Sunday, February 23, 2020

Facts about the Blair High School Cell Tower


A new 199 foot cell tower is about to be placed right near Blair High school. 

The 12 MCPS schools with cell towers are almost all lower income schools and every high school in the Downcounty Consortium (which has higher farms, minority and esol population than the rest of the County) has a tower. There are several times where cell towers were proposed and not put up because of strong opposition by parents. For example, Whitman High School, Wootton High School and  Walter Johnson High School. Parents were vocal in complete opposition and the towers were halted. (Watch video above if you want to know why.) 

Read the Bethesda Beat article Parents Decry Wootton Cell Tower Proposal, Principal Decides Not to Move Forward

This is why the MCPS schools with cell towers are more often schools with higher minorities and students receiving free lunch.  This is an environmental justice issue. 

What Can You Do? 

1. Immediately get the word out to other parents and the students. They need to know. 
2. Hold community meetings to discuss the issue. Have the Blair PTA discuss the issue and develop an opinion. What does the student council at Blair think? 
3. Contact your elected officials and request an immediate halt to this tower. (Do not take no for an answer. )  
4. Find out when hearings are scheduled and attend these meetings. 
5. Write and post letters publicly on parent and community list serves. 

Even if they say it is a "done deal" parents have halted cell towers near their children. It can be done. 

More info. 

The proposed 199 foot County Tower near Blair High School  is proposed to be located right next to one of the existing ones near Blair. Existing towers are  about 10 feet from the baseball field and the other is less than 300 feet from the track and field.  

 Something that is different about this new tower vs others that have tried to locate at MCPS, is that it will be a County owned tower as part of their public safety radio system.  So it goes through a different process called "Mandatory Referral" hearing at the Planning Board. Mandatory Referral is a required review by the Planning Board of government projects of a certain size.  The Mandatory Referral process basically means whatever the Planning Board says, the County can ignore if they want to. 

 After it's constructed, wireless companies could locate on the new pole  without going through the special exception hearing process with a hearing examiner that is required when commercial wireless companies want to build new towers in Montgomery County. Once any tower is built, companies can add antennas to it later through what is called a modification which does not involve any input from the public or a hearing.  It's mostly just a permit process. 

So by the County constructing this tower, they are creating a loophole for the wireless companies.  In fact wireless companies applied to locate a monopole tower in the very spot the County is proposing theirs. But after they applied it was withdrawn because it was found it didn't comply with zoning.  It was too big for the property and also less than 300 feet from homes.  Now this is the same property but because it's the County building it, they get to bypass the regulations.  So far the County has not committed in writing to limiting the antennas on the tower to only public safety antennas.

See the 2017 Blair High School Tower Committee Application here.
CLEARLY the companies want to put their antennas in the area.


Meanwhile in California, parents are working hard to remove cell antennas near their schools. Please se below a banner created by parents and watch their news coverage here.



Watch  the cell tower meeting at Wootton here.



Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Blair High School is getting a Cell Tower.

Blair High School is getting a Cell Tower? 
February 27, 2020 is the public hearing. 

Residents are getting a notice about a cell tower on yet another high school in Montgomery County.
Councilman Riemer pushed forward legislation to get these towers in. Why? He loves cell towers and has been trying for years make it easier to get these towers near homes.
At first glance you might think it is a good idea... But guess what.. once the emergency antennas go on, commercial companies like Verizon, T- Mobile and Sprint will easily place their antennas on top. It will have a lot of antennas in time unless the community comes together.
Read research on the health effects of cell towers here, here, here, and here.

The Montgomery County Council Should Immediately Act to Protect Residents

Did you know the County Council is NOT following up with their historic lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? 

Has the Montgomery County Council pulled the wool over our eyes? 


Please watch this video of the oral arguments where lawyers hired by Montgomery County defend the citizens of Montgomery County.  You will see that their lawsuit naturally should include filing against the FCC in regards to the FCC's latest action. However they do not see to have done this. Why not? 



Montgomery County has a responsibility to finish what it started. It is unacceptable that Montgomery County is not moving forward on their lawsuit. 

Montgomery County hired a lawfirm Keller and Heckman in Washington, DC to take the FCC to court because the FCC is pushing 5G  towers in our neighborhoods. The lawyers made the case that we should not be forced to have 5G antennas in front of our homes to have 5G antennas in front of our homes if the FCC has not completed their review of the safety of radiofrequency radiation. However in December 2019 the FCC issued a ruling stating that they looked at the science and they found no evidence linking cell phones to cancer. That is rather odd as there  are dozens of studies showing harm the FCC was supposed to review. 

Several groups have filed lawsuits against the FCC  claiming they ignored hundreds of scientific studies, but not Montgomery County.  If Montgomery County does not follow though the case will most likely be thrown out. 


Why not Montgomery County?  Did they have a closed session and vote not to follow though? Exactly what is going on behind closed doors? 

This article below was written by the attorneys representing Montgomery County, MD in the lawsuit the County filed against the FCC contesting the safety of the FCC’s radio frequency exposure limits.


BY: ALBERT CATALANO, Counsel, ERIC GOTTING, Partner, and TIMOTHY DOUGHTY, Associate, Keller and Heckman, LLP. Washington,DC : Municipal Lawyer / The Journal of Local Government Law, Sep/Oct, 2019, pp. 14-17.

Read also the 

What You Can Do Now

Contact the county council and ask that they intervene on the cases moving forward against the FCC action and finish what the started.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Take Action: Contact the WSSC to Halt AMI Toxic Smartmeters

Take Action to Contact the WSSC 
Tell Them:  NO SMARTMETERS


Email your opposition to WSSC proposed AMI "Smart" Water Meters to 

 
chris.lawson@wsscwater.comeloise.foster@wsscwater.comfausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com
howard.denis@wsscwater.comkeith.bell@wsscwater.comsandra.thompson@wsscwater.com
marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov,  Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov, countyexecutive@co.pg.md.us, BLLaster@co.pg.md.us , CouncilDistrict1@co.pg.md.us, councildistrict5@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict6@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict7@co.pg.md.us, CouncilDistrict8@co.pg.md.us, ouncilDistrict9@co.pg.md.us, District4@co.pg.md.us, DLTaveras@co.pg.md.us, dmglaros@co.pg.md.us>, GPKonohia@co.pg.md.us, news@wamu.org, newsdesk@wjla.com, newstips@cbs17.com, news4pr@nbcuni.com, desk@wusa9.com, jnorwood@dcw50.com, darcy.spencer@nbcuni.com , Erika.Gonzalez@nbcuni.com,, klewis@sbgtv.com, kojo@wamu.org, news@wamu.org, iflatow@sciencefriday.com, newsroom@wtop.com, Maggie.Fox@nbcuni.com, tara.bahrampour@washpost.com, ariana.cha@washpost.com, Lena.Sun@washpost.com 
Please find below an expanded list of officials at the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) to whom you may wish to express concerns about WSSC's plan to impose wireless smart meters on it all of its customers.  This list now includes the individual addresses of the six "WSSC Commissioners".  The USPS address for the main individual, Carla T. Reid, is also provided.

Carla A. Reid
General Manager and CEO
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
14501 Sweitzer Lane
Laurel, MD 20707
Email: carla.reid@wsscwater.com
Website:  https://www.wsscwater.com


Names, positions, and email addresses:

Carla A. Reid - General Manager and CEO - WSSC  <carla.reid@wsscwater.com>
Sheila Finlayson, Esq. - Corporate Secretary - WSSC  <sheila.finlayson@wsscwater.com>
Amanda Stakem Conn, Esq. - Legal Counsel - WSSC <amanda.conn@wsscwater.com>
Latonya Allen - Administrative Assistant - Board of Ethics - WSSC <latonya.allen@wsscwater.com>
Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., J.D. - Office of the Inspector General - WSSC <arthur.elkins@wsscwater.com>

Chris Lawson - Chair and Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <chris.lawson@wsscwater.com>
T. Eloise Foster - Vice Chair and Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <eloise.foster@wsscwater.com>
Fausto R. Bayonet - Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com>
Howard A. Denis  - Montgomery County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <howard.denis@wsscwater.com>
Keith E. Bell - Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <keith.bell@wsscwater.com>
Sandra L. Thompson - Prince George's County Representative - WSSC Commissioners <sandra.thompson@wsscwater.com>

Email addresses alone (for easier copying/pasting into email messages):

carla.reid@wsscwater.com
sheila.finlayson@wsscwater.com
amanda.conn@wsscwater.com
latonya.allen@wsscwater.com
arthur.elkins@wsscwater.com

chris.lawson@wsscwater.com
eloise.foster@wsscwater.com
fausto.bayonet@wsscwater.com
howard.denis@wsscwater.com
keith.bell@wsscwater.com

New York Times Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist Found to Have Violated Truth in 5G and Cell Phone Radiation Story

The Times of UK just reported on the fact that the New York Times violated the principle of truth. This article made headline news! The Irish Press Ombudsperson investigated a complaint that the New York Times article had inaccurate information and they ruled that yes.. the New York Times article violated the Principle of Truth.

See a tweet at https://twitter.com/MoCo4Safety/status/1229054736126611456


If you want to see the decision simply go to Irish Press Ombudsperson page and read it as it is front page news here https://www.pressombudsman.ie 

Then--- Read the Sunday article in The UK Times here- Prof Tom Butler's complaint upheld over wi-fi article in Irish Times

"The press ombudsman has upheld a complaint in relation to a New York Times article that was republished by The Irish Times last September, writes Eithne Dodd.

Headlined “Are there any real links between wireless technology and health?”, it was written by William Broad, an American science journalist who has twice shared the Pulitzer prize with colleagues.Asked last week to comment on the fact the press ombudsman in Ireland had upheld a complaint about one of its pieces, The New York Times said: “We’re confident in the accuracy of our reporting.”

What is the Story? 

Professor Tom Butler of University College Cork filed a complaint with the Office of the Press Ombudsman for the Press Council of Ireland about a cell phone story written by William Broad for The New York Times (William J. Broad, "The 5G Health Hazard That Isn't;" New York Times, July 16, 2019) and reprinted by The Irish Times (William J. Broad, "Are there any real links between wireless technology and health?," September 5, 2019).

Environmental Health Trust repeatedly wrote the Times with documentation on the unfactual information. The NYT refused to update the story.

Thankful Professor Butler in Ireland went to the Press Ombudsperson with documentation on the false information in the article.  The Press Ombudsman concluded that the Broad story violated the truth and accuracy code of practice of the Press Council of Ireland.




Following is The Irish Times' report of the Press Ombudsman's response which was published today and a copy of Broad's article as it appeared in The Irish Times. Attached are copies of the complaint that Professor Butler submitted to the Irish Press Ombudsman and the response he received from the Ombudsman.

Professor Tom Butler and The Irish Times

The Irish Times, Feb 6, 2020




The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by Professor Tom Butler that The Irish Times breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice of the Press Council of Ireland.

On 5 September 2019 The Irish Times published online an article challenging concerns that there might be health risks associated with 5G technology. A sub-heading to the article stated that the blossoming anxiety over professed health risks of 5G “can be traced to a single scientist and a single chart”.

Professor Butler made a formal complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman claiming that Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice had been breached. Professor Butler challenged what he understood to be the subtext of the article which was, he said, that there were “no real links between wireless technology and health”. In particular, he disputed the accuracy of the sub-heading to the article, claiming that there was “significant scientific concern that dates back to the 1950s, at the very least”. He referenced many scientific papers and research findings which questioned the safety of microwave radiation, stating that “there is a significant body of scientific evidence on hazardous non-thermal levels of microwave radiation”. He questioned the statement of the author of the article that “mainstream scientists continue to see no evidence of harm from cell phone radio waves” which he described as “demonstrably false”.

The Irish Times responded by saying the article had been published in good faith and that its author had “twice won the Pulitzer prize and is a long-established science writer with the New York Times”. The Irish Times said that the article had been supplied by the syndication service of The New York Times and that it had been written by a “highly respected writer and commentator” who was expressing his opinions in the article. The editor stated that The Irish Times “does not have an opinion on whether there are links between wireless technology and health”. What was published, he said, was the author’s opinions on this subject. An offer of the publication of a letter that “would need to be not longer than 500-600 words” which would provide an opportunity to challenge the original article was made.



Professor Butler declined the offer of a letter of the length suggested as the “subject matter was not conducive to expression in a mere 500 words”.

As the complaint could not be resolved by conciliation it was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.

It is not the function of the Press Ombudsman to evaluate the conflicting claims of the effects of wireless technology. The Press Ombudsman’s task is to decide if the Code of Practice of the Press Council has been breached. Principle 1 requires the press to strive at all times for truth and accuracy. In the article the author made assertions about the effects of wireless technology which Professor Butler claimed were inaccurate. His complaint, which included substantial supporting documentation and international research, contained sufficiently persuasive evidence to allow a decision that the article did not meet requirements in regard to Principle 1. It is a frequently repeated truism that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. An opinion piece in a newspaper has the same obligation to facts as any other part of a newspaper. I am upholding this complaint on the basis that the article, in not taking more account of scientific research that raised concerns about the impact on human health of radio waves, breached the accuracy requirements found in Principle 1.

In this instance The Irish Times offered Professor Butler an opportunity to publish a 500-600 word letter. In my opinion given the complex arguments on the effects of wireless technology this was not a sufficient response to resolve the complaint.

Other parts of the complaint were not upheld. The full decision can be accessed at www.pressombudsman.ie

7 January 2020
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/professor-tom-butler-and-the-irish-times-1.4164003






Will the WSSC Ensure Our Safety? Read a Letter to the WSSC

Letter to the WSSC by Montgomery County Citizen
This was sent yesterday.. 

WSSC Commissioners –

It was very disappointed to receive the February 14, 2020 email from the AMI Project about the February 19th meeting and attached health study (“Report”) conducted by WSSC. It was also very disappointing to receive a note from the AMI Project about how the study was conducted. This e-mail preceding the February 19th seems to say that since a public agency has not found RF harmful to human health, you will take no action. The WHO has classified RF as a Class 2B Human Carcinogen and there have been discussions of increasing this to a Class 1 at the urging of scientists over the past few years.  Calls to the American Cancer Society indicate that they may be revisiting their review of RF and I am not sure they would weigh in on other health effects than cancer. 

I do not understand why the limit on public agency and why the conclusion of no harm to human health given the WHO classification and the NTP study. 

Additionally, the following organizations have studied RF safety:
•             World Health Organization;
•             American Cancer Society;
•             National Toxicology Project (National Institutes of Health); and
•             International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Because of these studies, no public agency has identified RF as harmful to human health.


  1. As far as the Report, it notes that smart meters should clearly fall below the FCC guidance for RF.  However, the FCC standard for measuring the health effects of electromagnetic radiation is based on whether the exposure, on average, will heat human tissue over short periods (six minutes for occupational work and 30 minutes for public exposure). That standard was adopted in 1996 and was based on data from the 1980s to so hear that smart meters will fall below this is no comfort. The standard also does not assume 24/7 exposure. 

  1. Page 17 of the Report states that “About 60% of WSSC water meters are located inside the basements of homes. Whereas, 40% are located outside the home at the property line…The distance from the front door to the property line can vary much with minimum distances of about 5-10 feet… Therefore, in general, meters are located away from the area where people spend time.”

My water meter is located directly on my home – on the wall opposite a basement office where my children study.  This means it would be within 5 feet of them. My home is not unusual in my community of 85 homes in Potomac MD. I am unaware of any home in my community where a meter is at the property line and not affixed directly to the home. 

  1. Further, p. 18 of the Report states that “No exposure assessment studies focused on water smart meters have been identified, however several studies have looked at electric smart meters. Given that exposure from electric meters is likely to be higher than that of water meters they are reviewed below as representative of an upper bound.”  

If there is no study then how can the conclusion be made that these are “better” than a PEPCO smart meter (which allows for OPT OUT to its customers) and that they are safe?

  1. In regard to the studies cited in the Report, why are so many based a small sampling of residences located outside the U.S. and not subject to U.S. standards? Studies like the bioiniative report are not included in your Report. 

Why? Please refer to the case filed by Montgomery County, Maryland that cites to a variety of health reports on RF. Why were those reports NOT considered by you? See June 10, 2019 filing – page 11 and page 55 discuss current research on RF health effects and the non-thermal health effects raised by RF.  https://www.khlaw.com/Files/39783_Montgomery_County_Brief.pdg.

  1. Was the researcher who prepared your Report an independent third party? Many concerned citizens raised this issue with you prior to the undertaking of this report and I assume, like myself, did not receive a response on who was to conduct the Report and what materials would be considered and if the WSSC commissioners would be open to hearing from scientists. General research indicates that he author may not be an independent third party and this is very concerning. Did you invite any members of the scientific community to speak with you or was it solely this one author and this short Report?

See link below regarding Dr. Kheifets.


The Report references the Itron meter. Attached below is an excerpt from Itron’s most recent shareholder report filed on Form 10-K with the SEC.  It notes that “we may face adverse publicity, consumer or political opposition, or liability associated with our products.” 

The safety and security of the power grid and natural gas and water supply systems, the accuracy and protection of the data collected by meters and transmitted via the smart grid, concerns about the safety and perceived health risks of using radio frequency communications, and privacy concerns of monitoring home appliance energy usage have been the focus of recent adverse publicity. Unfavorable publicity and consumer opposition may cause utilities or their regulators to delay or modify planned smart grid initiatives. Smart grid projects may be, or may be perceived as, unsuccessful….. We may be subject to claims that there are adverse health effects from the radio frequencies utilized in connection with our products. If these claims prevail, our customers could suspend implementation or purchase substitute products, which could cause a loss of sales.



I hope the WSSC Commissioners will consider the following prior to implementing any smart meter roll-out?

  1. Did WSSC ask for any current pending or settled actions or claims from companies such as Itron on health, privacy or similar issues as they have disclosed above?

  1. Did WSSC consider that not every customer’s meter falls within the 60/40 categorization noted in the Report. 

  1. Will WSSC provide for an opt-out like PEPCO does (with a fee or no fee)?

  1. Will WSSC guarantee the number of times per day the meter will transmit?  There are reports that transmissions vary widely from a few times a day to a few times a minute.  How will WSSC guarantee this?  How many times will WSSC test its meter to ensure they are only transmitting infrequently as the Report states?  Will it have drivers that will come to our homes and measure this and provide us this information on our quarterly WSSC bills? If so, how frequently?

  1. Will WSSC consider customer re-location of water meters that back to a bedroom or another room that is frequently used? The Report assumes that the meters are “conveniently located” in unused portions of one’s home.

  1. Will WSSC guarantee the safety RF level of the meters or seek a guarantee from Itron or the meter provider it uses? Will this guarantee be made publicly available? Will WSSC require the meter provider to (or will WSSC employees) test the RF levels of the meter and on what type of periodic basis will this be done?  Will the test results be made public?

 I hope the Commissioners will take seriously their review of this report and complete their due diligence on this topic and, at an absolute minimum, provide an opt out for those who do not wish to have these meters attached to their homes. 

Thank you,
XXXX Citizen of Montgomery County  MD 

Saturday, February 15, 2020

WSSC Hired A Well Known Longtime Industry Consultant to Evaluate Health Effects of Smartmeters

WSSC Hired A Well Known Longtime Industry Consultant to Evaluate the Health Effects of Smartmeters.

Professor Leeka Kheifets was hired by the WSSC to investigate the health effects pf smart meters. Here is her report. She not only is paid by companies to testify in their defense, but she also has been a longtime consultant for Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

What vetting for conflict of interest was done?
Did WSSC ask if she was on retainer for industry or EPRI?
We want answers.

EPRI is a "nonprofit"funded by the electric utility industry which conducts research on issues related to the electric power industry in the United States. EPRI's corporate members represent more than 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in the United State. 

The study Race/ethnicity and the risk childhood leukemia: a case-control study in California states, “This project was supported by a research contract from the Electric Power Research Institute to UCLA”

So the electric companies give UCLA money for Dr. Kheifits to do studies? 
Studies about health effects from the very industry funding the study? 
Yes. It is true.


Here are two more examples of research studies she did funded by industry. Note: There are MANY she did funded by industry. plus companies hire her to present "expert" testimony to elected officials.
“PG&E (electric company) flew Leeka Kheifets, a University of California Los Angeles professor and epidemiology authority, to the event to address health concerns.”

“Of all the people I know, Leeka Kheifets has done more to subvert EMF research than anyone,” says American epidemiologist Samuel Milham, the first scientist to discover an increased risk of leukemia among electrical workers overexposed to EMFs. Read the news article this comes from here . 

  • Leeka Kheifets, lately of UCLA, but also connected to the utility industry’s Electric Power Research Institute and the World Health Organization conflict-of-interest filled EMF Project, has frequently appeared for PG&E, APS, and other utility companies to vouch for Smart Meter and wireless safety. What does an industry “expert” like Leeka Kheifets get paid for her testimony? 
  • APS retained Dr. Kheifets to present on behalf of the Company at the Commission’s September 8, 2011 workshop regarding radio frequency concerns for a total remuneration of $14,681.14.


Dr. Kheifets was put in charge of the "UCSD Breast Cancer Cluster" investigation back in 2009 and they did nothing.


Her Long time relationship with EPRI-- 
According to her UCLA Web page. Dr Kheifets is most familiar with research on effects of EMFs on human health. “Prior to her professorship at UCLA, she was Head of the Radiation Studies Program at the World Health Organization and was a Technical Executive at the Electric Power Research Institute, where she directed a multi-disciplinary electric and magnetic fields (EMF) research program." Read October 2007 EPRI update : Dr. Leeka Kheifets, now an EPRI research consultant, is a member of the committee. 


Decades ago the electric utility industry paid Leeka Kheifets $50,000 for a literature review. Microwave ran a story on that here.

She was a member of the IEEE 2005 Subcommittee member, a long-term employee and on-going consultant for the Electric Power Institute (EPRI) and for various electrical utility corporations. 
EPRI is an independent nonprofit scientific organization funded by the electric power industry in the United States. Kheifets stated that she still receives research support from EPRI, but notes that EPRI is not a commercial entity.
Want to learn more?