Category: Cell towers

STOP cell towers on every block in California #STOPSB649

Cell towers emit harmful radiation.
If Senate Bill 649 passes you could awake in 2018 to find a cell tower outside your bedroom window, or on your children’s school. Senate Bill 649 would create a state mandated system of cell towers every couple hundred feet apart.  SB 649 would harm California.

SB 649 would eliminate local control and public input.  It would allow refrigerator-size cell equipment on utility poles, streetlights, sidewalks, in parks, on schools, hospitals, and any public building with no safety oversight. Only fire stations, coastal commission and historic areas are exempt. Cities would have no recourse to remove a tower even if every resident complained.

Peer-reviewed published science shows harmful effects of cell tower radiation include: fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, ringing in the ears, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, increased cancer risk, and more.  Children are especially vulnerable. See  Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation  and www.emfscientist.org

SB 649 would harm nature. Peer reviewed published studies found radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects.  Studies of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf More studies here: http://www.emfresearch.com/emf-wildlife/

SB 649 would lay the groundwork for 5G millimeter wave technology.  What is 5G?  See this fact sheet.  Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter waves adversely affect health. https://goo.gl/gbBKHL More studies here.

300 cities, 47 (out of 58) counties, and dozens of health, environment, consumer, and justice organizations representing millions of Californians have opposed SB 649. Organizations opposed to SB 649 9:8:2017

Here are letters from specific groups: Environmental Working Group  AARP American Association of Retired Persons  Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments  Ecological Options Network, EMF Safety Network  Dr. Golomb Oppose SB 649

UPDATE! Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB 649!

On October 15 Governor Brown Vetoed SB 649!  Can you thank him? You can call his office, send a letter by mail, fax, or contact him through his website.

Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841 Fax: (916) 558-3160

 

 

SB 649 is a shameless gift to the telecom industry

photo courtesy Kevin MottusIf Senate Bill 649 passes…
in 2018 you could awake to a cell tower right outside your bedroom window.

Unless you live in a fire station, a coastal commission or a historical city, SB 649 would put cell towers in every neighborhood and countryside in California. SB 649 would only allow design of how refrigerator sized equipment on and near poles can look.

Over the counter permits would eliminate local review of radiation impacts and essentially deregulate the telecom industry.  300 California cities and 47 counties oppose SB 649.

SB 649 will increase harmful radiation pollution.  Independent scientists are calling for immediate action to reduce radiation:

“Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.” https://www.emfscientist.org/

Peer reviewed published studies found radiation causes a wide range of health impacts including sleep problems, headaches, tinnitus, DNA damage and cancer. Children are more vulnerable.

“The harmful effects of electromagnetic fields, regardless of their frequencies, are now scientifically settled. Pregnant women (the fetus) and children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable.”- Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Paris V Descartes University, European Cancer & Environment Research institute.

Peer reviewed published studies found radiation harms nature, trees, birds, and bees. Studies of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment, plumage deterioration and death. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

Read our opposition letter here: SB 649 UPDATE 7:6:2017

SB 649 abandons the public to trust the telecom industry to certify radiation safety.

EMFSN, EON and CABTA in the news on KPFA and here.

Health, environment, consumer, and justice organizations  representing millions of Californians have opposed SB 649 including:  Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club California, California League of Conservation Voters, AARP American Association of Retired Persons, Association of Environmental Professionals, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, California Communities Against Toxics, Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for Health, SF Public Utilities Commission, The Greenlining Institute, The Utility Reform Network, Teens Turning Green, As You Sow, Baby Safe Project, Bay Area Educators for Safe Tech, California Brain Tumor Association, Chico Chapter of Weston A. Price Foundation, Citizens For A Radiation Free Community, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, Daily Acts, East Bay Move to Amend, Ecological Options Network, EMF Safety Network, Environmental Health Trust, Environmental Voices, EMR Protection Forum, Grassroots Environmental Education, Green Sangha, Health & Habitat Inc, Healthy 880 Communities, Law Offices of Harry V. Lehmann PC, Marin Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Mom’s Across America, Moms Advocating Sustainability, National Association For Children and Safe Technology, Parents for a Safer Environment, The Peoples Initiative Foundation, Physicians for Safe Technology, Radiation Research Trust, Sacramento Smart Meter Awareness, Sage Associates, Scientists for Wired Technology, Seniors for Environmental Awareness, Stop Smart Meters, Veterans for Radiation Safety, Windheim EMF Solutions, Wireless Radiation Alert Network, Wireless Radiation Education and Defense, and Your Own Health and Fitness.

The majority of these groups listed above oppose SB 649 based on the science of wireless harm.

The Communication and Conveyance committee passed the bill on  July 12. The Assembly Appropriations Committee passed the bill on September 1.

The State Assembly and Senate barely passed SB 649 and the bill now awaits the Governor’s signature or veto.  Find how your representatives voted here: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/sb-649-barely-passes-the-assembly-moves-to-the-senate/

Update on Oct.15, 2017 Governor Brown Vetoed SB 649!

Oppose SB-649 “small cells” in California

July 15, 2017 update to this post is here: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/sb-649-is-a-shameless-gift-to-the-telecom-industry/

Would you want to have these all over your town, in your neighborhood, maybe even in front of your house?

SB-649 is a current California Senate bill introduced by Senator Hueso.  EMF Safety Network opposes this bill because it will fast track wireless radiation antenna deployments in our neighborhoods and communities, and thwart public participation.

The League of California Cities opposes SB-649.  They describe it stating, “This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of “small cells.”

How to oppose SB-649 “Wireless telecommunications facilities”

Please submit your comments by April 3rd!

1.  Go to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649

2.  Scroll down and click on “Comments to Author”

3.  If you have not registered you will need to do so.

4.  After you register click the circle “oppose” and send your comments (2000 characters) to the author by March 28.  If you are representing a group please sign as such.  Before you click submit, copy your comments into a separate email.

5.  Send the same comments to your State Senator which you can find here:  Type in your address and city.  http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

EMF Safety Network and Ecological Options Network sent the following letter opposing SB-649.

Suggested comments:  If you need help with what to say you can use any or all of these comments which are adapted in part from the California League of Cities form letter, and our letter.

Dear Senator Hueso,

I respectfully oppose SB-649. This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of “small cells.”

International scientists and doctors advise reducing wireless radiation exposure to protect public and environmental health.

Wireless disrupts cellular communication, damages immune and nervous systems, desynchronizes brain and heart rhythms, and causes headaches, sleep problems, tinnitus, anxiety and a host of other health problems.

5G millimeter wave technology is scientifically shown to affect humans, penetrating the skin and affecting biological systems

There is no substantial evidence to support SB649’s determination that the deployment fits the CEQA exemption. There is substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the project may create environmental impacts.

The National Toxicology Program published a 25 million dollar study which is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies on cell phone radiation and cancer. In the study the rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed two types of cancers, glioma, a brain tumor, and schwannoma, a tumor in the heart.

This bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life of their residents, and to protect public property and the public right-of-way from relatively unconstrained access by small cells.

Neither the CPUC, nor the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can be relied on to serve the public interest because they are both regulatory captured agencies.

SB 649 goes too far by requiring local governments to approve “small cells” in all land use zones, including residential zones, through a ministerial permit, thereby shutting the public out of decisions that could affect the aesthetics of their community and the quality of their environment.

Thank you!

[your name]

“I’m shouting, but no-one is listening!” How to talk to people about wireless radiation.

Rachel Gaunt has an extensive 20 year background in advertising, marketing and social activism. Rachel has written this article, “I’m shouting, but no-one is listening! How to talk to people about wireless radiation so they can hear…and care” to help EMF activists.

She writes, “Why is it that our earnest explanations about the dangers of wireless radiation so often fall on deaf ears? Why in the face of so much science are people not rushing to protect themselves?

I have long been an observer of humans and how they behave, and have spent a long time puzzling the resistance and denial that conversations about wireless radiation can generate.  Recently, a meeting with behavior expert, Matthew Wilcox, author of The Business of Choice, helped to provide the final pieces of the puzzle.

When you look at the way humans make decisions, it turns out that there are three major factors working against us when it comes to shifting beliefs about wireless radiation.

Three factors working against us

First and foremost there is the “It will never happen to me,” response to anything bad that may happen to us in the future. This is especially true among young people.

“It will never happen to me. I am never going to die. It might happen to someone else but not to me.”…

Read Rachel Gaunt’s full article here: I’m shouting but no-one is listening!”

Trees injured by cell tower radiation

Scientists in Germany studied tree damage in relation to electromagnetic radiation for nine years, from 2006-2015.  They monitored, observed and photographed unusual or unexplainable tree damage, and measured the radiation the trees were exposed too.

“The aim of this study was to verify whether there is a connection between unusual (generally unilateral) tree damage and radiofrequency exposure.”
They found significant differences between the damaged side of a tree facing a phone mast and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups of trees in both sides. They found no tree damage in low radiation areas.
The 30 selected trees in low radiation areas (no visual contact to any phone mast and power flux density under 50μW/m2) showed no damage.
The scientists concluded, “Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees.”  Link to the study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133?dopt=Abstract#
Damaged Magnolia trees across the street from a cell tower

Dangers of EMF radiation

Psychic and author Joseph Martin interviews Building Biologist and EMF specialist Eric Windheim on electromagnetic fields and radiation (EMF) hazards. Joseph and Eric bring a candid and humorous approach to the discussion of the science and risk of harm from everyday EMF exposure in the modern world.

FCC approves 5G

Wheeler
FCC President Tom Wheeler

Today the FCC Commissioners unanimously approved a nationwide 5G network.  5G is 24GHz frequencies and higher, also known as millimeter waves. They expressed concern about security risks, and the need to ensure localities, that’s your town and mine, accept the smaller cell sites which will require a higher density deployment.

How will these higher frequencies affect the environment? This is an experiment we don’t want.

This year, the US government, led by the National Toxicology Program linked cancer to cell phone radiation. This study is a game changer for the need to eliminate wireless frequencies (wi-fi, smart meters, cell towers, etc) in our homes and cities.
5G will take a few years to deploy, so we still have time to make a case for stopping deployment.  Stay tuned…

 

Harmful effects of smart meters, cell phones and wireless by Jerry Flynn, military radio expert

Jerry Flynn is retired Captain in the Communications Electronics Engineering Branch from the Canadian Armed Forces. He extensively studied radio communications, including radio and antenna theory, the radio frequency spectrum, radar and telephone systems, electronic warfare, signals intelligence, and more.