A nation that does not protect its children has no future-An open letter to Josh Newman and Sharon Quirk Silva regarding SB 649


Re:  SB 649 (Hueso):  Wireless Telecommunications Facilities As Amended — OPPOSE

The National Association For Children and Safe Technology (NACST) works to educate the public and support public health policy to protect the safety, health, and well being of children and youth from radio frequency / microwave (RF/MW) radiation exposure originating from wireless technology and infrastructure.   NACST opposes CA SB649 legislation based on health and agricultural science, with human and animal physical injuries and impairments, violation of federal and state laws, and violation of the powers of local government.

This is what will be on the power poles, and street light poles all over Fullerton, including the ones in your front and back yards.

 

It is essential that you vote NO on CA SB649 Wireless telecommunications facilities.  This bill is an unnecessary taking of public funds and property values, alongside losses of public health and safety, and human and agricultural productivity.  California has strong interest in protecting its economic base and residents’ and visitors’ freedom from physical injury and impairment.  The 4G/5G Distributed Antenna System (DAS) would result in scientifically established hazardous radiation exposure with often immediate and therefore provable adverse effects, particularly immediate neurological and cardiologic effects.

CA SB649 involves telecoms installing powerful microwave radiation antennae, misleadingly called “small cells” to conceal their radiation power and concentration, on light poles and utility poles in the public right of way for 5G.  Poles may be only 15-20 feet from homes and offices.  Thousands of these antennae and large power supplies would be placed on residential blocks and farms, deploying radio frequency / microwave (RF/MW) radiation penetrating homes and bodies 24/7/365 forever.

Pulse-modulated RF/MW radiation, particularly this close to homes, offices and farm animals, is a “hazard”, as acknowledged by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers  (IEEE) and FCC in 1991 in the guideline-setting process.

Although proponents claim a financial bonanza from DAS 5G deployment, there is no evidence to support it. In fact, the Russians refused 5G as badly engineered (as also US engineers have admitted) and instead provided fiber optics, which works much better, to all homes and apartments in large cities. Furthermore, cell phones are a mature industry:  everyone who wants a cell phone already has one, including California’s children and youth.

 

Health and agricultural science, and physical injury/impairments to human, animals, insects:

The Chair of the original FCC guideline Committee himself (John Osepchuk) acknowledges >20,000 scientific studies, with immediate, short-term and/or long-term adverse effects from RF/MW radiation.

 

5G RF/MW radiation has a 20-inch wave that penetrates the body deeply and is particularly harmful to babies and children. Four wavelengths, each 2-4 inches, are optimally absorbed by the human brain, heart, liver, thyroid, kidneys, and reproductive organs, impairing their functions. Effects include headaches, insomnia, tinnitus, heart arrhythmia, suppressed melatonin production (essential for sleep, productivity and the immune system), DNA damage and much more. The final ten simultaneous wavelengths of 1/10 to 1⁄2 inch target the eyes, ears and skin, and fall within the resonance of pollinating insects’ antennae, producing bee colony collapse.  The U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program’s 16-year, $25 million study concluded in 2016 that cell phone RF/MW radiation causes cancer of the brain (glioma) and the heart (schwannoma).  5G radiation is even worse.

 

Incredibly, no monitoring of actual radiation emissions from 5G antennae in homes or public places is intended.  The relevant FCC guideline was based in fraud from the start and has not been updated since 1996 to reflect current scientific knowledge.  It does not protect against biological harm, and is based on a false absorption model of a doll head filled with water!  It utterly fails to protect children whose brains are still developing and whose skulls are thinner than an adult skull. Studies show RF/MW radiation even less potent than 5G is harmful to every human, animal, insect and plant.

 

Proponents misrepresent the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) as preempting all state and local regulation of wireless facilities.  State and local governances are preempted only from regulating the “placement, construction, and modification” of wireless facilities based on their “environmental effects”. Preemption includes neither health effects nor health science.  Nor is regulation of operations preempted on any basis. State and local governments remain authorized and obligated to regulate every activity not preempted by TCA, and on every basis not preempted.

 

Violation of federal laws:

Allowance of any 5G wireless facilities would not only violate TCA, it would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Federal Fair Housing Act. These laws guarantee equal access for all, but 5G would make public places and federal housing, not to mention all housing, uninhabitable for already injured, impaired and/or electromagnetically sensitive (EMS) persons.  California says it requires compliance with ADA, but given 5G’s multiple simultaneous wavelengths, its intensities, and its 15-degree, near-maser (direct-energy weapon) arc of radiation concentration, compliance is impossible.

 

Massive industry liability shift to the State of California:

In the July 19, 2017 letter from attorney Harry Lehmann to Jennifer Galehouse, Deputy Chief Consultant, Assembly Appropriations Committee,  Lehmann makes the point that SB 649 is an Appropriations matter.  Furthermore, the letter documents incorrect data given by the Telecom industry in testimony and analysis of the shifting of the massive Industry liability to the State of California.  Please see Mr.  Lehmann’s letter here:   https://ehtrust.org/law-letter-small-cell-bill-will-shift-liability-reasonably-result-bankruptcy-california-sb649/

 

The State of California must protect health, safety, agriculture and its own economy.  CA SB649 would sacrifice it all, with resulting chronic health problems and loss of productivity by some degree to all Californians, right where they live and work, and the permanent loss of agricultural pollinators.

 Time is running out for all Californians and demands that you, as our elected officials, oppose SB 649.

 

Sincerely,

 

Diane Hickey, California resident, Co-founder

National Association For Children and Safe Technology

http://www.nacst.org

 

[i] Sept. 2013 letter to FCC requesting reassessment of radio frequency exposure limits and policies

cc:

Martin Blank, Ph.D, Spokesperson, EMF Scientist Appeal

Mary Beth Brangan, Co-director, Ecological Options

Susan Clarke, Founder, Environmental Health Advocacy League (ENHALE)

Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director, League of California Cities

Devra Davis, Ph.D., Founder and President, Environmental Health Trust

Josh Del Sol, Director, Take Back Your Power

Victoria Dunkley, MD

Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D.

Zen Honeycutt, Founder, Moms Across America

Toril Jelter, MD

Olle Johansson, Ph.D.

Harry Lehmann

Ellen Marks, Director, California Brain Tumor Association

Joel Moscowitz, Ph.D., Center For Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley

Kevin Mottus

Martin Pall, Ph.D.

Ron Powell, Ph.D.

Cindy Russell, MD

Zonya Townsend, President, California Nurses For Ethical Standards

Scientists For Wired Technology

Center For Electrosmog Prevention

Southern Californians Against Smart Meters (SCASM)

Wireless Radiation Alert Network

Consumers For Safer Cellphones
Empower Family California

Electromagnetic Safety Alliance

Center for Safer Wireless

California Department of Public Health

Karen Smith, MD, MPH, Director and State Public Health Officer

Mark Starr, Deputy Director, Center for Environmental Health

Ali Bay, Deputy Director, Office of Public Affairs

Steve Woods, Division Chief, Division of Food, Drug & Radiation Safety

California Department of Food and Agriculture

Karen Ross, Secretary

Jim Houston, Undersecretary

Annette Jones, Director, Division of Animal Health and Food Safety Services

California Environmental Protection Agency

Linda Adams, Acting Secretary

Deborah Raphael, Director, Department of Toxic Substances Control

George Alexeeff, PhD, Acting Director, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

, ,

  1. #1 by Joe Imbriano on July 27, 2017 - 8:18 am

    Cal State Fullerton’s establishment operative Robert Shapiro tells us this all safe. Looks like he is your go to when you and children get sick. He has held himself out as an expert in his field weighing in on this folks.

    https://thefullertoninformer.com/shame-on-cal-state-fullertons-dr-mark-h-shapiro-for-talking-out-his-pie-hole-on-wireless/

    • #2 by Anonymous on July 27, 2017 - 10:17 am

      Thank you for sharing this information Mr. Imbriano. I will be contacting both of my representatives. Is this the same energy that the airport scanners use?

  2. #3 by Mccain got his own tower ten years ago on July 27, 2017 - 2:18 pm

    Early in 2007, just as her husband launched his presidential bid, Cindy McCain sought to resolve an old problem – the lack of cellphone coverage on her remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, Ariz., nestled deep in a tree-lined canyon called Hidden Valley.

    Over the past year, she offered land for a permanent cell tower, and Verizon Wireless embarked on an expensive public process to meet her needs, hiring contractors and seeking county land-use permits.

    Verizon ultimately abandoned its effort to install a permanent tower in August. Company spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said the project would be “an inappropriate way” to build its network. “It doesn’t make business sense for us to do that,” he added.

    Instead, Verizon delivered a portable tower known as a “cell site on wheels” – free of charge – to the McCain property in June, after the Secret Service began inquiring about improving coverage in the area. Such devices are used for providing temporary capacity where coverage is lacking or has been knocked out, in circumstances ranging from the Super Bowl to hurricanes.

    GRAPHIC: After a request from Cindy McCain, Verizon Wireless proposed installing a cell tower close to the couple’s home near Sedona, Ariz.
    In July, AT&T followed suit, wheeling in a portable tower for free to match Verizon’s offer. “This is an unusual situation,” AT&T spokeswoman Claudia B. Jones said. “You can’t have a presidential nominee in an area where there is not cell coverage.”

    Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain’s dealings with the wireless companies stand out because her husband is a senior member of the Senate commerce committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunication services.

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his campaign have close ties to Verizon and AT&T. Five campaign officials, including manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staff member Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan G. Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain’s presidential effort, and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain’s political career, giving his campaigns more than $155,000.

    McCain’s Senate chief of staff Mark Buse, senior strategist Charles R. Black Jr. and several other campaign staff members have registered as AT&T lobbyists in the past. AT&T Executive Vice President Timothy McKone and AT&T lobbyists have raised more than $2.3 million for McCain. AT&T employees have donated more than $325,000 to the Republican’s campaigns, putting the company in the No. 3 spot for career donations to McCain, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

    “It raises the aura of special consideration for somebody because he is a member of the Senate,” said Stanley Brand, a former House counsel for Democrats and an ethics lawyer who represents politicians in both parties.

    McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said that the senator is not a regulator and that Cindy McCain received no favors from Verizon or AT&T.

    “Mrs. McCain’s staff went through the Web site as any member of the general public would – no string-pulling, no phone calls, no involvement of Senate staff,” Rogers said. “Just because she is married to a senator doesn’t mean she forfeits her right to ask for cell service as any other Verizon customer can.”

    Verizon spokesman Nelson said. “I am not going to talk about individual customers and their requests.”

    Verizon navigated a lengthy county regulatory process that hit a snag on environmental concerns (see document). The request ultimately prevailed when a contractor for the company invoked the Secret Service after John McCain secured the Republican nomination.

    After checking with Verizon and the McCain campaign, Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said an e-mail sent in May by the service’s technology manager could be perceived as a request for temporary coverage under the service’s contract with Verizon.

    “This was something that was being addressed before we were out there,” Zahren said. The agency could have made do with existing cell coverage in the area, he said, because it uses multiple layers of communication, including a secure land radio network. Zahren said the contractor was not authorized to invoke the Secret Service in dealings with the county.

    Documents that The Washington Post obtained from Arizona’s Yavapai County under state public records law show how Verizon hired contractors to put a tower on the property (see letter). At that point, many counted McCain out of the race.

    On Sept. 18, 2007, a Mesa, Ariz., contractor working for Verizon surveyed the McCain property. Another contractor drafted blueprints (see document – note large file size) calling for moving a utility shed and installing a 40-foot tower with two antennas and a microwave dish, surrounded by a six-foot wooden fence.

    Construction costs would be $22,000, records show. Industry specialists said the figure probably only covers the tower and fence because the antennas, the dish and power source would run the cost into the six figures. On Dec. 4, Cindy McCain signed a letter (see document) authorizing Verizon Wireless to act on her behalf to seek county land-use permits.

    Coverage maps submitted by Verizon to the county show that the tower would fill gaps in unpopulated parts of Coconino National Forest and on about 20 parcels of land, including a handful of residences, and two small businesses open only by appointment. “We are not big cell phone users,” said neighbor Linda Kappel, who runs a small gift shop.

    “It is a fairly sparsely populated in that pocket along Oak Creek,” said Kathy Houchin, the Yavapai County permitting manager.

    Three telecommunications specialists consulted by The Post said the proposed site covers so few users that it is unlikely to generate enough traffic to justify the investment. Robb Alarcon, an industry specialist who helps plan tower placement, said the proposed location appeared to be a “strategic build,” free-of-charge coverage to high-priority customers. A former Verizon executive vice president, who asked not to be named because he worked for the company, agreed with Alarcon, saying, “It was a VIP kind of thing.”

    Verizon spokesman Nelson declined to comment when asked if this had been considered to be a “strategic build.”

    Cindy McCain signed a contract with Verizon on May 6 (see document), granting free use of her property for a year in exchange for “the benefits of enhanced wireless communications arising from operation of the Facility.”

    Over Memorial Day, McCain hosted potential vice presidential running mates at the ranch, but the area still lacked coverage. Richard Klenner, then the wireless communications chief of the Secret Service, which had recently started providing protection, sent an e-mail to Verizon. “Is there any way of speeding up the process?” he asked, adding that he wanted Verizon to “explore every possible means of providing an alternative cellular or data communications source in the referenced area and provide any short-term implementation of any type as a solution in the interim.”

    • #4 by Anonymous on July 30, 2017 - 9:48 am

      Senator John McCain’s glioblastoma diagnosis is proof positive that his cell phone gave him cancer. How much more proof do you need? Look what side of his head his tumor is on and look where it is is growing. Hardell’s findings supported warning labels at the very least. I fear most people will never act until it is far too late to do so. This bill is moving through the halls quickly.

  3. #5 by John R. Hogerhuis on July 27, 2017 - 3:56 pm

    Go buy a tinfoil suit and leave reasonable people alone.

    This is pure nonsense.

    • #6 by Anonymous on July 28, 2017 - 12:29 pm

      The government’s own NTP cancer study concluded that wireless cellular radiation DOES increase cancer.

    • #7 by Joe Imbriano on July 28, 2017 - 8:10 pm

      John, do you consider yourself reasonable? On what basis do you consider warning of the dangers of the deployment of millimeter wave technology absurd? It is one thing to not understand the science, another to ignore it and then of course we have you behaving like a child.

  4. #8 by Jennifer DeFusco on July 27, 2017 - 7:45 pm

    Follow the money. Likely, each human being who has ignored the science about EMFs is taking money from the wireless industry. Or, maybe they’re not human.

  5. #9 by Anonymous on July 27, 2017 - 8:13 pm

    Corporate ties keep influencing science as well as its coverage in the media. These things are deadly over time. Fullerton is fortunate to have such a dedicated group to exposing all of this. Hopefully it can be halted before it is too late.

  6. #10 by Anonymous on July 28, 2017 - 8:30 am

    Fifty comments over feeding a cat on Nextdoor and no one dares to comment on such a serious matter as this. Joe your neighbors are really a soft bunch.

  7. #11 by RH on July 28, 2017 - 9:11 am

    Sperm counts among men have more than halved in the last 40 years and it is going to get a lot worse. How many children are born with congenital abnormalities today versus 20 or 30 years ago? Something is terribly awry. There can be no debating that. Wireless coverage today is vastly more consistent than even a year ago. Why the need for such a blanket deployment? The demand is already being met and exceeded by current infrastructure. Perhaps this is really an agenda like Joe claims, so they can get even more up close and personal with us.

    • #13 by Anonymous on August 4, 2017 - 9:34 pm

      Where did this goon go?

  8. #14 by Anonymous on July 28, 2017 - 4:33 pm

    John Hogeruis is madly in love with computers, especially laptops. What an extremely unreasonable man making a joke of such a serious issue. Nice gut there buddy.

    http://www.club100.org/faces/hogerhuis.jpg

    • #15 by Anonymous on July 29, 2017 - 8:21 am

      which one is he? the one on the right? what a creepy dude

      • #16 by Anonymous on July 29, 2017 - 2:18 pm

        I’m sure you’re totally not creepy. Especially since making fun of people’s pictures anonymously on a paranoid’s website is perfectly normal.

        • #17 by Anonymous on August 1, 2017 - 11:24 am

          This whole site is full of creeps, especially the ones that don’t use their names.

          • #18 by Anonymous on August 1, 2017 - 4:11 pm

            What an astute observation!

  9. #19 by Anonymous on August 6, 2017 - 9:31 am

    This is all part of Agenda 21. 5G is a weapon. We have plenty of bandwith already. When is the last time anybody dropped a call? Research how microwaves were first invented. They were and still are a weapon.

  10. #20 by OakleyCellTower Corinne Kuhlmann on August 14, 2017 - 7:25 am

    You have done your research.
    I am proud to provide links to your articles on my social media profiles.
    https://plus.google.com/+OakleyCellTower
    On Twitter & LinkedIn @OakleyCellTower
    Keep up the hard work.

    One day, people will listen
    (Only after getting cancer themselves, from wireless, pulsating, non-ionizing radiation.)

    7 dead in 7 months, 2016, 7 years after Oakley Cell Tower was errected at Big Oak Mobile Home Park, a +55 and older elderly community.

    All lived in transmission path and more have/had cancer. My husband, diagnosed 1 year ago, now has hypertension and diabetes mellitus type 2, lived here for 3 years. Thankful we do not live directly in transmission path.

    Tower Owner: SBA Communications (Edward Roach, General Council and member of WIA (Wireless Infrastructure Assoc.))
    Mr. Roach claims he is not liable because he does not transmit or receive.

    T-Mobile and Verizon are the telecommunications transmitters and receivers. Both completely and totally ignore me, the gnat, but I keep buzzing about this subject almost daily.

    Ajit Pai, FCC top dog, is one of my connections on LinkedIn, along with one of his legal advisors. At least I got his attention (for a moment).

    Thank you

    • #21 by Anonymous on August 17, 2017 - 12:01 pm

      It is only a matter of time before the death toll mounts in our schools. We are already seeing what would otherwise be normal, vibrant, healthy children and young adults dying from mysterious ailments that go un-diagnosed and are passed off as natural causes.

(will not be published)


Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!