There is just one item in the update tonight and I hope you will find it interesting and educational, with many links to material that can prove useful as resources.
This is a letter written to San Francisco Mayor and Council regarding allowing 5G microcells (sWTFs) to be installed on poles close to homes. I encourage you to look at the videos and links. Paul McGavin is a member of the group Scientists For Wired Technology, and has presented multiple times before councils and various bodies with scientific evidence re. EMR harm and re. the benefits of fiber optic cable. In case you want another example of his in-depth knowledge and dedication:
Gary Widman is an attorney.
= = =
From: Paul McGavin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:17 PM
Subject: Past and Future Placement and Construction of Densified 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in the public rights-of-way in San Francisco
June 26, 2020
Re: Past and Future Placement and Construction of Densified 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in the public rights-of-way in San Francisco
Dear Mayor Breed et al.,
[Ms. Erica Major, will you please add this email to the San Francisco Public record, attached to the open (continued) matter of Land Use and Transportation Committee’s 12/16/19 Hearing re: the Repeal of Ordinance 190-19 and additional changes to SF-DPW Article 25? Thank you for doing so.]
In our high school and college years, many of us have learned that radiation is the emission or transmission of energy in the form of waves or particles through space or through a material medium, which includes the following:
– Particle radiation, such as alpha radiation (α), beta radiation (β), and neutron radiation particles of non-zero rest energy)
– Acoustic radiation such as ultrasound, sound, and seismic waves (dependent on a physical transmission medium)
– Electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma radiation (γ)
Some forms of particle, acoustic and electromagnetic radiation occur in nature; humans have adapted to the presence of that radiation over hundreds of thousands of years. In the last 125 years or so, however, we have introduced many man-made, xenobiotic forms of radiation into our living environments. In doing so, we have often misunderstood, and underestimated the negative effects caused by such invisible, odorless forms of radiation. The examples abound of society’s ignorance of radiation dangers that were seldom recognized in time to prevent injury, illness, or death to those exposed.
Marie Curie and her Nobel prize-winning daughter both died of radiation-caused illness. Few, however, recognize that Marie Curie died at age 66, after 37 years of research into (and exposure to) nuclear radiation, but Heinrich Hertz, her contemporary, died at age 36, after 8 years (and exposure to) man-made electromagnetic radiation.
The “Radium Girls” who painted luminous dials on watches in the 1930s loved their jobs in the first months, but died agonizing deaths, often starting with loss of teeth, then loss of their jawbones, then cancers. Almost all died young. (See K. Moore, Radium Girls, 2017).
It is estimated that atomic test explosions in the 50s “probably killed nearly half a million Americans”. (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, Dec. 22, 2017).
In the United States, we even installed X-Ray machines in the 1950’s in shoe stores to determine accurate shoe sizes for children; many childhood leukemia cases later, the US, fortunately, banned that business practice, much as we eventually banned the involuntary exposures from second-hand smoke from smokers on airplanes, in bars and restaurants and in public buildings.
To date, we, as a society, have taken meaningful steps to protect the residents of the US against some, but not all of these forms of radiation. Is that wise? How many times must we learn the same lesson?
In many of these cases, radiation might have looked harmless at first, but sooner or later it took its victims. It is now finally time for San Francisco to fulfill its duties and obligations under the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s cooperative federalism (detailed in Appendix A, below) and to pass local regulation (via DPW-Article 25 or other local ordinance) to finally regulate the Wireless industry, providing common sense and protective “speed limits, seat belts and airbags”-like local laws. Such local laws would provide the benefit of telecommunications service (aka wireless phone calls) while protecting the quiet enjoyment of streets (and the adjacent homes) from excessive Effective Radiated Power — power which is in excess of that needed for telecommunications service.
Pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) is a hazardous pollutant. This has been admitted by the Wireless industry in its 10k statements to the SEC and its investors. This has also been admitted by the Wireless industry in its very user manuals for the hazardous, addictive product/service that it peddles to our Nation. This has also been admitted by the “smart money” folks — the major reinsurance firms of the world. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) — RF-EMR exposure is a subset of this main category — since 2012 has listed EMF/RF-EMR as a pollutant under the insurance policy exclusion of many General Liability Policies Of Zurich, Sun, Hartford and CFC Underwriting for Lloyd’s of London.
– CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyds of London: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude illnesses caused by continuous exposures” to EMF/RF-EMR . . .
– Zurich Community Care Liability Insurance: “We will not pay anything under this policy, claim expenses, in respect of: Electromagnetic fields any liability nature directly or indirectly caused by, in connection with or contributed to by or arising from electromagnetic fields
– SUN General Insurance “This does not Cover any liability, ICN, cost or expense directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from, or contributed to by exposure to magnetic, electric or electromagnetic fields or radiation however caused or generated.”
– The Hartford: “EXCLUSION – ELECTROMAGNETIC HAZARD: The following exclusion is added: This insurance does not apply to: Electromagnetic Hazard …”
The General Liability Insurance offered by wireless companies to the City of San Francisco actually excludes coverage for injury, illness or death from RF-EMR exposures. Such an exclusion is germane to the story of San Francisco resident Cheryl Lea Hogan, who underwent brain surgery on March 2, 2020 to remove a fast-growing tumor in her brain — just three months after the so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) in front of her home at 3535 Sacramento Street in San Francisco was powered on, despite evidence in the public record that proves that the sWTF had not undergone the FCC-required NEPA review and the City of San Francisco was fully aware of this fact.
Listen to Gary Widman’s Mar 4 Testimony at the SF Board of Appeals:
https://youtu.be/SmJ4mNr6FWI?t=75 (19 min)
“For the love of God, please provide humanitarian help. Please turn off the power to that wireless facility immediately so Ms. Cheryl Hogan can recover from her brain surgery in her own home.”
Significant substantial written evidence of the hazards of RF-EMR exposures far below the FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines has been placed into the San Francisco public record from April, 2019 to June 2020 . . . but . . . what has been the City of San Francisco’s response? As described fully here –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#fail we note substantial inaction and avoidance of the problem by the City and County of San Francisco.
Despite many promises by San Francisco’s Dept. of Public Health (SF-DPH) — as evidenced in a June 25, 2020 phone call with Dr. Tomas Aragon, the Director of SF-DPH — it is clear that Dr. Aragon has not sufficiently followed through on completing the assignment given to him by the SF Board of Appeals in a July 3, 2019 letter: to update the June 14, 2010 Memo SF-DPH Memo by Dr. Rajiv Bhatia re: Health Effects and Regulation of Wireless Communications Networks.
This year-long delay is simply unacceptable. We need to inform the Mayor directly of the proposed changes to and implementation of Article 25 that must not be rubber-stamped without first Dr. Aragon completing his now one-year old assignment and placing the results of his analysis in the San Francisco public record.
[click on photo to enlarge]
There is no logical reason or legal basis for being blind to the facts or the experiences of electromagnetic radiation in 2020. Yet that is what results from Article 25’s changes that were voted through on a consent agenda by the Board of Supervisors in July, 2019, with final implementation being considered by the San Francisco Dept of Public Works (SF-DPW) in the last week or so. Article 25, as modified, will continue to ruin the quiet enjoyment of San Francisco’s streets and lead to unacceptably intense pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures on the streets and inside residents’ homes. The levels of RF-EMR from so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) that are placed and constructed as close as 6 to 12 feet from San Franciscan’s homes are easily at least 50,000 to 100,000 times higher than that needed for wireless telecommunications service (see https://scientists4wiredtech.com/vhp).
sWTFs installed six to twelve feet from homes have the capability of transmitting into second- and third-story bedrooms RF-EMR exposures that are nearly 500,000 times more than that emitted by Macro cell towers that are 2,500 feet from homes. sWTFs emit this excessive Effective Radiated Power (ERP) 24 hrs a day, seven days a week, decade after decade.
As you can read here about a sWTF substantially similar to many such sWTFs installed in San Francisco –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019/09/truth-about-4g-5g-in-sacramento/
“The antenna has a 360 degree radiation pattern and is emitting directly into my young nieces’ bedroom. We hired certified Building Biologist Eric Windheim to take measurements in and around our home. The 4G readings inside my nieces’ bedroom were some of the highest he had ever measured indoors: [peak levels of], 460,000 microwatts per square meter; significantly higher than typical cell antenna exposure. It is no surprise to me now that my nieces (and other family members) started experiencing health problems (headaches, nosebleeds, inability to sleep, flu symptoms — all well-documented symptoms of microwave radiation sickness) soon after the antenna was installed and powered on.”
Such RF-EMR exposures have not passed any meaningful safety tests. The FCC is not a safety-testing agency. But the National Institute of Health’s National Toxicology Program is such an agency (https://scientists4wiredtech.com/?s=NTP) . Once again, see all citations on this page which details correspondence with San Francisco from November, 2019 to the present on this topic: https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#fail.
The FCC RF-EMR Exposure Guidelines Are Not Based in Science
In the 1940’s, the US maimed and killed WW II sailors who were unlucky enough to be assigned duties as radar operators, as there was no USA RF-EMR exposure guideline at that time. The earliest injuries and death were mostly ignored by the industries and military that exposed them, but there was a modest effort of four men in 1953, all employed by the military to make their best “guesstimate” of an RF-EMR exposure guideline that might be protective of military personnel and civilians alike. The “guesstimate” started at an average of 100,000,000 µW/m² in 1953 and was then divided by ten in 1965 by ANSI to become an average 10,000,000 µW/m² over a thirty-minute averaging period (for frequencies from 1,500 MHz to 6,000 Mhz). It is astonishing to note that there is no mention of peaks of RF-EMR exposures, modulation schemes, time of exposures or total exposure over time in these FCC RF-EMR guidelines and the selection of Specific Absorption Rate (the rate of exposure) instead Specific Absorption (the total exposure over time) as the key measure in 1996.
A 1992 Hermann Schwan Oral History Interview with Commentary –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/1992-hermann-schwan-oral-history-interview-with-commentary/
A 1986 science review study that states that SAR evaluation is similar to that recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.5, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1986-NCRP-86-OCR.pdf
Andrew Marino, PhD, JD: “First you need to understand where SAR came from. I was there when SAR was invented. Richard Phillips, Don Justesen, Saul Michaelson, Herman Schwann, these were men who created SAR, whose mind gave rise to it. And the reason they did was because they were interested in developing microwave ovens and in understanding how to cook meat. And it’s useful for understanding how to cook meat. But it has no application whatsoever, that I have ever seen suggested or advanced, for understanding mobile phones. SAR works for dead muscle. It has just no applicability in my opinion for live brain . . . The health hazards associated with mobile phone fields have nothing to do with heat. So it makes no sense to say, ‘I have a really great way of measuring heat’ when the measurement of heat is irrelevant to understanding health hazards. Any measurement that you make that has no connection with what you’re interested in is just a waste of time.” SAR can produce a lot of data and when the calculations of SAR are done they can produce beautiful pictures but the pictures are arbitrary and the measurements are meaningless. It’s quite clear that that’s the case. https://scientists4wiredtech.com/regulation/rf-microwave-exposure-guidelines/
Agency actions must pass the “arbitrary or capricious” test in courts. Please use your personal judgment and what you are legally charged with knowing about the negative health consequences of pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposure to be able your test in court. The science on this matter is clear and established: there are over 20,000 independent, peer-reviewed studies on the known biological effects of RF-EMR exposures. RF-EMR exposures at levels hundreds of thousands of times lower than FCC RF-EMR exposure guidelines are bio-active and are significantly hazardous to humans and other living organisms: https://bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/ | https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/science/ | https://scientists4wiredtech.com/covid19/#science.
In fact, we have over twice as many studies establishing this science, versus only 10,000 studies for lead or cigarette smoking to elicit strict safety regulation in the United States.
Please see the copies of recent relevant scientific reports compiled at the UC Berkeley Department of Public Health have been given to the San Francisco Board of Appeals, Dept. of Public Health, Dept. of Technology, and San Francisco Health Commission. See SF-BOS Appeal on April 16, 2019 –> https://1drv.ms/b/s!AiN9Z5GnSKJRg5F-VQ3FpCgvS7HF-Q?e=glUaxY These reports were compiled by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley (https://www.saferemr.com/) This information may be legally deemed what you “should have known” because of your decision-making roles.
Substantial Written Evidence of the Negative Health Consequences from sWTF placement and construction is Already in the San Francisco Public Record
You do know that the health harms have already begun. It is part of the City’s public record commencing on March 4, 2020 with the case of Ms. Cheryl Hogan presented to the SF Board of Appeals, and later made known to the Dept. of Technology. In Ms. Hogan’s case, brain surgery was required about three months after an sWTF was powered on just 12-feet away from her residence. If Article 25 remains as is, there may be more such injuries, illnesses and deaths.
Neither the FCC nor any state agencies or City of San Franciso departments have offered any studies showing the UC file of studies given to the city to be in error. Indeed, the Telecom industry has admitted in Congress in February 2019 that they have no health or safety studies electromagnetic radiation scheduled. See video comments of Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and CTIA executives here → https://youtu.be/xJ07BhcM5_4?t=34m22s In their 10k filings, Wireless companies have given public notice that they recognize the liability for injuries created by the operation of essentially a defective and hazardous product/service: wireless telecommunications.
So if the Article 25 is adopted as is, what will you answer when asked why these studies were ignored, especially when RF-EMR injury from three months of exposure from RF-EMR from a sWTF was brought to the City’s attention months before this decision was made. There is abundant evidence that the RF-EMR exposures from sWTFs are harmful, and the city has seen the reports confirming that danger in several different places.
Those private parties and agencies pushing for the construction of sWTFs in the public rights-of-way have offered no evidence that doing so is safe. They cannot because it is a consensus among all who have studied the negative health consequences, including the CA Supreme Court judges in their ruling April 4, 2019 Ruling in T-Mobile v San Francisco (see https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1751556.html) that RF-EMR exposures from sWTFs are NOT safe for the public.
In view of the fact that no one can show evidence that these sWTFs are safe for the public when constructed near schools, houses or in the public rights-of-way, the most reasonable choice appears to be to halt further installation, and power off the sWTFs that are already operating, until the Telecoms cut their power and reduce the size of the antennas to make their equipment safer for the public. It is plainly not safe at the present size and power levels of these sWTFs.
A Common Sense Solution
We suggest that San Francisco, needs to do the following instead: limit the maximum Effective Radiated Power that any antenna is capable of outputting by a simple fuse that is under lock and key control by the City. The City has full control over the power (wattage) usage of every wireless facility, as ensured by the U.S. Congress in 1995-1996, when that august Body removed the industry’s drafted “operations” from the list of activities preempted for “environmental effects” from what is now codified at 47 U.S.C. §332 (C)(7)(B)(4). The power limit should be set at a level that provides telecommunications service and preserves the quiet enjoyment of streets — and no higher. We have been communicating this common sense solution since September, 2019.
You presumably don’t need to be told about the enormous liabilities the City will incur by proceeding as it has been proceeding. There is no far-sighted choice but to significantly change DPW-Article 25, and start looking for constructive win-win solutions. Such solutions do exist, and we have offered them in our presentations to City staff (see slides attached).
The more you investigate and the more studies you read, the more quickly you will understand why other progressive cities have decided that sWTFs are not [to] be installed in residential zones, including Petaluma, Sebastopol, Mill Valley, Fairfax and others.
If you would like our help in any way, we are happy to offer it.
Gary Widman 415-435-0360
Paul McGavin 707-981-5522
Appendix A: Cooperative Federalism As Established by the 1996 Telecommunciations Act. (I do not have this document)
Note: the Ninth Circuit Ruling is expected in mid-July, 2020
The residents of San Francisco consider the unnecessary taking of our safety, privacy and property values for the further enrichment of private wireless companies to be both wrong and inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Federal 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA), as clearly explained in our letter of June 5, 2020.
It is exceedingly improbable that Congress intended for the population to sicken and die in order to maximize the profits of private Wireless Cos., especially considering that the goals of the 1996-TCA have been largely achieved.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Albert Einstein