COVID-19

COVID-911: From Homeland Security to Biosecurity

Sept 3, 2020 — Covid-Gate, The Political Virus, Prof Michel Chossudovsky

 

Important Paper Uncovers COVID-19 — Fatality Rate Greatly ‘Overestimated’ Due To ‘Biases & Miscalculations’

Aug 12, 2020 Paper: Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation
 

Next, listen to Legalman of The Quash and @USLawReview re: the SARS-CoV-2 Lockdown

July 21, 2020 — The SARS-CoV-2 “Plandemic” is a Psychological Operation
Sept 6, 2020 — The Cross Examination of Tony Fauci

Barnum statements or the "Barnum effect" was coined in 1956 by psychologist Paul Meehl in his essay Wanted – A Good Cookbook, because he relates the vague personality descriptions used in certain "pseudo-successful" psychological tests to those given by showman P. T. Barnum.

The Barnum effect is a common psychological phenomenon whereby individuals give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically to them, yet which are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some paranormal beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, aura reading, and some types of personality tests.

These characterizations are often used by practitioners as a con-technique to convince victims. Because the assessment statements are so vague, people interpret their own meaning, thus the statement becomes "personal" to them. Also, individuals are more likely to accept negative assessments of themselves if they perceive the person presenting the assessment as a high-status professional.

In short, people often believe that certain vague statements fit their personality . . . if the statements are vague enough.


SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease.

SARS = Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome    |     ARDS = Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Sept 2, 2020: Rocco Galati’s Lockdown Lawsuit in Canada

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/



Vaccine Debate – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vs Alan Dershowitz

 


April 20, 2020 — from a COVID-19 Patient in his 30’s residing in New York State

To all my friends, family, and people who give a damn,

During this last week I have been in the Hospital due to the COVID19 virus, spending the last 3 days in ICU. I just wanted to share with all of you that this virus is not to be messed with. I have no underlying health issues, and remained fairly active throughout my life. The virus gave me severe pneumonia in my lungs where I couldn’t breath without the assistance of medication and an oxygen tube running through my nose. I’ve also experienced fevers, headaches, no appetite, body aches, and a sore dry throat like I have NEVER experienced before.

I also wanted you to know, that the COVID19 tests that you take, have a 30% chance of being a false negative. The first 3 tests I took said negative (yes, they shoved the stick up my nose 4 times). So if you received a negative test, and are showing symptoms of COVID19, please discuss with your doctor about taking another test.

Lastly, I am starting to feel much better and have started making improvements. I would like to thank everyone who has reached out. Your support means more than you know. I encourage all of you to stay inside as I don’t wish any of this on anyone. Please be safe, don’t be an idiot, get a mask, and get some gloves.

Last but certainly not least. All the doctors and nurses that are working around the clock for us are truly super heroes. I can’t give them enough credit for how much they helped me and others during this time. If you know anyone who works in medical field and is dealing with COVID19 first hand, please give them respect and thank them for everything they do. They deserve it.


Apr 11, 2020 — COVID-19 Task Force Admits to Inflating Death Numbers

Govt. Goal — robust tracking/control/surveillance — source links here.

Read this carefully → https://id2020.org — This is where we are headed

. . . if we don’t dig in and immediately defend our civil rights &liberties.

Apr 11, 2020 — George Webb and McDuff Weekend Update

Learn much more here.


Apr 5, 2020 — Censorship on Youtube is Occurring Daily

Apr 9, 2020 — An ICU nurse of 30 years speaks out


Apr 5, 2020 — Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek discusses how
COVID 19 death certificates are being manipulated — Wha-a-a-t?

Apr 4, 2020 — Revelations from an NYC Intensive Care Physician:

Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell has just brought forward a critical piece of the puzzle:

"We’ve been operating under a false medical paradigm… patients are slowly being starved of oxygen."

"It appears as some kind of viral-induced disease most representing altitude sickness. It is as if tens of thousands of my fellow New Yorkers are on a plane at 30,000 feet and the cabin pressure is slowly being let out. These patients are slowly being starved of oxygen."

"I have seen patients . . . take off their oxygen masks . . . and eventually get blue in the face. And while they look like patients absolutely on the brink of death, they do not look like patients dying of pneumonia…. They look as if they’ve been dropped off on the top of Mount Everest without time to acclimate."

Ruthven78 (Youtube commment): "I confirmed Dr Kyle-Sidell is a licensed physician in the state of NY. License is currently active and he has had no disciplinary actions taken against him (his license is in good standing)."

Key COVID-19 Links

  • COVID-19 Tracking Data

  • Stanford COVID-19 Interactive Tool

  • Link to Bing COVID-19 Tracker

  • Link to COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

  • Link to Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security COVID-19 page

  • Link to The Lancet article: Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study


Causing Unnecessary Immuno-Suppression during COVID-19 Community Spread is, obviously, a bad idea.

Jump down to scientific studies.

The following is not medical advice. Scientists for Wired Technology is not qualified to provide any medical or legal advice. The following is for educational purposes only. This page is one of three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs); the other two are the US House/Senate Conference Report for the 1996 Telecommunications Act (“1996-Act”) and the stated purpose of the 1996-Act: to promote the safety of life and property.

March 2, Radio Interview: San Francisco Dept. of Public Health & Endangerment

Learn more about this endangerment here and here   |   The rest of the interview is here.


San Francisco 4G/5G “Small” Cells Leads to
Melatonin Suppression and Immuno-Suppression, Mar 4, 2020
WILL SAN FRANCISCO POWER OFF ALL OF THEIR SO-CALLED “SMALL” CELLS OR NOT?
Resonance: Beings of Frequency — Watch from 1:07:40 to 1:18:00 to learn about
pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures
from 4G/5G cellular infrastructure causing melatonin suppression and immuno-suppression.
Dr. Andrew Saul Discuss Vitamin C, Coronavirus, and Censorship
— watch at least from 5:40 to 8:10 and read the slides
Judy Mikovitis, PhD — Coronavirus — What You Should Know
William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University: Coronavirus FAQ: How Deadly Is It?
The 3rd Large Dose VIt C Clinical Study for NCP Approved

Link to China Treating Coronavirus COVID-19 with Intravenous Vitamin C

Consider the benefits of Vitamin C.


Marc Serota is a former allergy fellows at Childrens Mercy; he posted this on Facebook:

From an MD immunologist:

I don’t post a lot on facebook but I would like to give my perspective and context on the coronavirus outbreak. I hope I can be a more reputable source of perspective as a physician who specializes and is board certified in immunology (as well as pediatrics, allergy and dermatology).

  1. Coronaviruses are a family of viruses. “coronavirus” is not unique to this particular strain. Everyone reading this has likely had another different coronavirus infection. This particular strain has been named COVID-19.

  2. Every upper respiratory virus has the potential to be lethal. Patients unfortunately die from many upper respiratory viral infections every year – most prominently the influenza virus. 30,000 people died from the influenza virus in 2019. The media didn’t report each one. They have reported all 11 coronavirus deaths. Not telling us about the people lost but rather keeping a death “toll”.

Let me repeat that:

  • Coronavirus: 11 deaths (US in 2020), 3300 deaths (China in 2020).
  • Influenza: 30,000 deaths (US in 2019).
  • Influenza pandemic of 1918: 675,000! (US), 20-50 MILLION!! (worldwide)

This is not meant to minimize any of these deaths but rather to give context and put some facts to the hysteria.

The Bottomline

  1. If you’re healthy, there is no need to walk around wearing a mask. In addition to looking silly and most of the time wearing/taking them off wrong – which would actually make you more prone to acquiring an infection, they don’t prevent you from getting sick. If you’re actually sick stay away from people and then, sure, wear a mask so you aren’t spreading respiratory droplets every time you cough/sneeze. In medicine we don’t wear the masks you’re buying and we wear other protective equipment – not just a silly looking mask you found on Amazon. When you see doctor’s walking around the world wearing a mask then you should too. Until then, stop.

  2. The symptoms are that of the flu. As doctors we don’t test or know about most people with mild or moderate flu symptoms. That means most people will probably get it and just think they had the flu. That means you’re only going to hear about the cases that get serious – not all the minor ones which will be the vast majority of cases.

  3. When it is said that people who are older or have other medical conditions are most likely to die – that is equally true for EVERY upper respiratory virus. There is nothing unique about that to this particular virus. It does mean that the only cases we tend to know about are the severe ones. Once a case is severe it then makes sense to test the patient to find out what virus in particular they have. That means you can easily overestimate how severe or lethal the virus is because the only cases you end up knowing about are the serious ones.

In summary,

30,000 people died from the flu last year. Another 30,000 died in car accidents. I remember: H1N1 (2009), MERS (2012), Ebola (2014), Coronavirus (2020).

Take it from me, the poor resident who stood at the door of the ER to triage people in 2009’s swine flu (H1N1) hysteria. The over reaction is exponentially worse than the actual problem and in 2020 the over reactions I’m seeing are remarkable. In cold and flu season you’ll probably get sick once or twice for about a week each. You might even get this particular coronavirus and most of you won’t even know it. I’ve seen people raiding supermarkets, major meetings and sporting events getting cancelled and fear/racism towards Asian people. These reactions are totally unnecessary and panic based. Just do what you’ve always done during cold/flu season. Stay away from other people when you’re sick, wash your hands and keep them away from your face, and only go to the ER if you feel your symptoms are more severe than a bad cold/flu (shortness of breath, high fever, etc.). And also realize you can’t live on earth and not get viral illnesses from time to time. It’s a part of nature.

**Please don’t ask for antibiotics **(those treat bacteria – not viruses). Thats like asking for a fire extinguisher when you’re drowning. It can be a life saving device – but the wrong one for the problem at hand. Some doctor’s don’t want to fight about it when patients insist on antibiotics so they just prescribe them – but it doesn’t mean its actually helping you and in some cases they can be harmful (resistance, infections, allergic reactions just to name a few). If you’re one who asks for antibiotics every time you’re sick, again, take it from me: ask for a flu shot each year and a doctor’s note to stay home from work when you’re sick instead. You will be much better off.

The government is very proud that testing will be available to every American, but remember, we don’t test for any respiratory virus other than the influenza virus routinely. The reason is thats the only virus that has a treatment (pill) you can take to shorten the duration of severity of the illness. I suspect if we start testing everyone with cold symptoms for coronavirus we’re going to find lots of it. It’s not going to change the recommendations to stay home and rest. And its not going to predict the small percentage of people who may develop more severe symptoms. Essentially whether someone has coronavirus 19 or some other cold/flu virus isn’t going to matter to your doctor. What it will do is slam urgent cares, ER’s and hospitals with every patient who has a cold so they can be tested. It is much more sensible to reserve testing for patients requiring hospitalization or more advanced treatments. Even that wouldn’t change their management but would be more to confirm the diagnosis and to not waste time looking for other causes of the patients symptoms.

In conclusion, yes there is a novel virus that our immune systems haven’t seen yet so to get immune to it you will have to get infected – at least until a vaccine is developed to bypass the getting sick part and just jumping straight to immune. Most people’s immune systems will do that effectively and be fine. A small percentage of unfortunate patients (primarily elderly, immune compromised etc.) will not be able to do that effectively and will need more advanced care. This is true of the cold/flu viruses we deal with every year. Follow normal cold/flu precautions and seek medical care if you feel your symptoms are severe. No need to get hysterical.

If you still think you should be scared consider this: Doctors, nurses and other healthcare staff are going to hospitals every day. Crowded buildings with tons of sick people. They aren’t walking around the halls of the hospitals wearing masks and they haven’t stopped going to work. And they are all rolling their eyes at everyone else right now.

— Marc Serota, MD


Communications with San Francisco Department of Health (SF-DPW) and Public Utilities Commmission (SF-PUC)

Date: November 20, 2019 @ 1:00 pm, PT

To: Hieu Doan 415-227-8529

Re: I just left you a message about recalling your worker from 3535 Sacramento Street, SF, CA this afternoon.

 
I just left you a voicemail message about recalling your worker from 3535 Sacramento Street, SF, CA this afternoon.

The authority here is the 8/9/19 DC Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling that you can learn about at these links:

Read also what the gentleman who wrote the intervenor brief for Case 18-1129 (a retired attorney) has to say about it . . . at the end of this email.

>>> To San Francisco residents

Does anyone want to descend on San Francisco City Hall Room 416 San Francisco, CA 94102 tomorrow at 5:00 pm to shut this whole 4G/5G Densification thing down for a year or so? Calling all RF-EMR All-Stars . . . we need the best for a few hours in SF from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm or so . . . who am I missing? Bring them along.

  • There are two separate appeals being presented tomorrow night starting at 5:00 pm at SF City Hall.

  • Two appeals + general public comment x 3 mins each = 12 minutes of public comment per person.

This is a great opportunity . . .


>>> From San Francisco resident Ron Rattner

Dear Friends,

There are two wireless antenna appeals on Wednesday’s November 20, 2019 San Francisco Board of Appeals agenda: https://sfgov.org/bdappeal/meetings/10

  1. 2736 Broderick Street (Item 6)
  2. 2735 Green Street (Items 7)

These are well-written appeal briefs which raise multiple issues, including a requested 4G/5G health moratorium. But both appeals involve SF-PUC light pole antennas the BOA may deny them based on the City Attorney’s disputed retroactive interpretation of the recently amended Article 25. Any such denial will probably be litigated under authorities cited by appellants.

Although item 7 involves a Verizon permit, the only opposing brief was filed by the DPW and not by Verizon’s outside counsel, Paul Albritton. Albritton’s credibility with the BOA has been severely damaged, if not destroyed, by the 1650 Baker appeal which documented his October 23rd false sworn public comment about illegal PG&E work for Verizon violating the appeal permit stay.

You can download and read all November 20 briefs at this link: https://sfgov.org/bdappeal/node/6469

Public comments favoring these appeals may be very helpful.

So please share this information.

Ron

——– Forwarded Message ——–
Subject: Re: Putting Our Shoulders to the Wheel
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:04:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: Edward Myers edwardbmyers@yahoo.com
To: Recipients

Gentlemen,

I am happy to speak to the DC Circuit’s decision. Contrary to some of the content in the email chain that you sent me from LA County, it is not correct to interpret the decision as only having application in the District of Columbia and it has implications well beyond the need for the government to consult with Native American tribes under the NHPA.

Please keep me up to date as arrangements are made for my involvement. Thanks.

Ed Myers

Testimony Edward B. Myers has offered to be delivered for him tonight as he cannot attend the 11/19/19 hearing in Montgomery County, Maryland.

I am an attorney and was an "intervenor" in the Court proceeding. 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 (and you can feel free to represent it as reflecting my view of the case):

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 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. While other actions of Congress and the FCC have attempted to circumscribe the County’s authority over the construction of Densified 4G/5G facilities, in light of the Court’s decision, the County is nevertheless within its rights in requiring 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.


March 2, 2020

Tomás J. Aragón, MD, DrPH
Health Officer, City & County of San Francisco
Director, Population Health Division (PHD)
San Francisco Department of Public Health
101 Grove St., Rm 308, SF CA 94102

cc: Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
     Patrick Fosdahl patrick.fosdahl@sfdph.org
     Jennifer Callewaert jennifer.callewaert@sfdph.org
     Arthur Duque arthur.duque@sfdph.org
     Aaron Peskin Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org
     Sunny Angulo Sunny.Angulo@sfgov.org

Dear Dr. Aragon et al.

I am sure you have your hands full with preparations for the spread of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). I read that there are many theories that have contributed to its current community spread.

I would like to discuss with you by phone today or tomorrow information that I will be entering into the public record on Wed Mar 4, that may have direct impacts on the SF-DPH’s role in endangerment.

San Francisco resident, Cheryl Lea Hogan, who resides at 3535 Sacramento St is a woman who wrote an excellent Appeal brief that argued that the City of San Francisco should neither install nor power on (at unnecessary projected maximum power output levels) the Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRA) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) in front of her home. Ms. Hogan, unfortunately, underwent emergency surgery to remove a fast-growing brain tumor, over the weekend.

I recommend that you first read this Dec 30, 2019 letter written by San Francisco resident Ron Rattner —> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/2019-rattner-letter/.

I also would carefully read this SF Board of Appeals appeal brief, which I shared with you, Patrick Fosdahl, Jennifer Callewaert and Arthur Arthur Duque on October 22, 2019 in your office, including this relevant part:

The following photos were taken on Nov 20, 2020 of the CPMRA-WTF that was installed in front of 3535 Sacramento St. in San Francisco. Cheryl Hogan lives on the second floor of the building behind the blue car.

Photo taken from inside Chery’s bedroom: The Macro Tower Antenna is 12 feet from her window.

The City of San Francisco’s actions/inaction in failing to adequately address these conditions of endangerment since Oct 22, 2019 are very germane to this appeal and to Cheryl Lea’s Hogan current condition. In addition, the specific roles being being played by Medical Doctors, Grant Colfax and Tomás J. Aragón, MD, DrPH are also germane. Dr. Aragon, I informed you by email on October 23, 2019 to which specific person in the San Francisco Police department you would need to report such endangering conditions. I am now following up to see if you took the mandated reporting action. Please forward any evidence that shows you have been responsive to these mandated reporting duties and obligations.

I would like to discuss with you and Dr. Colfax today any actions that the City of San Francisco can immediately take to address this kind of well-documented endangerment.

I will report your response or lack the response by Drs. Aragon and Colfax to the SF Board of Appeals and into the SF Public record on Wed Mar 4, 2020.

Here is some more background on Cheryl Lea Hogan, who may not be with us much longer.

Cheryl Hogan’s father’s Wikipedia entry is here –> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Hogan

"Clarence Lester "Les" Hogan (February 8, 1920 – August 12, 2008) was an American physicist and a pioneer in microwave and semiconductor technology.

He grew up as a brother to three sisters in Great Falls, Montana, where his father worked for the Great Northern Railway. After graduating from Montana State University with a degree in chemical engineering he joined the United States Navy in 1942. He did some work on acoustic torpedoes in Chesapeake Bay, and when being approached by Bell Laboratories, subsequently went to the Pacific theatre to train submarine crews in the use of that technology.

After the war he did post-graduate studies at Lehigh University and obtained a Ph.D. in Physics. He then joined Bell Labs in 1950. A couple of months later he invented the Microwave Gyrator (a device which can simulate inductance by substituting an RC circuit, thus getting rid of awkward coil assemblies). He worked under Bill Shockley, inventor of the transistor and Nobel Prize laureate. From 1953 through 1958 he was a professor at Harvard University, when he was asked by Dan Noble to join Motorola Semiconductor in Phoenix, Arizona as Vice President and General Manager of the semiconductor operation.

In 1968 he moved to Fairchild Camera & Instrument as Chairman and CEO, taking eight senior executives (nicknamed Hogan’s Heroes) with him. This move caused Motorola to sue Fairchild (unsuccessfully) for theft of trade secrets.

In 1975 he received IEEE’s "Frederik Philips Award". In 1978 he was honored with the "AeA Medal of Achievement". In 1993 he received the "MTT-S Microwave Pioneer Award". In 1996, a chair at the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of California, Berkeley was named in his honor. On October 20, 1999, he was inducted as "Eminent Member" of Eta Kappa Nu, "the society’s highest membership classification, to be conferred upon those select few whose technical attainments and contributions to society through leadership in the field of electrical and computer engineering have resulted in significant benefits to humankind".

C. Lester Hogan died at the age of 88 due to complications of Alzheimer’s disease at his home in Atherton, California. He is survived by his wife, the former Audrey Biery Peters and his daughter Cheryl Lea Hogan.
Cheryl Lea Hogan (415-572-8231) was diagnosed with a brain tumor a few months after the so-called "Small Cell" outside of her home was turned on around Nov 20, 2019.

See the photos, above of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) installation from Nov 20, 2019. This antenna is only 12 feet from Cheryl’s home at 3535 Sacramento St., SF, CA.

Cheryl’s appeal of this cell tower is here –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/

The Appeal was denied.

Thank you.


March 2, 2020

Brent Andrew brent.andrew@sfdph.org
San Francisco Department of Public Health
work 415-206-6995
cell 415-530-1199

Dear Mr. Andrews,

We are seeking comments from Dr. Grant Colfax, MD and Dr. Tomás J. Aragón, MD, DrPH on our Mar 2, 2020 email, quoted below. We will reproduce the quotes sent to us by Mar 3, 2020 at 6:00 pm. In the absence of comments, we can only report them as no-shows on this critically-important San Francisco public health disaster — a consistent no-show for a full eight months.

I just called Dr. Tomas Aragon. I reached him at 415-554-2898 and asked for the SF-DPH’s response. Today, I received from Dr. Aragon just another series of stock replies: "I am too busy . . . I cannot speak . . . I don’t know."

That’s eight full months of stonewalling since this July 3, 2019 letter from Julie Rosenberg, the Executive Director of the SF Board of Appeals to San Francisco Dept. of Health.

On Wed Mar 4, 2018, we will be publishing this page:

We are documenting and releasing to the press, the many failures of the SF-DPH to address this critically-important issue of excessive exposures to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) which results in scientifically-established melatonin-suppression, immuno-suppression, immediate and direct neurological damages as well as speeding the growth of cancerous tumors, as in Cheryl Hogan’s case in San Francisco and in 25-year-old Kelly’s case in Sebastopol —>https://youtu.be/7JJtBtcNmeU?t=1068
and https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/#death

This is particularly relevant as we prepare for the spread of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in San Francisco.

We already have well-documented outcomes (all shared with Drs. Colfax and Aragon) of what happens to people who live too close to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) antennas that are in line with second- and third-story bedroom windows at pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposure levels that are well within the FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines which have never been protective of scientifically-established melatonin-suppression, immuno-suppression, immediate and direct neurological damages as well as speeding the growth of cancerous tumors,

Despite many empty promises, Dr. Aragon has not sufficiently followed through on completing the assignment given to him: an update of the June 14, 2010 Memo SF-DPH Memo by Dr. Rajiv Bhatia re: Health Effects and Regulation of Wireless Communications Networks.

These are also integral parts of the story:

  1. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020/01/mohammed-nuru-head-of-sf-public-works-arrested-in-fbi-corruption-probe

  2. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/#F

  3. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0296/

  4. Nov 22, 2019 San Francisco Board of Appeals Hearing —> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/#sanfrancisco(see Cheryl Hogan featured in this video)

  5. Oct 22, 2019 San Francisco Board of Supervisors Meeting —> http://mystreetmychoice.com/sanfrancisco.html

  6. San Francisco Board of Appeals: September 25, 2019 —> http://mystreetmychoice.com/sanfrancisco.html


March 3, 2080

Tomás J. Aragón, MD, DrPH
Health Officer, City & County of San Francisco
Director, Population Health Division (PHD)
San Francisco Department of Public Health
101 Grove St., Rm 308, SF CA 94102

cc: Grant Colfax, MD
     Brent Andrew

Dear Dr. Aragon et al.,

Any statements, gentlemen, about the plight San Francisco resident Cheryl Hogan and her unsuccessful WTF appeal in 2019? (see the news, below)

We will be addressing in the public record tomorrow the critically-important issues of excessive exposures to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) which results in scientifically-established melatonin-suppression, immuno-suppression, immediate and direct neurological damages as well as speeding the growth of cancerous tumors, as in Cheryl Hogan’s case in San Francisco and in 25-year-old Kelly’s case in Sebastopol –> https://youtu.be/7JJtBtcNmeU?t=1068

Will Drs. Aragon and Colfax make any substantive statements about a prudent and logical Public Health policy of powering off all Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRA) so-called "Small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) in San Francisco in order to no longer suppress melatonin levels and the immune systems of the people of San Francisco in order to prevent unnecessary deaths from the expected community spread of COVID-19?

We would like to report some response from the SF-DPH and not just radio silence.

Will you please let me know?

——– Forwarded Message ——–

Subject: Cheryl
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:03:14 -0800
From: Gary W
To: Recipient

I called Cheryl Hogan’s room and the call was picked up by Mark, one of Cheryl’s sons. I asked how she was doing, and he said he couldn’t talk right now. So if he can’t talk about her condition in front of her, that is worrisome.

I also asked if she would be able, or would want to see, visitors tomorrow. His answer was “Probably not”. He suggested waiting 2-3 days and then asking again.

So all in all, that is not really the news we had hoped to hear.

Gary


March 3, 2080

Tomás J. Aragón, MD, DrPH
Health Officer, City & County of San Francisco
Director, Population Health Division (PHD)
San Francisco Department of Public Health
101 Grove St., Rm 308, SF CA 94102

Dear Dr. Aragon,

Please find below just a few melatonin suppression studies from this established science for you, Dr. Aragon.

. . . and this . . . Resonance Beings of Frequency

https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/resonance-beings-of-frequency/

Please watch from 1:07:40 to 1:18:00 . . . a documentary I shared with you back on October 22, 2019.

"We have in our lab 12,000 studies on melatonin suppression . . . that is more studies than have been published on in Paracetamol [/Acetaminophen]."

Paracetamol/Acetaminophen

This drug is used to treat mild to moderate pain (from headaches, menstrual periods, toothaches, backaches, osteoarthritis, or cold/flu aches and pains) and to reduce fever.
Take this product by mouth as directed. Follow all directions on the product package. If you are uncertain about any of the information, consult your doctor or pharmacist.
There are many brands and forms of acetaminophen available.

EPIDEMIOLOGIC NEUROLOGICAL, HORMONAL and GENETIC STUDIES for INFRASTRUCTURAL RF-EMR RADIATION

Alaa El-Din Sallam, Soha A. Hassan, Ehab Hassaneen & Elham M. Ali; Biological Rhythm Research, 47:4, 597-607, DOI: 10.1080/09291016.2016.1173361, 2016

Biological clocks are innate timing mechanisms that regulate many behavioral and physiological parameters in most organisms. In our modern life, heavy use of mobile phones (MPs) exerts a massive stress on organisms because their electromagnetic radiation usually results in varying degrees of damage to their biological systems including the biological rhythms. In the present study, the possible effects of exposure to radiofrequency–electromagnetic radiation (RF–EMR) from MPs on two characteristic circadian rhythms, locomotor activity and melatonin hormone rhythms, were investigated. Rats were exposed to RF–EMR from MPs at 900 MHz frequency (2-h/day for 2 weeks) during nighttime (20:00–22:00 h) followed by another two weeks without exposure for recovery. Locomotor activity rhythms of the control and treated groups (n = 5/group) were daily recorded using running wheels along the experimental period. For evaluating melatonin hormone rhythm, blood samples of control and treated groups (n = 12/group), were collected at the end of exposure and recovery periods, at 6-h time intervals per day (at 4:00, 10:00, 16:00, and 22:00 h). Rats exposed to RF–EMR exhibited phase shifting as well as a significant increased acrophase level in locomotor activity. Meanwhile, a significant decrease in serum melatonin levels with retaining lower amplitude rhythmicity was observed. Ceasing exposure for two weeks did not restore melatonin levels and circadian locomotor activity rhythms. It could be concluded that, under the current conditions, exposure to RF–EMR revealed disturbances in locomotor activity and melatonin level, although they maintained rhythmicity.

Qin F1, Zhang J, Cao H, Yi C, Li JX, Nie J, Chen LL, Wang J, Tong J.; J Toxicol Environ Health A., 2012

  • "Effects of 1800-MHz radiofrequency fields on circadian rhythm of plasma melatonin and testosterone in male rats."

  • ABSTRACT

Radiofrequency fields (RF) at 1800 MHz are known to affect melatonin (MEL) and testosterone in male rats, but it remains to be determined whether RF affected circadian rhythm of these plasma hormones. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed to 1800-MHz RF at an average of 2,080,000 μW/m² power density (SAR: 0.5762 W/kg) at different zeitgeber (ZT) periods of the day, including 0 (ZT0), 4 (ZT4), 8 (ZT8), 12 (ZT12), 16 (ZT16), and 20 (ZT20) h. RF exposure was 2 h/d for 32 d. From each rat, the concentrations of plasma MEL and testosterone were determined in plasma after RF exposure and compared with controls.

The results confirmed the existence of circadian rhythms in the synthesis of MEL and testosterone, but revealed an inverse relationship in peak phase of these rhythms. These rhythms were disturbed after exposure to RF, with the effect being more pronounced on MEL than testosterone. The most pronounced effect of RF exposure on MEL and testosterone appears to be in rats exposed to RF at ZT 16 and ZT0 h, respectively. Data suggest that regulation of testosterone is controlled by MEL and that MEL is more sensitive to RF exposure.

Meo, S. A., Almahmoud, M., Alsultan, Q., Alotaibi, N., Alnajashi, I., & Hajjar, W. M. (2018); American Journal of Men’s Health, 2018

The use of mobile phones has remarkably increased and become a basic need of daily life. Increasing subscriptions of mobile phones boost the installation of mobile phone base station towers (MPBSTs) in crowded commercial and residential areas including near school buildings. This study investigated the impact of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) generated by MPBSTs on cognitive functions. Two hundred and seventeen volunteer male students aged between 13 and 16 registered from two different intermediate schools: 124 students were from School 1 and 93 students were from School 2. The MPBSTs were located within 200 m from the school buildings. In School 1, RF-EMF was 20,100 µW/m² with a frequency of 925 MHz and in School 2, RF-EMF was 100,210 µW/m² with a frequency of 925 MHz. Students were exposed to RF-EMR for 6 hr a day, 5 days a week for a total period of 2 years.

The Narda Safety Test Solution device SRM-3006 was used to measure RF-EMF in both schools, and cognitive functions tasks were measured by the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). Significant impairment in Motor Screening Task (MOT; p = .03) and Spatial Working Memory (SWM) task ( p = .04) was identified among the group of students who were exposed to high RF-EMF produced by MPBSTs. High exposure to RF-EMF produced by MPBSTs was associated with delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention in school adolescents compared to students who were exposed to low RF-EMF.

Abdel-Rassoul et al.; Neurotoxicology, 2007

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16962663

  • "Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations"

  • This study found that living nearby mobile phone base stations (cell antennas) increased the risk for neuropsychiatric problems such as headaches, memory problems, dizziness, tremors,depression, sleep problems and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions.

  • ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are possible hazardous health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiations (RFR) emitted from mobile phone base station antennas on the human nervous system.

AIM: To identify the possible neurobehavioral deficits among inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations.

METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on** (85) inhabitants** living nearby the first mobile phone station antenna in Menoufiya governorate, Egypt, 37 are living in a building under the station antenna while 48 opposite the station. A control group (80) participants were matched with the exposed for age, sex, occupation and educational level. All participants completed a structured questionnaire containing: personal, educational and medical histories; general and neurological examinations; neurobehavioral test battery (NBTB) [involving tests for visuomotor speed, problem solving, attention and memory]; in addition to Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ).

RESULTS: The prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints as headache (23.5%), memory changes (28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep disturbance (23.5%) were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants than controls: (10%), (5%), (5%), (0%), (8.8%) and (10%), respectively (P<0.05).

The NBTB indicated that the exposed inhabitants exhibited a significantly lower performance than controls in one of the tests of attention and short-term auditory memory [Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT)].

Also, the inhabitants opposite the station exhibited a lower performance in the problem solving test (block design) than those under the station. All inhabitants exhibited a better performance in the two tests of visuomotor speed (Digit symbol and Trailmaking B) and one test of attention (Trailmaking A) than controls. The last available measures of RFR emitted from the first mobile phone base station antennas in Menoufiya governorate were less than the allowable standard level.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Inhabitants living nearby mobile phone base stations are at risk for developing neuropsychiatric problems and some changes in the performance of neurobehavioral functions either by facilitation or inhibition. So, revision of standard guidelines for public exposure to RER from mobile phone base station antennas and using of NBTB for regular assessment and early detection of biological effects among inhabitants around the stations are recommended.

Shahbazi-Gahrouei D, Karbalae M, Moradi HA,. et al., Electromagnetic Biology Medicine, 2013

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23781985

  • "Health effects of living near mobile phone base transceiver station (BTS) antennae: a report from Isfahan, Iran"

  • This cross-sectional study found the symptoms of nausea, headache, dizziness, irritability, discomfort, nervousness, depression, sleep disturbance, memory loss and lowering of libido were statistically increased in people living closer than 300 meters from cell antennas as compared to those living farther away. The study concludes that “antennas should not be sited closer than 300 m to people to minimize exposure.”

  • ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In recent years, by tremendous use of mobile phone telecommunication, possible health hazards have increased greatly among the public and among scientists. The mobile phone exposure has been shown to have many effects upon the immune functions, stimulating hormones, mammalian brain, sperm motility and morphology, and neurological pathologies syndrome. The aim of this study was to find out the psychological and psychobiological reactions of the people who are living near mobile phone base transceiver stations (BTS) antenna, in Isfahan, Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study on 250 randomly selected inhabitants (133 women and 117 men) was performed in October 2012 till November 2012. The inhabitants were requested to complete a standardized questionnaire that focused on the relevant psychological and psychobiological reactions parameters. A computer program (SPSS version16.0, Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis using the Chi-square test with Yates correction. All the data were tested using a criterion level of p = 0.05.

**RESULTS: **The results showed that most of the symptoms such as nausea, headache, dizziness, irritability, discomfort, nervousness, depression, sleep disturbance, memory loss and lowering of libido were statistically significant in the inhabitants living near the BTS antenna (<300 m distances) compared to those living far from the BTS antenna (>300 m).

CONCLUSION: It is suggested that cellular phone BTS antenna should not be sited closer than 300 meters to populations to minimize exposure of neighbors.

Bortkiewicz et al, 2004 (Poland), ,Med Pr.2004;55(4):345-51.

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15620045
  • "Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base stations: review"
  • Residents close to mobile phone masts reported: more incidences of circulatory problems, sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision and concentration difficulties the nearer they lived to the mast.
  • The performed studies showed the relationship between the incidence of individual symptoms, the level of exposure, and the distance between a residential area and a base station.

  • ABSTRACT

The problem of health effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by cellular phone base stations evokes much interest in view of the fact that people living in their vicinity are fated to continuous exposure to EMR. . A questionnaire was used as a study tool. The results of the questionnaire survey reveal that people living in the vicinity of base stations report various complaints mostly of the circulatory system, but also of sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite, headache and vertigo. The performed studies showed the relationship between the incidence of individual symptoms, the level of exposure, and the distance between a residential area and a base station. This association was observed in both groups of persons, those who linked their complaints with the presence of the base station and those who did not notice such a relation. Further studies, clinical and those based on questionnaires, are needed to explain the background of reported complaints.

Wolf R and Wolf D, International Journal of Cancer Prevention, (Israel) VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2, 2004

  • https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/paper.asp?paperID=3454

  • Increased Incidence of Cancer Near a Cell-phone Transmitter Station

  • A significant higher rate of cancer (300% increase) among all residents living within 300 meter radius of a mobile phone mast for between three and seven years was detected.

  • ABSTRACT

In the area of exposure (area A) eight cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of only one year. This rate of cancers was compared both with the rate of 31 cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 2/1222 rate recorded in the nearby clinic (area B). The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station. Relative cancer rates for femaleswere 10.5 for area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for the whole town of Netanya. Cancer incidence of women in area A was thus significantly higher (p less than 0.0001) compared with that of area B and the whole city. A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area A than in the entire population. The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station.

Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM, Le Ruz P, Seigne M. , Pathol Biol (Paris). Jul;50(6):369-73, 2002

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12168254

  • "Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex"

  • People living near mobile phone masts reported more symptoms of headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss and concentration problems the closer they lived to the installation. Study authors recommend that the minimal distance of people from cellular phone base stations should not be < 300 m.

  • ABSTRACT

A survey study using questionnaire was conducted in 530 people (270 men, 260 women) living or not in vicinity of cellular phone base stations, on 18 Non Specific Health Symptoms. Comparisons of complaints frequencies (CHI-SQUARE test with Yates correction) in relation with distance from base station and sex, show significant (p < 0.05) increase as compared to people living > 300 m or not exposed to base station:

  • 300 meters for tiredness,
  • 200 meters for headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, etc.
  • 100 meters for irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, etc.

Women significantly more often than men (p < 0.05) complained of headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disturbance, depression, discomfort and visual perturbations. This first study on symptoms experienced by people living in vicinity of base stations shows that, in view of radioprotection, minimal distance of people from cellular phone base stations should not be < 300 m.

Navarro EA, Segura J, Portoles M, Gomez-Perretta C, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Volume 22, Issue 2, (): 161 – 169 2003

  • http://www.emrpolicy.org/science/research/docs/navarro_ebm_2003.pdf

  • The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study. 2003 (Spain)

  • Statistically significant positive exposure-response associations between RFR intensity and fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems.

Oberfeld, A.E. Navarro, M. Portoles, C. Maestu, C. Gomez-Perretta, Public Health Department Salzburg, Austria, 2003

  • https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/paper.asp?paperID=5026

  • The microwave syndrome: further aspects of a Spanish study,

  • A health survey was carried out in La Ñora, Murcia, Spain, in the vicinity of two GSM 900/1800 MHz cellular phone base stations. The adjusted (sex, age, distance) logistic regression model showed statistically significant positive exposure-response associations between the E-field and the following variables: fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorder, depressive tendency, feeling of discomfort, difficulty in concentration, loss of memory, visual disorder, dizziness and cardiovascular problems.

Tetsuharu Shinjyo and Akemi Shinjyo Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft, 27(4), S. 294-301. Subject to a special peer-review procedure by the Scientific Advisory Board of Umwelt-MedizinGesellschaft, 2014

  • Link to original study in pdf form

  • "Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms after Mobile Phone Base Station Removal – An Intervention Study"

  • Japanese study shows statistically Significant Adverse Health Effects from electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations. Residents of a condominium building that had cell tower antennas on the rooftop were examined before and after cell tower antennas were removed. In 1998, 800MHz cell antennas were installed, then later in 2008 a second set of antennas (2GHz) were installed. Medical exams and interviews were conducted before and after the antennas were removed in 2009 on 107 residents of the building who had no prior knowledge about possible effects. These results lead researchers to question the construction of mobile phone base stations on top of buildings such as condominiums or houses.

  • Symptoms include sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations,

Hutter HP et al. , Occup Environ Med. 2006 May;63(5):307‐13, 2006

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16621850

  • Found a significant relationship between some cognitive symptoms and measured power density in 365 subjects; highest for headaches. Perceptual speed increased, while accuracy decreased insignificantly with increasing exposure levels.

  • ABSTRACT:

BACKGROUND: The erection of mobile telephone base stations in inhabited areas has resulted in health effects caused by emitted microwaves.

METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of randomly selected inhabitants living in urban and rural areas for more than one year near to 10 selected base stations, 365 subjects were investigated. Several cognitive tests were performed, and well-being and sleep quality were assessed. Field strength of high-frequency electromagnetic fields (HF-EMF) was measured in the bedrooms of 336 households.

RESULTS: Total RF-EMR and exposure related to mobile telecommunication were far below recommended levels (maximum of 4,100 µW/m² is far below 10,000,000 µW/m²). Distance from antennas was 24-600 meters in the rural area and 20-250 meters in the urban area.

Average power density was slightly higher in the rural area (50 µW/m²) than in the urban area (20 µW/m²). Despite the influence of confounding variables, including fear of adverse effects from exposure to RF-EMR from the base station, there was a significant relation of some symptoms to measured power density; this was highest for** headaches. Perceptual speed** increased, while accuracy decreased insignificantly with increasing exposure levels. There was no significant effect on sleep quality.

CONCLUSION: Despite very low exposure to RF-EMR, effects on well-being and performance cannot be ruled out, as shown by recently obtained experimental results.

Bucher,. Klaus and Eger, Horst; Journal of Electromagetic Fields, 2011

  • https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521095891.pdf

  • "Changes of Neurochemically Important Transmitters under the influence of modulated RF fields – A Long Term Study under Real Life Conditions, (Germany)

  • German study showing elevated levels of stress hormones (adrenaline, noradrenaline), and lowered dopamine and PEA levels in urine in area residents during 1st 6 months of cell tower installation. Even after 1.5 years, the levels did not return to normal.

Eskander EF et al.; Clin Biochem, 2011

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22138021

  • "How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?"

  • RFR exposures significantly impacted ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for females, and testosterone levels for males.

  • ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study is concerned with assessing the role of exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) emitted either from mobiles or base stations and its relations with human’s hormone profiles.

DESIGN AND METHODS: All volunteers’ samples were collected for hormonal analysis.

RESULTS: This study showed significant decrease in volunteers’ ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels.

CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that high RFR effects on pituitary-adrenal axis.

Ghandi et al.; 2014 (India):

A cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station.
• This cross-sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals living near cell towers found genetic damage parameters of DNA were significantly elevated. The authors state.”

  • ABSTRACT

"Mobile phone base stations facilitate good communication, but the continuously emitting radiation from these stations have raised health consequences. Hence in this study, genetic damage using the single cell gel electrophoresis (comet) assay was assessed in peripheral blood leukocytes of individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station and comparing it to that in healthy controls. The power density in the area within 300 m from the base station exceeded the permissive limits and was significantly (p = 0.000) higher compared to the area from where control samples were collected. The study participants comprised 63 persons with residences near a mobile phone tower, and 28 healthy controls matched for gender, age, alcohol drinking and occupational sub-groups. Genetic damage parameters of DNA migration length, damage frequency (DF) and damage index were significantly (p = 0.000) elevated in the sample group compared to respective values in healthy controls. The female residents (n = 25) of the sample group had significantly (p = 0.004) elevated DF than the male residents (n = 38). The linear regression analysis further revealed daily mobile phone usage, location of residence and power density as significant predictors of genetic damage. The genetic damage evident in the participants of this study needs to be addressed against future disease-risk, which in addition to neurodegenerative disorders, may lead to cancer.

Gulati S, Yadav A, Kumar N, Kanupriya, Aggarwal NK, Kumar R, Gupta R; Arch Environ Contam Toxicol., 2015

  • https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-015-0195-y

  • "Effect of GSTM1 and GSTT1 Polymorphisms on Genetic Damage in Humans Populations Exposed to Radiation From Mobile Towers"

  • In our study, 116 persons exposed to radiation from mobile towers and 106 control subjects were genotyped for polymorphisms in the GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes by multiplex polymerase chain reaction method. DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes was determined using alkaline comet assay in terms of tail moment (TM) value and micronucleus assay in buccal cells (BMN).

  • Our results indicated that TM value and BMN frequency were higher in an exposed population compared with a control group and the difference is significant. In our study, we found that different health symptoms, such as depression, memory status, insomnia, and hair loss, were significantly associated with exposure to RF-EMR. Damaging effects of nonionizing radiation result from the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and subsequent radical formation and from direct damage to cellular macromolecules including DNA.

  • ABSTRACT

"All over the world, people have been documenting associated health risks due to radiation from mobile phones and mobile towers. The carcinogenicity of this nonionizing radiation has been the greatest health hazard associated with mobile towers exposure.

The objective of our study was to evaluate the genetic damage caused by radiation from mobile towers and to find an association between genetic polymorphism of GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes and DNA damage. In our study, 116 persons exposed to radiation from mobile towers and 106 control subjects were genotyped for polymorphisms in the GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes by multiplex polymerase chain reaction method. DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes was determined using alkaline comet assay in terms of tail moment (TM) value and micronucleus assay in buccal cells (BMN).

There was a significant increase in BMN frequency and TM value in exposed subjects (3.65 ± 2.44 and 6.63 ± 2.32) compared with control subjects (1.23 ± 0.97 and 0.26 ± 0.27).

Pandey N, Giri S, Toxicol Ind Health. ;34(5):315-327. doi: 10.1177/0748233718758092, 2018.

Increasing male infertility of unknown etiology can be associated with environmental factors. Extensive use of mobile phones has exposed the general population to unprecedented levels of radiofrequency radiations (RFRs) that may adversely affect male reproductive health. Therefore, the present study investigated the effect of RFR Global System for Mobile communication (GSM) type, 900 MHz and melatonin supplementation on germ cell development during spermatogenesis.

Swiss albino mice were divided into four groups. One group received RFR exposure for 3 h twice/day for 35 days and the other group received the same exposure but with melatonin ( N-acetyl-5-methoxytryptamine) (MEL; 5 mg/kg bw/day). Two other groups received only MEL or remain unexposed.

Sperm head abnormality, total sperm count, biochemical assay for lipid peroxides, reduced glutathione, superoxide dismutase activity and testis histology were evaluated. Additionally, flow cytometric evaluation of germ cell subtypes and comet assay were performed in testis.

Extensive DNA damage in germ cells of RFR-exposed animals along with arrest in pre-meiotic stages of spermatogenesis eventually leading to low sperm count and sperm head abnormalities were observed. Furthermore, biochemical assays revealed excess free radical generation resulting in histological and morphological changes in testis and germ cells morphology, respectively.

Even more studies can be found here.


March 6, 2020
   

To:
Tomás J. Aragón, MD, DrPH
Health Officer, City & County of San Francisco
Director, Population Health Division (PHD)
San Francisco Department of Public Health
101 Grove St., Rm 308, SF CA 94102

cc:
Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
Brent Andrew brent.andrew@sfdph.org
Patrick Fosdahl patrick.fosdahl@sfdph.org
Jennifer Callewaert jennifer.callewaert@sfdph.org
Arthur Duque arthur.duque@sfdph.org
Aaron Peskin Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org
Sunny Angulo Sunny.Angulo@sfgov.org
Ahsha Safai Ahsha.Safai@sfgov.org
Matt Haney Matt.Haney@sfgov.org
Erica Major Erica.Major@sfgov.org
Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org
SF Health Commission healthcommission.dph@sfdph.org
James Loyce, Jr., M.S., President
Dan Bernal, Vice President
Edward A. Chow M.D.
Cecilia Chung
Suzanne Giraudo, Ph.D.
Laurie Green, M.D.
Tessie Guillermo
SF Board of Appealsboardofappeals@sfgov.org
Rick Swig: President
Ann Lazarus: Vice President
Darryl Honda: Commissioner
Rachael Tanner: Commissioner
Eduardo Santacana: ​Commissioner
Julie Rosenberg julie.rosenberg@sfgov.org

Re: Request for Immediate Humanitarian Help from the SF Dept of Health for Cheryl Hogan —> San Francisco 4G/5G "Small" Cell Leads to Fast Brain Mass

I would listen carefully to the testimony at the March San Francisco Board of Appeals:

https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/fail/

We are seeking answers from the SF Dept of Health this week. Cheryl Hogan (we hope) will be returning home on Mon Mar 9 and we need the Cell Tower at 3529 Sacramento Street powered off as soon as possible

Also . . . WILL SAN FRANCISCO POWER OFF ALL OF THEIR 4G/5G SO-CALLED "SMALL" CELLS OR NOT?

From the March 4, 2020 San Francisco Board of Appeals Meeting.

"As we prepare for caronavirus/COVID-19 community spread, cities can make choices, too. With over 12,000 studies of established science, concluding that pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) blocks melatonin production and causes immuno-suppression, WILL SAN FRANCISCO POWER OFF ALL OF THEIR 4G/5G SO-CALLED "SMALL" CELLS OR NOT?"

March 4, 2020 Testimony From Attorney Gary Widman

TO: SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS

Board Members –

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate within my own personal knowledge.

I speak to you tonight as a friend of Ms. Cheryl Hogan, not as her retained attorney. However, to acquaint you with my background — I served as General Counsel of the Council on Environmental Quality in the White House under Presidents Nixon and Ford. I also served as Associate Solicitor of the Department of the Interior appointed by President Carter, and as the Director of the Office of Staff Attorneys at the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Among other tasks, I also taught Environment Law in all the "local" UC Law Schools; Hastings in San Francisco, U.C. Berkeley and Davis.

Last fall you rejected Ms. Hogan’s appeal asking rejection of a "small wireless facility" that was later installed just 12 feet from her window at 3535 Sacramento St. She provided you with a binder of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that was compiled by SF-DPH Director Dr. Aragon’s "other boss" Dr. Joel Moskowitz at UC Berkeley (where Dr. Aragon teaches). I understand that you referred that binder to Dr. Aragon for comment, but for whatever reason, now, eight months later, neither the Board nor the public has received Dr. Aragon’s evaluations of these scientific studies. (Back to the binder below.)

Shortly after installation of the WTF on or about Nov. 20, 2019, Ms. Hogan became ill and was diagnosed with a fast-growing brain tumor, a glioblastoma. That is the same type of tumor that killed Ted Kennedy, John McCain and Joe Biden’s son Beau. Ms. Hogan underwent surgery on Monday, March 2. As I write this on March 3, she is still in the Intensive Care Unit of the CPMC Van Ness hospital. We have our fingers crossed.

My first request is that for the love of God, please provide some humanitarian help here! Please turn off the power to that facility immediately so that Ms. Hogan can recover from this devastating experience in her own home.

Second, we request that you remove this WTF entirely, as you now know that it is almost certain to promote growth of her brain cancer.

We know that one cannot argue with 100% certainty that her cancer was caused by this installation. On the other hand, probabilities are that for woman of her age, with no family or personal history of brain cancer, when diagnosed with a fast growing gliobastoma growing within three months of a WTF installation a few yards from her home, it is highly unlikely she contracted that cancer from any other source.

The information in the binder presented to you in June, 2019 is evidence that in 2011, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF-EMR exposures from any source as a Group 2B possible carcinogen and is poised to soon reclassify RF-EMR exposures from any source to be a Group 1 definite human carcinogen — based on results in 2018-2019 from peer-reviewed animal studies by the US Govt. National Toxicology program, the Ramazzini Institute in Italy and the on-going work by Lennart Hardell in Sweden. That knowledge by itself — shared with the SF Board of Appeals back in June 2019 — (especially in light of SF’s ordinances requiring proof of safety before permitting exposure to potential sources of cancer) would have justified your halting approval WTFs in the public rights-of-way at once.

In addition, that black binder included peer-reviewed science establishing that RF Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation at levels hundreds of thousands of times lower than the 1996 FCC exposure guidelines causes a multitude of adverse health effects, including melatonin-suppression, immune-suppression, and neurological damage, as well as speeding the growth of cancerous tumors. That information should have guided your decision.

We ask for your humanitarian help for a woman who appears to have contracted brain cancer from microwave radiation from a small wireless facility installed pursuant to a decision of this Board. We ask your help in order to make her home safe for her to return to.

Finally we ask that you recognize the real life health effects of all the WTFS you have approved and will consider in the future. Ms. Hogan’s cancer shows you that these health effects are very real and that your decisions could have life or death effects on the citizens of San Francisco.

(I express these matters based on facts and law, and not out of a mere feeling for the consequences in this particular case.)

If you and your counsel would like to consider these matters of fact and/or law in the future, please call on me at any time.

Thank you.


March 9, 2020

Jeremy Spitz jeremy.spitz@sfdpw.org
Office of Director of Public Works
City Hall, room 348
San Francisco, CA

cc:
Aaron Pesksin
Sunny Angulo
Erica Major
Mark Torres

Re: Immediate Disclosure Request

Dear Mr. Spitz and Mr. Steinberg,

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public Record for Ordinance 190-19, which made changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so].

Mr. Spitz, I got your name and number from Erica Major; she told me that you were the key legislative contact for SF-DPW. You and I just finished our call. Thank you for sharing your contact at the SF-PUC

Barbara Hale is the Assistant General Manager of the SF-PUC’s Power Enterprise, San Francisco’s Municipal Power Utility, with an operating budget of $150 million/year and capital budget of about $25 million/year. Ms. Hale oversees all aspects of the sales of 1.6 billion kWh/yr to retail and wholesale customers; needed purchases of energy, transmission and distribution services; development and implementation of energy efficiency and renewable generation projects and programs; and maintenance and operation of City-owned and located streetlights, switch gear and substations. Ms. Hale provides strategic advice on energy policy matters to the SF-PUC Commission. She also acts as liaison for the SF-PUC with State and Federal agencies responsible for energy policy. Prior to her employment with SF-PUC, Ms. Hale worked for the State of California PUC in progressively responsible positions, including Advisor to the President, Administrative Law Judge, and Director of Strategic Planning.

I also heard from the Communications Dept. of the SF-PUC that Mark Torres, copied on this email, is in charge of the installation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) on the metal and concrete light poles throughout the City of San Francisco. In round %’s, it appears that the whole universe of poles in the SF public rights-of-way are comprised of wooden utility poles owned by PG&E (40%) metal and concrete light poles owned by SF-PUC (55%) and various metal and concreted traffic poles owned by the MTA (5%). Mark will you please call me so we can discuss the current SF-PUC process for accepting and approving application for so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) in the public rights-of-way?

Our interest is in finding out what is the current trajectory for the repeal of Ordinance 190-19, which made changes to SF-DPW Article 25.

Thank you for pointing out the following:

  • Suggested changes to Article 25 to align it with Aug 2018 FCC Order 18-111 (No Moratoria/One Touch-Make-Ready) and the Sept 2018 FCC Order 18-133 (Small Cell Streamlining Order) came from Bill Sanders, after the Wireless industry approached him in around April 15, 2019, when FCC Order 18-133 became fully effective.
  • You said that you took changes suggested by Mr. Sanders and created Ordinance 190-19 and that you introduced it around May 24, 2019
  • The discussion of the Ordinance 190-19 can be found in a recording of the July 15, 2019 hearing of the Land Use and Transportation Committee here –> for only ten minutes! from 1:16:30 to 1:26:30 (presented by Deborah Letsky-sp?) and exactly one public comment — including some late-breaking clerical(?) amendments, allegedly from Bill Sanders

I understand that during the Dec 16, 2019 hearing of the Land Use and Transportation committee, all actions on 190-19 were continued due to the absence of City Attorney Bill Sanders.

Here are some questions, Mark

  1. What are the next steps with proposed repeal of Oridinance 190-19?
  2. Will there be another hearing?
  3. Why are installations of so-called "Small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) continuing across San Francisco without proper NEPA review?
  4. Separately, how can we make quick progress on powering off the sWTF at 3329 Sacramento St. Permit No. No.: 18WR-0171 (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/) so Cheryl Lea Hogan can return to her home and heal without excessive transmissions of Effective Radiated Power being transmitted into her home. –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/fail/

I am requesting of David Steinberg, the agendas and links to audio recordings of all SF-DPW public meetings from Jan 1, 2019 through Dec 31, 2019.

Immediate Disclosure Record Request FOR PUBLIC RECORDS

From https://sfgov.org/sunshine/public-records-request-form

To facilitate the effort to inspect, copy and acquire documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250, and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.1, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force recommends that

  • The requester and the department treat each other with respect and politeness
  • The requester specify a time they are available to review the public records
  • The requester indicate if the request is an Immediate Disclosure Request (within 24 hours)

The cost for copies is 10 cents per page (20 cents per page for two-side copies), except for mass-produced records for agenda items for policy body meetings. Postage costs are additional.

I want links to digital files: agenda.pdf, audio.mp3 and/or video.mp4 files

PLEASE SEND REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC DOCUMENTS TO THE RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT. DO NOT SEND REQUESTS TO THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE.

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM

To: Custodian of Records

Date: March 9, 2020

Department: SF-DPW

Subject or Item Requested:

I am requesting of David Steinberg, the agendas and links to audio recordings of all SF-DPW public meetings from Jan 1, 2019 through Dec 31, 2019.

List of recordings from 7/3/19 to 12/11/19:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmbPcbo6wr_JlnKCEJwW1CgFiX70SltFJ

I can find no agendas archived for these meetings anywhere on http://sfpublicworks.org/ or

Please call me at the above phone number and email me when the records are ready for viewing.

Do not make copies on my behalf. I will review the documents first and then indicate those documents I wish copied. I can review them tomorrow afternoon on March 10, 2020 at 1:00 pm.

Immediate Disclosure Requests: (Requests satisfied no later than the close of business on the day following the day of the request.) This deadline shall apply only if the words "Immediate Disclosure Request" are placed across the top of the request and on the envelope, subject line, or cover sheet in which the request is transmitted.

Thank you.


Date: March 11, 2020

To:
Barbara Hale blhale@sfwater.org
Erica Major erica.major@sfgov.org
Mark Torres (PUC) MJTorres@sfwater.org

cc:
Spitz, Jeremy (DPW) eremy.Spitz@sfdpw.org
Peskin, Aaron (BOS) aaron.peskin@sfgov.org
Angulo, Sunny (BOS) sunny.angulo@sfgov.org
Somera, Alisa (BOS) alisa.somera@sfgov.org
Kate Long klong@sfwater.org

Re: Powering off the Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) at 3329 Sacramento St., Permit No.: 18WR-0171

 

Dear Ms. Hale, Mr. Torres and Ms. Major,

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public Record for Ordinance 190-19, which made changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so].

I believe you are misinformed, Erica. We need to talk to Mr. Torres and Ms. Hale at the SF-PUC as soon as possible.

>>> Major, Erica (BOS) wrote on 3/11/2020 10:39 AM:

Greetings,

Thank you for your email. This matter has been heard and enacted and is no longer an active file. Your comments will be made part of our communication page on the upcoming Board agenda.

ERICA MAJOR
Assistant Clerk
Board of Supervisors
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: (415) 554-4441
Erica.Major@sfgov.org | www.sfbos.org

Most importantly, Erica, you did not address: how can we make quick progress on powering off the sWTF at 3329 Sacramento St. Permit No. No.: 18WR-0171 (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/) so Cheryl Lea Hogan can return to her home and heal without excessive transmissions of Effective Radiated Power being transmitted into her home. —> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/fail/

The implementation of Ordinance 190-19 is not complete. It was continued on Dec 16, 2019.

We are entering substantial written evidence into the public record tomorrow that the City of San Francisco and the SF-PUC knowingly violated Federal law (National Environmental Policy Act) by powering on the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) in front of 3535 Sacramento St. on Nov 20, 2019.

What written evidence can you email to me today to substantiate your statement that "This matter [the implementation of Ordinance 190-19] has been heard and enacted and is no longer an active file."

Please provide such written evidence today, if possible. In the absence of any written evidence, I can only treat this matter as an active file, because Ordinance 190-19 deserves to be repealed as it is not consistent with the legislative intent 1996 Telecommunications Act, per United States Supreme Court (2005) CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES et al. v. ABRAMS (2005) and the 1996 TCA Conference Report. See the evidence, below:

1. From https://scientists4wiredtech.com/compare:*

This page is one of three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs); the other two are the US House/Senate Conference Report for the 1996 Telecommunications Act ("1996-Act") and the stated purpose of the 1996-Act: to promote the safety of life and property.

2. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice O’Connor, Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, concurring.

Congress initially considered a single national solution, namely a Federal Communications Commission wireless tower siting policy that would pre-empt state and local authority. Ibid.; see also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, p. 207 (1996). But Congress ultimately rejected the national approach and substituted a system based on cooperative federalism. Id., at 207-208. — S4WT: View this Conference Report for the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

State and local authorities would remain free to make siting decisions They would do so, however, subject to minimum federal standards [just "placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities" — both substantive and procedural — as well as federal judicial review.

3. 1996 TCA Conference Report:

  • will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services. For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.

. . .

  • Under subsection (c)(7)(B)(ii), decisions are to be rendered in a reasonable period of time, taking into account the nature and scope of each request. If a request for placement of a personal wireless service facility involves a zoning variance or a public hearing or comment process, the time period for rendering a decision will be the usual period under such circumstances. It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.’

March 12, 2020

To: SF-PUC Management

Barbara Hale bhale@sfwater.org

Richard Stephens rstephens@sfwater.org

Ramone Abeug rabeug@sfwater.org

Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org

Mark Torres mjtorres@sfwater.org

To: SF BOS Supervisors

Aaron Peskin (BOS) aaron.peskin@sfgov.org

Sunny Angulo (BOS) sunny.angulo@sfgov.org

Erica Major Erica.Major@sfgov.org

To: SF-DPH

Dr. Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org

Dr. Tomas Aragon, (DPH) tomas.aragon@sfdph.org
 

Dear Ms. Hale et al.

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

We need immediate assistance. It has been four days since I have been calling you, Ms. Hale. I have heard nothing back from you at all.

I had my first conversation with Mr. Mark Torres today (after 7 unanswered emails/voicemails) and learned the following:

The proposed locations for each carrier’s Wireless Facilities are identified in Appendix B to each of the Executive Directives.

  • SF-PUC Executive Directive – AT&T
  • SF-PUC Executive Directive – Verizon
  • There are approximately 30 current active applications and over 300 locations targeted for 2020
  • Mr. Torres was unwilling to commit to a date/time when I could review these applications for completeness; he had to check with his Management first

. . . so what public communication will there be about the specifics of these installations, including the antenna details (manufacturer, model number, power consumption):

  • Vertical: antenna(s) installed at how many feet off the ground
  • Horizontal: antenna(s) installed how many feet from where people live, sleep and heal
  • Power: maximum Effective Radiated Power (ERP) in Watts able to exit the antenna shroud/covering

Has each of these applications completed NEPA review, as required by the FCC?

Feb 28, 2020 Conversation with FCC NEPA Attorney, Erica Rosenberg

  • At 0:25 –> Erica Rosenberg: "All Wireless Telecommunication Facilities applications need a NEPA review. That is correct."
  • At 1:00 –> Erica Rosenberg: "If one of those circumstances are met, then an Environmental Assessment is triggered. In other words, if the RF is above our limits, they need to do an Environmental Assessment.
  • At 6:00 –> Erica Rosenberg: "[When] it triggers an Environmental Assessment, that gets public review and notice and also people can file complaints and sometimes we can order more environmental processing."
  • At 7:00 –> Erica Rosenberg: "If they file an EA, they do need to register the facility, file the EA and we see it.
  • At 7:00 –> Caller: "So really it is up to the people to keep an eye on these things and see if they actually, in fact do meet the NEPA [review standards]."
  • At 7:18 –> Erica Rosenberg: "Yes."
  • At 7:40 –> Erica Rosenberg: "Also there’s another thing that you raised that we actually haven’t addressed it yet. It’s the one about the facilities that got installed without a NEPA review. We just haven’t addressed this."
  • At 7:55 –> Caller: "So you [the FCC] haven’t figured out what you are going to do in that case."
  • At 8:08 –> Erica Rosenberg: "Yes."

Most importantly, how can we make quick progress on powering off the sWTF at 3329 Sacramento St. Permit No. No.: 18WR-0171? (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/) so Cheryl Lea Hogan can return to her home and heal without excessive transmissions of Effective Radiated Power being transmitted into her home. –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/fail/

On 11/20/19, I informed both Hieu Doan and the SF Board of Appeals that every single WTF requires NEPA review. Did the sWTF at 3329 Sacramento St. Permit No.: 18WR-0171 have substantial written evidence of NEPA review before the SF-PUC powered it on? If not, the SF-PUC will need to power this sWTF off.

The San Francisco City Attorney’s opinion on this matter is immaterial. This is a Federal matter between the FCC and the applicant. San Francisco and the SF-PUC must follow all Federal laws. Talk to the FCC, if you have any questions.

We need a timely response. Four days and counting . . .


March 13, 2020

To: SF-PUC Management

Barbara Hale bhale@sfwater.org
Richard Stephens :rstephens@sfwater.org
Ramone Abeug rabeug@sfwater.org
Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org
Mark Torres mjtorres@sfwater.org

To: SF Supervisor

Aaron Peskin (BOS) aaron.peskin@sfgov.org
Sunny Angulo (BOS) sunny.angulo@sfgov.org
Erica Major Erica.Major@sfgov.org

To: SF-DPH

Dr. Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
Dr. Tomas Aragon, (DPH) tomas.aragon@sfdph.org

Re: We Need An Immediate Response from the SF-PUC and the SF-DPH

Dear Ms. Hale et al.

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

At around 9:00 am this morning, I had a short phone conversation with Dr. Tomas Aragon. I asked him if he had reported the endangering condition that we asked him to report on October 22, 2020, described at the October 22, 2019 San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting. This request of a mandated reporter of child endangerment has been in the public record for nearly five months.

http://mystreetmychoice.com/sanfrancisco.html

See video embedded on this page for Oct 22, 2019 San Francisco Board of Supervisors Meeting at 3:33:50 and at 4:58:05

Listen to radio program from Mar 2, 2020 here —> http://mystreetmychoice.com/audio/2020-0302-Romine-Radio-Interview-01.mp3

Dr. Aragon told me today over the phone that he had not done so. I was in the midst of asking him if he would recommend Immediately powering off all so-called "Small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) that have been installed in the public rights-of-way in San Francisco, when he hung up the phone without answering the question.

Over 400 such Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) have been constructed between 2015 and 2020, WTFS that output 1,500 to 7,000+ Watts of Effective Radiated Power (ERP) — 24/7 day and night, week-after-week — suppressing the immune systems of all, living nearby.

"As we prepare for caronavirus/COVID-19 community spread, cities can make choices, too. With over 12,000 studies of established science, concluding that pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) blocks melatonin production and causes immuno-suppression, WILL SAN FRANCISCO POWER OFF ALL OF THEIR 4G/5G SO-CALLED "SMALL" CELLS OR NOT?"

Here is additional data from two other communities in the US, further establishing the disaster created by insufficiently-regulated Effective Radiated Power from Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs):

It is All About Limiting Effective Radiated Power From WTF Antennas

A 4G Kathrein 840-10511 Dual Omni Antenna Band 698-894 | 1710-2180

From https://www.kathreinusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/84010515.pdf

Frequencies Max. input power (at 122 °F) Antennna Gain (dbi) Equation Total Watts ERP
698–806 MHz 250 Watts 10.4 dBi 250 × 10.4 = 2,132 Watts ERP
806–894 MHz 250 Watts 11.6 dBi 250 × 11.6 = 2,900 Watts ERP
1710–1880 MHz 200 Watts 13.5 dBi 200 × 13.5 = 2,700 Watts ERP
1850–1990 MHz 200 Watts 13.5 dBi 200 × 13.5 = 2,700 Watts ERP
1920–2180 MHz 200 Watts 13.2 dBi 200 × 13.2 = 2,640 Watts ERP
Total ERP 13,032 Watts ERP

Conclusion: This antenna outputs Macro Tower maximum Effective Radiated Power levels . . . a fact already admitted by professional engineer Lee Afflerbach in the public record in Sonoma CA on Sept 12, 2019:

"The [antennas and] radios of [these small cells] are the exact same that are up on the macro towers. It’s not a different technology . . . the same as on macro towers. I see them all the time."

This is Why is Regulating Effective Radiated Power is So Important

5 Years in Glencoe, IL: The Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) has a Kathrein Model #840 10515 Omni Directional Dual Band 700/2000 MHz Antenna mounted on top of a ComEd wooden utility pole located adjacent to 340 Randolph, Glencoe, IL 60022.

Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) Installation

  • This WTF is owned by AT&T Mobility.
  • Permit applied for 5/26/2015 and approved 6/25/2015 with the handwritten comments "Install AT&T equipment on ex-ComEd pole. Location does not meet 100′ spacing to residential properties but location is acceptable alternative."
  • The WTF was installed . . .

    • 20 feet from a home
    • 50 feet from a home
    • 50 feet from a tennis courts
    • 30 feet from an elementary school payground
    • 100 feet from an ice rink

Negative Health Consequences in Glencoe, IL, similar to the outcomes in Seabastopol, CA —> http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol#death

We have a real problem here, folks. This demands an immeidate response, as we are preparing San Francisco and other communities for COVID-19 community spread.

Ms. Hale, we need a timely response. It has been five days since I have been calling you. I have heard nothing back from you at all.

Five days and counting . . .


March 16, 2020

To: SF-PUC Management
Barbara Hale bhale@sfwater.org
Richard Stephens rstephens@sfwater.org
Ramone Abeug rabeug@sfwater.org
Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org
Mark Torres mjtorres@sfwater.org

To: SF Supervisor
Aaron Peskin (BOS) aaron.peskin@sfgov.org
Sunny Angulo (BOS) sunny.angulo@sfgov.org
Erica Major Erica.Major@sfgov.org

To: SF-DPH
Dr. Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
Dr. Tomas Aragon, (DPH) tomas.aragon@sfdph.org

Re: We Need An Immediate Response from the SF-PUC and the SF-DPH, Day 2 (really day 7)

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

As we face community spread of COVID-19 across the country, I am not certain which government offices will be open today, but I am writing to enter the following substantial written evidence into the public record of the City and County of San Francisco.

Much of the email chain (from me to all of you) is now open for the public to read (it is already in the public record)

I am guessing that I will not be hearing from anyone from the City and County of San Francisco today (though I am open to being pleasantly surprised by a return call) because the COVID-19 flood messaging has achieved compliance from many governors and people over the weekend.

. . . yet, I am still considering my following requests both timely and important.

  1. When will the SF-PUC and SF-DPH decide to reduce the endangering conditions (melatonin suppression and immuno-suppression) being created by the powering on of so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) with insufficient maximum power output regulation — they are actually MACRO TOWERS, once one considers . . .

    • the maximum Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of the antennas

    • the lack of regulation of the power input and

    • Federal legislation enabling upgrades of antenna and radios without public review/due process.

    • Please watch Resonance: Beings of Frequency –> https://youtu.be/9mK93gHFWXs?t=4045

  2. The following comments were entered into the City of Sonoma Public record on 9/12/19, by a Professional RF Engineer hired by many cities to advise them (Monterey, Sonoma and Napa come to mind):

    • Lee Afflerbach from CTC Technology and Energy states at 3:10:24 in the video —> https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h10m24s

      “many people are [wirelessly] streaming video and other services like that . . . each [small] cell is capable of almost putting out the same energy as one macro cell.”

    • Lee Afflerbach from CTC Technology and Energy states at 3:13:22 in the video —> https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h13m22s

      ". . . my staff has probably reviewed several hundred of these small cells in the last year . . . and they are all 4G . . . 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.”

Here is an antenna from AT&T’s stable of so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) Antennas:

AT&T’s 4G Kathrein 840-10511 Dual Omni Antenna Band 698-894 | 1710-2180

From https://www.kathreinusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/84010515.pdf

Frequencies Max. input
power (at 122 °F)
Antennna
Gain (dbi)
Equation Total Watts
ERP
698–806 MHz 250 Watts 10.4 dBi 250 × 10.4 = 2,132 Watts ERP
806–894 MHz 250 Watts 11.6 dBi 250 × 11.6 = 2,900 Watts ERP
1710–1880 MHz 200 Watts 13.5 dBi 200 × 13.5 = 2,700 Watts ERP
1850–1990 MHz 200 Watts 13.5 dBi 200 × 13.5 = 2,700 Watts ERP
1920–2180 MHz 200 Watts 13.2 dBi 200 × 13.2 = 2,640 Watts ERP
Total ERP 13,032 Watts ERP

Verizon often uses antennas like the following

https://scientists4wiredtech.com/santarosa/cell-tower-specs/

  • For both antennas, the input power is (2 connectors × 500 W) + (4 connectors x 300 W) = 2,200 Watts, but the antenna gains are different between the 48 in. and 24 in. antennas.

  • Note: From Kevin Hietpas, Amphenol Product Support (815-381-7817), a 3 dBi antenna gain difference means double the power output and twice the transmission distance.

Verizon’s Amphenol CUUT360X12: Antenna gain (48" tall)

  • 696-806 MHz: 500 Watts x 8.6 dBi antenna gain = 4,300 Watts ERP
  • 806-960 MHz: 500 Watts x 9.1 dBi antenna gain = 4,550 Watts ERP
  • 1695-1880 MHz: 300 Watts x 12.0 dBi antenna gain = 3,600 Watts ERP
  • 1850-1990 MHz: 300 Watts x 12.0 dBi antenna gain = 3,510 Watts ERP
  • 1920-2200 MHz: 300 Watts x 10.9 dBi antenna gain = 3,270 Watts ERP
  • 2300-2700 MHz: 300 Watts x 10.1 dBi dBi antenna gain = 3,030 Watts ERP
  • TOTAL Max Effective Radiated Power = 22,260 Watts ERP

Verizon’s Amphenol CUUT360X06 Antenna gain (24" tall)

  • 696-806 MHz: 500 Watts x 6.3 dBi antenna gain = 3,150 Watts ERP
  • 806-960 MHz: 500 Watts x 5.6 dBi antenna gain = 2,800 Watts ERP
  • 1695-1880 MHz: 300 Watts x 9.2 dBi antenna gain = 2,760 Watts ERP
  • 1850-1990 MHz: 300 Watts x 9.3 dBi antenna gain = 2,790 Watts ERP
  • 1920-2200 MHz: 300 Watts x 9.5 dBi antenna gain = 2,850 Watts ERP
  • 2300-2700 MHz: 300 Watts x 9.6 dBi dBi antenna gain = 2,880 Watts ERP
  • TOTAL Max Effective Radiated Power = 17,230 Watts ERP

Conclusion: these Macro-Tower class antennas are wholly inappropriate when installed 6 to 12 feet from 2nd-story and 3rd-story windows.

7 days and counting . . . no response, yet.


March 17, 2020
 

To: SF-PUC Management

Barbara Hale bhale@sfwater.org
Richard Stephens rstephens@sfwater.org
Ramone Abueg abeug@sfwater.org
Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org
Mark Torres mjtorres@sfwater.org

To: SF Supervisor
Aaron Peskin (BOS) aaron.peskin@sfgov.org
Sunny Angulo (BOS) sunny.angulo@sfgov.org
Erica Major Erica.Major@sfgov.org

To: SF-DPH
Dr. Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
Dr. Tomas Aragon, tomas.aragon@sfdph.org

cc:
Cheryl Hogan clhogan3@gmail.com
Ron Rattner ronrattner@gmail.com
Michael LeVesque michael@rayguardprotect.com
Gary Widman gwidman@mindspring.com

 

Re: We Need An Immediate Response from the SF-PUC and the SF-DPH, Day 3 (really day 8) –> Sacramento Teacher Dies of Coronavirus — Tip of the Iceberg

 

Dear Ms. Hale et al.

 
[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

This is the most unusual St. Patrick’s Day I have experienced. I hope all is well for you and your families.

Now, we need to know . . . are you all, and each individually, going to be sitting on your hands and just silently allow San Franciscans to unnecessarily die because you are too timid to take action?

Really?

We are all watching, documenting and building up a large pile of disgust bewilderment re: your willful ignorance and inaction. Have you read the emails here –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#fail . . . by now, Ms. Hale? Will you please call me asap? You have my tel. Thank you.

Will you please take action tomorrow to power off the sWTF in front of 3529 Sacrarmento Street Permit number Application No.: 18WR-0171 –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/ by heeding Attorney Widman’s words from Mar 4, 2020 (quoted below): "My first request is that for the love of God, please provide some humanitarian help here!"

Doing so will convince you how easy it is to use the "Shut off" switch that is on every one of these misleadingly branded so-called "Small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/testimony/

We all know that the San Francisco Dept. of Health (SF-DPH) and the SF-PUC can take immediate action to stop the melatonin suppression and immuno-suppression of the San Francisco population caused by unnecessary, insufficiently regulated, forced exposures to hazardous, pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) for strictly frivolous entertainment purposes.

These sWTFs are unnecessary, ancillary and frivolous sources of entertainment; they are not needed for making emergency calls — we could already do that in San Francisco — without any of these sWTFs.

Learn more here:

And will you please then take action the next day to power off all of the other 400+ or so so-called "Small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) throughout the City and County of San Francisco, for the very same reasons?

Here is some very recent data from Sacramento.

Is hiding an effective strategy, Ms. Hale?

No one can lie to one’s biology or bend the laws of physics. No amount of "spin" from any industry representative, SF-PUC executive, SF-DPH executive or SF city attorney can alter the facts of established science —> http://mystreetmychoice.com/slt/#/22 et seq.

This is falling on each of your desks right now.

The $64 Billion question is what will you do and when?

Every day of delay could cost many lives . . . you are being fully and publicly warned — for all to read and comprehend.

From https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020/03/sacramento-teacher-died-of-coronavirus/

Sacramento Teacher Dies of Coronavirus

From a resident in Sacramento . . .

"March 17, 2020

Hello City Council and County health officials,

The woman who died went to my church and lives in my neighborhood.

I am following up on my last email about the negative effects of RF radiation on the human immune system. Today the Bee released an article about a cluster of cases at my neighborhood church. https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article241257951.html

The article states:

“The concentration of confirmed coronavirus cases appears to be the largest in a single location in the Sacramento region since the crisis began in late February,”

Do you really think it just coincidence that the largest cluster in Sacramento just happens to be in Sacramento’s 5G pilot area??? Another coincidence that Wuhan happened to be one of China’s 5G pilot areas??? Milan, capital of Lombardy, is another 5G pilot area . . .

I am not arguing that 5G is “causing” Covid-19. I am arguing that people living near small cells will have a lowered immune response and thus more infections and more severe infections. I have been trying to warn you about this issue for over a year and you simply have not taken the issue seriously. Now your constituents are paying the price. Shame on you all."

From the Sacramento Bee: The woman was member of church with at least 4 other cases

By Sam Stanton, Sawsan Morrar, and Phillip Reese , Mar 17, 2020 | Original Sacramento Bee article here.

The Sacramento substitute teacher who died from coronavirus Sunday had been active in a church in Greenhaven that now reports five church members have tested positive for the COVID-19 disease and that others are awaiting test results.

The concentration of confirmed coronavirus cases appears to be the largest in a single location in the Sacramento region since the crisis began in late February, when U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials announced the first case of unknown origin in the United States was a Solano County resident being treated at UC Davis Medical Center . . .


March 4, 2020 Testimony From Attorney Gary Widman

TO: SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS

Board Members –

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate within my own personal knowledge.

I speak to you tonight as a friend of Ms. Cheryl Hogan, not as her retained attorney. However, to acquaint you with my background — I served as General Counsel of the Council on Environmental Quality in the White House under Presidents Nixon and Ford. I also served as Associate Solicitor of the Department of the Interior appointed by President Carter, and as the Director of the Office of Staff Attorneys at the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Among other tasks, I also taught Environment Law in all the “local” UC Law Schools; Hastings in San Francisco, U.C. Berkeley and Davis.

Last fall you rejected Ms. Hogan’s appeal asking rejection of a “small wireless facility” that was later installed just 12 feet from her window at 3535 Sacramento St. She provided you with a binder of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that was compiled by SF-DPH Director Dr. Aragon’s “other boss” Dr. Joel Moskowitz at UC Berkeley (where Dr. Aragon teaches). I understand that you referred that binder to Dr. Aragon for comment, but for whatever reason, now, eight months later, neither the Board nor the public has received Dr. Aragon’s evaluations of these scientific studies. (Back to the binder below.)

Shortly after installation of the WTF on or about Nov. 20, 2019, Ms. Hogan became ill and was diagnosed with a fast-growing brain tumor, a glioblastoma. That is the same type of tumor that killed Ted Kennedy, John McCain and Joe Biden’s son Beau. Ms. Hogan underwent surgery on Monday, March 2. As I write this on March 3, she is still in the Intensive Care Unit of the CPMC Van Ness hospital. We have our fingers crossed.

My first request is that for the love of God, please provide some humanitarian help here! Please turn off the power to that facility immediately so that Ms. Hogan can recover from this devastating experience in her own home.

Second, we request that you remove this WTF entirely, as you now know that it is almost certain to promote growth of her brain cancer.

We know that one cannot argue with 100% certainty that her cancer was caused by this installation. On the other hand, probabilities are that for woman of her age, with no family or personal history of brain cancer, when diagnosed with a fast growing gliobastoma growing within three months of a WTF installation a few yards from her home, it is highly unlikely she contracted that cancer from any other source.

The information in the binder presented to you in June, 2019 is evidence that in 2011, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF-EMR exposures from any source as a Group 2B possible carcinogen and is poised to soon reclassify RF-EMR exposures from any source to be a Group 1 definite human carcinogen — based on results in 2018-2019 from peer-reviewed animal studies by the US Govt. National Toxicology program, the Ramazzini Institute in Italy and the on-going work by Lennart Hardell in Sweden. That knowledge by itself — shared with the SF Board of Appeals back in June 2019 — (especially in light of SF’s ordinances requiring proof of safety before permitting exposure to potential sources of cancer) would have justified your halting approval WTFs in the public rights-of-way at once.

In addition, that black binder included peer-reviewed science establishing that RF Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation at levels hundreds of thousands of times lower than the 1996 FCC exposure guidelines causes a multitude of adverse health effects, including melatonin-suppression, immune-suppression, and neurological damage, as well as speeding the growth of cancerous tumors. That information should have guided your decision.

We ask for your humanitarian help for a woman who appears to have contracted brain cancer from microwave radiation from a small wireless facility installed pursuant to a decision of this Board. We ask your help in order to make her home safe for her to return to.

Finally we ask that you recognize the real life health effects of all the WTFS you have approved and will consider in the future. Ms. Hogan’s cancer shows you that these health effects are very real and that your decisions could have life or death effects on the citizens of San Francisco.

(I express these matters based on facts and law, and not out of a mere feeling for the consequences in this particular case.)

If you and your counsel would like to consider these matters of fact and/or law in the future, please call on me at any time.


March 18, 2020
 

To: SF-PUC Management

Barbara Hale bhale@sfwater.org
Richard Stephens rstephens@sfwater.org
Ramone Abueg abeug@sfwater.org
Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org
Mark Torres mjtorres@sfwater.org

To: SF Supervisor
Aaron Peskin (BOS) aaron.peskin@sfgov.org
Sunny Angulo (BOS) sunny.angulo@sfgov.org
Erica Major Erica.Major@sfgov.org

To: SF-DPH
Dr. Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
Dr. Tomas Aragon, tomas.aragon@sfdph.org

cc:
Cheryl Hogan clhogan3@gmail.com
Ron Rattner ronrattner@gmail.com
Michael LeVesque michael@rayguardprotect.com
Gary Widman gwidman@mindspring.com

 

Re: We Need An Immediate Response from the SF-PUC and the SF-DPH, Day 4 (really day 9) –> Shelter in Place Orders, but No Action to Stop Immuno-Suppression of San Francisco’s Population

 

Dear Ms. Hale et al.,

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

I read with great interest, yesterday, the Mar 17 Order by Health Officer of Sonoma County, which states:

10. Definitions and Exemptions.

c. For purposes of this Order, individuals may leave their residence to provide any services or perform any work necessary to the operations and maintenance of “Essential Infrastructure,” including, but not limited to, public works construction, construction of housing (in particular affordable housing or housing for individuals experiencing homelessness), airport operations, water, sewer, gas, electrical, oil refining, roads and highways, public transportation , solid waste collection and removal, internet, and telecommunications systems (including the provision of essential global, national, and local infrastructure for computing services, business infrastructure, communications, and web-based services), provided that they can carry out those services or that work in compliance with Social Distancing Requirements as defined this Section, to the extent possible.

Apparently, it looks as if the installations of so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — which are actually Macro Cell Towers — will continue unabated, while the rest of us are ordered to stay home, public meetings are cancelled and, therefore, we will have no chance to air our grievances to our government face-to-face, which is our right to do so.

Do the rights of corporations so fully trump the rights of Americans in 2020? Apparently so . . . and that is unacceptable.

In this email, I am airing the following grievances:

  1. The SF-PUC is engaging in a coordinated plan to hide from the public, relevant public information about the next 30-60 or so active applications for sWTFs (from AT&T, Verizon and others) that are scheduled for installation in San Francisco’s public rights-of-way, including but not limited to:

    • the application submittal date,
    • the shotclock end date,
    • the application itself
    • verifcation of the party submitting the application (including a list of the entity’s board of directors)
    • the date and written evidence of NEPA review,
    • the antenna and radio specifications
    • the power consumption calculations
  2. I have requested from Mark Torres a meeting (in person, by Skype or phone) during which he and I could review such complete records together, but I have received no response this request, despite over ten emails and phone calls making such a request, Mark did say he would check with his "Management". I am addressing that "Management" right now. What is the next step?

  3. I have asked for response to the following reasonable questions which have been ignored by Mark Torres, including these:

    • Was the "revisions to the wireless facilities siting program" ever discussed in any SF-PUC public meetings? If so, when? Are there any agendas, recordings (audio/video) of these public meetings? If never discussed in a public meeting, then why not?
    • Was the "revisions to the wireless facilities siting program" ever discussed in any SF-PUC private meetings? If so, when? Are there any agendas, recordings (audio/video) of these private meetings?
    • Since you wrote "link you have to sfwater.org is before the Master License Agreements for concrete poles were finalized" . . . will you please provide the link to the sfwater.org page that reflects the final Master License Agreements for both concrete poles and steel poles?
    • Why has Barbara Hale, Mike Torres, Rod Clavell or anyone else involved in the "revisions to the wireless facilities siting program" not called me back in the last three eight days?
    • How can we make quick progress on powering off the sWTF at 3329 Sacramento St. Permit No. No.: 18WR-0171 (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/) so Cheryl Lea Hogan can return to her home and heal without excessive transmissions of Effective Radiated Power being transmitted into her home. –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/fail/
    • May I please have the email addresses and phone numbers of the SF-PUC personnel listed in the photo that Michelle Peters provided to me, below?

Further Education of the SF-DPH and the SF-PUC:

The official COVID-19 tally from Johns Hopkins University at 10:30 am:

From https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
8,724 Deaths / 211,853 Confirmed —> 4.1%

Read Dr. Martin Pall, PhD, from Feb 25, 2020
(see 2020-0225-Martin-Pall-RF-EMR-Guidelines-Are-Not-Scientific.pdf, attached)

Failures of the FCC RF-EMR exposure “safety" guidelines must be considered in terms of the principle that is at the core of the scientific method. That principle is that when we have a scientific theory and we test predictions of that theory and the theory predictions are shown to be false, then we must throw the theory out.

It follows that when we have eight highly repeated findings each of which show that the FCC RF-EMR exposure “safety" do not predict biological effects and do not, therefore, predict safety, it is a scientific requirement that these guidelines be thrown out. The failure of the FCC, FDA and various regulatory agencies to throw out the guidelines clearly shows that their actions are both unscientific and anti-scientific.

Listen to Nine Clips From an Important Mar 2, 2020 Radio Interview

https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/#radio

So, what are you waiting for?

Will I hear from you today about what I have already written?

From 3/12/2020:

The proposed locations for each carrier’s Wireless Facilities are identified in Appendix B to each of the Executive Directives.

  • SF-PUC Executive Directive – AT&T
  • SF-PUC Executive Directive – Verizon
  • There are approximately 30 current active applications and over 300 locations targeted for 2020
  • Mr. Torres was unwilling to commit to a date/time when I could review these applications for completeness; he had to check with his Management first

. . . so what public communication will there be about the specifics of these installations, including the antenna details (manufacturer, model number, power consumption):

  • Vertical: antenna(s) installed at how many feet off the ground
  • Horizontal: antenna(s) installed how many feet from where people live, sleep and heal
  • Power: maximum Effective Radiated Power (ERP) in Watts able to exit the antenna shroud/covering

Has each of these applications completed NEPA review, as required by the FCC?

From 3/13/2020:

"Over 400 such Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) have been constructed between 2015 and 2020, WTFS that output 1,500 to 7,000+ Watts of Effective Radiated Power (ERP) — 24/7 day and night, week-after-week — suppressing the immune systems of all, living nearby. "

From 3/16/2020:

  1. When will the SF-PUC and SF-DPH decide to reduce the endangering conditions (melatonin suppression and immuno-suppression) being created by the powering on of so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) with insufficient maximum power output regulation — they are actually MACRO TOWERS, once one considers . . .

    • Maximum Effective Radiated Power (ERP) of the antennas,

    • The lack of regulation of the power input and

    • Federal legislation enabling upgrades of antenna and radios without public review/due process.

    • Please watch Resonance: Beings of Frequency –https://youtu.be/9mK93gHFWXs?t=4045

  2. When will the SF-PUC and SF-DPH and Supervisor Peskin discuss repealing SF-DPW Article 25, which has an incomplete implementation of Ordinance 190-19 (see the video here–> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/

  3. When can we make progress on powering off the sWTF at 3329 Sacramento St. Permit No.: 18WR-0171 so Cheryl Lea Hogan can return to her home and heal without excessive transmissions of Effective Radiated Power being transmitted into her home. –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/fail/

From 3/17/2020:

Will you please take action tomorrow today to power off the sWTF in front of 3529 Sacrarmento Street Permit number Application No.: 18WR-0171 –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/ by heeding Attorney Widman’s words from Mar 4, 2020 : "My first request is that for the love of God, please provide some humanitarian help here!"

I will look forward to your prompt response today.

Thank you.


March 19, 2020
 

To: SF-PUC Management
Barbara Hale bhale@sfwater.org
Richard Stephens rstephens@sfwater.org
Ramone Abueg rabueg@sfwater.org
Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org
Mark Torres mjtorres@sfwater.org

To: SF Supervisor
Aaron Peskin (BOS) aaron.peskin@sfgov.org
Sunny Angulo (BOS) sunny.angulo@sfgov.org
Erica Major Erica.Major@sfgov.org

To: SF-DPH
Dr. Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
Dr. Tomas Aragon, (DPH) tomas.aragon@sfdph.org

cc:
Cheryl Hogan clhogan3@gmail.com
Ron Rattner ronrattner@gmail.com
Michael LeVesque michael@rayguardprotect.com
Gary Widman gwidman@mindspring.com

Re: We Need An Immediate Response from the SF-PUC and the SF-DPH, (Losing Count of the Days This Request is Receiving NO RESPONSE)

Dear Ms. Hale et al.

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

As we are now in our second full-day of shelter in place to combat the spread of COVID-19 across the country, I am working from home and writing to enter the following substantial written evidence into the public record of the City and County of San Francisco.

Questions needing a response: when will I hear from you about what I have already written from Mar 12 through Mar 19, including but not limited to . . .

  • When will you please take action to power off the sWTF in front of 3529 Sacrarmento Street Permit number Application No.: 18WR-0171 –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/ by heeding Attorney Widman’s words from Mar 4, 2020 : "My first request is that for the love of God, please provide some humanitarian help here!"

  • When will you please take action to power off all of the other 400+ or so so-called "Small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) throughout the City and County of San Francisco, for the very same reasons?

Please read at the links below about San Francisco’s own Dr. Thomas Cowan, who has repeatedly warned the officials of San Francisco (the SF-DPH, SF-DPW and the SF-PUC) in person and in videos that you will find at the links below. I am also citing, yet another, peer-reviewed scientific study below that establishes that the "immune system is able to react in a measurable way to discrete environmental stimuli . . . the bulk of available evidence clearly indicates that various shifts in the number and/or activity of immunocompetent cells [cells that can develop an immune response] are possible."

>>> From https://scientists4wiredtech.com/dr-thomas-cowan-primer/

>>> From https://www.saferemr.com/2020/03/wireless-radiation-effects-on-immune-system.html

Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures

Szmigielski S. Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures. Science of the Total Environment. 2013 Jun 1; 454-455:393-400. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.034.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23562692

Abstract

Radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) radiation have been used in the modern world for many years. The rapidly increasing use of cellular phones in recent years has seen increased interest in relation to the possible health effects of exposure to RF/MW radiation. In 2011 a group of international experts organized by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon) concluded that RF/MW radiations should be listed as a possible carcinogen (group 2B) for humans. The incomplete knowledge of RF/MW-related cancer risks has initiated searches for biological indicators sensitive enough to measure the "weak biological influence" of RF/MWs. One of the main candidates is the immune system, which is able to react in a measurable way to discrete environmental stimuli.

In this review, the impacts of weak RF/MW fields, including cell phone radiation, on various immune functions, both in vitro [cell culture studies] and in vivo [live animal studies], are discussed. The bulk of available evidence clearly indicates that various shifts in the number and/or activity of immunocompetent cells [cells that can develop an immune response] are possible. For example, a number of lymphocyte [small white blood cells especially found in the lymphatic system] functions have been found to be weakened within single experiments based on exposure to low intensities of MW radiation.

Certain premises exist which indicate that, in general, short-term exposure to weak MW radiation may temporarily stimulate certain humoral or cellular immune functions, while prolonged irradiation inhibits the same functions.


Thank you.


March 26, 2020

To: SF-PUC Management

Barbara Hale bhale@sfwater.org
Richard Stephens rstephens@sfwater.org
Ramone Abueg abeug@sfwater.org
Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org
Mark Torres mjtorres@sfwater.org

To: SF Supervisor
Aaron Peskin aaron.peskin@sfgov.org
Sunny Angulo sunny.angulo@sfgov.org
Erica Major erica.major@sfgov.org

To: SF-DPH
Dr. Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
Dr. Tomas Aragon tomas.aragon@sfdph.org

cc:
Cheryl Hogan clhogan3@gmail.com
Ron Rattner onrattner@gmail.com
Michael LeVesque michael@rayguardprotect.com
Gary Widman widman@mindspring.com
 

Re: We Still Require An Immediate Response from the SF-PUC and the SF-DPH –> No Action, YET, to Stop Immuno-Suppression of San Francisco’s Population

 

Dear Ms. Hale et al.,

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

This morning, I read a surgical pathology final report from the CPMC DAVIES CAMPUS PATHOLOGY LABORATORY

  • Status: Final
  • Tissues: Left Frontal Temporal Brain Tumor
  • Clinical: Hemorrhagic left frontal opercular mass, worrisome for hemorrhagic tumor. Small development venous anomaly along the anterior margin of the mass also raises the possibility of large cavernous malformation.

So, where does that leave us, ladies and gentlemen?

In the absence of any credible response from the SF-DPH, SF-PUC or SF-DPW for the last 22 days (Mar 4 to Mar 26), Ms. Hogan was released from her rehab assignment, is undergoing additional therapy and has chosen to stay with family members because she cannot return to her home for healing, as the interior of her second story apartment at 3535 Sacramento St, SF, CA is simply too hazardous due to excessive Effective Radiated Power being forcibly sprayed into her home from the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) that is still operating out on the sidewalk a mere 12 feet from her second-story window — which is clearly an endangering condition, as established by Medical and scientific evidence.

She did briefly stop by her home on Mar 25 to pick up some clothes and other personal items and found these workers performing upgrades/maintenance on the small cell that is within a few blocks of her home on 3535 Sacreamento St. It looks like business as usual in San Francisco,n despite substantial written evidence of harms from Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) installed in the public rights-of-way being placed into the San Francisco public record consistently since throughout 2019 and 2020 to date.

Cheryl Hogan wrote on 3/25/2020 11:32 AM:


Jackson and Presidio. San Francisco.
My son took this photo.
Cheryl Hogan

From Google Maps:

Once again . . . from 3/17/2020:

"Will you please take action today to power off the sWTF in front of 3529 Sacrarmento Street Permit number Application No.: 18WR-0171 –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sanfrancisco/sf-appeal-18wr-0171/ by heeding Attorney Widman’s words from Mar 4, 2020 : ‘My first request is that for the love of God, please provide some humanitarian help here!’ "

I will look forward to your prompt response today.

Now, should I have any expectation of a substantive response from any one of you . . . those to whom I have addressed these emails?

So far, we have experienced the big bagel, a goose egg, nada, bubkes, zero from each of you, — i.e. no credible response at all — which is unacceptable:

This is what all San Franciscans are facing in 2020 . . . view here from 46:10 to at least 51:10; simple introductory web-based slides are here and more comprehensive information is here.

  1. Europe Investigates: How Much RF-EMR Exposure is Safe?read here and view here from 52:15 to at least 54:15.

  2. Joel Moskowitz, PhD, UC Berkeley: We Have No Reason to Believe That Densified 4G + 5G Is Safe — read here and view here from 18:15 to at least 20:15.

  3. April 2019 CA Supreme Court Decision: read here (quote from pp. 8-9) about what San Francisco’s Article 25 being upheld means for San Francisco’s local Police powers — the definitions of "aesthetics" and "incommode" have been expanded to include "negative health consequences" and "safety concerns".

The public and Public Health professionals can no longer approach the growing weight of scientific and medical evidence that establishes adverse biological effects and negative health consequences from RF-EMR exposures at levels that are many thousands of times lower than FCC RF-EMR guidelines (as low as -37 dBM, 0.1 Volts/meter or 30 µW/m²) like this:

See Bioinitiative.org RF color charts for the details –> https://bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/

Will you please return my voice-mails and emails promptly?

Thank you.


April 10, 2020

To: SF-PUC Management>

Barbara Hale bhale@sfwater.org
Richard Stephens rstephens@sfwater.org
Ramone Abueg abueg@sfwater.org
Hieu Doan hdoan@sfwater.org
Mark Torres mjtorres@sfwater.org

To: SF Supervisor

Aaron Peskin (BOS) aaron.peskin@sfgov.org
Sunny Angulo (BOS) sunny.angulo@sfgov.org
Erica Major Erica.Major@sfgov.org

To: SF-DPH

Dr. Grant Colfax grant.colfax@sfdph.org
Dr. Tomas Aragon, tomas.aragon@sfdph.org

cc:

London Breed MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org
Cheryl Hogan clhogan3@gmail.com
Michael LeVesque michael@rayguardprotect.com
Gary Widman gwidman@mindspring.com

Dear Ms. Hale et al.,

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

I hope you have made the adjustments in your work schedules to cope with the balancing of the needs from sheltering in place and the needs of the City of San Francisco to protect its residents from unnecessary risks during the COVID-19 Community spread which — looks like it will be settling in for many months.

We again urge you to publicly and transparently take actions necessary to protect the residents of San Francisco from the dangerous and potentially fatal Coronavirus. Ordering "shelter-in-place" was one effective, but temporary, step. Far longer lasting steps are needed next. As you know, the virus is spreading quickly and widely throughout the City. — with nearly 800 active cases and 13 fatalities in San Francisco, according to these data.

The City must respond to this pending COVID-19 threat. That is especially true in view of the new time projections. There is uncertainty as to when schools will re-open. The Chronicle suggests the next 49ers game may be on Thanksgiving, if then. Vaccines are not expected for many months. We suggest that you do all you can, as you did in March and not merely “wait and see”, as appears to be the current policy.

As you know, we have asked the SF-DPH, SF-PUC and SF-DPW to respond to this threat since Mar 4, 2020, yet we have seen no response to our correspondence.

To date, we have received only the following from the San Francisco departments, referenced above:

We have not received a single substantive, credible response from the executives of the City and County of San Francisco departments, referenced above, in over five weeks.

The evidence of disaster in the face of inaction keeps piling up.

Please read and view at the following links:

Note that even the IEEE Has Now Faced the Truth About the Hazards of exposures to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) because such exposures lowers immune responses for all exposed to RF-EMR from wireless devices and infrastructure.

RF-EMR = pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation


IEEE: Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1775882/
  • https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9016183
  • NAREN, ANUBHAV ELHENCE, VINAY CHAMOLA AND MOHSEN GUIZANI, (Fellow, IEEE)
  • Received January 11, 2020, accepted January 21, 2020, date of publication February 27, 2020, date of current version March 12, 2020

Intervention of government and medical bodies with the main purpose of protecting human health is of utmost necessity to ensure good economic development without compromising the health of the population. Countries must adopt the RF-EMR exposure guidelines suggested by medical bodies which take into account both thermal and non-thermal effects of EMR. At present, all individuals must take preventive and protective measures to protect themselves from harmful EMR exposure – hide quoted text -"We present a summary of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to RF-EMR exposure. We also discuss some individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that can be undertaken to reduce the risk of RF-EMR absorption. This paper analyses radiation safety in pre-5G networks and uses the insight gained to raise valuable concerns regarding RF-EMR safety in the upcoming 5G networks."

IX. CONCLUSION: People should be made aware that the EMR from using day to day cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to human health. The levels of radiation observed in most cases such as phone calls, internet browsing on laptops and smartphones, using wireless routers and hotspots, Bluetooth smartwatches and smartphones are unsafe when compared with radiations limits determined by medical bodies. According to the current medical literature, various adverse health effects from exposure to RF EMR have been well documented. Wireless technologies must be avoided as much as possible. New and innovative wired solutions should be encouraged.


Date: May 4, 2020

To: Linda Gerull (628-652-5182)

From: SF Residents

Subject: Request for Meeting re: Need to Power Down Densified 4G/5G So-Called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in San Francisco

Ms. Linda Gerull
City and County of San Francisco, City CIO
Executive Director | Department of Technology
628-652-5182 | linda.gerull@sfgov.org | @SFCityCIO

Dear Ms. Gerull,

Thank you for agreeing to focus on these vital pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposure issues. We suggest that the best way for all three of us to get on top of the issues and to move to a resolution, would be to schedule two meetings.

The first meeting would be a small private meeting of the three of us where we could mutually go over the background of the major issues and put them into a big picture from problem creation to resolution. We are concerned that if we move forward immediately to a meeting including all those involved, it is likely to turn into a potentially unhelpful, informational free-for-all, that delays rather than promotes, a resolution of the issues.

In that first meeting, we could review the history of regulating toxic RF-EMR exposures. Law, engineering, business and science developments are intertwined in this history. We can get the background out on the table, so we do not need to rehash that as part of a larger general meeting on current issues.

As a second topic, we would cover the negative health consequences as established by tens of thousands of independent, peer-reviewed, scientific studies at RF-EMR exposure levels that are far below the current FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines — focusing particularly on RF-EMR’s role in increasing the rate of tumor growth, as well as the suppression of melatonin and one’s immune responses.

Third, we can suggest options available to the City of San Francisco to eliminate RF-EMR toxic hazards until such time as the industry downsizes its equipment and the maximum power output of each so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs), to eliminate the present dangers.

The result would be far lower RF-EMR exposures from sWTFs, while still leaving sufficient power for Telecommunications Service. This would provide the additional benefit of closing the Digital Divide by incentivizing the Telecoms to install wired, fiber-to-the premises (FTTP) for broadband to all socio-economic classes in San Francisco. In short, solutions are possible if based on understandings of the processes and laws involved.

Our effort, starting with the suggested first meeting would be to make resolution possible while bringing safe wireless Telecommunication Service to the City. We are sure the Mayor has no interest in letting Telecoms use San Franciscans as lab test subjects in that process. Nor is she interested in reducing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, the Coronavirus. Ms. Hogan is only one example of what will continue to happen if nothing is done.

So the background and big picture are what we recommend for our first meeting, rather than going directly into a larger meeting with non-productive arguments by many players over controversial issues and priorities.

That big picture might be outlined roughly as:

  1. Original and recent regulation of RF-EMR exposures and the status of federal, state and local Telecom laws and regulations.
  2. What scientists have reported about scientifically-established harms (including immuno-suppression and cancer harms) caused by RF-EMR exposures at levels far below the FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines. See the attachment, below.
  3. Recognition that RF-EMR is not an issue of “potential" harm, but present harm. We know that RF-EMR exposures are hurting and killing people now. Ms. Hogan is a clear example. There is another clear example in Sebastopol, CA that has already been shared with the FCC Commissioners. If prior FCC regulations had been adequate, Ms. Hogan would not have needed brain surgery within four months after the installation of a sWTF outside her home. She is clear evidence that we are dealing with real harm, immediately imposed by sWTFs. Since the current process did not protect her or others in the city, there are more effective steps that can be taken.
  4. Other options. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first to address the issues raised by sWTFs. It found the FCC regulations unlawful because the regulations were “arbitrary and capricious” under the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Until valid, reasonable regulations are issued, based on current facts and science that protect the public’s health, it will be up to cities and states, not the FCC, to protect the people. Many cities, states and other governments have banned installation and/or operation of the current types of sWTFs in residential zones, as a result. Other technical, equipment and process options are available to improve things.

Finally, we could familiarize you with the facts relating to Ms. Cheryl Hogan. With that preparation, you and the Mayor could identify specific questions to be asked of the Telecoms, the city staffs and of us in the second meeting. They may include issues you have raised and others. You will be able to ask more focused, follow up questions with the benefit of having more background information. Please let us know if you like the two-meeting concept, and if so, please suggest a date and time convenient for you.

Ideally, the first meeting should take an hour or a little more or less, though we could work with a 45-minute meeting time, if necessary. We assume you prefer a virtual meeting, but we could meet in person if you wish.

If you do not choose the suggested two-meeting option, then we welcome a chance to respond more fully to those issues raised in your email. We have provided brief preliminary responses in our Annexes, below. We can supply more information on those issues if you prefer to start with a larger meeting focusing on those issues.

Thank you, again, for promptly taking up these critical issues.

Sincerely,

San Francisco residents

List of Attachments

  • http://mystreetmychoice.com/docs/RF-EMR-Exposures-v5.pdf
  • 2020-Feb-FDA-Review-of-Published-RF-EMR-Exposure-Literature-between-2008-and-2018.pdf → https://t.co/FBsbiFEoYR

List of Annexes

  • Annex A: Planned Onslaught of Insufficiently Regulated RF-EMR Exposures
  • Annex B: Legislative Intent of 1996 Telecommunication Act
  • Annex C: Mar 4, 2020 Public Comments at SF Board of Appeals by SF-resident Michael Levesque and Others

Annex A

Planned Onslaught of Insufficiently Regulated RF-EMR Exposures

From https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/4g-5g-penetration/:

Frequency (MHz)

Current

Coming
Soon

SF-DPH
can meter

5G: 600 MHz = waves 20 inches  
4G:  700 MHz = waves 17 inches
3G/4G:  800 MHz = waves 15 inches
3G/4G: &nbsp900 MHz = waves 13 inches
3G/4G: &nbsp1800- MHz = waves 7 inches
3G/4G: &nbsp2100 MHz = waves 6 inches
Wi-Fi:  2450 MHz = waves 5 inches (unlicensed)
5G: 3100 MHz to 3550 MHz = waves 3.8 to 3.3 inches  
5G: 3550 MHz to 3700 MHz = waves 3.3 to 3.2 inches  
5G: 3700 MHz to 4200 MHz = waves 3.2 to 2.8 inches  
5G: 4200 to 4900 MHz = waves 2.8 to 2.4 inches  
Wi-Fi:  5800 MHz = waves 2.0 inches (unlicensed)
Wi-Fi:  6000 MHz = waves 1.7 inches (unlicensed)  
5G: 24,250 to 24,450 MHz = waves 0.5 inch  
5G: 25,050 to 25,250 MHz = waves 0.5 inch    
5G: 25,250 to 27,500 MHz = waves 0.4 inch    
5G: 27,500 to 29,500 MHz = waves 0.4 inch  
5G: 31,800 to 33,400 MHz = waves 0.4 inch    
5G: 37,000 to 40,000 MHz = waves 0.3 inch  
5G: 42,000 to 42,500 MHz = waves 0.3 inch    
5G: 57,000 to 64,500 MHz = waves 0.3 inch (unlicensed)    
5G: 64,000 to 71,000 MHz = waves 0.2 inch    
5G: 71,000 to 76,000 MHz = waves 0.2 inch    
5G: 81,000 to 86,000 MHz = waves 0.1 inch    


Annex B

Legislative Intent of 1996 Telecommunication Act

It was never the intent of our US Senators in the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA) for the Wireless industry to be able to cause people to sicken and die in order for the Wireless industry to maximize their profits.

How do we know?

  1. The purpose of the 1934 Communications Act, as amended by the 1996-TCA
  2. The 1996-TCA Conference Report
  3. Recent admissions by the Wireless Industry, itself

In short . . . mission accomplished, therefore, no basis for preemption of local authority.

1. Purpose of the 1934-CA and 1996-TCA:

(a). U.S. Code Title 47 § 151 Purposes of Federal Communications Commission.

Section 151. Purposes of Federal Communications Commission

For the purpose of regulating interstate commerce and foreign commerce . . . in communication by wire and radio . . . so as to make available . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges,

  • for the purpose of the national defense,
  • for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property
(b) U.S. Code Title 47 § 332 Mobile services.

Factors which Commission must consider

(1) promote the safety of life and property . . .

(3) encourage competition and provide services to the largest feasible number of users

2. 1996-TCA Conference Report

” the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.”

. . .

“It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.”

3. From Mar 2, 2017 Senate Hearing on Wireless Technology and Spectrum Policy

14:25–19:15 — Roger Entner, Founder, Recon Analytics

“Good morning, Chairman Whitaker, and ranking member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Roger Entner and I am the founder or Recon Analytics, a Telecomm research consulting firm with a focus on Wireless.

. . . First, a quick overview of the U.S. mobile industry. In 2015, Americans spent 2.9 trillion minutes talking on their mobile phones, sent 1.9 trillion text messages, 218 billion pictures and used 9.6 trillion megabytes of data. U.S. Wireless Network Operators have constructed over 307,000 cell sites. From 2000 to 2015, U.S. Network operators have spent $77.8 billion to buy spectrum and have invested $423 billion to build out and to expand the capacity and speed of the networks.

. . . Competition in the U.S. mobile industry is intense. Two weeks ago, Verizon reintroduced its unlimited plan with HD video and in less than four days competitors matched and tried to beat the offer. Just today, AT&T launched another new pricing plan. 97.9 percent of Americans can choose from three network base operators and 93.4 percent can choose from four operators plus more than a dozen virtual operators — the mobile industry’s equivalent of over the top competitors. We all depend on the ubiquitous, wireless network that American companies have already built.

The goals of the 1996-TCA have been achieved, so no additional wireless antennas are needed in urban environments, such as San Francisco, for Wireless Telecommunications Service. Simple industry-standard Drive Tests are all that is needed to establish no need for additional wireless antennas.


Annex C

Mar 4, 2020 Public Comments at SF Board of Appeals by
SF-resident Michael Levesque and Others

Excerpt of Mr. W’s Mar 4, 2020 Public Comment

“Eight months later, I also understand that neither the Board nor the Public has received any comment or evaluation [by Dr. Aragon] of those studies [submitted by Cheryl Hogan and others] . . . Ms. Hogan underwent surgery on Mar 2 . . . all of her friends have our fingers crossed . So my first request is that &m ash; for the love of God — provide some humanitarian help here. Please turn off the power to the facility that is right outside of her window so that she can go home and recover from this devastating experience at her home.”

Excerpt of Mr. G’s Mar 4, 2020 Public Comment

“Recognize that there’s 12,000 studies, established science telling you that small cells at 1,000 to 7,000 Watts [of Effective Radiated Power] . . . you have an opportunity right now to take a look at turning them all off — in order to not immuno-suppress your population and to give them a chance to sleep as well as possible, to fight this disease as much as possible. What you are doing is weakening your population right before a community spread of COVID-19 because the Department of Public Health isn’t looking at the science and the logical choices that would . . . save your population.”

Excerpt of Mr. L’s Mar 4, 2020 Public Comment

“I know Cheryl and I am also Electromagnetically Sensitive. Unfortunately, I have had to sell my building [my home in San Francisco] and have to leave the City because of burning feet, headaches and all kinds of symptoms . . . [San Francisco’s 2003] precautionary principle is something that you can use to help the situation. It’s really getting out of hand. The [densified 4G/]5G exposures are so prevalent. I can drive certain parts of the City where I am hit so hard . . . next week I will be up in Mendocino to get a reprieve so that I can come back and spend time with my family [pause] excuse my emotionality, please . . . you do have the Precautionary Principle in San Francisco and really look at it because it is a principle of law that you can really hold and do something with. It cannot be preempted. There is no preemption for the Precautionary Principle for the citizens and residents of San Francisco. So, seriously, you have to really push onto other people with whom you are in contact. I am asking you to do so, especially on behalf of Cheryl Hogan. Thank you.”


Date: June 8, 2020

To: Linda Gerull (628-652-5182)

From: San Francisco Residents

Subject: Follow Up From May 12 Meeting, Round 2

Ms. Linda Gerull
City and County of San Francisco, City CIO
Executive Director | Department of Technology
628-652-5182 | linda.gerull@sfgov.org | @SFCityCIO

Dear Ms. Gerull,

We have received your email of May 31 and thank you for sharing our proposals with the Mayor’s office.

Considering what we learned this week, Linda, we need your immediate help to secure an emergency meeting with the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, if not the Mayor herself, to put a stop to the ill-advised rubber-stamping of a disastrous and short-sighted policy, described below, of which we believe the Mayor is not yet well-informed.

Despite substantial written evidence placed in the San Francisco public record, since April 2019, regarding the need to rescind the July 2019 changes made to SF-DPW Article 25 as amended by Ordinance No. 190-19, it appears that San Francisco remains willfully ignorant and is proceeding to finalize these changes to Article 25 — over strong public objection that is based on substantial written evidence of substance, fact and law that has been placed in the SF public record.

Subject: Hearing for Adoption of Objective Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities

Hello Everyone,

On June 17, 2020 at 10 A.M., San Francisco Public Works will conduct a virtual public hearing to further implement the requirements of Article 25 of the Public Works Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 190-19, by adopting Objective Standards to determine whether a proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility to be installed on a Utility Pole satisfies the applicable Tier A, B, or C Compatibility Standard. I attached the proposed Objective Standards, visual representation of the design standards, hearing agenda, and instructions for comment.

San Francisco Public Works
City and County of San Francisco
1155 Market Street- 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 554-5810

We are facing this unnecessary deadline because despite many empty promises, Dr. Tomas Aragon from the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health (SF-DPH) has not sufficiently followed through on completing the assignment given to him on July 3, 2019: to update the June 14, 2010 Memo SF-DPH Memo by Dr. Rajiv Bhatia re: Health Effects and Regulation of Wireless Communications Networks. This is simply unacceptable. We need to inform the Mayor directly, without any City of San Francisco staff filters that could spin the presentation of the substantial written evidence that we have already placed in San Francisco’s public record.

As you know, Linda, no matter what the FCC and Telecom companies have said in the past, in fact, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) are known to cause illnesses, injuries and deaths. If so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) installed 6 to 12 feet from second- and third-story windows were safe, Ms. Cheryl Hogan ,living at 3535 Sacramento St. would not have needed brain surgery shortly after a sWTF — lacking a Federally-required NEPA review — was installed outside her 2nd-story window. Such damage has been documented all over the world, including in these CA cities over the last two years:

Ripon, CA: (WTF removed after four cases of cancer in children)

Sebastopol, CA: (WTF remains in place, despite documented deaths and illnesses)

Sacramento,CA: (WTF remains in place, despite documented deaths and illnesses)

Ripon and Sebastopol data were entered into the FCC’s public record on Sept 25, 2018. Ripon, Sebastopol and Sacramento data were entered into the San Francisco public record on Oct 22, 2019 (along with a binder of peer-reviewed, scientific studies concluding significant harms to living organisms from pulsed, Radio-frequency Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation, contributed by Cheryl Hogan, herself, in her SF-BOS Appeal on April 16, 2019) –> https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiN9Z5GnSKJRg5F-VQ3FpCgvS7HF-Q?e=glUaxY

This is same binder that we brought to your attention and that we saw in Dr. Tomas Aragon’s office on October 22, 2019:

San Francisco has been made fully aware of the illnesses, injuries and deaths that occur from 24/7 pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures that are transmitted at power levels that are many orders of magnitude below the FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines (http://mystreetmychoice.com/docs/RF-EMR-Exposures-v5.pdf, and, inexplicably, transmitted at power levels that are many orders of magnitude higher than that which is needed for wireless Telecommunications service (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/vhp).

No words — either written or approved by SF City attorney William Sanders — that you have sent to us in your letters of May 1, 2020 or May 31, 2020 changes the substantial written evidence that we have entered into the San Francisco public record. You letters also do not invalidate, in any way our common sense conclusions that we summarize in Appendix A of this email.

In addition, we have been taken on an unnecessarily slow (90-day) ride through San Francisco bureaucratic maneuvers since we made our reasonable requests for San Francisco to power down sWTFs in San Francisco at the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Mar 4, 2020:

Gary W at https://youtu.be/SmJ4mNr6FWI?t=1m10s:

"My first request is that for the love of God, please provide some humanitarian help here! Please turn off the power to that facility immediately so that Ms. Hogan can recover from this devastating experience in her own home."

Paul G at https://youtu.be/SmJ4mNr6FWI?t=16m10s:

"The pitch that we made to Dr. Tomas Aragon [on Mar 2, 2020] was to actually have a rational preparation for a population that is going to experience COVID-19 community spread . . . cities can make choices too . . . recognize that there are [over] 12,000 studies, established science telling you that ‘small’ cells at 1,000 to 7,000 Watts of [Effective Radiated Power at 6 to 12 feet from homes negatively affects the San Francisco population] . . . you have an opportunity right now to turn them all off in order to not immuno-suppress your population and to give them the chance to sleep as well as possible and to fight this disease as much as possible. What you are doing is weakening your population right before a community spread of COVID-19."

Next please read the study the 5G-2020-Apr-Corona-Virus-Spanish-Paper.pdf, attached, with excepts translated in Appendix B of this email (Google translate is you friend). In matters of child endangerment, which is what is happening here, understanding these common sense ideas falls on everyone’s desk, including yours and the Mayor’s.

Ms. Gerull, despite the words in your letters attempting to mischaracterize our communications as mere "concerns", I can assure you we have written and spoken only about substance, fact and law. We reject your inaccurate mischaracterization of our comments as "concerns" and kindly ask that you do not do so again, in the future.

Linda Gerull May 31, 2020 Letter

As I mentioned in my May 1 letter, federal law prohibits state and local governments from regulating wireless facilities based on radio frequency emissions, as long as those facilities meet Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards. Specifically, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, prohibits state and local regulation over the placement, construction, and modification of FCC-compliant personal wireless service facilities based on environmental effect of RF emissions."

"As we discussed in our May 12th meeting, your concerns about the adequacy of FCC standards should be brought to the attention of the FCC and federal elected officials. At our meeting and through your supplementary materials, you presented a number of strategies for local governments to regulate RF emissions despite federal law requirements. We will share your proposals with the City Attorney’s office and Mayor’s office. If there are questions or need for follow-up we will contact you."

Ms. Gerull you also seem to misunderstand what we presented and have communicated to you in writing. We have not presented "a number of strategies for local governments to regulate RF emissions". We have presented legally defensible strategies for local governments to establish a required needs test for any new proposed WTF (industry-standard Drive Tests — every six months — to accurately measure signal strength of carrier specific frequencies) and to regulate the maximum Effective Radiated Power of sWTF antennas constructed in the public rights-of-way.

A quick trip to Wikipedia explains the distinction between maximum Effective Radiated Power and pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) emissions. Please do not conflate these two separate concepts.

The document you attached does not give legal protection to San Francisco for the illnesses, injuries and deaths caused by RF-EMR exposures from wireless antennas and infrastructure. San Francisco is a party to a joint venture along with a number of wireless companies, despite there being no need established for constructing such additional antennas in order to close a significant gap in telecommunications service (see 2005 Ninth Circuit Ruling in Metro PCS v. San Francisco). This joint venture continues to install over-powered Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) as close as 6 to 12 feet from second and third story windows — without sufficient local regulation.

The most prudent city action is to power down the sWTFs that have been installed, (such as the one outside Ms. Hogan’s home), and to halt all new installations until such time as the devices are modified to reduce the maximum output of Effective Radiated power to a level that enables Telecommunications Service and no higher. Doing so would protect the quiet enjoyment of streets, which is under San Francisco’s aesthetics regulations, per 2019 CA Supreme Court case T-Mobile v San Francisco:

"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."

Powering down the sWTFs would also stop the current suppression San Francisco’s population’s immune systems and would reduce risks of direct neurological and other harms from RF-EMR exposures. At a time when the fight against COVID-19 is in progress, any action that would improve a population’s immunity should be taken.

In your first email, you gave us the impression that you would be able to provide help to Ms. Hogan as a special case. We welcome any such action of that type, as Ms. Hogan cannot return to her home to allow her surgery to heal until the unit outside her window is powered down.

Most important, the health of San Franciscans will apparently not be protected by the SF-PUC or the SF-BOA. It requires action by the Mayor. All she needs to do is halt the installation of injury causing 4G/5G sWTFs, and power down those in place. The Telecom industry has better, more energy-efficient, more secure and better options which we presented to you.

We need to know where things stand with the Mayor now that you have seen the presentation showing you how dangerous these sWTfs are, showing you that they have injured Ms. Hogan, and if not halted will injure many more.

You have seen the scientific reports that have been held up by Dr. Aragon. They are not that complicated. We are sure you understand their significance.

We showed you how the scientists have documented the type of harm that RF-EMR exposures cause. There is no uncertainty in the facts, and at this point there is nothing that in any way prevents the Mayor from taking this step to protect the health of San Francisco citizens. Other progressive cities all over the world and even just north of the Golden Gate bridge (Mill Valley, Fairfax, Ross and Petaluma, for example have taken steps to not install 4G/5G sWTFs in the public rights-of-way in residential zones. There is no reason why Mayor Breed should not proudly take those steps as well.

Please advise us whether or not you will recommend that we can present the issue of powering down and at least temporarily pausing installation of this dangerous sWTF infrastructure to the Mayor.

In addition, will you be able to take actions on Ms. Hogan’s situation, or would you prefer that we discuss that with the Mayor as well?

Will you please help set a meeting for this week?

Thank you.

San Francisco residents


Appendix A

Recommended Changes to SF-DPW Article 25

 

One common sense proposal is for San Francisco to establish policies and procedures for placing, constructing, modifying and operating only Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) that are determined to be needed to close a significant gap in telecommunications service coverage. Need Tests would be in the form of industry-standard Drive Tests of carrier-specific telecommunications frequencies conducted every six months by a neutral, third-party, licensed RF Engineer selected, hired and supervised by San Francisco — but paid for by Wireless Cos. on a pro rata share, based on an market share analysis of the maximum antenna Effective Radiated Power output capability of existing antennas operating in San Francisco.

Industry-standard Drive Tests can easily measure actual signal strength for all antennas currently installed and operating in San Francisco. The Drive Tests would log, second-by-second, the existing signal strengths in decibel-milliWatts (dBM) for each frequency transmitted from antennas that reach the streets of San Francisco. The raw data and report would be entered into the public record every six months, so the results can be verified by any member of the public.

Importantly, the dates of the Drive Tests would need to be kept secret from all Wireless Telecommunications carriers and their agents, so such parties would have no opportunity to power down antennas under their control during the Drive Tests — to prevent these parties from artificially creating a temporary significant gap in telecommunications service coverage in an attempt to game the results of the Drive Tests.

The results of the Drive Tests would provide verifiable, objective data to determine if a particular proposed WTF would be legally necessary to be installed in the public rights-of-way within the City of San Francisco’s jurisdiction and legal authority. The raw data would then be used to establish if any carrier-specific significant gaps in telecommunications service coverage actually exist, considering results from all frequencies in the aggregate. Any new WTF would only be licensed by San Francisco if there is a proven significant gap in telecommunications service corrected by the antenna in the application, consistent with the ideas of "significant gap in coverage" and "least intrusive means" in the 2005 Ninth Circuit Ruling, Metro PCS v San Francisco.

Other requirements for WTF applications, added to Article 25 should include the following for each WTF application:

  • A determination if the WTF application provides public benefits, consistent with the preservation of the integrity, safe usage, ambiance, and visual qualities of San Francisco’s public rights-of-way.

  • Substantial written evidence of NEPA review (a requirement of every WTF application, per FCC NEPA Attorney Erica Rosenberg. NEPA requirements: see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepastrategies/

  • Proper liability insurance that protects the county from claims of injuries, illnesses and/or deaths from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures: see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thisworks

  • A listing of the names of the board of directors toward positive identification of the applicant, and the assets of the entity actually signing the MLA and other licensing agreements and WTF applications: see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/davis

Therefore, San Francisco needs to significantly amend Article 25, which currently primarily fulfills the business goals of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, at the expense of San Francisco residents — this is an unjust "taking" of property values to enrich private companies who are operating in the public rights-of-way, without sufficient public benefit, such as sharing access to Fiber Optic cables installed in the public rights-of-way. Changes to Article 25 are needed to bring it in accordance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA), which governs Title II-regulated telecommunications service, and which leaves all four above-cited activities related to wireless infrastructure — in the lands of the City and County of San Francisco. A regulatory obligation must be fulfilled and not avoided by omission.

The authority to properly regulate the maximum Effective Radiated Power of any antenna installed in the public rights-of-way is established in the 1996-TCA and it conference report:

From https://scientists4wiredtech.com/compare

"This page is one of three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs); the other two are the US House/Senate Conference Report for the 1996 Telecommunications Act (“1996-Act”) and the stated purpose of the 1996-Act: ‘to promote the safety of life and property’."

From the 1996-TCA Conference Report

"The conferees also intend that the phrase ‘‘unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services’’ will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services. For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district."

. . .

"If a request for placement of a personal wireless service facility involves a zoning variance or a public hearing or comment process, the time period for rendering a decision will be the usual period under such circumstances. It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision."


Appendix B

Study of the correlation between coronavirus cases
and the presence of 5G networks.

 
Author: Bartomeu Payeras i Cifre (1)

Date: March-April 2020

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects in early 2020 have surprised scientists and politicians. Any study aimed at understanding the phenomenon and as a consequence may contribute to clarifying the causes, should be promoted and / or taken into account if it is carried out.

In the social networks and alternative media, the aforementioned correlation raised in the statement is discussed. It is noteworthy that, at least in Spain, no media outlet has echoed the scientific studies on the subject, nor raised any questions to the Government in the daily press conferences that it carries out to report the state of the situation.

Neither has it been, or it has not transpired that the team of scientists advising the Spanish government has held any demonstration in this regard. It is common sense that being able to demonstrate this correlation would be an extremely important fact to contribute to the knowledge and solution of the problem.

Objective

To assess whether there is such a correlation and the cause-effect approaches, in case the results are positive. As there is a sufficiently high statistical sample, it allows us to grant great reliability of the results obtained.

Conclusion

  1. The results obtained clearly demonstrate a clear and close relationship between the rate of coronavirus cases and the location of 5G antennas.

  2. This study does not analyze the beneficial or harmful effects on humans of 5G electromagnetic radiation. But it does point to a possible cause-effect in the current pandemic.

  3. It is significant, original and exclusive of this pandemic, which presents a "border effect", with marked differences between contiguous states with or without 5G implementation. It is especially significant that the neighboring countries of China have very low rates of infection. Also observe between Mexico and the USA or between Portugal and Spain.

  4. The case of San Marino is especially important. The first state in the world to implement 5G, therefore, the state where its citizens have been exposed to such radiation the longest, and suspiciously, the first state in the world to be infected. The probability of this happening is 1 in 37,636.

  5. In the cities studied: Madrid, Barcelona and New York, the aforementioned correlation is also observed. The study of the City of Barcelona (page 8) shows that the socioeconomic factor that most influences.

  6. It is very significant that in the African continent, with scarce health resources, but without 5G, the index is very low, except for some antennas in the South African Republic; which coincidentally presents the highest numbers of infections in Africa.

  7. The indices are diluted. Indices for some regions are influenced by cities with 5G, but the index for those cities is diluted by those for the region to which they belong. Therefore, it is more significant, as in the case of Spain, to compare uniprovincial Autonomous Communities, than among those made up of 3 or more of the old provinces. Thus we see that some communities with 5G, such as La Rioja, Madrid, Navarra, have rates between 4 and 8 times higher than others without 5G. The same thing happens in other cities in the world where the 5G network does not cover the entire territory of the state or region.

  8. These data and results have the value of being taken “in vivo”, not based on prospective or laboratory studies. Never in history have we had so much epidemiological information on a disease in humans to be able to carry out scientific studies.

One formula to be able to answer the cause-effect question would be to be able to disconnect, at least as a preventive measure, 5G networks, and see the results of the evolution of coronavirus cases. It would also be to study the index in any state that has declared the 5G moratorium once the pandemic has started and to study if the statistics change.

For all that has been said and calculated, I consider it urgent to take into account the data and conclusions of this study. Given the current serious circumstances of the pandemic, it is the responsibility of the media and of the political and health authorities to take urgent measures. The fact of knowing this study and not acting, could be considered as negligence or even prevarication.


June 15, 2020

Honorable Mayor, London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco
City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-554-6141

Linda J. Gerull
Executive Director, Department of Technology
City and County of San Francisco

Re: Past and Future Placement and Construction of Densified 4G/5G so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in the public rights-of-way in San Francisco


  • Response to Gerull emails of May 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020
  • Clear Need to Postpone SF-DPW Scheduled Meeting of June 17, 2020 at 10 A.M. re: a virtual public hearing to further implement the requirements of Article 25 of the Public Works Code

Dear Mayor Breed and Ms. Gerull;

Before we could respond to Ms. Gerull’s letter of May 31, 2020, we learned details about a critical meeting on this subject set for Wed June 17th. This meeting creates an emergency which we here bring to the Mayor’s IMMEDIATE attention before providing a more detailed response to Ms. Gerull’s recent email.

In light of the description of the June 17th meeting, (Appendix A) it is urgent that the Mayor’s office POSTPONE or CANCEL that meeting before some very short-sighted decisions are made. We urge the Mayor’s office, and/or the City Attorney to

  • first postpone,
  • then to get up to speed on these problems, and
  • then to make more far-sighted, less costly and less dangerous decisions regarding local regulation of sWTF placement and construction.

We support Ms. Gerull’s referring matters to the City Attorney and encourage his personal involvement in these matters. His input on whether to hold the June 17, 2020 meeting would be important.

The policy proposed for adoption at the meeting, encouraging placement and construction of hundreds of more sWTF facilities throughout the city without other agency or public review of the public’s health, safety or protection of the quiet enjoyment of San Francisco streets (and without FCC-required NEPA reviews) may negate the benefits recently won by the City in its hard-fought litigation over these issues in T-Mobile v. City of San Francisco).

From T-Mobile v San Francisco (April 4, 2019 CA Supreme Court Ruling)

"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."

As proposed, the SF-DPW implementation of the July, 2019 changes to Article 25 — without the public’s sufficient input as clear stakeholders — will almost certainly

  1. injure people in their homes and on the streets, with cancer being only one potential effect (Ms. Hogan is only one example of what will continue to happen if nothing is done.)
  2. send a "gold-plated invitation” for private personal injury litigation with its attendant publicity and cross-examination about what the City and its officers did and did not know on the date of its decision,
  3. send another invitation to federal agency investigation over potential undue influence,
  4. trigger violations of NEPA requirements, as described by FCC NEPA attorney Erica Rosenberg (202-418-1343) here → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepa-strategies
  5. invite press publicity undercutting the current progressive reputations of the Mayor and Dr. Tomas Aragon, [see this morning’s Chronicle].

“Undue influence” issues may arise from several widely observed facts.

First, in July, 2019 Dr. Aragon was given a binder of studies documenting the harm caused by pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) from source antennas such as sWTFs, a file compiled by the Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley — where Dr. Aragon teaches part-time.

Repeated urgent requests for his comments on these scientific reports documenting dangers of RF-EMR exposures from these sWTFs have been ignored since October 2019.

While all relevant facts are not known, his refusal to comment creates appearances in the minds of many that he has been told to keep quiet about the true dangers of RF-EMR exposures from sWTFs. The dangers reported could have been assessed by him, by staff, by other agencies who also received the file of reports, such as SF-Board of Appeals or by the SF Department of Technology. Mr. Swig at the Board of Appeals has requested Aragon’s response numerous times → . https://youtu.be/SmJ4mNr6FWI?t=16m10s We have heard nothing but silence from Dr. Aragon since October, 2019.

The peer-reviewed scientific studies compiled by Dr. Moskowitz are clear and are not so complex that their understanding cannot be comprehended by engineers, lawyers and lay people.

It is important to understand that even the industry does not claim that sWTF installations are safe. The industry has funded no cientific studies that counter those studies provided by Dr. Moskowitz, which are peer-reviewed studies that have funding independent of the wireless industry, in the binder described.

See Video Comments of Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) → https://youtu.be/xJ07BhcM5_4?t=34m22s

Reinsurers, Lloyds of London, Swiss re and AM Best and others will not insure the Telecom firms for injuries, illnesses or deaths caused by RF-EMR exposures from WTFs, as documented here (<https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/#death). Telecom companies’ investor SEC filings note that their earnings are subject to losses to litigation over health or safety (as documented here: https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thisworks). Other cities have seen these same facts and protected their citizens from likely projected injuries, illnesses and deaths caused by WTF construction. San Francisco can be at least as progressive as its neighbors to the north: Petaluma, Mill Valley, Fairfax, Ross and Sebastopol.

In addition, some WTF installations in SF were canceled due to comprehensive SF-BOA appeals that detail the dealings of the RF Engineering firm, Hammett & Edison and outside Verizon counsel for Verizon, Mackenzie and Albritton (as documented in Appendix B. The obvious appearance asks whether there were unspoken reasons why some owners were favored and other similar owners were not.

One observation we make on the legal matter noted in Ms. Gerull’s email, is that the FCC and City of San Francisco has been told by the California Supreme Court (cit. above) that under its US constitutional “police power” it may regulate WTFs to protect the quiet enjoyment of streets, (note that the city’s police powers include protection of health and safety, along with protection of the public on its streets). There are other relevant legal responses as well.

We are prepared to meet and assist the Mayor, City Attorney, Director of the Department of Technology or others who would like to see scientific documentation of the established negative health consequences from RF-EMR exposures from WTFs that are nevertheless compliant with FCC RF-EMR guidelines.

As we learned in the Judge Millet’s Oct 1, 2019 Ruling in Case No. 1051, Mozilla et al. v FCC:

“Congress does not generally hide elephants in mouseholes, and we think it utterly improbable that [Congress intended to authorize the EPA’s interpretation] by creating a list of several hundred toxic chemicals.”) (internal citation omitted). The mousehole, in short, cannot be the wellspring of preemption authority that the Commission needs.

The elephant in the Mayor Breed’s office right now is that compliance with the FCC RF-EMR exposure guideline does not equate to sufficient protection or safety.

Most importantly, we have advised Ms. Gerull of one way that health dangers of WTFs can be avoided, while permitting the Telecoms to provide all needed telecommunications service: cap the maximum effective radiated power that can be transmitted by sWTF antennas to no higher than 0.1 Watt.

"“For any so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) that are

  • installed in the public rights-of-way, or
  • attached to any building, or
  • have antennas installed at a height that is lower than 100 feet off the ground,

. . . the applicant must install only antennas, radios and other supporting equipment that have no chance of exceeding a total of 0.1 Watt of Effective Radiated Power from the face of the antenna shroud for all frequencies/wavelengths capable of being transmitted from the antenna.”"

Please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Most importantly – we urge you to postpone or cancel tomorrow’s SF-DPW meeting and bring the Mayor (whose reputation is at risk) up to speed on ALL relevant information before proceeding!

Thank you.


Appendix A

Subject: Hearing for Adoption of Objective Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities

Hello Everyone,

On June 17, 2020 at 10 A.M., San Francisco Public Works will conduct a virtual public hearing to further implement the requirements of Article 25 of the Public Works Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 190-19, by adopting Objective Standards to determine whether a proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility to be installed on a Utility Pole satisfies the applicable Tier A, B, or C Compatibility Standard. I attached the proposed Objective Standards, visual representation of the design standards, hearing agenda, and instructions for comment.

San Francisco Public Works
City and County of San Francisco
1155 Market Street- 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-554-5810


Appendix B

Excerpts from two 2019 appeals of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) at the San Francsico Board of Appeals — in both cases, Verizon/Verizon’s Agents preferred to withdraw its applications in lieu of having these cases heard.

Sources:

A. 2298 Pacific, Inc. Appeal of Permit 18WR-0296

  • Link to. original appeal, without exhibits.

  • Link to large pdf file of Appeal with exhibits

"Verizon, Modus, H&E, and their lawyers have taken and continue to take action to install this Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) with full knowledge of the danger and damage they will cause. They intend to breach agreements to which Appellants are third party beneficiaries. They will intentionally and illegally prevent a landlord from fulfilling its legal obligations. They will intentionally and illegally cause: injuries from exposure in excess of FCC guidelines; a nuisance; emotional distress; trespass and interference with contractual relations, prospective business and economic relations. Punitive damages will be appropriate. The City risks liability for an inverse condemnation.11

Verizon, Modus, H&E and their lawyers understand these risks and the damage that will ensue and thus refuse to provide written assurances or to indemnify 2298 Pacific, its residents and officers. Ex. 612 # 5-6, 8-9; Ex. 8, #104, #105. Also, as discussed herein, Verizon’s agents have engaged in fraudulent conduct. This too is a breach of a material condition under UCP §3.5(g) and should vitiate this permit . See e.g. U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878) (fraud vitiates). Because of its violations of the law and breaches of contracts, Verizon cannot meet its burden to show compliance with all permit requirements.

III. SF-DPH’S DETERMINATION WAS IMPROPER AND INCORRECT

As set forth below, Verizon’s Application was not Complete and DPW had no ability to refer it to DPH. See Order §6A4 and 6E. Also, DPH’s improper and premature determination appears in a short 10/29/18 memo by Arthur Duque ("Arthur") which approves an antenna that was declared "OBSOLETE" and discontinued about a year earlier and which was for a steel, not concrete pole. Exs. 12-13. On these grounds alone, DPH’s determination was incorrect.

Putting these important issues aside, DPH’s determination was also incorrect because it relied entirely on unsupported presumptions in a 9/11/18 "report" by conflicted H&E that is, at least, unreliable, if not fraudulent Ex. 14. There is no evidence that H&E is trustworthy. Its finding emissions exposure below FCC standards for another facility near a school is being investigated. Multiple children and teachers in that Ripon school community now have cancer. Ex. 15. Moreover, as discussed below, Arthur’s determination is inherently unreliable because for years he has failed to verify the representations in H&E’s reports, including what emissions these cell towers actually produce once installed, despite for years making that a condition of his approvals.

Verizon’s agents repeatedly misrepresent that H&E is "an independent third party" and that the City conducts an "independent review" to assure compliance with FCC guidelines. The truth, however, is that H&E is paid by and works for Verizon and is represented by Verizon’s lawyers.13 It is not "independent" It has a conflict of interest.14

Nor does the City conduct an "independent review." Asked to identify all work that the City, including DPH, did to verify its results and conclusions, H&E could identify nothing. Ex. B, #32. See also Ex. 9, p. 10, #q and p. 11, #u. Arthur’s memo itself reflects absolutely no independent analysis or verification of H&E’s measurements, calculations or assumptions. It nowhere answers obvious questions about H&E’s methodology or conclusions. It appears to be just a form that quotes H&E.

Asked to provide all documents to support the conclusions in his determination, Arthur merely produced identical copies of the H&E "report." Ex. 18. Asked to provide all documents proving the reliability of H&E reports, he could produce nothing. Ex. 19.

H&E, who must "protect and safeguard the health, safety, welfare and property of the public", is obligated not to misrepresent data and/or its relative significance in any report and is prohibited from knowingly permitting its work from being used for an unlawful purpose and from falsely injuring others. California Code of Regulations Title 16, Division 5 §475 and §475(c). It has violated these obligations.

H&E’s report" is intentionally misleading. H&E admits that no one from H&E actually measured human exposure to radio frequency at 2298 Pacific. Ex. #18. Thus, H&E cannot answer basic questions as to when, by whom, how, with what devices, under what conditions, and at what locations the alleged measurements were made. Ex. 8 # 18,64,70,76,83.15

Despite its representations (and in apparent violation of the Master License16), H&E also failed to consider the exposure results from the cumulative effect of Verizon’s equipment added to all other sources of RF or EMF on or near 2298 Pacific. In fact, H&E admits that it did not actually consider "any sources of radio frequency emissions exposure at 2298 Pacific." Ex. 8, #23. H&E admits it did not consider nearby antenna or any sources of radio frequency emissions within 229B Pacific. Ex. 8 #24-25, 29.17 H&E admits that it merely "presumes" that the current cumulative radio frequency emissions exposure is "well below the FCC public limit." Ex. #21.

Asked to describe the "existing radio frequency energy," H&E merely repeats its presumption. Ex. #59. Asked to identify all current sources of radio frequency emissions exposure at 2298 Pacific, an intentionally evasive H&E says 11th ere are presently no known licensed sources." Ex. #22. Asked to list all existing and proposed antennas and all other sources of radio frequency emissions that H&E considered in determining cumulative radio frequency energy at 2298 Pacific, H&E admits it considered nothing, simply repeating "there are presently no known licensed sources." Ex. #52.

H&E must know that measuring cumulative exposure includes measuring exposure from all sources, licensed or not and both within and beyond 100 feet. Planning admits that PWSFs have a range up to 500 feet and that macro facilities can have a range up to a mile. Ex. 20, p. 8. The 100 foot limit in the report makes no sense. Asked whether questions other than those posed in the report need to be answered "to truly know the cumulative exposure to radio frequency emissions at 2298 Pacific" and if so, what those questions are, H&E evaded the inquiry, dodging: the "questions were posed by the DPH." H&E cannot legally, professionally or ethically hide behind this excuse. See e.g. Cal. Code of Regulations Title 16, Division 5 §475 (c)(7J, (c)(9) and (c)(ll).

Nor is it credible that H&E believed there were no licensed sources. According to Planning, by just 2015, there were already "approximately 700 existing micro or macro … sites in San Francisco, each with between 1 to 16 panel antennas … [and] approximately 383 existing wireless facilities … " Ex. 20, p. 8. H&E no doubt did the reports for many of these facilities. For example, Planning specifically mentions a macro facility at nearby 2001 Sacramento. Ex. 20 p. 9 (8/15 version). H&E did the report for that facility. Ex. 21. Moreover, there are facilities at 2288 Broadway, a little over a block away, which have a combined power output of over 17,000 watts. Ex. 22. H&E did the report for 2288 Broadway. Ex. 23. An incomplete map also reflects macro facilities on nearby Union and Buchanan at 16,650 watts, on Broadway and Gough for another 16,650 Watts and two on Union at Fillmore and Octavia each at 7,182 Watts. Ex. 24. There are likely others. H&E obviously was aware of these facilities but intentionally ignored them. No reasonable person would conclude that H&E proved compliance with FCC guidelines when it admits it ignored all sources of radio frequency energy.

In addition, work by one of Verizon’s other engineering firms undermines H&E’s "report." For the same antenna at nearby locations, EBI Consulting warns that FCC limits are exceeded at 9 feet not the mere 3.5 feet that H&E claims. Ex. 5.

Even H&E’s own reports undermine its conclusions. Its other reports warn of exposure exceedance at 7 feet for this antenna, double the 3.5 it claims for 2298 Pacific. Ex. 26. H&E claims that "power density levels decrease rapidly with distance" Ex. HR #24. However, in a report for the same antenna measured at a distance of 65 feet (5 times further away than the alleged 13 feet at 2298 Pacific) H&E concludes that no one should be within 7 feet from it, double the distance it recommends for the same antenna at 2298 Pacific.18 Ex. Similarly, H&E admits in its other reports that the same antenna produces at least double the wattage, while the specifications for the antenna indicate that the maximum power output could be several times greater. Exs. 26 and 12. Not surprisingly, neither H&E nor Verizon has provided any documents supporting the conclusions that it is safe to be 3.5 feet away from this antenna or that the maximum effective radiated power is only 110 Watts or that it will only transmit in AWS and PCS or that it will not be aimed directly at 2298 Pacific or schoolchildren. Ex. 9 p. 6 # and p 5# e, pp.6-7 #h.19

Moreover, other evidence exists that H&E drastically underreports wattage to get approvals. For example, for 2288 Broadway, H&E claimed the maximum effective radiated power was 13,840. The City’s map says the wattage is closer to 17,000. Exs. 22-23. The Ripon students and teachers with cancer no doubt also believe that H&E drastically underreports exposure. See Ex. 15.

H&E’s representations about the equipment to be used will likely also prove fraudulent. Its report is for a CommScope Model 3X-V6SS-G-3XR for a steel, not concrete pole. Exs. 12 and 14. In its 2018 Application, Verizon provided the City with 2014 specifications for this antenna warning that they were "for illustrative purposes only" and would be "updated prior to publication." However, the manufacturer had already declared the antenna "OBSOLETE" and "discontinued" in 2017, at least 9 months before H&E did its "report". Ex. 12.20

DPH also relied on this untrustworthy "report" when it ignores emissions exposure under what any reasonable person can see are going to be the real conditions if this "OBSOLETE" antenna is installed. The antenna is tri-directional and capable of producing many times the wattage reflected in the H&E report‘ Ex. 26. H&E merely represented, with no reliable support for its representations, that only two directions would be activated, that the antenna would only be operated at a fraction of the possible wattage and that it would only transmit in two frequency bands and in certain ((principal" orientations. Ex. 14. Neither it nor Verizon produced a single, reliable document to prove that any of these crucial presumptions are correct See e.g. Ex. 9, p. 4#c, p. 5#e and Ex. 7, #27-29. When the third antenna is activated or the antenna is operated at full capacity or in different frequency bands or aimed at 2298 Pacific or school children, it will produce many times the exposure assumed. Although Verizon’s agents orally represented both that the antenna would never be operated in a tri-directional manner and that Verizon would never increase emissions from the facility, Verizon’s lawyers notably refused to confirm those oral representations in writing. Ex. 6, #7,14. Similarly, asked to provide a declaration "that there will never be an increase in the effective radiated power from the PWSF that is the subject of the Application," Verizon refused. Ex. 6, #12. Asked to provide assurances that 2298 Pacific would be given meaningful notice and an opportunity to prevent an increase in advance and to explain when and how such notice would be given, Verizon refused. Ex. 6, #12-13. Asked why it would install a tri-directional antenna if it only wants the antenna to operate bi-directionally, Verizon evaded the question. Ex. 6, #18. Common sense impels one to conclude that Verizon would not install a tri-directional antenna that powerful only to operate it bi-directionally and at a fraction of the wattage possible and that it is using at other locations. Verizon can merely activate a direction aimed right at 2298 Pacific and school children or otherwise increase emissions or transmit in other bands, including those for which FCC guidelines are more stringent. No one will know unless Verizon volunteers that it is doing so. Given the misrepresentations and intentional concealments of information that have occurred, it is not reasonable to rely on Verizon to self-police. Nor should one expect conflicted, untrustworthy H&E to undermine its important client or to declare that its previous representations were false. It is concerning that the City could ever be content to rely on the conflicted H&E to merely confirm its previous representations.

Nor should anyone expect the City to police Verizon. Although Verizon’s lawyers repeatedly represent to hearing officers, this Board and to others that DPH conditions requiring post-installation RF measurements "ensure that the Facility will not exceed FCC limits on RF emissions," the truth is that Verizon does not give DPH post-installation RF measurements showing compliance with FCC guidelines and the City does not even track what happens to a PWSF after it is installed.21 DPH hasn’t verified an installed PWSF’s compliance with FCC guidelines as required by its approval condition for years, if ever. Consider these disturbing admissions:

(1) In 2017, DPW complained that it was lacking Statements of Compliance with the Public Health Compliance Standard "PHCS") and other required notices and photographs for about 80% of installed Verizon facilities. Verizon was told to put such information into a spreadsheet Ex. 28.

(2) Over two years later, (March 2019), the City confirmed there still was "no spreadsheet or other document with post-installation data, including a spreadsheet or other document with any information concerning post-installation compliance with the PHCS." Ex. 29.

(3) DPW admitted as recently as March of 2019 that, despite the mandatory obligations under Article 25 22, it does not track when an actual installation takes place or what happens after a PWSF is installed (i.e. the installed PWSFs RF emissions). DPW can’t even tell which Application actually resulted in an installed PWSF. DPW further admitted "there is no information kept about the cumulative impact of the currently installed and operating PWSFs" and that "there are no documents that compare pre-installation with post-installations RF reports." Ex. 29.

(4) DPH could not provide post-installation reports. DPR concealed from Appellants, who had an outstanding public records request for reports, that Arthur (and thus DPH) had never received a single, required post-installation test result confirming compliance with FCC guidelines in his entire 2 year tenure in this program at DPH! 23 Ex. 31.

Shockingly, it appears that DPH never cared about this or mentioned it until Appellants’ public records request caused concern that citizens might uncover this fraud. Ex. 31.24 Arthur’s ignoring required post-installation testing to confirm compliance with FCC guidelines for two years speaks volumes as to the reliability of his determinations. It only confirms that DPH merely accepts H&E’s representations without questioning anything, including whether its mere presumptions actually bear out in real world conditions and whether H&E’s representations, including about the equipment Verizon is going to use and how it is going to use it, ever prove truthful.

(5) Six minutes Wr. a public records request for his emails with Agatha closed on March 21,2019, Arthur sent Agatha an email with a subject line referencing the prior two years entitled, "2017 and 2018 Post reports for all approved DPW sites after installation." In this email, he admitted that although DPH’s approval conditions required post-installation tests showing FCC compliance, "DPH has not been getting them to see if they do comply with the FCC public standard." Ex. 34.

(6) *In a March 21, 2019 email to DPW’s Leo Palacios ("Leo"), Arthur admitted: "*DPH has not been getting any of the post-test results since I’ve been in this program** . . . There is no notification process to inform DPH . . . that a review is needed . . I would like to streamline this process so that DPH knows when these sites ego active’ and if they are in compliance with the FCC Public Standard." Ex. 31. Leo registered no surprise. Ex. 32. He had to have known that DPH was not getting these reports.25

(7) In an improper ex parte communication to the Hearing Officer, Verizon’s attorney admitted "DPW could revoke the permits for Proposed Facilities if [post-installation testing] conditions are violated." Ex. 38.

This situation is extremely distressing, to say the least.26 This Board cannot risk further endangering SF residents and in this case, thousands of children from 7 different schools, given this record, including H&E’s role in blessing a facility near a school where children and teachers now have cancer. And this Board should be very troubled by the many misrepresentations that have been made to it and continue to be made to it See e.g. Ex. 39, p. 4 (This condition ensures that the Facility will not exceed FCC limits on RF emissions.") The truth is that Verizon and H&E have known that they can make any representation they want They know that DPH will not assure post-installation compliance with FCC requirements or verify H&E’s claims as required by DPH’s condition of approval. See e.g. Exs. 28-29, 31-32 and 34.

Although H&E represented in its report that its findings for this antenna are "consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating nodes," it failed to provide any documents to support this representation or even the addresses of these alleged nodes so that information could be requested of DPW.27 Ex. 9 p. 9#n and p. 8 #L and Ex. 8, #91b. Its representation may of course be fraudulent given the evidence that Verizon doesn’t actually do the required post-installation testing and DPH doesn’t confirm post-installation compliance with FCC guidelines. Exs. 28-29, 31-32 and 34. It is also on its face suspect given that Verizon stated in its 2018 Application that it was using this antenna "for the first time" while the antenna had already been declared "OBSOLETE" and discontinued the previous year. Exs. 12 and 40. Asked to provide all documents to support any of the conclusions on which DPH relied, H&E did not produce a single document. Ex. 9.

H&E’s work has also been discredited in other jurisdictions, in addition to Ripon. Ex. 107. And, as discussed below) its "report’) was not properly verified. Also troubling are H&E’s efforts to conceal its methodology, refusing to explain its calculations on the grounds that they are "proprietary."

Like H&E and DPH, Verizon, Modus, Planning and DPWwere all given opportunities to demonstrate this PWSF’s compliance with FCC guidelines. None could. Planning and DPW admitted that they had no documents to support any of H&E’s conclusions. Ex. 41. Similarly, Modus produced nothing. Exs. 10-11. Verizon, like H&E, refused to reveal "the amount of all radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific are currently exposed." Ex. 6, #21. It would not state the amount of all radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific will be exposed if all of the proposed PWSFs in San Francisco are approved." Ex. 6 #22. It refused to say whether there ((are there any base stations, and/or operational radiating antennas near 2298 Pacific that are already exposing the residents of 2298 Pacific to radio frequency electromagnetic fields." Ex. 6, #20. It refused to provide a reliable declaration under penalty of perjury that the proposed PWSF will never cause the residents of 2298 Pacific or any of its workers, agents, property managers or contractors to experience any exposure to radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC guidelines now or in the future or to explain why it will not do so Ex. 6 #5-6. It would not provide a single document: "showing the amount of radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific are currently exposed" or "showing the amount of radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific will be exposed given proposed and anticipated PWSFs in San Francisco." Ex. 7, #4. It refused to provide "a list by address of all existing facilities that produce radio frequency emissions to which the residents of 2298 Pacific are currently exposed and to identity by address the amount of emissions produced." Ex. 6, #1.

No one, not H&E, DPH, DPW, Planning, Modus or Verizon can provide any reliable information or documents that support the conclusion that exposure at 2298 Pacific will comply with FCC guidelines.

The pole at issue is about 8 feet from 2298 Pacific’s brick wall where elementary school children sit. Verizon conceals the fact that it intends to install a pole that is wider than the existing pole, while the cell tower will extend out still further from that wider pole, bringing the pole and antenna closer to 2298 Pacific. EBI found that FCC guidelines are exceeded at 9 feet for this same antenna. Ex. 5. This PWSF will expose people, including young schoolchildren, to emissions in excess of FCC guidelines. Also, workers using scaffolding or swing stages to conduct required maintenance and repairs on the building will be even closer to the antenna and risk exposure in excess of Fee guidelines. Similarly, 2298 Pacific’s arborists and others who work on its trees that are next to the proposed PWSF will risk exposure in excess of FCC guidelines. 2298 Pacific, Inc. will be prevented from conducting legally required maintenance and repairs. See Civil Code § 1941 and 1941.1 (a) (1). Millions of dollars of damage will ensue.

For the many reasons detailed above, it is clear that Verizon did not meet its burden to prove compliance with FCC guidelines and that DPH’s premature and improper determination incorrectly found compliance with the PHCS.28 Indeed, DPH’s determination is inherently untrustworthy in light of the revelation that for years it ignored the condition that it puts in its approvals, failing to assure compliance with FCC guidelines and to verify H&E’s representations."

B. 1650 Baker St. Appeal of Permit 16WR-0123

  • Link to 2019-1016-Appeal-19-0087-1650-Baker-SF-CA
  • Link to 2019-1104-SF-BOA-Verizon-WTF-Appeal-19-087-Dismissed-1650-Baker-SF-CA

"Hammett and Edison (H&E) report is invalid

  • As mandated by city law to receive a permit, the applicant (Verizon / Modus) needed to hire a RF radio frequency engineer to assess the proposed installation. Verizon hired H&E.
  • The H&E has a conclusion page which is signed by the engineer that conducted the study and wrote the report. It is the ONLY page that is signed by the H&E Engineer (named Andrea Bright) and the only page that has her official stamp as a registered California Professional Engineer.
  • A copy of this signature page and stamp page is included as Exhibit 9.
  • To quote, it says: "Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned’s professional opinion that operation of the small cell proposed by Verizon Wireless at 1867 39th Avenue in San Francisco. California, will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment." (Emphasis mine, underlined)
  • This address is THE WRONG ADDRESS (it is not 1650 Baker Street). The engineer seems to have "cut and pasted" from another report and just applied it blindly here to a completely different location, which at worst is fraud and at best is negligence.
  • Either way, as a result. there does NOT exist any signed stamped conclusion about 1650 Baker Street.
  • While the top of the page says 1650 Baker as a printed header to the document, the actual signed page (the only signed & stamped page in the document) and the conclusion statement clearly states it’s for 1867 39th Avenue — which means this is not a valid signed for our address on Baker Street.

The DPH and DPW installation requirements have a history of not being met

  • Arthur Duque of DPH is the Senior Environmental Health Inspector at San Francisco Dept of Public Health -Radio frequency program. He is the only in the Radio Frequency Program at the DPH (Exhibit 10).
  • Arthur writes, in the letter stating DPH’s approval conditions in the section titled Approval Conditions, that "Once the antenna is installed, Verizon Wireless must take RF power density measurements with the antenna operating at full power to verify the level reported in the Ebi Consulting report and to ensure that the FCC public exposure level is not exceeded in any publicly accessible area."

The language here is clear — it is a requirement of the permit. And yet:

  • Exhibit 11 Arthur Duque of DPH himself has admitted in writing, in an email he sent March 21, 2019 (only months ago) to DPW, saying “DPH has not been getting any of the post-test results since I’ve been in this program” [for reference: Arthur Duque has been with DPH for over 8 years].
  • That means Arthur admits in writing that for YEARS, he has not received required post-installation reports as required by the permit. We cannot allow such a blatant violation to continue and cannot trust the wireless companies to adhere by the clauses in the permit.
  • DPW itself also admits in writing (Exhibit 11) that

    1. there is no document with information concerning post-installation compliance
    2. there is no information about the cumulative effect of installed wireless facilities
    3. there are no documents that compare pre-installation with post-installation RF reports."

June 26, 2020
  

To: Honorable Mayor, London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco
City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-554-6141

To: Linda J. Gerull
Executive Director, Department of Technology
City and County of San Francisco

To: SF Supervisors
Aaron Peskin (BOS)
Sunny Angulo (BOS)
Ahsha Safai
Matt Haney
Erica Major

To: SF-DPH
Dr. Grant Colfax
Dr. Tomas Aragon
Patrick Fosdahl
Jennifer Callewaert
Arthur Duque

To: SF Health Commission
SF Health Commission
James Loyce, Jr., M.S., President
Dan Bernal, Vice President
Edward A. Chow M.D., Commissioner
Cecilia Chung, Commissioner
Suzanne Giraudo, Ph.D., Commissioner
Laurie Green, M.D., Commissioner
Tessie Guillermo, Commissioner

To SF-DPW
Alaric Degrafinried
Leo Palacios
Director’s Office

To: SF-BOA
SF Board of Appeals
Ann Lazarus: President
Rick Swig, Commissioner
Darryl Honda, Commissioner
Rachael Tanner, Commissioner
Eduardo Santacana, ​Commissioner
Julie Rosenberg

To: SF-PUC Management
Barbara Hale
Richard Stephens
Hieu Doan
Mark Torres

Re: Past and Future Placement and Construction of Densified 4G/5G so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in the public rights-of-way in San Francisco

 

Dear Mayor Breed et al.,

[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]

In our high school and college years, many of us have learned that radiation is the emission or transmission of energy in the form of waves or particles through space or through a material medium, which includes the following:

  • Particle radiation, such as alpha radiation (α), beta radiation (β), and neutron radiation particles of non-zero rest energy)

  • Acoustic radiation such as ultrasound, sound, and seismic waves (dependent on a physical transmission medium)

  • Electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma(γ) radiation

Some forms of particle, acoustic and electromagnetic radiation occur in nature; humans have adapted to the presence of that radiation over hundreds of thousands of years. In the last 125 years or so, however, humans have introduced many man-made, xenobiotic forms of radiation into our living environments. In doing so, we have often misunderstood, and underestimated the negative effects caused by such invisible, odorless forms of radiation. The examples abound of society’s ignorance of radiation dangers that were seldom recognized in time to prevent injury, illness, or death to those exposed.

  • Marie Curie and her Nobel prize-winning daughter both died of radiation-caused illness. Few, however, recognize that Marie Curie died at age 66, after 37 years of research into (and exposure to) nuclear radiation, but Heinrich Hertz, her contemporary, died at age 36, after 8 years (and exposure to) man-made electromagnetic radiation.

  • The “Radium Girls” who painted luminous dials on watches in the 1930s loved their jobs in the first months, but died agonizing deaths, often starting with loss of teeth, then loss of their jawbones, then cancers. Almost all died young. (See K. Moore, Radium Girls, 2017).

  • It is estimated that atomic test explosions in the 50s “probably killed nearly half a million Americans”. (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, Dec. 22, 2017).

  • In the United States, X-Ray machines were installed in shoe stores in the 1950’s to determine accurate shoe sizes for children; many childhood leukemia cases later, the US Government, fortunately, banned that business practice, much as it eventually banned the involuntary exposures from second-hand smoke from smokers on airplanes, in bars and restaurants and in public buildings.

Electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum is known to be harmful. To date, our governernments, have NOT taken adequate steps to protect the residents of the US against any of these forms of radiation. Is that wise? How many times must we learn the same lesson?

In many of these cases, radiation might have seemed harmless at first, but sooner or later it took its victims. It is now finally time for San Francisco to fulfill its duties and obligations under the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s cooperative federalism (detailed in Appendix A, below) and to pass local regulation (via DPW-Article 25 or other local ordinance) to finally regulate the Wireless industry, providing common sense and protective "speed limits, seat belts and airbags"-like local laws. Such local laws would provide the benefit of telecommunications service (aka wireless phone calls) while protecting the quiet enjoyment of streets (and the adjacent homes) from excessive Effective Radiated Power — power which is in excess of that needed for telecommunications service.

Pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) is a hazardous pollutant. This has been admitted by the Wireless industry in its 10k statements to the SEC and its investors. This has also been admitted by the Wireless industry in its very user manuals for the hazardous, addictive product/service that it peddles to our Nation. This has also been admitted by the "smart money" folks — the major reinsurance firms of the world. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) — RF-EMR exposure is a subset of this main category — since 2012 has been listed as a pollutant in the insurance policy exclusion of many General Liability Policies Of Zurich, Sun, Hartford and CFC Underwriting for Lloyd’s of London.

  1. CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyds of London: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude illnesses caused by continuous exposures" to EMF/RF-EMR . . .

  2. Zurich Community Care Liability Insurance: “We will not pay anything under this policy, claim expenses, in respect of: Electromagnetic fields any liability nature directly or indirectly caused by, in connection with or contributed to by or arising from electromagnetic fields

  3. SUN General Insurance “This does not Cover any liability, ICN, cost or expense directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from, or contributed to by exposure to magnetic, electric or electromagnetic fields or radiation however caused or generated.”

  4. The Hartford: “EXCLUSION – ELECTROMAGNETIC HAZARD: The following exclusion is added: This insurance does not apply to: Electromagnetic Hazard …”

The General Liability Insurance offered by wireless companies to the City of San Francisco actually excludes coverage for injury, illness or death from RF-EMR exposures. Such an exclusion is germane to the story of San Francisco resident Cheryl Lea Hogan, who underwent brain surgery on March 2, 2020 to remove a fast-growing tumor in her brain — just three months after the so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) in front of her home at 3535 Sacramento Street in San Francisco was powered on, despite evidence in the public record that proves that the sWTF had not undergone the FCC-required NEPA review and the City of San Francisco was fully aware of this fact.

Listen to Gary Widman’s Mar 4 Testimony at the SF Board of Appeals: (https://youtu.be/SmJ4mNr6FWI?t=75)

“For the love of God, please provide humanitarian help. Please turn off the power to that wireless facility immediately so Ms. Cheryl Hogan can recover from her brain surgery in her own home.”

Significant substantial written evidence of the hazards of RF-EMR exposures far below the FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines has been placed into the San Francisco public record from April, 2019 to June 2020 . . . but . . . what has been the City of San Francisco’s response? As described fully here → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#fail we note substantial inaction and avoidance of the problem by the City and County of San Francisco.

Despite many promises by San Francisco’s Dept. of Public Health (SF-DPH) — evidenced, once again, in a June 25, 2020 phone call with Dr.Tomas Aragon, the Director of SF-DPH — it is clear that Dr. Aragon has not sufficiently followed through on completing the assignment given to him by the SF Board of Appeals in a July 3, 2019 letter: to update the June 14, 2010 Memo SF-DPH Memo by Dr. Rajiv Bhatia re: Health Effects and Regulation of Wireless Communications Networks.

This year-long delay is simply unacceptable. We need to inform the Mayor directly of the proposed changes to and implementation of Article 25 that must not be rubber-stamped without first Dr. Aragon completing his one-year old assignment and placing the results of his analysis in the San Francisco public record.

There is no logical reason or legal basis for being blind to the facts or the experiences of electromagnetic radiation in 2020. Yet that is what results from Article 25’s changes that were voted through on a consent agenda by the Board of Supervisors in July, 2019, with final implementation being considered by the San Francisco Dept of Public Works (SF-DPW) in the last week or so. Article 25, as modified, will continue to ruin the quiet enjoyment of San Francisco’s streets and lead to unacceptably intense pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures on the streets and inside residents’ homes. The levels of RF-EMR from so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) that are placed and constructed as close as 6 to 12 feet from San Franciscan’s homes are at least 50,000 to 100,000 times higher than that needed for wireless telecommunications service (see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/vhp).

sWTFs installed six to twelve feet from homes have the capability of transmitting — into second- and third-story bedrooms — RF-EMR exposures that are nearly 500,000 times more than that emitted by Macro cell towers that are 2,500 feet from homes. sWTFs emit this excessive Effective Radiated Power (ERP) 24 hrs and day, seven days a week, decade after decade.

As you can read here about a sWTF substantially similar to many such sWTFs installed in San Francisco –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019/09/truth-about-4g-5g-in-sacramento/:

"The antenna has a 360 degree radiation pattern and is emitting directly into my young nieces’ bedroom. We hired certified Building Biologist Eric Windheim to take measurements in and around our home. The 4G readings inside my nieces’ bedroom were some of the highest he had ever measured indoors: [peak levels of], 460,000 microwatts per square meter; significantly higher than typical cell antenna exposure. It is no surprise to me now that my nieces (and other family members) started experiencing health problems (headaches, nosebleeds, inability to sleep, flu symptoms — all well-documented symptoms of microwave radiation sickness) soon after the antenna was installed and powered on."

Such RF-EMR exposures have not passed any meaningful safety tests. The FCC is not a safety-testing agency. But the National Institute of Health’s National Toxicology Program is such an agency (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/?s=NTP) . Once again, see all citations on this page which details correspondence with San Francisco from November, 2019 to the present on this topic: https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#fail.

The FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guidelines Are Not Based in Science

In the 1940’s, the US maimed and killed WW II sailors who were unlucky enough to be assigned duties as radar operators, as there was no USA RF-EMR exposure guideline at that time. The earliest injuries and death were mostly ignored by the industries and military that exposed them, but there was a modest effort of four men in 1953, all employed by the military to make their best "guesstimate" of an RF-EMR exposure guideline that might be protective of military personnel and civilians alike. The "guesstimate" started at an average of 100,000,000 µW/m² in 1953 and was then divided by ten in 1965 by ANSI to become an average 10,000,000 µW/m² over a thirty-minute averaging period (for frequencies from 1,500 MHz to 6,000 Mhz). It is astonishing to note that there is no mention of peaks of RF-EMR exposures, modulation schemes, time of exposures or total exposure over time in these FCC RF-EMR guidelines and the selection of Specific Absorption Rate (the rate of exposure) instead Specific Absorption (the total exposure over time) as the key measure in 1996.

  • A 1992 Hermann Schwan Oral History Interview with Commentary –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/1992-hermann-schwan-oral-history-interview-with-commentary/

  • A 1986 science review study that states that SAR evaluation is similar to that recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.5, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1986-NCRP-86-OCR.pdf

  • Andrew Marino, PhD, JD: "First you need to understand where SAR came from. I was there when SAR was invented. Richard Phillips, Don Justesen, Saul Michaelson, Herman Schwann, these were men who created SAR, whose mind gave rise to it. And the reason they did was because they were interested in developing microwave ovens and in understanding how to cook meat. And it’s useful for understanding how to cook meat. But it has no application whatsoever, that I have ever seen suggested or advanced, for understanding mobile phones. SAR works for dead muscle. It has just no applicability in my opinion for live brain . . . The health hazards associated with mobile phone fields have nothing to do with heat. So it makes no sense to say, ‘I have a really great way of measuring heat’ when the measurement of heat is irrelevant to understanding health hazards. Any measurement that you make that has no connection with what you’re interested in is just a waste of time." SAR can produce a lot of data and when the calculations of SAR are done they can produce beautiful pictures but the pictures are arbitrary and the measurements are meaningless. It’s quite clear that that’s the case. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/regulation/rf-microwave-exposure-guidelines/

Agency actions must pass the “arbitrary or capricious” test in courts. Please use your personal judgment and what you are legally charged with knowing about the negative health consequences of pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposure to prepare for your test in court. The science on this matter is clear and established: there are over 20,000 independent, peer-reviewed studies on the known biological effects of RF-EMR exposures. RF-EMR exposures at levels hundreds of thousands of times lower than FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines are bio-active and are significantly hazardous to humans and other living organisms:

https://bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/ | https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/science/ | https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#science
.

In fact, we have over twice as many studies establishing the hazards of RF-EMR exposures, versus only 10,000 studies for lead exposure or cigarette smoking hazards — bodies of science that are sufficient to elicit strict safety regulation in the United States.

Please see the copies of recent relevant scientific reports compiled at the UC Berkeley Department of Public Health have been given to the San Francisco Board of Appeals, Dept. of Public Health, Dept. of Technology, and San Francisco Health Commission. See SF-BOS Appeal on April 16, 2019 → https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiN9Z5GnSKJRg5F-VQ3FpCgvS7HF-Q?e=glUaxY These reports were compiled by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley (https://www.saferemr.com/) This information may be legally deemed what you “should have known” because of your decision-making roles.

Substantial Written Evidence of the Negative Health Consequences from sWTF placement and construction is Already in the San Francisco Public Record

You do know that the health harms have already begun. It is part of the City’s public record commencing on March 4, 2020 with the case of Ms. Cheryl Hogan presented to the SF Board of Appeals, and later made known to the Dept. of Technology. In Ms. Hogan’s case, brain surgery was required about three months after an sWTF was powered on just 12-feet away from her residence. If Article 25 remains as is, there may be more such injuries, illnesses and deaths.

Neither the FCC nor any state agencies or City of San Franciso departments have offered any studies showing the UC file of studies given to the city to be in error. Indeed, the Telecom industry has admitted in Congress in February 2019 that they have no health or safety studies electromagnetic radiation scheduled. See video comments of Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and CTIA executives here → https://youtu.be/xJ07BhcM5_4?t=34m22s In their 10k filings, Wireless companies have given public notice that they recognize the liability for injuries created by the operation of essentially a defective and hazardous product/service: wireless telecommunications.

So if the Article 25 is adopted as is, what will you answer when asked why these studies were ignored, especially when RF-EMR injury from three months of exposure from RF-EMR from a sWTF was brought to the City’s attention months before this decision was made. There is abundant evidence that the RF-EMR exposures from sWTFs are harmful, and the city has seen the reports confirming that danger in several different places.

Those private parties and agencies pushing for the construction of sWTFs in the public rights-of-way have offered no evidence that doing so is safe. They cannot because it is a consensus among all who have studied the negative health consequences, including the CA Supreme court judges in their ruling April 4, 2019 Ruling in T-Mobile v San Francisco (see https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1751556.html) that RF-EMR exposures from sWTFs are NOT safe for the public.

In view of the fact that no one can show evidence that these sWTFs are safe for the public when constructed near schools, houses or in the public rights-of-way, the most reasonable choice appears to be to halt further installation, and power off the sWTFs that are already operating, until the Telecoms cut their power and reduce the size of he antennas to make their equipment safer for the public. It is plainly not safe at the present size and power levels of these sWTFs.

A Common Sense Solution

We suggest that San Francisco, needs to do the following instead: limit the maximum Effective Radiated Power that any antenna is capable of outputting by a simple pole-mounted fuse that limits Effective Radiated Power and that is under lock-and-key control by the City. The City has full control over the power (wattage) usage of every wireless facility, as ensured by the U.S. Congress in 1995-1996, when that august Body removed the industry’s drafted “operations” from the list of activities preempted for “environmental effects” from what is now codified at 47 U.S.C. §332 (C)(7)(B)(4). The power limit should be set at a level that provides telecommunications service and preserves the quiet enjoyment of streets — and no higher. We have been communicating this common sense solution since September, 2019.

You presumably don’t need to be told about the enormous liabilities the City will incur by proceeding as it has been proceeding. There is no far-sighted choice but to significantly change DPW-Article 25, and start looking for constructive win-win solutions. Such solutions do exist, and we have offered them in our presentations to City staff (see slides attached).

The more you investigate and the more studies you read, the more quickly you will understand why other progressive cities have decided that sWTFs are not be installed in residential zones, including Petaluma, Sebastopol, Mill Valley, Fairfax and others.

If you would like our help in any way, we are happy to offer it.


Appendix A: Cooperative Federalism As Established by the 1996 Telecommunications Act

Note: the Ninth Circuit Ruling in FCC Orders 18-111 and 18-133 is expected in mid-July, 2020

The residents of San Francisco consider the unnecessary taking of our safety, privacy and property values for the further enrichment of private wireless companies to be both wrong and inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Federal 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA), as clearly explained in our letter of June 5, 2020.

It is exceedingly improbable that Congress intended for the population to sicken and die in order to maximize the profits of private Wireless Cos., especially considering that the goals of the 1996-TCA have been largely achieved.
Link to Mar 2, 2017 Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing

Link to Roger Entner, Founder, Recon Analytics

"97.9 percent of Americans can choose from three [wireless] network base operators and 93.4 percent can choose from four [wireless] operators plus more than a dozen virtual operators — the mobile industry’s equivalent of over the top competitors"

We had sufficient telecommunications service in San Francisco before any of the so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) were improperly installed without a simple Need Test for "significant gap in coverage" or "least intrusive means" to close any alleged gap in telecommunications service (see 2005 Ruling in Ninth Circuit in Metro-PCS vs. San Francisco). The FCC’s Sept 2018 presumptive order 18-133’s disdain for Ninth Circuit Rulings does not sweep such rulings aside. In fact, FCC 18-133 is merely a statement of FCC preferences and is not self-enforcing, according to FCC attorney Scott Noveck in his Feb 10, 2020 Oral argument defending Order 18-133 in the US Courts of Appeal, Ninth Circuit (See Appendix B, below).

We also know that Congress clearly explained the Congressional intent of the preemption law portion of the 1996-TCA in Title 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) in H. R. Rep. No. 104-204, the same conference report that US Supreme Court Justices Justices Breyer, O’Connor, Souter and Ginsburg join, recgonized in their 2005 Ruling in Case No. 03-1601, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES et al. v. ABRAMS (2005):

Link to H. R. Rep. No. 104-204 Conference Report:

"The conferees also intend that the phrase ‘‘unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services’’ will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services. For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district."

Link to CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES et al. v. ABRAMS (2005)

"Congress initially considered a single national solution, namely a Federal Communications Commission wireless tower siting policy that would preempt state and local authority. Ibid.; see also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, p. 207 (1996). But Congress ultimately rejected the national approach and substituted a system based on cooperative federalism. Id., at 207-208.

State and local authorities would remain free to make siting decisions They would do so, however, subject to minimum federal standards [just the "placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities"] — both substantive and procedural — as well as federal judicial review."

Considering that the current proposed changes and implementation of SF-DPW Article 25 with respect to the placement, construction, modification and operation of WTFs is not consistent with many Federal Acts (1996-TCA, the National Environmental Policy Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing act), then it is imperative that the City complete a rewrite of this Municipal Code on an Urgency Ordinance basis. It is necessary to act on an emergency basis in order "to promote the safety of life and property", which is a chief purpose of both the 1934 Federal Communications Act and the 1996-TCA. At this time, San Francisco residents’ safety of life and property are under direct attack by the current City of San Francisco Municipal Code.

In several letters from San Francisco staff, we note statements similar to "Thank you for sharing your concerns", which may sound polite on the surface, however, such statements mischaracterize the content of our substantial written evidence that we have already placed in the San Francisco public record (see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#fail) which contains solely matters of substance, fact and law — not mere "concern" as was repeatedly alleged. We ask that the City of San Francisco staff not mischaracterize our communications like that in the future.


Appendix B: Oral Arguments: Portland et al. v FCC (Feb 10, 2020)

Note: the Ninth Circuit Ruling is expected in mid-July, 2020

Case No. 19-70144 Re: Repeal of of the Aug, 2018 and Sept 2018 FCC Orders:

  • FCC 18-111: (Aug 2018) Speeding Access to Poles and FCC Presumptive Order on State Moratoria

  • FCC-18-133: (Sept 2018) Streamline Small Cell Deployment Order

The full video of the oral argument is featured at the top of https://scientists4wiredtech.com/ninth-circuit-case-repeal-of-fcc-18-133/.

Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020https://youtu.be/t_IMrAqwpNk?t=36m47s

"The Moratoria Order doesn’t purport to prevent localities from addressing reasonable aesthetic requirements. In fact we say in the small cell order that aesthetic requirements are permitted . . . a locality could say if a 50-foot pole would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, you can’t put up a 50 foot pole."

FCC 18-133 Footnote 246 → "Our decision to adopt this objective requirement is supported by the fact that many states have recently adopted limits on their localities’ aesthetic requirements that employ the term "objective." [objective meaning easily ascertainable, per Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020]

Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020https://youtu.be/t_IMrAqwpNk?t=53m15s

"These small cells, though they have much less range than macro towers, they have a fair range."

Note: Noveck’s truthful statement in front of a Panel of Federal judges from the Ninth Circuit agrees with the comments of Lee Afflerbach, RF Engineer for CTC Technology that were entered into the City of Sonoma Public record on Sept 12, 2019:

Lee Afflerbach at 3:10:24 in the videohttps://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h10m24s

"Many people are [wirelessly] streaming video and other services like that . . . each [small] cell is capable of almost putting out the same energy as one macro cell."

Lee Afflerbach at 3:13:22 in the videohttps://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h13m22s

". . . my staff has probably reviewed several hundred of these small cells in the last year . . . and they are all 4G . . . 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."

Joseph Van Eaton, BBK Attorney for City of Portland et al. on Feb 10, 2020https://youtu.be/t_IMrAqwpNk?t=1h10m52s

"What the FCC sees as a generous order, when you look at what the findings of law are, it is actually pretty harsh and the same thing is true with the reasonable aesthetics requirements . . . reasonable is defined as technically feasible . . . and we know from the intervenor’s brief that the intervenor’s view that as they get to install what the want and basically where they want subject to only such minor adjustments as they can make without preventing them from doing that which they want to do, so it doesn’t protect the city . . . ; the Wireless carriers always have the out of technical feasibility."

US Code Title 47 § 253

(a) In general — No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.

(b) State regulatory authority — Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.

(c) State and local government authority — Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.

(d) Preemption — If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.


August 19, 2020

To: SF-DPW
Alaric Degrafinried
David Steinberg
Leo Palacios

To: Honorable Mayor, London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco
City Hall, Room 200
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-554-6141

To: Linda J. Gerull
Executive Director, Department of Technology
City and County of San Francisco

To: SF Supervisors
Aaron Peskin (BOS)
Sunny Angulo (BOS)
Ahsha Safai
Matt Haney
Erica Major

To: SF-DPH
Dr. Grant Colfax
Dr. Tomas Aragon
Patrick Fosdahl
Jennifer Callewaert
Arthur Duque

To: SF Health Commission
SF Health Commission
James Loyce, Jr., M.S., President
Dan Bernal, Vice President
Edward A. Chow M.D., Commissioner
Cecilia Chung, Commissioner
Suzanne Giraudo, Ph.D., Commissioner
Laurie Green, M.D., Commissioner
Tessie Guillermo, Commissioner

To: SF-BOA
SF Board of Appeals
Ann Lazarus: President
Rick Swig, Commissioner
Darryl Honda, Commissioner
Rachael Tanner, Commissioner
Eduardo Santacana, ​Commissioner
Julie Rosenberg

To: SF-PUC Management
Barbara Hale
Richard Stephens
Hieu Doan
Mark Torres

Re: Game-Changing Clarifications of Federal Telecom Law in Aug 2020 Obviates the Need for Many Article 25 Objective Standards

 
[Ms. Erica Major and/or David Steinberg, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and/or the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and Suggested changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]
 

In 2019-2020 — including on Aug 12, 2020 — there have been game-changing clarifications of federal Telecom law which the City of San Francisco must now take into consideration with higher priority than the proceedings scheduled for August 19, 2020: Public Works Order No: 203367 re: the now unnecessary and inappropriate SF-DPW Objective Aesthetic Standards for placing, constructing, modifying and operating so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in San Francisco’s public rights-of-way. See common sense improvements to SF-DPW Article 25 in Appendix A, below.


Dear Mr. Degrafinried,

>>> DPW-Wireless-Program wrote to "Everyone" on 8/18/2020 at 6:39 pm, PT:

Hello Everyone,

I attached a finalized version of the Objective Standards, which contain minor grammatical edits. A friendly reminder that the hearing is on August 19, 2020 at 10 A
Please review the Instructions for Public Comment document carefully before the hearing. The document contains the procedure for participation during the hear

Bureau of Street Use and Mapping
San Francisco Public Works
City and County of San Francisco
49 South Van Ness Ave Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94103
https://sfpublicworks.org
https://www.twitter.com/sfpublicworks<br

The documents sent to "Everyone" by SF-DPW at 8/18/2020 at 6:39 pm, PT are these:

  1. 2020-0818-Order-203367.pdf

  2. 2020-0818-Order-203367- Final-Small-Wireless-Facility-Design-Final.pdf

  3. 2020-0818-Instructions-for-Public-Comment.pdf


The City of San Francisco must recognize that on Aug 12, 2020, the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit ruling in Case No. 18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC re: repeal of FCC Orders 18-111 and 18-133 holding (emphasis added):

"We therefore hold that the FCC’s requirement in the Small Cell Order that aesthetic regulations be “no more burdensome” than regulations applied to other infrastructure deployment is contrary to the controlling statutory provision. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).

"We also hold that the FCC’s requirement that all local aesthetic regulations be “objective” is not adequately explained and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

We therefore: GRANT the petitions as to those requirements, VACATE those portions of the rule and REMAND them to the FCC.”

Similarly, the California Supreme Court in T-Mobile West, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco ruled that the city has the power to limit installations of Wireless Transmission Facilities to protect the "quiet enjoyment of the streets", including power to protect the health of those using the streets (emphasis added):

"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.”

Without changing its agenda, it now appears the hearing will very inefficiently spend its time and energy on "objective standards" that do not exercise the City’s full power to protect the health and safety of its people.

Therefore, the most efficient and farsighted actions that could be taken at the August 19, 2020 hearing would be for SF-DPW to:

  1. Postpone the scheduled proceedings, and

  2. Send SF-DPW Article 25 back to the drawing board to be revised in accordance with current court rulings that clarify the city’s power and responsibility to protect its people from injury from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR).

Article 25 could then be re-written, with the input of key stakeholders, including San Francisco residents and other interested members of the public, in order to maximize the enforcement of the City of San Francisco’s Police Powers over the wireless industry to ensure that the City of San Francisco takes effective actions to address the obvious elephant in the room (see Mozilla v. FCC below) and

  • Regulates the maximum allowed Effective Radiated Power of any so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) to a level which would provide only telecommunications service (outdoor wireless phone calls in a carrier specified radius in feet from the sWTF) — and no higher (see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/vhp)

It is now clear the City has the power and the duty to adopt policies and standards that make the health and lives of its citizens its top priority. That priority must be the primary guide in the City’s decisions on its objective standards and on its decisions about the types and locations of Densifed 4G/5G so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) allowed to radiate San Francisco’s residents’ streets and homes.

It is now clear the City has the power and the duty to adopt policies and standards that make the health and lives of its citizens its top priority. That priority must be the primary guide in the City’s decisions on its objective standards and on its decisions about the types and locations of Densifed 4G/5G so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) allowed to radiate San Francisco’s residents’s streets and homes.

Some of the major recent federal Telecom law clarifications are the following:

KEY 2019-2020 CA State & U.S. Courts of Appeals Rulings

  • A. April 4, 2019 — CA Supreme Court Ruling in Case No. S238001 T-Mobile West, LLC et al. v City and County of San Francisco et al. re: incommoding the quiet enjoyment of streets

  • B. Aug 9, 2019 — DC Circuit Ruling in Case No. 18-1129, Keetoowah et al. v FCC, re: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

  • C. Oct 1, 2019 — DC Circuit Ruling in Case No. 18-1051, Mozilla et al. v FCC, re: Net Neutrality & State Preemption

  • D. Aug 12, 2020 — Ninth Circuit Ruling in Case No. 18-72689, City of Portland et al. v FCC, re: Streamline Small Cell Deployment

A. Apr 4, 2019 Ruling, Case No. S238001 T-Mobile West, LLC et al. v City and County of San Francisco et al.

 
From pages 8-9

". . . 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.” (Emphasis added.)

B. Aug 9, 2019 Ruling, Case No. 18-1129, Keetoowah et al. v FCC, re: NEPA Exemption & APA violations

“We rule that the Order’s deregulation of small cells is arbitrary and capricious because its public-interest analysis did not meet the standard of reasoned decisionmaking.”

C. Oct 1, 2019 Ruling, Case No. 18-1051, Mozilla et al. v FCC, re: Net Neutrality & State Preemption

“For the Preemption Directive to stand, then, the Commission must have had express or ancillary authority to issue it. It had neither . . . By reclassifying broadband as an information service, the Commission placed broadband outside of its Title II jurisdiction. And broadband is not a “radio transmission” under Title III or a “cable service” under Title VI. So the Commission’s express authority under Titles III or VI does not come into play either. Nor did Congress statutorily grant the Commission freestanding preemption authority to displace state laws even in areas in which it does not otherwise have regulatory power. With express and ancillary preemption authority off the table, the Commission was explicit that it was grounding its Preemption Directive in (i) the “impossibility exception” to state jurisdiction, and (ii) the “federal policy of nonregulation for information services.” 2018 Order ¶¶ 198, 202. Neither theory holds up. . . . [The FCC] just cannot completely disavow Title II with one hand while still clinging to Title II forbearance authority with the other . . . the Commission’s power to choose one regulatory destination or another does not give it the option to mix and match its favorite parts of both . . . Congress, the Court has explained, “does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme,” let alone step so heavily on the balance of power between the federal government and the States, “in vague terms or ancillary provisions — it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.” Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001)”

D. Aug 12, 2020 Ruling, Case No. 18-72689, City of Portland et al. v FCC, re: Streamline Small Cell Deployment

See Link to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC re: repeal of FCC Orders 18-111 and 18-133.

"We therefore hold that the FCC’s requirement in the Small Cell Order that aesthetic regulations be “no more burdensome” than regulations applied to other infrastructure deployment is contrary to the controlling statutory provision. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). We also hold that the FCC’s requirement that all local aesthetic regulations be “objective” is not adequately explained and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

We therefore: GRANT the petitions as to those requirements, VACATE those portions of the rule and REMAND them to the FCC.”

The City of San Francisco Has To Finally Address the Elephant in the Room

(see Mozilla above)

Consider:

  1. § 332. Mobile Services (1996) — “(a) Factors which Commission must consider — (1) promote the safety of life and property.”

  2. Title 47 §332(c)(7)(B)(iv) — “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions."

Because it is unlikely that Congress’ intent was for the population to sicken and die in order to further enrich the $500 billion Wireless industry, it is most reasonable to read its intent in using the words “environmental effects” to mean neither ‘health effects’ nor ‘health concerns’, but most likely the rate of radiation emission, not the total dose of radiation administered. The Current FCC RF- EMR guideline as written does not and cannot insure public safety.

The current FCC RF-EMR Guideline is nonscientific nonsense because it is only an industrial guideline, not a safety guideline and it only addresses the rate of poison deliveryNOT the total dose of poison delivered over time (see rate x time) –> view https://youtu.be/LvUxqT9IAPg?t=110

Therefore, the elephant in the room is that compliance with the current FCC RF-EMR Guideline does not and cannot insure public safety.

Rather than update its nonscientific exposure guidelines for RF-EMR, in light of post-1996 research and improved knowledge of RF-EMR’s scientifically-established health hazards, the FCC (for reasons not clear to outsiders) re-issued its outdated, flawed and much criticized 1996 RE-EMR guideline. On December 4, 2019, the FCC adopted Order 19-126 affirming the adequacy of its 1996 wireless radiation exposure safety guidelines. These guidelines ignore the overwhelming evidence of harm, both in scientific reports and medical data about human injury, illness and death from RF-EMR. By adopting and maintaining defective guidelines, the FCC has enabled and forced the uncontrolled proliferation of radiation injury. Densified 4G and 5G wireless infrastructure in San Francisco and elsewhere has led to a growing epidemic of sickness among children and adults, and according to scientific consensus has caused harm to animals, plants and the ecosystem at large. Presumably FCC Ordinance 126 will be vacated in the pending DC Circuit case (ETH v. FCC, below).

In 2012, the General Accounting Office of Congress published a report recommending that the FCC reassess its 1996 guidelines. As a result, in 2013, the FCC opened docket 13-84 asking for public comment. This docket was open for six (6) years. On December 4, 2019, the FCC closed the docket and affirmed the adequacy of its guidelines without proper re-assessment.

The Environmental Health Trust, the Children’s Health Defense, the National Resources Defense Council, the International Building Biology Institute and others have sued the the FCC to have this order vacated and remanded back to the FCC. See details here –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/regulation/fcc-19-126/

Understandably, FCC Order 19-126 regulations which have been scientifically-established as hazardous and not protective of public health and public safety, were immediately challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act as being arbitrary and capricious, (and therefore invalid). That challenge is now pending in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The court will determine whether FCC Order 19-126 will be vacated due to the lack of the FCC’s reasoned decisionmaking.

Given the widespread and near unanimous findings of scientists studying those issues, (See the Joel Moskowitz, PhD binder that has been in the San Francisco public record since April 2019 as part of Cheryl Lea Hogan’s Appeal of a sWTF that was improperly constructed and operated at 3535 Sacramento Street since Nov 20, 2019 — without the legally necessary FCC compliance with NEPA), it appears highly probable that these FCC rules will be found to be “arbitrary and capricous” and, therefore, unlawful.

  • Link to 2020-0729-EHT-CHD-Case-20-1025-Petitioners-Brief
  • Link to 2020-0805-NRDC-Case-20-1025-Amicus-Brief
  • Link to 2020-0805-Building-Biology-Institute-Case-20-1025-Amicus-Brief
  • Link to 2020-0805-BBI-Addendum-to-Amicus-Brief

FCC regulations that affect California streets were clarified by the California Supreme Court, Apr 4, 2019 Ruling, Case No. S238001 T-Mobile West, LLC et al. v City and County of San Francisco et al. That Court found that the this City had the power to regulate telecom facilities in order to protect against "negative health consequences" of those using the streets and they are not limited in so doing by FCC regulations. There is no preemption of local power by the FCC when a city restricts WTF tower construction for that reason. If San Francisco uses this power to protect the health of those using the streets, then it will, as a side-effect, also protect the health of those on private property adjoining the protected streets.

One especially troubling matter remains. Many peer-reviewed, scientific studies on the "negative health effects" caused by RF-EMR from cellular devices and infrastructure at intensities hundreds of thousands of times lower than that allowed by current FCC RF-EMR guidelines were given to the City Public Health Department by the city’s Board of Appeals in May of 2019 for review and comment.

The documents provided are peer-reviewed, Daubert-rule-admissible scientific studies on the biological effects of pulsed, modulated RF-EMR. Failure to comment on those documents, despite many repeated requests from other San Francisco Departments, including the SF Board of Appeals, certainly could increase San Francisco’s liability if it blindly proceeds down the current path of installing Densified 4G/5G Wireless antennas closer than 1,500 feet from homes at locally unregulated Effective Radiated Power levels.

There can be no legitimate reason for failure of someone, anyone, in the SF-DPH to report back to the City Departments requesting this update after over a year of waiting. Despite many empty promises, Dr. Tomas Aragon has not followed through on the assignment given to him: to update the June 14, 2010 Memo SF-DPH Memo by Dr. Rajiv Bhatia re: Health Effects and Regulation of Wireless Communications Networks. We urge the city to make a public statement about the findings and conclusions of those reports ASAP. Delay for this long appears to be a case of the city shooting itself in the foot or somewhere higher. The copious documentation about this (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#fail) has been entered into the San Francisco public recorc.

In short, the City of San Francisco can no longer argue that the FCC regulations prevent it from protecting the health and safety of its people. Given the recent judicial holdings on power to protect those using the streets, and in view of the ongoing litigation on the viability of FCC regulations, the City is free to go with its top priority, and halt all sWTF and larger WTF placement, construction, modification and operations until the Telecom industry can offer a non-defective product/service.

The inadequate security protection of current 4G and 5G proposals also fail to protect the security of the United States. As reported in Feb 2020, IMP4GT Attacks (IMPersonation attacks in 4G neTworks) allows an attacker to impersonate a user towards the network and vice versa. The authors of the paper Impersonation Attacks in 4G/5G Networks, say : web | pdf

  • "For the first time. our demonstrated exploit completely breaks the mutual authentication aim of 4G/LTE and 5G on the user plane in real world settings
  • The results of our work demonstrate that Wireless carriers can no longer rely on mutual authentication for billing, access control, and legal prosecution.
  • The work emphasizes the need for user-plane integrity protection in mobile communication standards, which means the US Government — as a matter of National Security — should not allow the installation of the current 5G equipment, until this problem is fixed at the hardware layer"
  • More details can be found here:

Long-standing, Established 3G/4G/5G Equipment Security Flaw

Security researchers have discovered a novel 4G LTE / 5G attack vector.

Steve Gibson from Security Now | The paper, Impersonation Attacks in 4G/5G Networks, is here: web | pdf

Link to Forget TikTok. Feebly Secured Infrastructure Is Our Real Problem

One alternative, the use of fiber-optic cable installed all the way to homes with no wireless antennas in the public rights of way is a far preferable solution.

In conclusion, we strongly recommend, that the hearing of Aug. 19 be postponed, with Article 25 to be tabled and set aside for reworking in accordance with current law.


Appendix A

Recommended Changes to SF-DPW Article 25

Add The Written Evidence – Wireless Antenna Need Test – In Telecommunications (WE-WANT-IT) Ordinance to Article 25

WE-WANT-IT would require a Comprehensive Wireless Signal Strength Test to be conducted every six months by an independent RF Engineer, who will log, second-by-second, the Wireless signal-strength levels in dBm (decibel-milliWatts) of every carrier-specific licensed and unlicensed wireless frequency that is being transmitted to the streets of San Francisco. The full data file for each WE-WANT-IT test will be placed in the public record of each respective authority for anyone to view, analyze and verify and will serve as the basis for local decisions, regarding:

  • the need for any additional Wireless infrastructure; and
  • the placement, construction, modification and operations of WTFs of Any G within the authority’s borders.

The Cost for each WE-WANT-IT test would be paid by antenna operators on a pro rata basis: the share of each Wireless Company’s antenna capabilities, meaning the percentage of the sum of the maximum Effective Radiated Power that could be transmitted by each antenna operating within the authority’s borders.

The common sense proposal, above, is for San Francisco to establish policies and procedures for placing, constructing, modifying and operating only Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) that are determined to be needed to close a significant gap in telecommunications service coverage. Need Tests would be in the form of industry-standard Drive Tests of carrier-specific telecommunications frequencies conducted every six months by a neutral, third-party, licensed RF Engineer selected, hired and supervised by San Francisco — but paid for by Wireless Cos. on a pro rata share, based on an market share analysis of the maximum antenna Effective Radiated Power output capability of existing antennas operating in San Francisco.

Industry-standard Drive Tests can easily measure actual signal strength for all antennas currently installed and operating in San Francisco. The Drive Tests would log, second-by-second, the existing signal strengths in decibel-milliWatts (dBM) for each frequency transmitted from antennas that reach the streets of San Francisco. The raw data and report would be entered into the public record every six months, so the results can be verified by any member of the public.

Importantly, the dates of the Drive Tests would need to be kept secret from all Wireless Telecommunications carriers and their agents, so such parties would have no opportunity to power down antennas under their control during the Drive Tests — to prevent these parties from artificially creating a temporary significant gap in telecommunications service coverage in an attempt to game the results of the Drive Tests.

The results of the Drive Tests would provide verifiable, objective data to determine if a particular proposed WTF would be legally necessary to be installed in the public rights-of-way within the City of San Francisco’s jurisdiction and legal authority. The raw data would then be used to establish if any carrier-specific significant gaps in telecommunications service coverage actually exist, considering results from all frequencies in the aggregate. Any new WTF would only be licensed by San Francisco if there is a proven significant gap in telecommunications service corrected by the antenna in the application, consistent with the ideas of "significant gap in coverage" and "least intrusive means" in the 2005 Ninth Circuit Ruling, Metro PCS v San Francisco.

Other requirements for WTF applications, added to Article 25 should include the following for each WTF application:

  • A determination if the WTF application provides public benefits, consistent with the preservation of the integrity, safe usage, ambiance, and visual qualities of San Francisco’s public rights-of-way.
  • Substantial written evidence of NEPA review (a requirement of every WTF application, per FCC NEPA Attorney Erica Rosenberg. NEPA requirements: see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/nepastrategies/
  • Proper liability insurance that protects the county from claims of injuries, illnesses and/or deaths from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures: see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thisworks
  • A listing of the names of the board of directors toward positive identification of the applicant, and the assets of the entity actually signing the MLA and other licensing agreements and WTF applications: see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/davis

Therefore, San Francisco needs to significantly amend Article 25, which currently primarily fulfills the business goals of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, at the expense of San Francisco residents — this is an unjust "taking" of property values to enrich private companies who are operating in the public rights-of-way, without sufficient public benefit, such as sharing access to Fiber Optic cables installed in the public rights-of-way. Changes to Article 25 are needed to bring it in accordance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA), which governs Title II-regulated telecommunications service, and which leaves all four above-cited activities related to wireless infrastructure — in the lands of the City and County of San Francisco. A regulatory obligation must be fulfilled and not avoided by omission.

The authority to properly regulate the maximum Effective Radiated Power of any antenna installed in the public rights-of-way is established in the 1996-TCA and it conference report:

From https://scientists4wiredtech.com/compare

"This page is one of three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs); the other two are the US House/Senate Conference Report for the 1996 Telecommunications Act (“1996-Act”) and the stated purpose of the 1996-Act: ‘to promote the safety of life and property’."

From the 1996-TCA Conference Report

"The conferees also intend that the phrase ‘‘unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services’’ will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services. For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district."

. . .

"If a request for placement of a personal wireless service facility involves a zoning variance or a public hearing or comment process, the time period for rendering a decision will be the usual period under such circumstances. It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision."