Important Letter to Zoning Committee on Their Responsibility to Protect Public Rights and Not Hide Behind Federal Laws That Can Harm Us
The following Letter by Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff was written to the Montgomery County Zoning Committee. Dr. Kostoff strongly admonishes the County to protect public rights even when these are in conflict with Federal law – in this case, with Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The arguments presented in this letter are compelling and should be brought before every public official making decisions relating to the deployment of 4G/5G “small” cells.
On the Montgomery County Government page that presents the Zoning Text Amendment, it is stated:
“Many residents have expressed concern about the health effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions. Under federal law, the County may not “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 [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” In other words, the County may enforce and require compliance with FCC regulations, but not create additional requirements.”
GERMAN RACIAL LAWS
In my view, it is an abdication of the Council’s responsibility to hide behind a ‘federal law’, if adherence to that law could bring harm to the residents of Montgomery County. For example, consider the Holocaust Encyclopedia (https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005681). It lists tens, if not hundreds, of “federal laws” implemented in Nazi Germany against its Jewish citizens, starting in 1933. If you were a member of a German County Council in the 1933-1940 time frame, would you be comfortable with such laws? More specifically, would you be sending out a letter to the residents of that County telling them they have no choice but to obey and implement such laws?
That example is very analogous to the situation today with respect to implementation of small cell towers to support 5G. We know radiofrequency emissions (RF) are harmful in isolation, and potentially very harmful when combined with other toxic stimuli. I showed many examples of harm from RF (in isolation and especially in combination with other toxic stimuli) in my book chapter that I circulated to the Council in my previous mailing
How harmful? We don’t know.
Our chapter showed a plethora of potentially fatal and chronic diseases that could result from RF radiation. But, even the human effects data (horrific as it was) was based on relatively short-term exposure to RF, such as cell phones, cell towers, WiFi. We know that many diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, etc, can have very long latency periods for some toxic stimuli. Intense exposures to RF are relatively recent, and we don’t have the long-term human data (in isolation or in combinations) to ascertain the full extent of the damage these exposures can cause. I cannot rule out that the potential damage from these long-term exposures would not equal, or even greatly exceed, the horrific damage caused by the Holocaust, especially because of the potential world-wide implementation of small cell tower 5G technology. That’s why I draw the analogy above, even though the Holocaust had strong racial motivations, while the motivations for RF-5G implementation are profit and greed. It is small comfort for the victims to know that they died from someone’s greed rather than racial motivations!
JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT DURING WWII
On 19 February 1942, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing internment of tens of thousands of citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan. That was essentially a Federal law. We view it from today’s perspective as horrific, and I have yet to see someone in recent times who would defend it. But, at the time, it was accepted by the majority of non-Japanese Americans. Should we have followed that proclamation blindly, as we did, causing undue hardship and disruption for a group whose only ‘crime’ was being of a particular ancestry? And, how is today’s action by the Montgomery County Council different from the actions of those authorities seventy-five years ago who went along with, and hid behind, an obviously harmful Federal Order?
Sanctuary cities limit their cooperation with the Federal government in enforcing Federal immigration law. In Maryland, three counties are listed as sanctuary counties: Baltimore, Prince George’s, and–Montgomery. Whether one agrees with their resistance or not, the officials (and residents) of these counties are willing to disobey Federal law because they think it is wrong.
So, for Montgomery County in particular, why are the officials willing to disobey Federal laws on immigration, but hide behind the cover of Federal law when it comes to the implementation of the infrastructure for 5G? Are the consequences of obeying Federal immigration law more serious than the consequences of obeying Federal telecommunications law?
I would argue the opposite. While the consequences of obeying Federal immigration law will result in substantial hardship and disruption of their lives for the individuals affected, for most the consequences will not be life-threatening. The consequences of obeying Federal telecommunications law have the potential of resulting in many severe illnesses and premature deaths. In short, the Council has shown willingness to disobey Federal law in the immigration situation, but unwillingness to do the same in the telecommunication situation.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
One reason for the schizophrenic behavior of the Council on the above problems of immigration and telecommunications infrastructure could be related to potential conflicts of interest. For the telecommunications implementation issue, have the Council members been vetted for conflict of interest? This would include: 1) any elements of their investment portfolio that would profit from operation and expansion of the mobile telecommunications network; 2) any elements of their present business endeavors that would profit from operation and expansion of this network; 3) any elements of pensions received that would profit from operation and expansion of this network; 4) any proposals in the pipeline or being considered that would profit from operation and expansion of this network; 5) any other existing or potential conflicts of interest by which they could profit from operation and expansion of the mobile telecommunications network. Anyone conflicted should be required to recuse themselves from decision-making on this network.
We are at a critical point in the fight to restrict exposure to very harmful levels of wireless radiation. Already, studies have shown extensive human damage resulting from the previous generations of mobile telecommunications networks. Implementation of 5G would raise potential human damage to unprecedented levels, because of the vastly increased density of cell towers required and their proximity to humans.
We need to make a stand: not tomorrow, not in some other location, but here, in Montgomery County, and now, in 2018! If Montgomery County can claim sanctuary status for immigration, they can certainly claim sanctuary status to be free from the potentially ravaging effects of 5G. Let’s not do the equivalent of making the trains to the Camps run on time, or of sending innocent people to internment facilities, as we did seventy-five years ago. Let’s do what is right, for once, and oppose installation of these 5G cell towers!
Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff
This 5G roll-out must be stopped now.
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 anunderstanding of the health consequences.”
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.
Hearing, Assembly Local Government Committee
June 28, 2017
2:35:28 – 2:39:08
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.