San Francisco

In 2019, the City of San Francisco must reckon with the true nature — and negative health consequences — of pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures. What we are up against . . . view here from 46:10 to at least 51:10; simple introductory web-based slides are here (slides 3–17) 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 Saferead 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" was expanded to include "negative health consequences" and "safety concerns".

This web page was created to assist the San Francisco Department of Health (SF-DPH) in its review and update of the June 14, 2010 memo by Rajiv Bhatia MD, MPH re: "Health Effects and Regulation of Wireless Communication Networks." This review was requested by the San Francisco Board of Appeals (SF-BOA) in a July, 3, 2019 letter that states:

  • "Parties to appeals before the board oftentimes submit scientific articles that assert that radio frequencies pose health risks to the public."

  • "The SF-BOA recognizes that SF-DPH’s mission is to protect and promote the health of all San Franciscans and that SF-DPH last addressed the health effects of wireless communications nertworks in Dr. Bhatia’s Memorandum dated June 14, 2010."

  • "The SF-BOA respectfully requests that (1) Dr. Bhatia’s June 14, 2010 Memorandum be reviewed and updated and (2) that DPH present its findings to the SF-BOA at a regularly scheduled SF-BOA meeting."

Letters like this July 3, 2019 letter from Julie Rosenberg, Executive Director of the SF-BOA, fail to capture the exasperation of the SF-BOA members and members of the public who have communicated, in the public record, their discomfort with the SF-BOA allegedly "having its hands tied" when making decisions that significantly and negatively affect the lives and property values of San Franciscans.

The City of San Francisco, via Article 25 — against the will of many San Franciscans — has created potential safety, privacy and property values harms for those living near these unwanted (and unnecessary) Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antenna (CPMRA) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) that are being installed as close as 6 to 12 feet from their homes — with no effective "speed limit", "seatbelts" or "airbags"-like regulations — that would protect San Franciscans where they and their children live, sleep and heal.

Table of Contents

  • Link to Authorities
  • Link to Exasperation
  • Link to Objectives
  • Link to Preface — Lists recent court decisions that have not yet been recognized by the SF-DPH
  • Link to A. San Francisco Board of Appeals Meeting, June 26, 2019
  • Link to B. Letter from SF Board of Appeals to SF Dept. of Health, July 3, 2019
  • Link to C. SF Department of Public Health Memorandum, June 4, 2010
  • Link to D. Introductory videos re: the problems with 4G + 5G Densification
  • Link to E. Introductory slides, web pages (and books)
  • Link to F. What are the differences between 4G and 5G? Sifting through the propaganda . . .
  • Link to G. Evidence to consider, when updating the SF-DPH June 2010 memo

Authorities

1. 2020 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Codes (2015 et seq.)

W90.0: Exposure to other Nonionizing Radiation — Radio-frequency Radiation

  • W90.0XXA . . . Exposure to Radio-frequency Radiation, initial encounter

    • W90.0XXA is a billable/specific ICD-10-CM code that can be used to indicate a diagnosis for reimbursement purposes.
    • The 2020 edition of ICD-10-CM W90.0XXA became effective on October 1, 2019.
    • This is the American ICD-10-CM version of W90.0XXA – other international versions of ICD-10 W90.0XXA may differ
  • W90.0XXD . . . Exposure to Radio-frequency Radiation, subsequent encounter

    • W90.0XXD is a billable/specific ICD-10-CM code that can be used to indicate a diagnosis for reimbursement purposes.
    • The 2020 edition of ICD-10-CM W90.0XXD became effective on October 1, 2019.
    • This is the American ICD-10-CM version of W90.0XXD – other international versions of ICD-10 W90.0XXD may differ.
  • W90.0XXS. . . Exposure to Radio-frequency Radiation, sequela

    • W90.0XXS is a billable/specific ICD-10-CM code that can be used to indicate a diagnosis for reimbursement purposes.
    • The 2020 edition of ICD-10-CM W90.0XXS became effective on October 1, 2019.
    • This is the American ICD-10-CM version of W90.0XXS – other international versions of ICD-10 W90.0XXS may differ.
  • Link to: 2019 Journal of Environmental Health: "The Prevalence of People with Restricted Access to Work in Manmade Electromagnetic Environment"

The prevalence of Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is between 5% and 30% of the general population for mild cases, between 1.5% and 5.0% for moderate cases and < 1.5% for severe cases. The prevalence of people restricted in their access to work in a man-made electromagnetic environment is estimated about 1 per cent of the general population. At about 18% of the general population with moderate to severe EMS, with the current populations of United Kingdom (68 million people) the United States (330.000.000, California (37 million people), and San Francisco (880,000 people),this means:

  • 12,240,000 people in the UK with moderate to severe EMS
  • 59,400,000 people in the US with moderate to severe EMS
  • 6,660,000 people in the California with moderate to severe EMS
  • 158,400 people in the San Franciso with moderate to severe EMS

. . . and growing fast.

  • Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a disability, recognized by the US Access Board
  • EMS was recognized and accommodated by the CA State legisltature in 2017 via SB.649 testimony
  • 1996 Telecommunications Act: ADA Disabilities must be accommodated (§ 255)

  • ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code History: New Code in 2015 (first year of non-draft ICD-10-CM); renewed without change annually from 2016 through 2019

Common Symptoms of Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS)

Headaches Neurological problems Bleeding from nose or ears
Tinnitus (ringing in the ears) Altered brain development Unexplained skin rashes
Sleeping Problems Heart palpitations Blood-brain Barrier Leaks
Concentration/Depression Melatonin suppression Chromosome aberrations
Memory problems Hormone changes Electromagnetic Sensitivity
Autism Spectrum Disorder Sperm and ovary damage Elevated cancer in children/adults



2. United States Supreme Court (2005)

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

No. 03-1601

Argued: January 19, 2005 | Decided: March 22, 2005

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. MARK J. ABRAMS

. . . on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

March 22, 2005

Justice Scalia writes for the Supreme Court.

Enforcement of §332(c)(7) through §1983 would distort the scheme of expedited judicial review and limited remedies created by §332(c)(7)(B)(v). We therefore hold that the 1996 Telecommunications Act — by providing a judicial remedy different from §1983 in §332(c)(7) itself — precluded resort to §1983. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which awarded attorneys fees is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

I agree with the Court. It wisely rejects the Government’s proposed rule that the availability of a private judicial remedy "conclusively establishes . . . a congressional intent to preclude (Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C.) §1983 relief." Ante, at 8 (emphasis added).

The statute books are too many, federal laws too diverse, and their purposes too complex, for any legal formula to provide more than general guidance. Cf. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 291 (2002) (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). The Court today provides general guidance in the form of an "ordinary inference" that when Congress creates a specific judicial remedy, it does so to the exclusion of §1983. Ante, at 8. I would add that context, not just literal text, will often lead a court to Congress’ intent in respect to a particular statute. Cf. ibid. (referring to "implicit" textual indications). ​Context here, for example, makes clear that Congress saw a national problem, namely an "inconsistent and, at times, conflicting patchwork" of state and local siting requirements, which threatened "the deployment" of a national wireless communication system. H. R. Rep. No. 104-204, pt. 1, p. 94 (1995). S4WT: View this side-by-side comparison of HR.1555 and S.652

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. Federal /State Telecom Laws (1934, 1996, 2012 & 2015)

. . . supported by FCC and CPUC Regulations — that must be consistent with the underlying laws.

LII –> U.S. Code –> Title 47. TELECOMMUNICATIONS –> Chapter 5. WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION –> Subchapter I. GENERAL PROVISIONS –> Section 151. Purposes of Federal Communications Commission
 

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

 
§ 151: "For the purpose of regulating

  • interstate commerce and
  • foreign commerce

. . . in communication by wire and radio

. . . so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, 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

. . . through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication,there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title I, § 1, 48 Stat. 1064; May 20, 1937, ch. 229, § 1, 50 Stat. 189; Pub. L. 104–104, title I, § 104, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 86.)

Note: the FCC’s purpose does not give it any authority over intrastate commerce.

U.S. Code Title 47 § 332 Mobile services.

LII –> U.S. Code –> Title 47. TELECOMMUNICATIONS –> Chapter 5. WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATIONSubchapter III. SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO –> Part I. General ProvisionsSection 332. Mobile services

(a) Factors which Commission must consider

   (1) promote the safety of life and property;

   (2) improve the efficiency of spectrum use and reduce the regulatory burden upon spectrum users, based upon sound engineering principles, user operational requirements, and marketplace demands;

   (3) encourage competitionand provide services to the largest feasible number of users; or

   (4) increase interservice sharing opportunities between private mobile services and other services.


4. California Constitution (1850)

California Constitution] ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

5. San Francisco Precautionary Principle (2003)

  1. "Every San Franciscan has an equal right to a healthy and safe environment. This requires that our air, water, land, and food be of a sufficiently high standard that individuals and communities can live healthy, fulfilling, and dignified lives. The duty to enhance, protect and preserve San Francisco’s environment rests on the shoulders of government, residents, citizen groups and businesses alike".

  2. "All officers, boards, commission, and departments of the City and County shall implement the Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County’s affairs: The Precautionary Principle requires a thorough exploration and a careful analysis of a wide range of alternatives. Based on the best available science, the Precautionary Principle requires the selection of the alternative that presents the least potential threat to human health and the City’s natural systems."

  3. "Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone cost effective measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Any gaps in scientific data uncovered by the examination of alternatives will provide a guidepost for future research, but will not prevent the City from taking protective action."

5. SF Department of Public Works Article 25 (2019)

  1. asdf

  2. sdf

  3. sadf

Exasperation

No review of Dr. Bhatia’s June 14, 2010 Memorandum could be complete without first hearing from the parties directly involved in these unpopular decisions: the SF-BOA Board members and the affected San Franciscans (view the videos, below). This is a human decision . . . and San Francisco passed Municipal Code in 2003 that specifically informs the efforts of the SF-DPH in it review of Dr. Bhatia’s June 14, 2010 Memorandum — San Franciso’s 2003 Precautionary Principle:

June 19, 2018 SF-BOA Meeting
September 25, 2018 SF-BOA Meeting

[View Comments](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=13-84&sort=date_disseminated,DESC) on FCC Open Docket 13-84: Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies

Objectives

The objectives of this web page are to present substantial evidence and convince the SF-DPH to set a rational maximum power output limit (in milliwatts of Effective Radiated Power) that emits from Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — based on a careful review of the strong work of RF-EMR scientists who are not funded by the Wireless Industry: see Bioinitiative.org, Physicians for Safe Technology, Trevor Marshall, PhD, reviews by Martin Pall, PhD and reviews by Joel Moskowitz, PhD.

Why this is critically important was explained well by Sharon Goldberg, MD in her testimony at the Michigan State Legislature in 2018, when she opposed the ALEC-written State Bill 637 to Streamline the Deployment of so-called "Small Cell" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) in the public rights-of-way:

Dr. Goldberg on Negative Health Consequences from RF-EMR Exposures
Dr. Goldberg on the Need to Evaluate Science Not Funded by the Wireless Industry

Michigan Senate Bill 637 is very similar to a California Senate Bill 649 Telecommunications Bill that Gov. Brown vetoed on Oct 15, 2017 — Brown was convinced to veto, in part, during a brief meeting on 10/14/17 in Santa Rosa, CA):

Governor Jerry Brown on Oct 15, 2017:

"There is something of real value in having a process that results in extending innovative technology rapidly and efficiently. Nevertheless, I believe that the interest which localities have in managing the rights-of-way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill."

We agree with former Gov. Brown. The City of San Francisco has both the authority and the duty to regulate the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). This "coopertive Federalism" envisioned in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, explained in this 1996 US Senate/House Conference Report and upheld by the US Supreme Court.

  • xxx then incorporate this maximum power output limit in Article 25, the SF Department of Public Works Code that regulates the installation of Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRAs) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — installed in the public rights-of-way and on buildings.

  • xxxx of substantial evidence in the public record that establishes negative health consequences from 24/7 exposures to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) from wireless transmitters.

Please find at this link the June 3, 2019 Letter from the SF Board of Appeals to Tomas J. Aragon, MD, DrPH

. . . asking Dr. Aragon to review the substantial written evidence entered into the public record by many San Francisans and other members of the public and then to revise the June 10, 2010 SF Dept. of Health Memo regarding pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures — based on this up-to-date scientific and technical information.

Preface

The SF Dept. of Health Web Pages Just Communicate the US Government/Wirless Industy’s Party Line re: the negative health consequences from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures — a story that has been exposed as false for decades (read more here):

These SF Dept. of Health web pages do not yet reflect the findings from recent game-changing court decisions, listed below, and do not reflect the findings of the preponderance of peer-reviewed research — more than 500 studies — from 2010 through 2019 that have found harmful biologic effects and/or negative health consequences from RF-EMR exposures at intensities that are too low to cause heating of tissue . . . as you can read in this Oct 17, 2019 Scientific American Opinion by Joel Moskowitz, PhD.

On April 4, 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that negative health consequences and safety concerns are part of aesthetics — and within the City of San Francisco’s police powers to regulate (read more here)):

. . . 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.

On August 9, 2019, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Small cell rollout is NOT exempt from NEPA environmental assessments and recognized the relevance of the Bioinitiative Working Group’s findings (read more here):

[The FCC] failed to address concerns that it was speeding densification “without completing its investigation of . . . health effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation,” which it is currently reassessing. Comment of BioInitiative Working Grp., J.A. 235 . . . The third comment urged the FCC to consider the cumulative effects of radio-frequency exposure, but did not even mention NEPA. See Comment of Bioinitiative Working Grp., J.A. 235-38."

CONCLUSION: We grant the petitions to vacate the Order’s removal of small cells from its limited approval authority and remand to the FCC.

On October 15, 2019, the City of Napa City Council voted 3-2 to not apprrove 32 Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antenna (CPMRA) applications (read more here)

At 11:45 pm on 10/15/19, the City Council voted 3-2 to continue the Napa-Verizon Accommodation Agreement to the Nov 5, 2018 City Council Meeting; the City is seeking setbacks for schools, more staff-processing time of applications, selecting an objective, neutral third-party RF-EMR metering professional and — yet to be discussed — a maximum power output limit from CPMRA installations in order to preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets . . .

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals. After the U.S. Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit is usually considered the most prestigious of American courts because its jurisdiction contains the U.S. Congress and many of the U.S. government agencies, and therefore it is the main appellate court for many issues of American administrative law and constitutional law.

The judges’ ruling in The United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT in case 18-1129 found that FCC Order 18-30 was arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, unlawful. Consequently, the Court vacated FCC Order 18-30, thereby reinstating prior NEPA regulations — requiring environmental reviews of densified 4G + 5G cell tower deployments.

Since Verizons’ spectrum license was obtained at the FCC, the placement, construction or modification of any so-called Small Cells anywhere in the US — including in the City of Napa — is part of a federal undertaking. This August 9, 2019 DC Circuit decision mandates environmental review of the fully-envisioned network of so-called "Small Cells" throughout the City. This can be accomplished with CEQA, but we must first abide by the DC Circuit’s decision: NEPA review must be completed by the FCC before the City of Napa can be compelled to allow the installation of any of these 58-Verizon proposed densified 4G + 5G cell towers. The entire project must go on hold until Verizon and the CBR Group can demonstrate — with substantial written evidence in the public record — that the FCC has completed its NEPA review.

A. San Francisco Board of Appeals Meeting, June 26, 2019

  • 5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
  • Agendized Item:

(9) SPECIAL ITEM Consideration and possible action by the Board to request that the Department of Public Health review and update its June 14, 2010 Memorandum, issued by Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, regarding the health effects and regulation of wireless communication networks. ACTION: Upon motion by President Swig, the Board voted 4-0 to direct the Executive Director to draft a formal request to the Department of Public Health to update their June 14, 2010 memorandum regarding the health effects and regulation of wireless communication networks.

June 19, 2018 SF-BOA Meeting
September 25, 2018 SF-BOA Meeting

B. Letter from SF Board of Appeals to SF Dept. of Health, July 3, 2019

Original letter here.

  • Date: July 3, 2019
  • From: Julie Rosenburg, Executive Director, SF Board of Appeal
  • To: Tomas J. Aragon, MD, DrPH

Rosenburg in 2019:

Dear Dr. Aragon:

I am writing to you on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Appeals ("the Board") to request that the Department of Public Health ("DPH") review and update Dr. Rajiv Bhatia’s Memorandum, dated June 14, 2010, regarding the health effects and regulation of wireless communications networks (attached).1

To give you context for this request, I would like to explain that the Board provides the final administrative review process for a range of appealed City determinations including personal wireless service facility site issued by the San Francisco Public Works Department.

As you know, DPH must approve these permits prior to being issued. More DPH must determine whether a permit application complies with the Public Health Compliance Standard2 which means:

whether (a) any potential human exposure to radio frequency emissions from a proposed Personal Wireless Servtce Facility described in an Application is within the FCC guidelines; and (b) noise at any time of the day or night from the proposed Personal Wireless Service Facility described in an Application is not greater than forty-five (45) dBA as measured at a distance three (3) feet from any residential building facade.3

When these permits are appealed to the Board, the Board’s review is limited to of the factors established in Public Works Code Article 25, In connection with alleged health risks, the Board may only consider whether DPH incorrectly determined that the permit application complies with the Public Health Compliance Standard . . .

Footnotes

  1. On June 26, 2019, the Board voted 4-0 to direct the Executive Director to draft a formal request to the DPH to update Dr. Bhatia’s June 14, 2010 memorandum.
  2. See Article 25, Section 1507 of the Public Works Code.
  3. See Section 1502 which defines "Public Health Compliance Standard."

C. SF Department of Public Health Memorandum, June 4, 2010

Original memo here.

  • June 14, 2010 Memorandum
  • by Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH Director, Occupational & Environmental Health; Director, Environmental Health Code Enforcement Program
  • Re: Health Effects and Regulation of Wireless Communications Networks

Bhatia in 2010 (emphasis added):

"Radio-frequency radiation (RFR) and Microwave (MW) radiation are two types of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). They are in the frequency ranges 3 kilohertz (kHz) – 300 Megahertz (MHz), and 300 MHz – 300 gigahertz (GHz), respectively. Other forms of non-ionizing EMR include the spectrum of ultraviolet (UV), visible light, infrared (IR), and extremely low frequency (ELF) EMR. Non-occupational population exposure to RF radiation arises from wireless communications systems and devices including radio and television broadcasting and cellular and cordless telephones."

Approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years in the area of biological and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation.1 Health research has established that exposure to RFR may

  • Increase body temperatures . . . but only at high doses
  • Cause tissue damage . . . but only at high doses
  • A potential exists for interference between cell phones and some medical devices if in close proximity (within a few centimeters)

Link to ev101 — evidence, that refutes the preceding statements.

Experimental studies on RFR have not

  • Demonstrated consistent toxicological effects
     
  • Identified a biological mechanism linking RFR to cancer.2 | 3
     

Link to ev102 — evidence, that refutes the preceding statements.

Epidemiological studies have evaluated whether there is a higher frequency of certain adverse health effects in populations with higher RFR exposures including residents living in proximity to RFR emitting antennas and cell phone users. These epidemiological studies have not linked current population RFR exposure with either non-thermal effects or serious health problems, such as cancer." 4 | 5 | 6
 

Link to ev103 — evidence, that refutes the preceding statements.

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is the regulatory agency for radio-frequency electromagnetic fields in the U.S. In 1996, through the Telecommunications Act, the United States Congress required the FCC to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard for radio frequency radiation (RFR).
 

The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF fields are based on the recommendations of two expert organizations:

  1. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)
     
  2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

Link to ev104 — evidence about the members and activities of the NCRP.

Link to ev105 — evidence about the members and activities of the IEEE.

The current NCRP, IEEE, and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) exposure guidelines state the threshold level at which harmful biological effects may occur, at a specific absorption rate (SAR) value for the whole body of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) of tissue based on the potential of RFR exposure to cause thermal heating.

Based on this information; the FCC has set maximum exposure limits for wireless system devices. All wireless devices, including cell phone base stations and all cellular phones that are sold in the United States must comply with FCC guidelines on RFR exposure. The maximum permitted levels of RFR allowed from cellular base station antennas is 1.0 mW/cm2.7

The limit provides a substantial margin of safety relative to the FCC threshold for thermal health effects regardless of age or gender.

These standards are reviewed every five years based on the latest available information.

Link to ev106 — evidence that shows that the FCC RF-EMR Maximum Permissible Exposure limits are not protective of negative health consequences from RF-EMR exposures at levels that are many thousands of times lower than FCC limits.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, § 704(a) prohibits state or local jurisdictions from implementing their own RF exposure standard, based on the latest available information.

In San Francisco, City Planning rules implemented with oversight by the SF Department of Public Health require that cell antennas located in the city meet FCC standards. The City has a three step process for ensuring compliance with the FCC standards for RFR.

  1. Sponsors must submit a Health Report which includes a description of the project and the anticipated radio-frequency energy levels.

  2. Sponsors must provide a Project Implementation Report which includes field measurement verifying the radio-frequency levels outlined in the Health Report within 10 days of the project’s completion. Sponsors must notify neighbors located within 25 feet of the antenna and offer to take measurements from inside their dwellings.

  3. Sponsors must conduct every two years field measurements be taken and submitted as a part of a Periodic Safety Monitoring Report.

Monitoring conducted in San Francisco has confirmed that exposures to RFR from wireless networks and cordless phones are very low for the general population, based on the latest available information and much lower than FCC maximum permitted [RFR] exposure standards.

RF radiation energy decreases rapidly with distance (in proportion to the inverse square of distance) and building structures attenuate transmission of RFR substantially. In San Francisco, RFR exposure at the ground level around these cellular base stations has been found to have a low of .005% and a high of 9.6% of the FCC public exposure standard. Ground-level measurements taken from directly below the antennas indicate that the average ground exposure in San Francisco is approximately 1 % or less of the FCC public exposure standard (1.0 mW/cm2 for PCS transmissions).

Overall, although research is ongoing, public health science has not established causal links between radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation and adverse health effects at levels of exposure found in the population. based on the latest available information.

DPH concludes that: scientific evidence does not support the existence of any adverse health effects from RF radiation at levels below the current ANSI standard.

In San Francisco, Department of City Planning rules and Department of Public Health monitoring assures compliance with FCC standards.

Link to ev106 — evidence that shows that the FCC RF-EMR Maximum Permissible Exposure limits are not protective of negative health consequences from RF-EMR exposures at levels that are many thousands of times lower than FCC limits.

D. Introductory videos re: the problems with 4G + 5G Densification

Beware of 4G/5G Densification
Dangers of Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR)
Dr. Anthony Marino: Hazards of EMF and RF-EMR Exposures
Resonance Beings of Frequency

E. Introductory slides, web pages (and books)

Introductory Slides:

  • Link to slides at ResponsibleiPad.com (2016 presentation that focuses on the need for wired networks in classrooms) — a key goal for any City Department of Health that is paying attention to nosebleeds, earbleeds, and heart problems among students in Wi-Fi saturated schools — especially for cities like San Francisco, that passed in 2003, an Ordinance that added the Precautionary Principle add SF’s Municipal Code. The saturated Wi-Fi in classrooms problem (and a comprehensive science review in Green Binders) was entered into CA Public Record in 2015 and 2017 at the California State Senate (note the Firefighter exemption that was awarded to firefighters in 2015 Assembly Bill 57: the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) Shot Clock bill. The exemption was granted, based on the negative health consequences — neurological and brain abnormalities — faced by firefighters exposed to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) from cell towers installed on and near fire stations.

  • Dave Gillotte, President LA County Firefighters Union, Local 1014

"The fire station cell tower measured at 1/1000th of the allowable FCC limit of non-ionizing radiation. That means the towers could be almost 1000 times more powerful than the level the firefighters were exposed to, and still be considered within FCC guidelines. And yet even at these levels of radiation, we found brain abnormalities and measurable neurological deficits."

"(f) Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities."

2015 and 2017 Testimony in CA Senate Committees
Substantial Scientific Evidence Entered into CA Public Record

Important web pages:

  • Titles 47 and 42 of US. Code: 47:Telecommuncations and 42: The Public Health and Welfare
  • From 2018, a link to The Nation Article "How Big Wireless Duped the World re: the Hazards of Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation Radiation" by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie
  • From 2019, a link to people are getting sick, and they are marching in the streets to show their opposition to Densified 4G + 5G new networks,
  • From 2019, a link to How Much RF-EMR Exposure is Safe?
  • From 2019, a link to FCC Response to IRREGULATORS Legal Challenge: Let Them Eat Pie

Relevant books:

  • From Harvard Center for Ethics: a link to download "Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications CommissionIs Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates" — by Norm Alster
  • From 2014, a link to "Overpowered: The Dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF) and What You Can Do about It" by — Martin Blank. PhD
  • From 2014 link to to "Science for Sale: How the US Government Uses Powerful Corporations and Leading Universities to Support Government Policies, Silence Top Scientists, Jeopardize Our Health, and Protect Corporate Profits" — by David L. Lewis, PhD
  • From 2013, a link to the book "Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation" — by Devra Davis, PhD
  • From 2008. a link to "Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" — by David Michaels

F. What are the differences between 4G and 5G?

Sifting through the propaganda . . .

. . . when Bhatia wrote the following in 2010:

"Radio-frequency radiation (RFR) and Microwave (MW) radiation are two types of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). They are in the frequency ranges 3 kilohertz (kHz) – 300 Megahertz (MHz), and 300 MHz – 300 gigahertz (GHz), respectively. Other forms of non-ionizing EMR include the spectrum of ultraviolet (UV), visible light, infrared (IR), and extremely low frequency (ELF) EMR. Non-occupational population exposure to RF radiation arises from wireless communications systems and devices including radio and television broadcasting and cellular and cordless telephones."


S4WT Comment: Uh . . . Not exactly . . .

As explained here:

. . . the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) defines the radio spectrum as the full range from 3 Hz to 300,000 MHz:

  • Frequencies of 1,000 MHz and above are often called microwaves (a subset of the radio spectrum)
  • Frequencies of 30,000 MHz and above are often called millimeter waves (a subset of the microwave radio spectrum).

ITU Radio-frequency Spectrum

Band name Abbr Band Frequency Wavelength Uses
Very low frequency VLF 4 3–30 kHz 100 km down to 10 km Submarine communication, avalanche beacons, wireless heart rate monitors, and geophysics
Low frequency LF 5 30–300 kHz 10 km down to 1 km Navigation, Time signals, AM Radio
Medium frequency MF 6 300–3000 kHz 1 km down to 100 m AM Radio
High frequency HF 7 3–30 MHz 100 m down to 10 m Shortwave Radio and aviation communications
Very high frequency VHF 8 30–300 MHz 10 m down to 1 m FM Radio, TV broadcasts, and aircraft communications
Ultra high frequency UHF 9 300–3,000 MHz 1 m down to 100 mm TV broadcasts, microwave ovens, mobile phones, wireless LAN, Bluetooth, GPS, and Two-Way Radio transmissions
Super high frequency SHF 10 3,000–30,000 MHz 100 mm down to 10 mm Radar, Mobile Phones, and Commercial Wireless LAN transmissions
Extremely high frequency EHF 11 30,000–300,000 MHz 10 mm down to 1 mm High-speed satellite, Mobile Phones, and Commercial Wireless LAN transmissions

Conclusion: Significant harm is just a matter of a distance-power trade off. Cities have the freedom and the duty to regulate maximum power output of Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antenna (CPMRA) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs), falsely branded as "Small Cells" by the Wireless industry — to a level

The Panoply of Microwave Frequencies/Wavelengths in a 4G/5G World

  • 5G: 600 MHz = waves 20 inches long
  • 4G: 700 MHz = waves 17 inches long
  • 3G/4G: 800 MHz = waves 15 inches long
  • 3G/4G: 900 MHz = waves 13 inches long
  • 3G/4G: 1800 MHz = waves 7 inches long
  • 3G/4G: 2100 MHz = waves 6 inches long
  • Wi-Fi: 2450 MHz = waves 5 inches long (unlicensed)
  • 5G: 3100 MHz to 3550 MHz = waves 3.8 to 3.3 inches long
  • 5G: 3550 MHz to 3700 MHz = waves 3.3 to 3.2 inches long
  • 5G: 3700 MHz to 4200 MHz = waves 3.2 to 2.8 inches long
  • 5G: 4200 to 4900 MHz = waves 2.8 to 2.4 inches long
  • Wi-Fi: 5800 MHz = waves 2.0 inches long (unlicensed)
  • 5G: 24,250 to 24,450 MHz = waves 0.5 inch long
  • 5G: 25,050 to 25,250 MHz = waves 0.5 inch long
  • 5G: 25,250 to 27,500 MHz = waves 0.4 inch long
  • 5G: 27,500 to 29,500 MHz = waves 0.4 inch long
  • 5G: 31,800 to 33,400 MHz = waves 0.4 inch long
  • 5G: 37,000 to 40,000 MHz = waves 0.3 inch long
  • 5G: 42,000 to 42,500 MHz = waves 0.3 inch long
  • 5G: 57,000 to 64,500 MHz = waves 0.3 inch long (unlicensed)
  • 5G: 64,000 to 71,000 MHz = waves 0.2 inch long
  • 5G: 71,000 to 76,000 MHz = waves 0.2 inch long
  • 5G: 81,000 to 86,000 MHz = waves 0.1 inch long

How the FCC-adopted RF-EMR Maximum Permissible Exposure Guideline Was Gamed on Day One

  • For 300 MHz–1,499 MHz, maximum public exposures is calculated as (frequency/1500) × 10,000,000 (which calculates an average RF-EMR exposure over 30 minutes)

    • For 600 Mhz it is 4,000,000 µW/m² (average RF-EMR exposure over 30 minutes)
    • For 700 Mhz it is 4,666,667 µW/m² (average RF-EMR exposure over 30 minutes)
    • For 800 Mhz it is 5,333,333 µW/m² (average RF-EMR exposure over 30 minutes)
    • For 900 Mhz it is 6,000,000 µW/m² (average RF-EMR exposure over 30 minutes)
  • For 1,500 MHz– 300,000 MHz, it is a flat rate: 10,000,000 µW/m²
  • That’s right, RF-EMR exposures look at a rate of poison delivery, not total dose of poison delivered. We wonder why? It is very clear that the FCC RF-EMR maximum public exposure guideline is not protective and is nonsense — plain and simple.

The bottom line is that we have very poor definitions of "low power" because we are comparing pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures to a scientifically unsound guideline that was distorted in the very beginning by the US Govt (CIA and Military) and the by the Telecom lobbyists.

The following RF-EMR exposure guideline is far too simplistic and orders of magnitude too high — it is off by around 106.

A. First, consider the following:

  • 50 mEv = 8 x 10 -21 Watts
  • 10 µW/m² = 1 x 10 -6 Watts
  • From biological levels, this is a difference of 15 orders of magnitude — or 1015

B. Then consider this:

  • 10,000,000 µW/m² = 1 x 10 1 W/m² (or 10 Watts)
  • 1% of FCC RF-EMR Eposure guideline is 100,000 µW/m² = 1 x 10 -1 W/m² (or 0.1 W/m²)
  • From biological levels, this is a difference of 20 orders of magnitude: — or 1020

C. Next, consider this:

  • 1.0% of FCC RF-EMR Exposure guideline is 100,000 µW/m² = 1 x 10 -1 W/m² (or 0.1 W/m²) is based on an average (the average hides the peaks of RF-EMR)
  • Actually we are receiving the poison as a series of about 20,000 peaks of power per second that meter from 10x to 10,000x higher than the average (let’s conservatively say 100x higher)
  • Peaks of 1% of FCC RF-EMR Eposure guideline therefore is conservatively 10,000,000 µW/m² = 1 x 10 1 W/m² (or 10 W/m²)
  • From biological levels, this is a difference of 22 orders of magnitude: — or 1022

D. Finally, consider this:

  • Peaks of 0.5% of FCC RF-EMR Exposure guideline is conservatively 5,000,000 µW/m²
  • Peaks (or pulses) of RF-EMR may have durations of around 35 µ-seconds each
  • 20,000 pulses × 35 µ-seconds per pulse × 5,000,000 µW/m² = 3,500,00 µW-seconds/m² is the dose of poison received in one second
  • 3,500,00 µW-seconds/m² x 1800 seconds in a 30-minute period = 6.3 Billion µW-seconds/m² is the dose of poison received in 30 minutes

. . . Now what happens in the next 30 minutes? The very same thing. Lather, rinse, repeat 24/7/365 . . .

12.6 Billion µW-seconds/m² is the dose of poison received in one hour
302.4 Billion µW-seconds/m² is the dose of poison received in one day
110.5 Trillion µW-seconds/m² is the dose of poison received in one year
1,105 Trillion µW-seconds/m² is the dose of poison received in ten years

What happens after 10 years of exposures as high as these? We already know –> http://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/#death . . . and we have all been duped into focusing only on the rate of RF-EMR exposure (at 10,000,000 µW/m² ) — forever — and not the dose of poison delivered? This is the very definition of nonsense.

G. Evidence That Refutes


ev101:


ev102:


ev103:


ev104:


ev105:


ev106:


ev107:


ev108:


ev109:


ev110:


Person wrote to Davis, CA City Attorney, Inder Khalsa 10/1/2019 4:56 PM:

As you can see on this page: http://mystreetmychoice.com/davis.html

. . . in the video at the Davis City Council from 9/24/18, this is what you said:

*At 2:36:50 Inder Kahlsa: *

"The Federal Government has expressly stated that we [the City of Davis] cannot adopt regulations to mitigate the impact of environmental impacts or health impacts of telecommunications facilities — full stop. We are completely prohibited from taking health impacts into account in adopting our local regulations. And that has been the case since 1996."


Inder Khalsa wrote to Davis, CA resident on 10/2/2019 7:04 PM:

You asked for legal citations supporting the conclusion that “environmental effects” include “health impacts” for purposes of the rule that cities cannot regulate wireless facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions. Cf. 47 USC, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).

The best statement of the rule comes from T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. Town of

Ramapo, 701 F. Supp. 2d 446, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), where the court said, “Environmental effects within the meaning of the provision include health concerns about the biological effects of RF radiation.” (Emphasis added.)

I did not find any Ninth Circuit or California cases similarly on point, but there are numerous cases from other circuits in which local decisions based on health impacts were found to violate the rule regarding environmental effects; including Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 495 (2d Cir. 1999), which stated:

“The statute uses the term ‘environmental effects’ to describe an impermissible basis for decision. Although one court has questioned whether ‘environmental effects’ and ‘health concerns’ are the same, see Iowa Wireless Servs., L.P. v. City of Moline, Illinois, 29 F.Supp.2d 915, 924 (C.D.Ill.1998), we believe that the terms are interchangeable and will use ‘health concerns’ to refer to the constituent testimony on the connection between [radio frequency emmissions] and cancer and other health problems.” (Emphasis added.)

Although there are no cases in California or the Ninth circuit that are directly on point here, any attempt to regulate wireless facilities based on “health impacts” that attempts to argue that health impacts are different than environmental impacts would be sure to be challenged by the Telecom providers, with the City bearing the costs of litigation, likely to the 9th circuit and potentially beyond, with what appears to be a very low chance of success given the clear guidance in other circuits.

I remember telling the Council that environmental impacts includes health impacts.

If I said “expressly,” that was a misstatement on my part, but the courts have concluded that environmental and health are synonymous for purposes of Section 332(c).

We are working to get the proposed Telecommunications Ordinance out to Planning Commission and the public ASAP.

Inder Khalsa Attorney

RWG Law  Logo

RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94104
T: 415.421.8484
D: 415.782.0398
M: 510.379.8774
E: ikhalsa@rwglaw.com
W: rwglaw.com

According to this map: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._federal_courts_circuit_map_1.pdf

We are in the Ninth Circuit. We all must open our eyes and recognize that the "legal precedent" for concluding that "environmental effects" including "negative health consequences" is very thin and not applicable to the Ninth Circuit. Our Ninth Circuit judges have an opportunity to settle this obvious issue that environmental effects do not equal health effects in the Ninth Circuit, considering scientific data of harms from RF-EMR exposures through 2019. We are allowing "legally fashionable" opinions of some attorneys and judges from lower courts — not in the Ninth Circuit — to affect crucially important life-and-death decisions made by the City Council, due to insufficient due diligence. This is wrong.

Conclusion: This very threat/warning that has been used (by the wireless carriers/city attorneys) for 23 years to bully cities into submission:

Inder Khalsa Attorney

"any attempt to regulate wireless facilities based on “health impacts” that attempts to argue that health impacts are different than environmental impacts would be sure to be challenged by the Telecom providers, with the City bearing the costs of litigation, likely to the 9th circuit and potentially beyond"

End Notes

(all references are from 1997 to 2010 — much has been established in the last nine years)


  1. World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html  

  2. Repacholi MH. Radiofrequency field exposure and cancer: what do the laboratory studies suggest? Environ Health Perspect. 1997 December; 105 (Suppl 6) 1565-8. 

  3. Krewski D, Glickman BW, Habash RW, Habbick B, Lotz WG, Mandeville R, Prato FS, Salem T, Weaver DF. Recent advances in research on radiofrequency fields and health: 2001-2003. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2007 Jun-Jul; 10(4):287-318.  

  4. INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;39(3)675-94 Epub 2010 May 17. 

  5. Deltour I, Johansen C, Auvinen A, Feychting M, L, Schüz J. Time trends in brain tumor incidaence rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974-2003. J. Na’l Cancer Inst. 2009 Dec 16;101(24):1721-4. 

  6. Ahlbom A, Feychting M, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz DA, Swerdlow AJ; ICNIRP (Intemational Commission for Non-lonizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk: a review. Epidemiology. 2009 Sep; 20(5):653-5. 

  7. For those broadcasting in the lower cellular frequency [below 1500 MHz] the limit is determined by dividing the frequency by 1500.