Jack Tibbetts, a member of the Santa Rosa, Calif., city council, knew he had a problem. It was early 2018, and he’d started getting calls from constituents at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The common thread: cellular antennas going up next to their homes, causing concerns over property values and health.
The weight of evidence suggests that if radio-frequency emissions have any effect on humans at all, it is, according to the World Health Organization, about on par with other “possibly carcinogenic” substances, including coffee and pickles. The Federal Communications Commission, citing input from the Food and Drug Administration, recently declared that existing limits on the amount of radio-frequency energy these antennas put out make them safe.
S4WT Comment: Read an excellent rebuttal to the FCC and FDA from:
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
[The FCC’s] assertions do not reflect the state of the scientific literature regarding RF health effects, nor do they adequately reflect the public comment received by the FCC over the past six years regarding RF exposure limits for Proceeding Number 13-84.
The FCC has no health expertise and relies upon Federal health agencies, especially the FDA, for advice about RF exposure limits. However, these agencies have lacked the requisite expertise to provide this guidance as their RF health experts retired or took industry jobs. In the past decade, these agencies have failed to monitor the vast and growing body of peer-reviewed research that documents adverse health effects from low-intensity exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Rather, the Federal government has increasingly relied upon advice from engineers and scientists with conflicts of interest and industry lobbyists.
Link to Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations — Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC
Link to Part II: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations — Key Research Papers Submitted to the FCC
Link to Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations — 98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions
Cities and towns throughout Northern California are issuing ordinances that would exclude new 5G cell sites from residential areas, citing health concerns.
S4WT Comment: Follow this link to 2019: CA Supreme Court Decision T-Mobile v San Francisco
A144252 Decided Sept 15, 2016: First Appellate District, Division Five — T-MOBILE WEST LLC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents.
. . . the City has inherent local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction. That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use . . . We also disagree with plaintiffs’ contention that section 7901’s incommode clause limits their right to construct [telephone] lines only if the installed lines and equipment would obstruct the path of travel. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the incommode clause need not be read so narrowly.
As the Court of Appeal noted, the word “ ‘incommode’ ” means “ ‘to give inconvenience or distress to: disturb.’ ” (T-Mobile West, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 351, citing Merriam-Webster Online Dict., available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incommode [as of April 3, 2019].)8 The Court of Appeal also quoted the definition of “incommode” from the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary. Under that definition, “incommode” means “ ‘[t]o give inconvenience to; to give trouble to; to disturb or molest in the quiet enjoyment of something, or in the facility of acquisition.’ ” (T-Mobile West, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 351, citing Webster’s Dict. 1828—online ed., available at http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/incommode [as of April 3, 2019].)
For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the meaning of incommode has not changed meaningfully since section 7901’s enactment. Obstructing the path of travel is one way that telephone lines could disturb or give inconvenience to public road use. But travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel. (T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356.) For example, lines or equipment might
- generate noise,
- cause negative health consequences, or
- create safety concerns.
All these impacts could disturb public road use, or disturb its quiet enjoyment.
Residents of Portland, Ore., and Whitefish, Mont., have also cited these beliefs while lobbying for restrictions. Legislators in four states including New Hampshire have proposed bills that would mandate further study of health effects or else urge Congress to do so, and Congressman Thomas Suozzi( D., N.Y.) wrote to the FCC echoing these concerns.
For Mr. Tibbetts, it didn’t matter whether or not these new “small cell” antennas — which are used for 4G networks but can be upgraded for 5G — going up in Santa Rosa were actually dangerous. Some were attached to utility poles a mere 20 feet from people’s bedroom windows, and residents complained Verizon had put them up without notifying them. What mattered was that his constituents didn’t want these ungainly chunks of public infrastructure anywhere near them.
“I don’t like the idea of someone being in their home and it’s supposed to be a place of security, and they are having that feeling of insecurity,” Mr. Tibbetts says. “I won’t be surprised if in 10 years there’s no evidence of cancer from these towers, but my job is not to protect Verizon, it’s to protect people in their houses.”
S4WT Comment: In reality, Americans would be optimally served by . . .
- FTTP (fiber optic to the premises) in residential areas, densified 4G/5G only in commercial areas,
- Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) antennas only on towers that are 150 feet above roofs or higher
- Enforcing 24/7 monitoring to ensure exposures no higher than a scientifically based, protective FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guideline: i. e. a peak of 10 µW/m² where people live, work, sleep and heal — not the current FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guideline of an average of 10,000,000 µW/m² .
Many Santa Rosa residents asked the City Council to better regulate the installation of 4G and 5G Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). Unlike Mill Valley, Sonoma, Sebastopol, Petaluma and other cities, Santa Rosa did little to better regulate the installation of 4G and 5G Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs).
As has been researched and published at http://scientists4wiredtech.com/
The 1996 FCC Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposure guideline is unscientific and not protective. We can receive wireless calls/texts at 1/1,000,000th of the FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guideline, but the 4G/5G densification scheme aims to increase RF-EMR exposures to about 1/10th to 1/100th of the FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guideline along our streets and front yards — a hazardous level which negatively impacts the quiet enjoyment of our streets and neighborhoods.
The 4G/5G wireless densification scheme is unnecessary for wireless calls and texts; video transmissions, remote surgery, and fixed robot applications are much better served by wired/fiber optic connections than by wireless connections (fiber optic offers higher bandwidth, lower latency while using much less energy vs. wireless) The 4G/5G wireless densification scheme would provide lower bandwidth and higher latency than fiber optic cables installed directly to homes/businesses.
The 4G/5G wireless densification scheme also forcibly exposes residents to 24/7 exposures to a hazardous pollutant (RF-EMR Exposure is a pollutant as defined by Verizon) with no opt out for customers and non-cutomers, alike.
The 4G/5G wireless densification scheme requires both 4G antennas (for 24/7 pinpoint device/receiving antenna location) and 5G antennas (for intermittent bursts of large data payloads).
The wireless industry has been illegally cross-subsidizing its wireless expansion and seeks every advantage to become less regulated and more profitable.
Whatever the basis for residents’ objections to new cell towers, Mr. Tibbetts — as well as countless mayors, governors and council members across the country — have little or no power under current rules to act on their constituents’ wishes. Nor do they have the leeway they once did to set pricing for cell sites, a lucrative source of funding for civic initiatives. Those who do take action are creating ordinances that put their cities at risk of being sued by the telecoms, as happened this month in Rochester, N.Y.
Billed as the key to the future — of telecommunications, of global competition, of innovation and even of municipal infrastructure — 5G has instead become a bone of contention. In addition to upgrading existing towers, it will require an estimated half-million new towers and small-cell sites on utility poles, lampposts and buildings. Experts also anticipate a long rollout period, potentially of a decade or more.
Most cities want 5G, but they don’t want to be told how, when and at what cost. Rules the FCC has already passed, meant to expedite 5G’s rollout, might well be creating acrimony that serves to do the exact opposite.
“My personal reason for doing this is I believe that humanity is threatened,” says Sandi Maurer, a member of the activist group EMF Safety Network, which lobbies to reduce people’s exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Partly as a result of such activism, many towns in Marin County, Calif., have passed ordinances or resolutions that limit 5G cell sites in residential areas. Towns like Mill Valley specify zones where towers aren’t permitted, and may also require them to be a certain distance from each other. In 2018, Verizon withdrew its application to install two small cells in Sebastopol, Calif., rather than sue the city or refer the matter to the FCC.
But since then, the FCC has rolled out its 5G Fast plan requiring cities and states to approve new 5G antennas within 60 or 90 days. It also limits what government leaders can charge carriers for the real estate on which the new infrastructure will hang—be it a utility pole, streetlight or even building facade.
Carriers love this plan. A spokesman for AT&T referred to a statement lauding the FCC’s new rules, saying they “will help ensure that, through tried and true free-market incentives, all Americans no matter where they live will enjoy the benefits of jobs, investment, and economic growth this new technology will foster.” A Verizon spokesman said, “We’re looking for reasonable access and reasonable prices so that we can deploy 5G effectively and promptly to communities and the people who live and work in them.”
FCC chairman Ajit Pai and President Trump have both said that widespread deployment of next-generation 5G wireless networks is critical to winning the race with China. A spokesman for the FCC referred to previous statements by the agency: “To enable broadband providers to enter new markets and deploy high-speed networks, access to poles must be swift, predictable, safe and affordable.”
City leaders say their power to zone and regulate infrastructure is being abridged. More than 90 cities and counties have joined together in a lawsuit, currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the FCC has overstepped its authority. A decision could happen as early as in the spring, but it could also take much longer.
San Jose, Calif., has already permitted 596 small-cell sites, all of which can be upgraded to 5G, says Shireen Santosham, the city’s chief innovation officer. When that rollout began, San Jose signed agreements with telecoms for between $750 a pole and $2,500 a pole for the new small-cell sites. If the cities lose their suit against the FCC, San Jose might be forced to charge less than the lowest amount it had previously charged per pole.
The city very much wants a 5G rollout, says Mayor Sam Liccardo.
But like other cities, San Jose wants to be able to charge higher prices for use of its infrastructure, not only to fund staffing to expedite permits for new sites but also to supply the $1 million to $2 million needed to support a program to deliver broadband access to poor households.
“If we lose the money, the program pretty much grinds to a halt,” says Ms. Santosham. “Deployment will slow down, and the money to close the digital divide goes away.”
This sort of thing could happen in other cities, despite FCC rules that say permits are automatically approved after 60 or 90 days, says Mr. Liccardo. “There are lots of ways for local bureaucracies to make it difficult even when the federal government says they must,” he adds.
Blair Levin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chief of staff for FCC chairman Reed Hundt, said, “What the wireless guys are asking is for cities to treat them totally different than every other entity asking for construction permits. I think it will backfire because, in the fullness of time, instead of a cooperative relationship you’ll get a hostile relationship.”
The prime example is Rochester, which was on the receiving end of a lawsuit filed by Verizon on Aug. 8. Verizon claims the city’s code violates FCC rules by “imposing upon wireless providers non-cost-based fees on the deployment and maintenance of small wireless facilities.” Translation: Verizon thinks the city is charging too much rent for space on its utility poles where 5G antennas would be installed. A city spokesman says the fees are in line with what other providers pay and calls the suit frivolous.
“The federal framework calls for nondiscriminatory access at cost-based rates, and that is what we are seeking,” said a Verizon spokesman. “That means the federal rules prohibit special treatment.”
The health hazard argument is hard to take to court because the FCC has sole discretion over whether the emissions of an electronic device are safe, a right unquestioned by any current court cases or pending federal legislation. A different — and so far more successful — tack has been to challenge carriers on the aesthetics of the densified 4G/5G so-called "Small Cells".
In a legal challenge to the FCC’s current rules undertaken by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, the D.C. Circuit Court recently ruled against the FCC, asserting, among other things, that 5G “small cells” aren’t nearly as small as advertised.
In its brief, the industry has said these new antennas are only as big as a pizza box, and that in other respects they are comparable to home Wi-Fi routers. But the court said that they are in fact big and obtrusive enough that they require a review of their environmental impact, and that they are subject to historic-preservation rules.
“Even if only 20% of small cells required new construction, as one wireless company estimates and the FCC highlights in its brief…that could entail as many as 160,000 densely spaced 50-foot towers,” writes the court.