Marin County

5G Technology Workshop Coming Up In Marin County

Adapted from an article by Susan C. Schena Jan 29, 2019 7:30 pm ET | Original article here.

Give your input, express your awareness of the downsides of extreme density 4G and 5Gm wireless infrastructure in residential neighborhoods and learn more about how the fifth-generation cellular wireless technology will affect your safety, privacy and property values (http://mystreetmychoice.com/).

SAN RAFAEL, CA – A public workshop, planned next week for Marin County residents, will focus on fifth-generation cellular wireless technology – commonly called 5G [which is actually a series of extreme density 4G and 5G Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas and 28-cubic feet of additional equipment installed on light poles and utility poles in front of homes] – which soon will be implemented in many areas of the world [except in cities that protect themselves with effective local ordinances], with the first 5G cell phones expected to be released in 2020, according to officials.

The Marin County Board of Supervisors is seeking to hear from locals and discuss the pending technology at the upcoming session set for Tuesday, Feb 5 at 5:30 p.m. at the Marin County Civic Center in San Rafael.

The county [repeated the propaganda provided the AT&T, Verizon, the CTIA et al.]:

Each generation of cellular technology is defined by its transformative increase in speed and its incompatibility with the previous generation. Circa 1991, 2G introduced text messaging. In 1998, 3G introduced mobile applications, internet access and video calls. By 2008, 4G introduced high-definition and 3D video. As an example of 5G's enhanced speed and connectivity, a user could download an entire movie on a phone or mobile device within a few seconds.

The Marin County Community Development Agency (CDA) oversees the Marin County Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan, which regulates telecommunications equipment sites countywide, and that means the CDA will oversee local implementation of new equipment designed to deliver 5G service.

[So who is allowed to make presentations with slides? Will the public get equal time to make a presentation, like during a similar community Workshop in Napa — <http://mystreetmychoice.com/napa.html>?

At the workshop, supervisors will discuss possible emerging issues and potential amendments to the county's policies and regulations.

The county recently joined other public agencies in a court action against the federal ruling for 5G deployment, officials said, adding,

The county took the legal step to protest the Federal Communications Commission's seizing of local control on the deployment of 5G and how implementation costs can be recovered.

[More information here: http://scientists4wiredtech.com/regulation/ninth-circuit-case-repeal-of-fcc-18-133/]

From cell phone towers, cell phones send and receive signals which are a form of electromagnetic radiation known as radiofrequency (RF) energy, officials said The county noted that while RF energy is not as powerful or as damaging as X-rays or ultraviolet rays,

some scientific studies have suggested, however, that there may be increased health risks from exposure to RF energy.

[More information here: http://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/science/]

The 5G technology will require the installation of a greater number of smaller antennas because they have shorter range (less than 1,000 feet) compared with existing 4G, creating a potentially denser network of closely spaced antennas, Marin officials said. In most cases, 5G devices are affixed to existing light poles, utility poles and traffic light poles within the public right-of-way, including in residential districts, according to authorities.


Yet, Verizon itself says differently at https://youtu.be/FwAsr1pC13Q

Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon:

When [Verizon] went out in these 11 [5G test] markets, we tested for well over a year, so we could see every part of foliage and every storm that went through. We have now busted the myth that [5G frequencies] have to be line-of-sight — they do not. We busted the myth that foliage will shut [5G] down . . . that does not happen. And the 200 feet from a home? We are now designing the network for over 2,000 feet from transmitter to receiver.


To seek community engagement, the CDA created an online survey in December 2018 to measure support for and opposition to extreme density 4G and 5Gm wireless infrastructure in residential neighborhoods. More than 200 people took the survey as of late January, with 59 percent of respondents indicating support for new changes to wireless telecommunications if it would maintain or expand service, officials said.

The county noted, however, that 52 percent of respondents expressed at least moderate concern about the upgrades to wireless communication devices and exposure to electromagnetic fields.

The CDA survey will remain open online through March 31 at Open Marin. Results will be weighed by decision makers as they consider policy changes. CDA maintains a new webpage devoted to 5G, as well.

The California Department of Public Health has shared information about cell phone technology as it relates to health and included links to other key sources such as the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The February 5 workshop will be webcast live on www.marincounty.org and archived there for later viewing. The Board of Supervisors chamber is in Suite 330 of the Civic Center at 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael.

Residents may share thoughts on 5G with county officials through emails, letters or at public meetings.



Draft Text: Feb 21, 2019 @ 6:30 am, PT

RE: Limiting the Scope of Marin County's Financial Risk for Extreme Density 4G and 5G Infrastructure Litigation

Dear Supervisors

This is my third and final letter to the Board of Supervisors. My kindly intent is simply to respectfully let the Board, County Counsel and Marin County's professional administrative policy makers know about emerging factors in litigation arising from from Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation ('RF-EMR') exposures. If these factors are not skillfully addressed, they will threaten the solvency of the County.

Rather than complaining without suggested path, this letter offers a clearly defined strategy which is suggested as the safest course for minimizing litigation exposure. Maybe your won't like it, I'm just pitching the best I can. In addition to the overall strategy, I respectfully suggest actual listed defenses. I write to authenticate this advice. The County's safest course for limited litigation exposure is, contrary to instinct, to immediately adopt an emergency moratorium on 5G permits and installations, including installations alleged as collocation.

It was very decent of you to put on the Workshop to discuss the plans for the installation of extreme density 4G and 5G Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas ('CPMRAs') in Marin County 's communities. The turnout and messages showed readily that there is massive constituent objection to such densified 4G and 5G infrastructure in neighborhoods, particularly since these installations, in the words of Verizon itself are unnecessary, as Verizon admits that 4G and 5G antennas work well when collocated on existing macro cell towers.


A 2018 marketing video from Verizon Wireless (https://youtu.be/FwAsr1pC13Q) communicates that 5G can work effectively when 5G antennas are collocated high up on existing macro cell towers — which, of course, would be the least intrusive means to close any alleged significant gap in telecommunications coverage.

Lowell McAdam, Verizon CEO:

When [Verizon] went out in these 11 [5G test] markets, we tested for well over a year, so we could see every part of foliage and every storm that went through. We have now busted the myth that [5G frequencies] have to be line-of-sight — they do not. We busted the myth that foliage will shut [5G] down . . . that does not happen. And the 200 feet from a home? We are now designing the network for over 2,000 feet from transmitter to receiver.

Jason L., Verizon Field Engineer:

[Verizon 5G] is really high frequency [28,000 MHz and 39,000 MHz], so everybody thinks it doesn’t go very far, but it’s a really big pipe and so that’s what allows you to gain the super fast speeds . . We’re 3,000 feet away from our radio node. the cool thing about this is that we did not move the radio node. It’s pointing down to serve the customers in that area . . . here even 3,000 feet away, we’re still getting 1,000 Megabits per second speeds."


Now, consider the situation of an aircraft in climb-out, if due to excessive nose-high attitude, it has entered into aerodynamic stall or has progressed beyond that to a spin. Flat spins result in high energy contact with terrain unless the spin is interrupted.

The pilot's instinct, not wanting to crash to earth, is to pull back on the yoke, to keep the nose in the instinctively desired direction — pointed up hoping to get away from the approaching terrain. As you probably know, the actual procedure required to break out of an aerodynamic stall or resulting spin is to go against instinct and push the yoke forward to break the stall.

Based on clearly identifiable factors the current risk posture of the County of Marin resembles that of an aircraft in high stall at the edge of spin, instinct says pull back on that yoke labeled 'settlement,' but the terrain rushing up at the County is an endless array of ADA claims and other litigation if Marin voluntarily enters into a joint venture with the telecom industry, allowing them to merge 4G and 5G microwave saturation machinery with publicly-owned light poles, utility poles and other street furniture in the public rights-of-way. The term 'merge' is used here in the Doctrine of Fixtures context. Please avoid these RF-EMR and legal exposures.

The legal basis for Marin County's liability for Dangerous Condition of Public Property was presented in my letter to the Board dated February 4th and delivered to the offices of your Board on the morning of February 5th. That letter is incorporated herein as though more fully set forth. More explicitly, the County's risk comes from the math.

By The Numbers

After the Workshop, the responses to my letter exhibited profuse Astroturfing with a higher shill ratio than for poker at a Nevada casino. I avoided reading these, however my wife read a few troll-shots to me. One implied that I cared about my political chances, but that train left the station decades ago.

Another shill, in a nicely focused hit piece, said that since in a legislative submission . . .

  1. I claimed that the installation of extreme density 4G and 5G antennas presents national security impairments;
  2. I had once mentioned possible mass casualties in a 2017 letter opposing California Senate Bill 649 (the state's small cell deployment bill that was vetoed),

. . . that I must be an alarmist with claims to be laughed off.

As it was read to me, an erudite person responded on the national security issue with reference to the potential back doors in Huawei networking equipment. As to the term 'mass casualties,' that's just arithmetic.

Assume arguendo that three years from now 20 million in California will be under constant saturation from 4G and 5G RF-EMR exposures. Assume that only 3% of those people become symptomatic in the first half-dozen years of operation; that's 600,000 people, and conveniently using six years, in this example, works out to a hundred thousand people per year. A phrase describing 'possible mass casualties' was just arithmetically descriptive of what happens when even a small percentage of our very large population is harmed. I don't know what that percentage will be, nobody can know the future for sure and the three percent figure is used only for illustration here, although I personally believe it to be justified, including through the findings of Dr. Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. See the ÖRJAN HALLBERG AND GERD OBERFELD letter at Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25: 189—191, 2006. Please consider the situation in Marin, even using that same small percentage.

There are a quarter million people in Marin. The percentage of us who, in the future, will develop Electromagnetic Sensitivity ('EMS') and exhibit material, recognizable attributable symptoms is unknown. For arithmetic illustration only, not as a stated epidemiological conclusion, using the estimate of only 3% leads us to expect 7,500 Marin residents to be affected by microwave radiation sickness. And even if it's only one percent, that's 2,500 of our people.

The connection between RF-EMR exposures and the symptoms of microwave radiation sickness is well-established. The NIEHS' National Toxicology Program (NTP) $30 million study of proof of causation of cancers in rats from RF-EMR exposures was not surprising to professionals in this field, set, as it was, in the context of hundreds of other studies showing damage from RF-EMR exposures at levels far below that which would cause heating of tissue, which is the only effect addressed by the FCC's RF-EMR exposure guidelines (see the UCSD School of Medicine letter incorporated below, citing 360 such sources).

Other studies previously showed brain cancer caused by RF-EMR exposures. See in particular the study by Hardell, that, if memory serves, appears in the September, 2013 edition of the International Journal of Oncology. Since the cause of the these illnesses are well known, people will seek legal relief.

If the injured are only 2,500 , and 'only' one in five of those people files an ADA claim or other litigation, that's still 500 cases against Marin County or other owners of such poison-delivery equipment. Yes, these are hypothetical projections and, no, we cannot know exactly. Although, the percentage of people citing their current EMS symptoms at the Workshop was clearly higher than three percent, it was not a random sampling. Yet, the resulting numbers of cases in this scenario are so large that even if this situation whittled down to the claims from one half of one percent of our people being rendered ill, and one in five filed ADA claims, that's still a large number. Large enough for the professional planner to pay careful attention to the reasons why we are embarking on such an unnecessary course of densified 4G and 5G wireless infrastructure in neighborhoods, when macro tower collocations are more than sufficient and the least intrusive means to provide wireless service — 4G or 5G service. The county is, therefore, facing legal exposure, the limit of which cannot be assured.

When our Supervisors and senior policy people examine whether the '500 cases' example, just for illustration, is reasonable, consider that the arithmetic example was based on an assumption of only one percent of our Marin population being impaired to the point of material attributable symptoms, and only one in five of those injured people pursuing an ADA or other claim. Please also contemplate what happens if the percentage of our Marin County population with such alleged traceable symptoms is three thus generating 7500 hurt and 1500 filed cases by the same math. If those are spread over the six years hypothetically used above, that's 250 cases per year. The work of Dr. Henry Lai and a now by 2019 an overwhelming body of established scientific evidence shows a hazard level that was not even considered remotely a serious risk when the 1996 Telecommunications Act ('1996-TCA')passed. Senator McCain was one of five US Senators who voted against the 1996-TCA.

More than 360 Peer-reviewed Scientific Citations on The Biological Effects from Microwave Radiation Exposures Are Listed in The Attachment

In response to the natural desire of the policy-defining reader to have proof of such hazards, attached to this letter is the entire August 18, 2017, 25 page letter in opposition to SB.649, submitted by Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego School of Medicine. From a medical professional of impeccable credential, this studied letter describes the medical consequences of mass installation of 4G and 5G infrastructure, with evidence supporting her conclusion that If this bill passes, many will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result. Dr. Golomb's letter includes 360 citations to peer-reviewed studies showing microwave radiation medical consequences with 21 pages out of 25 just for the citations.

I respectfully note that it solves for all variables in explaining a causation mechanism for mutagenic DNA change. In physics terms, the damage is through 'acoustic' means, which is not about music this time, and has everything to do with vibration.

Consider how a microwave works, as can found in any encyclopedia. From the World Book Encyclpedia, that we bought for our kids long ago:

Microwave oven is an appliance that heats food by penetratiang it with short radio waves. These waves cause molecules in to vibrate rapidly. Friction among the moving molecules creates heat, which cooks the Food

This is, at a molecular level, shaken baby syndrome for all your cells.

The last industry lobbyist I spoke with on this issue in Sacramento was painfully unstudied in his underlying science, though he seemed like he'd be a terrific grandfather. I will do my best next to fairly state the core telecom industry point on tissue damage causation from cellular microwave:

Non-ionizing radiation does not have sufficient power to displace an electron from its shell. Therefore it is impossible as a matter well-understood physics for microwave radiation to cause any direct non-thermal ionic effect (meaning directly caused chemical change) in tissue.

To understand the industry argument it is necessary to remember valence from our high school chemistry classes. I hope scientists who read this, challenging or not, will feel that the industry point, which is the basis for the FCC safety standards, has been fairly stated below:

l) The involved non-ionizing radiation does not have the ability to cause an electron to jump the shell;

2) Since an electron cannot be forced from the shell, there is no change in the ratio between the protons and electrons in the involved atoms ('ratio', in chemistry, is 'valence.')

3) If there is no change in valence, there is no possibility of forced recombination at an atomic level. Without a change in valence there can be no forced ionic, or direct chemical change.

I just found the following definition which gives us an adequate illustration:

Ionic bonding is the complete transfer of valence electron(s) between atoms. It is a type of chemical bond that generates two oppositely charged ions. In ionic bonds, the [metal] loses electrons to become a positively charged 'cation', whereas the nonmetal accepts those electrons to become a negatively charged 'anion'.

In saying that it is impossible for non-ionizing radiation to force ionic injury to tissue, the industry has been making a correct general statement of physical principle, and then incorrectly extrapolating the industry pitch:

The only scientifically sensible explanation for damage to tissue, due to the non-ionizing character of the radiation, would be where prolonged close encounter caused microwave-induced thermal damage to tissue.

Their whole scientific house of cards is built on the foundation of that Joker.

There exist at least two rationally deduced and also scientifically supported separate mechanisms through which, in fact, this non-ionizing radiation has sufficient power to damage living tissue. There is an annotated explanation of this in the Causation section of the July 19, 2017 letter submitted in opposition to SB 649, which can be found at http://ww.greenswan.org our embarrassingly out of date website. Green Swan is our very own 'involuntary non-profit,' but I believe that we'll do well once the new products based on our patents reach the market.

I won't try to condense that ten page analysis from July of 2017 here, but today, as in that July 19, 2017 letter, the vibratory nature of DNA strand breakage appears illustrated from the University of Maryland interferometer experiments of 1983. As I recall, the University of Maryland interferometer study showed that the addition of a 7.43 percent constituent of DNA into plain water (from DNA salts put into the resulting solution level of said 7.43 percent), caused a 24 fold (meaning 24 times) increase in Absorption Rate (how much energy the fluid absorbed). The change in way determined to be non-ionic, which means, to my understanding and as best I can phrase it:

A transmitted vibration within a medium having the ability to do work at the recipient target within that same medium. In the interferometer study mentioned here, there was molecular change by DNA vibration (energy absorption in the DNA molecule, comparing the energy penetrating through the plain water to energy penetrating through the DNA solution). Call me sentimental if you want, but I still REALLY love the Ella Fitzgerald Memorex commercial from 1972, where her singing shatters a wine glass.

As I said in the July 19 letter, I believe that Dr. Trevor Marshall's work had shown the core of acoustic DNA damage before my conclusion was published, all consistent with the authorities therein, excepting that to my embarrassment I misspelled Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy's name, I haven't tried to correct that in such an already public document, but I apologize. Derivative from this absorptive quality of DNA and synthetic DNA materials, the US Patent and Trademark Office recognized issued U.S. Non-Provisional Utility Patent 9,960,799 on May l, 2018.

For all of these years, the industry had been saying, 'the vibration won't hurt you; there can be no harm until you cook.' The industry has been wrong. Dr. Henry Lai's findings from the University of Washington School of Medicine proved that DNA strands are broken by exposure to microwave radiation in cellular phone signals, established beyond rational scientific doubt.

Dr. Lai's findings have never been disproved and if industry could have disproved them, they would have. It is very worth your time to Internet search for: 'Dr. Henry Lai Seattle Magazine,' and to find the part in that article describing where a disclosed industry memo pitched that said the company involved needed to 'war game,' the science to combat Dr. Lai, as part Of a concerted and focused effort to discredit him. Some of these people are nothing more than manipulative materialists who care for nothing but stature and wealth.

There are also solid reasons for respecting the calcium ion analysis written by Dr. Martin Pall, retired medical school professor from Washington State University, please see a 15 minute video of his 2015 presentation at Commonwealth Club event by EMF safety expert Camilla Rees, https://vimeo.com/132870272. Dr. Pall is a credentialed scientist, I am not. I am familiar with Dr. Pall's work and agree with calcium ion conclusion, it is not surprising that causation is multi-axial with DNA strand breakage and calcium ion cellular damage both taking place, either is bad enough to mandate stopping densified 4G and 5G infrastructure in residential neighborhoods.

Keep the Scope of Litigation Narrow

Marin County has talented lawyers at County Counsel, there are very many other employees of high talent in the building. Litigating with telecom is narrow in scope and narrow in personnel necessary to address a small group of related cases which are no more challenging than any other set of a few coordinated important cases. If Marin is sued by telecom, that's only a few lawsuits.

Alternatively, in contractually allowing telecom to permissively use regional entity utility poles, our county cannot comfortably rely on permit immunities and other traditional govemmental defenses, because any such voluntarily compliant public entity has direct involvement as a participant in the tort, due to joint venture, doctrine of fixtures et al., leaving pole owners permanently open to Claims for such WHO-defined injuries — cases unknowable and numbers without end.

Consolidation has taken place from the Multi-District Litigation of FCC 18-133 and the transfer from the Tenth Circuit to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to be joined with the cases against FCC 18-111. Marin County's litigation against the FCC is narrow in scope. Should Big Telecom's really sue Marin over an emergency moratorium, they walk into the den of lions, and the scope of the suits involved, very likely consolidated, will be very narrow. Thus, the scope of litigation if Marin tights diligently only involves a handful of your skilled lawyers and/or limited outside counsel covered by the insurance pol.

I am personally aware of many including in Marin, each who has sufficient documentation of ElectroMagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) and negative medical consequence to morally and legally justify an ADA complaint, to mention just one possible course of action. That gentleman from Inverness tellingly testified about how microwave exposures cause potentially deadly variance in operation of the titanium surgical instrument in his chest.

Our county faces a multiplicity of long term litigation from microwave sickness claimants if Marin voluntarily cooperates with telecom on the installation of densified 4G and 5G infrastructure. If our county will simply say no to such densified infrastructure, the scope of litigation will remain narrow, at least for several years. Furthermore, if the county were ultimately forced by the federal government into accepting densified 4G and 5G infrastructure, such a forced local entity would have a stronger argument for federal reimbursement than an entity which just went along for the ride.

Think about the moral queasiness each Board would forever after feel if in grasping for defenses against these avoidable lawsuits you were to resort to claiming, against the health of your constituents, that the 1996 Act also protects governments as well.

Cooling the Mark – Big Hidden Persuaders

Electromagnetic Sensitivity refers to health effects attributed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposures. I am aware of substantial settlement awards for EMS in workplace injury situations in California and awards for EMS disability involving high degrees of expert diagnosis. I know of a teacher in California, who can no longer teach in the District which tested the RF-EMR exposures from the Wi-Fi signals in the classroom only when the students and their Chromebooks were absent, and therefore the Wireless Access Points (WAPs) were in standby mode — not actively streaming data to/from students' Chromebooks. Similar forms of false 'scientific' testing have shown up in many counties, including, in my opinion, in the Petaluma City Schools district.

This isn't sunburn. Keep in mind that the NTP study specifically reported proliferation of glioma cells. Some claims will result from life-ruination glioblastoma cancers. And note that the positive finding in the NTP study of cancer causation was not a surprise to those who have long studied this issue.

A few examples our of hundreds follow:

  • The Lund University confirmation of the blood-brain barrier leaks in rodents at very low RF-EMR exposure level in 2003, confirming findings from the 1960's from Frey and others.
  • The first letter on WIFI dangers to the LAUSD by Dr. Herbert of the Harvard Medical School from 2013, referencing more than a thousand studies showing damages from RF-EMR exposures,
  • The 2013 study by Hardell showing an increased rate of brain cancer in cell phone users was published in the International Journal of Oncology in September of 2013.
  • The extremely remarkable book by former Motorola antenna scientist Robert C. Kane (published in 2000), Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette which appeared impossibly scarce for a while but is now available used, is the most pioneering book of all on this subject.

In the introduction to his heroic book, the late Robert C. Kane (he died of brain cancer) notes:

Never in human history has there been such a practice as we now encounter with the marketing and distribution of products hostile to the human biological system by an industry with foreknowledge of these effects."

RF-EMR exposures causing biological damage has been well established — long before the 2018 NTP study.

How is it possible not to recognize such a hazard? Ihe March 29, 2018 investigative report in The Nation, How Big Wireless Convinced Us Cell Phones Are Safe is the finest investigative journalism that I've seen on this topic. For those who first thought of Woodward, be sure to read Len Colodny's history of Watergate, titled Silent Coup. Conditioned memes and legends are the biggest of big businesses. Our government was released from statutory restraint years ago and can now lawfully engage in propaganda to its citizens, and whether the blood flows into from the Left or the Right, it comes through the beating heart of America's giant corporations, and some are outright dumb. Consider PG&E for example.

Precision advertising has taught us to shuffle concerns about microwave cancer into the round bin with the Fringe sign on it. Our societal tardiness to recognize this hazard results in large part from advertising and it's related appendage, the industry of scientific research. So part of thi ignorance has been advertising feedback so careful that Jacques Ellul, God rest his soul, would have appreciated the precision.

Ihat's why CTIA ditched Dr. Carlo after he told them, 20 years ago, about the cancer risks from RF-EMR eposures that he had found. Please kindly read the 3/29/18 article from The Nation.

Was this all in bad faith? In 20-20 hindsight, it is always easy to condemn past mistakes in the light of new insights, but the devotional team spirit cultivated within the wildly profitable field of telecom was often coupled with a sincere belief in the minds of competent engineers that the nature of the radiation involved meant it could not cause non-thermal damage to flesh. That issue has already been treated explicitly, and you already have exhaustive data from the contents of links supplied by many constituents besides me.

Based on the Workshop, the constituent viewpoint was two hundred people against versus three for: three out-of-town shills, paid by the Wireless industry to be there. Once the now available science information is understood by an interested person, there's no need for a sales pitch. I don't like being involved in this 4G and 5G densified infrastructure issue. It is difficult and unhappy work which has presented personal security challenges but this is unavoidably necessary for me on moral grounds. Study sometimes causes knowledge which inherently compels action by those concerned with their souls.

An understanding of group psychology is integral to serious modern corporate PR and political campaign practice. Big Telecom is glad to influence our views; best of all if the media-conditioned public has been sufficiently trained to treat polite dissenting views as 'fringe.'

I'm old enough to have read Vance Packard when The Hidden Persuaders was new, of course there is Walter Lippman's bare statement that:

The real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance between people and their environment. People construct a pseudo-environment that is a Subjective, biased, and necessarily abridged mental image of the world. (Lippmann, 1922: 4)

August Bullock's The Secret Sales Pitch is the best modern work I've seen. The reality is that a true expert campaigner can cause new phrases and to be long remembered. For example, the late great Lyn Nofziger used to horribly pun 'better a Harry Lehmann than a bald priest.' Please concentrate on forgetting that pun. That is an example of the same sort of skill that telecom is paying for to form your views.

Additional defenses for the County of Marin lawyers to contemplate for all RF-EMR Exposure suits.

Without even scant lip service to Due Process, the FCC is waging a national condemnation campaign to seize property rights belonging to cities and counties, local Districts, and other public and private entities. The term 'Condemnation' is used in the normal legal descriptive sense of a public entity taking private property the owner of that property being entitled under Due Process to access to the courts, with such just compensation being essential both under statutory law in all State jurisdictions and also on Constitutional grounds. I make no attempt here to exhaustively provide all of the many defenses which are readily familiar. What follows, A through E, are five less obvious defense approaches.

A. The Defense of Moral Conduct.

I respectfully suggest an additional lawful basis for rejection of 4G and 5G densification which is not prohibited by the 1996-TCA, namely that the installation of densified 4G and 5G infrastructure, given the totality of evidence of harm, is immoral. Marin elects not to allow the installation of densified 4G and 5G infrastructure on moral grounds. What are they going to say to that? Will telecom argue that morality no longer matters? And we certainly do have room in our laws for morality in civil matters, it is called 'equity.'

It is in complete seriousness that I suggest that if sued, in defense of its moratorium, the County of Marin may respond, so long as there is an actual record of proceedings to same effect that: 'Based on the totality of the circumstances, the County Of Marin has placed a moratorium on installation of densified 4G and 5G infrastructure on moral grounds.' I know that your linear thinkers will cringe, but before you decide to reject any idea just because of initial perceived unusual level of novelty, please examine U.S. Patents as next listed: 9,997,824, 9,960,799, 9,747,884, 8,890,697, 9,191,055, 9,379,757, 9,564,680, and None of those have to do with 5G, all of them have to do with portable equipment and their applications were filed I'd even heard the term '5G.' As a result of my study in that work, I am morally required to object to RF-EMR saturation of Marin.

There appears no moral wiggle room on this one, it is immoral to irradiate in order to sell the people instant wireless access to Bonanza reruns. It came to our attention during the long hard fight against SB.649 that discussions were ongoing between telecom and the cable industry. I wasn't a fly on the wall. My then and current comprehension of the situation is that telcom's goal is to convert all of the services we may now have and enjoy over to 4G and 5G wireless. This cuts out a lot of Cable TV providers, for example.

B. The defense of Separation of Powers.

Telecom through it's own bought and paid for smurf choir now chants that neither cities, counties nor citizens can have acess to the courts over being damaged by RF-EMR exposures. I am talking, of course, of the 1996-TCA's Section 704 et al., often interpreted by industry as prohibiting the courts from even entertaining any claims based on adverse environmental and human health effects. This is a massive violation of the basic concept of Separation of Powers. The FCC claims that their Act is so powerful that now the Executive Branch can preclude the courts from even having jurisdiction over any tower-siting issues. Our system of courts has never been and never will be perfect, but the Courts are the safety net protecting us from the excesses of governance. It is extremely important that the issue of Separation of Powers, in this instance the severe overreach of the FCC be fought in any litigation over densified 4G and 5G infrastructure.

C. A prohibition of environmental claims does not preclude claims for direct physical harm to humans.

Another example in good faith litigation is whether any language in the 1996- TCAwas generally understood at the time and context of its drafting, actually prohibits cases based on direct physical harm to human beings, as opposed to harm to the 'environment' in which we all reside.

Here in Marin many of us may take a more Alan Watts view of the environment, and see all human life as part of an interconnected whole. But the 1996 Act was written in DC from the generally prevailing Western outlook of individual separateness, which some would argue is a cornerstone of the individuality to which we are all entitled. In that view, the 'environment' is the surroundings we live in — not something of which we humans are a part.

When the 1996-TCA was passed, I respectfully submit that the generally prevailing Western approach of separateness, the all often encountered 'us versus the environment in the name of wealth and progress,' was the common outlook. So the term 'environment' should not be interpreted as encompassing direct physical harm to humans, because in the Western view, which remains the generally prevailing view, we are not part of environment, but rather it's occupiers. The 1996-TCA did not expressly prohibit claims for direct physical harm from RF-EMR exposure sources.

D. The FCC is violating Due Process.

These FCC thumb puppets are saying to us all, 'skip the Due Process part' with the FCC asserting the position that even the Judicial Branch cannot stop this corporate-dictated irradiation of our population. Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country. We have both statutory and Constitutional entitlements to Due Process when the government takes something of value from us. Every Due Process right that would normally attach in a Condemnation or Inverse Condemnation case, from our Federal Constitution, from California's Constitution, and from both state and federal statute should be available to counties and cities and others who are about to have their property rights in these utility poles siezed. This a gross over-reach in terms of Due Process as well as Separation of Powers.

E. Equal Protection Of the Law.

This letter is written with our professional public administration people in mind and in recognition that these high ranking professionals guide policy too. It has been demonstrated that credible science shows that physical harm will result to some or all of us from excessive RF-EMR exposures. Most of the people reading this are very educated. You can read the data and reach the necessarily deductive conclusions just as well as I can. This isn't a hobby or a game, this is serious. Our professional administrators and all their staffs have their own life quality at stake with regard to saturation of RF-EMR exposures. For one example, it is well established, I think first from Dr. Argawal, of Cleveland Clinic and now at Mayo, that there is a 50% kill rate in sperm from smart phone proximity (front pants pocket), the last Israel study I saw said '47%'.

F. Is there a Significant Gap in Coverage?

I have worked with scientists in this field since being introduced to Dr. Devra Davis in late 2009, and as a result of being pressed into objection to densified 4G and 5G infrastructure by the data in a meeting in March of 2017, I've studied for the preparation of at least 15 written presentations. As a result of this, I have for years been in touch with people who have used state of the art meters to check for signal strength. Consistently it has been found that alleged gaps in coverage are usually, meaning the super-majority of times, flat out false. I believe that you probably find data on this at this web page http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebstopol.

Concluding Statement

Some groups will be more exposed to radiation than others, i.e., in public housing. It is reasonable to expect that the poor will bear a heavier burden. As the son of great dad who worked as a school custodian, I submit those who say they really care about assuring that the less advantaged are treated equally, should fight against densified 4G and 5G infrastructure, from that perspective.

Due to density of today's living environment, those living in high density environments will be the most exposed. Imagine that you happen to live in a apartment with outside stairs. At 8:30 p.m., just one person from each apartment in your 40 unit building is accessing the Internet wirelessly from the pole (either 4G or 5G); you now have the opportunity to be zapped by the subscriptions from your surrounding neighbors. Those who live on big lots and rural ranches will suffer from fewer streams of RF-EMR exposures.

After hearing so many coherent and sincere presentations at the Workshop, most of the long term trial lawyers who listened likely immediately recognized the potential for ADA claims, though a defense lawyer wouldn't have discussed that set of risks at a serious level until getting further data on the dimensions of exposure. As the Workshop went on, we all witnessed many people of entire believability speak of the suffering they had witnessed and personally experienced from RF-EMR exposures.

The RF-EMR exposure hazard to human health is well corroborated: See the collection of professional scientific data at the website of the Environmental Health Trust, founded by epidemiologist Dr. Devra Lee Davis, which is http://ehtrust.org. Please see the collection of scientific positions to be founder under "Quotes from Experts and other well organized scientific data, including from Dr. Magda Havas, to be found at http://electromagnetichealth.org, which was founded by the activist and expert Camilla Rees. Dr. Havas saved a vital trove of Navy documents from destruction, I have seen a 1972 Navy document on EMF exposure with 400 sources listed.

My law specialty is in engineering cases which require serial striving for competency in high stakes technical arenas, involving the depositions of the Ph.D. experts, whose highly qualified expertise can require layers of semantic dissection. I am donating this study effort because it is the best I can do in the time I can donate. I believe this to be my final letter to you about densified 4G and 5G infrastructure, sent as a friendly gift in the hope of treasuring life.