top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

NOT ONE MORE - WRAN Calls for Moratorium on Cellular Antennas and WiFi in Santa Cruz County

by Angela Flynn
Please call, write and/or attend the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission Hearing on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, at 7:00pm.

701 Ocean Street, 5th Floor, Santa Cruz

Cell tower installation is planned by Metro PCS near Shoreline Middle School, Simpkins Family Swim Center and Schwann Lake Park on Ledyard Co. property, 1005 17th Ave, Santa Cruz. – There is an existing cell tower at Brommer & 17th.

Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN)
Santa Cruz, California, U.S.A.

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Angela Flynn 831-469-4399
& Marilyn Garret 831-688-4603

Not One More
WRAN Calls for Moratorium on Cellular Antennas and WiFi in Santa Cruz County

The Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN) educates our community on the adverse health effects related to Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF) exposure in the extremely-low frequency (ELF) and radiofrequency (RF) band of the electromagnetic spectrum (1-300GHz). Energies of these frequencies, called non-ionizing, are used in electrical transmission, distribution and electrical use by the public, by radio and tv broadcasts, cellular transmissions, wireless internet access and more.

There are more than 210,000 cellular sites and about 20,000 telecom central offices in the U.S., according to industry statistics. There are 37 cellular sites in the City of Santa Cruz (as of 7/07) and 118 in the County of Santa Cruz (as of 6/07). These sites have multiple antennas. There is not a database of how many antennas are at each site.

Some actions we advocate for:

Promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g., use of fiber optics and coaxial cables and to preserve existing landline phone networks.

Enact a 1,500' setback on the siting of cellular antennas from homes, schools and businesses. Require shielding from the electromagnetic radiation emitted from cellular towers for homes, schools and businesses.

Ban wireless internet on all public property.

Advise people to limit wireless calls and use a landline for long conversations.

Limit cell phone and cordless phone use by children and teenagers.

Design cellular phones to radiate away from the head and require hand free kits with all cellular and cordless phones.

Immediate Action Needed:

Please call, write and/or attend the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission Hearing on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, at 7:00pm.

701 Ocean Street, 5th Floor, Santa Cruz

Cell tower installation is planned by Metro PCS near Shoreline Middle School, Simpkins Family Swim Center and Schwann Lake Park on Ledyard Co. property, 1005 17th Ave, Santa Cruz. – There is an existing cell tower at Brommer & 17th.

Planning Department and Commission Clerk: Lani Freeman, 454-3132, pln412 [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us
Project Planner: Cathy Graves, 454-3141, pln810 [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us
Address comments to the Planning Commission at http://www.sccoplanning.com

* Owner: Ledyard Company (462-4400)
*Applicant: Jennifer Estes, head of Peacock Associates, who represents Metro PCS (510.420.5701)
*Applicant: Evan Shepherd Reiff of Peacock Associates, who represents Metro PCS, (345-2245)
* SC Board of Supervisors (454-2200), jan.beautz [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us , neal.coonerty [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us, tony.campos [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us, mark.stone [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us, ellen.pirie [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us

Item 11. 06-0701; APN: 026-311-65 [This is a] proposal to construct a new wireless communications facility…. [It] includes… three antennas within a 50-foot tall "flagpole" monopole with power and telco services to the equipment, and a GPS antenna. [The proposal] requires…a waiver of the requirement that the tower be set back 300-feet from residentially zoned parcels...

Wireless emissions affect everyone. There are no people in our community who “should not” testify on a particular site. i.e. those who do not live or work in the immediate area. The overall health of our community must be protected and it is our public officials who have the responsibility of placing our health over profits and convenience.

Santa Cruz County, CA, U.S.A. Zoning regulation 13.10.664 requires a post-construction NIER (non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation) measurement and report within 90 days of commencement of facility operation. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the initiation of permit revocation proceedings by the County, and/or shall be grounds for review of the use permit or other entitlement and other remedy provisions.

As of December 4, 2007, approximately 80% of the required post-construction RF monitoring reports have NOT been done. Planning Department had contacted cellular service providers, informing them that they had until November 15th, 2007 to submit the post-construction RF emission monitoring reports for all their WCFs in the unincorporated area approved since June 2001, or be subject to possible permit enforcement actions. At the December 4th Board of Supervisors meeting the Planning Department reported that the only company doing the monitoring, Hammet & Edison has a back log and may complete the testing in a couple of months. The Planning Department said they may or may not take action to enforce the county ordinance.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 violates the 1st, 5th and 10th amendments.

The 1st amendment was violated in that wireless companies argue that people cannot talk about health effects and that local governments may not consider health effects when siting cell phone tower antennas. The wireless companies did try to get legislation preventing people from discussing health effects at hearings, but they were not successful. They still continue to argue that health effects cannot be mentioned.

The harm caused by wireless emissions is a matter of proven science, which indicates a wide variety of harm to many animal and plant species, including to humans. Peer-reviewed studies submitted onto the public record of this case may not legally be disregarded, as they fulfill the Supreme Court criteria for admissibility under the Daubert Rule. As these studies show harm, there is no justification for any further installation of cell phone infrastructural transmitters in Santa Cruz. Moreover, the industry has not proven "need" because it cannot. Therefore, under the Telecommunications Act itself, lack of proven need requires the application be denied.

There is an overwhelming amount of studies illustrating the ill health effects from emr. In particular the wavelength from cell phone tower antennas is closer to microwave oven emissions than it is to radio or tv emissions on the electromagnetic spectrum. These emissions are pulsed which seems to add to the deleterious effects.

The BioInitiative Report is a review of 2000 studies of bioeffects and adverse health effects of non-ionizing radiation. The conclusion is that public exposure guidelines for emissions from cellular antennas, wifi and other mobile /wireless devises are set too high to protect public health.

The Report offers evidence that a very large range of illnesses and other adverse health effects are linked to mobile phone technology. (http://www.bioinitiative.org)

Any scientist who declares that there exists no evidence of non-thermal effects of microwave radiation at intensities below present safety norms is unaware of important research in the field.

The FCC has set a limit for thermal effects for electromagnetic radiation. They deferred the setting of biological non-thermal limits to the nations health agencies. At the same time they cut the funding of research into these health effects to zero.

Norbert Hankin, of the Radiation Protection Division of the EPA says:

"The FCCs current exposure guidelines…are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations… Therefore, the generalization that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified."

In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a comprehensive review of available EMF studies and published a report recommendation that power line EMRs be classified as a Class B carcinogen -- -a "probable human carcinogen and joined the ranks of formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins and PCBs. The White house and the Air Force declared that the report should not be published on grounds of national security and that it would alarm the public. The report was put on hold until the administration of the EPA changed the conclusions to say that there was no proven effect and the EPA
has never officially released the report in its final form.

Dr. Bruce Lipton, Ph.D., in the "The Biology of Belief", explains that electromagnetic radiation causes the electrons to flip in our cells proteins. This interferes with our entire biological processes as the receptors in the cell's membranes are not able to function properly. He says:

"… proteins are the most important single component for living organisms…The final shape…of a protein molecule reflects a balanced state among its electromagnetic charges. However, if the protein's positive and negative charges are altered the protein backbone will dynamically twist and adjust itself to accommodate the new distribution of charges. The distribution of electromagnetic charge within a protein can be selectively altered by a number of processes including…interference from electromagnetic fields such as those emanating from cell phones. [Tsong 1989]"

Dr. Henry Lai of the University of Washington has shown that the effects appear to be cumulative and can affect DNA. Leukemia, cancer, sleeplessness and depression are just a few of the effects. Dr. Lai also points out that current US guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposure are not up-to-date and are based on research data only up to 1985. Dr. Lai has said he would not live next to a cell tower.

And, Dr. Andrew Weil, MD., says that "Electromagnetic pollution may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced in this century!"

Many people on this planet, est. 2 – 3% with extreme and 30% with some symptoms, have Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity (EHS). This makes them extremely sensitive to microwave frequency radiation.

Recent studies confirm that cell and cordless phone microwave can:

Cause headaches and induce extreme fatigue; Cause memory loss and mental confusion; Precipitate cataracts, retina damage and eye cancer; Create burning sensation and rash on the skin; Damage nerves in the scalp; Induce ringing in the ears, impair sense of smell; Create joint pain, muscle spasms and tremors; Cause digestive problems and raise bad cholesterol levels; Alter the brain's electrical activity during sleep; Open the blood-brain barrier to viruses and toxins; Cause blood cells to leak hemoglobin; Reduce the number and efficiency of white blood cells; Stimulate asthma by producing histamine in mast cells; and, Stress the endocrine system, especially pancreas, thyroid, ovaries, and testes.

This radiation is beaming at us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is particularly dangerous for children and for people while sleeping, as children are more susceptible to electromagnetic radiation and the body needs to be able to repair itself while asleep.

The 5th Amendment was violated in that some wireless facilities result in a taking of property rights. These companies are sending their emissions into the homes, schools and businesses of people who do not want them. The antenna owners are not providing shielding from the emissions as they should be required to do.

As there is no known safe level of exposure for the non-thermal effects to radio frequency radiation all unwanted exposure is a violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 3 - the right to bodily security.

The 10th amendment was violated because the federal government does not have jurisdiction over local governments on such matters. The rights granted to the wireless companies by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 were not granted to it by the constitution and the local governments did not give up those rights.

###

If you would like more information about this topic or to schedule an interview with Angela Flynn please call 831-469-4399 or email angelaflynn [at] skyhighway.com. Contact Marilyn Garrett at 831-688-4603

Here are some recent articles and websites regarding the issue of wireless emissions:

1. The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation”, hosted by the City of Benevento, Italy, on February 22, 23 & 24, 2006
http://www.icems.eu/index.htm

2. The Freiburger Appeal
http://www.emrnetwork.org/news/IGUMED_english.pdf

3. Thailand and Vietnam require shielding from emr.
http://www.radiationresearch.org/newsletter170606.htm

4. Letter from the EPA (7/16/02) stating that the FCCs guidelines are not adequate.
http://www.emrnetwork.org/position/noi_response/noi_epa_response.pdf

5. Dr. Andrew Weil, MD:
"Electromagnetic pollution (EMF) may be the most significant form of pollution human activity has produced in this century!”
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA26193

6. French Health Minister Warns Against Excessive Cell Phone Use
Posted Jan 4th 2008 10:29AM by Tom Samiljan
http://www.switched.com/2008/01/04/french-health-minister-warns-against-excessive-cell-phone-use/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

7. WiFi in public libraries in Paris : Moratorium
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/France2WiFiInPu...ium30112007.pdf

Here is the link to the article in Le Monde:
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-...6-991086,0.html

8. Lakehead University Bans WiFi on Campus
http://policies.lakeheadu.ca/policy.php?pid=178

9. As little as 10 minutes on a cell phone can trigger changes in brain cells linked to cell division and cancer, suggests a new study conducted by researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and published in the Biochemical Journal.
http://www.NewsTarget.com/022429.html

10. ICMR study confirms health risks from mobile phones
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/243721.html

11. Israeli study says regular mobile use increases tumour risk
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

12. Israeli Arabs, Police Clash Over Antenna
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jBHZInV...H6DNEQD8SJKUBO0

13. Laboratory studies suggest that electric and magnetic field exposure may affect heart rate and heart rate variability.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/...act/149/2/135-a

14. Central News Agency TaiwanNews Tuesday, Nov 06, 2007
NCC confident in achieving goal of dismantling 1,500 base stations
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/TaiwanInfoTaiwa...questWHOvUk.pdf

15. Link Between Long-Term Cell Phone Use and Brain Tumors
http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=11389

16. The Brain Tumor Society reports:
http://www.tbts.org/itemDetail.asp?categor...mp;itemID=16535

Brain tumors are the leading cause of solid tumor cancer death in children under the age of 20, now surpassing acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). They are the second leading cause of cancer death in male adults ages 20-29 and the fifth leading cause of cancer death in female adults ages 20-39.

17. Archive back to 2003, with science reports and news reports from all over the world. It's invaluable for those who want to understand microwave sickness that now afflicts millions of us:
http://www.buergerwelle.com/english_start.html

18. Web site which has developed quite a few links related to the legal aspects of radiating the population.
http://www.emrnetwork.org/

19. The Urban Decline of the House Sparrow: A Possible Link to Electromagnetic Radiation.
http://www.livingplanet.be/Balmori_and_Hallberg_EBM_2007.pdf
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by a concerned neighbor
The World Health Organization has recommended (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/index.html) that the response by doctors to individuals complaining of "Electromagnetic Sensitivity" should <b>not</b> be to focus on "the person's perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF," because there is no basis to link the symptoms to exposure to cell phones or wireless networks. Instead they recommend medical and psychological evaluation, and an assessment of the home and workplace to look for factors such as air pollution that might be causing the symptoms. They also recommend trying to reduce stress. Let's all take a deep breath.
by Please!
Free communications, on demand and without apology!

If I cant get free, I'll settle for cheap and abundant.
by Bob
This really hurts, but as an electrical engineer who designed radar, I have to agree with portions of this article. I think it is the first time I have agreed with anything on this site.
You will not change cell phone attitudes. People today feel invincible and will never give up their cell phones. They think science and the government will come up with some quick fix. The problem I see is the constant use of the phone next to the brain and storing an active cell phone next to the body. You probably will not see the adverse affects for another 10-15 years because the RF takes a while to affect the body.
As for radiating away from the body, there is so much radiation from the antenna that such an idea really would not work at such a close range. Near field radiation is difficult to control. Hands free just moves the radiation to other parts of your body.
I proudly rarely use a cell phone. And when I have one, it is usually off.
Remember, for two way communications, the tower emits the same power as the hand set. Thus, I would worry about the handset next to your body before I'd worry about the tower, which is far from your body.
by science....
People are really scared of radio? Are th authors of the article aware of how much radio use/power has increased in the past 20 years? according to their logic we should see negative health repercussions on MASSIVE scales. We've seen radio exposure jump on orders of magnitude over the past few decades. In this world there are already enough things to worry about - lets not get paranoid.
by Lim
I just want to say it's about time we started fighting back against the cell phone industrial communication machine. Germany is halting and curtailing it's expansion of Wi-Fi zones, and even banning it in some places. Good work WRAN!
by Bob
Science, we have seen radio use expand quite a bit, even using a computer exposes you to RF. However, I always worried a bit about the cell phone, not necessarily the tower. In a linear emitter, the RF attenuates as a function of distance squared. With an omni-directional emitter, the attenuation is proportional to distance cubed. Thus, I do not worry about radio towers. However, when you hold a cell phone next to your body, you do not really get the benefit of the distance cubed attenuation. There is very little known about the affects of RF, so I avoid it. Using a cell phone won't kill you, but using 700 minutes a month and leaving it on in your pocket may cause some problems 10 years or so down the road.
by Alan Rockefeller
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Other sources of radiation are far stronger and even those have never caused any problems for people.
by John Thielking (pagesincolor [at] riseup.net)
I've heard that you can't even download a program reliably using Wi Fi anyway. When you think about it, when was the last time you had a glitch free conversation on a cell phone or even a cordless phone for a conversation that lasted more than a few minutes. Also, be sure to look at cancer rates from 1900 until now (1% of population or less affected by cancer in 1900 vs 1/3 to 1/2 the population now) before making blanket pronouncements about how new technology is not affecting people.

What is really bad is that there are companies making wirelessly programmable equipment for use in hospitals. Not only is the patient who visits the hospital now no longer able to escape harm from the wireless tech that may have caused their problem in the first place, but there may be fundamental incompatabilities between different pieces of equipment, that could cause unexpected malfunctions or even complete shut downs of vital equipment required to sustain life.

I have seen this type of malfunction happen myself. I was working in a fab environment and the safety officer came into the room where a deposition tool was operating. When he activated the transmission button on his walkie talkie, it shut off the power to the deposition equipment. Additionally, in a factory that manufactures wirelessly programmable IV pumps, there are signs notifying employees not to use their blue-tooth devices at work.

If you are too lazy to string your hospital with new wires for the new equipment, or too lazy to have the nurses continue to reprogram each unit by hand, at least go with the kind of technology that sends signals through the AC wiring. That's still not perfect, as it also generates EMF up to a short distance from the wiring in the wall, but it's a step up from broadcasting the radiation everywhere.
by ~Bradley (bradley [at] riseup.net)
changing-world_1-12-08.jpg
A cell phone tower sits atop the Baskin Engineering Building at UC Santa Cruz
by ~Bradley (bradley [at] riseup.net)
baskin_1-12-08.jpg
by Ex Insider
The short and sweet: Cell towers are evil, period. It's the tobacco industry all over again, and every bit as unhealthy with more finely tuned spin.

To all the sceptics: I was there, you were not.

I have had direct experience; both in the telecom industry and with a cell tower installed about 500 feet behind where I was living. Sat in on safety discussions and engineering lectures in the early '90s, was a beta tester of second generation CDMA cell phones, before they were public. I know the engineering, science, and politics involved.

First, in response to considerable scientific evidence from the '70s and '80s showing deleterious biological effects of low level, sub-thermal non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, the telecom industry managed to obtain a waiver on personal exposure levels. The Federal standards are based on gross thermal effects, continuing to ignore numerous studies showing, again, deleterious biological effects from much lower doses of microwaves. Effects are shown at 6 (six) orders of magnitude below the Federal standards! To this day, microwave oven manufacturers need to meet tighter exposure standards than telecom manufacturers, that is your cell phone can legally dose/douse tissues in your head with higher power densities than your microwave oven. The telecom lobby had more clout than the appliance lobby! Continuing that clout, in what is undeniably an unconstutional clause of the Federal telecomm act, local municipalities are forbidden from denying tower permits based on health claims! If the installation meets the very loose Federal standards for exposure, that's all folks. Further adding insult to injury, Federal law also protects the telecomm industry from *ANY* liability. Any liability for harm from a tower installation falls squarely in the lap of the property owner where the site is located. Of course, the fine print of that is not disclosed by slick commission salesmen representing telecoms with the offer of a modest cash flow as a teaser. Helps pay your mortgage, wink wink. The deals are never leases, they are *ALWAYS* permanent easments on the property. Grandfathered in, no sunset clauses, possibly options to renegotiate rates in a decade or two, but always: Permanent.

So, here is my eyewitness experience: towards the end of a lease (ironically paid for with dividends from prior telecom work) of a very nice secluded ocean view place in the foothills of Socal where I was living, the landlord decides to augment his cash flow by having a cell tower put in. About 500 feet up the hill behind the lovely ocean view place. Lots of construction noise, cement trucks galore, guys who hate their jobs listening to country and western on a tinny radio. What a cliche. It's ugly, but I figure it can't be that bad. In the other direction, the ocean view is still spectacular. I'm away on vacation when the tower is powered up. I return and it's secluded again. Short lived sense of aaaahhh. That night my GF and I wake up pre-dawn trying to talk ourselves out of the wierdest set of sensations. Ringing in the ears. Pressure in forehead and temples. Awake and restless. The strangest sensation of burning inside the eyeballs, an area one is usually not aware of. A few days is all we can stand. We go away for an extended weekend, and feel better. This is crazy. We love this place, and there is no way we would be imagining such sensations. Neither of us are imbibers, so no other source of the symptoms. We go back, same sensations. A few days later, we notice each other spacing out, forgetting things, being dyslexic. Yikes. With the landlord, we bring in an EMF consultant to measure, and the consultant confirms the experiences and sensations at the exposure level. Seems the local Firehouse had a similar experience with a cell tower on their roof, and this consultant worked out a solution of moving the antenna to point away so it would not blast the Firehouse. No luck at this location, I don't have the resources of the Fireman's Union, and the landlord does not want a legal battle. End of lease, I moved, landlord is a nice enough guy in denial.
I looked up research papers, sent them to him. Along with obfuscation papers by industry funded shills, there are numerous studies including: Doubled cancer rates within 1000 feet of Cell Towers over a 10 year period. Known as the kill zone. Who knows, the landlord is probably still in denial.

I claim my one experience trumps a lot of talk about the safety of Cell Towers.

I'm glad to have had the experience: I might not have moved away from harm just based on papers, the ocean view was soooo nice. I'm not claiming everybody will have a visceral sensation to the proximity of one. Read the research. I've talked several others out of allowing a Cell Tower on their property. And, maybe you who are reading this will not have to go through what I did. Take action. Crank up the volume. They are not your friend.

It's worth reading the 610 page paper with references available at bioinitiative.org
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$ 70.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network