Protecting the Maryland Public from Harm by Wireless Technology

New document by Ronald M. Powell Ph.D.
Jan. 13th, 2018

If you are writing to our Maryland state legislators about protecting the public from harm by wireless radiation, here is a relatively short document to introduce them to the wireless challenges their constituents are facing. This document can also be used for other jurisdictions.

Ronald M. Powell Ph.D. urges Maryland State Legislators to protect the health of the people of Maryland from the onslaught of wireless radiation. This document addresses the health impacts of radiation from smart meters, cell towers, WiFi in schools, and 5g small cells.  

“The levels of man-made radiofrequency radiation in our environment, including right here in Maryland, are increasing.This increase is caused by the introduction of more and more wireless devices, without an
understanding of the health consequences.”

http://whatis5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Protecting-the-Maryland-Public-from-Harm-by-Wireless-Technology.pdf

How many 5G cell towers are coming to our communities? Verizon discloses the huge numbers

How many 5G cell towers are coming to our communities? Verizon discloses the huge numbers


By Nina Beety
 

On June 28, 2017

in a California Assembly hearing on 5G and Senate Bill 649, Verizon, Rudy Reyes told legislators how many 5G and 4G utility pole cell towers (“small” cells or nodes) communities can expect (transcript below). These are new densified networks, above and beyond all the existing cell towers.
 


Verizon: “We are going to need about five to ten times the number of 5G nodes, as we will 4G LTE nodes. Just for downtown LA, Verizon alone is going to need around 200 to 300 small cells just to densify for 4G LTE. Then you have to multiply that by five to ten times for when we get to 5G.”
 


Industry typically minimizes the real numbers, so they could be much higher.
 


As an example, for downtown Los Angeles (5.84 square miles), Verizon would “need”:
300 4G cell towers + 3000 5G cell towers = 3300 new Verizon cell towers

And for Palo Alto:
 Verizon initially plans 93 4G LTE utility pole cell towers.
Plus 930 5G Verizon cell towers = over 1000 new Verizon cell towers in Palo Alto.

That’s for Verizon 5G alone. Then you need to factor in the other companies that will also want to “play ball” – T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T, at a minimum, with other regional players wanting in as well.  Each of these will likely want to stake out similar cellular “real estate” for themselves. Will that mean 4X, 5X, 6X  the number of separate 5G cell towers? And how many will “collocate” — load their cell tower gear on the same utility pole with another carrier, further overloading it? No one can predict how many more towers this will result in, but either way – new tower for each company or collocation – the RF will increase exponentially with 5G. 

Communities in California and other states are rolling out these utility pole cell towers now. Once a precedent is set, and one wireless carrier gets into an area, the 4G/5G expansion will be extremely difficult to stop. The time to stop these is now.

http://www.calchannel.com/video-on-demand/

Hearing, Assembly Local Government Committee

June 28, 2017

2:35:28 – 2:39:08
 


Excerpt:

Assembly Member Ridley-Thomas: ..Might you know how many towers you’ve had sited on a good year, in small cells, because I think the number in the analysis is 30-50,000 industry-wide. I don’t know if you have a perspective on California? What’s a good number in terms of siting either small cells or towers or combined?
 


Verizon Rudy Reyes: With the chair’s permission, I can’t tell you how many cell towers are statewide, but what I can say is that we’re going to need a lot more small cells because of the spectrum quality, that they don’t, the spectrum does not propagate as far as a cell tower. So, a cell tower might give you five to ten miles radius of coverage, but the small cells for 4G LTE densification, which you’re right, goes a few blocks. For 5G, the spectrum is going to be millimeter wave spectrum. That spectrum goes much shorter distances, maybe 100 feet and requires a line of sight. So, as you move, as Moore’s law happens, Assembly Member Vogel, and you go from the towers, to the 4G LTE small cells, to the 5G nodes, you’re going to see them get smaller in dimension and you’re going to see them get many, many more. We are going to need about five to ten times the number of 5G nodes, as we will 4G LTE nodes. So it really is about p times q, price times quantity. So this cost formula needs to pencil out in order to bring 5G to California.
 


Ridley-Thomas: So the nodes are substantially smaller. What size? Cause I’ve seen photos and all that. What size are they? Do we know? Are they a couple of feet?
 


Panel: You mean the distance.
 


Ridley-Thomas: The nodes. I mean the nodes for 5G.
 


Verizon: So the 5G nodes are currently being invented, to Assembly Member Grayson’s point. We’re in pre-trial commercial testing, and we’ve announced in 11 cities that we’re doing that right now. We’ll be doing that in the city of Sacramento in the second half of this year, if all goes well.
 


And then, we’re in a desperate race to be the first to deploy 5G in our country. So those nodes are expected to be significantly smaller in size than the current 4G LTE small cells.
 


Ridley-Thomas: The reason I started this question is to get a sense of how much installation activity there would be in a normal course versus what would be anticipated for here. In the 30-50,000 number over 5-7 years, is what the analysis suggests, so we would anticipate probably no more than 10,000 a year small cell installations? Is that kind of what we’re thinking about?
 

Verizon: Just for downtown LA, Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas, we’re going to, Verizon alone is going to need around 200 to 300 small cells just to densify for 4G LTE. Then you have to multiply that by five to ten times for when we get to 5G.

Kiss Your Child and Fight for Them; Letter from a Mom to FCC about Wireless and Children

Kiss Your Child and Fight for Them; Letter from a Mom to FCC about Wireless and Children

 

The following letter was written by a mom who tragically lost her one-year-old to leukemia. She learned too late that WiFi can potentially be a contributing factor in childhood leukemia.

The mom sent this letter to Commissioner Rosenworcel through the email address the Commissioner set up for the public to report on broadband coverage gaps – loosely interpreted to include other broadband problems.

broadbandfail@fcc.gov.

For more information and instructions on writing your own communication to the FCC opposing 5g and all wireless expansion, please see,  http://whatis5g.info/action/2017/11/not-happy-with-broadband-service-send-email-to-broadbandfailfcc-gov/

To contact your federal representatives, please see, http://whatis5g.info/small-cells/

 

Dear Entrusted Officials,

Raise your hand if your child has died before you. Hug your child if he or she is healthy. 

I write today to share that the choices you make about the environment we call home are far reaching, and that our precious homes must be protected.

RF radiation has never been proven safe for children. Ever. And the FCC wants to break down local barriers to deploy more of it?

RF radiation has been implicated by 400+ peer-reviewed studies as causing biological harms ranging from dizziness, sleeplessness and nausea to DNA damage, a precursor to cancer.

My daughter died before her second birthday of leukemia. How does this happen? As part of a university study, I learned that time in front of a WiFi-enabled computer while pregnant is a variable. 

My daughter’s death leaves my heart in the smallest of pieces. What was the happiest time in my life turned into tragedy the likes of which I couldn’t even imagine. Watching my husband carry her down the service elevator at the hospital to the funeral director’s car, parked back by the dumpster, for a last goodbye, is an image that will haunt me forever. Driving to the funeral parlor for several nights in a row to be with her dead body, while families were enjoying bedtime stories and playing games, is something I wouldn’t wish on anyone. A child’s death will wreck you. 

Please urge further studies of this invisible and very pervasive radiation. Please institute setback laws that protect our children — in our homes and in their schools.

You may think you are on the precipice of a technological heyday. Instead, you may be paving the way to a long, steady, massive health catastrophe. 

Follow other countries who revere their young; they have stripped WiFi radiation from schools and libraries, and are going back to wired connections. I beg you to find the middle ground. I beg you to conduct tests applicable to children and use aggregated exposure models.

For my deceased daughter, for me, for my husband and her brother, think twice before irradiating millions of people because a bunch of telecom titans have sold you a promise that will harm the innocent.

Even if it kills just one, believe me, that’s one too many.


For more information on WiFi in schools, please go to https://ehtrust.org/?s=Wifi+in+schools
For more information about the downsides of 5g and the Internet of Things, please see http://whatis5g.info

Letter from Ronald M. Powell to Montgomery County Council; Tragically, Small Cell Towers are about Life and Death

(Posted by www.whatis5g.info)
Letter from Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D. to the Montgomery County Council, Maryland.
October 31, 2017

To:

Roger Berliner, President
Hans Riemer, Vice President
Montgomery County Council
Montgomery County, Maryland
 
Dear President Berliner and Vice President Riemer,

My thanks to both of you gentlemen for your responses to my earlier email messages opposing small cell towers.  Both of you cited factors of importance when considering the installation of these towers in Montgomery County.  However, I was left uncertain about your own views of small cell towers.  At present, do you favor the installation of small cell towers in Montgomery County, or not?

If you favor installation

If you favor installation, and your goal is limited to maintaining control, at the County level, of the zoning requirements, then I can understand why County officials keep deflecting the health concerns raised by County residents.  Hence the frequent references to the “environmental effects” exclusion in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is frequently interpreted to be a “health effects” exclusion:
 
“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

(In the above quotation, the “Commission” is, of course, the Federal Communications Commission.)

If you oppose installation or are undecided

If you oppose installation or are undecided, then please consider the following line of reasoning for countering the supposed health exclusion in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Our laws are in conflict

The international biomedical research community has made it quite clear that radiofrequency radiation, and specifically cellular radiofrequency radiation, can harm people in an enormous number of ways.  Most recently the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiation to brain cancer (glioma) which is usually fatal, and to a nerve cancer (schwannoma) that can be fatal.  That is, the scientific evidence suggests that we must treat radiofrequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, not only as dangerous to health generally, but also as a CARCINOGEN that is dangerous to life itself.

So, when a small cell tower is placed “up close and personal” to people, those people must be regarded as under “assault” by a carcinogen. And, there are laws against assault. Further, since that assault can result in death, those people must be considered as under “assault with a deadly weapon”.  That is also against the law.  Furthermore, if any of those people die as the result of that assault, that is “murder”.  Murder is also against the law.

So, it seems fair to ask this question:  Is the 1996 Telecommunications Act so powerful that it overrides the laws against assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder? I doubt very much that the authors of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, in their zeal to promote the rapid expansion of cellular technology without prior testing for safety, intended to convey a right to the telecommunications industry to assault, and even kill, people.

If County officials want to protect the public from harm, they need to rally their legal might to resist ALL EFFORTS to install small cell towers in the County, not just because that is the right thing to do, but also because such installation violates multiple existing laws that are reasonably believed to be preeminent.

I would be proud to see Montgomery County take the lead in making this argument against the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which has proved to be an unjust law.

If you don’t believe that cellular radiation is harmful

If you reject the above line of reasoning because you don’t believe that cellular radiation is harmful, then I ask you to consider these questions:

  • On which sources of information are you relying for assurances of safety?  Do those sources have extensive backgrounds in the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation?  Are those sources free from vested interests in cellular communications or other wireless technologies?
  • Are those sources more authoritative on health issues than the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization?  That organization linked radiofrequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, to cancer back in 2011?
  • Are those sources more authoritative on health issues than the National Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institutes of Health?  The NTP confirmed the link of radiofrequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, to cancer in 2016 and to DNA damage more broadly in 2017?  And further findings are due for release in 2018.  These findings are the result of the largest study ($25 million) that the NTP has ever conducted of any toxin.
  • Have you read some of the scientific research literature that connects radiofrequency radiation to biological effects and that has been funded by impartial sources?

If your answer to the last question above is “No”, I hope that you will explore at least some of the vast biomedical research literature that Maryland residents have already submitted to you.

Also, for an excellent online overview of the impact of wireless technology on health, please see the web site of the Environmental Health Trust (https://ehtrust.org/).  This organization is led by Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H. who has had a distinguished career of public service in support of public health.  Dr. Davis was a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was named a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007.

Who am I?

I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University, 1975).  During my Government career, I worked for the Executive Office of the President of the United States, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  For those organizations, respectively, I addressed Federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community.  I currently interact with other scientists and with physicians around the world on the impact of electromagnetic fields on human health.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards,

Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

 

Ronald N. Kostoff to Montgomery County Council on Small Cells

Posted by Kate Kheel, Nov. 4th, 2017 

Letter from Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D. to the Montgomery County Council on November 1, 2017

Dear Montgomery County Council Members,

I have been informed that Montgomery County is considering approval of the installation of small cell towers throughout the County, including up and down residential streets, starting with Potomac, MD and Germantown, MD.  I would like to offer my perspective on this proposal.

Over the past decade, I have been performing studies on causes and treatments of chronic diseases.  Much of the focus has emphasized identifying the causes of these diseases, and their specific impacts.  The most comprehensive of the studies was a book titled Pervasive Causes of Disease,

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/53714

and identified ~800 contributing factors that impacted more than a threshold number of the ~4000 diseases examined.

One of the specific factors I have been examining in detail is non-ionizing radiation.  Earlier this year, I published an invited book chapter on the health impacts of non-ionizing radiation combined with other stimuli, both toxic and non-toxic.  This chapter is attached.

For non-ionizing radiation in the power frequency band (~60Hz) and radiofrequency bands heavily used today (900 Mhz-cell phones and 2.45Ghz-WiFi), the biomedical literature is clear.  Heavy exposure of humans to this radiation for extended periods of time can be lethal, and exposure of test animals to non-ionizing radiation in isolation can be lethal.

As my book chapter shows, when non-ionizing radiation at the above frequencies is combined with other toxic stimuli, there is a strong synergy that results.  In some cases (depending on intensity, frequency, and duration), neither partner to the combination will exhibit effects when used in isolation, but will exhibit highly toxic effects when used in combination.  In most cases, the adverse effects of the combination will be much more highly toxic than the adverse effects of each partner used in isolation.  Thus, non-ionizing radiation in the above frequency bands is not only toxic/lethal in its own right, but it serves as a promoter/enabler/enhancer of the intrinsic toxicity of other stimuli.

For 5G, the proposed frequency band (~3Ghz-30Ghz, and higher) is in the millimeter-wave range, and has had little safety testing done, even in isolation.  There has been no long-term testing, and no testing on these frequencies in combination with other stimuli, which is the real-world condition.

Long-term testing on humans is required for two reasons.  First, latency periods for serious diseases can be measured in decades, in many cases.  For smoking, latency periods between initiation of smoking and lung cancer is between two and three decades, and for other types of cancers, latency times between onset of cause and eventual cancer can range up to five decades.  Latency periods for neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, can be five decades or more, considering the advanced ages at which they occur.  Alarmingly, Hardell has found that even after the relatively short period of a decade of ‘heavy’ cell phone use (~30 min/day), certain types of brain cancers for adults doubled, and for adults who started using cell phones as teenagers, these brain cancer rates quintupled!  One can only imagine the results after two or three decades of ‘heavy’ cell phone use.

Second, animal tests are not adequate.  Animals are different from human beings biologically, and animal tests are usually performed under very controlled conditions, where the non-ionizing radiation is applied either in isolation or with one other toxic stimulus.  Humans experience myriad toxic stimuli in parallel over their lifetime, as I have shown in my book, and the complex combinations of toxic stimuli bear little resemblance to the pristine test conditions applicable to animals.  Allowing 5G cell towers to be constructed with essentially no safety testing having been performed would be the height of irresponsibility!

The usual excuse for inaction on opposition to cell tower construction of any type, including 5G, is the statement from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that health reasons can not be used as a basis to halt tower construction.  This, in my view, is an abdication of responsibility of elected officials.

Suppose the Federal government passed a law stating that herbicides could be sprayed over populated areas by contractors, and these sprayings could not be opposed for health reasons.  If a local company wanted to initiate daily sprayings of Agent Orange over Montgomery County, would the members of the County Council allow it, despite what the law stated?  Would the residents allow it, despite what the law stated?  I suspect there would be an armed insurrection to block the spraying.  Yet, cell tower developers are proposing to ‘spray’ a highly toxic substance (non-ionizing radiation in RF bands) over Montgomery County, and the decision-makers act as if they have no options.

At some point in this one-sided battle between the wireless technology vendors and the defenseless public, someone has to take a stand.  Let Montgomery County at this time serve as the Waterloo for the 5G onslaught!

Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/56646

=======================

[Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D. is a Research Affiliate in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  The book chapter that is referenced in his message above was co-authored with Clifford G.Y. Lau and appears in Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins, edited by C.D. Geddes and published in 2017.