I REPORT, YOU DECIDE.-BY BARRY LEVINSON
BARRY LEVINSON
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.
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 fullertoninformer.com 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 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
https://thefullertoninformer.com/
http://wifidangers.com/
#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?