Montgomery County Council of Maryland: 5G - The liability and insurance questions

November 19, 2019

TO:  The Montgomery County Council of Maryland

From:  Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

Subject:  5G - The liability and insurance questions

Given the following factors:

(1)  Montgomery County continues to contemplate the installation of 5G cell towers in front of individual homes and businesses throughout the County.

(2)  Extensive scientific evidence suggests that the radiofrequency radiation from 5G cell towers will prove harmful to health and likely fatal to many.

(3)  Montgomery County has about 1 million residents, which is a very large population to place at risk.

(4)  Major insurance underwriters, like Lloyds of London, will not underwrite insurance policies for protection against health claims from wireless technologies, presumably because the risks are so high.

Reference:  http://themillenniumreport.com/2019/04/why-is-lloyds-of-london-excluding-coverage-for-5g/

These liability and insurance questions come to mind:

(1)  Is the County requiring the providers of 5G cellular services to assume legal responsibility, in written contracts, for the liability claims that will inevitably result from the installation of 5G in the County?

(2)  If so, is the County requiring the providers of 5G cellular services to show evidence of insurance to cover the costs of such liability claims?

(3)  Or, does the County plan to assume legal liability for such claims itself?

(4)  If the latter, has the County arranged for insurance to cover the costs of the liability claims?

(5)  Also, if the latter, has the County made any estimates of the costs of such claims?  If so, are those estimates available for public inspection?

(6)  If the claims of liability should spill over to the members of the Montgomery County Council, as the body that has approved the installation of 5G in the County, have the members arranged for insurance to cover the costs of such claims?

Who am I?

I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University, 1975).  During my Government career, I worked for the Executive Office of the President of the United States, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  For those organizations, respectively, I addressed Federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community.  I currently interact with other scientists, with physicians, and with other informed individuals around the world on the impact of electromagnetic fields on human health.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards,
 
Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.
United States of America

Councilmember Albornoz cites industry created website as proof of cell tower safety.

Please see an excerpt from a letter from Councilmember Gabe Albornoz where he cites an industry created website as proof of safety. 

"Thank you for contacting me about your concerns over ZTA 19-07.  

I believe ZTA 19-07 strikes the right balance to protect neighborhoods by incentivizing the wireless industry to use poles that are located away from residential properties while allowing for a wireless future that will bring us advances in health care, education, transportation, and entertainment. Under the ZTA, any replacement pole for an antenna must be at least 60 feet from the nearest habitable building, including residences. Thus, the ZTA incentivizes industry to place the majority of antennas on light poles along arterial roads and in commercial areas. 

Also, if we do not move forward with regulating these towers at a local level, we are under a very real threat of preemption by the FCC and the Maryland General Assembly. We recently learned that the wireless industry is working closely with Maryland State Senator Delores Kelly of Baltimore City to draft a bill that would preempt local governments from regulating the siting of cellular towers. The bill that is being drafted would not require setbacks. ZTA 19-07 is an opportunity for the County to set its own standards and to protect our neighborhoods from a proliferation of cell towers.

It is also important to note that federal law preempts local jurisdictions from regulating cell towers on the basis of health. However, that said, I am including below information on cell towers and RF emissions from the American Cancer Society that may help allay your concerns. It is especially important to note that studies on cell phone use should not be confused with those relative to cell towers. You may visit this link to learn more: http://www.emfexplained.info/?ID=25821

Please feel free to reach out to me about this or any other issue that concerns you."

Sincerely,
Gabe Albornoz
Councilmember At-Large

Question: What is http://www.emfexplained.info/?ID=25821? 
Answer: emfexplained is a an industry supported propaganda site called EMF Explained funded by three foreign based wireless associations  including:

• Australia  Mobile Telecommunications Association 

• Belgium based European wireless association operating as  Mobile Wireless Forum.

• London based GSMA 

 

Yale Lawyer: Protective Zoning IS NOT an "effective prohibition of service"

When Councilman Riemier states, "Halting cell antennas (small cells) in residential areas is an "effective prohibition of service." This is simply FALSE. 

"Contrary to what they've said refusing to allow the placement of cell towers in a way that maximizes cell tower company returns and minimizes their costs which is what they want is not an effective prohibition of service a violation of what would only occur if there is an actual actual prohibition of service and effective prohibition of all service where a community is already served." 

Please listen to this well explained by Yale trained lawyer and Gaithersburg resident here. 


My name is Sheldon Pine.  

I'll preface this by saying I'm a 1981 graduate of Yale Law School and clerked for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and a practiced regulatory law for 35 years since graduating from law school. That's a preface to say I want to talk about the cell tower regulations. I want to take a few valuable seconds to thank Lynn, Frank and Dennis, somewhere, because I think they've done an extraordinary job with a very complex subject and had produced very nuanced and very complex regulations. There's been a lot of contest about what the regulations should say and a whole variety of subject matters. I gave a written statement which is five single spaced pages this deal strictly with the law. I don't have enough time to talk about that but I want to make three quick legal points and I'm broadly supportive of the regulations as proposed. First the zoning power really is the power to preserve the character of the community [with] concomitant obligation to heed the wishes of the community. That's what we're talking about when we talk about zoning. It's a quintessential power of local government as the Supreme Court said the power to zone and control land use is undoubtedly broad and it's proper exercise and this is an essential aspect of achieving a satisfactory quality of life in both urban and rural communities. That's a famous zoning case called Mount Shad.

Specifically as the second point I'd like to make relating to the cell tower zoning issue. It's definitely the law of the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit which governments Maryland and the contiguous state. Definitely, the law that preserving the character of the community and heeding the legitimate wishes of the community with respect to the location of zoning cell towers are legitimate aspects of the zoning process. In addition to being core zoning values nothing in any FCC regulation short of an action by the city that actually totally prohibits cell tower servers can override the power of the city to zone. 

And finally and that's further to amplify this point. I mean we see this in the controversy over the regulations with two of the cell tower companies. 

Contrary to what they've said refusing to allow the placement of cell towers in a way that maximizes cell tower company returns and minimizes their costs which is what they want is not an effective prohibition of service a violation of what would only occur if there is an actual actual prohibition of service and effective prohibition of all service where a community is already served. There are three recent fourth circuit court of appeals cases that hold back and nothing has changed that piece of the law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCulOxxwirM&t=27m34s

Harvard Phd: 5G and its small cell towers threaten public health

November 11, 2019

To:  State Senators and Delegates of the Maryland General Assembly
From:  Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

5G and its small cell towers threaten public health.

Implementing 5G is PURE INSANITY.  It requires yielding to two of the worst trends evident in our society today:  denial of science, which provides massive evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation; and yielding to pressure from corporations that are willing to hurt the public, without compunction, for short-term profit.

Want to know why?  This message describes, as briefly as I can, the answers to the questions below.  Please read what interests you.  I present these comments as a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D. in Applied Physics, Harvard University). 

• Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?
• What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?
• What is Maryland's implicit policy on exposure to radiofrequency radiation?
• Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?
• What is the evidence of harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G compared to fiber-optic technology?
• What is driving the implementation of 5G?
• What should our telecommunications goals be?
• Who am I?

 Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?

Control by local government of the deployment of 5G's small cell towers is, indeed, an important goal, because local governments are closer to the people and can better reflect their wishes.

But there is an even more important goal:  STOPPING the deployment of 5G altogether.  The reason, as shown throughout this message, is that there is NO SAFE WAY to implement 5G in our communities; rather, there are only BAD WAYS and WORSE WAYS.  So local control means ONLY that local governments can choose among bad and worse ways.

It may seem difficult to stop 5G, but it will be easier to stop it NOW than to get it removed later after huge numbers of Maryland residents fall ill.

What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?
Maryland has rushed to implement multiple sources of radiofrequency radiation with little to no consideration of the adverse health effects.  Here are multiple examples:

Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of electricity have already been forced on homes and businesses throughout much of Maryland.  These meters bring the source of radiofrequency radiation up close and personal to the residents, even to the walls against which children sleep.  Wireless Smart Meters transmit pulses of radiofrequency radiation throughout the day and the night, every day of the year.  To escape the radiation from your own meter, you must pay your electric power company a monthly Opt-Out fee, forever, for a non-radiating meter.  At last report, about 44,000 Maryland homeowners have made this choice.  But there is NO way to escape the radiation from your neighbors' wireless meters.

Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of natural gas and water are either already implemented in parts of the State, or are being planned, and will worsen the problem already created by the Wireless Smart Meters for electricity.

Wi-Fi is implemented widely in Maryland's schools and bathes the children and the teachers in radiofrequency radiation every school day for years.  Parents with the wisdom to protect their children from such exposure MUST forfeit a public school education for those children.  All this has occurred even though the Maryland Children's Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council, which reports to the Governor, recommended phasing Wi-Fi out of the schools in favor of much safer wired technology.  (Wifi Radiation in Schools in Maryland, Final Report, December 13, 2016, page 8.  (https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf)

Many Maryland public schools have even accepted the installation of cell towers on school grounds, in payment for fees, dramatically increasing the exposure of the children and the teachers to radiofrequency radiation.

This assault on the public health by radiofrequency radiation will be completed by installation of 5G's small cell towers up and down residential and business streets, up close to Maryland residents.  These towers will operate 24 hours per day throughout the year.

What is Maryland's implicit policy on exposure to radiofrequency radiation?

Maryland's implicit policy appears to be this:

"No resident of Maryland shall be permitted to escape 24-hour exposure to radiofrequency radiation, at ever higher levels, even though such radiation has already been shown to be harmful to human health."

"Wireless technology is good by definition, so the more of it the better, no matter what its effects on health may be."

"All scientific evidence that shows that exposure to radiofrequency radiation is harmful to human health should be categorically denied, no matter what source that evidence comes from, including the National Institutes of Health, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, and the international biomedical research community more broadly."

Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?
In the simplest terms, human beings are bioelectrical in nature.  That is why electrocardiograms work when they monitor a beating heart.  And that is why electroencephalograms work when they monitor the activities in the brain.  Humans evolved in levels of radiofrequency radiation far below those produced by human technology today.  We humans are simply not designed to tolerate today's high levels of radiofrequency radiation.

When the radiofrequency radiation from cell towers, including 5G's small cell towers, and other wireless sources, hits the body, that radiation disrupts the bioelectrical workings of the body.  This disruption occurs at levels of radiation far below the Maximum Permitted Exposure limits set by the Federal Communications Commission, which are the only "official" limits in place in the U.S.A. today.  In response, the body must fight back constantly to regain control.  This battle can lead to a wide range of health problems.  Here is just a partial list:  sleep disruption, headaches, irritability, ringing in the ears, fatigue, loss of concentration and memory, nerve pain, dizziness, eye problems, nausea, heart palpitations, depression, and cancer.

No one is immune to harm, but vulnerability varies widely with the individual.  That vulnerability appears to be greatest for pregnant mothers, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, seniors, the disabled, and those with chronic health conditions.  A host of major medical conditions are now under study by the international biomedical research community to determine what role exposure to radiofrequency radiation may play in causing, or aggravating, them.  Examples include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autoimmune diseases, and Alzheimer's disease, among so many others.

The effects of radiofrequency radiation appear to be cumulative; so the longer that exposure continues, the greater the chance that an individual will be overtly affected.  Some individuals will develop a devastating condition called Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, with a host of symptoms, including extreme pain from exposure to even very low levels of radiofrequency radiation.  Just to survive, such individuals must often leave their homes and jobs, where exposure levels have proved to be too high, and move to rare locations away from radiation sources.  Such individuals regularly contact scientists (including me), physicians, and other aware individuals for advice on what to do.

What is the evidence of harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?

Thousands of archival biomedical research papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, have shown that radiofrequency radiation ("wireless radiation") is harmful to human health, not to mention the health of other living entities.  These papers have been collected and reviewed in a number of major documents.  Here are three examples of such reviews:

BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage, M.A. and David O. Carpenter, M.D., Editors, BioInitiative Report:  A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Radiation, December 31, 2012.  Written by 29 authors from 10 countries.  Draws on about 1800 references.
(http://www.bioinitiative.org)

Igor Belyaev, Amy Dean, Horst Eger, Gerhard Hubmann, Reinhold Jandrisovits, Markus Kern, Michael Kundi, Hanns Moshammer, Piero Lercher, Kurt Müller, Gerd Oberfeld, Peter Ohnsorge, Peter Pelzmann, Claus Scheingraber, and Roby Thill, EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016  for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses, Reviews of Environmental Health 2016, Vol. 31, No. 3, pages 363-397.  Draws on 308 references.
(https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-3/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.pdf)

Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., 5G Risk:  The Scientific Perspective (2019).  Addresses the intracellular mechanism of harm from wireless radiation, and the eight primary areas of biological harm.  Draws on 139 references.  (www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/5G-Risk-The-Scientific-Perspective-by-Martin-L.-Pall-The-5G-Summit-2019.pdf)

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Human Carcinogen ("possibly carcinogenic"), naming explicitly "wireless phone" radiation (cellular radiation), based on the increased risk for glioma.  Glioma is a malignant type of brain cancer that is usually fatal.  It most recently took the life of Senator John McCain and Beau Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden.  (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf)

In 2018, a massive study by the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to cancer of the nerves of the heart (schwannomas), to cancer of the brain (glioma), and to multiple other health effects in test animals.  (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html)

In 2015 and continuing, 247 scientists from 42 nations signed an appeal to the United Nations.  These are scientists who have "published peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields" (which are inclusive of radiofrequency radiation).  Their appeal was the following:

"Address the global public health concerns related to exposure to cell phones, power lines, electrical appliances, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in residential homes, schools, communities and businesses."  (https://www.emfscientist.org/)

For more information on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation, please see the website of the Environmental Health Trust, especially the "Science" tab.  (https://ehtrust.org/)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G compared to fiber-optic technology?

5G has only ONE advantage compared to a wired technology, like fiber-optic technology:  5G will support mobility, just as current cellular technologies do.  Among wireless technologies, 5G will support faster wireless data rates, enabled by its operation at higher frequencies than current cellular technologies.

But wired technology, especially fiber-optic technology, is superior to 5G in EVERY WAY other than mobility.  Fiber-optic technology produces NO radiofrequency radiation, so it poses NO health hazard and thus is far safer than 5G or any cellular technology.  Also, fiber-optic technology is MUCH faster than any wireless technology, including 5G.  And fiber-optic technology is more reliable, more cyber secure, more private, and far more energy efficient than 5G or any cellular technology.  Further, fiber-optic technology requires no cell towers and antennas.  Rather fiber-optic technology employs optical fibers that are no bigger than a wire.  These fibers are close to invisible and are easily buried.  So fiber-optic technology does not despoil the environment with massive cell towers and antennas, unlike 5G and any cellular technology.  (For a more detailed description on the limitations of 5G, see https://whatis5g.info/.)

So users of wireless technology, including 5G, will have to decide if mobility ALONE is more important for their particular application than any other factor, including their own health and the health of their families, their friends, and their communities.

Compared to fiber-optic technology, 5G is already an out-dated technology, even aside from its adverse health effects.

What is driving the implementation of 5G?

5G appears to be an effort by the wireless industries to open new profit centers, now that they have largely maxed out the profits from today's cell phone technology.  Consider these questions:

Is the hype for 5G coming more from potential providers of 5G, who hope to profit from 5G, or from potential users, who will have to pay for 5G?

Is the RUSH to implement 5G more about staking out claims to small cell sites in right-of-ways than about providing services that customers really need?

Is the RUSH to implement 5G driven by the growing awareness of the public and its representatives that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to health, and thus the providers feel that they must act quickly before resistance builds further?

What scientific studies, from impartial sources, can the providers of 5G identify that prove that 5G has NO adverse health effects on humans?  The burden of proof is on the providers.

When questioned by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal in a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (February, 7, 2019), the representatives of industry could name no existing Independent studies and none in progress that industry was supporting.  (Story:  https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks; Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4)

What should our telecommunications goals be?

Let me suggest the following:

Promote the expansion of fiber-optic technology as widely as possible, instead of degrading our environment with more harmful radiofrequency radiation, this time from 5G.

Require that the safety of 5G be proven by impartial studies before 5G can be installed in Maryland, instead of permitting the use of Maryland residents as guinea pigs to test that safety.

Join forces with other state and local governments to fight back against Federal laws and regulations that attempt to force any potentially harmful technology on the public without adequate PRIOR proof of safety.

Assert the legal right of the public to be free from the threat of assault by a wireless technology which every scientific indication to date suggests will be harmful to human health and sometimes fatal.

Who am I?

I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D. in Applied Physics from Harvard University).  During my Government career, I worked for the Executive Office of the President, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  I currently interact with other scientists, with physicians, and with aware individuals worldwide about the impact of radiofrequency radiation on human health.

I have been a resident of Montgomery County since 1979.

Respectfully,
 

Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.
 

Harvard PhD Letter to Montgomery Council on 5 Small Cell ZTA

October 2, 2019

To:The County Council of Montgomery County, MarylandFrom: Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

5G and its small cell towers threaten public health.

Implementing 5G is PURE INSANITY. It requires yielding to two of the worst trends evident in our society today:  denial of science, which provides massive evidence of harm from radiofrequency radiation; and yielding to pressure from corporations that are willing to hurt the public, without compunction, for short-term profit.

Want to know why? This message describes, as briefly as I can, the answers to the questions below.  Please read what interests you. I present these comments as a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D. in Applied Physics, Harvard University).

• Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?
• What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?
• What is Maryland's implicit policy on exposure to radiofrequency radiation?
• Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?
• What is the evidence of harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G compared to fiber-optic technology?
• What is driving the implementation of 5G?
• What should our telecommunications goals be?
• Who am I?

Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?Control by local government of the deployment of 5G's small cell towers is, indeed, an important goal, because local governments are closer to the people and can better reflect their wishes.

But there is an even more important goal:   STOPPING the deployment of 5G altogether. The reason, as shown throughout this message, is that there is NO SAFE WAY to implement 5G in our communities; rather, there are only BAD WAYS and WORSE WAYS. So local control means ONLY that local governments can choose among bad and worse ways.

It may seem difficult to stop 5G, but it will be easier to stop it NOW than to get it removed later after huge numbers of Maryland residents fall ill.What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?Maryland has rushed to implement multiple sources of radiofrequency radiation with little to no consideration of the adverse health effects. Here are multiple examples:

Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of electricity have already been forced on homes and businesses throughout much of Maryland.  These meters bring the source of radiofrequency radiation up close and personal to the residents, even to the walls against which children sleep.  Wireless Smart Meters transmit pulses of radiofrequency radiation throughout the day and the night, every day of the year.  To escape the radiation from your own meter, you must pay your electric power company a monthly Opt-Out fee, forever, for a non-radiating meter.   At last report, about 44,000 Maryland homeowners have made this choice. But there is NO way to escape the radiation from your neighbors' wireless meters.

Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of natural gas and water are either already implemented in parts of the State, or are being planned, and will worsen the problem already created by the Wireless Smart Meters for electricity.

Wi-Fi is implemented widely in Maryland's schools and bathes the children and the teachers in radiofrequency radiation every school day for years.   Parents with the wisdom to protect their children from such exposure MUST forfeit a public school education for those children.   All this has occurred even though the Maryland Children's Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council, which reports to the Governor, recommended phasing Wi-Fi out of the schools in favor of much safer wired technology. (Wifi Radiation in Schools in Maryland, Final Report, December 13, 2016, page 8.  ( https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf )

Many Maryland public schools have even accepted the installation of cell towers on school grounds, in payment for fees, dramatically increasing the exposure of the children and the teachers to radiofrequency radiation.

This assault on the public health by radiofrequency radiation will be completed by installation of 5G's small cell towers up and down residential and business streets, up close to Maryland residents.  These towers will operate 24 hours per day throughout the year.What is Maryland's implicit policy on exposure to radiofrequency radiation?Maryland's implicit policy appears to be this:

"No resident of Maryland shall be permitted to escape 24-hour exposure to radiofrequency radiation, at ever higher levels, even though such radiation has already been shown to be harmful to human health."

"Wireless technology is good by definition, so the more of it the better, no matter what its effects on health may be."

"All scientific evidence that shows that exposure to radiofrequency radiation is harmful to human health should be categorically denied, no matter what source that evidence comes from, including the National Institutes of Health, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, and the international biomedical research community more broadly."

Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?In the simplest terms, human beings are bioelectrical in nature.  That is why electrocardiograms work when they monitor a beating heart.  And that is why electroencephalograms work when they monitor the activities in the brain.Humans evolved in levels of radiofrequency radiation far below those produced by human technology today.   We humans are simply not designed to tolerate today's high levels of radiofrequency radiation.

When the radiofrequency radiation from cell towers, including 5G's small cell towers, and other wireless sources, hits the body, that radiation disrupts the bioelectrical workings of the body.  This disruption occurs at levels of radiation far below the Maximum Permitted Exposure limits set by the Federal Communications Commission, which are the only "official" limits in place in the U.S.A. today. In response, the body must fight back constantly to regain control.  This battle can lead to a wide range of health problems.  Here is just a partial list:sleep disruption, headaches, irritability, ringing in the ears, fatigue, loss of concentration and memory, nerve pain, dizziness, eye problems, nausea, heart palpitations, depression, and cancer.

No one is immune to harm, but vulnerability varies widely with the individual.That vulnerability appears to be greatest for pregnant mothers, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, seniors, the disabled, and those with chronic health conditions.  A host of major medical conditions are now under study by the international biomedical research community to determine what role exposure to radiofrequency radiation may play in causing, or aggravating, them. Examples include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autoimmune diseases, and Alzheimer's disease, among so many others.

The effects of radiofrequency radiation appear to be cumulative; so the longer that exposure continues, the greater the chance that an individual will be overtly affected.  Some individuals will develop a devastating condition called Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, with a host of symptoms, including extreme pain from exposure to even very low levels of radiofrequency radiation.  Just to survive, such individuals must often leave their homes and jobs, where exposure levels have proved to be too high, and move to rare locations away from radiation sources. Such individuals regularly contact scientists (including me), physicians, and other aware individuals for advice on what to do.What is the evidence of harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?Thousands of archival biomedical research papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, have shown that radiofrequency radiation ("wireless radiation") is harmful to human health, not to mention the health of other living entities.   These papers have been collected and reviewed in a number of major documents.   Here are three examples of such reviews:

BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage, M.A. and David O. Carpenter, M.D., Editors, BioInitiative Report:    A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Radiation, December 31, 2012.   Written by 29 authors from 10 countries.   Draws on about 1800 references.

( http://www.bioinitiative.org)

Igor Belyaev, Amy Dean, Horst Eger, Gerhard Hubmann, Reinhold Jandrisovits, Markus Kern, Michael Kundi, Hanns Moshammer, Piero Lercher, Kurt Müller, Gerd Oberfeld, Peter Ohnsorge, Peter Pelzmann, Claus Scheingraber, and Roby Thill, EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016   for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses, Reviews of Environmental Health 2016, Vol. 31, No. 3, pages 363-397.   Draws on 308 references.

( https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-3/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.pdf )

Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., 5G Risk:  The Scientific Perspective (2019). Addresses the intracellular mechanism of harm from wireless radiation, and the eight primary areas of biological harm.Draws on 139 references.  ( www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/5G-Risk-The-Scientific-Perspective-by-Martin-L.-Pall-The-5G-Summit-2019.pdf )

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Human Carcinogen ("possibly carcinogenic"), naming explicitly "wireless phone" radiation (cellular radiation), based on the increased risk for glioma. Glioma is a malignant type of brain cancer that is usually fatal.  It most recently took the life of Senator John McCain and Beau Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden.   ( https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf)

In 2018, a massive study by the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to cancer of the nerves of the heart (schwannomas), to cancer of the brain (glioma), and to multiple other health effects in test animals. ( https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html)

In 2015 and continuing, 247 scientists from 42 nations signed an appeal to the United Nations.  These are scientists who have "published peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields" (which are inclusive of radiofrequency radiation). Their appeal was the following:

"Address the global public health concerns related to exposure to cell phones, power lines, electrical appliances, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in residential homes, schools, communities and businesses." (https://www.emfscientist.org/ )

For more information on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation, please see the website of the Environmental Health Trust, especially the "Science" tab.  (https://ehtrust.org/ )What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G compared to fiber-optic technology?5G has only ONE advantage compared to a wired technology, like fiber-optic technology:  5G will support mobility, just as current cellular technologies do.   Among wireless technologies, 5G will support faster wireless data rates, enabled by its operation at higher frequencies than current cellular technologies.

But wired technology, especially fiber-optic technology, is superior to 5G in EVERY WAY other than mobility.   Fiber-optic technology produces NO radiofrequency radiation, so it poses NO health hazard and thus is far safer than 5G or any cellular technology.   Also, fiber-optic technology is MUCH faster than any wireless technology, including 5G.   And fiber-optic technology is more reliable, more cyber secure, more private, and far more energy efficient than 5G or any cellular technology.   Further, fiber-optic technology requires no cell towers and antennas.   Rather fiber-optic technology employs optical fibers that are no bigger than a wire.  These fibers are close to invisible and are easily buried.   So fiber-optic technology does not despoil the environment with massive cell towers and antennas, unlike 5G and any cellular technology.  (For a more detailed description on the limitations of 5G, see https://whatis5g.info/.)

So users of wireless technology, including 5G, will have to decide if mobility ALONE is more important for their particular application than any other factor, including their own health and the health of their families, their friends, and their communities.

Compared to fiber-optic technology, 5G is already an out-dated technology, even aside from its adverse health effects.What is driving the implementation of 5G?5G appears to be an effort by the wireless industries to open new profit centers, now that they have largely maxed out the profits from today's cell phone technology.   Consider these questions:

Is the hype for 5G coming more from potential providers of 5G, who hope to profit from 5G, or from potential users, who will have to pay for 5G?

Is the RUSH to implement 5G more about staking out claims to small cell sites in right-of-ways than about providing services that customers really need?

Is the RUSH to implement 5G driven by the growing awareness of the public and its representatives that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to health, and thus the providers feel that they must act quickly before resistance builds further?

What scientific studies, from impartial sources, can the providers of 5G identify that prove that 5G has NO adverse health effects on humans?   The burden of proof is on the providers.

When questioned by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal in a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (February, 7, 2019), the representatives of industry could name no existing Independent studies and none in progress that industry was supporting.   (Story   https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks ; Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4)

What should our telecommunications goals be?Let me suggest the following:

Promote the expansion of fiber-optic technology as widely as possible, instead of degrading our environment with more harmful radiofrequency radiation, this time from 5G.

Require that the safety of 5G be proven by impartial studies before 5G can be installed in Maryland, instead of permitting the use of Maryland residents as guinea pigs to test that safety.

Join forces with other state and local governments to fight back against Federal laws and regulations that attempt to force any potentially harmful technology on the public without adequate PRIOR proof of safety.

Assert the legal right of the public to be free from the threat of assault by a wireless technology which every scientific indication to date suggests will be harmful to human health and sometimes fatal.

Who am I?I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D. in Applied Physics from Harvard University). During my Government career, I worked for the Executive Office of the President, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.I currently interact with other scientists, with physicians, and with aware individuals worldwide about the impact of radiofrequency radiation on human health.

I have been a resident of Montgomery County since 1979.

Respectfully,
Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.
Montgomery Village, MD20886-4007

__._,_.___

WUSA: Alarming' radio frequency predictions in Takoma Park

WUSA: Verizon permit delayed over 'alarming' radio frequency predictions in Takoma Park

A Lot at Stake in Montgomery County

Forwarding a message..

I’m writing to all of you because you live in Montgomery County and there is something very big at stake for all of us. Hans Reimer who is on the Montgomery County Council is leading a telecom industry wide (Verizon, AT&T, T-mobile etc…) campaign to bring 5G to Montgomery County in a quick and pervasive way. He is looking to shut down conversations on possible health implications (Alzheimers, Neurodegenerative Diseases, ADHD, Cancer) and create the close proximity of installation of microwave towers (25-30 feet outside of your house) that you will not be able to turn off and will have constant radiation exposure to 24 x7. We have no data or studies on implications for long term exposure to this millimeter radiation.

The only way we can offset this widespread installation here is if people show up to this particular meeting and collectively say no to this. All you need to do is show up and we will provide you signs to hold up that say either “Safe5G” or “No5G Right Now”. Our motto is let’s say “No until we Know” it’s safe. We are also proposing the creation of a state wide commission to study this so we have more data on what the real risks are.


Please do whatever it takes to come to this meeting and forward this email to as many people as you know in Montgomery County. The future of our health, privacy, and way of life is at stake and very few people are aware of what is happening and the long term implications for us and the next generation. I look forward to seeing you there!


Many blessings,

Sandy in Montgomery County 

Enicinitas California to Pass Protective Ordinance!

Enicinitas  California  passed a potentially protective small cell wireless policy on Oct. 30th, with a promise to add more protections! 

SECTION10. LOCATION STANDARDS (Policy Page 23-24)

(a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted

Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13:

(1) any location within a residential zone;
(2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit; and
(3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare center or primary school.

Encinitas to amend 5G wireless policy

by Tawny McCray , Coast News Group, November 7, 2019

Photo caption: Local residents Dana Plant, left, and Viraja Prema attend a protest organized by the group Stop 5G Encinitas outside City Hall before a council meeting on Oct. 30. Council members voted during the meeting to amend controversial policies related to up-and-coming 5G technology by placing new restrictions on where 5G cell towers could go up in the city.

ENCINITAS — The Encinitas City Council took some of the concerns of its residents into consideration last week when it voted Oct. 30 to amend its controversial 5G wireless policy, excluding cell towers from going up in residential areas, parks and high-risk fire hazard areas.

The towers, which have already started going up in the city, also cannot be installed within 500 feet of a daycare center, school or a home that is not in a residential zone.

Some of the amendments are in response to public input from a September workshop on the issue that was attended by about 200 residents. Some people at that workshop also indicated they wanted to restrict 5G towers from going up at or near hospitals. According to a city report, that request was not being included because Scripps Hospital does not support the restriction, saying it would be detrimental to the hospital’s daily operation needs.

Before the vote about 20 people spoke before the council, and all but one — a representative with Scripps — expressed continuing concerns about the cell towers. Another nearly 80 attendees did not speak but turned in slips to the city clerk indicating their opposition.

“The industry wants the world to be blanketed by cell antennas both on the ground where people live and sleep 24/7 and in the air with thousands of satellites emitting this radiation,” said Encinitas resident Deborah Sie. “There is no opting out of this, no free choice.”

Sie said that since 5G has been rolled out there have been numerous testimonies of harm and side effects being reported immediately and within days. Symptoms can include severe headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, memory loss, impaired learning and intense tinnitus.

Corinne Shriner, an Encinitas resident for more than 25 years and a member of the Stop 5G Encinitas group, said she has a personal interest in this issue, claiming technology has played a role in making her sick (she didn’t disclose the specifics of her illness but said she started getting sick in May).

“Once I got the … radio frequency … WiFi and others out of my house many symptoms were gone pretty rapidly, within days to weeks and I continue to improve,” she said.

Shriner said the Stop 5G group hired an attorney who has suggested 26 amendments to the current policy.

“And out of those one is probably passing right now …  there’s a lot more change that needs to be had,” she said.

Amber Ter-Vrugt from Scripps said for the past decade a technological transformation has been happening at the Encinitas hospital, with more changes anticipated and expected from patients and families. She said the hospital was appreciative that it and other health care facilities have not been put into this regulation.

“All of our planning is pointed at increased wireless capabilities in our facilities,” she said. She later added, “We’ve built a hybrid infrastructure in our facilities to ensure connectivity needs are met everywhere in our facilities so we can dynamically switch between wireless and cellular service.”

In August the Encinitas City Council adopted its new “urgency” ordinance to regulate small wireless facilities and other infrastructure deployments in the public rights-of-way. This was in response to the latest ruling by the Federal Communications Commission, which has ordered local governments to remove any regulatory barriers and speed the transition to the new technology.

After public comment at last week’s meeting, Councilman Tony Kranz said to him the issue is more about giving people a choice.

“I’ve got WiFi all over my house but if you don’t want to have WiFi in your house I don’t think you should be getting pounded with signals” he said.

He said that while the overwhelming majority of speakers at the meeting take issue with 5G towers, there are also many residents in the city who think it’s “the greatest thing since sliced bread” and want it installed. He said those residents maybe haven’t been as active at meetings because it’s not always easy to express a different opinion.

“In the end I think that it’s fair to take some steps that I think will protect you to the greatest extent possible,” Kranz concluded.

The council voted unanimously in favor of the amendments. They said they will consider other community-suggested amendments at a later meeting.

https://www.thecoastnews.com/encinitas-to-amend-5g-wireless-policy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTvNsvWih5g

Encinitas braces for 5G, amends city regulations https://www.encinitasadvocate.com/news/story/2019-10-31/encinitas-braces-for-5g  

Regular City Council Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

Oct 30, 2019

02h 26m

Agenda

Video

MP3 Audio

VIDEO OF ENCINITAS MEETING - AGENDA ITEM 10 SMALL CELL WIRELESS POLICY https://encinitas.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=2025