The Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN) – News Update for September 23, 2008

The Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN) – News Update for September 23, 2008

1. October 1st - Electromagnetic Pollution and Your Health – Presentation by Michael Neurert, MA, BSME at Vet’s Hall.
2. This week on Community TV - Lucid Universe #3 ‘Citizen Activists – Radiation Frequencies’ - See viewing schedule below.
3. September 25th – Congressman Dennis Kucinich holds hearing on Cell Phone Use and Health
4. September 29th – Deadline to Send Comments to FCC on CTIA Petition


1. Electromagnetic Pollution and Your Health

How Cell Phones, Wi-Fi, Power Lines, and even the Wiring in Your Home Can Affect Your Health, and What You Can Do About It.

Wednesday, October 1st 7:00 – 9:00 pm

Veteran’s Memorial Bldg Auditorium 846 Front Street, Santa Cruz

Free (Donations Appreciated)

Presentation and Discussion on Electromagnetic Fields Featuring Michael R. Neuert, MA, BSME
(See http://www.emfcenter.com)

Today’s level of EMF (electromagnetic field) emissions from cell phones, wi-fi, computers, TVs, and other equipment are millions of times higher than the levels at which human beings evolved. Exposure is linked to serious health problems.

Being informed protects your health –

http://www.emrpolicy.org; http://www.mercola.com; http://www.bioinitiative.org

"The Bioinitiative Report which is the work of leading scientists who have reviewed over 2000 reports on Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMFs) and health states:

“The existing public safety standards limiting radiation levels in nearly every country of the world look to be thousands of times too lenient. Change is needed”

More Info: 831-688-4603/ 831-469-4399/ angelaflynn [at] skyhighway.com

Sponsored by the Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN)


2. Lucid Universe #3 'Citizen Activists-Radiation Frequencies' on Community Television of Santa Cruz County
Public Access Channel - Comcast 27/Charter 73


Lucid Universe #3 'Citizen Activists-Radiation Frequencies'
Producer: Mariola Lichacz Topic: Citizen Activists-Radiation Frequencies
Guests: Angela Flynn, Marilyn Garrett

Schedule:

Tuesday 9/23 at 12 noon and 7:00 pm
Thursday 9/24th at 12:30 pm and 7:00 pm
Saturday, 27TH at 3:30 pm
Sunday, 28TH at 11 am


3. Congressional Hearing on 9/25 on Cell Phones and Health

Congressman Dennis Kucinich will hold a hearing on cell phones and health in Washington on Thursday, September 25th. Among the witnesses will be Dr. Ronald Herberman of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Dr. David Carpenter of the Institute for Health and Environment in Albany.


4. Send Comments to the FCC by 9/29/08

The CTIA, representing the wireless industry, has filed a petition with the FCC to create a set of "shot clocks" for wireless site approvals. If the local government misses a deadline (generally 45 days or 75 days), a site would be automatically deemed approved.

The CTIA also asks the FCC to interpret Congressional intent in favor of the wireless industry regarding the interplay of several key sections of the Telecom Act.

Download this petition by clicking here. (PDF Format; 234Kb)

http://www.telecomlawfirm.com/articles/pdf/080711_Shot_Clock_Petition.pdf


Then, take action to oppose this petition. Comments are due at the FCC by 9/29/08.

Click here for public comments -

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1913A1.pdf

Or here is the direct link to comment. Put 08-165 in the "Proceeding" box

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

The telecommunications industry is trying to stop all citizen influence on restricting cell tower sites. On July 11, 2008, the Cellular Telephone Industries Association (CTIA), petitioned the FCC to declare new limitations on local zoning authority as it affects cell tower siting.

Specifically, CTIA requests the Federal Communications Commission to:

1. Force municipalities to act on wireless antenna or tower zoning applications within 45 or 75 days.
2. Rule that applications are automatically "deemed granted" if a local government misses the FCC's deadline.
3. Prevent municipalities from considering the presence of service by other carriers in evaluating an additional carrier's application for an antenna site.
4. Pre-empt any local ordinance that would automatically require a variance for cell tower applications.

For more on this please visit http://www.emrpolicy.org/
http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/local-state-gov.html
http://www.millervaneaton.com/00141415.PDF
http://www.telecomlawfirm.com


Recent Court Rulings on Regulations of Cell Tower Placement

Court ruling allows regulation of cell towers

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008

http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/12/BAAT12SF2D.DTL

(09-11) 17:42 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court reversed itself Thursday and said cities and counties can regulate the location and appearance of wireless towers and poles, a ruling that could revive a dormant San Francisco ordinance.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld San Diego County's limits on the placement, size and design of towers and poles that are needed for companies to provide cell phone service and wireless Internet connections. The court also voted 11-0 to discard a standard it had established in 2001 that barred local governments from adopting any restrictions that "may have the effect of prohibiting" wireless services.

Federal courts in the nine-state circuit have relied on the 2001 ruling to overturn restrictions on telecommunications structures in several communities, including San Francisco and Berkeley. The court said Thursday that it had misinterpreted federal law when it issued the earlier ruling, and that local governments can regulate wireless towers and poles as long as they don't actually prohibit wireless service within their borders or create a "significant gap in service coverage."

San Diego County's 2003 ordinance was intended to keep unsightly structures out of neighborhoods. It required poles to be camouflaged in residential areas, set height limits, required companies to submit a "visual impact analysis," and allowed a zoning board to deny an application if it was inconsistent with the character of the community. Two courts had overturned the ordinance, based on the 2001 appellate standard, before Thursday's ruling reinstated it.

The new ruling gives cities and counties "the ability to even-handedly control the environment in our neighborhoods," with no exemption for wireless companies, said attorney William Marticorena, president of the California-Nevada chapter of a national association of telecommunications regulators. "There isn't some special place for the telecom operators to put the 50-foot-tall red monopole (cellular tower) in front of city hall."

Thomas Bunton, a deputy county counsel who represented San Diego County, said the ruling allows local governments to hold public hearings and require wireless towers and poles to be concentrated in certain areas and camouflaged to fit in with their surroundings.

Lawyers for Sprint, which challenged the San Diego County ordinance, and Verizon, which filed supporting arguments, were unavailable for comment.

In San Francisco, Deputy City Attorney William Sanders said the ruling could restore portions of a 2007 law that a federal judge struck down in June.

The ordinance required wireless companies to seek a city permit before locating transmitters or other installations near a park, a historic landmark or a building with architectural importance, or on a street that the city has designated as scenic.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, citing the appeals court's 2001 decision, ruled that the ordinance was invalid because it allowed public hearings in permit disputes and failed to set precise standards for denying a permit. San Francisco supervisors have already drafted a new ordinance to comply with the ruling, but the city now has the option of asking Patel to reconsider in light of Thursday's decision, Sanders said.

The 2001 decision was also the basis of a January 2006 appeals court ruling that allowed Qwest Communications to install a fiber link to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory over the city of Berkeley's objections. The court said in 2006 that Berkeley's ordinance, which required telecommunications companies to pay a fee or go through an extensive permit process, had the effect of denying service.

Marticorena, who took part in the Berkeley case, said Thursday's ruling won't affect Qwest, which has installed its link, but will allow Berkeley and other cities to take another look at their regulations.


Read the ruling

The ruling in Sprint vs. County of San Diego can be found at:

links.sfgate.com/ZDXO

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko [at] sfchronicle.com.