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

Americans Beware: 

Nationwide Violations of FCC Radiation Limits 

at Wireless Antenna Sites

 MARSHFIELD, VT--(Marketwire - Mar 20, 2013) - The EMRadiation Policy Institute (EMRPI) releases Videos revealing the FCC's failure to protect Americans from wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation. 

Don't forget that DeKalb County Commissioners are partially
to thank for their strict zoning laws that protected our
children from cell phone towers in their neighborhoods.

US workers and families are at risk of overexposure to RF at hazardous levels. Hundreds of wireless industry-operated antenna sites from Maine to California have been tested by EMRPI and found to be in gross violation -- up to and in excess of 600% -- of the FCC's public exposure limits. These sites include rooftops as well as locations where the general public, including children, can gain access, and where workers are on the job. See: Wireless Industry Safety Failure I

Wireless Radiation Can Harm Health.

The only school that said
they wanted a cell tower ended up as
the only school without a signed contract.
That's a terrible representation of what they can do with "local control.

Public health is threatened by wireless radiation exposure at current FCC lawful limits as they are among the least protective in the world. FCC safety limits do not acknowledge current science, nor the 2011 WHO IARC's classification of wireless radiation as a Group 2B carcinogen. The FCC does not even enforce its own inadequate radiation limits.

FCC Fails to Enforce Its Own Wireless Radiation Limits. 

EMRPI informed FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in December 2011 of widespread FCC rules violations. Despite detailed complaint letters sent to FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief P. Michele Ellison, of RF safety violations in 23 states across all regions of the US, EMRPI has received no response that the FCC has taken any enforcement action against any noncompliant site. EMRPI's investigation re-tested sites and found violations still occurring months after EMRPI's initial filings with the FCC. The FCC responded to a US Senator's inquiry on sites in her state with misleading information about the safety of the Senator's constituents. See: Wireless Industry Safety Failure II

Are the FCC and the Wireless Industry Turning a Blind Eye to RF Violations?

Want one?
Just call your
school board
member or
anyone affiliated
with the Lakeside
City Alliance!

FCC policy allows wireless companies to self-report their compliance with the lawful RF limits. The FCC website provides no information or procedures for either the public or workers to report potential or actual violations. Despite hundreds of thousands of wireless antenna sites across the US, since 1996 the FCC has issued only one wireless Notice of Violation, and not until 2010. Is FCC policing site violations and are violations hidden from the public?

The American Public Is Not Protected.

Congress must act to hold the FCC accountable. If not, Americans will remain at risk from unlawful RF radiation exposures at antenna sites across the country. The American people have a right to know and a right to be protected. EMRPI urges the American people to demand that the FCC enforce its own RF safety limits to protect all Americans.

Contact US Senators at:http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Contact US House Members at: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

FCC Responds to Get the Cell Out - ATL Inquiry on HB 176

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Dear Consumer,

For information on HB 176 visit the webpage at

http://georgiaplanning.org/georgia-planning-news/2013-legislative-session-hb-176-mobile-broadband-infrastructure-leads-to-development-bild-act/

You may want to register your concerns with the Georgia House of Representatives at

http://www.house.ga.gov/committees/en-us/committeelist.aspx

Thank you

Representative Number : TSR09

American Academy of Pediatrics Urges the FCC to Reconsider Radiation Standards in the U.S.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider its radiation standards.

Pediatricians Say Cell Phone Radiation Standards Need Another Look

By Bonnie RochmanJuly 20, 2012

It’s been 18 years since the U.S. government assessed the standards for cell phone radiation. That was back in 1996, long before the practice of giving your big kid a cell phone became as common as giving your little kid a bath. Both cell-phone technology and cell-phone use have changed in the interim, which is why last week the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reconsider its radiation standards.

Current guidelines specify that the specific absorption rate (SAR) — the amount of radiofrequency (RF) energy absorbed by the body when using a cell phone — can’t exceed 1.6 watts per kilogram. The standard tells cell-phone makers how much radiation their products are allowed to emit. This all sounds pretty technical; why, you may wonder, is the AAP getting involved in deliberations over RF and SARs? It comes down to children’s health and well-being, writes AAP President Dr. Robert Block, who notes that standards are based on the impact of exposure on an adult male, not on women or kids:

Children, however, are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. In fact, according to [the International Agency for Research on Cancer], when used by children, the average RF energy deposition is two times higher in the brain and 10 times higher in the bone marrow of the skull, compared with mobile phone use by adults.

Yikes. Parents, run, don’t walk, to buy your tween a headset.

The AAP’s appeal has a history: previous research has raised questions about whether exposure to radiation from mobile phones can lead to brain cancer. And last month, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski formally proposed an inquiry into radiation standards in cell phones and other wireless devices.  (We will have more on this subject in a future blog post from GTCO-ATL as there are ways to help the FCC in their request for consumer feedback on the issue.)

The FCC is also looking into whether emissions standards should be adjusted for the types of devices that are used mostly by kids, which makes sense. But Block points out that standards for all cell phones — even those not aimed at children or teens — need to “be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded throughout their lifetimes.”

Given his target audience, Block couldn’t resist highlighting more than physical health concerns. He also brought up the downside of too much time spent using cell phones, computers, televisions and other devices.

The Academy has found potentially negative effects and no known positive effects of media use by children under the age of 2, including television, computers, cell phones and other handheld wireless devices. In addition, studies consistently show that older children and adolescents utilize media at incredibly high rates, which potentially contributes to obesity and other health and developmental risks. In reviewing the SAR limit, the FCC has the opportunity to improve the health of our nation by highlighting the importance of limiting screen time and media use for children and adolescents.

The AAP is not recommending a SAR standard, says Dr. Jerome Paulson, chair of the AAP’s council on environmental health and a pediatrician at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. “We don’t have any preconceived notions about how much is too much,” says Paulson. “But we know in general that children are more vulnerable to environmental hazards.”

Until there’s more clarity, Paulson recommends doing what comes naturally to many kids: text. That way the cell phone isn’t near a child’s head. For phone conversations, use a hands-free device. And pregnant women, take care not to carry your cell phone in a pocket near your abdomen. 

Bonnie Rochman is a reporter at TIME. 

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/pediatricians-call-on-the-fcc-to-reconsider-cell-phone-radiation-standards/#ixzz2Kyuc3ulM

T-mobile Cannot Justify a True Market "Need" for More Towers

Hey T-Mobile... It Doesn't Pay to Mess With DeKalb, Does It?

(click headline for details)

Angry, but well-behaved, parents and residents in DeKalb County, GA,
stood outside a T-mobile store in Tucker, GA, late last year to show
their disgust with the way the company and the school board worked together
to deny citizens the right to know what was being planned behind
closed doors.  The group marched up and down busy streets in the suburbs of
Atlanta and got the attention of local lawmakers and politicians.  This past July a referendum on the
ballot showed at 62% "NO" vote to cell towes on school grounds.  T-mobile is
expected to back out of its contract with the school system if its applications
for special land use and building permits are denied.

BAD NEWS (if you are T-mobile)

(click headline to read portions of this story, originally found on:  http://www.ajc.com/business/t-mobile-brings-back-1503999.html)
By PETER SVENSSON; The Associated Press:  NEW YORK — Unlimited wireless data is back. After sliding off the menu of cellphone plans, data plans with no caps are making a comeback at smaller wireless companies trying to compete with AT&T and Verizon.



Bargain basement discounts available soon
because, according to this article by the Associated
Press and printed in the Aug. 25, 2012, edition of the AJC,
T-mobile has capacity on their
network to sell... (aka, they do not have
a justified 'need' for any more towers!) 

Markus Schreiber, Associated PressFILE- In this Wednesday Sept. 19, 2007 file photo, an iPhone is displayed next to a T-Mobile sign, in Berlin. Unlimited wireless data is back. After sliding off the menu of cellphone plans, data plans with no caps are making a comeback at smaller wireless companies trying to compete with AT&T and Verizon. T-Mobile USA, the nation's fourth-largest cellphone company, said Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2012, that it will start selling an unlimited-data plan again on Sept. 5, (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber, File)

 

T-Mobile USA, the nation's fourth-largest cellphone company, said Wednesday that it will start selling an unlimited-data plan again on Sept. 5, after stopping sales of such plans early last year. A day earlier, No. 5 carrier MetroPCS cut the price of its unlimited-data plan as a promotion for a limited time.

...

T-Mobile's new plan will cost $5 less than a regular data plan with 5 gigabytes of full-speed data. The advantage of the limited plan is that subscribers can turn their phones into "mobile hotspots," linking tablets and computers to the Internet through the phone. That's not allowed under the unlimited plan.
T-Mobile USA and MetroPCS may have room on their networks, giving them some leeway, at least for now, in offering unlimited data.

...
 
"The bottom line is they have capacity available to attract quite an influx of subscribers without pulling down the network," said Steven Crowley, an independent network engineering consultant.
T-Mobile USA is a unit of German phone company Deutsche Telekom AG and has 33.2 million subscribers. MetroPCS has 9.3 million.
___
August 25, 2012 03:31 AM EDT

AND... then there is this GEM...

T-Mobile losing more lucrative subscribers

12:46 pm August 9, 2012, by Christopher Seward

T-Mobile continues to struggle to keep valuable customers, losing more than a half-million of its long-term subscribers in the three months ending in June, the company reported Thursday.

(Curtis Compton, ccompton@ajc.com)

Competition from Verizon, AT&T and Sprint for long-term subscribers and rivalry from smaller competitors for prepaid mobile customers continue to put T-Mobile in a bind when it comes to growing its most lucrative customer base – those signing up for long-term contracts, who also tend to have the highest monthly bills.

T-Mobile, the country’s No. 4 cellphone company, said it lost 557,000 contract customers during the period but the loss was offset by gains in prepaid and wholesale customers, leaving it with a net loss of 205,000 customers overall. In the same period a year ago, T-Mobile lost 50,000 customers.

While T-Mobile’s top three competitors increased revenue from monthly fees for contract service, T-Mobile saw a 9 percent drop from the same period a year ago.

T-Mobile, however, reported its customer turnover rate fell during the quarter. The company managed to report a nearly flat second-quarter profit of $207 million, compared with $212 million in the same period a year ago. Revenue fell 3 percent to $4.9 billion.

U.S. regulators last year blocked AT&T’s buyout of T-Mobile, which is a subsidiary of Germany’s Deutsche Telekom AG.

Don't "Cell" Out Our Children! Vote NO to cell towers on July 31!

Many people have asked me about the short speech I gave at the DeKalb Board of Education meeting in November of 2011 during the public comments portion of the meeting.  So, I'm reprinting it here as a reminder to everyone that the school board elections are right around the corner.

If  you do not know whether or not a candidate or incumbant would vote in favor or against a cell tower at your child's school or next to your home, I suggest you find out before deciding whether or not that person should be able to represent you.

My wife and I have been speaking out against cell towers on school grounds since one was proposed for our child's school last year.  After it was removed from consideration, we remained involved because we felt it was not right for these towers to be placed at any school in any part of our county.

Unfortunately, efforts made to ban the towers completely left us with a "non-binding advisory referendum" on the upcoming ballot.  While they call it an "advisory" referendum, you know that means it will likely be used to determine which areas of DeKalb will be the best places for them to try putting up the next round of towers once the first 8 go up. (Smoke Rise, Briarlake, ML King High, Princeton, Narvie J. Harris, Margaret Harris, Jolly, Flat Rock.)

There will be a question on the July 31 ballot about this issue.  It will ask you if the DeKalb School system should "place or operate telecommunications towers" at any public or charter school.  WE hope you will agree that putting children at risk from a health and safety standpoint should never be an option, no atter how deserate the county is for money.  You are urged to vote NO!

Please vote NO to "telecommunications towers" at any public school and warn others aabout the importance of showing up to vote July 31, or your school or neighborhood might be next!


Norcross 2011 cell tower fire (courtesy CBS Atlanta).

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

COMMENT MADE DURING NOVEMBER 2011 BOE PUBLIC MEETING:

I would be cordial and greet you here tonight, but I know you guys don’t want to hear from me, but here it goes again.  It makes me sick that I even have to come up here and talk about cell towers.  As a father, it makes me sick to tell my daughter that her life would be at risk, whether you guys believe it or not.

You guys seem to think that it doesn’t show any risk factors.  But, I’m also a physical therapist and I work in a bone marrow unit and I work with leukemia patients every day.  Come in to my work if you don’t  think something like this exists.  Picture one of your loved ones sitting in that bed.  They can’t do anything, frail and weak.  They didn’t ask for it.  But, for some reason you guys think it is okay to expose children to this? I don’t get it.

I was also a boxer.  I have been in hundreds of fights.  And every time I think of what you guys have done, it feels like someone sucker punched me from behind.  And. I feel that way every day I have to think about this.

I got in my truck the day we found out.  I got in my truck and went to my neighbors with pen and paper and got signatures.  I said, “Did anybody tell you that this was going on?”  Not a single person knew.  Not a single one.  And we came and we told you guys that and you said, “Oh we haven’t seen any factors that we would think it would be dangerous.

B.S.   There is a dirty little secret and we are going to uncover it.  You are not going to get away with it.  I promise you that.   Again, it makes me sick that I even have to bring this up.  The fact that we’ve been lied to by our principal.  Let’s just talk about notification.  Our principal said, “We didn’t know anything.  We were just told to put the information in the children’s backpacks…. in my three year old’s backpack, isn’t that pleasant?  That’s a sweet thing in pre-K.

SO…. We go to the principal and she says, “We didn’t know.”  So we go to the PTA and they say “We didn’t know.”  And at first they are all up and arms about it and then they say, “We can’t take a stand on issues like this.”  So we are left in the dark.  So, we have to continue to seek the answers.

Not a single person has told me, not a single person, a positive that is coming out of this.  Except, “Oh, the schools are going get money.”  $25,000 hush money for the PTA?  That’s not acceptable.   The cost of somebody’s bone marrow transplant doesn’t cover the cost of a single payment that we will ever get.  I don’t get it.  

And, God forbid…  (pause)…  I don’t ever want to wish any illness on anybody, but again, come in to my work, step one foot in the bone marrow transplant unit and I guarantee you will rip those cell towers out of there.

(to the board) Bad people...  It’s not nice.

******************************************  end public comment

To watch the video of this and other protesters from the School Board Meeting last Novemer, go to:    http://view.liveindexer.com/ViewIndexSessionSLMQ.aspx?indexSessionSKU=MekWaHPZMrYBy4Wd4iUaZQ==

For more details, go to: www.GETtheCELLoutATL.org.  And, to learn about school board candidates who oppose cell towers on school grounds, you can also "like" us on Facebook.

Read more: CrossRoadsNews - entry Don t 34 Cell 34 Out Our Children Vote NO to Cell Towers on July 31

Score 1 for the Kids: Public Schools in Montgomery County, MD, Ban Cell Towers From School Grounds

Wednesday, June 6, 2012 (click headline for full story)

From our friends in Montgomery County, Maryland comes this encouraging story:

On November 21, 2011, a Hearing Examiner for the Montgomery County Board of Appeals issued an Opinion in Case No. S-2818.  On page 40 of that Opinion, at Footnote number 19, we learn that MCPS is no longer placing cell phone/telecommunications towers on elementary school playgrounds. 

This change in MCPS standard operating procedure comes too late for Daly Elementary School (shown below), but benefits the the other 130 elementary school sites that were ripe for the picking by cell tower companies.

Daly Elementary School playground /cell tower compound
Since the Board of Education has never taken a public vote to place a cell tower on any public school site, decisions to let a private company build a cell tower transmission facility on public school land have been made behind closed doors with little or no public notice or input. 

From this Opinion, we now know that cell phone companies are no longer free to make behind closed door deals with MCPS to build cell tower facilities on elementary school playgrounds.
 
Score 1 for the little kids that get to keep their playground space!

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

Cell tower compounds have already been installed on playgrounds/fields at the following Montgomery County Public Schools:


Northwood HS - Silver Spring (pictured at right)
Blake HS - Silver Spring
Einstein HS - Silver Spring
Kennedy HS - Silver Spring
Wheaton HS - Silver Spring
Springbrook HS - Silver Spring
Blair HS - Silver Spring
Watkins Mill HS - Gaithersburg
*  Daly Elementary School - Germantown
Magruder HS - Rockville
Tilden Middle School - Rockville
Sherwood HS - Sandy Spring
Woodwards Road ES site - Gaithersburg


*  The Daly ES PTA and community said no to this cell tower and Superintendent Jerry Weast signed the lease and placed the tower on the playground anyway.

Dear Mr. Burrell Ellis, CEO, We are contacting you again ...

April 25, 2012

Dear Mr. Burrell Ellis, CEO
DeKalb County Government
330 West Ponce DeLeon Ave.
Decautur, GA  30030

Dear Mr. Ellis,

We are contacting you again with questions regarding the county's policy and plans regarding the construction and operation of cell phone towers on public school grounds.  As you are aware, the Board of Education has agreed to lease its property to T-mobile, but the county still has zoning authority over the exact placement of all telecommunications towers.  Local zoning ordinances are already in place to protect our residents. 

As concerned taxpayers, residents and homeowners of this county, we want to urge you and your office to be aware of the intentions of T-mobile to go around our local government and exploit loopholes in our laws and policies.  Much of the process has been kept secret from the residents and homeowners who will be most directly impacted, which is standard operating procedure for T-mobile who has been on a mission for the past couple years to place their cell towers in the Greater Atlanta area at an alarming rate. 

Please note our concerns and the concerns of many other taxpayers in this county who have taken the time to provide their feedback in the attached petition.  It is particularly alarming that T-mobile, a German-based company, would agree to lease public property for a period of 30-years when it has stated publically that it no longer wishes to remain a player in the U.S. wireless market. 

We are sure that you received the original letter from all seven of our elected county commissioners, but we have included as an attachment (1) for your reference.  Mr. Ellis, this letter makes it very clear that DeKalb County has a proper procedure that T-mobile and any other cellular company is expected to follow when submitting applications for their transmission towers.  The ordinance states that residential communities are not safe places for cellular towers.  And, our commissioners believe that any permit applications either from the BOE or T-mobile for public school property to be used in this manner should be denied.

The BOE may believe that they are exempt from zoning laws, but they are incorrect.  As we have pointed out, and as the county commissioners have agreed, any structure that has a primary purpose that is proprietary in nature is not considered to be a justifable use of an exemption from zoning.  The exemption was allowed for publically-funded school grounds when used for the education of children.

Privately-held, privately-profiting cellular companies and their holding companies are not interested in our public school grounds to help better our education system.  They are motivated by profit and tax relief.  The primary function of the T-mobile towers will be to add to the bottom line of T-mobile through the sale of its wireless products and services and through the sub-leasing of its tower to other cell providers.  Any other purpose the towers may be used for would be secondary to its proprietary function.  The school board initiated the request for the towers as a means for additional revenue.  Please see the attachment (2) from Steve Donahue, Director of Plant Services, in his initial summary of the task.  This summary was part of the agenda during the June 2011 board meeting agenda.

Therefore, the county cannot in good faith offer to transfer an exemption over to T-mobile when it would normally be only a priviledge of our school system for the purpose of building educational facilities.

In proving this point, we have attached a copy (3) of the case entitled, "MACON-BIBB COUNTY PLANNING and; ZONING COMMISSION et al. v. BIBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT."  It shows that the property of a state governmental unit is exempt from local zoning when a governmental function is being performed but not when a proprietary function is being performed.

Furthermore, the county commissioners, in their letter, have stated that it is their belief that the county should not ignore its own zoning ordinances, unless it is proven that they must do so in a court of law.  We have information to submit to them that addresses this issue.

We would like to present you, your staff from the Public Works Division and from the Office of Planning and Sustainability, and our commissioners with one additional piece of information.  Thanks to the recent comments made by the former School Board Chairman, Mr. Tom Bowen, to the various media outlets, he called our attention to the neigboring Cobb County as we were curious about exactly what happened there as they were faced with similar circumstances. 

In fact, the admission of Mr. Bowen and Mr. Paul Womack, the former Vice Chairman of the School Board, that they were familiar with the situation in Cobb County makes their motivations in passing this item even more suspect.  Anyone familiar with what took place in Cobb County is aware of the protests from the neighborhood that almost led to a recall of one board member.

Even more recently, current Chairman Dr. Eugene Walker, has made similar references to the fact that neigbhoring counties have chosen this route.  To us, that knowledge means that DeKalb has a great opportunity to rise above the others, not sink to their level.

Sir, the conduct of these school board officials flys in the face of the open and transparent government that the citizens of DeKalb County have been asking for and that you, yourself, have stated as an important element of your administration.  We hope you will not let their poor judgment in this situation drag your reputation down as well.  They have tried to both avoid your input as well as claim to have your support.  We just want to know the truth.

Upon looking at cell tower cases in Cobb County, we have located a federal decision that will provide the commissioners with the legal backing to solidify their recommendation that no permit be issued for these T-mobile cell towers on our public school grounds that would circumvent the standard "Special Land Use" process.  

The case is also attached for your review (4).  Please distribute to whomever on your staff you feel would be necessary in case they play a part in this decision.  We are also sending a copy of this entire packet to everyone listed in the CC: section, but realize that we may have missed someone, esp. since the Public Works and the Office of Planning and Sustainability seem to be going through a lot of personnel changes lately.

The federal case we would like you to reference is titled, "T-MOBILE LLC vs. COBB COUNTY, GEORGIA."   In this case, the County’s Planning and Zoning Staff reviewed the Application for compliance with the County’s local zoning ordinance.   The Ordinance provides several design, location, and safety requirements for the construction of towers over 35 feet. Official Code of Cobb
County, Georgia § 134-273.  Based on the Ordinance, the county denied the application for a tower permit and T-Mobile sued.

The court found in favor of the county and proved that the county has every right to uphold its own zoning ordinances and was justified in denying the application based on the fact that the tower proposed would be an intrusion into a residential area.

We hope you and your staff will review the documents and take these court proceedings into consideration when making the final determination.  We have received an outpouring of support for this mission to keep our school yards safe and free from the intrusion of cell phone towers on their grounds.  We have united our county on this issue, and groups that might normally be divided on other matters when it comes to schools and education, were able to come together, work together and seek help from their elected officials from the north to the south.

Now, we turn this final decision over to you, Mr. Ellis, and pray that you will do the right thing for the children of our county.

And, the final attachment (5) is a partial listing of the more than 1,300 names we  have collected of people from all over the county who want you to know that they also oppose these towers.  Please read more into these petitions than just a headcount, as we could easily deliver thousands more if that were all it took in order to make a point. 

We ask that you read some of the comments that are made by those who signed.  We think you will see, as we did, that this issue is not something that will simply fade away.  It is clear that many, many taxpayers and voters in DeKalb County, not only oppose cell towers on school grounds, but they are very angry about it, too. 

Please deny T-mobile and stand up for the citizens. 

Thank you sincerely,

Get the Cell Out - ATL

cc: Director of the Federal Communication Commission,

DeKalb County School Board,
Spokesperson Walter Woods,
Gov. Nathan Deal,
DeKalb County Director of Public Works,
DeKalb County Chief of Staff for Community Relations,
DeKalb County Commissioners,
Georgia State Board of Education,
the Georgia State Delegation,
The Center for Safer Wireless,
Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter,
Concerned Citizens of South DeKalb,
Mayor Ramsey of Clarkston,
Citizens for a Safe and Healthy Environment,
The Georgia Green Party,
MACE,
Briarcliff Heights Community Action Group,
Parents Coalition of Montgomery County,
National PTA,
DeKalb School Watch,
Cobb County School Board Member Rick Welkis,
Mount Shasta Research Center,
Center for Disease Control,
SACs,
DeKalb County District Attorney's office,
Georgia Office of Administrators of Special Education,
Georgia Association of Zoning Administrators,
Get the Cell Out and
Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter.


Attachments (5)
Board of Commissioners Letter
Steve Donahue summary of task document
Bibb County Supreme Court Decision
Cobb County  Federal Court Decision
GTCO-ATL Petition

Did Cell Phone Radiation Kill Johnnie Cochran?

Cell Phones and the Death of Johnnie Cochran
Johnnie Cochran's widow, Dale, and his neurosurgeon Dr. Keith Black discuss how cell phones may have led to his death.




Cell Phones and Children
CNN's Larry King Discuss Real Risks of Cell Phones and Tumors.




Cell Phones and Cancer in Children: Using a cell phone before age 20 = 5X Greater Cancer Risk

DeKalb School Board Needs Lesson in Logic = Low Turnout Does Not Mean Full Speed Ahead!

DeKalb School Board Members all seemed to be under the impression that if they hold a meeting and no one shows up for it, then that is the same thing as a blanket approval of anything on the agenda.  It never occurred to them that there might be a problem with the "invitation" to the party? 

That's a little hard to believe since school boards across the country, and recently in Cobb County, have been plauged with this exact same problem.  Whenever a cell tower is involved, the administration that normally has no problems with holding meetings and having people attend them, suddenly is struck by poorly written notices, forgetful assistants and a lack of basic grammer and writing skills to let people know that this subject is a pretty important one.

So, maybe we should send our school board members back to school to learn the basic principles of Logical Reasoning.  You know, such as Dogs are Nice; Some people are Nice; therefore, some people are dogs.  Right? 

So, No One Showed Up for the Meeting; Sometimes if People Do Not Care About Something, They do Not Show Up for Meetings; Therefore if No One Showe Up for This Meeting then No One Cared and Therefore Everyone Everywhere is Perfectly Fine with What We are Planning to Do.

That's just faulty logic all around.

And, here's the article recently in Crossroads by Jennifer Parker.  The red text is by GTCO-ATL so you can know what we think about the stories that are out there.  (The truth lies somewhere beneath all the rubble the School Board dishes out.)


Read more: CrossRoadsNews - Turnout low at meetings before cell towers vote

When the DeKalb School Board decided on July 11, 2011, to allow T-Mobile to erect 150-foot cell towers on nine DeKalb School System properties, public input into the decision was sparse at best.

Acutally, this statement is not exactly true.  The public input on July 11 was reportedly "very clear" according to several board members who suggested they had received many calls and emails regarding the three schools who ended up being removed from the list  They also claimed to have received many calls in favor of the cell towers at other schools, but the proof of these phone calls has not surfaced, nor have the names of these people who have yet to come forward publically and apparantly did not even wish to question things like, "will our school receive any money if we agree?" 

At the 12 schools that were on the original list, only 10 had people show up for the (T-mobile) meetings. The sign-in sheets from the meetings held between May 3 and May 11, 2011, obtained in an open record’s request this week show that only 110 people attended.

Question:  Even if we had an entire school turn out for one of these meetings, would it still qualify as a "public input meeting" as defined by the state law that requires the school board gain the input of the parents and community on issues of controversy?  Since the only people who did any talking were the T-mobile guys, wasn't this really just a sales pitch after the fact intended to reassure anyone who may have actually shown up?  People don't usually provide input into a decision immediately after watching a sales pitch while the sales person is still right there in the room.  So, these were really just meetings "to be informed" as the flyer suggested and not an opportunity to really influence the outcome.  AND, a quarom of board members must be present for a public meeting to take place.

The total number is incorrect if school officials actually signed themselves in on the total headcount provided below.  Crossroads reported that 3 members from the administrative staff plus the principal would have likely signed in at each meeting.  So, each total below should be adjusted to remove either 3 or 4 (if the principal attendeded or not) accordingly.

Princeton Elementary School meeting was scheduled for May 10, according to the original flyer that went home with children:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/86772448/58801355-Official-Notice-by-T-Mobile-and-DeKalb-County-School-Board.  And, if Womack and entourage signed in at all but 10 meetings, how did they manage to do that when many meetings took place on the same day and time?

Among those schools, Medlock Elementary in Decatur had the largest turnout with 55 people. It was followed by Jolly Elementary in Clarkston with 12 attendees. Six other schools had single-digit attendance of between three and nine people.

Medlock area parents had been approached early on in the process (and other PTAs have now admittd the same).  After saying no to the cell tower proposal, they soon learned their school had been closed.  Was this used as an example to keep the other school PTA's quiet? 

Medlock Elementary School had just been notified that their school was going to be closed so the turnout for the meeting was based on an activity neighborhood association wanting answers and finally having a public forum in which to address their board member on this issue. 

Also, worthy of noting that parents at schools with meetings that had already taken place were referred to attend one of the meetings on the last day, such as Medlock's meeting May 11.  These parents were unable to voice cell tower concerns because the meeting was mainly about Medlock's closing.

School district spokesman Walter Woods said there are no sign-in sheets for Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Lithonia and the Margaret Harris Center in Atlanta because no parents or residents showed up at either school.
 
Then why did Jay Cunningham discuss the meeting at length with a group of residents on Oct. 25, 2011, which was recorded and placed on YouTube here:  http://youtu.be/_BrYQJ2S3jg

Many people found out about the cell towers when the School Board voted 7-2 (vote was actually 6 - 2 - 1 as Chairman Tom Bowen was absent and did not vote).  last July to approve a proposal from T-Mobile USA Inc. (it is actually with T-Mobile South, a Delaware Limited Liability Company) to erect and operate the towers at six elementary schools, two high schools and a comprehensive school.

After parents complained about possible health risks from cell tower emissions, Brockett, Meadowview and Medlock elementary schools were removed from the list by their board members, Don McChesney and Sarah Copelin-Wood.

Actually, Brockett's board member was Paul Womack, although he has not acknowledged publically that his district includes Brockett.  And, none of these schools were removed from the list by their board members.  Super District Representative Pam Speaks was the only representative who brought up concerns spoken to her by Brockett Elementary.  All three of the schools removed were done so via a vote that took place at the July 11 board meeting on an ammendment proposed by board member Don McChestney. 

There is no public indication about exactly why these schools were removed or whether parents complained about possible health risks.  The lack of notification was one of the major complaints that the parents at Brockett tried to call to the attention of the board, as well as the fact that there would be a decline in property values, there was no need for improved service and that the towers would bring numerous safety concerns, not just health-related issues, with them.  You can read the full text of their objections, which was accompanied by a petition, here:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/64682982/Stop-Brockett-Cell-Towers-061311?in_collection=3301270

In wake of the vote, a vocal group of parents and residents from across the county tried unsuccessfully to get the School Board to reconsider. Opponents say turnout was low because parents and residents were unaware of the meetings. 

Yes, they were unaware because they were not announced.  A flyer went home that stated there would be a meeting held at the school by T-mobile to discuss the placement of towers in various locations in DeKalb County.  It did not state that the locations would actually be the schools themselves.  And, no one suggested anything else until after the meetings were held.
Documents obtained from the school district show that the notice was posted on the district’s public access television station and it’s website and that the flyer was sent to principals and to the DeKalb Delegation. There were no media notification in the package, but Woods said that media advisories were sent and several television stations covered the meetings.

While all this may be true, the notices all contained the misleading, very vauge wording that did not actually state the true intentions of placing cell towers on school grounds.  These notifications should not qualify as being proper notice because they are only stating to be regarding a meeting notice for residents "to be informed" about T-mobile's plans to place cell towers "in various locations in DeKalb County."  Unless you had T-mobile service at the time and wanted better coverage, this notice did not appear to be relevent to you.

CrossRoadsNews was not among the media notified even though seven of the schools are located in it core coverage and distribution area.

Media showed up for some of the events, but left when they saw there was little or no attendence.  We have confirmation from WSB-TV that they did not run a story about the meetings and, even if they did, it would have been too late for the story to serve as an alert to residents interested in attending.  We did find one news story about Medlock's school closing and the proposed cell tower that aired about a week prior to the school board vote, but it did not provide the names of any of the other schools that were on the list.  WSB-TV ran the Brockett story the Sunday night prior to the Monday, July 11 vote, too late for any other school to have used that as a means for alerting their communty and showing up in opposition.  FOX also ran a story on the day of the vote that highlighted Briarlake and Medlock, but was far too late for anyone against the idea to be able to alert others.

A DeKalb Delegation bill to ban cell towers on school properties in DeKalb died March 6 in a Georgia House committee. (still not sure how a bill can "die" when it has 17 of 19 local delegates who signed on in support and who collectively represent far more citizens in the county than the 2 who did not sign or the committe chairman who does not even live in DeKalb County.)  Its author, state Rep. Karla Drenner, advertised in the DeKalb legal organ this week a bill that would require the School Board to hold a nonbinding referendum before it approves any more cell towers on school property.

Sen. Jason Carter also is sponsoring a bill to require state and local governments to hold public hearings before leasing public property for nongovernmental and commercial purposes.
Thomas Bowen, who was School Board chairman when the vote was taken, (albeit absent conveniently from the meeting when the vote took place) said that if the board was to reconsider every decision it makes, it would never get the people’s business done.

“This is not a novel idea. Fulton and Cobb counties have cell towers. The board felt comfortable enough to vote for it.”  Yes, and the fact that their residents reacted the exact same way we did should show everyone that the board knew very well what it was doing, knew it would upset a lot of people and cause controversy, an did it anyway.  The major difference was that DeKalb was the first school district in the U.S. to consider cell towers AFTER the W.H.O. upgraded their emissions to the level of possible human carcinigen.

Bowen, who represents District 6, said the issue continues because of a small group of unhappy people.  He said that there are lots of people who want towers for the revenues and the access to 911 service.  We have well over 1,000 people all across the county who have signed petitions countywide stating that they are against this decision.  The only "small" part about it is that it is reflective of 9 school communities.  The more communities they try to do this to, the larger the outrage will be. 

Where are these "pro tower" people?  They didn't show up for the T-mobile meetings.  They didn't show up for the Drenner hearings (all three of them).  They didn't blog an alternate viewpoint on any websites.  They either don't exist or there are so few of them that no one has ever seen any of them in real life.  This is a figment of Tom Bowen's imagination or perhaps a story he and Womack like to chuckle over while they count their mmoney, but it is not and never was true. 

The comment about 911 is a line fed by T-mobile to throw the public off the subject.  Every single cell tower, by law, must carry the 911 service and dedicate a separate channel to it that cannot accept intereference from the commercial use of the towers.  All school towers proposed are in areas that have 30 or more (as many as 155) cell towers with 911 service that works on any phone, even if you do not have a current service provider!

Bowen said the low and no turnout was not that significant. “The attendance does vary on every issue. And from schools to school,” he said.

Why would it be insignificant?  What is this man talking about?  This was the very first and only meeting we can recall being held at the cafeteria that was not a PTA meeting.  Is he trying to say they do this for "every issue?"  And is her pretending like he really thought, at the time, that no one actually cared about something this huge that has been a huge controversy everywhere else it has been proposed and handled this way?
District 7 board member Donna Edler said they were unaware of the low turnout when they voted, but doesn’t know if it would have made a difference in the decision. Edler and District 1 board member Nancy Jester were the only board members who voted against the proposal.

Wait a minute... how could they be unaware of the attendance of meetings held in their own districts??  These are being touted as "public input meetings" where decisions were made about how the community felt about the tower proposal.  But, the board members are now stating that none of them actually attended any of the meetings?  Then how can it be considered public input?  Who were the attendees supposed to be giving their input to?  How can any of the board members claim to have known how their communities would have wanted them to vote if they didn't even show up to listen to their questions and gain their feedback? 

This is a violation of the Georgia Open Meetings Act which states that any public meetinig, esp. where decisions are made, must have a quarum of the board members present, meeting minutes must be taken and attendance records must be complete and accurate.  We don't have  any of these things - so therefore we do not have a public input meeting. 

This is a clear violation of law and should invalidate any contracts or agreements signed as a result.  T-mobile, therefore, does not have a legal lease of school properties.  Here is another great reason our county needs to reject any applications for permits.
Under the agreement, T-Mobile will pay the district more than $2.3 million in rent over 30 years and each of the schools’ PTSAs will get a $25,000 one-time payment and an additional $25,000 each time T-Mobile co-locates other providers on the towers.

Not true.  Per the February meeting of the Buget, Finance and Audit committee, the money all goes to the school district.  These other sums will not be paid directly by T-mobile to any group other than the school board.

For each lease, the school district, which signed contracts with T-Mobile on Dec. 8, 2011, will be paid $16,800 per year plus $4,800 for each provider that co-locates on the towers.

With co-location also comes more radiation and no accountability.  That's more contractors on school grounds, more liability isues, more traffic.
District 5 board member Jay Cunningham, whose district includes three of the schools – Narvie J. Harris and Flat Rock elementary and MLK Jr. High – said he didn’t know the number of meeting attendees when he voted but it’s time to move forward to other issues.

He didn't know that not only did he not show up for the meeting that he told everyone that he had attended, but no one else did, either?  Then why did he give details about the meeting and scold the residents in another meeting for not attending and leaving him to make the decision without their input.  And, at the school board meeting, he claimed they had meetings and everyone was in favor.

“We should have more people at meetings,” he said. “But I met with the parents at MLK and we have moved on. We are moving forward and waiting to see what the state Legislature does.”

Yes, we should, starting with the representative who is supposed to be holding the meeting.  No, they haven't moved on.  This isn't something you just come to terms with and accept.  And no matter how often you, or Cheryl Atkinson or Walter Woods tell us that it is time to move on, we will not do so until the tower proposal is dead - and T-mobile has moved on for good.