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 Joe Imbriano on July 17, 2014 - 8:11 am
http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Scientist-Declaration-Canadas-SC6-2014.1.pd
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.
Declaration
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.
Signed,
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
#2 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?
#3 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.
#4 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.