Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Dear Sacramento Mayor: The FCC Does not Have Safety Limits!


Here is a letter regarding a cell tower situation in Sacramento where the 5G Small Cell Rollout has resulted in children becoming ill.

Dear Hon. Mayor Steinberg, City Manager Chan, and Hon. Members of the Sacramento City Council:
I’m writing to you today with deep concerns about the 5G experiment the City of Sacramento has undertaken under the reassurances from UC Davis’s Jerrold Bushberg, PhD that 5G is safe. Dr. Bushberg is frequently quoted as saying one would have to hug the antenna to exceed the FCC safety limits.

First of all, the FCC does not have safety limits. They have permissible levels of radiation, and those levels of radiation are set extremely high. The FCC made a determination in the 1990s they were only going to regulate the thermal range of RF radiation. Therefore the FCC is only protecting us from three things: 1) burns; 2) shocks; 3) heatstroke. Everything below the heating threshold is not taken into consideration. To imply that families are safe in Sacramento as long as the radiation does not exceed what is allowed by the FCC a false statement. It is in the non-thermal range – below the levels of heating – that we find links to cancer, Alzheimer’s, autism, neurodegenerative diseases, behavioral changes, headaches, immune suppression, cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression.

Dr. Bushberg further states that in spite of decades of science there are no known adverse health effects from RF radiation. When Dr. Bushberg makes this statement, he should always follow up with the qualifier that he is referring only to shocks, burns, and heatstroke when he references “adverse health effects”. There is so much at stake here that it is beyond disingenuousness for Dr. Bushberg to fail to clarify this. It is, in my opinion, purposefully deceptive and thus knowingly dishonest.

In the height of irony, the FCC sets what has colloquially been referred to as a safety standard, yet the FCC is not a health and safety agency. In fact, right now the FCC does not have a single employee dealing with human health and RF radiation. I know this because I called in early August as I was preparing my testimony before the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. I called the FCC to speak with the one individual, Ed Mantiply, who for years has held the lone health position at the FCC. I found out that Mr. Mantiply retired in late 2018, and to date, his position has not been filled. I was informed there were no immediate plans to fill that vacancy.

So when Dr. Bushberg tells you the FCC considers 5G to be safe, please understand the FCC has no one dealing with human health at the Agency. In fact, I called all three relevant agencies as I was preparing my testimony in August – the FCC, the EPA, and the FDA. None of those agencies has a single safety study suggesting or even implying that 5G is safe.

Under questioning from Sen. Blumenthal before a Senate subcommittee, representatives from several telecommunications companies admitted they had not done any human health studies on 5G.

As the 5G infrastructure is being rolled out across the country and tested in cities like Sacramento, there is no one to rely on at the FCC when it comes to health. This forces cities like yours rely on experts like Dr. Bushberg for reassurance of safety. I know you have a critical deadline in mid-November for revisiting your 5G Ordinance. When you do so I want you to understand that the expert you have relied upon, Dr. Jerrold Bushberg, has come to cities like Sacramento in the past with previous generations of wireless and has offered false reassurances of safety. I know these reassurances have been proven false because I have been a party to revealing the truth about RF radiation among California firefighters, and thus about misleading statements by Dr. Bushberg.

Twenty years ago Dr. Bushberg went to another California city and reassured the local fire board comprised of a number of leaders within the city that the Nextel cellular tower proposed for the fire stations in town would be perfectly safe for the firefighters who worked and slept in the stations. This was 2G technology, and the year was 1998. The fire service was the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Department.
From the day the towers were activated the first symptoms were felt in this fire department. As the weeks and months went on, no firefighter was free of symptoms. Some of the symptoms were profound. One medic with 20 years of experience forgot what he was doing in the midst of CPR on a cardiac victim.

The men sometimes got lost when they went on 911 calls in the middle of the night. This was the town the men had grown up in. The rode their bikes up and down the streets when they were boys. Yet they literally got lost while responding to emergencies.

One night the alarm sounded. The men got out of bed and into their gear, slid down the fire pole, got in the cab of the truck and sat there. Four grown men sat there staring into the night as the alarm blasted in the garage where the fire trucks sat. Finally, the captain turned to the engineer with the keys in his hands and said, “Hey, I think we’re supposed to be doing something.”

These were bright, committed, firefighters who had never made a mistake until Nextel placed a cell tower in front of the two fire stations in town, and they did so with reassurances from Dr. Bushberg that they would not be harmed by the RF radiation being emitted from the towers.

In 2004, Dr. Gunnar Heuser and I conducted a SPECT brain scan study of a sampling of the firefighters at Carpinteria-Summerland. We found brain damage in all six men tested. We also found delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control, and cognitive impairment. All of these men had passed rigorous physical and cognitive exams before being hired. Please see my attached 2013 FCC filing on the study.

It is important to note we found brain damage at the 2G level. You are now talking about 5G which utilizes the millimeterwave that is known to heat tissue. The industry has long reassured policymakers with each previous generation there is nothing to worry about with respect to cancer because nonthermal radiation, which is what 2G, 3G, 4G is, does not heat tissue. The experts are not offering that reassurance with 5G. Why? In fact 5G does heat tissue, and it is the heating factor that can disrupt DNA, a very worrisome factor in the etiology of cancer.

I watched Dr. Bushberg’s testimony before the Sacramento City Council with his reassurances of safety which he has no business giving. Dr. Bushberg spoke with the same level of reassurance when he advised leaders in the cities of Carpinteria and Summerland that the Nextel cell towers at the fire stations would not cause any harm. I repeat, we found brain damage utilizing SPECT brain scan technology in all six firefighters tested following a five-year exposure to towers Dr. Bushberg had deemed safe.



The FCC “safety standards” should not be used as a shield by telecom. The FCC’s permissible levels of radiation are not protective. To that end, I would like to point out that the firefighters who sustained brain damage in Carpinteria-Summerland were exposed to a tower that was emitting 1/1000th of what the FCC allows.

Testing by Eric Windheim of Windheim EMF Solutions in Sacramento of a small cell outside a family’s home in the 5G test zone in Sacramento shows radiation levels as high as 460,000 microwatts per m2 which would be nearly 50 times higher than the level of 2G the firefighters were exposed to in Carpinteria-Summerland. The average was about 55,000 microwatts per m2, or 5.5 µW per cm2, which would put the average level of radiation at more than five times the levels of radiation the firefighters in Carpinteria-Summerland were exposed to. I cannot express how deeply concerned I am about the exposure your residents are receiving to the existing 5G or “5G-ready” small cells.

For unimpeachable answers to questions about 5G, I am offering the filing before the San Diego County Board of Supervisors in August 2019 by Beatrice Golomb, M.D., PhD. Dr. Golomb is a professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine and Director of the Golomb Research Group. Here are some of the highlights of Dr. Golomb’s letter to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors dated August 6, 2019 as well as a letter from two years prior addressing SB 649 which was California’s version of the 5G mandate, vetoed by Gov. Brown in October 2017. The second letter by Dr. Golomb is dated August 22, 2017.
From Dr. Golomb:

  •   With 5G, people will suffer greatly, and needlessly.
  •   Mechanisms by which health effects are exerted have shown to include oxidative stress, damage to mitochondria (the energy producing parts of cells), damage to cell membranes, an impaired “blood brain barrier” (the blood brain barrier defends the brain against introduction of foreign substances and toxins), constriction of blood vessels and impaired blood flow to the brain, autoimmune reactions.
  • Affected individuals not only experience distressful symptoms like headaches, ringing in ears, chest pain from impaired blood flow, heart rhythm abnormalities, and inability to sleep; more significant health problems may include seizures, heart failure, hearing loss, severe cognitive damage. The mechanisms involved are those also involved in development and progression of neurodegenerative conditions including Alzheimer’s disease.
  • Those who are adversely affected by 5G are in desperate need of protection by our elected officials. They need the creation of safe spaces and housing, and roadways to allow travel, and protection of local rights to make decisions.
  •   Our focus needs to be wired and well-shielded technology, not more wireless.
  •   The unrestricted rollout of 5G technology will predictably indirectly injure and disable a new group of people.
  •   There is robust literature showing that electromagnetic radiation (EMR), including nonionizing frequencies of RF radiation, at levels below those that cause thermal effects (heating) do cause physiological effects, injury, and cell death not only in humans but animals and plants.

Dr. Golomb offers more than 360 scientific references within the two letters she submitted as San Diego County was considering its 5G ordinance in August 2019. Dr. Golomb’s letters & scientific abstract references can be found here: Golomb letter to San Diego BOS 8.7.19  
I would urge that the City of Sacramento revisit your 5G ordinance and the experiment that has been conducted based upon false reassurances by Dr. Bushberg and offer as much protection to your residents as you are legally allowed to do.

Please scroll down to see some recent City Urgency Wireless Facilities Ordinances and also Emergency 5G Ordinances at-a-Glance.   Https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-and-city-ordinances/This link, and those contained within it, offer a wealth of information. Residential areas can and should be in the least preferred tier with respect to your ordinance.
Thank you for taking my letter and its contents into consideration as you revisit the final 5G ordinance for Sacramento.
Respectfully,
/s/ Susan Foster
SUSAN FOSTER
U.S. Adviser, Radiation Research Trust (UK)
Honorary Firefighter, San Diego Fire Department
Medical Writer
Rancho Santa Fe CA  


Tuesday, November 5, 2019

The Takoma Park Council Sends a Letter to the County Council on Excessive Radiation from Antenna Radiation Simulation



Thankful Update! 
Citizens called the City to ask.
There are areas that exceed FCC limits on top of the building going 41 and 21 feet out.

"At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the Verizon antennas, the maximum power density generated by the Verizon antennas is approximately 2,598.45 percent of the FCC’s general public limit (519.69 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit)."

However, no testing was done inside the building as far as we know. All the exposure exceeding limits was related to the roof. 
  • There are 33 antennas on the roof. No one has done testing on the ground. There may be RF antennas nearby creating exposures. 
Some things you should know:
  • Even if the RF levels are below .1 % of FCC limits this does not ensure safety from biological effects as research has found effects at levels thousands of times less than FCC limits. For example, see a list of research studies citations here 
  • US FCC limits are over 100 times higher than the limits of several countries. That is why RF radiation at .1% does not make us feel safe. 
  • The Los Angeles School System adopted an RF limits at 10,000 lower than FCC limits as an example. They DO NOT allow cell towers on school grounds by the way. 
Questions for the City:
1. What are the radiation levels on the ground. We want the actual numbers (not a percentage of FCC limits).
2. Have measurements been taken inside the building?  In apartments with windows that open to area near the antennas? If so what are the measurements?
3. Who is in charge of addressing the radiation excesses if they exist?
4. What about workers? Please see these letters from workers.

“We continue to be concerned about the thousands of construction workers who are put at risk daily of being exposed to harmful levels of radio frequency (RF) radiation generated by wireless antenna systems across the country. “ 
 -Read the North America’s Building Trade Union 11/2015 FCC Submission

“RF antennas are often intentionally disguised as building features making it impossible for a construction worker to know the hazard even exists.”
-Operative Plasterers and Cement Mason’s International Association of the United States and Canada11/2015 FCC submission

“The association is concerned that mechanical service technicians may at times be unwittingly overexposed to radiofrequency (RF) radiation because their employers are rarely informed about the presence of and the potential hazards associated with telecommunications antennas.”

Takoma Park Council sent this letter to the Tower Committee Chair with a copy to the County Executive and County Council. This letter is about the excessive radio frequency wireless radiation levels found in simulations of RF levels for a purposed cell antenna site in Takoma Park Park Ritchie by an independent expert.  

Dear TFCG Chair Williams,

The Takoma Park City Council has been made aware of a cell tower application currently before the
Transmission Facilities Coordination Group (TFCG) that reveals concerning information about the
cumulative Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions on the roof of the Park Ritchie Apartment building located in Takoma Park.
Per the 12th page of the new Verizon application (page 1 of the consultant report):
“At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the Verizon antennas, the maximum power density
generated by the Verizon antennas is approximately 2,598.45 percent of the FCC’s general public
limit (519.69 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit).
The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 2,598.55 percent of
the FCC’s general public limit (519.71 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit) at the nearest
walking/working surface to each antenna.” (Emphasis added)
While the consultant report includes a section on mitigation/site control options – such as caution signs
and barriers that “may consist of rope, chain, or fencing” – we remain concerned about what appears to
be an alarming exceedance of the FCC limits. We are concerned that the recommended mitigations may
not be sufficient to protect workers or anyone else who accesses the roof. Further, it is not clear the
extent to which residents living on or near the top floor of the building are possibly being exposed to RF
emissions that exceed acceptable limits.
Irrespective of the current application, we urge the TFCG to seek clarification about the potential
dangers posed by the existing cumulative RF emissions and what action can be taken to address them,
whether by the County or another entity. Regarding the current application, we urge the TFCG to ensure
they have this clarification before considering or approving the application and potentially making the

existing situation even worse.

Read the letter at this link. 

In their letter, the  Takoma Park Council is referring to a cell tower application that states:

"As presented in the sections below, based on worst-case predictive modeling, the worst-case emitted
power density may exceed the FCC’s general public limit within approximately 41 feet of Verizon’s
proposed antennas at the main roof level. Modeling also indicates that the worst-case emitted power
density may exceed the FCC’s occupational limit within approximately 21 feet of Verizon’s proposed
antennas at the main roof level. Additionally, there are areas where workers who may be elevated
above the rooftop or ground may be exposed to power densities greater than the occupational limits.
Therefore, workers should be informed about the presence and locations of antennas and their
associated fields.

At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the Verizon antennas, the maximum power density
generated by the Verizon antennas is approximately 2,598.45 percent of the FCC’s general public limit
(519.69 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit).

The composite exposure level from all carriers on this site is approximately 2,598.55 percent of the
FCC’s general public limit (519.71 percent of the FCC’s occupational limit) at the nearest
walking/working surface to each antenna."


TAKE ACTION:
Contact the County Council and ask for action to stop the proliferation of cell antennas until safety and proper enforcement can be fully documented and funded!

Send email to all CouncilmembersCounty.Council@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov

Tweet by connecting with various Mo Co Groups
  • Citizens of Montgomery County @moco4safety
  • Montgomery County for the Control of Cell Towers @MC4Torg
FCC limits are 30 years outdated and most certainly not safe. Learn why here
Read the letter in full online at this link. 



Monday, November 4, 2019

Cell Towers near Montgomery County Schools

Cell towers going up in the front yard of children's schools? 

This photo is one of six cell towers on a 1.5 mil stretch of Traviliah Road in Rockville Maryland that were allowed to go up by the Tower Committee.  The application the Committee received failed to reflect that this one was 15 feet from where children play at a school although it is the requisite 30 feet from a bricks and mortar structure.  
  
See it here.  

Cell Tower Near homes Alert Montgomery County Residents



Alert Montgomery County Residents,
Montgomery County is about to vote on 5G cell towers in our front yards!

The latest effort by Councilman Hans Reimer is a new zoning law that will allow:
  • Cell towers can be 30 feet from homes. 
  • Cell towers can be 60 feet from homes with no public hearing or notice. 
  • Street lights and utility poles will go up 6 to 15 feet higher. 
  • The cell tower committees review period is reduced to 20 days. 
  • Minimal aesthetic standards 
  • No limit on how large all the electrical cabinets can be. 
  • Each electrical cabinet can be 12 cubic feet but you can have as many as companies want. 
  • Hearing examiner can allow cell antennas 30 feet. 
Please see information about the ZTA 19-07 at Montgomery County website here. 
Please see the press release by Councilman Hans Riemer who is pushing industry friendly zoning fr the forth time. "Councilmembers introduce zoning proposal to legalize small-scale equipment for 5g wireless"

Did you know that Cities in California are enacting protective ordinances? 
For example, Los Altos CA passed an ordinance that bans these antennas in neighborhoods, : no small cells in residential neighborhoods, no small cells within 500 feet of schools, 500 foot setback for multi-family residences in commercial districts. 
Why isn't Montgomery County enacting similar protections? 

Here is what you can do now.

First: Plan to be at the November 19, 2019 Hearing on the ZTA 19:07 . Sign up to testify, get a babysitter, let go! Click here for more information. 

Then 
1. Talk to your neighbors about 5G. Here are some resources to learn more

2. Call and email the Council. Connect with them on Twitter and Facebook. Set up meetings in person with staff  to express your opinion. They need to hear from residents today.

Gabe Albornoz 240-777-7959

Andrew Friedson 240-777-7828

Evan Glass 240-777-7966

Tom Hucker 240-777-7960


Sidney Katz 240-777-7906 Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov 

Nancy Navarro 240-777-7968 Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov 



Sunday, November 3, 2019

Dear Councilmembers Riemer, Albornoz and Rice on the Cell Tower Zoning

Read a letter below from a Montgomery County citizen sent the Council about the new cell tower law reminding the Council about their own legal filings. Will the Montgomery County Council stick to their morals and values? Will they protect the children of Montgomery County?  

Dear Councilmembers Riemer, Albornoz and Rice,

I was disappointed to see your bulletins on a new ZTA that will put cell towers as close as 30 feet from our homes and families.  I am especially disappointed to see the reference to the American Cancer Society website as a resource for residents wishing to learn about health issues associated with radiofrequency radiation.   

References to scientific studies such as the Bioinitiative Report from 2012 and the International Appeal of scientists on RF dangers in 2015 are far more relevant and provide information on non-thermal effects of RF exposure (other than cancers) that Montgomery County residents should know about.  BUT YOU KNOW THIS.

“[t]hese and other studies examine a number of RF-related risks, such as carcinogenicity, DNA damage and genotoxicity, reproductive impacts (e.g. low sperm counts), and neurologic effects (e.g. behavioral issues in children).  They also identify adverse physiological mechanisms that could be triggered by RF exposures and cause non-thermal effects, such as stimulating cell proliferation, altering cell membrane function, and modulating synthesis of proteins involved in inflammatory and immunologic processes.” 

Opening up lampposts and utility poles to a massive roll-out of small cell towers within our communities and near our children could pose grave risks that cannot easily be undone – BUT YOU KNOW THIS TOO.

“If the new 5G environment, in fact, poses health risks, any prior rollout of 5G will have potentially injured citizens of Montgomery County and other municipalities, including sensitive populations like children, that cannot be undone. Such a result would be unconscionable.”  [emphasis added]


While I agree with these two quotes, they are not my words – THEY ARE YOURS AS REPRESENTATIVES OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY They are from your Federal Court challenge to the FCC which is still pending – see pages 13 and 55 of the petition.  I very much appreciate the fight that Montgomery County has taken on in this regard.  This is a cause well worth the effort and one which many communities should be concerned about.  Please do not send a different message to the residents here – the message that you are cowering to the wireless industry and putting their interests above those of Montgomery County residents.   The ZTA represents a complete about-face of the County’s views on this topic as well as its views as stated in the challenges of which County is a member through the “Smart Communities.”

Further, in regard to your Bulletins’ promotion of “batch application” processes to allow the wireless industry to inundate our communities with cell towers, please keep in mind the Tower Committee of Montgomery County’s past practices on applications generally and batch applications in particular.  You are right to say that once cell towers are deployed “[they] cannot be undone.”   

The attached photo is one of six cell towers on a 1.5 mil stretch of Traviliah Road in Rockville Maryland that were allowed to go up by the Tower Committee.  The application the Committee received failed to reflect that this one was 15 feet from where children play at a school although it is the requisite 30 feet from a bricks and mortar structure.  
See it here


I think you are all familiar from prior ZTA meetings on cell towers the tower that was allowed to remain at the Brickyard Road house in Potomac, MD.  A tower placed in a completely wrong location.  
(See Brickyward road cell tower below. Do you want this to be your house? ) 
 

From 1997 through September of 2018, the Tower Committee approved 99.4% of the 3,451 applications for towers, new antennas, or other additions and adjustments to cell towers.  Either (a) this is the most efficient committee there is, (b) the applications received were flawless and complete, or (c) there are insufficient resources, capacity or knowledge to complete a thoughtful review of the applications coming into the Tower Committee.   

I think the answer is (c) – you should check into it. You should consider whether the Committee should include representatives of our communities and schools if you are going to place cell towers near homes  now. 

Finally, mentioned in Mr. Riemer’s bulletin titled “Five Point Plan to Power Up Montgomery Count” / Step 4 is a reference to “leveraging the tech resources we already have – some of the world’s most powerful research institutions – NIH, National Cancer Institute, … NOAA, climate science … that’s just a sampling.”

Please understand some of the views on 5G put forth by NIH and NOAA as you reach out to partner with them:




I look forward to hearing from the Council as to how it came to the conclusion that placing equipment that produces a substance categorized as a Class 2B human carcinogen 30 – 60 feet from families and schools is an appropriate, reasonable, and responsible approach for Montgomery County residents’ property values, safety and health.

If this footage was not established with property values, safety and health of residents in mind but was selected as a convenience to the wireless industry because the vast majority of existing telephone poles and lamp posts are within this range, I would be interested in hearing that from the Council. If this is the case then, with all due respect, it certainly seems to me that you are acting with the interest of the industry in mind and not those of residents whom you represent.

Thank you,
XXX
Resident of Montgomery County  

Read the The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council  Amicus Brief for Montgomery County Maryland. 

Councilmembers Riemer, Albornoz and Rice have introduced a proposal that would allow cell towers 30 from our homes. Please communicate your thoughts to them and to all the other Councilmembers  about to vote on this issue. 


Councilmember Riemer twitter Facebook
Councilmember Albornoz twitter facebook 
Councilmemember Rice twitter Facebook 



Montgomery County is about to vote on 5G cell towers in our front yards!

The latest effort by Councilman Hans Reimer is a new zoning law that will allow:
  • Cell towers can be 30 feet from homes. 
  • Cell towers can be 60 feet from homes with no public hearing or notice. 
  • Street lights and utility poles will go up 6 to 15 feet higher. 
  • The cell tower committees review period is reduced to 20 days. 
  • Minimal aesthetic standards 
  • No limit on how large all the electrical cabinets can be. 
  • Each electrical cabinet can be 12 cubic feet but you can have as many as companies want. 
  • Hearing examiner can allow cell antennas 30 feet. 
Please see information about the ZTA 19-07 at Montgomery County website here. 
Please see the press release by Councilman Hans Riemer who is pushing industry friendly zoning fr the forth time. "Councilmembers introduce zoning proposal to legalize small-scale equipment for 5g wireless"

Did you know that Cities in California are enacting protective ordinances? 
For example, Los Altos CA passed an ordinance that bans these antennas in neighborhoods, : no small cells in residential neighborhoods, no small cells within 500 feet of schools, 500 foot setback for multi-family residences in commercial districts. 
Why isn't Montgomery County enacting similar protections? 

Here is what you can do now.

First: Plan to be at the November 19, 2019 Hearing on the ZTA 19:07 . Sign up to testify, get a babysitter, let go! Click here for more information. 

Then 
1. Talk to your neighbors about 5G. Here are some resources to learn more

2. Call and email the Council. Connect with them on Twitter and Facebook. Set up meetings in person with staff  to express your opinion. They need to hear from residents today.

Gabe Albornoz 240-777-7959

Andrew Friedson 240-777-7828

Evan Glass 240-777-7966

Tom Hucker 240-777-7960


Sidney Katz 240-777-7906 Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov 

Nancy Navarro 240-777-7968 Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov 






Thursday, October 31, 2019

Investigative Reports on 5G and Health

Full Measure's investigative report on 5G is a must watch for everyone!
Watch it here or online here http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/5g-whiz


Environmental Health Trust has compiled several key resources to ensure policy makers and governments have the scientific resources they need. Please take the time to review this list as well as the linked 5G community organizations.