Park and Recreation Committee met last night and voted to approve the installation of an AT&T cell tower in Richman Park, a few feet away from the St Jude Medical Clinic and adjacent to the Richman Elementary School.

download (2)

The final vote was 4 for approval, 1 abstention and 1 rejection. The vote broke down as follows:

Wayne Carvalho, Vice-Chair 
(appointed by Greg Sebourn) Yes

Erin Haselton 
(appointed by Jennifer Fitzgerald) Yes

Jesus Silva 
(appointed by Jan Flory) Yes

Scott Stanford 
(appointed at-large) Yes

Karen Lang-McNabb 
(appointed by Doug Chaffee) Abstained

Barry Levinson, Chair
(appointed by Bruce Whitaker) No

Ladies and gentleman, it was approved despite the collection of 365 neighborhood citizen signatures telling the city that it does not want the cell tower to be installed. The committee was told that this neighborhood group only learned about this cell tower a week ago and that they were still actively collecting signatures and that more would be forthcoming. All public comments from the citizens, five in all were against the construction of the cell tower. No one from the public was for the cell tower.

It was also approved despite the fact that AT&T has not provided a contract document to the city. At my urging a similar document was provided as an example. We learned that the specifics of the cell tower equipment is not included in any contractual document but handled off line by the Park and Recreation Department.

The standard language in these cell tower contracts was somewhat troubling in a few key areas. For instance, it states under the Section entitled Use, the following: 
”The Premises may be used by the Lessee” (that would be cell tower provider), “for any lawful activity in connection with the provision of wireless communications services by the Lessee.” According to the engineering study conducted for AT&T, the cell tower in question is “one percent of the applicable public exposure limit”. So under this standard language contract they could presumably increase the exposure almost 100 times and still be within the “legal” FCC limits according to the study. All this can be done without every being reviewed again by the Parks and Recreation Committee or the Fullerton City Council. I noted last night that this contractual language was not acceptable to me. Apparently, it was acceptable to everyone else as I was the only no vote.

I also asked if the council would be given a copy of the AT&T contract prior to their vote to approve the cell tower. The answer was that it is not provided in their agenda package because it is a standard contract approved many years ago by a former council.

I found all of the above unacceptable as I believe we were voting on an agenda item based on only verbal assurances by AT&T and very little else.

Now ladies and gentleman, I have not even yet raised the part that is most concerning to many others and me. It is the potential health risks that most of the public comment speakers addressed. Joe Imbriano, administrator of even gave the council copies of several recent studies that detail the health risks of cell towers to the surrounding community.

Yet despite all of this, I was the only commissioner who voted against this agenda item. So now it goes before the city council for final approval. Unless all of us go to that meeting (it has not been put on the agenda as of yesterday) I suspect this cell tower will be approved.

Before the vote, I offered an alternative motion that the vote be delayed one month until our next meeting. At that time I recommended that AT&T could provide us with the proposed contract, the neighborhood group could provide the city with its final tally of all those against the project and members of the public could address the committee with a formal presentation of their concerns about the placement of this cell tower. The committee voted down that alternative motion.

I asked the members of the Park and Recreation Department present along with the other five committee members, what is the purpose of reviewing this cell tower proposal, if we do not have a contract and by law (the FCC) we are not to consider the health risks of our children and their parents that have been claimed by dozens if not 100’s of scientific studies throughout the world. Not surprisingly, no one provided me with an answer.

One last but vital point. Director Hugo Curiel reminded us that as a body we couldn’t consider the health effects of cell towers in making our decision to approve or reject the cell tower for Richman Park.

The FCC stands for the Federal Communications Commission. It has federal jurisdiction over interstate communications. Please tell me where such a group has the authority and the expertise to make it illegal to consider the potential negative and serious health effects of cell tower transmissions.

I for one stand tall and stand proud to state unequivocally that the FCC has no right to demand our silence on the issue of cell tower heath risks.

It was just another sad performance by people representing the city of Fullerton.  It was sad because every concern, i.e. the lack of a contract, the health concerns and the wishes of many of the neighborhood residents, all ignored by our Parks and Recreation Department and its committee.


  1. #1 by Anonymous on July 15, 2014 - 3:43 pm

    Wayne Carvalho, Erin Haselton, Jesus Silva, Scott Stanford:

    Does it not occur to any of you that a law bars that you from declining a cell tower installation based on health concerns is somewhat strange? Especially when the issue is health? Are you all sheep, unable to decipher that something is amiss/wrong with such a law? Apparently not. Rather than turn it down on another basis, you vote for it.

    What did you vote for? You voted for what studies have shown increases breast cancer risk by 23%; increases to brain cancer was 121 times higher. That information was presented before the State of Oregon. You voted for what was identified as the cause of autism. None of you is capable of assessing and evaluating the science, politics (industry funded studies) and history of the EMF field. Yet, that doesn’t stop you from voting to impose all of these detrimental health and death sentences by voting for another cell tower. How much was this worth to you to forsake the Richman Park community? Wayne, Erin, Jesus, Scott: what is your dog in this fight?

    You are all so very, very ignorant and, at the same time, so very arrogant.

    Wayne Carvalho: You made a public statement that the law had to have been changed in 18 years time. You are completely wrong, and the fact that you made the statement you did shows that you are particularly ignorant of the issue. You are a propagator of misinformation. It is easily verifiable, go take a look at the 1996 Telecommunication Act.

    Karen Lang-McNabb: You appeared put off, as you were made to “suffer through” the Oregon State presentation. You pull up trite, industry-shill Wikipedia propaganda that is pushed time and again by those who will, at all costs, deny the science and what is now self evident. The cancer rates are increasing, autism rates increasing but you want to put down what you do not understand and pretend that you are up to the job of assessing wireless radiation. You have no understanding of electrohypersensitivity and come off as a repugnant clod. To your credit, you did call out the Precautionary Principal and you did ABSTAIN from voting.

    All-in-all, you P & R Commission members are a disgusting disgrace.

    • #2 by Joe Imbriano on July 19, 2014 - 5:32 pm

      joe imbriano
      Jul 18 (2 days ago)

      to Stanford, info, Barry, Diane, Alfredo, Judith, Davis, Fullerton
      Mr. Stanford, how many cell towers have you approved during your tenure on the Parks and Rec commission? How many cell tower contracts have you reviewed for these projects prior to your approval of them? How much time have you spent looking into the health effects of RF emissions as well as the “safety” concerns of these masts and their related equipment?

      Is there any reason why you chose to ignore the hundreds of residents who had concerns and rushed to ram this through? If those three hundred plus signatures were from your neighborhood, would you have ignored them?

      I am also curious as to why you chose to badger the chairperson when in fact he wanted to look at things that your behavior clearly indicated clearly never considered during your tenure on the commission.

      Joe Imbriano

      site admin

    • #3 by Joe Imbriano on July 19, 2014 - 5:33 pm

      joe imbriano
      Jul 18 (2 days ago)

      to Jesus, info, Barry, Diane, Judith, Alfredo, Fullerton, Davis
      Jesus,how many cell towers have you approved on your tenure with the Parks and Rec Comissions?

      How many cell tower contracts have you reviewed prior to approving the towers?

      I am curious how you, being a school teacher, can ignore the potential dangers of a cell tower next to a school.

      I am also curious as to why you would choose to ignore the concerns of hundreds of residents, the majority of which are Latino. Would you ignore them if they were your neighbors? ATT delayed and dragged their feet for 3 months and you were asked to delay a vote for 30 days so that more signatures could be gathered. Why did you allow ATT 3 months to address health and safety concerns and refused additional time for more Fullerton residents to have their voices heard and our group to present information to you?

      Finally, how can you, being an FSD school teacher remain silent on the dangers your students are facing from the forced wireless exposure in the classrooms? Your wife, Sharon has chosen to totally ignore this issue as well and shame on her. Who is wearing the pantalones compa?

  2. #4 by Anonymous on July 15, 2014 - 6:06 pm

    From the American Cancer Society … worth a read … pretty much refutes the assertion that cell towers are dangerous, using authoritative agencies as sources.

    • #5 by miller time on July 15, 2014 - 7:33 am

      If they were so safe then how come it is illegal to consider health effects you dumbshit?

    • #6 by Joe Imbriano on July 15, 2014 - 9:56 pm

      “Very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk.”

      -excerpt from your highly authoritative source.

  3. #7 by Diane H on July 15, 2014 - 7:45 pm

    The idea that health cannot be weighed in deciding this cell tower issue is dictatorial. I believe it is in violation of the Tenth amendment to the US Constitution. The method/means for this decision is not delegated to the Federal government.
    The Feds cannot dictate this to us.

  4. #8 by Randall on July 15, 2014 - 9:01 pm

    I have been following the debates on the blog for some time now. The information presented here is very intriguing to say the least. This entry in particular really caught my attention and warranted my two cents to be thrown in. The telecommunications act of 1996 was one of the most despotic pieces of legislation ever enacted IMO.

    It is my understanding that the FCC has set limits regarding occupational as well as individual radio frequency exposures. Those are their exposure guidelines in units of power density. It is also my understanding that their exposure guidelines only consider the point at which acute burning of tissue begins as the threshold of maximum exposure.

    It is widely accepted in many scientific circles (not industry funded of course) that exposure to radio frequency emissions at levels much lower than what is permissible has been shown to have adverse impacts to biological systems. I believe the author has done an exhaustive search to ferret out some of the best material on this issue. The preceding post on the fire stations is extremely compelling.

    What is most puzzling to me are the great lengths certain people will go to in order to ignore what is being done to them.

    Where can I find a video recording of this meeting? It is not on the City’s web site.

  5. #9 by Joe Imbriano on July 16, 2014 - 8:13 am

    What we have before us is the following:

    The FCC is the sole authority on microwave exposure guidelines.

    The FCC is a regulatory agency, not a public health agency.

    The FCC doesn’t have one medical doctor on its entire payroll.

    The FCC exposure guidelines are NOT SAFETY STANDARDS.

    The FCC exposure guidelines only consider acute burning of adult tissue and COMPLETELY ignore non-thermal biological effects of microwave exposure. They also do not address exposures for children and pregnant women.

    The wireless industry is a trillion dollar industry with an unlimited supply of lobbyists. It owns the scientists and researchers.

    The wireless industry funds, directs and orders the research funding, scope and fields of study to serve up the scientific results and conclusions that it desires.

    The telecommunications industry war games the science and destroys the careers of those whose scientific conclusions conflict with the industry’s interests.

    The telecommunications act of 1996 preemption clauses were redefined by a flawed San Diego Court ruling that yielded the precedent that “health effects” resulting from radio frequency microwave exposures CANNOT be considered in the antennae siting processes by local jurisdictions. It does however, allow for “safety” and “aesthetic” concerns to be considered. It only applies to GSM, not LTE, 4G, 5G, WiMax or WiFi. Nor does it grant any right to any carrier to erect a tower, only to site an antenna array.

    Basically I believe it is like being forced to choose aand marry a bride while not being able to refuse her just because she is a prostitute with a violent criminal record even though it has been shown that she is a prostitute and has harmed or killed in the past. This is insane once you begin to understand what is being done to us by very powerful entities with the blessing of inept local leaders.

    Do we have public officials that cannot or refuse to think and willfully ignore thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies as well as the scope of the telecom act itself? They just rubber stamp things and go along for the joy ride like, in my opinion, complete idiots, yes idiots folks. It is as if this is some kind of social club or something with critical thinking skills not allowed.

    To top it off, we have forced wireless microwave irradiation of all school children in the Fullerton School District at the hands of Robert Pletka and all of the complicit principals continues with the wireless microwave matrix common core classrooms that Robert Pletka so proudly rams down all of your throats ignoring the science warning against everything he is doing. This model is being replicated worldwide folks. Most of you are helping at home with the iPads and wireless gaming systems you all use babysitters. Most of you have filled your homes with thsi crap. These kids will never get a break from the classroom exposure, playground exposure, and home exposure.

    Across the pond however, FJUHSD’s Dr. George Giokaris has decided to HARDWIRE ALL OF THE COMMON CORE COMPUTER LABS IN THE FULLERTON JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT leaving all of the wireless equipment they already purchased in boxes in storage and trashing the hot mapping plans for access point deployment. Yes, citing safety concerns, off the record, they have scrapped their plans for total wireless deployment and hired an electrical contractor to hard wire the classrooms. THIS IS SPARING 15000 HIGH SCHOOL KIDS FROM WHAT PLETKA IS FORCING ON THE KIDS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE 5 YEAR OLDS IN THE Fullerton School District.

    With the exception of Mr. Levinson, the parks and recreation commission members ought to be ashamed of themselves and as well as those on the council who appointed them.

    While I do not necessarily approve of the vulgar vernacular employed by “miller time” that has been posted on this thread, I wholly agree with his assertions. It is a great point, that is if it so safe then why can’t we look at health concerns in basing our cell tower siting decisions? Sometimes crude statements are the most truthful.

    So now we know how all of this is being done but you ask yourself why is this all being done? Well, here is your answer:

  6. #10 by Barry Levinson on July 16, 2014 - 11:01 am

    Randall the city of Fullerton does not video tape nor audio tape the Park and Recreation Committee meetings.

    We have asked that it be done but so far the city has chosen not to provide this record for the citizens of Fullerton.

    The City Council meetings and the Planning Commission meetings are video recorded and can be found on the City of Fullerton website.

    • #11 by Anonymous on July 16, 2014 - 4:53 pm

      like Superman flying into Metropolis, Barry Levinson will be our super hero, swooping into Fullerton and thwarting corruption at every turn, in the name of
      Truth,justice and the American Way!

      • #12 by Anonymous on July 17, 2014 - 5:51 am

        Fullerton is run by a bunch of corrupt thugs. Not even Barry could save it.

  7. #13 by Anonymous on July 16, 2014 - 11:22 am

    Miller Time is obviously a classy, intelligent individual, whose moniker tells us what he/she probably spends most of his time doing.
    By the way, it’s dumb shit, not dumbshit.

    • #14 by miller time on July 16, 2014 - 4:56 pm

      Who gives a shit if I cant spell, at least I can think.

      • #15 by Anonymous on July 17, 2014 - 9:19 am

        Yes Miller Time, you are obviously an excellent thinker.

  8. #16 by Anonymous on July 16, 2014 - 12:39 pm

    “In any case the simplest and most effective way to find out the truth is to have a Complete Blood Count carried out on all the people (men, women and children) living in an area where phone masts are to be installed, once before the site comes into operation and the same again when it has been running for a few months.
    It is sad but true that this procedure, which provides evidence valid in court, is not at present carried out systematically by residents’ action groups. With the support of a good lawyer this evidence guarantees a successful case as it cannot be contradicted by the phone company lawyers. In fact in one case where Orange had planned to set up a new mast it was not even necessary to present these results in court; the company dropped their plans, without any explanation, when they received by registered post the initial Complete Blood Count results of the people living near the proposed site. . .”

  9. #18 by Anonymous on July 16, 2014 - 4:11 pm

    Mr. Levinson, are you indeed a candidate for council in November?

  10. #19 by Shane on July 16, 2014 - 9:47 pm

    Joe, Alexa shows your bounce rate is at 16.70%. That is amazing. You always said build it and they will come.

    • #20 by Infowarrior on July 17, 2014 - 7:25 am

      I am an IT, SEO guy and for a blog to have a legitimate bounce rate in the teens is feat in and of itself. The Alexa metrics on this site are incredible with a 5 page view average per visitor and a 10 minute average time spent on the site per visitor. I would say the reason you are witnessing these numbers is simply because what is being discussed here is information you will find nowhere else. People are delving deeply into the material here and these numbers reflect that. Nice work.

  11. #21 by Joe Imbriano on July 17, 2014 - 8:11 am

    Declaration: Scientists call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure
    [Note: This includes–but is not limited to–radiofrequency radiation-emitting devices, such as cell phones and
    cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters and baby monitors.]

    We are scientists engaged in the study of electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiofrequency radiation (RFR) health
    and safety. We have serious concerns regarding Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline.

    Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline is fundamentally flawed.
    Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is based on an obsolete account and analysis of RFR research and has
    disregarded or minimized certain recent studies, such as cancer, DNA damage, protein synthesis, stress
    response, and detrimental biological and health effects in humans that occur at RFR intensities below the
    existing Code 6 Guideline.

    The World Health Organization classified electromagnetic fields at both extremely low frequency (2001) and
    radiofrequency (2011) ranges as a “Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans” and included reviews and
    studies reporting low-intensity biological effects.

    Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline does not protect people.
    Currently, RF exposure guidelines in various countries (China, Russia, Italy, Switzerland), based on biological
    effects, are 100 times more stringent than the guidelines based on an outdated understanding of RFR that relies
    primarily on thermal effects that includes Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. Following a recent review of Safety
    Code 6 (Royal Society of Canada Report entitled, “A Review of Safety Code 6 (2013): Health Canada’s Safety
    Limits for Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields”), Health Canada has decided not to lower the existing guidelines
    and arbitrarily to include a maximum exposure that is 1000 times higher than the 6-minute average exposure.
    Furthermore, Health Canada does not adhere to the Precautionary Principle used by states when serious risks to
    the public or the environment exist but lack scientific consensus.

    Many Canadians and people worldwide share a growing perception of risk due to the proliferation of RF
    sources encountered in daily life and reports of adverse health effects. Since the start of the Wireless Age in the
    1990s, health studies show more people reacting adversely to electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic
    radiation. Epidemiological studies show links between RF exposure and cancers, neurological disorders,
    hormonal changes, symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) and more. Laboratory studies show
    increased cancers, abnormal sperm, learning and memory deficits, and heart irregularities.

    People who suffer from functional impairment due to RF exposure and those who prefer to live, work and raise
    their children in a low EMF environment are increasingly unable to find such places. Worker productivity,
    even the capacity to make a living, is diminishing. Some people are being forced into an isolated, nomadic
    lifestyle, with few resources to sustain them. The medical community in North America is largely unaware of
    the biological responses to RF exposure and does not know how to treat those who have become ill. The typical
    methods to alleviate symptoms and promote healing are not working due, in part, to ubiquitous exposure.

    Our urgent call for public health protection.
    The public’s health and the health of the environment are threatened by ever-evolving RF emitting
    technologies, without due consideration for what the potential cumulative impacts on biological systems are
    likely to be in the future.

    We urgently call upon Health Canada . . .
    i) to intervene in what we view as an emerging public health crisis;
    ii) to establish guidelines based on the best available scientific data including studies on cancer and
    DNA damage, stress response, cognitive and neurological disorders, impaired reproduction, developmental effects, learning and behavioural problems among children and youth, and the broad
    range of symptoms classified as EHS; and
    iii) To advise Canadians to limit their exposure and especially the exposure of children.


    Dr. Franz Adlekofer, MD, Pandora Foundation, Germany
    Dr. Bahriye Sırav Aral, Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biophysics, Turkey
    Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy
    Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Prof, Med. Oncol. Paris Univ. Hospital; Dir., European Cancer & Environment Research Inst., France
    Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, USA
    Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, PhD, Faculty of Sciences, Free University of Brussels, Belgium
    Dr. Ayşe G. Canseven, Gazi University, Medical Faculty, Biophysics Department, Turkey
    Dr. David Carpenter, MD, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, USA
    Dr. Simona Carrubba, PhD, Daemen College, Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo (Neurology), USA
    Dr. Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA
    Dr. Adilza C. Dode, PhD, MSc, Prof. EMF Pollution Control, Environ. Eng. Dept, Minas Methodist Univ. Ctr. Belo Horizonte, Brazil
    Dr. Meric Arda Esmekaya, PhD, Gazi University, Biophysics Department, Turkey
    Dr. Arzu Firlarer, MSc, PhD, Senior Researcher & Instructor, Occupational Health and Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey
    Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, MSc, PhD, Postdoc. Research Assoc., Dept. Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece
    Dr. Christos Georgiou, Prof. Biochemistry, Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
    Dr. Livio Giuliani, PhD, Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florenze-Bozen, Italy
    Prof. Yury Grigoriev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russia
    Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, PhD, Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy
    Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario la fe Valencia, Spain
    Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
    Dr. Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
    Dr. Paul Héroux, PhD, Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University Medical; InvitroPlus Labs., Royal Victoria Hospital, Canada
    Dr. Donald Hillman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, USA
    Dr. Martha R. Herbert, PhD, MD, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA
    Dr. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Tohoku University, Japan
    Dr. Olle Johansson, Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
    Dr. Florian M. Koenig, DrSc, Director of Fl. König Enterprises GmbH, Sferics & Meteorosensitivity Research Inst., Germering, Germany
    Dr. Kavindra Kumar Kesari, MBA, PhD; Res. Sci., Dept. Environmental Sciences, Univ. Eastern Finland, Finland: Jaipur Nat. Univ., India
    Prof. Girish Kumar, IIT Bombay – microwaves and antennas, India
    Dr. Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, USA
    Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc, Editor-in-Chief: Frontiers in Radiation and Health, Switzerland; Prof, Univ. of Helsinki, Finland
    Dr. Ying Li, PhD, InVitroPlus Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital McGill University Medicine, Canada
    Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Löscher, Head, Dept. Pharmacology & Toxicology, Univ. Veterinary Medicine; Center for Neuroscience, Hannover, Germany
    Dr. Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Prof. Emeritus, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece
    Dr. Marko Markov, PhD, Research International Buffalo, USA
    Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA
    Dr. Anthony Miller, MD, University of Toronto, Canada
    Dr. Hidetake Miyata, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Tohoku University, Japan
    L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust, USA
    Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
    Dr. Raymond Richard Neutra, MD, PhD, USA
    Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Speaker Environmental Medicine, Austrian Medical Association; Public Health, Salzburg Government, Austria
    Dr. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, PhD, Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada
    Dr. Elcin Ozgur, PhD, Biophysics Department, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Turkey
    Dr. Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA
    Dr. Michael A. Persinger, Professor, Behavioural Neuroscience, Biomolecular Sciences & Human Studies, Laurentian University, Canada
    Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Center for Excellence in Science, Prof, Dept. Chem. & Biochem., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA
    Dr Timur Saliev, MD, PhD, Life Sciences, Nazarbayev Univ., Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK
    Dr. Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, Medical Faculty, Gazi University; Founding Chair, Biophysics Dept, WHO EMF Advisory Committee, Turkey
    Dr. Wenjun Sun, PhD, Professor, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
    Dr. Mehmet Z. Tuyzuz, PhD, Gazi University, Biophysics Department, Turkey
    Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing, PhD, Head of Inst., Environ. Physics; Former Head, Clinical Research, Medical Univ. Luebeck, Germany
    Dr. Stelios A. Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society, Greece

    Date of Issuance: July 9, 2014

    • #22 by Rigo on July 17, 2014 - 6:54 pm

      Joe, the reality is I could find just as many scientists on the other side of the aisle that say that this is all perfectly safe. Thus, the question is where do we draw the line on stifling progress and technological advancement?

      • #23 by Joe Imbriano on July 17, 2014 - 7:53 pm

        I am not here to debate the science. There are thousands of studies showing harm and thousands showing no harm. Sort them by funding sources and you will see the true picture-there is harm.

        The aisle has two sides. On one side are the big government establishment worshiping sheeple at the feet of the compromised bought and paid for scientists who are telling us everything is fine.

        On the other side of the aisle are the scientists who state the obvious and are forced to look and research down red herring rabbit holes and come up with findings that miss the mark on the real agenda which is, in reality, a clandestine, stealth sterilization agenda.

        On the floor of the aisle you will find the millions of school children who are having their reproductive rights stolen from them as the monsters invent the most wicked and highly addictive microwave transmitters marketed directly to the unsuspecting innocents.

        At the door are the servile school district officials and cowardly elected representatives who seal the children into these rooms with their silent complicity.

        People like me are relegated to sounding the alarm in the parking structure where no one can hear it except those who have the guts and brains to escape the clutches of the most insidious agenda in human history.

        There is no reason to proliferate and utilize radio frequency emissions trillions of times normal background levels whose frequency is at the exact point in the electromagnetic spectrum where the maximum dielectric loss of water (the essence of life) begins-2.4 Gigahertz. Well that is unless you have a motive and you understand something that no one knows about and is kept under lock and key. This is the vacuum in the research industry-the complete ABSENCE of studies on the human ovum and how they are affected by chronic exposure to pulse modulated high frequency microwave radiation at just the right frequency and power level necessary to damage the eggs. Zona hardening is the end result.

        Yes 21st century classroom learning could be accomplished with ethernet cables or using LiFi which utilizes electromagnetic waves in the visible spectrum which are harmless.

        Watching from the stands are all the parents as they turn their backs on their own children ignoring the warnings as they ignore the flyers, banners and the voices of their consciences in the middle of the night. Yes, the day has arrived where the most sinister of agendas is now possible and is being carried out in name of 21st century learning right under our noses with our blessing and our taxes. This amounts to total insanity and pure evil, nothing more and nothing less.

      • #24 by Maureen on September 5, 2014 - 3:56 pm

        Rigo, we draw the line where we know there is evidence of harm and we have that in the literature. Look it up.

  12. #25 by Barry Levinson on July 20, 2014 - 1:55 pm

    Anonymous apparently does not read the sources he claims state “pretty much refutes the assertion that cell towers are dangerous, using authoritative agencies as sources.”

    For instance these two sources quoted from the American Cancer Society link provided by Anonymous above.

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states:

    “Exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation has climbed rapidly with the advent of cell phones and other wireless technologies. Studies of the link between exposure to RF and to electric and magnetic frequency (EMF) radiation have found RF and EMF to be ‘potential carcinogens,’ but the data linking RF and EMF to cancer is not conclusive. World wide, health physicists (scientists who study the biological effects of radiation) continue to study the issue.”

    Once again, Anonymous own sources disproves his assertion that cell towers are known to be safe. Remember these are his/her references.

  13. #26 by Barry Levinson on August 7, 2014 - 9:27 pm

    Please note ladies and gentlemen that the request to approve the Richman Park cell tower by our council will come before them on August 19th, 2014. I suggest that any additional neighborhood signatures against the cell tower as well as any other public disapproval be brought before the council at that time. Is $36,000 of lease revenue that important that the city will approve it without knowing any of the equipment details nor seeing the actual contract they are supposed to be approving. Only in government would anyone suggest approving a contract sight unseen. The city is supposed to approve equipment that has not been contractually spelled out to the Park and Recreation Committee and not expected to be spelled out to the city council members as well.

    Why don’t we just disband the city council and all subcommittee and just trust completely the city employees without any need for any oversight? I do not see a whole bunch of difference as to the current approach by our unelected city employees.

    No contract, no legal description of the equipment we are okaying and only because I insisted to see a similar contract did we learn that the language allows the cell tower provider, in this case AT%T, to increase the power up to 100 times without any further review by our elected council members.

  14. #27 by Maureen on September 5, 2014 - 3:44 pm

    Bastanchury park had a mast erected earlier this year and it is beaming right into the homes on the bluff. Barry you need to get your group to go door to door in that neighborhood and let them know what dangers the tower poses to their health. The council members should have never approved that one either.

(will not be published)

Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved. 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!