorney and was an "intervenor" in the DC Circuit Case 18-1129 along with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Federal Communications Commission issued a rulemaking order on March 30, 2018 to expedite the deployment of Densified 4G/5G and other advanced wireless facilities (what the FCC called “small wireless” facilities). The FCC’s order exempted all of these 4G/5G facilities from two kinds of previously required review: historic-preservation review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
On August 9, 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the FCC’s rulemaking order. The legal effect of vacating the FCC’s rule necessarily means that the prior rule was reinstated and any actions taken on the basis of the vacated rule have to be reconsidered under the terms of the prior rule.
The prior rule required the FCC to apply NEPA to the construction of 5G facilities. Consequently, it is not lawful for any such facilities to be constructed without prior NEPA review.
Any City or County is within its rights to require the sponsors of Densified 4G/5G facilities to provide evidence that the sponsors and/or FCC has conducted a NEPA Environmantal Assessment prior to approving any request for construction.
In addition, inasmuch as the Court’s decision vacated the FCC’s rule, the decision applies nationwide and its effect is not limited to the District of Columbia.
To cut through all the legalese in the August 9th Ruling, I cite FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel’s August 9, 2019 tweet:
"BREAKING: The Court just vacated a large part of the @FCC’s 5G deployment strategy. For those paying attention, this means that the agency tasked with the future of connectivity didn’t get it right. It is time to go back to the drawing board and do better"
That is exactly what I explained in my appeal. The ground-rules have changed. Yet, the City of Thousand Oaks just keeps ploughing forward as if nothing has happened, recklessly torturing our citizens with chronic disease and killing them with cancers. So, to help the City Staff, I have written a simplified summary.
-
The FCC has been defanged. A "large part of" its regulations have been struck down. Until you know what NEPA issues currently have to be considered, and until you know what FCC regulations are still in force, you need to be very
realcareful when you decide to injure residents by allowing potentially non-conforming tower operations. -
The City of Thousand Oaks continues to shirk its responsibilities under the "Americans with Disabilities Act" and the "1968 Civil Rights Act" (Fair Housing). This City has the capability and the duty to comply with the ADA and Fair Housing Acts. The City of Thousand Oaks is blindly follow Telecom REGULATIONS which are NOT LAWs passed by our elected representatives. FCC Regulations are just rules that must be consistent with the underlying law(s): the 1934 Communications Act, the 1996 Telecommunications Act and 2012 Spectrum Act (about 300 words known as Section 6409(a)). We just saw the DC Circuit rule that "a large part of" those FCC regulations actually violate the law.
No attempt was made to discuss the appeal issues with me. Thus, the only recourse allowed by the staff report is an action in a Court of law. Well, I already know of four law firms which are preparing actions against the City on the issues before us tonight, plus the California Dept of Fair Employment and Housing, along with the Department of Justice.
What saddens me is that over the next few years this City faces millions of dollars to relocate and compensate hundreds, perhaps thousands, of residents who are being made sick by the haphazard 4G/5G build-out. Even the bees are being killed by these 4G/5G installations.
Why won’t the City acknowledge that there is a problem, and discuss how to fix it?
There is nothing magical about Electromagnetic Sensitivity. Some people burn easily in the sun, and they have to use sunscreen to protect themselves when they have to work outside. We need to reduce electromagnetic exposure levels so that those who are EM sensitive can also protect themselves.
The DC Circuit told the FCC that "Radiofrequency radiation" was something which had to be examined in all NEPA analyses, and that the BioInitiative Working Group, a group of Scientists and Physicians with which I am affiliated, are relevant when examining NEPA compliance.
The ‘BioInitiative’ identified a safety standard based on 3,800 peer-reviewed studies. We identified -37dBm as a level of exposure above which studies have shown that humans have been made ill, and -47dBm which should be used as a precautionary level. This ‘safe’ level is still 10,000 times stronger than the signal needed to give 5 bars of signal strength on a cell phone.
Remember that in California, ‘joint and several liability’ makes a 1% liability contributor carry 100% of financial responsibility from a loss in the case of insolvency. In this case, if the city continues to accept the Industry’s § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) fiction, then insolvency of the TELCO is not even necessary, as the TELCO would likely use the City’s error to deny any liability. Thus, all financial burdens from cellular injury are shifted to the taxpayers. That is what the Planning Commission is risking today. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars in compensation and legal fees.
Residents have come forward at Council meetings, and at Planning meetings, to let the City know they are being sickened and disabled by the radiation in our city, by the antennas near their homes, by antennas hidden in Church steeples, in the fascias of grocery stores, and even hidden on the top of light poles and traffic lights as we walk or drive through our city. Licensed Physicians have certified that Electromagnetic Sensitivity contributes to these residents’ suffering. Yet the City continues to ignore both residents and their physicians. That is a clear example of nonsensical action.
I recommend that the Planning Commission continue this hearing to a future date, as we all need more than one working day to responsibly consider the huge pile of documents and issues placed before us this evening.
Sincerely, Professor Trevor Marshall, ME, PhD,SMIEEE Director, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, Thousand Oaks, California Fellow,European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine (Brussels) International Advisory Committee, Autoimmunity 2018, Lisbon
Appendix A
Text of thousand Oaks change.org petition
Cell phone companies with paid-for support from the FCC through their lobbyists are "railroading" dangerous cell phone sites into our neighborhoods to deliver 4G networks now and 5G networks in a couple of years. 4G sites emit dangerous levels of radiation (RF radiation); 5G sites will emit much more intense radiation and will be closer to your home.
The City of Thousand Oaks had adopted an ordinance/approach that lets wireless companies select the cheapest and most convenient sites for their towers – often in residential neighborhoods. The city council is accepting a bogus fact that they are beholden to FCC regulations over the safety of their citizens. There are safer alternative sites but our elected officials capitulate to the demands of cell phone companies. The city council’s primary job is to protect its residents!
Radiation studies relied on by the FCC are from the 90s – when cell phones were only used for voice calls. Further, there are no studies of 5G radiation proving it is safe. Radiation is invisible, city laws, commissioners and elected officials are not prepared to deal with it.
If we let this happen the results will make people sick. There are numerous studies to get educated on the effects RF radiation. Please help us stop the cell tower invasion into all our neighborhoods. Your community, family members, especially children and the elderly, need your help.
Appendix B
View these comments by a Principal Engineer hired by many cities to advise them (Monterey, Sonoma and Napa come to mind):
Lee Afflerbach states in the video at 3:10:24: https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h10m24s
“To get around the capacity issue — it’s because so many people are [wirelessly] streaming video and other services like that, they [Verizon] have to have multiple sources for this. That’s why we have the smaller cells because each [small] cell is capable of almost putting out the same energy as one macro cell.”
Another commissioner asked the question “Is the higher frequency 4G always deployed by small cell or is it deployed by typical macro tower?”
Lee Afflerbach states in the video at 3:13:22: https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h13m22s
“Typically the older Macro cells are being reconfigured to add the new spectrum and are being filled in with by technology…one of the things the industry is doing is beefing up 4G . . . I have reviewed, my staff has probably reviewed several hundred of these small cells the last year, year and a half, and they are all 4G equivalent. The radios that they are using are the exact same radios that are up on the macro towers. It’s not a different technology . . . the same boxes as on macro towers. I see them all the time.”