Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Handouts_Regular_4/8/2021 (2)
4/7/2021 Compose Message:: Workspace Webmail The Dangers of 5G and How to STOP 5G IN TEQUESTA I am a resident of Tequesta, FL and am writing regarding the rapid roll out of 5G antennas very close to homes (along with the 4G antennas that work together with the 5G). You are on the precipice of enabling a technology that will widely blanket our living environment. Currently there are thousands of scientific studies that demonstrate a clear potential to cause serious harm and even death to your constituents, family and friends. The body of evidence, dating back decades, is very compelling. It is imperative that the roll out of 5G be stopped/delayed until rigorous independent scientific studies using the planned higher frequencies and new signaling characteristics intended for 5G demonstrate that this radiation will not do harm to humans, animals and plants. 5G antennas close to living environments also poses a threat to our privacy, real estate values and local aesthetics. The Telecom industry has spent billions of dollars marketing this dangerous technology in order to profit without regard for our safety. The FCC, which should be protecting us, has failed as a regulator due to the fact that it is mostly comprised of former Telecom industry executives or Telecom affiliated individuals. Please recall four decades of tobacco industry claims that cigarettes were safe. Telecom is using the same playbook to foist this life -threatening Trojan Horse on us. A report by Harvard University's Safra Center for Ethics, "Captured Agency_ How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates", affirms this. An important difference between 5G and cigarettes is that one can choose whether to smoke cigarettes, but when it comes to 5G the public has not consented to be irradiated 24/7. Attorney Andrew Campanelli, Esq. is a lawyer and litigator expert in federal, state, and municipal law regarding wireless technology infrastructure, including 5G. He has successfully represented hundreds of municipalities across the US in preventing unwanted Macro Cells, Small Cells and DAS systems from being installed in towns. Too many towns and cities are being told by their town/city attorney that their hands are tied when it comes to the installation of 5G convincing town officials that they have no other choice than to allow these antennas in their communities. Mr. Campanelli has assured me that this is absolutely false information and that municipalities are being intentionally misled. Furthermore, Mr. Campanelli also informed me that the FCC never tests antennas after installation to see if the emissions are in compliance with the safety limits. As a result, due to the lack of FCC oversight, people are being subjected to much higher levels of Radio Frequency Radiation than is legally allowed. Regulations are not being enforced, and we are being exposed to dangerously high power levels due to this lack of oversight. The present FCC guidelines only attempt to protect from "thermal" (or heating) effects, which is only a small component of the known risks from Radio Frequency Radiation emitted by wireless antennas, related to the power. Other risks from exposure to the radiation include 1) the extensive "non -thermal" biological effects from the different frequencies used, and pulsing patterns and peaks, both well documented in US government research dating back to the 1940s (including risks for cancer, neurological damage, cognitive effects and more); 2) risks related to the signaling characteristics, like new 'beamforming', massive MIMO and other new features to be used in 5G; and 3) risks related to the duration of exposures, and from the cumulative effects from exposures. Guidelines for just the thermal exposures (the power effects) are also based on minutes of exposure, not the 24/7 exposures common today, and that will become ubiquitous in Jupiter if 4G/5G antenna densification' is permitted to proceed. In 2017 Island of Palm Beach took action and passed legislation that can prevent 5G in their town. Palm Beach is the only locality in Palm Beach County that has had the foresight to enable local legislators to regulate wireless facilities. In 2019 Hallandale Beach, FL unanimously passed a resolution of the mayor and city commission urging the state legislature and federal government to initiate a study of the health effects of small cell towers built to accommodate 5G technology and to develop installation guidelines protecting the health and welfare of residents. Across the country, many state and local ordinances have been passed to regulate and control wireless facilities, including 4G and 5G small cell antennas, and several states have passed legislation calling for a review of the science CI Co�M"_t� vwr https://emaill2.godaddy.com/?s=AAABAAAAADYuMTIuMg#compose 1/1 47[7Z0�1 Print:: Workspace Webmail before proceeding further with 5G. In Tequesta, we must follow their lead. I urge you to retain attorney Campanelli, Esqp. He specializes in wireless technology law and can assist in stopping 5G/4G densification in Tequesta. There are many highly credentialed scientists, attorneys and doctors who are involved in the attempt to prevent a potential catastrophic situation with 5G. The International EMF Scientist Appeal has been signed by over 250 scientific experts in electromagnetic fields, from 44 nations, all of whom are published scientists regarding the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. The International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space has been signed by people from 218 nations as of 6/22/20, calling also for stopping the planned launch of 50,000 satellites from Space that will communicate with 5G equipment on the ground, planned to be in our neighborhoods, as well, and communicating with the 5G antennas. Worldwide people at the local level are protesting this unsafe technology, as well. Brussels, the location of the European Union, has rejected 5G, with the Brussels Environmental Minister, Celine Fremault, saying, "I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards, which must protect the citizen, are not respected, 5G or not. The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt". In the UK, citizens have taken down cell towers under cover of darkness, and in other cases globally antennas are being burned down. Globally, citizens in large numbers are now protesting with internationally coordinated '5G Days of Action', happening regularly now in dozens of countries. Lloyd's of London and Swiss Re (largest re -insurance company globally) have refused to insure damages to human health from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). This alone indicates that we must insist on clear, objective independent science proving 5G's safety before considering installing small cells in our neighborhoods. At a minimum, 5G requires small cell antennas to be placed very close to each other, such as every 300-500 feet, or even closer, on utility poles, street signs, street lamps and other municipal infrastructure. Do you want a small cell antenna a few feet from your children's 2nd floor bedroom, beaming in Radio Frequency Radiation at dangerously high levels 24/7? If there is any question of safety the "Precautionary Principle" must apply. Please do not proceed to enable this technology in Tequesta without conclusive evidence that citizens will not be harmed. Please hire a legal expert in this area and find out the truth of what Tequesta can do to stop the onslaught of these antennas. Our lives depend on it. Please see the attached documents which provide valuable information regarding 5G. I can provide much more data, as well documents that demonstrate how we can have the advanced telecommunications we desire, that is fast, safe and secure, without jeopardizing our health. Fiber optics, cable, and even use of some advanced copper combined with fiber provide better service than wireless Internet Access Networks, as described in the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy's report, "Re -Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks", and does not endanger our health or that of our planet. Please seriously consider changing Tequesta's ordinances to prevent 5G from coming into our town which will protect our citizens from the health dangers connected to 5G. Thank you, Lydia MacLear lydia@lydiamaclear.com 561-972 7744 Attachments: Limiting liability-.pdf NO REASON TO BELIEVE 5G IS SAFE pdf Hallandale-Small-Cell-5G-Health-Study-Resolution.pdf Ltr from Doctors.pdf Copyright © 2003-2021. All rights reserved. https://emaiI12.godaddy.com/?s=AAABAAAAADYUMTIuMg#MessageIndex/display?folder=1229364&r=O.6243556383891931&view=786780490 2/2 5G Websites which provide peer reviewed scientific studies on the biological harm from Electromagnetic Radiation 5G CRISIS and ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH TRUST VIA ELECTRONIC FILING June 17, 2020 Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary, Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 RE: Comments on the FCC's Proposed Rule (Docket No.19-226): "Targeted Changes to the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" Dear Ms. Dortch, As medical and public health professionals, we are writing to express our opposition to the above captioned rule because of the Commission's failure to adequately consider the established and newly emerging science on RF microwave radiation and its impact on human health, particularly for vulnerable populations. First and foremost, the proposed rule completely ignores the documented adverse health effects that can occur at the FCC's current radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits, much less those that may occur at the expanded range of frequencies contemplated in the proposed rule. That the Commission fails to even mention `health effects', `toxicity', or `carcinogenicity' anywhere in this document is astonishing, given the extensive and expanding scientific literature currently available and the Commission's obligation to ensure the "safety of life" for all Americans as set forth in the Communications Act of 1934. To address the specific issues raised in the proposed rule, we offer these comments: Response to Paragraphs 125 and 126 - The Commission appears to be pushing ahead with plans for the next generation of wireless while scientists are still documenting evidence of cancer and other biological harms from 2G, 3G and 4G exposures. There are no human or animal studies yet on these much higher frequencies, but an absence of studies does not mean an absence of harm. The Commission's own admission that it is unaware of adverse non -thermal effects demonstrates either a failure to actively investigate the issue and engage with scientists studying the short and long-term biological impacts to the human population and possible interference with systems of the natural world, or a conscious effort to disregard science to facilitate the rapid deployment of new technologies to benefit industry. Response to Paragraphs 131-135 - Averaging RF microwave exposures over time may be convenient for manufacturers seeking to comply with FCC limits, but this is not how humans experience these exposures. To our knowledge, there is no scientific basis for the claim that periodic, high-level exposures are not harmful. As one scientist remarked recently, the average wind speed in Tornado Alley is 6 miles per hour. As such, we do not support the proposed change to allow manufacturers to produce wireless devices that govern their own radiation power output by averaging radiated power, especially for notebooks and tablets frequently used by children who, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), are more vulnerable to RF radiation than adults. Given the increasing use of wireless devices by children and adolescents, we encourage the FCC to seek out and utilize testing protocols that reflect real -world situations as has been suggested by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The FCC should establish temporal limits for both Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and power density. Response to Paragraphs 141-143 - We recommend that before the Commission considers even tentative approval of Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) devices operating at ranges in excess of 50 cm., that it first require manufacturers to conduct pre -market testing to demonstrate the safety of such devices when used in all possible "worst case" scenarios, and to develop mitigation techniques that can limit or eliminate inadvertent or collateral damage to the public. Such an analysis must include consideration of non -thermal biological impacts. Science moves slowly, and while this may be inconvenient for the restless purveyors of wireless technologies, it does not excuse the Commission from its obligation to protect public health and safety. Thus, considerations of human safety must come first in any decisions made by the Commission and we strongly urge the FCC to reconsider and re-evaluate its RF exposure standards with full consideration of potential adverse health effects for the general public as well as for occupational exposures. Americans are entitled to know the full extent of any potential health risks associated with exposure to RF microwave radiation, particularly at this time when wireless companies are busy installing hundreds of thousands of new wireless antennas in close proximity to homes and apartments. The determination of risk can best be evaluated from properly conducted, independent studies. The alternative of waiting for decades to learn whether or not these exposures increase disease rates in human populations and in the natural world is a dangerous and irresponsible strategy. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Fatima Saleh Ahmed A1Hammadi, MD Bill Akpinar, MD George Allibone, MD Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD Anthony M. Aurigemma, MD Tiffany Baer, MD Ricardo Bartelme, MD Chandramohan Batra, MD Alex Bekker, MD Les Berenson, MD Robin A Bernhoft, MD Mario Brus, MD Marie -Claire Buckley, MD Larry Burk, MD Julie Calderwood, MD Dawn L. Cannon, MD Hyla Cass, MD Ram Chandra, MD Perry A. Chapdelaine Jr., MD Daciana Lancu, MD Rowena Chua, MD Kim Lane, MD Catherine Clark, MD Laura Lasater, MD Wendy S. Cohen, MD Chris Lawinski, MD Angela Colbeck, MD Carol Lien-Kieu Thi Le, MD Eric Cordon, MD Ching Lee, MD Ann F. Corson, MD Alice Lee, MD Rabbi Gabriel Cousens, MD Megan Leivant, MD Jennifer M. Cunningham, MD Edward Levitan, MD Scott Cunningham, MD Tudor Marinescu, MD Geraldine DePaula, MD Anton Mathey, MD Laurel DeStefano, MD Sherman McCall, MD, PhD B. Dudney, MD Stephanie McCarter, MD Ron Dushkin, MD Julia W. McCutcheon, MD Larysa Dyrszka, MD Joseph McNamara, MD David Eisenberg, MD Richard Mills, MD Erica Elliott, MD Joseph T. Morgan, MD, FAAP Barbara Entl, MD Leah Morton, MD Darren Esposito, MD Jeffrey Mueller, MD Jill Fetell, MD Gudrun Murti, MD Mitchell A. Fleisher, MD Sonya Naryshkin, MD Barbara Rugo Focht, MD Neil Nathan, MD Kelly Fox, MD Raymond Richard Neutra, MD, PhD Jonathan T. Franklin, MD Mona Nicolae, MD Tracy Freeman, MD Kathleen Nolan, MD Mary Gabriele, MD Baran Nosratpour, MD Kathryn Gill, MD Nicholas J. Nossaman, MD Sharon Goldberg, MD Michelle O'Neill, MD Martha M. Grout, MD Greta N. Park, MD George Guess, MD Michelle Perro, MD Korianne Haas, MD Alan Peterson, MD Karen Harris, MD Laura Pines, MD Travis L. Herring, MD Lawrence A. Plumlee, MD Richard Horowitz, MD Angel Polimeni, MD Jason Hurbanek, MD Divray Prahbat, MD April M. Hurley, MD Edwin M. Quinones, MD Toril H. Jelter, MD Miriam Rahav, MD Richard Johnson, MD Rohit Ramanath, MD Janis Johnson, MD Ezra B. Riber, MD Sudha Kailas, MD, PhD Bruce Rind, MD Faiz Khan, MD Ronald D. Rosen, MD Gabriele Knaus, MD Robert Jay Rowen, MD Benjamin Kohn, MD Steven Roy, MD Laura Koniver, MD Cindy Lee Russell, MD Athena Kostidis, MD Natalie Sadler, MD Constantine A. Kotsanis, MD Yusef Saleeby, MD Irene Sebastian, MD, PhD Robert Lee, DO Michael Selden, MD Patricia Leone, DO Mark Shebuski, MD Claudia Marcelo, DO Debbi Silverman, MD Lisa Milder, DO Marjorie Slankard, MD Christine Mitchell, DO Allan Spreen, MD Jason Nurnberg, DO William M. Steely, MD Kate Peters, DO Yai Supawit Burankul, MD Rena Salyer, DO Teresa Belle Su, MD Zohra F Siddigi, DO MaryKelly Sutton, MD Kim Tripp, DO, PhD Carol Taccetta, MD Michelle Veneziano, DO Wallace Taylor, MD Rajiv Yadava, DO Shadi Tehrani, MD William Domb, DMD Glenn A. Thomas, MD Kelly Butler, DDS Glenn Tillery, MD Harry Chadha, DDS Judy Tsafrir, MD Fen -Hui Chen, DDS Jonathan Vellinga, MD Richard Crum, DDS Alan R. Vinitsky, MD Dennis Mihalka, DDS Drue O. Wagner, MD Christelle Renta, ARNP Mignon Walker, MD Angela Agrios, ND Bradford S Weeks, MD Marc C Bricca, ND Richard Wilkerson, MD Carol Cuenca, ND Jane Deborah Williams, MD Sally Boyd Daughtrey, ND Kenneth A Wolkoff, MD Lindsey Louise Donahue, ND Savely Yurkovsky, MD Petra Dorfsman, ND Anne Zuzelski, MD Alexander Haskell, ND Reem Abu-Sbaih, DO Melissa Sophia Joy, ND Judith Aldrich, DO Rachel Roberts Oppitz, ND Muneer Ali, DO John Ruhland, ND Runa Basu, DO Lee Samatowic, ND Sunil Bhat, DO Steven Sandberg -Lewis, ND Anthony Biano, DO Katharine Ayers, DC Elliott S Blackman, DO Debby Baskin, DC Jacqueline Chan, DO George Burdi, DC Sheree Cloer, DO Brenda Davis, DC Karin Cseak, DO John R. De Cotiis, DC Elva Jo Edwards, DO Fred DiDomenico, DC Anthony M Fernandez, DO Michael S. Evangel, DC Bill Foley, DO Jennifer Finkbeiner, DC Rebecca Frye, DO, MPH Ed Grauke, DC James E. Gaydos, DO Michon Hawkins, DC Daniel Gibbons, DO Jere Jarrett, DC Melanie Gisler, DO Keith Jassy, DC Jacey Goddard, DO Lori Morris, DC Harold Goodman, DO Tammy Ruefli, DC Edward Hagen, DO Nicholas H. Schar, DC Kris Van Oeveren, DC Denise LoGuidice, RN Dale Schusterman, DC Terra Louise, RN William Thornton, DC, NMD Alexandra J Lynch, RN, BSN Thomas Tumbarello, DC Angela Lyubarsky, RN Spencer G. Williams, DC Mary Ann Masesar, RN, BN Rick Wren, DC Kim McGee, RN Rachna Kapoor, MPH Cynthia McGrane, RN Abby Kurth, MPH Pat Metcalf, MSN, ARNP Angelo Aguila, RN, MSN Thomas Messinger, RN Alexandra J Attie, RN, BSN Margie Miller, ARNP Rebekah Bankowski, RN Rabab Mohsin, RN Tuesday Benavidez-Knight, RN Janine Morrell, BSN, MSN, ARNP Betty Bente, RN Julie Mummert, RN Pamela M Berndt, RN Sarah Murray, RN BSN Chris Calkins, RN Tracy Navar, RN Francine Cannata, RN Jessica O'Byrne, RN Manju Carrow, RN Susan Pegram, RN Su Chase-Ziolek, RN James Perloff, RN Virginia Corliss, RN Anna Pritchard, RN Huguette Cormier, RN Joseph A. Querciagrossa, RN Barbara Cruickshank, RN, MSN Harriet McCoy, ARPN Jennifer Dages, RN, BSN Christelle Renta, ARNP Veronica DeMaria, RN Aleka Ruggiero, RN Jennifer Erenberg, RN Cynthia Saint Cyr, RN, MSN Diane Ferguson, RN, MSN Melinda Salvestrin, RN Janice Flatto, RN Jeanne Sandecki, RN, BSN Judy Fleming, RN Jeanne Schirm, RN Natalie Ford, RN Rebecca Serkez, RN Ella Gonik, RN Laura Sheehan, BSN, DC Cindy Gough, RN Rebecca J. Smith, RN Teresa Gregurek, RN Jindriska Stewart, RN Christen Renee Greto, RN Margaret Sutherlin, RN Diane Grevell, RN Mary E Tiplady, RN Pamela A Grusauskas, RN Angela Thompson, APRN Chauna L Hall, RN Kathy Urratia, RNC Sharon Hansen, RN Carolyn Walker, MSN, ARNP Terry Hawkinson, RN Marki Webber, RN Diane Hayes, RN, BSN Amy Weiss -Friedman, RN, BSN Joanne Hibbert, RN Randye L. Williams, RN Sabre Reign King, RN Laura Williams, RN Gayle Klor, RN Nancy Williams, RN Ann Kosel, RN, BSN Mara Williams, RN, MSN Shirlynn LaChapelle, RN, BSN, MSN Brenda S. Wolfe, RN Ronda L. Lawrence, RN Kathy Allard, PhD Deborah Lazar, RN Ruth Anderson, PhD Sara Lobato, RN, BSN Bhaskar Banedi, PhD Forian Braich, PhD, DDS Marissa Brand, PhD Tom Bulter, PhD William Collinge, PhD, MPH Steven Fenwick, PhD Roberta Godbe-Tipp, PhD Joaquim I Goes, PhD Elizabeth A Goldblatt, PhD Molly Hauck, PhD Paul Heroux, PhD 011e Johansson, PhD Ellen Kamhi, PhD, RN Mahin Khatami, PhD Henry Lai, PhD M. Lynn Lamoreux, PhD Kathryn Luchok, PhD Trevor Marshall, PhD Grettel Martinez, PhD Deb Moore, PhD Robin Nemeroff, PhD Sylvia P Onusci, PhD, CNS Molly Perkins, PhD Quila Rider, PhD Steven Schram, PhD, DC Richard Shane, PhD Diane M Testa, PhD Lisa Tully, PhD Christine VanderWoude, PhD Linda (Angelique) Varsou-Papadimitriou, PhD, MPH Carolyne Yakaboski, PhD Kay A Baker, LMT Shelly Allen, LSCW Ivy Amar, CAP Carolyn B. Welcome, PA-C Mercedes Barnek, CCH Stacy Barnes Raylene Blandino, PA-C Michael Bohdan Slonetsky, LAc, OMD Joe Bonacci, MS, LAc Susann Brady, APN Kelley Brooksher, HHC Joyce Brown, CNC Audrey Burstein, RRT Rita Campbell, MA HP Antoinette Caruso, FNTP, CGP Laurie Chaikin, OD, OTR Karen Christensen, HN Susan Clark Laughlin, CNHP Lacey Cohen, ANCP-BC Heather Cunningham, LAc Deana Darby, AHC Lori Deutsch, DAOM, LAc Jane E Maier, CN Laurie Eisler, MA Howard F. Robins, DPM Chris Fabijanic, LAc Debra Falkenberg, LPN Brandon Ferro Adriana Finnie, NET JoAnne Fox, RT (CT) Ariela Friedman, MSW Elizabeth G Eisenberg, RAP Larisa Goldin, LMT, MBA Susan Greenberg, FNP-BC Jacqueline Greenfield Shelley H. Lane, LAc, OMD Maureen Hartker, LAc Diane Hashem, PharmD Rita Heinz, LCSW Pauline Helen Spiros, MFT Shila Helmer, SLPA, MRET Christina Hilderbrandt, CMT, CCM David Holm, RRT-NPS Randy Ice, PT, CCS Loretta Ivory, CMH, CNM Elizabeth Jane Meaney, MPAS, PA-C Allison Jobke, LPC, NCC Alexandra Kaufman Lumiel Kim-Hammerich, LAc, DAOM Shirley J. Knight Susan L. Johnson, PT Barbara L. Lockwood, DPM Brandon LaGreca, LAc, MAcOM Emma Lam, PT Michael Legge Stephanie Leraris, RDH Tina E. Lewis, MMSC, PA-C, CAQ Edward Lucey, MSW, LMSW Kathleen Lynn Cliff, LMT Margaret M. Glaser, NCSP Suzanne M. Harris, DC, FHP Deborah Manke, ANP-BC, HNP Karen McBride Wayne Mosteller, PharmD Nicole Cronkhite, LMT, E-RYT Gustavo Padilla, EMT Keith J. Pelletier, MHS, CCP, LP, MBA Linda Piatt, APRN Joan R. Polzin, LCSW, MSW Sara Reeder, PA Sarah Reilly, CNC Colleen Reiter, RDH, MS Christine Renaud, DC, FICPA, DACCP Jillian Rifkind, LAc Renee Russo, IACT Sylvia Sanchez, MSTCM Annie Scheppach, MS, CHHC Benjamin Schwarcz, LMFT David A. Schwietert, DC, DABCI Ingrid Shequin, LAc Joanne Sherrow, BSc Robert Sprinkle, MSW Darina Stoyanova, CCT Jennelle Thimmesch, LMT Robert Thompson, MS, RPh, BCNSP Alice Tobin, EEMCP Jody L. Truesdale, PA-C Nancy Van Dover, DVM, OMD, LAc Star Tyrell, DPT Janice Winton, OTR/L Carolyn B. Welcome, PA-C Carol Wong, PT Environmental Research xxx (xxxx) xxxx Contents lists available at ienceDirect environmental Environmental Research ELSEVIF9 journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers J.M. Pearcea,b,`," "Department of Electronics and Nanoengineerft School of Electrical Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland b Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Michigan Technological University, USA ` Department of Materials Science & Engineerin& Michigan Technological University, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords The use of cellular phones is now ubiquitous through most of the adult global population and is increasingly Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) common among even young children in many countries (e.g. Finland, where the market for smart phones is Antenna arrays nearly saturated). The basic operation of cellular phone networks demands widespread human exposure to Cellular phone base stations radio -frequency radiation (RFR) with cellular phone base stations providing cellular coverage in most areas. As Microwave sickness the data needs of the population increase from the major shift in the source of Internet use from personal Nonionizing electromagnetic fields computers to smart phones, this coverage is widely predicted to increase. Thus, both the density of base stations Environmental pollution Cancer and their power output is expected to increase the global human RFR exposure. Although direct causation of RFR health effects negative human health effects from RFR from cellular phone base stations has not been finalized, there is already enough medical and scientific evidence to warrant long-term liability concerns for companies deploying cellular phone towers. In order to protect cell phone tower firms from the ramifications of the failed paths of other industries that have caused unintended human harm (e.g. tobacco) this Current Issue summarizes the peer - reviewed literature on the effects of RFR from cellular phone base stations. Specifically the impacts of siting base stations are closely examined and recommendations are made for companies that deploy them to minimize their potential future liability. 1. Negative human health effects from proximity to cellular phone base stations There is a large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects (Sidd- ktwal, 2018; Singh et al., 2018; Faisal, et al., 2018) including both i) neuropsychiatric complaints such as headache, concentration difficulties, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms, fatigue and sleep disturbance (Navarro et al., 2003;Hutter ei )n; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007); and ii) increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell -phone transmitter station (Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Havas, 2017). The mechanism for causing cancer could be from observed genetic damage using the single cell gel electrophoresis assay assessed in peripheral blood leukocytes of individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station and comparing it to that in healthy controls (Gandhi et al., 2014). In epidemiological studies that assessed negative health effects of mobile phone base stations (seven studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects (Navarro et al., 2003; Hutter et al., 2006; ' 601 M&M Building, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, Ml 49931, USA. E-mail address. pearce(a m; a dl. . Abdei-Rassoul et al., 2007; Berg-Beckhoff et al., 2009; Blettner et al., 2009; Gadzicka et al., 2006; Santini et al., 2002) and three investigated cancer (Wolf and Wolf, 2004; Havas, 2017;Levitt and Lai, 2010), 80% reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 m from base stations (Navarro et al., 2003). The literature also indicates that these effects may be cumulative based on i) mice exposed to low -intensity RFR became less reproductive and after five generations of exposure the mice were not able to pro- duce offspring indicating intergenerational transfer of effects (Magras and Xenos, 1997); ii) DNA damage in cells after 24 It exposure to low - intensity RFR, which can lead to gene mutation that accumulates over time (Phillips et al., 1998) and iii) increased sensitivity to beha- vior —disruption experiments in rats (WAndrea et al., 1986) and mon- keys (de Lorge, 1984), iv) an increase in permeability of the blood — brain barrier in mice suggesting that a short-term, high -intensity exposure can produce the same effect as a long-term, low -intensity exposure (Persson et al., 1997). Studies on short-term exposure gen- erally show no effects. For example, early studies saw no effect from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108845 Received 26 December 2017; Received in revised form 3 June 2019; Accepted 19 October 2019 0013.9351/ 0 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. J.M. Pearce short-term exposure, however, studies found effects after prolonged, repeated exposure in guinea pigs and rabbits (Takashima et al., 1979). There are several studies showing the effect intensifies with reduced distance to the cell tower. The first (Santini et al., 2002) found in- creased symptoms and complaints the closer a person lived to a tower (Santini et al., 2002) and similar results were found in later studies (Navarro et al., 2003; Hotter et al., 2006; Abdel-Rassoul et al., 2007). 2. U.S. law unhelpful for preventing future liability Current U.S. law has created a somewhat peculiar overriding federal preemption that precludes taking the "environmental effects" of RFR into consideration in cell tower siting (see Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996). The current, U.S. standards are based solely on thermal effects (which do not appear to be a problem) and thus do not mitigate against non -thermal effects (for which there is a growing litany of concern in the medical/scientific community). Due to the findings of many studies briefly summarized above many re- searchers argue for the revision of standard guidelines for public ex- posure to RER from mobile phone base station antennas (Abtlel Rassoul et al., 2007; 1iardell and Sage, 2008; Khurana et al., 2010). As Roda and Perry summarize (Rolla and Perry, 2014), "... because scientific knowledge is incomplete, a precautionary approach is better suited to State obligations under international human rights law." This is perhaps most forcefully concluded by the Biolnitiative Report published by the Biolnitiative Working Group, which is based on an international re- search and public policy initiative to give an overview of what is known of biological effects that occur at low -intensity electromagnetic fields exposure. This precautionary approach is gaining favor in Europe, but is less common in the U.S. American companies are therefore ill advised to simply follow "regulatory compliance" on this front, as there appears to be a clear cause for concern in the scientific/medical communities. If causation were to be proven through detailed studies, cellular phone companies would potentially be in position of future legal exposure for causing widespread human health problems and premature death. It is, therefore, in American companies' best interest to act before govern- ment and regulation catches up with the science. 3. Current cell tower positioning Current cell tower locations are chosen based on a "search ring" priority basis of geographic optimum for technical coverage of high concentration of wireless transmissions (e.g. users). This combination of technical parameters (e.g. geography) to enable coverage and de- pendable service and costs (e.g. positioning on mountaintops on ac- cessibly by helicopter) is then weighed against and local regulations such as local zoning. To overcome these challenges in urban areas cellphone companies often locate cellphone base stations at schools, because the monthly rental fee (—$1500) is welcome income for economically -challenged school districts that have influence on local zoning. However, some jurisdictions have already prohibited the placement of cell phone towers near schools or hospitals because of the increased sensitivity of these populations, as in India. Other regions such as Europe (Rona MILI I'crrt, 2014) could follow a similar approach. Now even in North America, Canada's Standing Committee on Health are considering more precautionary approaches to RFR. 4. Precautionary cell phone base station positioning A review article of the health effects near base stations concluded that deployment of base stations should be kept as efficient as possible to minimize exposure of the public to RFR and should not be located less than 500 In from the population, and at a height of 50 m (Levitt and Lid, 2010). This potentially presents a serious challenge to cell phone company RF engineers. However, it is possible to obtain necessary Environmental Research xxx (xxXor) Xorxx coverage while at the same time minimizing human exposure at the highest intensities. There are several first steps a cellular phone com- pany can take to minimize human exposure particularly of the most vulnerable populations. First, voluntarily restrictions can be made on the placement of cel- lular phone base stations within 500 In of schools and hospitals. This will synchronize base station deployment strategies between regions. This can be done by utilizing the existing hexagon planning map structure of an area with an overlay using an additional semi -auto- mated process with a geographic information system (GIS) (Al-Sahly et al., 2018) such as the Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) to identify any regions within 500 In of existing schools and hospitals. All hexagons with schools or hospitals are marked as unu- sable for RF engineer planning (e.g. colored red). This restriction only makes planning slightly more difficult, but does present a challenge in regions where schools were specifically targeted as base station loca- tions in (e.g. Verizon deployments in the U.S.). Future work is needed to determine if the increased legal exposure warrants the cost of moving existing stations. However, the increased cost to locate future stations away from schools and hospitals should be minimal. The second technical hurdle is more challenging. Ideally, all cell phone users would have coverage while minimizing the population density near cellular phone base stations (thus minimizing health im- pacts). This can be planned using GIS tools, freely -accessible U.S. Census data, parcel data and/or satellite images. The population den- sity can be color coded for straightforward decision making for RF engineers. As a cellphone base station costs $250-350,000 to install in the U.S., using a precautionary approach to potential future regulation can save substantial relocation fees. The cell phone industry should also consider cell splitting, small cell deployment, beam and null steering antennae as possible technical means for reducing RF exposure. Moreover, more research on cognitive radio should also be conducted, so that the overall RF exposure is re- duced. These measures will ultimately benefit the entire tele- communications industry, while potentially significantly reducing global RF pollution. Finally, exposed companies should consider funding large-scale epidemiological studies with personal dosimeters for strict dose mea- surement and straight -forward tissue exposure. By quantifying the human medical threat themselves, more appropriate long-term plan- ning can be made to minimize the risk of liability from unintended human harm due to cellular phone base station siting. Financial disclosure The author owns stock in the American Tower Corporation. Declaration of competing interest The author has no conflict of interest. References Abdel-Rassoul, G., El-Fateh, O.A., Salem, M.A., Michael, A., Farahat, F., El-Batanouny, M., Salem, E., 2007. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology (Little Rock) 28 (2), 434-440. AprilAI- Sahly, A., Hassan, M.M., AI-Rubaian, M., Al-Qurishi, M., 2018. Using GIS for measuring mobile tower radiation on human. In: 2018 Ist International Conference on Computer Applications & Information Security (ICCAIS). IEEE, pp. 1-6. Berg-Beckhoff, G., Blettner, M., Kowall, B., Breckenkamp, J., Schlehofer, B., Schmiedel, S., et al., 2009. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 2 of a cross -sectional study with measured radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Occup. Environ. Med. 66 (2), 124-130. Blettner, Maria, Schlehofer, Brigitte, Breckenkamp, Juergen, Kowall, Bemd, Schmiedel, Sven, Reis, Ursula. Potthoff, Peter, Schuec, Joachim, Berg-Beckhoff, Gabriele, 2(K)9. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 1 of a population -based, Gros% src1iunal .toll% in Germany. Occup. Environ, Med. 66 (2), 118-123. de Lorge, J.O., 1984. Operant behavior and colonic temperature of Macaca mularm ex- posed to radiofrequency fields at and above resonant frequencies. J.M. Pearce Bioelectromagnetics 5 (2), 233-246. https://doi.orvIO.1002/bem.2250050211. D'Andrea, J.A., DeWitt, J.R., Gandhi, O.P., Stensaas, S., Lords, J.L., Nielson, H.C., 1986. Behavioral and physiological effects of chronic 2450 MHz microwave irradiation of the rat at 0.5 mW/cm2. Bioelectromagnetics 7 (1), 45-56. https://doi.org,-10.1002/ bem.2250070106. OctoberFaisal, M.M.A., Mortuza, M.G., Alam, T., 2018. Cell tower radiation and effect on human body: Bangladesh perspective. In: 2018 International Conference on Innovations in Science, Engineering and Technology (ICISET). IEEE, pp. 423-426. Gadzicka, E., Bortkiewicz, A.. Zmyslony, M., Szymczak, W., Szyjkowska, A., 2006. Assessment of subjective complaints reported by people living near mobile phone base stations. Biuletyn PTZE Warszawa 14, 23-26. Gandhi. G., Kaur, G., Nisar, U., 2014. A cross -sectional case control study on genetic damage in individuals residing in the vicinity of a mobile phone base station. Electromagn. Biol. Med. (0), 1-11. Hardell, L., Sage, C., 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed. Pharmacother. 62 (2), 104-109, Havas, M., 2017. Carcinogenic effects of non -ionizing radiation: a paradigm shift. Chn Oncol 2, 1278 2017. Hotter, II.P., Moshammer, It., Wallner, P., Kundi, M., 2006. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup. Environ. Med. 63 (5), 307-313. Khurana, V.G., Hardell, L., Everaert, J., Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M., 2010. Epidemiological evidence for a health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int. J. Occup, Environ. Health 16 (3), 263-267. Levitt, B.B., Lai, H., 2010, Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ. Rev. 18, 369-395. Magras, I.N., Xenos, T.D., 1997. RF radiation -induced changes in the prenatal Environmental Research xxx (xxxx) xxxz development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18 (6), 455-461. littps://doi.org/10. 1002/ (SIC, .. 186X(1997)18:6 < 455::AID-BEMB> 3.0,CO;2.1. Navarro, A.E., Sequra, J., PortoleiK M., G6mez.Perretta de Mateo, C., 2003. The in! - wave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 22 (2-3). 161-169.https:;;doi.t,rg/10.1081/JBC-120024625. Petsson, B.R.R., Salford, LG., Brun, A., 1997. Blood -brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wirel. Netw. 3 (6), 455-461. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019150510840. Phillips, J.L, Ivaschuk, O., Ishida-Jones, T., Jones, R.A., Campbell-Beachler, M., Haggren, W., 1998. DNA damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid cells exposed to cellular tele- phone radlofrequency fields in vitro. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 45 (1), 103-110. hups://doi.org/10.1016/SO302-4598(98)00074-9. Roda, C., Perry, S., 2014. Mobile phone infrastructure regulation in Europe: scientific challenges and human rights protection. Environ. Sci. Policy 37, 204-214. Santini, R., Santini, P., Danze, J.M., Le Rut, P., Seigne, M., 2002- Enqulte sur Is sane' de riverains de stations relais de te'IE- phorde mobile: incidences de Is distance et du sere. Pathol. Biol. 50, 369-373. https:/,/doi.org/10.1016/SO369-8114(02)00311-5. Siddoo-Atwal, C., 2018. Electromagnetic radiation from cellphone towers: a potential health hazard for birds, bees, and humans. Curr. Underst. Apoptosis: Program. Cell Death 137. Singh, R., Nath, R., Mathur, A.K., Sharma, R.S., 2018. Effect of radiofrequency radiation on reproductive health. Indian J. Med. Res. 148 (Suppl 1), 592. Takashima, S., Onaral, B., Schwan, H.P., 1979. Effects of modulated RF energy on the EEG of mammalian brain. Radist. Environ. Biophys. 16 (1), 15-27. hitps:; . dw.org, UI. 1007/BF01326893. Wolf, R., Wolf, D., 2004. Increased incidence of cancer near a cell -phone transmitter station. Int. J. Cancer Prev. 1 (2). 123-128. SHARE LATEST Observations I Opinion We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe The technology is coming, but contrary to what seil.i....e people say, there could be health ................... risks By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019 Credit: Bill Oxford Getty Images The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly -funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer -reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation. The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 199os. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure. ........................................................................................................................... Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 198os, the preponderance of peer -reviewed research, more than Soo studies, have found harmful ............................................... biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating. A1)VERTISEMEN1 Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer - reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger ................................................................................................................................................. exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions: "Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life." The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. The FCC's RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the ........................................... exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a ............ ....................................................... . laboratory rat's behavior. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million ........................ ........................................................ ......................... study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found "clear evidence" that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats .............................. .................................. ....................... ......................... _ and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy ................. replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence ................................................................................ to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future. Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC's 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC stating that the agency had "concluded that no .... .................................................................................... changes to the current standards are warranted at this time," and that "NTP's experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage." The letter stated that "the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits." The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam -forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures. Sign up for Scientific American's free newsletters. IN Ili Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility). Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are "flying blind" to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a io-year- old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case -control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users. ADVERTISEMENT 5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress. As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play? Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American. Rights & Permissions ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) Joel M. Moskowitz Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an ..I............................................................. . unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology. READ THIS NEXT PHYSICS Internet Cables Could Also Measure Quakes 3 hours ago — Christopher Intagliata POLICY & ETHICS How an Idea Becomes a Published Scientific Paper 7 hours ago — Everyday Einstein Sabrina Stierwalt SPACE Long Live the Multiverse! 9 hours ago — Tom Siegfried I Opinion EARTH Huge Lakes Abruptly Empty into Greenland Ice Sheet 10 hours ago — Chelsea Harvey and E&E News NEUROSCIENCE