THE ELMONTE NEIGHBORHOOD ASS. APPEAL WINS!

We won here is the city resolution signed by all the five commissioners! They all had the citizens interest at heart.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS that the Planning Commission does hereby uphold AP 07-001 and deny the application of T-Mobile at 3517 Clayton Road based on the following findings:
Section 1.
1. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a significant gap in its coverage area that requires the placement of this facility at this location.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed location is the least intrusive to the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:

A temporary victory, the appeal was upheld until Aug 15th planning commision meeting!

The job one will be to populate the August 15Th meeting at 7 pm. The commissioners wants to consider the gap in coverage that T-Mobil claims exists. Thank you Luciano for all your hard work. thank you Joe P. for your support, Thank you Pam for your speach and everone else who spoke and supported the effort. Thank you David for the research and inpashioned speech. Thanks to the editing staff and typest.



1. Why are we here today?
a. The document you have in front of you is ready for you to sign with all the necessary backup documents, and with instructions for you DENY our appeal. We were preparing additional documentation for this meeting when it became painfully obvious that none of our research that we provided in the past was included or considered in the decision to put this monstrosity in our neighborhood a neighborhood that has an estimated 100 homes and business within 400 ft of tower, and the nearest neighbor within 50 feet. Most people in our association are not here today because they feel that we have already lost. I am sure you have read your staff report’ but has anyone among you read and understand our documentation that we presented to the city? Has anyone on the board seen or know that we donated 2 of each of these books to the city for your review?
The cell-phone industry spent $25,000,000 over 6 years to prove the safety of cell phones. In the end Dr. George Carlo head of research announced that the study proved that cell radiation was unsafe and wrote this book outline the danger, much to the industries dismay.
2. Let me tell you about what we have provided to your staff that has been ignored.
a. Everything I will say to you today has been documented with references, studies and case law.
3. We are told that due to federal law you can not consider siting issues based on health dangers to residents. I will tell you in a moment about an Issue that this city must consider related to the health issue, it like everything else we presented was ignored in your staff report.
a. No place in this city is there a tower of this magnitude mixed in with neighbors, business, churches and the El Monte School.
b. T-Mobil study states that the tower can broadcast 3,000 watts of pulsed microwave radiation in any one direction. The tower is designed to support 4 carriers thus it could bombard any and all houses in a 360 degree ark with 12,000 pulsed watts of microwave radiation, 24 hours per day 7 days per week. This is the very same microwave radiation used in your microwave oven and military weaponry. Ignored also was studies provided to you outline the danger to children due to their thin skulls and developing bodies.

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME THE REVELANCE OF HEALTH ISSUES TO THE CITY WILL BECOME APPARENT.

4. Some of the real documented dangers to the neighbors that we provided to staff are:
5. Decreased childhood memory and slower learning
6. More childhood leukemia when exposed to RF
7. Headaches caused by RF exposure
8. Increased blood pressure in healthy men
9. Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medicine
10. Changes in REM Sleep Patterns
11. Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells
12. A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice (lab tests)
13. Changes in tumor growth in rats (lab tests)
14. Increased breaks in double and single stranded genetic DNA
15. Studies in other countries prove that the damage inflicted is in direct relationship to the distance from the tower. See (b) (c)
. The FCC is not a public HEALTH agency. Federal health Agencies disagree that safe levels of exposure have been identified, much less built into the FCC standard.
The Environmental protection Agency does not agree with the FCC standard and recommended that “EMR be classified as a probable human carcinogen”.
16. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION notes reports of “cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss and additionally adverse changes in the behavior and development of children.”
All the epidemiologic and provocative research with living humans finds negative effects, from unacceptable sleep disturbances to serious illness and disablement. Therefore, the conclusion can only be: it is irresponsible to place phone masts in the vicinity of places where people live and work. (a)
17. Havas’ report discusses a number of health effects that have been documented at levels below the FCC exposure limit, including headaches, insomnia, memory loss, slowed reaction time, impaired motor function, DNA breakage and childhood leukemia. These effects occur at levels constituting of a small percentage of the safety threshold set by the FCC under its RFR exposure guidelines. Havas also points out that the FCC guidelines are based on short-term exposures (30 minutes) and do not take into consideration the long-term exposures.(b)

18. Cumulative Radio Frequency Radiation

a. Low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and damage. Some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the .01 to 100m W/cm2 range at levels hundreds, indeed, thousands of times lower than the US standards. These harmful levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location. Documented health problems include Headache, Sleep Disorders, Memory Impairment, Nosebleeds, an increase in Seizures, Blood Brain Barrier Leakage, increased heart rates, lower sperm counts, and Impaired Nervous Systems. (Bridlewood EMF’s) information Service 1999.

19. Children are particularly susceptible to EMF due to their smaller body size, thinner skulls and more rapidly dividing cells. We are concerned for the children’s safety at the El Monte Elementary School.

20. We implore the City to practice prudent avoidance when locating this harmful tower. The city is our last line of defense.

21. NO NEED FOR THIS TOWER exists, we used T-Mobil’s own Coverage Map. We personally tried a T-mobile phone in the weakest areas and found acceptable reception. (attachment d)

a. In their rebuttal T-Mobil did not claim that there were any dropped calls or that any gaps existed. They state “we are expanding and improving out network in line with this a new cell site is required at this desired location”.

Why has the planning commission ignored our work and case law outlined below that pertains to this issue?

The FCC states that “signal strengths that will allow for adequate coverage and adequate capacity, not blanket coverage. The right to determine signal strength at the local level has been upheld in federal case law in U.S. Sprint vs.. Willoth, and by the FCC. The FCC only requires 75% coverage of an area – not 100% coverage”
Federal appeals courts, including California’s own Ninth Court of Appeals in the case of Metro PCS v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F .3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005), have ruled that local governments have the authority to deny applications to build cellular towers unless the applicant proves that a ‘significant gap’ in a particular wireless carrier’s service exists in that area. It must be noted, that ‘gaps’ in service are permissible and do not require that a permit be issued; it is only when a gap is ‘significant’ that a City may be required to issue a permit.

San Francisco, Berkley and other many other California cities have gone to bat for their residents, why is the Planning Commission pushing this disaster on us? Why is your staff telling us you have no choice but to approve the siting?
“Under this rule, which is based on a strict plain meaning analysis, individual zoning decisions or persistent coverage gaps can never constitute a prohibition under the statute - courts must ask only whether local governments have (effectively) banned wireless services altogether…“[t]he fact that some carrier provides some service to some consumers does not in itself mean that the town has not effectively prohibited services to other consumers.” 400 F.3d at 730-731.

Where a significant gap exists, the proposed site is required to be the ‘least intrusive, alternative’ for filling that significant gap. Id. At 734-5. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that other, less intrusive alternatives do not exist. Id.
.

22. PROPERTY VALUES The Health Group study is at best just garbage, and I am surprised the city would take it seriously, you have not read or considered it conclusions. Would you say that the Health Group were out of touch when they said on April 27th while describing the siting location “Beyond the commercial corridor are residential neighborhoods to the north and south of the site. THESE SUBDIVISION, HOWEVER, WERE MORE THAN A HALF-MILE AWAY” Would it surprise anyone that after we brought this fact to the staff’s attention and that the nearest home building (not property) was 50’ away and that also a approximately a hundred homes and business are located within 400 ft. The Health Group changed their description but still found that the tower would not effect property values. This is just more Garbage Research.
a. Consider the comparison of the properties they used, were the disguised flag pole with flag is near nearly two blocks away. (Attachment E1)
b. Compare that to a to a phony 54’ tree in the back yard of densely populated neighborhood. Members of the board how does that make sense? See photos (attachment f1 f2)
c. Sun Valley Mall comparison makes no sense because no one knows that it is there on the roof and no homes are near!
d. Free Methodist Church is also not a fair comparison. The tower is located on a hill with only a couple homes located two hundred yards away. The tower has no other building other than the church with in a quarter of a mile. This does not make sense and is not a like comparison. (attachment g)
e. Your staff has given no consideration to our quote of national experience. (attachment e)

23. Liability assumed by The City of Concord. The industry and municipalities all over the US are mired in Class Action suits. By issuing this permit, despite proven health concerns, and where no real need has been demonstrated, the City of Concord puts itself at risk for future personal injury and class action litigation.
24. The Planning Commission has stated what the Cell Industry will not say, quote “The project, as designed, is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and aesthetics of the surrounding area.

See Cell Towers “Everyone with a stake in siting decisions near populated areas are lawsuits-waiting-to-happen. There is no statute of limitation on health effects claims for EMF damage

DW Horizons is the company that Concord has elected to business with,
have no visible assets. You have not asked them if they have built a tower before. You do not know who owns the Delaware LLC. They are a limited liability company and when the suits start flying as a result of radiation damage to the neighbors, the city of Concord and the property owners will stand-alone. Ref. Cell Towers “with a LLC most of the finical assets are in other holding companies and are there for out of reach. Many service providers are selling their own towers to LLC to limit their liability”. The city does not know nor can they find out who the owners or limited partners are; in Delaware LLS owners can change and stock can be traded with no public record. Is it possible that Horizon forms a new LLC each time it applies for a tower? Who will own the tower? What if the site is contaminated? If DW Horizons walk away from the tower, who does Concord hold responsible? Has the Horizons LLC been sued?
On the internet anyone can form a Delaware LLC in five minutes for $299. Delaware will not publicly share any information about a Delaware LLC.
The City of Concord, apparently, can demand and get more information from a bum walking down the street than they can from the LLC company that wants to install a harmful cell tower in our back yard.

25. The planning staff has stated that if tower meets state and federal standards it must be approved. This is simply not true Supreme Court Judge Bryer said, “STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES WOULD REMAIN FREE TO MAKE SITING DECISIONS” Your staff has been accepting every thing DW Horizons has been feeding them! Consider the case law that follows and has been ignored.

Supreme Court Ruling says: “RANCHO PALOS VERDES v. ABRAMS BREYER, J., concurring tions Commission wireless tower siting policy that would pre-empt state and local authority. Ibid.; see also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104–458, p. 207 (1996). But Congressultimately rejected the national approach and substituted a system based on cooperative federalism. Id., at 207–208. State and local authorities would remain free to make siting decisions. They would do so, however, subject to minimum federal standards—both substantive and procedural—as well as federal judicial review.
The statute requires local zoning boards, for example, to address permit applications “within a reasonable period”.”


(a) All the epidemiologic and provocative research with living humans find negative effects, from unacceptable sleep disturbances to serious illness and disablement. Therefore, the conclusion can only be: it is irresponsible to place phone masts in the vicinity of places where people live and work.Note that wireless communication systems like DECT, WLAN, WIFI and TETRA principally generate the same kind of pulsed radiofrequency radiation as GSM and UMTS (3G), so the approval of these systems for use in the vicinity of people is irresponsible as well. The second conclusion is, the current exposure limits are much too high. The values of the research are from 100 microWatt/m2 to a few thousand microWatt/m2 (0,2 V/m to 1 V/m). The limits advised by bodies like ICNIRP, NRPBand the Dutch Health Council are about 10.000.000 microWatt/m2. They protect only from the effects of overheating, not from the impact on well-being and health.
[1] Bortkiewicz A, Zmyslony M, Szyjkowska A, Gadzicka E (2004),

Subjective symptoms reported by people living in the vicinity of cellular phone base
stations,Med Pr. 2004; 55 (4):345-51
(b)Dr. Havas, who specializes in electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure health effects, writes that while there have been no studies to date on the effects of exposure to WiFi, the potential for harm can best be seen by examining the scientific evidence emerging from studies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere on people living near cell phone antennas. These studies report adverse biological and health effects at radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposures well below levels the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) says are safe. Havas’ report discusses a number of health effects that have been documented at levels below the FCC exposure limit, including headaches, insomnia, memory loss, slowed reaction time, impaired motor function, DNA breakage and childhood leukemia. These effects occur at levels constituting a small percentage of the safety threshold set by the FCC under its RFR exposure guidelines. Havas also points out that the FCC guidelines are based on short-term exposures (30 minutes) and do not take into consideration the long-term exposures.

Abstract (c)
A health survey was carried out in Murcia, Spain, in the vicinity of a Cellular Phone Base Station working in DCS-1800 MHz. This survey contained health items related to "microwave sickness" or "RF syndrome." The microwave power density was measured at the respondents' homes. Statistical analysis showed significant correlation between the declared severity of the symptoms and the measured power density. The separation of respondents into two different exposure groups also showed an increase of the declared severity in the group with the higher exposure.


NO DAMAGE AND ATTORNEYS FEE PER THE SUPREME COURT COURT
RANCHO PALOS VERDES v. ABRAMS STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment In this case the statute’s text, structure, and history all provide convincing evidence that Congress intended the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) to operate as a comprehensive and exclusive remedial scheme. The struc­ture of the statute appears fundamentally incompatible with the private remedy offered by §1983.* Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence in the legislative history suggesting that, despite this structure, Congress intended plaintiffs to be able to recover damages and attorney’s fees. Thus, petitioners have made “the difficult showing that allowing §1983 actions to go forward in these circum­stances ‘would be inconsistent with Congress’ carefully tailored scheme.’ ” Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U. S. 329, 346 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Golden State Tran­sit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103, 107 (1989)). therefore join the judgment of the Court without reserva­

Congressional silence is surely pro­bative in this case because, despite the fact that awards of damages and attorney’s fees could have potentially disas­trous consequences for the likely defendants in most pri­vate actions under the TCA, see Primeco Personal Com­munications v. Mequon, 352 F. 3d 1147, 1152 (CA7 2003), nowhere in the course of Congress’ lengthy deliberations is there any hint that Congress wanted damages or attor-ney’s fees to be available. That silence reinforces every other clue that we can glean from the statute’s text and structure.
For these reasons, I concur in the Court’s judgment.

Why does it not matter to this city that over 250 of its residents do not want this dangerous tower in their back yard. Why do you persist when we have proved that it is not needed or legally necessary to site.

· It will harm residents
· Concord can anticipate class action suits over property values, medical damages, property value devaluation
· DW horizons is a legal non-entity
· The tower is not needed
· Concord has a legal basis to deny
· T-Mobile can not sue because of Supreme court’s rulings

You can be sure El Monte Neighborhood association will not go away

Sincerely,
El Monte neighborhood association
wireless presentation 8/1/07

FLYER BEFORE MEETING, LAST AND ONLY CHANCE TO STOP THE DEADLY CELL TOWER

LAST CHANCE TO STOP THE ELMONTE CELLTOWER

Don’t let your family become a victim of the following conditions and especially your children with thin skulls.

Make your voice heard in opposition to the Concord’s planning department’s approval of a Cell Tower located behind the old Bank of America Bldg at 3517 Clayton Rd Concord, CA.

Studies of Cell-Towers world wide shows that even while emitting LEGAL LIMITS of Non Thermal Microwave Radio Radiation (RF) those that live next to a cell tower worldwide are experiencing:

See backup sources for all statements listed below and more at: http://elmontecelltowerappeal.blogspot.com/
· Decreased childhood memory and slower learning
· More childhood leukemia when exposed to RF
· Headaches caused by RF exposure
· Increased blood pressure in healthy men
· Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medicine
· Changes in REM Sleep Patterns
· Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells
· A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice (lab tests)
· Changes in tumor growth in rats (lab tests)
· Increased breaks in double and single stranded genetic DNA
· Too many health issues to list here see web site above for more!
· THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION notes reports of “cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss and additionally adverse changes in the behavior and development of children.”
We need YOU at this Planning-Commission’s-Appeal or you WILL get the tower in your back yard with the potential of 12,000 watts of power in any one direction. If RF can penetrate a block building is there any doubt it can penetrate your flesh? It’s a Health Hazard worse than any other your family faces.

WHERE? Civic Center 1950 Parkside Dr Building (building with water around it)
WHEN? August 1st Wed evening 7pm

El MONTE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION over 250 of your Neighbors fighting City Hall and Corporate Capitalism!

Ossing High school a village New York State BEATS CELL INDUSTRY

These people won against the cell industry, we can too with our city’s help!

A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?

The Ossining School Board voted to allow placement of a PCS Base Station atop the Ossining High School on the basis of a "Safety Analysis" which claimed to report the health effects of the radiation emitted from such antennas.(1) Instead, it suppressed current areas of controversy and uncertainty and claimed falsely that this technology is, in effect, universally considered safe.
Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF) remain! Should we expose our children and ourselves to this radiation for the next twenty years when so much uncertainty exists?
Our School Board was told that concerns about health effects from exposure to magnetic fields from electric power distribution lines or the use of hand held cell phones are based on fear, not fact. The Board was not told that a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel this year designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens."(2)
There is a robust and ongoing controversy over many aspects of RF health effects. While no one disagrees that serious health hazards occur when living cells in the body are heated, as happens with high intensity RF exposure (just like in a microwave oven), scientists are currently still investigating the health hazards of low intensity exposure. Low intensity exposure is exposure which does not raise the temperature of the living cells in the body.
The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, a "thermal effect." They point to "safety standards" from groups such as ANSI/IEEE or ICNIRP to support their claims. But these groups have explicitly stated that their claims of "safe levels of exposure" are based on thermal levels.(3) Thus the claim that the RF exposure is harmless rests on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in temperature, a "thermal effect."
There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of nonthermal effects of microwave radiation. The issue at the present time is not whether such evidence exists, but rather what weight to give it.
Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF research have shown that RF of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the radiation was too low to cause heating. They have found:
Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells(4)
A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice(5)
Changes in tumor growth in rats(6)
An increased number of tumors in rats(7)
Increased breaks in double and single stranded DNA, our genetic material(8)
2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF(9)
More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF(10)
Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep(11)
Headaches caused by RF exposure(12)
Neurologic changes(13) including
Changes in the blood-brain-barrier(14)
Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death)(15)
Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG)(16)
Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception)(17)
Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance)(18)
Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases)(19)
Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children(20)
Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory"(21)
Increased blood pressure in healthy men(22)
Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications(23)

Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open questions. These include:
The World Health Organization, noting reports of "cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children."(24)
The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)(25)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)(26)
The Swedish Work Environmental Fund(27)
The National Cancer Institute (NCI)(28)
The European Commission (EC)(29)
New Zealand's Ministry of Health(30)
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia(31)
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO)(32)

Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF and health to be potential health hazards. Safe levels of RF exposure for these low intensity, non-thermal effects have not yet been established.
The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are "safe."(33)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected the current (ANSI/IEEE) safety standards because they are based on thermal effects alone.(34)
Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF. The CSIRO study, for example, notes that there are no clear cutoff levels at which low intensity exposure has no effect, and that the results of ongoing studies will take years to analyze.(35)
The county of Palm Beach, FL, the state of California, and the country of New Zealand have all prohibited cellular antennas near schools due to safety concerns.
What should we do while waiting for the much needed answers about the non-thermal effects of RF? This is the question we, as parents, students, and Ossining residents must answer.
The Board of Education has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the best interests of the students of our schools and of our community in general. The commercial interests of outside profit-making corporations can play no role in their decisions.
We simply don't know at this time what the possible health consequences of long term, low level exposure to RF of the type used by the PCS Base Station antenna will be. No one knows--the data just isn't there. The chairman of the ICNIRP, one of the main groups which formulated the current exposure guidelines, has stated that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive.(36)
Should we allow ourselves to take this risk?
Should we allow our children to take this risk?

School buildings, youth centers, and other places where children are found are not the proper place for a technology which could endanger health and well being.
As noted at the start of this brief review, our School Board was told none of this when they were asked to decide on the siting of the cellular phone antenna. The "Safety Analysis" they received was not an honest attempt to explain the health effects of RF exposure, but rather a sophisticated "sale's pitch" designed to blind the Board to the real questions and uncertainties. While such behavior in an attempt to "make a sale" can never be condoned, in the case of the suppression of information about possible adverse health consequences for the children of our schools, it is unconscionable. Our children and their parents stand defenseless before such a strategy.
The only reasonable and responsible course is to "play it safe" with our children. The Ossining High School is not the proper place for a cellular telephone antenna.
[back] 1. "Safety Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity of a Proposed Personal Communications Services Base Station, Site 06-460I: Ossining High School, Ossining, New York" prepared by the Wireless & Optical Technologies Safety Department of Bell Laboratories for Sprint Spectrum L.P.
[back] 2. An international blue ribbon panel assembled by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) as "possible human carcinogens" on June 24, 1998. The panel's decision was based largely on the results of epidemiological studies of children exposed at home and workers exposed on the job. The evaluation of the EMF literature followed procedures developed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), based in Lyon, France. The working group's report will be the basis for the NIEHS report to Congress on the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination program (EMF RAPID). The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) of the United Kingdom noted that the views of its Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation are "consistent with those of the NIEHS expert panel."
June 26, 1998 statement of the National Radiological Protection Board, sited in Microwave News, July/August 1998
[back] 3. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) statement "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters" of 1996 reads:
"Thermally mediated effects of RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. These data suggest effects that will probably occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized heating sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1C. They include the induction of opacities of the lens of the eye, possible effects on development and male fertility, various physiological and thermoregulatory responses to heat, and a decreased ability to perform mental tasks as body temperature increases. Similar effects have been reported in people subject to heat stress, for example while working in hot environments or by fever. The various effects are well established and form the biological basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to radiofrequency fields. In contrast, non-thermal effects are not well established and currently do not form a scientifically acceptable basis for restricting human exposure for frequencies used by hand-held radiotelephones and base stations."
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, "Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters," Health Physics 70:587-593, 1996
The ANSI/IEEE Standard for Safety Levels of 1992 similarly states:
"An extensive review of the literature revealed once again that the most sensitive measurements of potentially harmful biological effects were based on the disruption of ongoing behavior associated with an increase of body temperature in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Because of the paucity of reliable data on chronic exposures, IEEE Subcommittee IV focused on evidence of behavioral disruption under acute exposures, even disruption of a transient and fully reversible nature."
IEEE Standards Coordinating committee 28 on Non-Ionizing Radiation Hazards: Standard for Safe Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 KHz to 300 GHz (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991), The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1992
[back] 4. Drs. Czerska, Casamento, Ning, and Davis (working for the Food and Drug Administration in 1997) using "a waveform identical to that used in digital cellular phones" at a power level within our current standards (SAR of 1.6 W/Kg, the maximum spatial peak exposure level recommended for the general population in the ANSI C95.1-1991 standard) found increases in cellular proliferation in human glioblastoma cells. This shows that "acceptable" levels of radiation can cause human cancer cells to multiply faster. The authors note that "because of reported associations between cellular phone exposure and the occurrence of a brain tumor, glioblastoma, a human glioblastoma cell line was used" in their research.
E.M. Czerska, J. Casamento, J. T. Ning, and C. Davis, "Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Cell Proliferation," [Abstract presented on February 7, 1997 at the workshop 'Physical Characteristics and Possible Biological Effects of Microwaves Applied in Wireless Communication, Rockville, MD] E. M. Czerska, J. Casamento Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; H. T. Ning, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA; C. Davis, Electrical Engineering Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
[back] 5. Dr. Michael Repacholi (in 1997, currently the director of the International Electromagnetic Fields Project at the World Health Organization) took one hundred transgenic mice and exposed some to radiation for two 30 minute periods a day for up to 18 months. He found that the exposed mice developed lymphomas (a type of cancer) at twice the rate of the unexposed mice. While telecommunications industry spokespersons criticized the experiment for using mice with a mutation which predisposed them to cancer (transgenic) the researchers pointed out that "some individuals inherit mutations in other genes...that predispose them to develop cancer, and these individuals may comprise a subpopulation at special risk from agents that would pose an otherwise insignificant risk of cancer."
Dr. Repacholi stated "I believe this is the first animal study showing a true nonthermal effect." He repeated the experiment in 1998 using 50 Hz fields instead of the 900 MHz pulsed radiation (the type used by cellular phones) used in the original experiment and found no cancer risk. He stated that this new data had implications for his original cellular phone study: "the control groups for both our RF and 50 Hz field studies showed no statistical differences, which lessens the possibility that the RF study result was a chance event or due to errors in methodology."
It is extremely important to note that Dr. Michael Repacholi was Chairman of the ICNIRP at the time its Statement on Health Issues Related to the Use of Hand-Held Radiotelephones and Base Transmitters was developed in 1996.
M. Repacholi et al., "Lymphomas in Eµ-Pim1 Transgenic Mice Exposed to Pulsed 900 MHz Electromagnetic Fields," Radiation Research, 147, pp.631-640, May 1997
[back] 6. Dr. Ross Adey (Veterans Administration Hospital in 1996) found what appeared to be a protective effect in rats exposed to the type of radiation used in digital cellular phones. The rats were exposed to an SAR of 0.58-0.75 W/Kg 836 MHz pulsed radiation of the TDMA type two hours a day, four days a week for 23 months, with the signals turned on and off every 7.5 minutes, so total exposure was 4 hours a week. Interestingly this effect was not present when a non-digital, analog signal was used. Rats exposed developed cancer less often. This study shows that low power fields of the digital cellular frequency can influence cancer development. Whether they would protect or promote in our children is a question for further study.
Ross Adey of the Veterans Administration Hospital of Loma Linda, CA presented the results of pulsed (digital cellular) radiation on June 13, 1996 at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in Victoria, Canada. He presented the findings of the analog cellular phone radiation effect at the June 1997 2nd World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine in Bologna, Italy. Reviews can be found in Microwave News issues July/August, 1996 and March/April 1997.
[back] 7. Dr. A. W. Guy reported an extensive investigation on rats chronically exposed from 2 up to 27 months of age to low-level pulsed microwaves at SARs up to 0.4 W/Kg. The exposed group was found to have a significantly higher incidence of primary cancers.
A. W. Guy, C. K. Chou, L. Kunz, L, Crowley, and J. Krupp, "Effects of Long-Term Low-Level Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure on Rats." Volume 9. Summary. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, USF-SAM-TR-85-11; 1985
[back] 8. Drs. Henry Lai and N. P. Singh of the University of Washington in Seattle have reported breaks in both single stranded and double stranded DNA in the brains of rats exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation at an SAR of 1.2 W/Kg. DNA is the carrier of the genetic information in all living cells. Cumulated DNA strand breaks in brain cells can lead to cancer or neurodegenerative diseases.
H. Lai and N. P. Singh, "Single- and Double-Strand DNA Breaks in Rat Brain Cells After Acute Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation," International Journal of Radiation Biology, Vol 69, No. 4, 513-521, 1996
[back] 9. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski has studied many thousands of Polish soldiers. He has found that those exposed to radiofrequency and microwave radiation had more than double the cancer rate of the unexposed servicemen analyzing data from 1971-1985. He has presented further data suggesting a dose-response relationship with soldiers exposed to 100-200 W/cm2 suffering 1.69 times as many cancers as the unexposed, and those exposed to 600-1000 W/cm2 suffering 4.63 times as many cancers. 1000 W/cm2 is the level considered safe for the public according to FCC regulations. Occupational exposure up to 5000 W/cm2 is allowed.
S. Szmigielski, "Cancer Morbidity in Subjects Occupationally Exposed to High Frequency (Radiofrequency and Microwave) Electromagnetic Radiation," The Science of the Total Environment 180:9-17, 1996
[back] 10. Dr. Bruce Hocking found an association between increased childhood leukemia incidence and mortality in the proximity of television towers. The power density ranged from 0.2-8.0 W/cm2 nearer and 0.02 W/cm2 farther from the towers.
B. Hocking, I. R. Gordon, H. L. Grain, and G. E. Hatfield, "Cancer Incidence and Mortality and Proximity to TV Towers," Medical Journal of Australia 165: 601-605; 1996
[back] 11. Drs. Mann and Röschke investigated the influence of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields of digital mobile radio telephones on sleep in healthy humans. They found a hypnotic effect with shortening of sleep onset latency and a REM (Rapid Eye Movement) suppressive effect with reduction of duration and percentage of REM sleep. "REM sleep plays a special physiological role for information processing in the brain, especially concerning consolidation of new experiences. Thus the effects observed possibly could be associated with alterations of memory and learning functions."
K. Mann and J. Röschke, "Effects of Pulsed High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Human Sleep," Neuropsychobiology 33:41-47, 1996
[back] 12. Dr. Allen Frey has been researching microwave radiation for over 3 decades. Here is the abstract on a paper concerning headaches and cellular phone radiation. "There have been numerous recent reports of headaches occurring in association with the use of hand-held cellular telephones. Are these reported headaches real? Are they due to emissions from telephones? There is reason to believe that the answer is "yes" to both questions. There are several lines of evidence to support this conclusion. First, headaches as a consequence of exposure to low intensity microwaves were reported in the literature 30 years ago. These were observed during the course of microwave hearing research before there were cellular telephones. Second, the blood-brain barrier appears to be involved in headaches, and low intensity microwave energy exposure affects the barrier. Third, the dopamine-opiate systems of the brain appear to be involved in headaches, and low intensity electromagnetic energy exposure affects those systems. In all three lines of research, the microwave energy used was approximately the same--in frequencies, modulations, and incident energies--as those emitted by present day cellular telephones, Could the current reports of headaches be the canary in the coal mine, warning of biologically significant effects?"
A. H. Frey, "Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are they Real and What Are the Implications?" Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 106, Num. 3, pp.101-103, March 1998
[back] 13. Henry Lai's review of the literature concerning neurological effects of RF: Existing data indicate that RF of relatively low intensity can affect the nervous system. Changes in blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, neurotransmitter functions, cellular metabolism, and calcium efflux, and genetic effects have been reported in the brain of animals after exposure to RF. These changes can lead to functional changes in the nervous system. Behavioral changes in animals after exposure to RR have been reported.
Even a temporary change in neural functions after RF exposure could lead to adverse consequences. For example, a transient loss of memory function or concentration could result in an accident when a person is driving. Loss of short term working memory has indeed been observed in rats after acute exposure to RF.
Research has also shown that the effects of RF on the nervous system can cumulate with repeated exposure. The important question is, after repeated exposure, will the nervous system adapt to the perturbation and when will homeostasis break down? Related to this is that various lines of evidence suggest that responses of the central nervous system to RF could be a stress response. Stress effects are well known to cumulate over time and involve first adaptation and then an eventual break down of homeostatic processes.
H. Lai, "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to Wireless Communication Technology," Paper presentation at the IBC-UK Conference: "Mobile Phones-Is There a Health Risk?" September 16-17, 1997, Brussels, Belgium
[back] 14. Blood-Brain-Barrier: The blood-brain-barrier (BBB) is primarily a continuous layer of cells lining the blood vessels of the brain. It is critical for regulation of the brain's activity. Lai notes that "Even though most studies indicate that changes in the BBB occurs only after exposure to RF of high intensities with significant increase in tissue temperature, several studies have reported increases in permeability after exposure to RF of relatively low intensities....Pulsed RF seems to be more potent than continuous wave RF." Pulsed RF is the type used in digital cellular systems. Effects on the BBB were noted at the 0.2 W/cm2 level, and even at SAR of 0.016-5 W/Kg. These effects could lead to local changes in brain function.
H. Lai, Ibid
[back] 15. Cellular Morphology: RF induced morphological changes of the central nervous system are shown only to occur under relatively high intensity or prolonged exposure to the radiation. However, there are several studies which show that repeated exposure at relatively low power intensities caused morphological changes in the central nervous system. Again here pulsed (as in digital phone use) RF produced more pronounced effects. Certain drugs given to nonhuman primates sensitized them, for instance allowing eye damage to occur at very low power intensities. Dr Lai notes "Changes in morphology, especially cell death, could have an important implication on health. Injury-induced cell proliferation has been hypothesized as a cause of cancer." Some of these experiments were in the range of SAR 0.53 W/Kg or even 0.26 W/Kg.
H. Lai, Ibid
[back] 16. Neural Electrophysiology: Changes in neuronal electrophysiology, evoked potentials, and EEG have been reported. Some effects were observed at low intensities and after repeated exposure, suggesting cumulative effect. Energy density levels were as low as 50 W/cm2.
H. Lai, Ibid
[back] 17. Neurotransmitters: Neurotransmitters are molecules which transmit information from one nerve cell to another. Early studies have reported changes in various neurotransmitters (catecholamines, serotonin, and acetylcholine) in the brain of animals only after exposure to high intensities of RF. However, there are more recent studies that show changes in neurotransmitter functions after exposure to low intensities of RF. For example, effects were seen at 50 W/cm2 in one experiment.
RF activates endogenous opioids in the brain. Endogenous opioids are neurotransmitters with morphine-like properties and are involved in many important physiological and behavioral functions, such as pain perception and motivation.
The response to RF depends on the area of the brain studied and on the duration of exposure. Exposure to RF has been shown to affect the behavioral actions of benzodiazepines (these are drugs such as Valium).
H. Lai, Ibid
[back] 18. Metabolic Changes in Neural Tissue: Several studies investigated the effects of RF exposure on energy metabolism in the rat brain. Surprisingly, changes were reported after exposure to relatively low intensity RF for a short duration of time (minutes). The effects depended on the frequency and modulation characteristics of the RF and did not seem to be related to temperature changes in the tissue.
Calcium ions play important roles in the functions of the nervous system, such as the release of neurotransmitters and the actions of some neurotransmitter receptors. Thus changes in calcium ion concentration could lead to alterations in neural functions. This is an area of considerable controversy because some researchers have also reported no significant effects of RF exposure on calcium efflux. However, when positive effects were observed, they occurred after exposure to RF of relatively low intensities and were dependent on the modulation and intensity of the RF studied (window effects). Some studies had SARs as low as 0.05-0.005 W/Kg.
H. Lai, Ibid
[back] 19. Cytogenetic effects: Cytogenetic effects have been reported in various types of cells after exposure to RF. Recently, several studies have reported cytogenetic changes in brain cells by RF, and these results could have important implication for the health effects of RF. Genetic damage to glial cells can result in carcinogenesis. However, since neurons do not undergo mitosis, a more likely consequence of neuronal genetic damage is changes in functions and cell death, which could either lead to or accelerate the development of neurodegenerative diseases. Power densities of 1 mW/cm2 were employed, a level considered safe for the public by the FCC.
RF-induced increases in single and double strand DNA breaks in rats can be blocked by treating the rats with melatonin or the spin-trap compound N-t-butyl--phenylnitrone. Since both compounds are potent free radical scavengers, these data suggest that free radicals may play a role in the genetic effect of RF. If free radicals are involved in the RF-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells, results from this study could have an important implication on the health effects of RF exposure. Involvement of free radicals in human diseases, such as cancer and atherosclerosis, have been suggested. Free radicals also play an important role in the aging process, which has been ascribed to be a consequence of accumulated oxidative damage to body tissues, and involvement of free radicals in neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington, and Parkinson, has also been suggested. One can also speculate that some individuals may be more susceptible to the effects of RF exposure.
H. Lai, Ibid
[back] 20. Dr. A. A. Kolodynski and V. V. Kolodynska of the Institute of Biology, Latvian Academy of Sciences, presented the results of experiments on school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. Motor function, memory, and attention significantly differed between the exposed and control groups. The children living in front of the station had less developed memory and attention and their reaction time was slower.
A. A. Kolodynski, V. V. Kolodynska, "Motor and Psychological Functions of School Children Living in the Area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia," The Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93, 1996
[back] 21. Dr. H. Lai and colleagues in 1993 exposed rats to 45 minutes of pulsed high frequency microwaves at low intensity and found that the rats showed retarded learning, indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" function.
H Lai, A. Horita, and A. W. Guy, "Microwave Irradiation Affects Radial-Arm Maze Performance in the Rat," Bioelectromagnetics 15:95-104, 1994
[back] 22. Dr. Stefan Braune reported a 5-10 mm Hg resting blood pressure rise during exposure to a radiofrequency electromagnetic field of the sort used by cellular phones in Europe. The Lancet, the British medical journal where the report appeared, stated that "Such an increase could have adverse effects on people with high blood pressure."
S. Braune, "Resting Blood Pressure Increase During Exposure to a Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field," The Lancet 351, pp. 1,857-1,858, 1998
[back] 23. Dr. Kues and colleagues (of Johns Hopkins University and the Food and Drug Administration) found that placing timolol and pilocarpine into the eyes of monkeys and then exposing them to low power density pulsed microwaves caused a significant reduction in the power-density threshold for causing damage to the cells covering the eye and the iris. In fact the power was reduced by a factor of 10, so that it entered the "acceptable, safe" level of the FCC, 1 mW/cm2! Timolol and pilocarpine are commonly used by people suffering from glaucoma. This is a very important study, as it points to the fact that laboratory experiments under "ideal" conditions are rarely what one finds in real life. The "safe" level of radiation exposure for healthy people is likely to be very different than for those of us who suffer from illness, take medications, or are perhaps simply younger or older than those in the experiments.
H. A. Kues, J. C. Monahan, S. A. D'Anna, D. S. McLeod, G. A. Lutty, and S. Koslov, "Increased Sensitivity of the Non-Human Primate Eye to Microwave Radiation Following Ophthalmic Drug Pretreatment," Bioelectromagnetics 13:379-393, 1992
[back] 24. The World Health Organization states that "concerns have been raised about the safety of cellular mobile telephones, electric power lines and police speed-control 'radar guns.' Scientific reports have suggested that exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted from these devices could have adverse health effects, such as cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behaviour and development of children." Therefore, "In May 1996, in response to growing public health concerns in many Member States over possible health effects from exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of EMF sources, the World Health Organization launched an international project to assess health and environmental effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields, which became known as the International EMF Project. The International EMF Project will last for five years." "A number of studies at [frequencies above about 1 MHz] suggest that exposure to RF fields too weak to cause heating may have adverse health consequences, including cancer and memory loss. Identifying and encouraging coordinated research into these open questions is one of the major objectives of the International EMF Project."
World Health Organization Fact Sheet N181, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, The International EMF Project," reviewed May 1998 and World Health Organization Fact Sheet N182, "Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, Physical Properties and Effects on Biological Systems," reviewed May 1998, underlining added
[back] 25. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration in a January 14, 1998 letter to the House Telecommunications Subcommittee stated it "believes additional research in the area of RF is needed." In 1997 the agency established the following priorities:
Chronic (lifetime) animal exposures should be given the highest priority.
Chronic animal exposures should be performed both with and without the application of chemical initiating agents to investigate tumor promotion in addition to tumorigenesis.
Identification of potential risks should include end points other than brain cancer (e.g. ocular effects of RF radiation exposure).
Replication of prior studies demonstrating positive biological effects work is needed. A careful replication of the Chou and Guy study (Bioelectromagnetics, 13, pp.469-496, 1992) which suggests that chronic exposure of rats to microwaves is associated with an increase in tumors, would contribute a great deal to the risk identification process for wireless communication products.
Genetic toxicology studies should focus on single cell gel studies of DNA strand breakage and on induction of micronuclei.....
Epidemiology studies focused on approaches optimized for hazard identification are warranted....
Food and Drug Administration Recommendations quoted in Microwave News, March/April, 1997
[back] 26. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is planning a multicountry, multimillion dollar study of cancer among users of wireless phones, beginning 1998.
Microwave News, January/February, 1998
[back] 27. The Swedish Work Environmental Fund initiated a new epidemiological study on cellular phone radiation and brain tumors in 1997.
Microwave News, November/December, 1997
[back] 28. The National Cancer Institute announced plans for a 5 year study of brain tumors and cellular phone radiation in 1993.
Microwave News, January/February, 1993
[back] 29. The European Commission (EC) Expert Group on health effects of wireless phones called for a 5 year research program with a $20 million budget, reported 1997 .
Microwave News , January/February, 1997
[back] 30. A report commissioned by New Zealand's Ministry of Health stated that "It is imperative that the scientific issues be clarified as soon as possible, as there is much at stake." It called for more research to examine the potential health effects of RF radiation.
Microwave News, November/December, 1996
[back] 31. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia announced its sponsorship of a 5 year, $3.5 million project on potential health effects of mobile phone technology in 1996.
Microwave News, November/December, 1996
[back] 32. Finally, the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) of Australia concluded in 1995 that the safety of cellular telephones cannot be resolved "in the near future." Dr. Stan Barnett, a principal researcher of CSIRO, states that "My goal is to establish a national committee to approach this problem by coordinating relevant and focused research." He estimated a budget of $3 million over a 3 year period would be necessary.
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995
[back] 33. On July 19, 1993 Dr. Elizabeth Jacobson, Deputy Director for Science, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration criticized Thomas Wheeler, President of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association:
"I am writing to let you know that we were concerned about two important aspects of your press conference of July 16 concerning the safety of cellular phones, and to ask that you carefully consider the following comments when you make future statements to the press. First, both the written press statements and your verbal comments during the conference seemed to display an unwarranted confidence that these products will be found absolutely safe. In fact, the unremittingly upbeat tone of the press packet strongly implies that there can be no hazard, leading the reader to wonder why any further research would be needed at all.....More specifically, your press packet selectively quotes from our Talk Paper of February 4 in order to imply that FDA believes that cellular phones are "safe." ("There is no proof at this point that cellular phones are harmful.") In fact, the same Talk Paper also states, "There is not enough evidence to know for sure, either way." Our position, as we have stated it before, is this: Although there is no direct evidence linking cellular phones with harmful effects in humans, a few animal studies suggest that such effects could exist. It is simply too soon to assume that cellular phones are perfectly safe, or that they are hazardous--either assumption would be premature. This is precisely why more research is needed."
Full text of letter can be found in Microwave News, July/August, 1993
[back] 34. In 1993 the Director of the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the FCC not adopt the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard "due to serious flaws," among them (1) "the ANSI/IEEE conclusion that there is no scientific data indicating that certain subgroups of the population are more at risk than others is not supported by NCRP and EPA reports" and (2) "the thesis that ANSI/IEEE recommendations are protective of all mechanisms of interaction is unwarranted because the adverse effects level in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard are based on a thermal effect."
Letter from Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air to Thomas Stanley, Chief Engineer, Office of engineering and Technology, FCC, dated Nov 9, 1993
[back] 35. A brief sampling of the report, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies" follows:
Problems in studies of human populations published to date include imprecise estimates of exposure. As a result, such epidemiological studies may underestimate any real risk. The likelihood of epidemiological studies providing useful information is questionable, particularly if the biological end point cannot be predicted. Its value in the short term (less than 10 years) must be negligible unless there was an enormous increase in the rate of cancer growth. Interestingly, the incidence of brain tumors in the EC countries has increased substantially in recent years....
[RF] safety cannot be assessed in the absence of reported serious effects when so little research has been aimed at the problem. It is somewhat surprising, and rather disappointing, to find that although the literature contains many hundreds of publications, there are very few areas of consensus....At low levels the absence of clear thresholds and [the] presence of intensity and frequency windows have created questions rather than provided answers....
There is no doubt that the interpretation of bioeffects data has been clouded by a preoccupation with thermally mediated processes. In fact, development of the ANSI/IEEE standard is based only on well-established thermal effects, and ignores the more subtle nonthermal processes that are more difficult to interpret and apply to human health....
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization, "Status of Research on Biological Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies," a report prepared by Dr. Stan Barnett, as sited in Microwave News, September/October, 1995
[back] 36. The ICNIRP exposure guidelines are only designed to protect against "known adverse health impacts," according to Dr. Jürgen Bernhardt, ICNIRP's chairman. Bernhardt reviewed the updated limits, which cover the spectrum from 1 Hz to 300 GHz, in a presentation at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Biolectromagnetics Society in St. Pete Beach, FL, on June 10. The limits protect against "short-term, immediate health effects" such as nerve stimulation, contact shocks and thermal insults, according to the guidelines, which appear in the April issue of Health Physics (74, pp.494-522, 1998). Despite "suggestive" evidence that power frequency magnetic fields can be carcinogenic, ICNIRP has concluded that this and other nonthermal health effects have not been "established." ICNIRP has long followed this approach to standard-setting. In his talk, Bernhardt noted that the guidelines include "no consideration regarding prudent avoidance" for health effects for which evidence is less than conclusive.
Microwave News, July/August, 1998, underlining added
If you would like to help or wish more information, please e-mail: Ossining Citizens for a Safe Environment

Fact Sheet submitted to city planning commision June 1st

This document and two ea. Book Cell Towers and 2ea. Books Cell Phone was given to Tina Hadley Asst. Planner and Joan Ryan, AICP senior planner on June 1 2007
El Monte Neighborhood Association 6/1/07
http://elmontecelltowerappeal.blogspot.com/
CELL TOWER APPEAL fact sheet

Over 250 neighbors appealed to the City Planning Commission to cancel the base station approval at 3517 Clayton Rd. rd and practice PRUDENT AVOIDANCE.

The following is just some of the reasons: Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary, chronic, cumulative Microwave Radio Frequency Radiation. Even low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the .01 to 100 mW/cm2 range, at levels hundreds and thousands of times lower than the U.S. standards. These harmful low levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location causing cell damage. Children are more susceptible to EMF’s due to smaller body size, thinner skulls and more rapidly dividing cells. The tower if built would present a hazard to the El Monte Grade School.

We ask the City to practice prudent avoidance with the citing of towers. The Precautionary Principle holds that when questions of safety are concerned, precautions should be taken to protect the public health. It is the only approach that makes sense, due to what we already know about health issues and what has and will be provide to the City of Concord.


1. Liability assumed by The City of Concord. The reason health issues should be a concern is that The City of Concord will be in real danger of being sued, as there are personal injury and class action litigation all across this country. Ref. Cell Towers “Everyone with a stake in siting decisions near populated areas are lawsuits-waiting-to-happen. There is no statute of limitation on health effects claims for EMF damage.” Horizon Tower LLC, DW Horizon LLC, DW Horizons all different names used on their letterhead and correspondence have no visible assets. They are a limited liability company and when the suits start flying as a result of radiation damage to the neighbors, the city of Concord and the property owners will stand-alone. Ref. Cell Towers “with a LLC most of the finical assets are in other holding companies and are there for out of reach. Many service providers are selling their own towers to LLC” to limit their liability. The city does not know nor can they find out, who the owners or limited partners are, in Delaware owners can change and stock traded with no public record. No where in communications that we have available to us does T-Mobil or Horizon Tower, DW Horizon LLC, DW Horizons correspondence say that this exposure is safe, they say only that the tower, “will comply with the prevailing standards of limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment.” Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not “the environment” but humans, depending on DNA cell reproduction. The operation of cells and thinking, muscle function has an electronic component. Dr. Robert Becker author of Body Electric, and Cross Currents writes: “We depend on tiny electrical impulses to conduct complex life processes. Radiation once considered safe is now correlated with increases in birth defects, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, learning disabilities Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and cancer” See 4a there is a huge body of evidence to support this claim. The tower presents a constant persistent hazard to the neighbors, students, business, churches and especially to the El Monte School. Children are most susceptible to radiation damage due to the thinness of their skull and rapid developing DNA.

2. The City of Concord has declared in its approval “the tower is not detrimental to the public health, safety and aesthetics of the surrounding area.” There is a body of evidence provided to the City Of Concord by the El Monte Neighborhood Association, including books and research papers and testimony that will refute the city’s statement of safety. The tower is not needed as evidenced by T-Mobil’s “Personal Coverage Check” provided and our additional research. Other options exist and should be considered such as piggybacking in safe locations and repeaters. See 2a

3. The towers design is intended for additional cellular corporations to share. This tower then will increase the damage to its neighbors health. T-Mobil declares “The maximum effective radiated power will be 3,000 watts in any one direction.” Horizon Tower Advises (Susan Densmore sp?) that a total of four cell companies could use this tower. Thus the neighbors could be exposed to 12,000 watts in any direction. Research has shown that microwave-modulated-radiation, even at a fraction of the allowable limit, disrupts the body DNA. The other cellular corporations can be added with out the city determining a need or increased exposure. The city of Concord is giving three additional cellular corporations a location with out an approval process in place and without determining a need and additionally without considering the health hazards of the neighbors.
4. Federal appeals courts, including California’s Own Ninth Court of Appeals in the case of MetroPCS v City and County of San Francisco (MetroPCS v City and County of San Francisco, 400f .3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005) ), have ruled that local governments have the authority to deny applications to build cellular towers unless the applicant proves (1) that a ‘significant gap’ in a particular wireless carrier’s service exists in that area in other words ‘gaps’ in service are permissible; they must be ‘significant’); and (2) if a significant gap does in fact exist, that the proposed site is the ‘least intrusive, alternative’ for filling that significant gap. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that other, less intrusive alternatives, do not exist. The Ninth Circuit has yet to define precisely what constitutes a ‘significant gap,’ that means that a local government like Concord has latitude in considering, what it understands the term to mean. We call on the City to demand proof that a significant gap in coverage exists. And if so that the site be considered by the City Council to be the least intrusive, using community input.
5. The city of Concord has given by default authority, to add three additional Cellular Corporations, (the right without proving need to the City) to bombard the neighborhood with a total of 12,000 watts of deadly microwave radiation. The city has abdicated it responsibility to protect its citizenry by unilaterally declaring “the tower is NOT detrimental to the public health, safety and aesthetics of the surrounding area.”

6. Property Values The fear of health affects from radiation will lower property values in the neighborhood. CA Courts of appeal have ruled that arguing the fear of a health risk has a negative impact on property values of nearby property is legally permissible even if an actual health risk is not claimed or cannot be conclusively established.
7. Noise It is anticipated that there will be a constant drone of air conditioners (60db) when the temperature exceeds 70 degrees. The approved site is within 150 feet of neighborhood property.

8. Speculation The city does not have to allow an application for a site built on speculation by a LLC corporation who is not a service provider but a builder of speculative facilities with no proven need.

9. Ref. Cell Towers “No town should allow itself to be intimidated by telecom service providers or adjunct industries like tower companies. Despite the preemptions, there is still a lot of power reserved to the municipalities, and there is volume of good case law to back up local decisions. It is not just an aesthetic issue. It is a medical one. Here are some key provisions that should be included:
Note provisions truncated
· Monitoring of RF emissions is essential. To be instituted by independent RF engineers – not industry engineers. The industries should pay for the monitoring, not the taxpayers.
· Large setbacks should be established from homes, schools hospitals or wherever people congregate – at least 1500 feet.
· Take metal objects into consideration because they cause hotspots.
· Establish by-zones where facilities can locate-but nowhere else.
· Discourage private entrepreneurs and churches from establishing sites.
· Allow signal strengths that will allow for adequate coverage and adequate capacity, not blanket coverage. The right to determine signal strength at the local level has been upheld in federal case law in U.S. Sprint v. Willoth, and by FCC. The FCC only requires 75% coverage of an area – not 100% coverage.
· Towns should require extensive engineering detail in their applications, otherwise companies do not have to prove that a facility is really needed. They may be speculating on a site without admitting it.
· Require independent engineering review of all applications and modifications to existing sites. See details chapter 12 chapter 13 Book (Cell Towers B.Blake Levitt)
· Encourage satellite-based systems
· Require the service provider (T-Mobil) the tower owner and the landowner all to be part of the application. That will discourage towers built on speculation.
· Write airtight liability protection into the regulations by all concerned, with proof of insurance annually submitted.
· Note additions recommendations in books provided to the city!



More information on health issues and case law will be provided to the City from time to time by the El Monte Neighborhood Asssociation.

SHASTA HAS THE BEST DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM

Health Effects from Cell Phone Tower Radiationby Karen J. Rogers
The safety of cell phone towers is the subject of extensive scientific debate. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that the electromagnetic radiation they emit, even at low levels, is dangerous to human health.
The cell phone industry is expanding quickly, with over 100,000 cell phone towers now up across the U.S., which is expected to increase ten-fold over the next five years. The industry has set what they say are " safe levels" of radiation exposure, but there are a growing number of doctors, physicists, and health officials who strongly disagree, and foresee a public health crisis.
Many towers have been built recently in Siskiyou Co., with dozens more planned, as telecommunications companies rush to corner markets in this fast-growing industry. These towers emit radio frequencies (RF), a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), for a distance of up to 2 1/2 miles. They are essentially the same frequency radiation as microwaves in a microwave oven.
Studies have shown that even at low levels of this radiation, there is evidence of damage to cell tissue and DNA, and it has been linked to brain tumors, cancer, suppressed immune function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer's disease, and numerous other serious illnesses. 1
Children are at the greatest risk, due to their thinner skulls, and rapid rate of growth. Also at greater risk are the elderly, the frail, and pregnant women. Doctors from the United Kingdom have issued warnings urging children under 16 not to use cell phones, to reduce their exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation. 2
Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. Over 100 physicians and scientists at Harvard and Boston University Schools of Public Health have called cellular towers a radiation hazard. And, 33 delegate physicians from 7 countries have declared cell phone towers a "public health emergency".
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in charge of setting the standards of exposure for the public, and claims that, based on scientific studies, the current levels are safe. But it is not a public health agency, and has been criticized as being "an arm of the industry". Many who work for the FCC are either past, present or future employees of the very industries they are supposed to regulate. With an explosively emergent $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, critics have stated "you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show."
Our federal government also once told us that asbestos, cigarettes, thalidomide, and the blood supply were "safe", but which were later found to be harmful.
With a $40 billion dollar a year industry at stake, " you can bet that their studies are going to show whatever they want them to show."
Cathy Bergman-Veniza, at Vermont Law School Environmental Law Center Conference, 1996
The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts, Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland, at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 mircowatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S. standard. 3, 4
Contrary to what the communications industry tells us, there is vast scientific, epidemiological and medical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and microwave radiation emitted from cell towers, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. 5, 6, 7, 8
There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems.
Scientists and advocacy groups say that the current FCC "safe" standards are based on 1985 research, and fail to consider more recent research that found brain cancer, memory impairment, DNA breakdown, and neurological problems with RF at much lower levels. The earlier studies considered only the "thermal", or heating effects of the radiationin other words, the level at which the radiation would heat tissue, or " cook" a person, in the same exact manner that a microwave oven works. The FCC levels may ensure our tissues are not "cooked", but they fail to address long-term chronic exposure at low levels, or what is called "non-thermal" effects.
Doctors say that RF radiation is wreaking havoc with normal biological cell functions. "RF alters tissue physiology", says Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist who found genetic damage in a $28 million research program, paid for by the industry. He now fights to have safety levels lowered. 9
In 1998 the Vienna Resolution, signed by 16 of the world's leading bioelectromagnetic researchers, provided a consensus statement that there is scientific agreement that biological effects from low intensity RF exposure are established. It says existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards. No safe exposure level can be established at this time.
The world's leading electromagnetic researchers say existing scientific knowledge is inadequate to set reliable exposure standards.  The Vienna Resolution, 1998
The Salzburg Resolution, adopted in 2000 at the International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, would prohibit any cell site from emanating more than .1 mW/cm2 10,000 times more strict than the current U.S. standard. This limit takes into account the growing evidence for non-thermal RF bioeffects. 10
Cell phone towers expose the public to involuntary, chronic, cumulative Radio Frequency Radiation. Low levels of RFR have been shown to be associated with changes in cell proliferation and DNA damage. Some scientific studies show adverse health effects reported in the .01 to 100 mW/cm2 range at levels hundreds, indeed, thousands, of times lower than the U.S. standards. These harmful low levels of radiation can reach as far as a mile away from the cell tower location. Reported health problems include headache, sleep disorders, memory impairment, nosebleeds, an increase in seizures, blood brain barrier leakage problems, increased heart rates, lower sperm counts, and impaired nervous systems. 11
Long term and cumulative exposure to cell tower radiation has no precedent in history. There are no conclusive studies on the safety of such exposures, and the growing body of scientific evidence reports such bioeffects and adverse health effects are possible, if not probable.
Dr. Neil Cherry, Ph.D. biophysicist from New Zealand, reports that "there is no safe level of ER radiation." Dr. Cherry wrote a 120-page review of 188 scientific studies. He said the standards are based on thermal effects, but important non-thermal effects also take place, such as cell death and DNA breakdown. "The electromagnetic radiation causes cells to change in a way that makes them cancer forming." It can increase the risk of cancer two to five times, he said. "To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence."
"To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence." Dr. Neil Cherry, biophysicist
Public health officials caution that we err on the side of conservatism, given the massive public health risk that is possible.
Other federal health agencies disagree that safe levels of exposure have been identified, much less built into the FCC standard. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not agree with the FCC standards, and analysts have recommended that EMR be classified as a "probable human carcinogen". 12
Deputy Director of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Jacobsen, has stated that the safety of RF "has not been established nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it", and cites risk of brain cancer, tumors and DNA breakdown. The California Public Utility Commission has urged the cell phone industry to not locate towers near schools or hospitals. And the World Health Organization reports "many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF fields and excess risk of cancer. These studies do not provide enough information to allow a proper evaluation of human cancer risk from RF exposure because the results of these studies are inconsistent."
"The safety of RF has not been established, nor has the necessary research been conducted to test it."  Elizabeth Jacobsen, Director, US Dept. of Health
"Our bodies are exquisitely sensitive to subtle electromagnetic harmonics, and we depend upon tiny electrical impulses to conduct complex life processes," says Dr. Robert Becker, author of The Body Electric, and Cross Currents, The Perils of Electropollution. 13, 14
He says "at the present the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of (these) electromagnetic fields." Radiation once considered safe, he says, is now correlated with increases in birth defects, depression, Alzheimer's disease, learning disabilities, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and cancer.
The incidence of brain cancer is up 25% since 1973, and this year 185,000 Americans will be diagnosed with brain cancer. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and young adults.
Yet, the United States has a de facto policy of "post sales surveillance" with respect to RF radiation. Only after years of exposure, will there be studies to characterize the health consequences.
It can take 3 to 10 years for health effects to show up. Citizens shouldn't be forced to act as guinea pigs in a radiation bioeffects experiment.
Some adverse health effects show up immediately, but it can often take 3 to 10 years for the longer term effects of RF illness to appear, such as cancer. Many researchers, public health officials and citizens believe that consumers shouldn't be forced to act as guinea pigs in a bioeffects experiment for the next 20 years. In short, "we are the experiment", for health effects.
Dr. Gerard Hyland, physicist, says existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate, since they focus only on the thermal effects of exposure.15 Hyland, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, says existing safety guidelines "afford no protection" against the non-thermal influences. "Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests."
"Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate." Dr. Gerard Hyland, Physicist two-time nominee, Nobel Prize in Medicine
The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to ensure passage of a law which essentially gives them the right to place these towers in our neighborhoods, and makes it next to impossible to oppose them based on health reasons. It is no coincidence that EPA funding was also cut in 1996 for electromagnetic radiation health studies. Citizens and communities across the country are angered, and are protesting this imposition of involuntary, 24-hour-a-day microwave exposure, without proven safety levels. As one citizen stated, "There's no place left to escape."
The industry lobbied Congress with $39 million in 1996 to pass a law that took away citizen's rights to oppose cell towers based on health reasons.
Also, once a cell tower is erected, it has proved very difficult to verify the radiation is within legal limits. There are no safety measures in place to ensure that the towers are not emitting higher radiation levels than legally allowed. One frustrated resident finally spent $7,000 purchasing his own equipment to test a cell phone tower near his home, and found it emitting radiation at levels 250% over the legal limit. 16
Property values have also been known to drop once a cell tower is erected, due to the perceived risk of negative health effects. Cellular phone frequencies have also seriously disrupted local emergency and law enforcement radio communications.
Massachusetts lawyer Mark Berthiaume, opposing placement of a cell phone tower, said "Municipalities .... are being bullied every day by providers of wireless telephone service who use their financial clout and the federal (law) to intimidate the communities into allowing them to place large towers in inappropriate locations." 17
Some Questions and Answers
But don't we need and depend on cell phones?
Of course. No one is saying not to have cell phones and towers, but to make them safer. If Austria can have levels 10,000 times more protective, then so can we. It is just more expensive to the companies. Also, we don't have to let these cell towers go anywhere and everywhere the industry wants them. We can require that they erect the minimum number required to provide adequate coverage, and be put in the safest places possible.
Why don't we just oppose the construction of cell towers in our county?
In a strategic move, the cell phone industry has tried to make it illegal for citizens to oppose the towers based on health concerns. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, state and local rights were seriously limited with regard to opposing towers based on health concerns. The constitutionality of this Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court, and a long legal battle is sure to follow. But it will take years, while the public continues to be exposed to chronic, cumulative radiation with each new cell tower.
So what CAN we do?
The Telecommunications Act prevents citizens from opposing the towers based on concerns about RF emissions, but we can oppose them on numerous other valid grounds. There are still rights we and our local elected officials maintain, that allow us local control of the number, size and placement of cell towers, while still providing for adequate cell phone coverage. Numerous communities have called for moratoriums on tower construction, allowing them needed time to study the issue, and enact strict ordinances that require the industry to respect community desires, such as building the minimum towers necessary, in appropriate locations. During these moratoriums, communities are preparing non-industry biased studies of cell phone tower need, and creating cell tower Master Plans, to help protect the rights and health of citizens, while complying with the law. 18, 19, 20
Siting of cellular towers is an important function of our elected officials. Protection of citizens' health and property rights should be foremost in the responsibilities of local government. We urge our elected officials to protect the health and welfare of the citizens who live here, rather than big-money interests with profit as their bottom line.
For further information, these websites offer a good starting point: http://www.emrnetwork.org/, http://www.microwavesnews.com/, http://www.microwavesnews.com/, http://www.wave-guide.org/, http://www.wave-guide.org/, http://www.wave-guide.org/ , Sageasoociates.net
2002, Karen J. Rogers, B.S.
Endnotes
1 Microwave and Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure, San Francisco Medicine , Vol. 74, No 3, March 2001
2 Mobiles Risk to children, Daily Mail (U.K.), May 11, 2000
3 Radiofrequency Radiation Health Studies, Wireless Antenna Site Consumer Information Package, Sage Associates, Montecito, CA, 2000, www. sageassocciates.net
4 Tower concerns should be health, not aesthetics, Burlington Free Press, January 12, 2001
5 Selected and Extensive Bibliographies on Electromagnetic Fields and Health, Bridlewood Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Information Service, compiled by: Richard W. Woodley, revised 1999, www.wave-guide.org/archives/bridlewood/biblio.html
6 Reported Biological Effects From Radiofrequency Non-Ionizing Radiation, www.wave-guide.org/library/studies.html
7 Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation, Sage Associates, 2000 at www.sageassociates.net/rfchartreportbio-sample.pdf , and Reference List for Some Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR), Sage Associates, August 2000, at http://www.sageassociates.net/Bibliography-sample.pdf
8 A Cellular Phone Tower on Ossining High School?, includes extensive reference to scientific papers and government documents citing adverse health effects from cell tower radiation, www.cyburban.com/~lplachta/safeweb2.htm
9 Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider's Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf, ©2001
10 International Conference on Cell Tower Siting, by Monica Kauppi, No Place to Hide, September 2000, Resolution presented June 2000 and signed by 19 of 23 speakers, including Dr. Carl Blackman of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
11 Ibid, endnote 5.
12 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields, External Review Draft, No. EPA/600/6-90/005B, October 1990.
13 Becker, Robert O., & Gary Seldon, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1985
14 Becker, Robert O., Cross Currents: The Perils of Electropollution, The Promise of Electromedicine, Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc., Los Angeles, CA, 336 pp., 1990.
15 The Physiological and Environmental Effects of Non-ionising Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Gerard Hyland, presented to European Parliament's Industry, Trade, Research and Energy Committee, July 11, 2001.
16 FCC takes look at 'antenna farm', Denver Post, October 30, 1998
17 Town May Order Company to Remove Cellular Tower, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, March 20, 2000
18 Cellular Tower Zoning, Siting, Leasing and Franchising: Federal Developments and Municipal Interests, by Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, Howlett Attorneys at Law, presented to International Municipal Lawyers Association, September 2001,
19 Plan Wireless Newsletter, Kreines & Kreines, Inc., at www.planwireless.com/index.htm
20 U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, SPRINT SPECTRUM v WILLOTH , (Corrected Opinion, August Term 1998) , Docket No. 98-7442, at http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/987442v2.html


who we are join take action the center calendar links contact
Copyright © Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center