Experts Worldwide Oppose SB.649

TO: MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY FROM EXPERTS WORLDWIDE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 649

September 5, 2017

To Honorable California Assemblymembers:

Within a matter of days Senate Bill 649, Wireless Tools of Commerce (‘SB 649’) will come before the Assembly for a vote. This bill denies citizens and local governments the right to a voice as to where 50,000 or more new cell towers (more likely 2 to 3 million new cell towers), spaced every two to ten homes, will soon be placed.

The Telecomm Industry will be erecting towers in the public rights-of-way, placing them on utility poles and lampposts in front of our homes, schools, places of worship and businesses. There will be no escaping the cell towers or the radiation emitted from them. SB 649 fails to mandate monitoring of radiation levels from these cell towers at a time when the FCC is closing their regional monitoring offices. A failure to monitor is a failure to regulate.

SB 649 has flown through the Senate and Assembly committees thus far despite opposition from the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose as well as 294 other cities, the Teamsters, AARP, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Health Trust, Communications Workers of America, the League of Cities, California Brain Tumor Association, and a host of environmental and justice groups, and leaders of 47 California counties.

We are asking you to vote NO on SB 649. There is a substantial body of evidence that this technology is harmful to humans and the environment. The 5G millimeter wave is known to heat the eyes, skin and testes, and the ubiquitous placement of these towers will expose California’s population 24/7. The most vulnerable among us — the unborn, children, the infirm, the elderly and the disabled will be affected. It is also expected that populations of bees and birds will drastically decline.

Continue reading “Experts Worldwide Oppose SB.649”

Dr. Beatrice Alexandra Golomb Opposes SB.649

Read the letter here: 2017-0822-SB649-Dr-Golomb-Opposition-Letter or below.

I urge in the strongest terms that you vigorously oppose California SB 649. If this bill passes, many people will suffer greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result. This sounds like hyperbole. It is not.

My research group at UC San Diego alone has received hundreds of communications from people who have developed serious health problems from electromagnetic radiation, following introduction of new technologies. Others with whom I am in communication, have independently received hundreds of similar reports. Most likely these are a tip of an iceberg of tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of affected people. As each new technology that leads to further electromagnetic radiation exposure is introduced — and particularly introduced in a fashion that prevents vulnerable individuals from avoiding it — a new group becomes sensitized. This is particularly true for pulsed signals in the radiowave and microwave portion of the spectrum, the type for which the proposed bill, SB 649, will bypass local control.

Mechanisms by which health effects are exerted have been shown to include

  • oxidative stress (the type of injury against which antioxidants protect (see optional section below),
  • damage to mitochondria (the energy producing parts of cells),
  • damage to cell membranes1,21,
  • an impaired blood-brain barrier3-5 (the blood brain barrier defends the brain against introduction of foreign substances and toxins; additionally, disruption can lead to brain edema6),
  • constriction of blood vessels and impaired blood flow to the brain7, and
  • triggering of autoimmune reactions8,9.

Continue reading “Dr. Beatrice Alexandra Golomb Opposes SB.649”

Sign The Petition

Over 1,725 Californians have signed this MoveOn.org petition using their last names:

We oppose SB 649. Stop the gross expansion of cell towers and antennas on most every street in California, and stop corporate interests from overriding local governance and taking away citizen rights and legal recourse.

Petition Background

Will you join me, the Mayor of San Jose and 216 Cities in California in opposing SB 649?

If you don’t want cell phone antennas right outside your bedroom window, take action now!

SB.649 has cleared the California Senate and may be approved by the California Assembly in less than 2 weeks. We must act NOW to stop this attack on our rights, privacy and health!

Most utility/light poles, street lights, public signs and other public “street furniture” will become cell towers under Senate Bill 649 and result in 4G/5G antennas lining every block leaving the public with no legal recourse for opposing “micro-wireless”, “small cells”, or even “macro towers.”

We Don’t Want Cell Towers in Our Yards

While fire stations are exempt from antennas, the rest of us are not protected from the proven hazards from the 24/7 pulsed, data-modulated microwave radiation from these so-called “small cell” antennas. Humans, animals and the ecosystem are being jeopardized with SB. 649. The State of California is recklessly attempting to streamline 5G deployment before doing the required due diligence for safety and economic impact. Real estate values will significantly decline near these 4G/5G antennas. Continue reading “Sign The Petition”

Dr. Martin Pall Opposes SB.649

Martin Pall, PhD: 8/14/17 Wireless Technology Hazards

Recent Boston Fox 25 News Report Video

Reporter: “Obviously a lot of us are on the phone frequently. Is it dangerous?”
Dr. Pall: “Yes.”

Pall says it was just recently that science figured out how the invisible waves of radiation that wireless devices emanate have a biological effect.

Reporter: “So we’ve got a public health crisis here?”
Dr. Pall: “Yes. Absolutely. Worse one I’ve ever heard of.”

Continue reading “Dr. Martin Pall Opposes SB.649”

NACST Opposes SB.649


“A nation that does not protect its children has no future.”

Toril Jelter, MD, FAAP 1

July 25, 2017

The Honorable Lorena Fletcher Gonzalez
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814

Re: SB 649 (Hueso): Wireless Telecommunications Facilities As Amended 7/18/17 — OPPOSE

Dear Assembly Member Gonzalez:

The National Association For Children and Safe Technology (NACST) works to educate the public and support public health policy to protect the safety, health, and well being of children and youth from Radio-frequency / Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation exposure originating from wireless technology and infrastructure. NACST opposes CA SB649 legislation based on health and agricultural science, with human and animal physical injuries and impairments, violation of federal and state laws, and violation of the powers of local government.

It is essential that you vote NO on CA SB649 Wireless telecommunications facilities. This bill is an unnecessary taking of public funds and property values, alongside losses of public health and safety, and human and agricultural productivity. California has strong interest in protecting its economic base and residents’ and visitors’ freedom from physical injury and impairment. The 4G/5G Distributed Antenna System (DAS) would result in scientifically established hazardous radiation exposure with often immediate and therefore provable adverse effects, particularly immediate neurological and cardiologic effects.

Continue reading “NACST Opposes SB.649”

Grassroots Environmental Opposes SB.649

August 9, 2017

The Honorable Lorena Fletcher Gonzalez
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814

In Opposition to SB 649 Wireless and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities (as amended 7/18/2017)

Dear Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher,

Grassroots Environmental Education is a non-profit environmental health organization with a mission to inform individuals and lawmakers about the links between common environmental exposures and human health impacts. Our award-winning work has helped New York State adopt legislation prohibiting pesticides on school grounds and banning hydraulic fracking for natural gas

We are strongly opposed to statewide legislation in any state which takes away from local decision makers the ability to protect their constituents from harm. The telecommunications industry, one of the most powerful and profitable industries in the country, is spearheading the national effort to consolidate decision-making about 5G technology at the state level so as to avoid the cost and potential delay that might be caused by individuals and organizations that put health ahead of profits. We proudly count ourselves as one of them.

Continue reading “Grassroots Environmental Opposes SB.649”

AARP in California Opposes SB.649

July 19, 2017

The Honorable Lorena Fletcher Gonzalez
Chair,Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814

Re: SB 649 (Hueso): Wireless Telecommunications Facilities As Amended — OPPOSE

Dear Assembly Member Gonzalez:

On behalf of more than 3.3 million AARP members in California, I am writing in opposition of SB 649, which would harm California consumers. AARP believes that government should conduct the public’s business in an open, inclusionary, and equitable manner, and that administrative agencies should promote fairness, openness, and accountability in public decision-making. Unfortunately, SB 649 does just the opposite. It is part of a nationwide effort to undermine the authority of local jurisdictions by allowing the installation of wireless or “small-cell” technology without requiring city or county discretionary permits. The wireless industry has convinced the Federal Communications Commission to launch a proceeding that preempts local authority if permits are not processed as quickly as the industry desires. This is clearly a usurpation of local authority and is contrary to the public’s interest in transparent, accountable government. Continue reading “AARP in California Opposes SB.649”

CA Assembly SB-649 June 28 Testimony

View the video of the 6/28/17 Local Government Hearing
  • Go to http://www.calchannel.com/video-on-demand
  • Click on VIDEO for Assembly Local Government Committee — Jun 28, 2017
  • View from 0:19:28 to 3:05:10
  • A. Key Testimony From Verizon and AT&T Executives:

    Rudy Reyes, Verizon @ 2:36:20:

    A cell tower might give you five to ten miles radius of coverage, but the small cells for 4G/LTE densification goes a few blocks . . . for 5G, the spectrum is going to be millimeter wave spectrum. That spectrum goes much shorter distances, maybe 100 feet and requires a line of sight . . . we are going to need about five to ten times the number of 5G nodes, as we will 4G/LTE nodes . . . so it is really about p times q, price times quantity. So this cost formula needs to pencil out in order to bring 5G to California . . . just for downtown LA, Verizon alone is going to need 200 to 300 small cells just to densify for 4G/LTE. Then you have to multiply that for five to ten times for when we get to 5G.

    Comment:
    This means 1,000 to 3,000 5G small cells in downtown LA, which according to Dr. Google is 4.75 square miles. This would spread 300 4G Small cells + 3,000 5G Small Cells over 4.75 square miles for Verizon alone. If each major Wireless Carrier does the same (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile), that’s 3300 x 4 = 13,200 small cells in roughly an area 11,500 feet by 11,500 feet or one small cell for every 10,000 square feet – understanding that an average Safeway is 50,000 square feet

    Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas @ 2:39:18:

    With respect to the liability associated with potential either health impacts or some other safety impacts, does that rest with the Companies or does that shift to the Cities, if we make this a ministerial permit instead of a discretionary permit.

    Senator Hueso @ 2:40:02:

    There is nothing precluding the local municipal agency from enforcing all building code requirements. Public safety is extremely important. This doesn’t exempt the industry from following the building code requirements. They are still in place, they must be followed . . . They have to conform to the codes that are imposed by the US standards.

    Comment:
    Hueso didn’t answer the question.

    Bill Devine, AT&T @ 2:40:38:

    May I add an additional comment . . . on page 4, line 38 of the Bill, ‘Small Cells must apply with all applicable Federal State and local health and safety regulations including the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.’ So it reinforces that in the Bill and that was an amendment that was added in the Senate

    Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas @ 2:41:04:
    And Liability would rest with the Telecomm Carrier.

    Bill Devine, AT&T @ 2:41:08:

    With the company.

    Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas @ 2:41:31:

    The issue with community facilities and safety is not, in my opinion, one that has received as much attention as I’d like in this bill. I read the fire piece a couple of times and it said [not] on a fire department building, does that at all extend that concern into schools, in any sense? . . . Land use goes to the local jurisdiction, even at local schools.

    Hueso @ 2:42:35:

    In the public right of way, there is nothing stopping; if there is a vertical pole within the public right of way of a fire station, there is nothing that preempts [a small cell] from being sited there.

    Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas @ 2:41:04:

    For me, that would be an on-going concern if this bill moves forward.It would be schools and fire facilities.

    Senator Hueso @ 2:44:35:

    Not all cities oppose this bill, not even a majority of the cities. It’s a very high number. It’s like 197, but it’s not a majority — there are over 400 cities [in California].

    Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas @ 2:41:31:

    Understood. All of the cities in the jurisdiction I represent do not support this bill and the county which is the largest in the state does not support this measure.

    B. Fair Treatment at 6/28/17 Local Government Hearing For Proponents and Opponents of SB.649?

    The 60 minutes for testimony on 6/28/17 was apportioned fairly (30 minutes for Support, 30 minutes for Opposition), but the 100+ minutes of discussion among/questions from of the Assembly Local Government Committee (from 1:24:45 to 3:05:55) was not apportioned fairly. Virtually all of the post-testimony discussion was with SB.649 Supporters: Bill Author Ben Hueso and Industry representatives from AT&T, Verizon and the CTIA — the Wireless Association. There was not a single follow up question from the members of the Assembly Local Government Committee about the unconstitutional consequences of SB.649 resulting from placing so-called Small Cell antennas in residential zones.

    On 6/27/17 after 5:00 pm, we received confirmation from the California Assembly regarding a second accommodation from the California Legislature (the first was on 5/15/17 at the Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing) for Electromagnetically Sensitive (EMS) California residents to speak to their government face-to-face. We used this accommodation to secure a time-certain start (2:00 pm), a directive by the chair for everyone in the hearing room to turn off the wireless antennas on their wireless devices and a metering of the peak Radio-Frequency Microwave Radiation (RF/MW radiation) levels at the testimony table in the Hearing room. Continue reading “CA Assembly SB-649 June 28 Testimony”

    Don’t Fall for AT&T’s Bait And Switch Scheme

    Legacy Landlines are Far Superior to VoIP phone lines

    AT&T’s May/June written notice to AT&T landline customers about AT&T’s plan to switch customers from Title-II-regulated Legacy Copper Phone-Switched Landline Phone Services to unregulated Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Phone Services is misleading. No one has to switch, as clarified here, so don’t switch, if you don’t want to.

    The following CPUC Blog Post attempts to clarify things (emphases are mine):

    Included in AT&T customer bills in May was a notice of changes to AT&T’s Residential Service Agreement. In response to the many questions raised with the CPUC’s Consumer Affairs Branch by AT&T customers, the CPUC is directing the company to send a clarifying notification.

    This clarifying message is being sent to assure that all customers are fully informed and aware that changes to the Residential Service Agreement do not impact their underlying telephone service. The prices, service descriptions, and other terms and conditions of an AT&T customer’s telephone service will remain the same in California.

    Future upgrades to AT&T’s network may require the company to install new equipment outside a customer’s home in order for telephone service to continue to work. If AT&T upgrades its network in a customer’s area, the company will provide additional notice and make an appointment with the customer, if needed. However, AT&T’s obligation to offer basic telephone service in California is not affected by any potential network upgrades.

    Legacy copper, phone-switched landline phone services have benefits that Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone service, such as U-Verse and Wireless phone service do not offer:

    • Only landline phone works even during an extended power outage. VoIP phone modems depend on short-lived batteries, if present at all, which provide only limited-time use during an extended power outage.

    • Only landline 911 calls auto-verify the address if the caller cannot speak — such as after suffering a stroke.

    • The Governor of Florida has recently encourage all FL residents to maintain a landline phone for reliable emergency communications during floods, hurricanes or other natural disasters.

    Continue reading “Don’t Fall for AT&T’s Bait And Switch Scheme”