Category Archives: Uncategorized

SMALL CELLS, MINI CELL TOWERS, WIRELESS FACILITIES AND HEALTH: LETTERS FROM SCIENTISTS ON THE HEALTH RISK OF 5G

Source Article: Environmental Health Trust EHTRUST.ORG

Small Cells, Cell Towers, Wireless Facilities and Health

Letters From Experts on The Impact of Wireless Antennas on Public Health 

Many people ask “What scientific research has been done on the radiation from small cell wireless facilities? What is the current scientific opinion of the scientists who are studying the issue?”  

The answer is that the scientists studying the health effects of 5G and wireless radiation are deeply concerned and are calling for a halt to the rollout of 5G and a halt to increasing radio frequency radiation exposures to the public.

Please see on this page a short list of letters from expert scientists, doctors and public health experts sent to government officials regarding the issue of streamlining small cells in neighborhoods. In these letters scientists share the research supporting their opinion that wireless exposure to the public should be minimized and the deployment of small cell antennas into neighborhoods should be halted.

Many of these letters were written in response to the FCC’s Spectrum Frontiers and state bills such as California’s SB 649 that are streaming small cell deployment. (See a list of these US State Bills.)

If you have a PDF of a letter by a scientists that is missing from this list please send it to info@ehtrust.org

Scientific FactSheets on 5G

US Factsheet on 5G and Small Cells in Color With Hyperlinks 

US Factsheet on 5G and Small Cells in Black and White For Printing

International Factsheet on 5G and Small Cells in Color With Hyperlinks

International Factsheet on 5G and Small Cells in Black and White

Click Here To Download A PDF Of Over 60 Pages Of Letters On 5G By Scientists And Organizations Such As The Sierra Club, The AARP And Environmental Working Group.

Read a compilation of Doctors letters on cell towers near schools.

See a powerpoint presentation on cell towers and health. 

LETTERS FROM SCIENTISTS

Declaration to European Commission by 180 Scientists Calling For A Moratorium on 5G Cell Antennas, September 13, 2017

Letter from Dr. Lennart Hardell To Governor Jerry Brown on SB649

Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, MD, PhD Lettter in Opposition to SB649

Letter from Dr. Martin Pall in Opposition to SB649

Attachment to Dr. Pall Letter – 142 Microwave Radiation Review Studies

Letter from Dr. Devra Davis to Chair Aguiar-Curry on SB 649, June 28, 2017

Letter from Dr. Devra Davis to Governor Jerry Brown on SB 649, September 17, 2017

Letter from Dr. Paul Ben Ishai in Opposition to SB 649, September 08, 2017

Letter from Dr. Cindy Russell in opposition to SB649 

Letter from Physicians For Safe Technology in opposition to SB649

Article from Dr. Cindy Russell on Impacts of 5G Technology, January 2017

Santa Clara Bulletin, pg. 20-23, “A 5G Wireless Future: Will It Give Us a Smart Nation or Contribute to An Unhealthy One?” by Cindy Russell, January 2017

Letter from Dr. Joel Moskowitz To Governor Jerry Brown on SB649

Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, MD, PhD Lettter in Opposition to SB649

Letter from Dr. Sam Milhelm 

Letter from Dr.  John West 

Letter from Dr. Hugh Scully to the City of Toronto 

Letter from Dr. Stephen Sinatra to Toronto City Councilors in Opposition to Item 26.21 

Joint letter from 541 health, environment and justice advocates and organizations to US Senators and Representatives in opposition to bills on 5G and wireless radiation expansion – 13 November, 2017 

 

LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS

Letter from Frank Clegg, former President of Microsoft, Canada

Ellie Marks Letter to Governor Brown SB 649

Letter from the Alliance of Nurses for Health Environments

Letter from Environmental Working Group June 26, 2017

Letter from Environmental Working Group July 26, 2017

8/20 National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy Letter to Appropriations Committee

8/21 National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy Letter to Assembly

8/24 National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy Letter to Governor Brown.

Letter from the Sierra Club, August 15, 2017

Letter from Greenlining Institute, June 27, 2017

Letter from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), July 19, 2017

Letter from Law Office of Harry Lehmann “Mass casualties are likely in District 10 from passage of 648”, July 6, 2017

Letter from Law Office Of Harry Lehmann to State of California, “Liability for Damage From Microwave Radiation Exposure Sustained by Senate Bill 649 Will Be Shifted to California State”, July 19, 2017

Letter from Law Office of Harry Lehmann, “SB 649 will  disproportionately effect the poor in California”, August 24, 2017

Letter From EMF Safety Network and Ecological Options Network, July 06, 2017

Letter by Susan Foster Assembly Appropriations Letter – Fire Station Exemption from SB 649, August 14, 2017

Letter from Susan Foster and Radiation Research Trust in of Opposition of SB649, June 22, 2017

Scientists For Wired Technology, 5/30/17: front and back

Scientists For Wired Technology 5/31/17:front and back

American Planning Association Opposes SB 649

Berkeley City Council Opposition Letter, April 25, 2017

 

SCIENTIFIC COMMENTS TO THE FCC

Comments by Ronald M. Powell, PhD, to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers

Comments by The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers, July 12, 2016

Comments by Dr. Albert Manville to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers, July 14, 2016

Comments by Dr. Joel Moskowitz to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers, July 20, 2016

Comments by Dr. Yael Stein to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers, July 09, 2016  

Comments by Dr. Devra Davis to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers

Comments by Susan Clarke to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers, July 14, 2016

Comments by EMF Scientist Appeal Advisors to the FCC on Spectrum Frontiers, June 09, 2017

Please click here for a large PDF of Letters by Scientists and Doctors on Small Cells and 5G

Read more about 5G here

Watch a Best Best & Krieger LLP webinar covering CA SB 649, and “what localities should be doing now to protect their interests — at the local, regional, state and federal levels.”

Webinar walks us through much of the legal infrastructure pertaining to cell siting both at the state and federal levels. Although this webinar focuses particularly on California and SB 649, there is much that can be applied to other states.

This presentation is online at https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/videos/webinars/2016-2017/webinar-cell-tower-and-small-cell-law-a-regulat

 

 

 

22 Jan 2018 – 5G – FROM BLANKETS TO BULLETS

By ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG

SOURCE ARTICLE : www.cellphonetaskforce.org

The single most important fact about 5G that nobody is talking about is called “phased array.” It will totally change the way cell towers and cell phones are constructed and will transform the blanket of radiation which has enveloped our world for two decades into a million powerful beams whizzing by us at all times. Blake Levitt, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves (Harcourt Brace, 1995), brought this to my attention. A mutual friend, with whom I was speaking during the campaign to defeat S.B. 649 in California, passed on a message from Blake: “5G antennas will be phased arrays; Arthur will know what that means.” And I did.

Phased arrays were one of the first things I learned about in the very beginning of my long, involuntary journey from medical student to campaigner against wireless technology. After I was injured by X-rays in 1980, I began to read everything I could get my hands on that had to do with electromagnetic radiation and its effects on life. And one of the first books I read was Paul Brodeur’s The Zapping of America (W.W. Norton, 1977).

Early warnings

Brodeur was a staff writer for the New Yorker who had purchased property on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, only to discover that 30 miles inland, across the bay from his future home, the Air Force was planning to construct the world’s most powerful radar station. It was going to scan the Atlantic Ocean as a key early warning element protecting us against the threat of sea-launched ballistic missiles from the Soviet Union. Although it emitted an average power of only 145,000 watts, similar to some FM radio stations, it did not broadcast that energy from only a single antenna and it did not spread that energy out uniformly in all directions. Instead, it had 3,600 antennas arranged in two “phased arrays” of 1,800 antennas each. The antennas in each array worked together as a unit to focus all their energy into a narrow, steerable beam. Each beam had an effective power of four billion watts, and the peak radiation level exceeded 0.3 milliwatt per square centimeter—the FCC’s safety limit today—at a distance of ten miles in front of the radar station. The facility was called PAVE PAWS (Precision Acquisition of Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System).

The Defense Department acknowledged in a 1975 report, quoted by Brodeur, that such systems “energize thousands of operational elements, are electronically steered at high search rates, and operate at a frequency range having a maximum whole body energy transfer to man and for which little bioeffects data exists.”

Shortly after I read this, I discovered firsthand what some of the bioeffects were. Attempting to finish my M.D. almost cost me my life. I collapsed one day with all the symptoms of a heart attack, whereupon I resigned from school and moved up to Mendocino to recover. There I was in the path of the other PAVE PAWS, the one that scanned the Pacific Ocean. This PAVE PAWS was due east of Mendocino, in California’s Central Valley at Beale Air Force Base. And for nine months, every evening at precisely 7:00 p.m., no matter where I was or what I was doing, my chest would tighten and I would be unable to catch my breath for the next two hours. At precisely 9:00 p.m., my body would relax and I could breathe. I lived in Mendocino from 1982 through 1984, and although I eventually recovered my health, I was always aware of an uncomfortable pressure in my chest whenever I was on the coast. I also lived in Mendocino from 1999 to 2004, and felt that same discomfort whenever I was there, and always felt it suddenly vanish when I drove out of range of PAVE PAWS, and suddenly return at the same point on my journey home.

Directed beams

5G is going to be at a much higher frequency range, which means the antennas are going to be much smaller—small enough to fit inside a smartphone—but like in PAVE PAWS they are going to work together in a phased array, and like in PAVE PAWS they are going to concentrate their energy in narrow, steerable high power beams. The arrays are going to track each other, so that wherever you are, a beam from your smartphone is going to be aimed directly at the base station (cell tower), and a beam from the base station is going to be aimed directly at you. If you walk between someone’s phone and the base station, both beams will go right through your body. The beam from the tower will hit you even if you are standing near someone who is on a smartphone. And if you are in a crowd, multiple beams will overlap and be unavoidable.

At present, smartphones emit a maximum of about two watts, and usually operate at a power of less than a watt. That will still be true of 5G phones, however inside a 5G phone there may be 8 tiny arrays of 8 tiny antennas each, all working together to track the nearest cell tower and aim a narrowly focused beam at it. The FCC has recently adopted rules allowing the effective power of those beams to be as much as 20 watts. Now if a handheld smartphone sent a 20-watt beam through your body, it would far exceed the exposure limit set by the FCC. What the FCC is counting on is that there is going to be a metal shield between the display side of a 5G phone and the side with all the circuitry and antennas. That shield will be there to protect the circuitry from electronic interference that would otherwise be caused by the display and make the phone useless. But it will also function to keep most of the radiation from traveling directly into your head or body, and therefore the FCC is allowing 5G phones to come to market that will have an effective radiated power that is ten times as high as for 4G phones. What this will do to the user’s hands, the FCC does not say. And who is going to make sure that when you stick a phone in your pocket, the correct side is facing your body? And who is going to protect all the bystanders from radiation that is coming in their direction that is ten times as strong as it used to be?

And what about all the other 5G equipment that is going to be installed in all your computers, appliances, and automobiles? The FCC calls handheld phones “mobile stations.” Transmitters in cars are also “mobile stations.” But the FCC has also issued rules for what it calls ”transportable stations,” which it defines as transmitting equipment that is used in stationary locations and not in motion, such as local hubs for wireless broadband in your home or business. The FCC’s new rules allow an effective radiated power of 300 watts for such equipment.

Enormous power

The situation with cell towers is, if anything, worse. So far the FCC has approved bands of frequencies around 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 39 GHz, and 48 GHz for use in 5G stations, and is proposing to add 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 50 GHz, 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and above 95 GHz to the soup. These have tiny wavelengths and require tiny antennas. At 48 GHz, an array of 1,024 antennas will measure only 4 inches square. And the maximum radiated power from a base station will probably not be that large—tens or hundreds of watts. But just as with PAVE PAWS, arrays containing such large numbers of antennas will be able to channel the energy into highly focused beams, and the effective radiated power will be enormous. The rules adopted by the FCC allow a 5G base station operating in the millimeter range to emit an effective radiated power of up to 30,000 watts per 100 MHz of spectrum. And when you consider that some of the frequency bands the FCC has made available will allow telecom companies to buy up to
3 GHz of contiguous spectrum at auction, they will legally be allowed to emit an effective radiated power of up to 900,000 watts if they own that much spectrum. The base stations emitting power like that will be located on the sidewalk. They will be small rectangular structures mounted on top of utility poles.

The reason the companies want so much power is because millimeter waves are easily blocked by objects and walls and require tremendous power to penetrate inside buildings and communicate with all the devices that we own that are going to part of the Internet of Things. The reason such tiny wavelengths are required is because of the need for an enormous amount of bandwidth—a hundred times as much bandwidth as we formerly used—in order to have smart homes, smart businesses, smart cars, and smart cities, i.e. in order to connect so many of our possessions, big and small, to the internet, and make them do everything we want them to do as fast as we want them to do it. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth—but the smaller the waves. Base stations have to be very close together—100 meters apart in cities—and they have to blast out their signals in order to get them inside homes and buildings. And the only way to do this economically is with phased arrays and focused beams that are aimed directly at their targets. What happens to birds that fly through the beams, the FCC does not say. And what happens to utility workers who climb utility poles and work next to these structures everyday? A 30,000-watt beam will cook an egg, or an eye, at a distance of a few feet.

The power from a base station will be distributed among as many devices as are connected at the same time. When a lot of people are using their phones simultaneously, everyone’s phone will slow down but the amount of radiation in each beam will be less. When you are the only person using your phone—for example, late at night—your data speed will be blisteringly fast but most of the radiation from the cell tower will be aimed at you.

Deep penetration into the body

Another important fact about radiation from phased array antennas is this: it penetrates much deeper into the human body and the assumptions that the FCC’s exposure limits are based on do not apply. This was brought to everyone’s attention by Dr. Richard Albanese of Brooks Air Force Base in connection with PAVE PAWS and was reported on in Microwave News in 2002. When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow. But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors. They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough. 5G will probably satisfy both requirements. This means that the reassurance we are being given—that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body—is not true.

In the United States, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are all competing to have 5G towers, phones, and other devices commercially available as early as the end of 2018. AT&T already has experimental licenses and has been testing 5G-type base stations and user equipment at millimeter wave frequencies in Middletown, New Jersey; Waco, Austin, Dallas, Plano, and Grapevine, Texas; Kalamazoo, Michigan; and South Bend, Indiana. Verizon has experimental licenses and has been conducting trials in Houston, Euless, and Cypress, Texas; South Plainfield and Bernardsville, New Jersey; Arlington, Chantilly, Falls Church, and Bailey’s Crossroads, Virginia; Washington, DC; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Brockton and Natick, Massachusetts; Atlanta; and Sacramento. Sprint has experimental licenses in Bridgewater, New Brunswick, and South Plainfield, New Jersey; and San Diego. T-Mobile has experimental licenses in Bellevue and Bothell, Washington; and San Francisco.

– January 22, 2018

WARNING SIGNAL Wifi signals and mobile phones ‘increase your risk of miscarriage by a THIRD’, experts warn – The Irish Sun

American researchers find exposure to magnetic field non-ionizing radiation can cause genetic damage that can lead to a miscarriage.

EXPOSURE to wifi signals and mobile phones increases a woman’s risk of miscarriage by more than a third, new research suggests.

US experts have found exposure to magnetic field non-ionizing radiation can pose a serious threat to pregnant women.

The radiation, which is also given off by power lines, has been found to put enough stress on the body to cause genetic damage that can lead to a miscarriage.

This type of radiation, which everyone is exposed to, has previously been linked to cancer and short term muscle and nerve stimulation.

Because of this the World Health Organisation recommended it be studied to determine its effects on pregnancy.

 

READ FULL Sun Article HERE

BREAKING NEWS – CALIFORNIA TO SET GUIDELINES LIMITING CELLPHONE RADIATION EXPOSURE

Environmental Health Trust –  December 14, 2017

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) just issued long-awaited recommendations to reduce microwave radiation exposures from cell phones, especially for children. Spurred by a lawsuit and research suggesting that “long-term, high use may impact human health,” the CDPH press release includes guidance on why and how to reduce cell phone radiation. The CDPH drafted more than 27 versions of this advice since 2008, but December 13, 2017 was the first time CDPH published it online. The CDPH original 2008 guidance referred to the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute 2007 Cell Phone Advice and also included recommendations for state employees to reduce exposures to microwave radiation from cell phones as well as home and office cordless phones. The newly released guidance focuses only on cell phones cautioning that “children may be more at risk”  because they will be exposed to cell phone radiation for a “lifetime”  and with radiation exposures deeper into their brain

“Children’s brains develop through the teenage years and may be more affected by cell phone use,” said CDPH Director and State Public Health Officer Dr. Karen Smith. The new three-page CDPH guidance includes practical steps to reduce exposure to cell phone radiation, including keeping the phone away from the body, reducing cell phone use when the signal is weak, reducing the use of cell phones to stream videos and not sleeping with your cell phone. The guidance also states:

“Laboratory experiments and human health studies have suggested the possibility that long-term, high use of cell phones may be linked to certain types of cancer and other health effects, including: brain cancer and tumors of the acoustic nerve and salivary glands, lowered  sperm quality and inactive or less mobile sperm, headaches and effects on learning and memory, hearing, behavior and sleep.”

The new CDPH guidance includes practical steps both adults and children could take to reduce exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones.  
·       Keeping the phone away from the body
·       Reducing cell phone use when the signal is weak
·       Reducing the use of cell phones to stream audio or video, or to download or upload large files
·       Keeping the phone away from the bed at night
·       Removing headsets when not on a call
·       Avoiding products that claim to block radio frequency energy. These products may actually increase your exposure.
 

Click here to see the December 2017 CDPH Cell Phone Advice

READ MORE HERE at ehtrust.org

 

SEE ALSO – California’s Cell Phone Safety Guidance: Media Coverage (SafeEMR.com)

Nov 2017 – EVIDENCE FOR INCREASED RISK OF BRAIN TUMOURS – L HARDELL & M CARLBERG, DEPT OF ONCOLOGY, SWEDEN

November 17, 2017 Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Orebro University, Sweden &

Michael Carlberg, MSc, Orebro University, Sweden

BioInitiative Report: Medical concerns intensify over deadly brain tumors from cell phone use / Orebro University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

A new update from the the BioInitiative Working Group 2017 shows the evidence has strengthened for brain cancers related to wireless phone use. The Group has released an update analyzing scientific results of case-control studies published between 2010 and 2017 on cancers of the brain.

L. Hardell :

“There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones … Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a Group 1 (Known) Human Carcinogen. The evidence for risks to health from brain tumors has substantially increased since 2010. The existing FCC/IEEE and ICNIRP public safety limits are not adequate to protect public health.”

Excerpt:

Since the IARC evaluation in 2011 more studies have been published that support a causal association between RF radiation and brain and head tumors. In the following an updated summary is given of case-control studies on brain and head tumors; glioma, meningioma and acoustic neuroma … Based on case-control studies there is a consistent finding of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with use of mobile phones … RF radiation should be classified as Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans …

READ FULL REPORT HERE

Mobile Phone Headaches – New Study Reveals Radiation Link – Electricsense

By Lloyd Burrell     ElectricSense.com   14 November 2017

EXCERPT:

Screen-Shot-2017-11-14-at-17.18.32

Screen-Shot-2017-11-14-at-17.24.02

Cell Phone Use Significantly Associated With Headaches

A recently published Chinese study (2) has now found strong evidence linking cell phone radiation to headaches in children and adults. This 2017 study, which carried out a systematic review of some 2699 previous studies going back to 1990, also found a dose-response relationship between the risk of having a headache and duration of cell calls and frequency.

The study concluded, ‘our meta-analysis suggested that mobile phone use is significantly associated with headaches.’ The most likely explanation for how cell phone radiation causes headaches is that forwarded by Dr. Pierre Aubineau of the University of Bordeaux’s National Center for Scientific Research (3), that it causes inflammation in the meninges – the membranes that surround the brain. Earlier research came up with similar findings.

Earlier Research Links Cell Phone Radiation With Headaches And Nausea

A 2016 Korean study examined a number of variables, stress, sleep, cognitive function, and depression, but found that cell phone call duration to be the main determinant of the severity of headaches.

A major Danish study on some 52, 000 children enrolled pregnant women had similar findings. Then when their children reached the age of seven, the mothers completed a questionnaire regarding their child’s health. It was found that children with cell phone exposure had higher odds of headache-related symptoms than children with no exposure.

In 2003, TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory published the results of a study commissioned by three Dutch ministries on cell towers. (4,5)  found that cell phone radiation can cause headaches and nausea. It also found a link with other symptoms such as dizziness fatigue, weakness, and muscle pain – despite a lower dose of radiation than that of cell phones being used in the study.

A ministry spokesman said: “If the test group was exposed to third generation base station signals, there was a significant impact. They felt tingling sensations, got headaches and felt nauseous.”  …..

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Nov 2017 – UK & NI PETITION – CANCEL THE SMART METER ROLL-OUT

If you are a UK or Northern Ireland resident, please sign and share Petition to UK  Government and Parliament to cancel the smart meter roll-out.

Cancel the smart meter roll-out

We call on the Government to cancel the smart meter roll-out, on the grounds of:
1) Health-they emit microwave radiation, a Group 2B Carcinogen
2) Safety-can cause fires
3) Privacy-consumption data can be tracked/sold
4) Security-can be hacked
5) Cost-reports suggest £400+ per household

 

More details and Petition HERE https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203867