Alert On S 3157 – An Important Bill For Everyone To Oppose

Alert On S 3157 – An Important Bill For Everyone To Oppose


The Federal government is once again trying to take away local authority over cell towers. Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act (S.3157)

S.3157  is an attempt to make Congressional law consistent with FCC actions. In 2017 and 2018, Telecom managed to get the FCC to pass sweeping regulations that strip local municipalities of local zoning rights, and remove environmental and historic reviews. Now Telecom seeks to tighten up Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) as it’s inconsistent with these new FCC rulings. Basically, S.3157 is a rewrite of Section 704 with respect to wireless facilities.

For a detailed look at how S.3157 would alter Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, stripping municipalities and the public of our rights, please see:

Here’s a simple description and easy template to take action to oppose S.3157.

Overview of S.3157 written by the National League of Cities

The National League of Cities (NLC) opposes S. 3157. They wrote, “Despite urging from NLC and other local government advocates during the bill’s drafting phase, many preemptive provisions remain in the bill, including limiting the actions local governments can take on small cell wireless facility siting in an effort to make deployments cheaper, faster, and more consistent across jurisdictions.”

Here’s an easy way to take action. NLC will send a letter directly to your representatives in Congress for you.

At this link, you will need to insert your zip code (and maybe your full address), and then the letter template will appear with a message to legislators generated by the National League of Cities (NLC).

PLEASE NOTE: Instead of using their letter, which has statements of support for small cells, either

  1. copy and paste the following words into their letter template
  2. copy and paste the sample letter given beneath these instructions, or
  3. craft your own letter.
Text to copy and paste into letter template

As a constituent, I am writing to express my opposition to the “Streamlining The Rapid Evolution And Modernization of Leading-edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance (STREAMLINE) Small Cell Deployment Act” (S. 3157).

S. 3157 is similar to a California bill (SB 649) which would have created a state mandated system of cell towers and eliminated local review and safety oversight. SB 649 was opposed by 300 cities, 47 counties and over 100 community, planning, health, environment and justice organizations. SB 649 was vetoed SB 649 by Governor Brown on October 15, 2017.

The threat of public and environmental harm from wireless radiation is real and growing. Local control is needed to ensure community safety, welfare and compliance with federal, state, and local laws.

Peer-reviewed published science shows wireless radiation harms public health and nature. Health effects include: fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, ringing in the ears, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, increased cancer risk, and more. Children, the ill, and the elderly are more vulnerable.

International independent scientists are calling for biologically-based public exposure standards and reducing wireless radiation.

S. 3157 represents a direct affront to traditionally-held local authority. S. 3157 introduces an unnecessary, one-size-fits-all preemption of local jurisdiction. The bill also imposes unfair and inappropriate timelines on local governments.

For more information see this joint letter to Congress asking you to oppose any and all bills related to 5G and wireless radiation expansion:

Thank you!

Another possible letter to copy and paste into the NLC template

As a community leader and constituent, I hereby express my strong opposition to the “Streamlining The Rapid Evolution And Modernization of Leading-edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance (STREAMLINE) Small Cell Deployment Act” (S. 3157). This Bill represents a direct affront to traditionally held local authority.  If passed, it would complicate rather than simplify national efforts to expedite infrastructure deployment by mucking up state and local processes.  My community shares Congress’s apparent goal of ensuring efficient, safe, and appropriate deployment of broadband technology — largely fiber optics. However, S.3157 is not a good way to achieve this goal. Indeed, it is fraught with problems.  Despite encouraging “technology-neutral” infrastructure, the Bill is heavily weighted toward Wireless installations over Fiber to the Premises (FTTP). The latter is energy-efficient, safe, secure, reliable and fast broadband — a solution that can easily add Wi-Fi calling for in-building coverage.  However, default wireless is not a solution: it produces enormous energy waste with unreliable service. Most importantly, it imposes degradation to living organisms, particularly pollinating insects, birds and other wildlife, with immediate as well as short- and long-term impairments of human brain, heart, and immune function and disease and early death therefrom.

S.3157 would complicate the existing efforts by state and local governments to deploy the most appropriate broadband infrastructure for their communities. Some US states have passed legislation specifically addressing the deployment of broadband infrastructure, and the local governments in those states are busy implementing new ordinances and procedures to comply with those changes. This unnecessary federal bill, questionable under the Tenth Amendment in its impositions upon State and local governments, requires a poorly conceived, one-size-fits-all preemption of those well-meaning, detailed, in-process municipality efforts. Instead of helping local communities, it enriches wireless companies to the detriment of companies offering wired solutions. S.3157 would force expensive, new wireless deployments, when FTTP is most effective and in many cases in place, ready to be connected.

S.3157 imposes unfair timelines on local governments. The shot clocks proposed by S.3157 are draconian: considerably shorter than those the federal government applied to itself in the bipartisan MOBILE NOW Act. The reduced size-per-installation of so-called “small cell” infrastructure, which is in fact of considerably large overall, does not translate to a reduced procedural burden on local governments. Municipalities must still review each site individually to ensure it meets the local jurisdiction’s requirements and needs. Further, the limited extension for small jurisdictions and bulk requests of typically over fifty simultaneous applications does not address these resource challenges for states and local governments.

Finally, limiting fees and rates to direct and actual costs is an extreme overreach by the federal government. Municipalities negotiate with providers to ensure appropriate compensation to taxpayers for private, profit-generating use of public property and to incentivize development that benefits community residents. In some cases, state constitutions’ prohibitions on gifts to private entities prohibit cities from assessing less than a fair market value for rental of public property. When cities are prohibited from controlling these rates, they are forced to subsidize private development, at the cost of other critical local services such as road maintenance and public safety. Such overreach could devolve into judiciary challenge that is best averted now.

For these reasons, I am opposed to S. 3157 and urge you to oppose it. Local governments need time and flexibility to ensure that the broadband infrastructure most appropriate to each locality is deployed not just quickly, but safely and correctly, in communities throughout the nation.

Contacting representatives directly

Please also consider calling your federal legislators. You can use this link to find contact information for all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives.

Here’s a link where you can enter your postal zip code to find out who your representatives are:

With thanks to the website, here is another excellent portal for contacting your federal representatives.


Here are two Letters to the Editor re S.3157

Here are two short Letters to the Editor sent to the home-state newspapers of Sen. John Thune and Sen. Brian Schatz (South Dakota and Hawai’i respectively). Please note the modified and apt title of the Bill, “Streamline Cancer Bill”.

Sen. Thune’s “Streamline Cancer” bill
Sen. Thune’s S.3157 allows 4G/5G “small cell” towers in front of homes and schools in the public’s right-of-way, stripping much of the regulatory authority from communities.
This flood of “small cell” towers – every 2-20 homes – is reckless. Sen. Thune ignores decades of research showing biological disruption and harm from this radiation. The U.S. National Toxicology Program found it causes cancer after only two years of exposure. Children are especially vulnerable, as are bees, birds, and trees. Thune ignores this and over 230 scientists and physicians who called on the EU and the UN in 2017 to halt 5G, saying wireless radiation is a serious public health hazard.
California communities are rallying against these “small cells”, putting up yard signs, banners, organizing protests, and addressing hearings to stop them. Verizon’s plan to put a “small cell” at the Pacific Grove High School was called “unacceptable” and “appalling” by the principal. SB 649 allowing these throughout California was vetoed after widespread opposition.
Sen. Thune wants a Congressional hearing on the bill this month. The National League of Cities opposes this horrible bill. Stop S.3157.
Nina Beety
Monterey, California
Sen. Schatz’ “Streamline Cancer” bill
Sen. Schatz’ S.3157 allows 4G/5G cell towers in front of homes and schools in the public’s right-of-way, stripping away local authority.
Sen. Schatz ignores decades of research showing biological harm from this radiation. The U.S. National Toxicology Program results show cancer after two years’ exposure. Children are especially vulnerable, as are bees, birds, and trees. Over 230 scientists and physicians called on the EU and UN in 2017 to halt 5G, saying wireless radiation is a serious public health hazard. Schatz ignores this.
California communities are rallying against these “small cells”, putting up yard signs, organizing protests, and addressing hearings to stop them. Verizon’s plan to put a “small cell” at a high school was called “unacceptable” and “appalling” by the principal. California SB 649 was vetoed after widespread opposition.
Co-author Thune plans a hearing this month. The National League of Cities opposes this horrible bill. Stop S.3157.
Nina Beety
Monterey, California


by Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff

This document examines the role of synergies in setting of safety limits.

Studies that include synergies are necessary for credible RFR safety limit
setting. Single stressor experiments as the main determinants for safety/exposure limits may be insufficient for human health protection from these potentially toxic contributing factors.

The results from studies of synergistic effects will take years to produce. If we continue along our
present path, hundreds of thousands of new small cell towers will have been installed during that research
period. The damage will have been done by the time the results are produced.

We need a moratorium on new cell tower construction until such results have been obtained.

Read full document at this link:

Resources for States Facing ALEC (Cookie Cutter) 5G Bills

Resources for States Facing ALEC (Cookie Cutter) 5G Bills

Currently, 4G/5G “small’ cell legislation is spreading through the states like wildfire. Bills to preempt local zoning rights for the placement of 4G/5G “small” cells have been introduced in about 30 states, and counting.

Advocates opposing this legislation should not have to “reinvent the wheel.” Following are links to letters, documents, fact sheets etc. that can be used as is, or adapted to fit your state. If you have other resources that may be useful, please send them to

These State Bills would allow Telecom to place high-intensity, microwave radiating cell tower antennas in front of homes and in our communities while removing local control.

Our legislators should protect citizens’ interests, NOT the wireless industry’s reckless and ill-considered power grab!

Michigan’s Senator Colbeck courageously takes a stand citing the State Constitution which states that the safety of the people of Michigan must be the primary consideration when enacting laws.


5G requires millions of mini cell towers to be built nationwide.  From coast to coast, states are moving forward with Bills to preempt local authority and allow companies  to place wireless antennae in neighborhoods in front of homes with zero to minimal community input. In some states, fierce community opposition has lead to blocking these streamlining Bills. In other states, these Bills have passed. Please see this running list of states and their Bills  with useful links to news stories and videos about the new legislation.

Many thanks to Environmental Health Trust for this important list!!


This wonderful image “says it all.” It was used first in California to fight SB 649 and then adapted to the Maryland Bills (as pictured here). If you would like to use this image in your state and would like the Bill number changed, please send an email to


This link has a wealth of resources that were used in successfully opposing SB 649, the California “small” cell bill. These will prove very useful for efforts in other states.

For a WORD version of this flyer to edit, please email,



Can be used in crafting comments or for public outreach:


Email letter ready to be used to educate policy makers and others about the health impacts of wireless radiation, focusing particularly on  cell towers and 5G (millimeter wave) frequencies.  Two versions: PDF and WORD. Please feel free to adapt as needed to your circumstance.


The following sample letter was adapted from the letter provided in the Gaithersburg Press ReleasePublic Hearing on Wireless Facilities Bill Eliminating Public Input and Superseding Local Government Rights to be held March 20 in Annapolis. Please adapt it to your own state and personal “concerns”, such as health, privacy, safety, capped rates, lowered property values, impacts on wildlife, aesthetics, historic preservation, effects on our brains and humanity from a tech-infested future dictated primarily by industry profits, you prefer fiber which is safe, fast, reliable, far more cyber secure and energy efficient than wireless, we’ve already paid for fiber that was never delivered so shouldn’t have to subsidize this needless wireless build-out, or another reason. There is something in these Bills to tick off everyone. 

WORD version:
PDF version:


This list contains contact info for the Maryland legislators. It’s intended only to serve as an example of what other states might use in their own outreach. The format makes it quite easy to paste all the email addresses at once into the address bar of your email.


Petitions can be a good way to gather a support network of people opposing the bills. You can follow up with announcements concerning the legislation or further actions people can take. Following are examples of a few different petitions opposing small cell bills.

Maryland Coalition to Oppose Cell Towers in Neighborhoods:

Common Cause:;jsessionid=00000000.app260a?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2348&NONCE_TOKEN=A2053DD2D411C3EA716CB79708C3ED6E

Oppose SB 649: Stop the extreme expansion of cell towers on every block in California

Petition for NM legislators to vote NO! on the 2018 Wireless Consumer Advanced Infrastructure Investment Act




Press release from Gaithersburg urging the public to oppose SB 1188 and HB 1767

Message and Comments by Ronald N. Kostoff on SB 1188 AND HB 1767

Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D. urges Maryland State Legislators to Protect the Health of the People of Maryland


Message and Comments from Ronald N. Kostoff on Maryland Bills SB 1188 and HB 1767, Wireless Facilities – Permitting and Siting

Message and Comments from Ronald N. Kostoff on Maryland Bills SB 1188 and HB 1767, Wireless Facilities – Permitting and Siting

Maryland Legislative Proposals to Mandate Implementation of Small Cell Towers/5G

By Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff


The Maryland legislature has proposed Senate and House Bills (SB 1188 and HB 1767) that would significantly impair the ability of municipalities to regulate the siting of small cellular antennas and related infrastructure.  They would preempt local authority regarding height of poles, size of equipment, amount of fees, and other critical factors that would affect quality of life issues in municipalities.  These Bills would convert an intrinsically local issue into a state issue.  Most of all, they would be a major contributing factor to the onset of myriad serious diseases.  At the end of this letter is a link to Comments I recently sent to the Maryland legislature in opposition to both of these Bills.


The health issue related to these small cell towers is central, and needs to be placed in proper context.  Two weeks ago, a lone gunman opened fire in a school in Parkland, FL, killing 17 and wounding 14.  This horrific event sparked outrage among politicians, the media, and citizens across the USA.  It is the latest in a series of such mass killing events.  From 1982-2018, it is estimated that such mass murders resulted in the deaths of over 800 people, an average of about twenty-five per year over that period.



By comparison, our existing cell towers and other wireless transmitting devices are essentially assault weapons firing on our schools, our commercial and government buildings, and our residences, 24/7/52.  The ‘bullets’ they fire are not lead, but rather are packets of non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR).  In the long-term, they are far more deadly than their lead counterparts because they will impact most of the population, as my EMF health effects book chapter and attached letter show.


Where is the outrage of the media on these fully automatic and continuous RFR-based assault weapons relentlessly attacking our schools and most of our population, 24/7/52?  Over time, these RFR-based assault weapons will inflict orders of magnitude more suffering and premature deaths than the mass gun-based shootings ever would.  Why isn’t the damage inflicted by these RFR-based assault weapons discussed at the top of every media front page?


Where is the outrage of our local, state, and Federal politicians over proposals to greatly enhance the power of these RFR-based assault weapons by mandating rapid implementation of millions of 5G cell towers throughout our population?  I am hearing impassioned pleas by members of Congress to reduce and restrict the numbers of gun-based assault weapons throughout society in order to to reduce the probability of these mass killings.  Where are their similarly impassioned pleas to reduce the far greater danger from RFR-based assault weapons?


Where is the outrage of the general population and the students on having been subjected to these RFR ‘bullets’ in the past from 2G and 3G technology, in the present from the addition of 4G technology, and potentially in the future from the addition of 5G technology? 

I applaud the demonstrating of our citizens, especially the students, against the gun-based violence in the schools.  Why are they not doing similar, if not greater, demonstrating against these RFR-based assault weapons we euphemistically call cell towers?  These RFR-based assault weapons have resulted, are resulting, and will certainly result in producing far more suffering and premature deaths than the horrific mass gun-based shootings ever will.


As I point out in the attached letter, 5G has (for all practical purposes) never had anything resembling credible safety testing performed.  Yet, we are deluged with proposals from local, state, and Federal officials to remove any impediments to accelerated implementation of millions of these 5G-transmitting small cell towers throughout the USA. 

How would these politicians react if one of the major airlines introduced a fleet of new transport planes that had never been flight tested?  Would they participate in the inaugural flights? Would they volunteer members of their family to participate in the inaugural flights?  Analogous to what they are proposing for 5G and its infrastructure, would they mandate that their constituents participate in the inaugural flights?  If not, why are they willing to mandate the imposition of 5G and its infrastructure on their constituents?

In fact, the premier biomedical literature tells us in no uncertain terms that these RFR-based assault weapons are extremely dangerous to human health above some relatively low RFR threshold exposures.  These results are obtained despite the conduct of most RFR health impact studies under conditions most favorable to minimizing adverse health impacts of RFR. 

Implementation of these 5G/small cell tower proposals at the local, state, or Federal level should be opposed to the maximum extent possible!


Comments by Ronald N. Kostoff sent to Sponsors of SB 1188 and HB 1767, and Members of the Senate Finance Committee and the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee.

Important Letter to Zoning Committee on Their Responsibility to Protect Public Rights and Not Hide Behind Federal Laws That Can Harm Us

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.”


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 (  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!


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.


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