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

Smoke Rise Residents Reach Out to DeKalb's New Interim CEO on Cell Tower Issue

8/17/13:  Note to Our Readers:  Dr. Johanna Stamper is a research scientist in mathematical biology. She has been trained in cancer research and is very concerned that there would be any possibility of cell towers being placed at schools, especially elementary schools, in our county. She says that once she explains the science, the concerns of the people in her neighborhood became much more elevated.  

If you share the concerns of Dr. Stamper and Get the Cell Out, please take a few moments to email or call, at a minimum, the following people who are critical to this struggle:

• Director of Public Works, DeKalb County:
• Director of Planning and Sustainability, DeKalb County:
• Interim CEO of DeKalb County:
• Interim Superintendent of DeKalb County Schools:
• And your county commissioner, school board representatives and state legislators.

8/13/13

Dear Smoke Signal Editors,

Thank you for printing the Letter to the Editor in your August 2013 newspaper edition.  It was from a new Smoke Rise family that recently learned about the former school board's vote to approve cell towers for several schools in DeKalb County, including one at Smoke Rise Elementary School.  We applaud your publication for helping to educate and inform your community on this issue.

Thank you to Robert Stamper and Dr. Johanna Stamper for stepping up to inform your new community of Smoke Rise about what you learned about the dangers of cell towers and encouraging them to contact their elected officials!  We have reprinted a letter to the editor written by Dr. Stamper which was published in the August 2013 edition of the Smoke Signal, a local newsletter for the residents in the Smoke Rise community.

We also thank the Smoke Rise Homeowners' Association for sending Virginia Reece as their representative to the Tucker Parent Council meeting at Brockett Elementary School at the end of the last school year.  We appreciate her comments and efforts to educate the Smoke Rise community and others in DeKalb who heard her dialogue with the Interim Superintendent Thurmond.

We have listed some contact details here in order to assist your efforts.  As Dr. Stamper noted, it is very important for the residents near any of the proposed school cell tower sites to voice their concerns to Commissioner Lee May as he is now the acting CEO of our county.

The county commissioners have all stated they would uphold the codes at the time, but those codes are now in a review process.  Don't let the cell tower companies slip changes past you that could lead to a tower being built without community input.

We hope you will visit our website, www.GETtheCELLoutATL.org, to keep up to date on this issue.  We want to remind your readers that when they email or speak to their local government officials, it is important to mention concern for ALL the schools in DeKalb County and ALL the children.  The safety of the children must come as the highest priority above anything else.  Our leaders need to know that this is one issue that cannot be used to pit communities against one another.  On this topic, we will not be divided.

Thanks Smoke Rise residents for being GOOD NEIGHBORS!

--- Get the Cell Out Atlanta

Please leave respectful comments below:

Don't Let 'Em Fool Ya

GTCO-ATL followers are reporting to us that 8 of 9 approved cell tower schools have received money recently for their cell phone towers even though the contracts expired last year.  The only school that reported to have wanted a cell tower is the only one that appears to not be getting one (Lakeside High School).  In addition, its feeder school and around the corner neighbor Briarlake does not appear to have an FCC license which is necessary for transmission and is the first step toward filing for a permit.

School communities affected by this recent news:

1. Jolly Elementary, Clarkston
2. Smoke Rise Charter Elementary, Stone Mountain/Tucker
3. MLK High School, Lithonia
4. Princeton Elementary, Redan
5. Narvie J. Harris Elementary, Decatur (South) (Panthersville Stadium)
6. Margaret Harris Comprehensive School, Atlanta
7. Flat Rock Elementary, Lithonia

School communities possibly affected by this recent news:

1. Briarlake Elementary, Decatur (North)
2. Lakeside High School, Atlanta

School communities previously on the list, but later removed:

1. Brockett Elementary, Tucker
2. Medlock Elementary, Decatur / Toco Hills
3. Meadowview Elemetnary, Decatur (South)

We will have more information to assist you in the next steps of this cell tower process in the days ahead.  In the meantime, do not forget that the residents of DeKalb County have voted and the majority of them have said that they are behind you.  They do not want these towers, no matter what anyone else says.

Here is a look at how that question was answered on the July ballot.


Should the DeKalb County School System Operate or Place Telecommunications Towers on the property of any elementary, middle, high or charter school?  YES or NO?

*  Results based on July 2012 voter referendum results.

Overall total:  62% NO  (More than 75,000 voters)

2012 Polling Area         YES NO
Allgood         33 67
Ashford Dunwoody Rd. 49 51
Ashford Park Ele.         48 52
Ashford Parkside 49 51
Austin         52 48
Austin Drive         30 70
Avondale                 48 52
Avondale High         42 58
Bethune Middle 26 74
Bouldercrest Rd. 33 67
Boulevard                 39 61
Briar Vista Elem. 53 47
Briarcliff                 40 60
Briarlake Elem.         39 61
Briarwood         45 55
Brockett         38 62
Brockett Elem.         39 61
Brookhaven         47 53
Browns Mill Elem.         23 77
Burgess Elem.         40 60
Canby Lane Elem.         24 76
Candler         36 64
Cand-Mur Candler Elem. 34 66
Cedar Grove Elem.         26 74
Cedar Grove Middle    27 73
Cedar Grove South         27 73
Chamblee                 47 53
Chapel Hill Elem 29 71
Chesnut Elem         45 55
Clairemont East 45 55
Clairemont West 41 59
Clairmont Hills         41 59
Clarkston                 33 67
Clifton Elem.         26 74
Coan Middle         43 57
Columbia Middle 28 72
Coralwood         48 52
Covington                 47 53
Covington Hwy Library 27 73
Cross Keys High 49 51
Crossroads         27 73
Doraville North         48 52
Doraville South         38 62
Dresden Elem         50 50
Druid Hills High 48 52
Dunaire Elem         36 64
Dunwoody         55 45
Dunwoody Elem. 48 52
Dunwoody Library         53 47
East Lake Elem. 41 59
Embry Hills         51 49
Emory Road         39 61
Emory South         50 50
Epworth         40 60
Evansdale Elem. 46 54
Fairington Elem. 28 72
Fernbank Elem. 49 51
Flakes Mill Fire Station 27 73
Flat Rock Elem. 25 75
Flat Shoals         29 71
Flat Shoals Elem.         28 72
Flat Shoals Library         26 74
Flat Shoals Parkway         25 75
Freedom Middle 29 71
Georgetown Square         51 49
Glenhaven                 31 69
Glennwood         48 52
Gresham Road         30 70
Hambrick Elem. 34 66
Harris-Marg Ed. 46 54
Harris-Narvie Elem.         29 71
Hawthorne Elem. 48 52
Henderson Mill Elem. 51 49
Hugh Howell         43 57
Huntley Hills Elem.         46 54
Idlewood Elem. 40 60
Indian Creek Elem.         36 64
Johnson Estates 47 53
Jolly Elem.         37 63
Kelley Chapel Road         26 74
Kelley Lake Elem.         29 71
King-ML King Jr. High 28 72
Kingsley Elem         53 47
Kittredge                 51 49
Knollwood Elem 35 65
Lakeside High         51 49
Lavista           52 48
Lavista Road         49 51
Lin-Mary Lin Elem         49 51
Lithonia         25 75
Lithonia High         31 69
Livsey Elem.         45 55
Marbut         27 73
Marhut Elem         27 73
Mathis-Bob Mathis Elem 23 77
McLendon         42 58
McNair Academy         33 67
McWilliams           24 76
Meadowview Elem.         29 71
Memorial North 34 66
Memorial South 27 73
Methropolitan         39 61
Midvale Elem.         46 54
Midvale Road         46 54
Midway Elem.         38 62
Miller Grove High         28 72
Miller Grove Middle         28 72
Miller Grove Road         25 75
Miller-Eld. Elem.         28 72
Montclair Elem. 34 63
Montreal                 41 59
Mr. Vernon East 57 43
North Decatur         44 56
North Hairston         34 66
North Peachtree 45 55
Northlake                 31 69
Oak Grove Elem. 52 48
Oak View Elem 29 72
Oakcliff Elem.         49 51
Oakhurst                 40 60
Panola         28 72
Panola Road         19 81
Panola Way Elem.         29 71
Peachcrest Elem. 29 71
Peachtree  Middle         47 53
Pine Lake                 46 54
Piney Grove         42 58
Pleasantdale Elem.         48 52
Ponce DeLeon         41 59
Princeton Elem.         31 69
Rainbow Elem.         29 71
Redan Elem.         31 69
Redan Middle         31 69
Redan Road         28 72
Redan-Trotti Library         27 73
Rehoboth                 37 63
Renfroe Middle         42 58
Rock Chapel Elem.         28 72
Rock Chapel Road         26 74
Rockbridge Elem.         36 64
Rockbridge Road 29 71
Rowland Elem.         31 69
Rowland Road         33 67
Sagamore Hills Elem. 47 53
Salem Middle         26 74
Scott         36 64
Shadow Rock Elem         31 69
Shamrock                 42 58
Shaw-Robert Shaw Elem. 39 61
Silver Lake         51 49
Skyland         43 57
Smoke Rise Elem 44 56
Snapfinger Road South 25 75
Snapfinget Road North 32 68
South Deshon         28 72
South Hairston         28 72
Stephenson High 30 70
Stephenson Middle         27 73
Stone Mill Elem. 32 68
Stone Mtn. Chapmion 31 69
Stone Mountain Elem. 39 61
Stone Mountain Library 31 69
Stone Mountain Middle 32 68
Stoneview Elem. 27 73
Terry Mill Elem. 32 68
Tilly Mill Road         52 48
Toney Elem.         29 71
Tucker         43 57
Tucker Library         39 61
Valley Brook         39 61
Wadsworth Elem.         30 70
Warren Tech.         51 49
Wesley Chapel Library 23 77
White Oak         29 71
Winnona Park Elem         38 62
Winters Chapel         55 45
Woodbridge Elem.         27 73
Woodrow Road 28 72
Woodward Elem. 49 51
Wynbrooke Elem 27 73
Young Road         31 69

YOUTUBE VIDEO: The Trashy Side to Lakeside

The housing market in Atlanta has taken a hit, like most areas of the country, but the pricey homes near Lakeside High School have managed to maintain their value and, in some cases, even increase. Ever wonder how?

Real estate agents might tell you that it is due to their well-known high school, Lakeside.
But, as this video suggests, perhaps the inflated home values are the result of "McMansions" being built on lots far too small for them.

It's a builders way of preserving a declining home market in a bad economy. The high priced homes infused into reasonable priced neighborhoods makes every home value in the area go up, whether the actual buildings next to the McMansions are actually worth it or not.

The home buyers are told the school is the reason. But when construction plans fell short due to abuse of taxpayer funds, the boosters devised a plan to "finish the dream." It involves claiming to want a cell tower while knowing they would never get one. Then sticking 8 other nearby schools with them, thus lowering the appeal of those neighborhoods while you rake in all the money through an agreement you've made with your school board member and the cell tower company.

It appears there is one thing that is available on a more "equal opportunity" basis in Atlanta than education - is the corruption.  Thankfully, the trials of Crawford Lewis, Pat Pope Reid and Tony Pope are expected to begin this September.  Perhaps the outcome could signal the end of an era, and the beginning of something better.




Before anyone provides feedback, please understand that this video is not intended to offend anyone who lives near Lakeside or attends school there.  We love the area.  We have friends who live nearby.  We think they should feel the same way we do. 

In fact, even the folks at the Yahoo news group must have similar questions.  Check out this story, titled "The American Dream is a Myth."

We don't want to harm anyone's neighborhood.  And, we don't think the ordinary citzens who live near Lakeside would want that, either. 

Instead of allowing corruption to ruin our schools, which harms everyone's property values, we need to vote the most responsible school board members into office and weed out the ones who are pitting us against each other.

Let's take matters into our own hands.  We can apply for the SPLOST oversight committee!  We can encourage responsible people to run for the school board (in two years) and we can vote for the best choices availabe on July 31.  We can vote NO on the cell tower question.

We can speak up at board meetings, but not just for our own schools.  Let's start speaking out for the sake of ALL our schools and ALL our neighborhoods. 

We can encourage others to vote.  Talk about the important issues.  Make a difference.  Do the right thing instead of trying to help those who are digging themselves in deeper, we should take a step back and look at our own behavior.  Let's be role models for our children and show them the way things SHOULD work. 

Let's leave a legacy that will make them proud of us!

[ ] YES             “Should the local or independent school system of DeKalb County or a charter   
                          school in DeKalb County place or operate a telecommunications tower on any
[ ] NO                elementary, middle, or high school property?"

VOTE NO!  VOTE NO!  VOTE NO!  VOTE NO!

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.

Congress Asked to Investigate Marketing of Mobile Phones to Children

Children's Advocates Ask Congress to

Investigate the Marketing of

Mobile Phones to Kids

In 2005, privacy, consumer and childrens advocates sent letters today to key Members of Congress, asking them to investigate the marketing and sale of mobile phones to children, and their effects on children’s privacy, education, safety and health.

The letters were written and organized by Commercial Alert, and sent to all members of the commerce committees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The letter follows.

It is important to note that after this letter and other forms of protest were heard across the country, Sprint and Walt Disney backed away from its children's line of phones.  But, today the industry may begin pushing the envelope again as the proliferation of cell phone towers at schools makes the children who are inside those schools tempting targets for marketing efforts as they already have a technology-ready facility and simply need someone to place the products in their tiny hands. 

We, as parents, teachers, guardians and responsible adults need to stand firm in our efforts to protect the children and not allow ourselves to fall victim to the persuasive messages that are everywhere in our own environment.  We need to remain alert to the messages the children are seeing and help them understand the difference between perception and reality.

July 16, 2005

Dear Members of Congress:

On July 6th, the Walt Disney Internet Group and Sprint announced their intention to offer wireless telephone service to children 8-12 years of age.

This was just the latest in what is emerging as an industry trend. Earlier this year, Firefly Mobile enlisted 100,000 children for their mobile phone service. Enfora has announced plans to offer mobile phone service targeting children as young as six years of age. This fall, Wherify is planning to offer a “Wherifone” for children with built-in Global Positioning System (GPS) location tracking. In August, Mattel is expected to market Barbie-branded mobile phones. Hasbro is preparing its own mobile phone for children, too, called “Chat Now.”

The targeting of young children as the next growth market for the telecom industry is one of the worst ideas to appear in the American economy in a long time. Does anyone really believe that kids today lack sufficient distractions from their school work, that there are insufficient disruptions in the home, and that child predators and advertisers lack sufficient means of access to kids?

If the Disney Corporation and the others just wanted to give children a way to contact parents in emergencies, that would be one thing. The telecommunications companies—to parents at least—are playing up this angle. Telecommunications lobbyists in Washington will harp on it as well.
But despite the industrys rhetoric, Disney and the telecommunications companies really want to use children as conduits to their parents’ wallets. And marketers want another way to bypass parents and speak directly to the nations children.

Already, marketers are leaping to send advertisements via mobile phones. For example, Advertising Age reported on July 11th that many corporations, including McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Timex, are moving “from small [mobile phone advertising] tests to all-out campaign[s].” Children already are bombarded with too much advertising. They don’t need more advertising through their mobile phones, whether it is telemarketing, text message marketing, adver-games, or any other type of commercial messages.

Before the telecommunications industry declares “open season” upon the children of this country, we urge you to investigate and make absolutely certain that the industry has answers to the following questions.

Child Predators. Will adults other than parents be able to contact children through these phones, without the permission of parents? What about sexual predators, convicted criminals, etc.?

Disclosure of Children’s Whereabouts. For mobile phones to work, telecommunications companies must know where their customersҒ phones are. Will anyone other than the childs parents, law enforcement officials and telecommunications companies be able to track the physical location of the child’s mobile phone?

Interruptions in School and Church. Will the mobile phones cause disruptions and distractions in church and school, or will they be designed not to function in such locations? The potential for disruption here affects not just the individual child, but every child in the group in question.

Runaway Billing. Will parents have absolute control over billing and charges, so that no charges can be incurred without the parents specific prior consent? This includes charges for regular and special services, 888 numbers, and the rest.

Children’s Health. Children are vulnerable in ways that adults are not, physically as well as emotionally. In January, the British National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) issued a report, titled “Mobile Phones and Health,” which warned about the possibility that mobile phones could cause benign tumors of the ear and brain. The NRPB recommended that parents not give mobile phones to children under eight years of age, that older children should limit their use of mobile phones, and that “the mobile phone industry should refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children.”

Upon release of the report, NRPB Chairman Sir William Stewart said, “I don’t think we can put our hands on our hearts and say mobile phones are safe.”

He also said that “If there are risks, and we think there may be risks, then the people who are going to be most affected are children, and the younger the child, the greater the danger.”

How has the U.S. mobile phone industry factored this warning into its service plans? Can it guarantee that children will suffer no adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones? If not, then why is it offering mobile phones to children? Is the industry willing to take full responsibility for the effects of its phones upon childrens' health?

The move to put mobile phones into the hands of children as young as six years old is not a decision to take lightly. It opens up a plethora of problems, not just for the children with the phones but for schools, churches, families and classmates as well.

Now is the time to pause, investigate and consider. Once the phones are in classrooms, playrooms, and in children’s bedrooms, it will be too late. Already we read with grim regularity of children molested by predators who contacted them over the Internet. We read of children who cannot focus their own attention even for short times. We hope we will not now read about children abducted by adults who seduced them through mobile phones, and of school rooms that cannot function because of mobile phones that ring constantly, just because Congress did not stand up and act.

Sincerely,

Joan Almon, Coordinator, Alliance for Childhood
Michael Brody, MD, Chair, Television and Media Committee, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Brita Butler-Wall, PhD. Executive Director, Citizens’ Campaign for Commercial-Free Schools
Angela Campbell, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Raffi Cavoukian, D.Mus., D.Litt., founder of Child Honoring, singer, author, ecology advocate
Nathan Dungan, author, Prodigal Sons and Material Girls: How Not to Be Your Child’s ATM
Leon Eisenberg, MD, Professor of Social Medicine Emeritus, Harvard Medical School
Henry A. Giroux, PhD, Waterbury Chair Professor in Secondary Education, College of Education, Pennsylvania State University; author, Stealing Innocence: Corporate Culture’s War on Children
Susan Grant, Vice President, Public Policy, National Consumers League
Nicholas Johnson, Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Carden Johnston, MD, FAAP, FRCP, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics, University of Alabama School of Medicine
Tim Kasser, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology. Knox College; author, The High Price of Materialism
Jean Kilbourne, author, Can’t Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel
Diane Levin, PhD, Professor of Education, Wheelock College; author, Remote Control Childhood?: Combating the Hazards of Media Culture
Susan Linn, EdD, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; Co-founder, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; author, Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood
Robert W. McChesney, PhD, Research Professor, Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Founder and President, Free Press; author, The Problem of the Media
Bob McCannon, Founder and Executive Director, New Mexico Media Literacy Project; Vice President & Co-founder, Action Coalition for Media Education
Ken McEldowney, Executive Director, Consumer Action
Jim Metrock, President, Obligation, Inc.
Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG)
Mark Crispin Miller, PhD, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University
Diane M. Morrison, PhD, Professor & Associate Dean for Research, University of Washington School of Social Work
Peggy O’Mara, Editor and Publisher, Mothering Magazine
Alvin F. Poussaint, MD, Professor of Psychiatry and Faculty Associate Dean for Student Affairs, Harvard Medical School
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Hugh Rank, University Professor Emeritus, Governors State University; author, Persuasion Analysis and The Pitch
Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
Juliet Schor, PhD, Professor of Sociology, Boston College; author, Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture
Remar Sutton, Founder, The Privacy Rights Now Coalition
Victor Strasburger, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, Chief, Division of Adolescent Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine; co-author, Children, Adolescents, & the Media

< ------------letter ends here----------------->


For more information about the marketing of mobile phones, see our web page on mobile phones.
Commercial Alert is a nonprofit organization based in Portland, Oregon. Our mission is to keep the commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting the higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy. For more information, see our website at: http://www.commercialalert.org.

Dear Commissioner Elaine Boyer,

(click headline to read full text of this letter)

Original email dated Sept. 14, 2011

Dear Commissioner Boyer,

I am contacting you on behalf of a group of concerned citizens, parents, homeowners, taxpayers, residents, association members and business owners.  Our group covers every demographic category and the full span of this county, from the South, Central andd North Regions.  We have assisted with lobbying the school board to remove three schools prior to their vote on cell towers on school grounds back in July.  At that time, we were all told that the other schools would have an opportunity to address the zoning issues during the public comment portion of their Special Land Use permitting hearing.  We have now been told the school board is claiming exemption to this entire process, but no one has cited any case law to back up their claim.

(Get the Cell Out, by the way, has cited case law to various members of the commission that shows that the school exemption does NOT apply when the property being leased will be used for proprietary purposes.)

We are very concerned about the recent actions of the School Board, which they took while the Interim Superintendent was in place, and without following their own rules of conduct which require them to hold a public forum and consider the input of their communities before voting.  This has not happened and their own vice-chair Paul Womack has admitted that the notice was not sufficient during a meeting at Briarlake Elementary.

A partial transcript of that meeting is available on the DeKalb School Watch Blog.  Mr. Womack's comments are very shocking as he bluntly tells the parents that the school board did not put up signs, and they did not knock on the doors of the residents immediately surronding the school's property.  He claims they used other media outlets, but this is a misleading statement.  The AJC article being referenced was not published until after all the meetings had already been held, except the three schools that were scheduled for the last day of meetings.  WSB-TV has found no record of anything airing on their station except for a story the night prior to the July vote, but that story was initiated by us and was not an announcement of any meetings.  It was a story about our efforts to get the word out ourselves because the school board had not done it themselves.

We are counting on you to get this information into the right hands so that the county can consider it and take appropriate action.  Please do not let these cell towers go up if you are not certain the decision has been made following the letter of the law.  T-mobile has been known to start construction without required permits and will build towers that are not up to code.  Specifically, the base of these towers is not planned to be up to the Rev-G standard the is necessary to ensure stability in high wind conditions.  This should be of particular concern when you think about the fact that they want to put the towers with "fall zones" that include schools and homes. 

They have not proven that their towers will comply with the regulations necessary for respect of airspace since they will be near the DeKalb-Peachtree airport.  They have not shown anyone that they will respect the necessary setback requirements and they have not given anyone their plans for the cabinet or building structures that will be at the base of the towers or the fencing planned that will have to be sufficient to deter children from getting into the restricted area and trying to climb the towers.  Please remember, many elementary school children do not read or are just learning to read.  Typcial warnings on cell towers will not have any meaning to them and we have heard no plans for how they will be training anyone on staff at the school about what to do in an emergency or what to tell the children to ensure they understand the dangers. 

During the meeting at Brairlake, Mr. Womack even admitted that he did not carefully read the contract.  Did anyone?  How can we allow HAZMAT materials and a dangerous, tall industrial structure to violate the very essense of our zoning codes without questioning whether these leases are even legal and the structures will be sound?  And, if there is truly nothing to worry about, then why isn't anyone coming forward to tell us that? 

We are not involved in this issue because it is interesting to us.  We are involved because we feel we are being compelled to do so because of the lack of knowledge, accountability, interest or even minimal response we are so far getting from anyone and everyone we would expect should be wanting to protect us, the taxpayers, the ones who have elected all of you for the specific purpose of representing us. 

We don't know anyone who wants these towers.  So, who exactly is being represented and what do we need to do to show you that there are a lot more people on our side than they have on theirs?

Sincerely,

Get the Cell Out - Atlanta

Please visit our Facebook page, www.facebook.com/Get.the.Cell.Out.ATL, currently at 10,184 page views for this month alone, up 167% from this time last month.

NOTE:  The RF Emissions Report submitted by T-mobile to the school board is dated 2009 and is certified by someone in Colorado, not Gerogia.  The pole document is from Fulton County and the mount evaluation does not meet current safety codes.  We are not experts, but these were all errors that were easy for us to spot.  If you are looking at an application, we are sure you will see many more issues that concern you as well.