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

BACKGROUND

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.

MASS KILLINGS WITH GUN-BASED ASSAULT WEAPONS

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.

(https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/)

MASS KILLINGS WITH RADIOFREQUENCY-BASED  ASSAULT WEAPONS

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.

MEDIA RESPONSE

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?

POLITICAL RESPONSE

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?

GENERAL POPULATION RESPONSE

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.

FINAL THOUGHTS

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!

RNK

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. 

https://whatis5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/COMMENTS-by-Ronald-N.-Kostofff-on-SB-1188-and-HB-1767.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,  https://whatis5g.info/action/2017/11/not-happy-with-broadband-service-send-email-to-broadbandfailfcc-gov/

To contact your federal representatives, please see, https://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 https://whatis5g.info

Not happy with your broadband service?  Send an email to, broadbandfail@fcc.gov

Not happy with your broadband service? Send an email to, broadbandfail@fcc.gov

In the following 3 minute video clip, FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel invites the American people to email her about broadband coverage problems around the country.

 

The Commissioner set up an email account specifically dedicated to hearing from the public about broadband “fails.”

 
Commissioner Rosenworcel states,
“I set up this account [broadbandfail.fcc.gov] to take in the public stories and ideas. And I will share everything that comes in with the Chairman and with my colleagues, because I think it’s time to turn every one of those ‘broadband fails’ into something better – ‘broadband success.’” 
Although the Commissioner’s invitation was intended to be used to map out and address coverage gaps, it would well serve those of us fighting 5g-small cells as a means to give the Commission honest feedback from the public of what we actually DO want – safe, reliable, fast, cyber secure, and energy efficient fiber to all homes and businesses.  We do NOT want to compromise our health and privacy with the forced installation of small cell towers next to our homes.  Profit and “mobile speed” do not trump our health and privacy. 
 
Please take a moment to send a short email to Commissioner Rosenworcel, at broadbandfail@fcc.gov, stating that the American people choose health and privacy over wireless speed and data harvesting.
 
The Message

We want safe, reliable, fast, cyber-secure, and energy efficient fiber to all homes and businesses. 
We do not want small cells in front of our homes emitting harmful radiation 24/7, and that will invade our privacy by providing the “necessary” infrastructure to harvest our data.

 
Again, send your email to:  broadbandfail@fcc.gov. 

To add extra weight to your message, please cc the following people from the FDA, CDC, and NCI (National Cancer Institute)

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.