Citizens Opposed to Unfettered 5G Small Cells in Montgomery County Council to "Work With Us"

Not An Excuse to Roll Over And Play Dead

"I know that you may be afraid of federal pre-emption, but that is not an excuse to roll over and play dead.    The feds can pre-empt a moratorium on cell towers, but we are not asking for that.  Only to keep the very reasonable zoning requirements we already have.    If you get sued for refusing to pass this ZTA,  at least we will know that you tried.  And you can buy us valuable time.   If you roll over and play dead, that tells us you are not really working for us, the citizens.   You are working for the telecom industry."

Marion Edey

Testimony against the ZTA that would allow cell antennas on peoples homes. 

The Montgomery County ZTA allowance for a 20 cubic feet cabinet is outrageous and unnecessary.

The Montgomery County ZTA allowance for a 20 cubic feet cabinet is outrageous and unnecessary.

Contrary to industry statements that large electrical cabinets are needed,  top industry engineers state that all the electronics can fit into a small box.

Watch Samsung present the 5G electronics here where they clearly state that all the electronics can fit into A SMALL BOX here in 2018 panel presentation with the FCC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ctUU9F8Es8.  

Thus, the Montgomery County ZTA 20 cubic foot allowance for wireless electronics cabinet is unnecessary. Placing a more reasonable 2 cubic feet maximum will still allow service. The video shows him with a box tht is the size of 2 cubic feet I think.

If the county is going to allow these on our streets claiming it is needed for the new 5G service, companies should have to use the industry's nice new two cubic feet small cabinet boxes- and not throw their old ugly large equipment cabinets our way.

Alert: Your Voice Needed at Montgomery County Hearing New Proposed Zoning Would Allow Cell Antennas In Front of Your Home

Alert: Your Voice Needed at Montgomery County Hearing

New Proposed Zoning Would Allow Cell Antennas In Front of Your Home

The Problem

Montgomery Council Council is fast tracking a cell phone tower zoning Bill (ZTA) that will allow mini cell towers in our yards called ZTA (18-11).  

ZTA 18-11 will make it even easier and faster to install large, ugly cell poles in our neighborhoods in front of our homes- along with up to 20 cubic feet equipment boxes.  Cell antennas will be mounted on street lights, utility poles, sides of buildings.

Your thin street light will be replaced with a fatter, taller metal street light that has antennas on top. Same with your utility pole- it will get fatter and taller and have an ugly refrigerator sized box at bottom.

The Solution

We Must Raise Our Voices to Halt This Unfriendly ZTA! We need you to do two things:

1. Show up at the September 25th, County Council Hearing!!

This will be the ONLY public hearing on this hasty, resident-unfriendly zoning bill. Please plan to attend!  

2. Submit testimony by email ASAP to the Council. Even if you cannot make the Sept 25 hearing you MUST write and CALL your council to inform them that you do not want antennas in our front yard.  Tell them you do not want them to pass ZTA that allows wireless in you front yard.

Email to all these emails to ensure staff members are meeting emails personally. (Just cut and paste this email list.)

county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov, Ken.Silverman@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov, jason.fasteau@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov, Tommy.Heyboer@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov, Kathleen.Mitchell@MontgomeryCountyMD.gov, Alexis.Reed@montgomerycountymd.gov, Bertha.Flores@montgomerycountymd.gov, Mayra.Cruz-Solis@montgomerycountymd.gov, Patty.Vitale@montgomerycountymd.gov, Chris.Gillis@montgomerycountymd.gov, Walton.Harris@montgomerycountymd.gov, Councilmember.Berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov, warren.hansen@montgomerycountymd.gov, Steven.Goldstein@montgomerycountymd.gov, sharon.ledner@montgomerycountymd.gov, Rose.Taylor@montgomerycountymd.gov, lisa.mandel-trupp@montgomerycountymd.gov, Mary.Gies@montgomerycountymd.gov, Yi.Shen@montgomerycountymd.gov, Dale.Tibbitts@montgomerycountymd.gov, Dave.Kunes@montgomerycountymd.gov, Brian.Anleu@montgomerycountymd.gov, Andrea.Nunez@montgomerycountymd.gov,

3. Spread the word: Get this message out on your listservs and to all your neighbors. We must inform everyone we know to get the community involved. Every person needs to write the council, and especially their councilmember!

Call your councilmember NOW and talk to your representatives staff members and tell them you do not want a cell antennas in front of your home.

Cell antennas decrease property values (see documentation at the National Association of Realtors website, emit radiation (read research on cell towers and health here) and are simply UGLY. Read 20 facts about small cell towers here.

September 25 Council Hearing Information

Where: County Council Building

            100 Maryland Avenue - 3rd Floor Hearing Room

            Rockville, MD 20850

When:  7:30PM Tuesday

Be sure to forward this email on to your friends and neighbors.

We are a large coalition of organizations in support of protective zoning in neighborhoods. More information at Montgomery County Coalition for the Control of Cell Towers WWW.MC4T.ORG and https://smallcellsinmontgomerycounty.blogspot.com

Marin County Residents Call For Protections from 5G : California Counties !!!

Take a look . . .  the residents of Marin County knocked it out of the park on 9/18/18
Please study this testimony, organize and  deliver similar testimony at your County Board of Supervisors' meetings.

2018-0918 No "Small Cells" in Marin County Residential Areas -- Part 2

2018-0918 No "Small Cells" in Marin County Residential Areas -- Part 3

2018-0918 No "Small Cells" in Marin County Residential Areas -- Part 4  

These videos are also at

• http://mystreetmychoice.com/sanrafael.html
• http://scientists4wiredtech.com/marin-county/

Cities Halting 5G Due to Health Concerns

An ever growing list of cities is acting to halt 5G! We urge Montgomery County to do the same. 

• Read “California City blocks 5G deployments over cancer concerns”
• Read “Tiny Doylestown Borough battled Verizon over 5G and won a big settlement” and “Tiny Town Rejects Verizon Small Cells and Wins in Court”
• Read Cell tower ordinance read for first time at (Booneville) council meeting, Boonville Democrat
• Read San Rafael residents take pre-emptive strike against 5G installations
• Read “Official: Palm Beach exempt from 5G wireless law”
• Read “Petaluma 360: Petaluma sets cell phone tower policy”
• Read Read “Mill Valley blocks faster, smaller cell phone towers over cancer fears“SF Gate

7/16/18 The City of Petaluma Voted to Protect its Residents From 4G/5G Densification!

 

6/12/18 Public Comment Starts at 3:09:56

Mill Valley City Council: General Public Comment — Adverse Effects of 4G/5G Densification

    

Mill Valley City Council: Public Comment on Agendized Item #8 — Wireless Telecom Regulations

    

Mill Valley City Council: Vote on Agendized Item #8 — Wireless Telecom Regulations

Attorney Patrick Shannon, founder of Hillsborough Families Against Cell Towers addressing his City Council regarding 16 proposed cell towers by Verizon/Crown Castle: "Do the right thing, protect your residents and avoid our City from becoming the place where democracy goes to die and cell towers metastasize."

   

Major New 5G Deployment Calls Small Cell Roll Out a Telecom Powergrab

Montgomery County Expert States That FCC Radiation Limits May Be Exceeded At 20 feet from Homes.

Montgomery County Maryland's own experts (engineers)  are on record as saying that at 20 or so feet from a home, a wireless antenna installation attached to a utility pole may not meet the FCC’s RF emission standards. (See Agenda Item #22 in link below.) http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/minutes/2017/June%2014th%202017%20TFCG%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf.) 

This adds insult to injury considering that  FCC standards are outdated, inadequate and in need of updating as confirmed by the US Government Accountability Office. 

FCC limits are not safe. An antenna can exceed RF limits in close proximity.  So why would Montgomery County enact a new zoning that will allow antennas just feet from our home? on utility poles? in our front yards? 

Excerpt from Agenda Item #22 

"Mobilitie stated that they have been able to place their equipment on similar Pepco utility poles. They had not approached Pepco about this specific pole because they wanted to first hear the preferences and feedback of the Tower Committee.
Lee Afflerbach (engineer) noted the utility pole may not meet FCC requirements for RF emission due to the antenna being 20 or so feet from the building.
Patricia Wolford added that the code reads that the utility pole must be greater than 60 feet from a single-family home and in this zone the poles are 25 feet from single family homes.
James Crane confirmed that the pole is 29 feet from the single family detached home and with the new antenna it would be over 29 feet.
The applicant asked that this application be tabled due to setbacks in a residential zones and FCC RF emission requirements." 

Mobilitie submitted an unofficial plan in Montgomery County regarding the thousands of small cells.

From the New York Times:

"Instead of relying on large towers placed far apart, the new signals will come from smaller equipment placed an average of 500 feet apart in neighborhoods and business districts. Much of the equipment will be on streetlights or utility poles, oftenaccompanied by containers the size of refrigerators on the ground. 

More than 300,000cell stations now provide wireless connections, and 5G will bring hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — more."

"...pushing to build the system as quickly and cheaply as possible. And they have the federal government on their side.

"Mobilitie, one of the nation’s largest cell-tower operators, submitted an unofficial plan in Montgomery County, Md., in the fall, designating where the company might want to place small cells.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/technology/5g-cellular-service.html

Medical Doctors Letter to the Editor "The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette?"

Just published in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology by Shearwood McClelland, III, MD

and Jerry J. Jaboin, MD, PhD

"The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette?"

To the Editor: The impending rollout of fifth-generation (5G) Wi-Fi in mobile phones, augmenting the current fourth-generation (4G) technology toward making global interconnectivity between devices a reality, has been touted as a significant improvement of speed compared to current and previous wireless signaling (1). Less well explored are the potential consequences associated with this need for speed: namely, the substantial increase in biologic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from the 1900- 2100 MHz associated with 4G to the 3500 MHz estimated median bandwidth of 5G (2).

While studies of human lymphocytes have indicated no impact of short-term (30-minute) 900 MHz exposure on DNA integrity, animal studies have demonstrated that long-term exposure to 900-1800 MHz via second-generation mobile phone radiation (48 min/d for 30-180 days) induces hippocampal damage. In fact, a recent investigation of human neuroblastoma cells revealed enhanced susceptibility to oxidative stress even after 1800 MHz exposure for only 10 minutes, with concomitantly increasing reactive oxygen species levels at 30- and 60-minute exposures (3-5). Due to safety concerns of the doubling of dosage from these levels associated with 5G adoption, a worldwide consortium of physicians and scientists from more than 35 countries has recommended a moratorium on 5G rollout pending further safety investigation (1).

What is the role of the medical community (particularly radiation oncology) in this arena? Are we to remain silent while focusing only on optimizing care of our immediate patients, or do we have a responsibility to utilize our clin-ical knowledge of radiation safety and efficacy to aid in preventing corporate profit from being the primary determinant of acceptable radiation exposure from wireless networks?

Shearwood McClelland, III, MD

Jerry J. Jaboin, MD, PhD

Department of Radiation Medicine

Oregon Health and Science University

Portland, Oregon

References

1. Hertsgaard M, Dowie M. How big wireless made us think that cell phones are safe: A special investigation. Available at: https://www .thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones -are-safe-a-special-investigation/. Accessed April 2, 2018.

2. GSMA. Considerations for the 3.5 GHz IMT range: getting ready for use. May 2017. Available at: https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Considerations-for-the-3.5-GHz-IMT-range-v2.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2018.

3. Danese E, Lippi G, Buonocore R, et al. Mobile phone radiofrequency exposure has no effect on DNA double strand breaks (DSB) in human lymphocytes. Ann Transl Med 2017;5:272.

4. Mugunthan N, Shanmugasamy K, Anbalagan J, et al. Effects of long term exposure of 900-1800 MHz radiation emitted from 2G mobile phone on mice hippocampusea histomorphometric study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:AF01-AF06.

5. Marjanovic Cermak AM, Pavicic I, Trosic I. Oxidative stress response in SH-SY5Y cells exposed to short-term 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 2018; 53:132-138.

McClelland S, Jaboin JJ. The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette? International Journal of Radiation Oncology. 101(5):1274-1275. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.04.051