No More Cell Towers in City of Stonecrest, GA (or so they say)

From the AJC, Local Update

March 12, 2019

By

• J.D. Capelouto, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Stonecrest City Council is moving to enact a moratorium on cell towers after hearing from angry residents about an existing tower that may violate city code.

A Monday night meeting was packed with residents, several of whom held yellow signs with messages like “Do not cell out”and “Remove cell phone tower.”  

The councilors voted to direct the city attorney to draft a 60-day moratorium on the construction of cell towers while the city re-examines the tower built in January off Evans Mill Road.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Friday that records suggest the tower may have been improperly constructed on land zoned for commercial use for a day care.

The moratorium would not go into effect until the declaration is put in writing, City Attorney Winston Denmark pointed out following the decision late Monday. The City Council would have to vote at its next meeting to approve the details of the written moratorium. 

The move will give the city time to “flesh out details and legalities” about the cell tower on Evans Mill Road and the process for building others, Councilmember Diane Adoma said. 

“I’m asking that we simply take some action, which is the right thing to do,” said Adoma, who represents the district where the tower sits.

residents advocate for the removal of a cell tower at Monday night's City Council meeting. (Photo: J.D. CAPELOUTO / jdcapelouto@ajc.com)

Dunwoody Could Give Cell Towers a 30 Year Green Light

See our GTCO-ATL Comments at the end of this article!

From the Dunwoody "Neighborhood Newspaper":

City Council on Nov. 9 discussed contracts with Mobilite and Crown Castle to place small cell technology – “mini cell towers” used to boost cellphone signals – on city property.

One agreement would last 15 years with three automatic approvals totaling 30 years, while the other agreement starts at five years, with automatic approvals totaling 20 years.

City Attorney Lenny Felgin said the city-owned property includes traffic signal infrastructure at intersections and the agreements cover this use “95 percent of the time,” Felgin said.

Councilman Terry Nall asked if the agreement included parks property.

“We don’t have any anticipation of this equipment in our parks,” Felgin said. “If that changes in the future, we’ll probably come back to the council and ask that question at that time.”

The agreements allow structures located within the public way, including utility poles, streetlight poles, lighting fixtures, traffic signal poles, sign posts or other city-owned infrastructure.

Ellen Smith, the attorney for Crown Castle, said she doesn’t think the agreement allows the company to collocate on poles in city parks because the agreement only permits the company to collocate on poles in the public right of way.

“I don’t think that an applicant can come in and blanket the city parks with a bunch of mini cell towers,” Smith said. “That is not the intent of this agreement.”

Smith said Crown Castle plans to put up small cell towers around the mall and in the Perimeter area. “For Crown Castle, we’re talking about maybe 12 poles, generally around the Perimeter Mall area,” Smith said.

Nall said he would prefer to have a uniform agreement for all companies looking to locate small cell technology on city-owned poles. He said he didn’t like having two companies with two agreements.

City Council will discuss the agreements again at its Dec. 14 meeting.

***********************

GTCO-ATL Comments:    First note:  Remember, T-Mobile is Crown Castle.  Just a spin off name to further the same infrastructure plans.  So, the same underhanded tactics will be used and any sort of potential for something out of the ordinary to happen should be looked at very closely.  The  5% loophole mentioned by the city attorney is exactly the reason the council should vote this proposal down.  That room for error or deception is the entire reason for the request, not the other  95% of the time when they are only needed on traffic lights.  The city council should know whether they need traffic light transmissions wirelessly because it's most likely for the traffic ticketing the city does by using that technology.    If they didn't ask for this proposal then it's most likely NOT a plan to help out with that traffic cameras. 

Did they ever discuss whether or not there was an actual "need" for these towers?  What makes them "mini"?  Are they less powerful?  Or are they just shorter, less obstructive to the skyline but actually placing the radiation closer to ground level where they increase the exposure to nearby residents and office workers?  Are these towers needed to provide better quality service to the people?  Or are they simply a way to  police the area that is thought to have higher crime than other parts of the city? 

If there is no current evidence of poor service or no service, why are they considering this at all?  And, typically the medical area in nearby Sandy Springs has kept cell towers at a distance from them as they can interfere with sensitive medical equipment.  Will city council inquire about the possible effects of placing more towers closer to people or will they only look at the potential revenue and be blinded by the dollar signs like we have seen happen so many times before? 

Will Dunwoody residents finally wake up and see what is happening in time to have their opinions heard?  Or will the city council, unfamiliar with the entire controversy, simply be persuaded by the industry and their own studies and promises?  How much of that money is paid up front and what will it be used for?  Unaccounted for funds often become a slush fund and that leads to further corruption.  We wish we could say that everyone in DeKalb County is better educated on this subject after the long fought battle to stop cell towers from going up at our schools, but we know that government tends to have short term memory loss whenever dollar signs are flashed before them.  

Terry Nall asked a great question about the parks since cell towers often went on park property if they were denied at schools .  But, just asking the question isn't doing enough to protect your city's park land if your residents really don't want to turn it into a concrete version of its former self.  The council should be reviewing the zoning code now so they can suggest any updates to it that would prevent such tower placements in the future.  The only way to truly protect the community from unwanted intrusion or incompatible uses is to write the zoning ordinances as tightly as possible and then stick to them as often as possible so there is little "wiggle room" for granting exceptions. 

Dunwoody residents should also take note of the possibility of this agreement opening a door for "automatic" placement and approval of cell towers at schools, if Rep. Tom Taylor is successful in getting city schools approved by the legislature.    This agreement, together with the fact that Dunwoody was one of the few places that DID NOT OBJECT to the placement of towers at schools when asked in a referendum in late 2012, should be all the encouragement needed for Crown Castle to put a lot of effort into seeing this plan pass with as little hype as possible. 

QUICK! Put up that tower before someone tries to stop us!

Parents in 4 communities have all OPPOSED the construction of cell towers on their public school playgrounds.

In one community, the parents appealed the decision to build a cell tower on their local school to the Maryland State Board of Education.  And guess what? The parents have a very good chance of winning their appeal.

Q:  What should a Board of Education that hates public school children do 

when they are about to lose?   

A:  Put up those controversial cell towers as fast as possible. 

8/6/2015 Annapolis Middle School

And that is exactly what is going on in Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties.  Fast paced construction efforts are underway to put up four cell towers on public school playgrounds.  Crews work frantically, even in the middle of the night and weekends in order to get the towers up.  Why?  Because once a tower is up and running, it is much more difficult to have it taken down than it is to stop it from going up in the first place.

Here is what the Administrative Law Judge who heard this case decided:

PROPOSED ORDER 

IT IS PROPOSED that the State Board order that the Local Board's agreement to lease school property for the purpose of construction a cell tower (or cell towers) as memorialized in the Master Agreement is not consistent with its trust obligations under section 4-114(a)(1) of the Education Article.

Is there a lesson for those who may be aware of a cell tower proposal near them right now? Absolutely.  If you have opposition or concerns about a proposal, speak up as soon as possible and inform as many of your  neighbors as you can.  Regardless of what you believe about the health impacts, cell towers are a blight on a community in many ways.  They often disrupt the view of the sky and they can cause enough fear or concern that  your neighborhood may never be the same again.  People will leave simply out of the fear of the unknown, regardless of whether or not they have even read any of the science behind the belief that towers can lead to cancer.

So, if you like where you live and want to stay there for a while, a cell tower is most likely something that you can do without and if you don't speak up in the beginning, it will be harder and harder to do so later.  You won't be harming your community.   And, you might even be saving people's lives.

Tower companies ALWAYS have alternatives to the proposed spot near you.  They can  actually share space on existing towers and co-locate their antennas to reduce the number necessary.   They will find a way to conduct their business and turn their profits.

GTCO-ATL wishes the folks fighting the good fight in Maryland all the best.  Keep it up because you are doing the right thing!  We will continue to follow your story!

Cell Tower at a Virginia Public School Catches Fire

GTCO-ATL:  When we brought up the many reasons why we did not want to place cell phone towers at our public schools in DeKalb County, most of the politicians and school administrators we spoke to simply dismissed our concerns.  Reading things like this should serve as a reminder to everyone who spoke out against the cell towers that were planned in Dekalb County, GA.  When it is your neighborhood or you child who could be placed in harm's way, the "what if" scenarios suddenly do not sound so far fectched.   

"We did the right thing," says Paul Miller, co-founder. 

Friday, June 19, 2015

Newport News, Va. – A cell phone tower in the 5800 block of Marshall Avenue caught on fire Monday around noon, according to the Newport News Fire Department.

Fire Chief Stephen Pincus says a company was working on the tower doing some welding when some insulation to the wires caught on fire.

Crews arrived to find a massive amount of fire at the base of the tower and wires burning along the full length of the tower.

With heat index values already over 100 degrees in Newport News, fire crews had some difficulty putting the fire out because the heat was so taxing. It took approximately 25 minutes to get the fire under control.

The structural integrity of the tower was compromised due to the heat of the fire and the tower is now leaning. The damage is extensive and the tower has been disabled...

...The tower is located on property in between Heritage High School and Achievable Dreams Middle & High School. Students were not in school but teachers were at both locations.

Towers Just Seem to Stop Once They Get Out of the Poor Communities

From Montgomery County, Maryland:





This report is very similar to what we were seeing in DeKalb, before the contracts were finally cancelled. Now we've figure out even more about why they were going at certain schools and not others. The towers appear to dot the map, quite literally, right around the areas that are now slated for the November ballot where new cities could be formed.

The cell tower fight was only the beginning. savetuckerfromlakesidecity.blogspot.com.

WHY WE SUPPORT SEN. JASON CARTER FOR GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA

When Sen. Jason Carter was called upon to help parents and our local communities, he listened and took action.  He was concerned about our DeKalb County School Board LONG BEFORE the Governor ever got involved.

Sen. Jason Carter was sworn in to Georgia state Senate

in May 2010.  He recently joined the battle against cellphone

towers on public school properties in Georgia by entering

legislation Feb. 28, 2012, to require proper notification

of the public and the adherence to local zoning laws when

a governmental entity such as the school board is

leasing property for non-governmental purposes (such

as the construction and maintenance of a telecommunications

tower.)  Thank you Sen. Carter!

Here's a reminder of his actions to help the parents and communities affected by poor decision making by our local school board on the issue of cell towers:  http://www.getthecelloutatl.com/2012/02/senator-jason-carter-sumbits-state-bill.html

No matter what you may read about  him in the media, those who have been involved in the school system here in DeKalb County can tell you FIRST HAND that Jason Carter was one of THE ONLY members of the General Assembly in Georgia who was willing to sponsor legislation to help us when our school system was failing and selling out our children and our neighborhoods for a fast buck from T-mobile.

If  you have been affected by the abuse that has taken place in DeKalb County's school system and would have been harmed by a cell tower being placed at your school, lowering your property value and placing children in harm's way, PLEASE VOTE TUESDAY, NOV. 4, 2014 for a change in the state of Georgia.  If you do not agree with letting big, rich corporations continue to dictate the policies and issues that our government is willing to discuss, while the issues affecting the people go without attention, please consider a vote for Sen. Jason Carter as the new Governor of Georgia.  

We cannot continue to let ALEC run our state into the ground.  Our children cannot continue to suffer from the lack of concern for their education and their future.  Sen. Carter has stepped up to listen  and take action in his own district, in our school system and has been willing to force ethical standards to the forefront of conversations at the Gold Dome.

He will be an education leader and will help keep a strong middle class in Georgia, just like his campaign ads say that he will.  We know this because he has done these things already, when it wasn't an election year and when no one else was reaching out to help.  He stepped up and will continue to step up because he truly cares about the future of our state and the people who live here right now.

For more information:  https://carterforgovernor.com/

Where We Stand on the Upcoming May 20 School Board Elections

     The DeKalb County School Board Election is perhaps one of the most vital to the future of DeKalb as residents have seen in some time.  After the Governor removed former board members, several of them are determined to regain their old titles and in one district, the husband of a removed board member is the sole choice for voters.

PLEASE VOTE MAY 20 in DeKALB COUNTY, GA!

Here are the races and the candidates from the DeKalb County election website:

BOARD OF EDUCATION

District 1:  Stan Jester  

(Appointed Member John Coleman is not running for election.  Jester is the spouse of former board member Nancy Jester who was removed by the Governor.  He also has children currently enrolled in the public school system in DeKalb County.)

     Without another choice, GTCO-ATL is in favor of Stan Jester for this seat.  Our main concerns with this candidate is that the Dunwoody homeowner's association has been politically active and vocal about their desire to form their own school system, separate from DeKalb County's system.  We are unsure how Jester will resolve the conflict that would seem to put him in an awkward spot of wanting to help the current system succeed while not wanting to harm the chances of his constituents in their push toward gaining a separate system.  It is not clear how both goals can be achieved as the removal of funds from the north end of the district and return of children who live outside its boundaries would seemingly have a negative impact on the more poor portions of the county, mostly assumed to be in South DeKalb, but also located in the central part of the county where there is a large refugee area.

     Jester's wife Nancy was one of the only "no" votes against cell towers and was able to keep her Dunwoody district without a named school on the proposed list from 2011.  Stan has assisted GTCO-ATL with records requests and bringing the truth to light by his "fact checker" website and video / audio recording of key school board meetings.  GTCO-ATL favors Stan Jester as a positive addition to the board and hope that he continues his efforts toward an open and transparent school system leadership.

     Nancy Jester is running for the state school Superintendent's position and will face considerable competition in the primary election.  If you are a fan of Ms. Jester, she likely needs your vote on May 20, but you will need to request a Republican voting card in order to have an impact on her race for the state seat.  Any runoff elections will not be held until later in July. General elections will be held in November.

District 2:  Don McChesney, incumbent Marshall Orson  

(Orson was elected, not appointed, but did not serve on the former board.  He defeated then-incumbent McChesney so this election is a bit of a re-match between the two.  McChesney is a former teacher and Orson is an attorney in Atlanta with children in the school system.)

    This is a very tough district and the choices are not so much between the old and the new as they are between Briar Vista and Fernbank Elementary School districts.  McChesney has fought in the past for the Briar Vista neighborhood and their school which suffered a loss in student population under the new plan first brought forward by Dr. Cheryl Atkinson, former Superintendent who left amid a flurry of SACS allegations, possibly illegal hiring and firing practices, and her refusal to comply with Open Records Requests.  McChesney was the board member who offered the amended solution to the original cell tower debate that removed the three most vocal schools before the full board voted on the issue in July 2011, but he did not attend public meetings intended to gather input from the school communities in his own district which upset many taxpayers, especially those living in the Briarcliff Heights area near the Margaret Harris School for the physically and mentally impaired.

The location of the original schools affected by the cell tower decision.

   Orson is the former President of the highly influential Emory-Lavista Parent Council and has stepped up in an effort to assist GTCO-ATL and the Margaret Harris neighborhood in their co-joined efforts to determine the current status of the cell tower permits and to get a possible vote on a school board resolution against the cell tower practice in the future.  He has been accused in the past of favoring the Fernbank Elementary School community over others, but since his current tenure on the school board he has presented himself to be a very intelligent and thorough board member.  Most notably, he helped in the settlement of the Heery Mitchell lawsuit that was costing the school district tens of millions of dollars.  That alone has enabled our schools to begin to pay teachers a bit better and reverse all furlough days that had become a standard practice.  Orson is also the board member credited for the recommendation of former labor commissioner Michael Thurmond for the position of Superintendent, so depending on how you feel about him, that might influence your vote.

   GTCO-ATL will accept either of these board members as favorable to our cause as we believe they both have taken the time to research and understand the issue of cell towers and the concerns of their constituents. We have been mostly in favor of the progress of the new board and the hiring of Super. Thurmond, so for those reasons, we favor Marshall Orson in this district.

District 3:  Jerrie D. Bason, incumbent Michael A. Erwin, Jarrod Jordan, Atticus LeBlanc, Willie R. Mosley, Jr

(Incumbent Michael Erwin was appointed to the board by Gov. Deal)

   GTCO-ATL has no solid information that would lead us to believe any of the candidates for this seat would be pro-cell tower.  We have generally favored the job that the current appointed board members have done to date, so for this reason, we favor keeping the appointed current member Michael A. Erwin.

District 4:  Incumbent Karen Carter, incumbent Jim McMahan, John Oselette, Ella “Coach” Smith

(Incumbent Dr. Karen Carter was appointed by Gov. Deal, Incumbent Jim McMahan was elected to replace former board member Paul Womack, the board member who first brought the cell tower issue to the school board in 2011.)

Dr. Karla Drenner held multiple hearings at the state capitol in 2011 in an
effort to ban the practice of using school grounds for corporate
gain by the telecommunications industry.

     The only person in this district who has publicly opposed the cell tower issue is Ella "Coach" Smith.  Smith is our pick for District 4.  She was one of the only residents to attend a cell tower meeting held back in May 2011 and she opposed the practice both verbally and in a written statement to the board.  She came forward during the time when it was very controversial to do so because she knew then, and knows now, that the health of our children is not something to be gambled with.  A former teacher at Lakeside High School, who was also a cheer and gymnastics coach for many years, Smith has been a contributor to the Dekalb School Watch blog and other public forums in her support for the children all over the county, not just in her own district.  She has made considerable effort to mend fences between the warring sides of Lakeside vs. Tucker which were very heated during the most recent battle over city lines.  And, she gave up her teaching position to work in Fulton County specifically so that she could become a more outspoken advocate for the children and call out the poor governance practices she witnessed.

     We are not specifically opposed to Dr. Karen Carter and the job she has done, but we are unclear as to where she stands on the cell tower issue.  We have presented a resolution to refrain from using cell towers as a revenue stream and provided quality evidence to show the board that the money in other markets has only been used as a slush fund to further corrupt practices.  While members like Mayfield and Orson as well as the Superintendent have reached out to us and others who oppose the towers to help us with learning where things stand in the process of permits and contracts, we have not heard from McMahan or Carter.  Oselette appears to only be campaigning in a very limited area with a highly political tilt.  For these reasons, we are in favor of Ella "Coach" Smith as the best candidate from a perspective of healing this district and remaining in firm opposition to the placement of towers at our schools.  Many of the schools on the list for cell towers were based in and around this specific area of the county.

    We also do not specifically oppose Jim McMahan, but have concerns over his poor attendance record on the current board.  He has made good voting decisions and did speak with us on more than one occasion to tell us that he supported our efforts to keep cell towers off school grounds.  McMahan would not be a poor choice for the cell tower issue, however, we are concerned over his association with the Tucker Parent Council and some behind the scenes changes to staffing at some Tucker schools that may have been an effort to assist the Lakeside City Alliance.  The city issue would have split Tucker nearly in half and has been a very destructive element in this district.  We believe that anyone who is involved in this battle for city borders should not also be simultaneously involved in school related groups when their efforts in one area may be counter productive to their responsibilities in the other.  The children must always come first.


District 5:  Pia “Chaz Afzal” Bhatt, Jesse “Jay” Cunningham, R. Alexander Fitzhugh, incumbent Thad Mayfield, Vickie B. Turner

(Incumbent Thad Mayfield is a current appointed board member.  Jesse "Jay" Cunningham is a former board member who was removed by the Governor.)

    Thad Mayfield has been a very detailed and effective board member since his appointment.  He has listened to the concerns of GTCO-ATL and we believe he would be the best choice for District 5.  We favor Thad Mayfield for several reasons, but on the issue of cell towers, we believe that he has researched the issue, listened to the complaints and would likely vote against the practice of using towers for a revenue stream or slush fund.

Parents at MLK High School in DeKalb showed up to oppose cell towers and meet with their then-board member Jay Cunningham back in 2011.

District 6:  Bridgeman Bolger and incumbent Melvin Johnson

(Incumbent Melvin Johnson is a current board member who was elected.)

       Between the two candidates, we favor Bridgeman Bolger for this race.  We recently learned that Bolger worked for Rep. Karla Drenner, who fought a very good fight in the state House of Representatives in an effort to completely ban cell towers from our school grounds.  Bolger has reached out to GTCO-ATL to make an introduction, which we appreciate.  He understands the cell tower issue and has also worked through  his position with the Young Democrats of DeKalb to ensure federal funds for the refugee resettlement communities are getting to the right places, including the schools that are expected to educate these children, many of whom do not know any English.

     While we do not have any specific issues with Dr. Melvin Johnson, the incumbent and current chairman of the school board, we are aware that he has a somewhat controversial past.  He was a long time employee with the school system and some of his opponents believe he worked for the system during the timeframe that saw a huge increase in administration while schools were being forced to close or run with minimal staff and support.

District 7:  Kim Ault, Lee V. Dukes and incumbent Joyce Morley

(Incumbent Dr. Joyce Morley was appointed by the Governor.)

    It is with heavy heart that we are reminded of the passing of former board member Donna Edler.  Ms. Edler was a friend to GTCO-ATL and one of the only two board members to vote against the cell towers initially (although eventually all except Dr. Eugene Walker stated that they would vote differently if they had the choice to do over again).   Ms. Edler died from cancer and was a true fighter until the very end, never letting her illness get in the way of her efforts to provide a better school system for the children in DeKalb County.  Edler's children are still in the DeKalb County School System and our condolences go out to them as well as her husband.

   This is another difficult choice and GTCO-ATL is not completely in favor or opposed to any of these candidates, lacking sufficient information.  However, we are aware that parent Kim Ault has been at the forefront of many efforts to bring the former board members and their poor governance practices into the light.  We believe she would be an honest representative who has her own children in the system and has sufficient knowledge of where we have been in order to serve her district well.

     However, we slightly favor Dr. Joyce Morley as she has done a fair job during her appointment to the board.  She has taken her position seriously and seems to be very committed to continuing the good work that the current appointed board has done so far.  For this reason, GTCO-ATL favors Dr. Joyce Morley.

Get the Cell Out - ATL featured on FOX 5's Good Day Atlanta!

Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter and neighbors for Briarcliff Heights / Margaret Harris Comprehensive School Cell Tower Opposition are featured on FOX's Good Day Atlanta.

Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5

American Academy of Pediatrics Demands FCC Protect Children from Cell Phone & Wireless Radiation

Letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the 

FCC Regarding Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Standards

The American Academy of Pediatrics submitted the following letter to the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC). 

The letter urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards that:

1.)  protect children's health and well-being from radiation emitted by cell phones and other 
wireless devices; 2.)  reflect how people actually use their cell phones; and 
3.)  provide sufficient information to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

The letter is also  available on the FCC's web site at http://bit.ly/17tQclg.

August 29, 2013 

The Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn

Acting Commissioner 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street SW 

Washington, DC 20054

The Honorable Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg

Commissioner 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

10903 New Hampshire Avenue 

Silver Spring, MD 20993

  

Dear Acting Chairwoman Clyburn and Commissioner Hamburg:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of 
60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical 
specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, 
and young adults appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule 
“Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies” 
published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2013. 
 
In the past few years, a number of American and international health and scientific bodies 
have contributed to the debate over cell phone radiation and its possible link to cancer. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the United Nations’ 
World Health Organization, said in June 2011 that a family of frequencies that includes 
mobile-phone emissions is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”  The National Cancer 
Institute has stated that although studies have not demonstrated that RF energy from 
cell phones definitively causes cancer, more research is needed because cell phone technology 
and cell phone use are changing rapidly. These studies and others clearly demonstrate the 
need for further research into this area and highlight the importance of reassessing current 
policy to determine if it is adequately protective of human health. 

As radiation standards are reassessed, the AAP urges the FCC to adopt radiation standards 
that:  

Protect children’s health and well-being. Children are not little adults and are 
disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. 
Current FCC standards do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific 
to pregnant women and children. It is essential that any new standard for cell phones or other 
wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to 
ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes. 

Reflect current use patterns. The FCC has not assessed the standard for cell phone 

radiation since 1996. Approximately 44 million people had mobile phones when the standard 

was set; today, there are more than 300 million mobile phones in use in the United States. 

While the prevalence of wireless phones and other devices has skyrocketed, the behaviors 

around cell phone uses have changed as well. The number of mobile phone calls per day, the 

length of each call, and the amount of time people use mobile phones has increased, while cell 

phone and wireless technology has undergone substantial changes. Many children, adolescents

and young adults, now use cell phones as their only phone line and they begin using wireless 
phones at much younger ages. Pregnant women may carry their phones for many hours per 
day in a pocket that keeps the phone close to their uterus. Children born today will experience 
a longer period of exposure to radio-frequency fields from cellular phone use than will adults, 
because they start using cellular phones at earlier ages and will have longer lifetime exposures. 
FCC regulations should reflect how people are using their phones today. 

Provide meaningful consumer disclosure. The FCC has noted that it does not provide 

consumers with sufficient information about the RF exposure profile of individual phones to 

allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. The current metric of RF exposure 

available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual 

exposure. AAP is supportive of FCC developing standards that provide consumers with the 

information they need to make informed choices in selecting mobile phone purchases, and to 

help parents to better understand any potential risks for their children. To that end, we 

support the use of metrics that are specific to the exposure children will experience. 

The AAP supports the reassessment of radiation standards for cell phones and other wireless 
products and the adoption of standards that are protective of children and reflect current 
use patterns. If you have questions, please contact Clara Filice in the AAP’s Washington 
Office at 202/347-8600.

Sincerely, 

Thomas K. McInerny, MD FAAP

President