It was beautiful day in Sacramento last Wednesday, July 12 for the hearing on SB 649. But the people I joined in the Capital – people throughout California opposed to this bill, including 216 (of 400) cities and 34 of 58 counties, and at least 34 environmental or health organizations ended up dismayed and outraged.
The California Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee passed the highly contentious bill that day. This was also after SB 649 amazingly passed the Assembly Local Government Committee June 28, despite the huge and growing opposition from the Leagues of California cities and counties, not to mention those of us who know about the severe health and environmental effects. See the Leagues press release: Local Leaders Express Disappointment as Assembly Committee Sides with Corporate Interests over Citizen Control: City, County Officials vow to continue fight against SB 649
The Bill will enable forced placement of powerful microwave radiation antennas called ‘small cells’ on utility poles, street lamps, traffic lights and street signs throughout California neighborhoods as well as noisy, electromagnetic-field emitting refrigerator-sized “associated power equipment” on sidewalks.
These are excerpts of some elected official’s, brain tumor victims and EMF safety groups testimonies in opposition who spoke at the July 12, 2017 hearing held by the Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance chaired by Miguel Santiago.
Coming Soon Soon to a Pole Near You
These antennas will emit biologically impacting radiation 24/7/365 and will be on the level of second stories of homes, apartments, office buildings and only a short distance from windows, balconies, parks, sidewalks, etc.
SB 649 is a horrific bill in California that we urgently need your support by Tuesday July 11 to oppose!
SB 649 gives telecommunications companies rubber stamp approval to install powerful microwave emitting antennas for 4G/5G every 4 to 12 houses on utility poles along the street! It removes local city and county authority over cellular facility placement and we would have no legal right to stop it.
Please take action!
Though this is focused on what’s happening in California now, similar bills are being introduced throughout the nation with ALEC co-distributing the bills. Watch out for it in your state!
Californians, we urgently need your support by Tuesday July 11 to oppose SB 649!
SB.649 will next be heard at the Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee Hearing on Wed July 12, 2017 starting at 1:30 pm in State Capitol Room 437.
____________________
Join Our Peaceful Protest!
Coincidentally the California Dept of Public Health, CDPH, is holding a celebratory party on the south steps of the Capitol on July 12 from 10:30 am- noon. As many of you know they wrote a Cell Phone and Health Document for the public BUT refuse to release it.
Taxpayers paid for 27 versions but this will NOT be released to the public. Dr. Moskowitz sued the CDPH and won but they only had to release it to him. WE WANT THIS DOCUMENT RELEASED AND WE WILL BE HOLDING A PEACEFUL RALLY. Hiding the adverse health effects from radio frequency radiation is allowing the telecoms to increase these harmful exposures!
PLEASE JOIN US at 10:15 (pack a lunch or we can munch on CDPH refreshments!) and then at 1:00 we will head to the hearing.
________________________
We strongly oppose SB 649 because it eliminates local zoning authority, conflicts with federal and other laws, and increases harmful radio frequency radiation (RFR). International independent scientists are calling for reducing RFR based on peer reviewed published science showing RFR harms the public and nature, and children are especially vulnerable.
What you can do:
Please join us in Sacramento July 12 to speak to your elected representatives as well as at a peaceful protest before the hearing!
Call – (only 35 minutes of your time) phone numbers are below
Sample Talking Points: Links to references and studies for good quotes are from EON and EMFSafetyNetwork’s opposition letter and statement below. There are plenty of reasons for them to vote No.
Published and peer-reviewed studies show that proximity to antennas is hazardous — and SB 649 would increase the number of powerful microwave transmitters exponentially and bring them much closer to people.
Other peer-reviewed studies show that wireless radiation harms nature, including some studies on birds, trees, insects, and earthworms for example (and you could throw in, as an aside “not to mention people.”)
Current FCC wireless exposure guidelines, which SB 649 is supposed to follow, are completely inadequate and need to be brought up to date with a goal of protecting children, public health and the environment. Plus, those cell towers existing now are not monitored adequately for compliance. With hundreds of thousands more, there would be even less monitoring.
SB 649 will have terrible effects, based on these obsolete FCC guidelines that are not even enforced. Already existing RFR is making people sick. Vote NO on SB 649.
We would also urge you to visit (if you can) your elected officials in person on the effects of SB 649, both in Sacramento and in your city and county offices.
District Maps and Staff handling SB.649 for Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee
Additional Assembly member contact information is here.
Please see our position statement and flyer from EMF Safety Network and Ecological Options Network below.
We strongly oppose SB 649 because it eliminates local zoning authority, conflicts with federal and other laws, and increases harmful radio frequency radiation (RFR). International independent scientists are calling for reducing RFR based on peer reviewed published science showing RFR harms the public and nature, and children are especially vulnerable.
OPPOSE SB 649 (Hueso)
Let’s Get Healthy California or Increase Harmful Radiation?
You can’t have both.
SB 649 would put radio frequency radiation (RFR) cell towers on every block in every neighborhood and countryside in California with an over the counter permit.
Independent scientists citing peer reviewed studies are calling for immediate measures to reduce RFR. 179 cities and 32 counties oppose SB 649.
“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/
Metering so-called “Small Cell” antenna mounted 20 feet high on light pole; faux-mailbox power supply exposes people to strong magnetic fields. EMR Specialist Eric Windheim measures radiation pollution. Scientists4WiredTech.org
19 “Small Cell” 4G Antennas with Faux-Mailbox Power Supplies in Palo Alto, CA
Eric Windheim BA, EMRS, BBEC – Certified Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist – Certified Building Biology Environmental ConsultantWindheimEMFSolutions.com
Shown above is Eric Windheim measuring the microwave emissions from what is euphemistically called a ‘small’ cell. The antennas installed along the streets in Palo Alto measured far higher than promised in the legislation and is high risk for all within range, specially the first 500 ft., according to many studies.
“…As if SB 649 wasn’t wreaking enough havoc on the ability for cities to protect their residents, the June 20, 2017 amendments completely deregulate and eliminate all oversight for “micro-wireless” facilities which can be equipment nearly three feet long dangling between utility poles, raising significant public safety issues such as obstructing traffic sight distance without any oversight. The bill also now applies a utility pole “attachment rate” formula which is inappropriate for equipment being placed on city buildings, street and traffic lights.
As amended, the bill is no longer limited to just “small cells.” It now applies broadly to all telecommunications providers and the equipment they use from “micro-wireless” to “small cell” to “macro-towers.” It’s clear from the direction of this bill, that this is not about 5G wireless deployment, but more about local deregulation of the entire telecommunications industry. This latest version places a new ban on city/county regulation of placement or operation of “communication facilities” within and outside the public right of way far beyond “small cells.” This new language would extend local preemption of regulation to any “provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights of way,” which can include communications facilities installed for services such as gas, electric, and water, leaving cities and counties with limited oversight only over “small cells.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSpGdOKtD1Q
Health, environment and consumer justice organizations opposed to SB 649 include:
Citizens for Health, Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club California, California League of Conservation Voters, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Environmental Health, The Utility
Reform Network, Teens Turning Green, As You Sow, Baby Safe Project, Bay Area Educators for
Safe Tech, California Brain Tumor Association, Ecological Options Network, EMF Safety
Network, Environmental Health Trust, EMR Protection Forum, Green Sangha, Health & Habitat
Inc, Marin Chapter of the Weston A. Price 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, Your Own Health and Fitness, and more.
Peer reviewed, published science shows RFR poses serious health and safety risks to the public and nature. Children are more vulnerable.
• 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. The summary
includes,“Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among
users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting
from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.”1
• The BioInitiative Report updated in 2012, prepared by 29 authors from ten
countries, reviewed 1800 studies and conclude,“EMF and RFR are preventable
toxic exposures. Proactive and immediate measures to reduce unnecessary EMF
exposures will lower disease burden and rates of premature death.”2
• The International Agency for Research on Cancer at the World Health Organization
classifies wireless as a 2B (possible) carcinogen.3
Peer reviewed published studies show proximity to antennas is hazardous.
Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations “The
prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints as headache (23.5%), memory changes
(28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep
disturbance (23.5%) were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants than
controls…”4
• Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations “We
found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse
neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500
meters from base stations.”5 Future cell tower plans are for 5G which emits millimeter waves. Peer reviewed
published science shows millimeter waves penetrate the skin and affect human health.6
Millimeter wave technology has been developed as a crowd control weapon which
causes acute burning pain, as if the body is on fire.7
• An analysis of studies on millimeter waves (MMWs) “State of knowledge on
biological effects at 40–60 GHz”8 states, “At the cellular level, it stands out from the
literature that skin nerve endings are probably the main targets of MMWs and the
possible starting point of numerous biological effects.” Effects reviewed include
effects on capillaries and nerve endings, protein insults, epigenetic regulation, and
the risk of homeostasis disruption, which would have dramatic consequences.
Despite the misleading title, the 5G MMW technology used in this weapon makes you feel like you’re burning alive. However, scientists are very concerned about the effects on biological systems from its use. Similar frequencies will be able to be deployed from utility poles if SB 649 is allowed to come into effect in California.
Assembly Member Miguel Santiago
Chair of the Communications and Conveyance Committee
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0053
RE: SB 649 Wireless and Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities (amended 7/3/2017)
Strongly oppose
Dear Assembly Member Miguel Santiago,
EMF Safety Network and Ecological Options Network 1 2 strongly oppose SB 649
regarding telecommunications facilities. SB 649 eliminates local zoning authority,
conflicts with federal and other laws, and increases harmful radio frequency radiation
(RFR). International independent scientists are calling for reducing RFR based on peer
reviewed published science showing RFR harms the public and nature, and children are
especially vulnerable.
SB 649 abandons the public to trust the telecom industry to certify safety and
RFR compliance with federal laws.
1) SB 649 eliminates local authority
SB 649 will allow a ministerial permit for antenna siting for the majority of local
governments. This over the counter permit will gift multiple companies unlimited access
to deploy unlimited antennas in our neighborhoods and countrysides. Local authority isneeded to ensure community safety and welfare , and compliance 3 with federal laws4.
SB 649 would overturn a recent California court case where San Francisco won the
right to determine antenna placement. The court discussed in detail and ruled Public
Utilities Codes 7901 and 7901.1 did not limit a city’s right to design review.5 SB 649
conflicts with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) no and low cost EMF
avoidance policy6 adopted in 1993. In 2006 the CPUC upheld the policy, which included
RFR.7
2). SB 649 conflicts with federal laws
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves local zoning authority,
and requires compliance with environmental laws and RFR safety rules. An over
the counter permit would conflict with RFR compliance required by federal Law.
According to the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) website8:
• “Building a new tower or collocating an antenna on an existing structure requires
compliance with the Commission’s rules for environmental review. These rules
ensure that licensees and registrants take appropriate measures to protect
environmental and historic resources, and that the agency meets its obligations
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider the potential
environmental impact of its actions, as well as under other environmental statutes
such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Endangered Species
Act (ESA).”
• “NEPA requires agencies to consider and disclose the environmental effects of its
actions to improve decision-making and encourage transparency, public
participation,and accountability. Effects are defined broadly to include ecological,
aesthetic, historic, social, and cumulative and indirect effects.”
• “Collocations, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and Small Cells, may
also require compliance with these same processes.”
• “Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act preserves state and local authority
over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless service facilities, but sets
forth specific limitations on that authority.” …”The statute also preempts local
decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio
frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the
Commission’s RF rules.”
The fact that these antennas are called “small cell” does not mean they comply
with the FCC rules quoted above. The FCC calculates RFR by what the public’s
exposure levels are, including frequencies, radiated power, and distance.
For example:
• What frequencies will be used?
• What is the radiated power at the source?
• How many antennas are in one enclosure?
• What is the exposure level at ground level? at 20 feet? at 100 feet?
• What is the existing cumulative RFR exposure level at ground level? at 20 feet? at
100 feet?
• Is the ground flat or falling? If not, what are the exposure levels at what height and
distance?
• What is the future colocation RFR exposure?
SB 649 also conflicts with federal law (Section 6409) which exempts cities from antenna
modifications on city property.9
3) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) laws apply
The deployment of a denser “small cell” antenna system is a major change to the
environment, not a minor one, and therefore subject to CEQA laws. 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. Whenever it can be fairly argued on the”
“basis of substantial evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption is not proper.”
“4) Telecoms’ interests should not outweigh city and county jurisdiction”
““Telecoms want customers… Wireless service has become essential… for better quality”
“of life.” These claims were part of the supporters testimony at the Local Government Committee hearing on June 28, 2017. Not all Californians want their homes, neighborhoods, towns, and rural country-sides to be polluted with RFR. Telecom deployment serves the unbounded profit motive of telecom corporations. What is in the best public interest is to avoid unnecessary RFR exposures. There is a growing movement of educated Americans who are aware of cancer and other health impacts associated with RFR. In California tens of thousands of utility customers have refused, or opted out of smart meters. Significant percentages of people, those already sickened, and those trying to avoid being injured, adamantly oppose being involuntarily exposed to more radiation for benefit of telecommunications profits. Access to the internet is safer using wired connections. Wireless is not an essential public service.”
“5) The FCC historically honors local control”
“On July 14, 2016 FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel stated during her approval”
“of 5G millimeter wave deployment, “By law and tradition we honor local control in”
“this country.”10”
“SB 649 should be opposed because it will dishonor and impede local”
“control and deliberately thwart public participation. We support the comments of The”
“League of California Cities who state SB 649, “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.””
“6) SB 649 increases harmful RFR exposure to humans and nature.”
“International independent scientists are calling for immediate measures to reduce RFR. Peer reviewed, published science shows RFR poses serious health and safety impacts”to the public and nature. Children are more vulnerable.
• 224 scientists have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal: “We are
scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing
electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we
have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF
generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–
radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless
phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby
monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of
electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).”
“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.” 11 Scientists quotes:
• “Based upon epidemiological studies there is consistent evidence of
increased risk for brain tumors (glioma and acoustic neuroma) associated
with use of wireless phones.” Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD University Hospital,
Orebro, Sweden
• “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.
• “Migratory birds — incredibly important to the global economy and for the
ecological services they provide — now appear to be negatively affected by
non-ionizing radiation.” Dr. Albert Manville, Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins
University; Senior Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS),
Emeritus/Retired
• 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. Inthe study the rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed two types of cancers,
glioma, a brain tumor, and schwannoma, a tumor in the heart. The summary
includes,“Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among
users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting
from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.”12
• The BioInitiative Report updated in 2012, prepared by 29 authors from ten
countries, reviewed 1800 studies and conclude,“EMF and RFR are preventable
toxic exposures. We have the knowledge and means to save global populations
from multi-generational adverse health consequences by reducing both ELF and
RFR exposures. Proactive and immediate measures to reduce unnecessary EMF
exposures will lower disease burden and rates of premature death.”13
• The International Agency for Research on Cancer at the World Health Organization
classifies RFR as a 2B (possible) carcinogen.14
7) Peer reviewed published studies show proximity to antennas is hazardous.
Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations “The
prevalence of neuropsychiatric complaints as headache (23.5%), memory changes
(28.2%), dizziness (18.8%), tremors (9.4%), depressive symptoms (21.7%), and sleep
disturbance (23.5%) were significantly higher among exposed inhabitants than
controls…”15
• Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations “We
found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse
neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500
meters from base stations.”16
8) Future cell tower plans are for 5G which emits millimeter waves. Peer reviewed published science shows millimeter waves penetrate the skin and affect human health.17
Millimeter wave technology has been developed as a crowd control weapon which
causes acute burning pain, as if the body is on fire.18
• An analysis of studies on millimeter waves (MMWs) “State of knowledge on
biological effects at 40–60 GHz”19 states, “At the cellular level, it stands out from
the literature that skin nerve endings are probably the main targets of MMWs and
the possible starting point of numerous biological effects.” Effects reviewed include
effects on capillaries and nerve endings, protein insults, epigenetic regulation, and
the risk of homeostasis disruption, which would have dramatic consequences.
9) Peer reviewed published studies show RFR exposure harms nature.
• The US Department of the Interior states RFR threatens birds, and they criticize the
FCC’s radiation safety guidelines stating,“the electromagnetic radiation standards
used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on
thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”
Two hundred forty one bird species are at mortality risk from both tower collisions
and from exposure to the radiation towers emit. This includes birds that are
endangered or threatened, Birds of Conservation Concern, migratory birds, and
eagles. Studies of radiation impacts on wild birds documented nest abandonment,
plumage deterioration and death. Birds studied included House Sparrows, White
Storks, Collared Doves, and other species. Studies in laboratories of chick
embryos documented heart attacks and death.20
• Scientists in Germany studied tree damage in relation to electromagnetic radiation
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 betweenunusual (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 scientists concluded, “Statistical analysis
demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful
for trees.”21
• Studies show insects are harmed by radiation: Food collection and response to
pheromones in an ant species exposed to electromagnetic radiation found
exposure to radiation caused colony deterioration and affected social insects’
behavior and physiology.22 Oxidative and genotoxic effects of 900 MHz
electromagnetic fields in the earthworm concluded radiation caused genotoxic
effects and DNA damage in earthworms23.
• Mobile Phone Induced Honey Bee Worker Piping. The study abstract states,“The
worldwide maintenance of the honeybee has major ecological, economic, and
political implications.” Cell phone RFR was tested for potential effects on honeybee
behavior. Handsets were placed in the close vicinity of honeybees and the sound
made by the bees was recorded and analyzed. The information revealed that active
cell phone handsets induced the bees worker piping signal. “In natural conditions,
worker piping either announces the swarmingSB 649 is an unnecessary gift to the telecom industry.
Respectfully submitted on July 6, 2017:
/s/_____________________ Sandi Maurer, Director
EMF Safety Network
PO Box 1016
Sebastopol CA 95473
/s/_____________________ Mary Beth Brangan, Co-Director
Ecological Options Network
PO Box 1047
Bolinas CA 94924
Sources:
1 EMF Safety Network (EMFSN) was founded in 2009. Our mission is to educate and
empower people by providing science and solutions to reduce EMFs, achieve public
policy change, and obtain environmental justice. We have participated in proceedings at
the California Public Utilities Commission since 2010. www.emfsafetynetwork.org
2 Ecological Options Network(EON) was founded in 2003, is a 501 (c) (3) organization
that networks with utility customers and organizations to empower policy protecting
health, environment and consumer rights. http://www.eon3.net/
3 Cal. Const., art. XI, §7 “A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local,
police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”
4 FCC Tower and Antenna Siting: https://www.fcc.gov/general/tower-and-antenna-siting
5 T-Mobile West vs City and County of San Francisco (Appeal denied):
