Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Wall Street Journal Announces Cell Phone Cancer Link
U.S. Studies using rats, costing $25 million dollars, leaves no room for debate. The most comprehensive study that has ever been conducted. Exposed for 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off intervals for 9 hours per day to mimic what humans are exposed to daily. Tumors in the brain and around the heart were definitely linked to the exposure.
Expert in clip states:
"You can't say these are perfectly safe."
"This calls into question the previous standards that were based on thermal effects only."
Thursday, July 21, 2016
U.S. True "Causitive" Study Links RF and Cancer
GTCO-ATL followers: Ever wonder if you supported the right side in the debate over whether DeKalb County should take money to place cell phone towers next to young children on their own public school campuses, in the middle of their neighborhoods? Well, if so, you can rest assured that you did the right thing by speaking up for the children in our county and now science is on your side, too. The more research being done on this subject, the more science is siding with you. And this time, the study was conducted to the top level of controls, with plenty of funds to cover the expenses and it was done in the U.S. Here is how things worked out....
Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions
Exposure to radio-frequency radiation linked to tumor formation in rats
Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25-million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation starting in utero, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats. The results, which were posted on a prepublication Web site run by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, are poised to reignite controversy about how such everyday exposure might affect human health.
Researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, led the study. They chronically exposed rodents to carefully calibrated radio-frequency (RF) radiation levels designed to roughly emulate what humans with heavy cell phone use or exposure could theoretically experience in their daily lives. The animals were placed in specially built chambers that dosed their whole bodies with varying amounts and types of this radiation for approximately nine hours per day throughout their two-year life spans. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans,” says Christopher Portier, a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist. “There will have to be a lot of work after this to assess if it causes problems in humans, but the fact that you can do it in rats will be a big issue. It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert.”
More than 90 percent of American adults use cell phones. Relatively little is known about their safety, however, because current exposure guidelines are based largely on knowledge about acute injury from thermal effects, not long-term, low-level exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. But data from human studies has been “inconsistent,” the NTP has said on its website. Such studies are also hampered by the realities of testing in humans, such as recall bias—meaning cancer patients have to try to remember their cell phone use from years before, and how they held their handsets. Those data gaps prompted the NTP to engage in planning these new animal studies back in 2009.
The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose–response relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.
In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure.”
Researchers at the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, led the study. They chronically exposed rodents to carefully calibrated radio-frequency (RF) radiation levels designed to roughly emulate what humans with heavy cell phone use or exposure could theoretically experience in their daily lives. The animals were placed in specially built chambers that dosed their whole bodies with varying amounts and types of this radiation for approximately nine hours per day throughout their two-year life spans. “This is by far—far and away—the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment. This is a classic study that is done for trying to understand cancers in humans,” says Christopher Portier, a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist. “There will have to be a lot of work after this to assess if it causes problems in humans, but the fact that you can do it in rats will be a big issue. It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert.”
More than 90 percent of American adults use cell phones. Relatively little is known about their safety, however, because current exposure guidelines are based largely on knowledge about acute injury from thermal effects, not long-term, low-level exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2011 classified RF radiation as a possible human carcinogen. But data from human studies has been “inconsistent,” the NTP has said on its website. Such studies are also hampered by the realities of testing in humans, such as recall bias—meaning cancer patients have to try to remember their cell phone use from years before, and how they held their handsets. Those data gaps prompted the NTP to engage in planning these new animal studies back in 2009.
The researchers found that as the thousands of rats in the new study were exposed to greater intensities of RF radiation, more of them developed rare forms of brain and heart cancer that could not be easily explained away, exhibiting a direct dose–response relationship. Overall, the incidence of these rare tumors was still relatively low, which would be expected with rare tumors in general, but the incidence grew with greater levels of exposure to the radiation. Some of the rats had glioma—a tumor of the glial cells in the brain—or schwannoma of the heart. Furthering concern about the findings: In prior epidemiological studies of humans and cell phone exposure, both types of tumors have also cropped up as associations.
In contrast, none of the control rats—those not exposed to the radiation—developed such tumors. But complicating matters was the fact that the findings were mixed across sexes: More such lesions were found in male rats than in female rats. The tumors in the male rats “are considered likely the result of whole-body exposure” to this radiation, the study authors wrote. And the data suggests the relationship was strongest between the RF exposure and the lesions in the heart, rather than the brain: Cardiac schwannomas were observed in male rats at all exposed groups, the authors note. But no “biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.” Based on these findings, Portier said that this is not just an associated finding—but that the relationship between radiation exposure and cancer is clear. “I would call it a causative study, absolutely. They controlled everything in the study. It’s [the cancer] because of the exposure.”
Read the full article here.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Monday, September 16, 2013
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
Friday, July 5, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Company Agrees to Relocate 300 Cell Towers Due to Health Complaints
GTCO-ATL Notes: As our county commissioners determine how to please the public without feeling the wrath of the telecommunications industry, this article from India seemed to be very appropriate. A large telecom there is being forced to take down 300 towers and relocate them outside of any residentially-zoned communities.
Just like we told you when Canada started paying to have the wireless in their schools ripped out while we were just beginning the discussion about whether or not to put wireless technology into our schools, it's high time our elected officials start paying attention to the fact that there is a whole big world out there. They don't have to decide everything while living in a vacuum. Most of the things happening to us here have already happened to others elsewhere.
It only takes a short moment to find stories, like the one below, where the "bad ideas" we all know should not be made, but government makes them anyway, turn out and bite us in the end.
We either need better elected officials, or we need a full time research staff that can advise them of how their brilliant ideas have worked (or not) elsewhere before they just plow straight ahead.
MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013
 |
| Author: Nina Kuhmar |
NOIDA TO RELOCATE 300 MOBILE TOWERS
In the wake of health risk posed by mobile phone towers, the Noida Authority has decided to relocate all such antennas from residential areas of the city. The authority will identify locations in isolated places — far from residential colonies — where they will be relocated.There are over 300 such towers that need to be relocated. The recent move of the authority has been initiated after court's direction to allocate mobile towers at isolated locations rather than sealing them.
The officials of the Noida Authority said that earlier they had planned to seal illegal towers, but they are working now on the guidelines of Allahabad High Court, which has ordered to shift all such towers from residential sectors to other places.
 |
| A building in India will soon have to take its towers down as residents of nearby apartments prepare to file lawsuits stating their health issues were caused by their living conditions. |
In a meeting of senior officials of the Noida Authority recently, the officials planned to shift these towers either to community centers at various sectors or at sparse places so radiation from these towers could not affect the local people.
The officials also decided to stop mobile tower operators from installing more towers in residential areas as city already has around 600 mobile towers for the population of seven lakh. During the meeting, it was also planned to eliminate towers installed atop hospital and institutional buildings.
According to the survey conducted by the Noida authority and city police last year, it was found that out of 600 mobile towers, 300 towers were illegally installed on the roofs of residential units. Twenty per cent of the towers have been illegally installed over institutional and hospital buildings.
In a 2010 sealing drive initiated by the authority, 200 towers were sealed from residential areas. Meanwhile, the Federation of Noida Residents Welfare Association (FoNRWA) has also written to Noida authority seeking removal of mobile towers from the roofs of residential units.
“As residents are suffering from various health disorders due to high radiation from these towers, we have urged the competent authority to take penal action against the companies responsible for their wrongdoing,” said NP Singh, president of FoNRWA.
Please leave respectful comments below:
Monday, February 4, 2013
Is the U.S. in Denial? Italian Supreme Court Says Cell Phones Can Cause Cancer
Italian Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Can Cause Cancer
This significant ruling may change everything you thought you knew about the safety of wireless.
What are the implications of this ruling for the United States?
Contrary to the denials of many heath agencies in the U.S. and in some other countries, the Italian Supreme Court has recognized a “causal” link between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumor risk in a worker’s compensation case.
The Italian courts dismissed research co-financed by the mobile phone industry including the WHO Interphone study due to concerns about conflict of interest. Instead, the courts relied on independent research conducted by Lennart Hardell and his colleagues in Sweden which showed consistent evidence of increased brain tumor risk associated with long term mobile phone use.
The business executive had used a cell phone for business, holding it on the same side of his head for 5-7 hours per day, for many years, before learning he had a brain tumor. He had very few other risk factors and no family history of cancer. He filed a Worker's Compensation Claim. It was denied. He sued and won. And now, the Supreme Court has upheld the decision made by the lower court.
The business executive had used a cell phone for business, holding it on the same side of his head for 5-7 hours per day, for many years, before learning he had a brain tumor. He had very few other risk factors and no family history of cancer. He filed a Worker's Compensation Claim. It was denied. He sued and won. And now, the Supreme Court has upheld the decision made by the lower court.
On May 31, 2011, just after the DeKalb School Board had announced their intentions to put cell phone towers at 12 school campuses, but before they actually took a vote, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified radiofrequency energy, including cell phone radiation, as “possibly carcinogenic” in humans. The 31 researchers convened by the WHO, considered to be among the very best in the world, relied heavily upon the Hardell research as well.
Are they hiding the truth from us?
It has been noted by many experts that research co-financed by the telecom industry over the past decade has been unlikely to report evidence of tumor risk. In addition, industry-funded research has been reported to use methodology that is substandard compared to independently-funded research. Moreover, in more recently published research, authors of studies co-financed by the industry have dismissed the evidence of increased brain tumor risk they found in children as well as adults.
This issue raises concerns that conflicts of interest may have affected the conduct of the research and biased the reporting of it. Governments need to find a way to fund cell phone radiation research that is independent of the telecom industry in order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Since there are now more than 330 million cell phone subscribers in the U.S., an annual fee of only 50 cents on each cell phone would generate sufficient resources to fund high quality, independent research. Then, the government and the industry could work together to promote safer technology development and fund community education programs about safer cell phone use.
Although 12 nations and the European Union have issued precautionary health warnings regarding mobile phone use, the U.S. has been in denial. The Telecom industry has blocked numerous attempts to pass cell phone warning legislation at the Federal, state, and city level. The industry even refused to support a bill in the California legislature by Senator Mark Leno that would simply remind consumers to read the safety information that is currently printed in their cell phone user manuals.
Only one city has been able to overcome intense lobbying by the Telecom industry. San Francisco adopted cell phone “right to know” legislation two years ago, but the Telecom industry (i.e., CTIA-The Wireless Association) blocked implementation of this law by filing a lawsuit claiming that the court-approved fact sheet violates the industry’s First Amendment rights. The CTIA also moved its annual conference from San Francisco to punish the city.
The evidence of harm from cell phone radiation has been increasing so it is only a matter of time before lawsuits filed in U.S. courts by cell phone radiation victims will be successful. The Insurance industry will not provide product liability insurance due to concerns that juries will find that the Telecom industry has behaved much like the Tobacco and Asbestos industries. So the Telecom industry could be faced with paying huge damages to individuals and governments.
What the Telecom Industry Could Do ...
What the Telecom Industry Could Do ...
The Telecom industry could become good corporate citizens, reduce potential product liability and protect consumers’ health by allowing the FCC to adopt stronger regulations, by promoting precautionary safety warnings and by encouraging government to support independent research to promote safer wireless technologies.
Otherwise taxpayers may be forced to bail out yet another industry too big to fail.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
BioInitiative 2012 Report: New, Urgent Warnings About Wireless and EMF Public Health Risks
BioInitiative 2012 Report*: new urgent warnings on wireless and EMF public health risks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(click headline for full summary)
A new updated BioInitiative 2012 Report says that evidence for risks to health has substantially increased since 2007 from electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technologies (radio-frequency radiation).
The report reviews more than 1,800 new scientific studies and includes 29 independent science and medical experts from around the world.
AT PARTICULAR RISK:
- Cell phone users
- Parents-to-be
- Young children and
- Pregnant women
Summary of Key Scientific Evidence:
- Evidence for Damage to Sperm and Reproduction
- Evidence that Children are More Vulnerable
- Evidence for Fetal and Neonatal Effects
- Evidence for Effects on Autism (Autism Spectrum Disorders)
- Evidence for Electrohypersensitivity
- Evidence for Effects from Cell Tower-Level RFR Exposures
- Evidence for Effects on the Blood-brain Barrier
- Evidence for Effects on Brain Tumors
- Evidence for Effects on Genes (Genotoxicity)
- Evidence for Effects on the Nervous System (Neurotoxicity)
- Evidence for Effects on Cancer (Childhood Leukemia, Adult Cancers)
- Melatonin, Breast Cancer and Alzheimer's Disease
- Stress, Stress Proteins and DNA as a Fractal Antenna
- Effects of Weak-Field Interactions on Non-Linear Biological Oscillators and Synchronized Neural Activity
- Cell and cordless phones linked to cancer
Lennart Hardell, MD at Orebro University, Sweden says,"There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma (a malignant brain tumor) and acoustic neuroma with use of mobile and cordless phones."
He further states:
"Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a human carcinogen. The existing FCC/IEE and ICNIRP public safety limits and reference levels are not adequate to protect public health."
Reproductive Damage
A dozen new studies link cell phone radiation to sperm damage. Even a cell phone in the pocket or on a belt may harm sperm DNA, result in misshapen sperm, and impair fertility in men. Laptop computers with wireless internet connections can damage DNA in sperm.
Link to Autism
Based on strong evidence for vulnerable biology in autism, EMF/RFR can plausibly increase autism risk and symptoms. "While we aggressively investigate the links between autism disorders and wireless technologies, we should minimize wireless and EMF exposures for people with autism disorders, children of all ages, people planning a baby, and during pregnancy," says Martha Herbert, MD, PhD.
Vulnerability in Pregnant Women
Wireless devices such as phones and laptops used by pregnant women may alter brain development of the fetus. This has been linked in both animal and human studies to hyperactivity, learning and behavior problems.
Children Must Be Protected
There is good evidence to suggest that many toxic exposures to the fetus and very young child have especially detrimental consequences depending on when they occur during critical phases of growth and development (time windows of critical development), where such exposures may lay the seeds of health harm that develops even decades later. Existing FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits seem to be not sufficiently protective of public health, in particular for the young (embryo, fetus, neonate, very young child).
The Presidential Cancer Panel (2010) found that children ‘are at special risk due to their smaller body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known carcinogens, including radiation.‘
The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a letter to Congressman Dennis Kucinich dated 12 December 2012 states:
“Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation. The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child’s brain compared to an adult’s brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of RF energy deeper into their brains than adults. It is essential that any new standards for cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded through their lifetimes.”
More evidence than we need
"The last five years worth of new scientific studies tell us the situation is much worse than in 2007 and yet people around the world have so much more daily exposure than even five years ago. Exposures are linked to a variety of adverse health outcomes that may have significant public health consequences."
"There is now much more evidence of risks to health affecting billions of people world-wide. The status quo is not acceptable in light of the evidence for harm."
-- David O. Carpenter, MD, co-editor Bioinitiative 2012 Report
This study covers: EMF from power lines, electrical wiring, appliances and hand-held devices; and from wireless technologies (cell and cordless phones, cell towers, 'smart meters', WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless routers, baby monitors, and other electronic devices).
Health topics include: damage to DNA and genes, effects on memory, learning, behavior, attention, sleep disruption, cancer and neurological diseases like Alzheimer's disease.
New safety standards are urgently needed for protection against EMF and wireless exposures that now appear everywhere in daily life.
The report conclusion advises that a new precautionary limit of 0.003 u/Wcm2 based on mobile base station-level studies is justified, and consideration for chronic exposures would further reduce that limit ten fold.
We hold their future in our hands
Acknowledgements for the report go to the "many independent scientists, researchers and experts who have labored, some for decades - many of whom are no longer with us - to bring this body of science into the public arena."
Cindy Sage, Co-Editor of the report extends gratitude to her husband and family and "to Avery, Drake, Ford, Jenner, Luke, Solei, and all the children whose trusting faces remind us that we hold their future in our hands."
* The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries, ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs. Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS. One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation. Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency. Read more here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMF Safety Network
p: 707-824-0824
Get the Cell Out - Atlanta
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Health Canada Issues Warning to Limit Children's Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation
Reprinted with permission
The Canadian Press
Posted: Oct 4, 2011 5:07 PM ET
click headline to view video and full story.
Parents should encourage children under 18 to limit the time they spend talking on cellphones, Health Canada said Tuesday in new advice on mobile phone usage. The guidance is a nuanced change from previous advice, which suggested that people could limit their use of cellphones if they were concerned about an unproven suggestion the devices increase one's risk of developing brain cancer. "Really it's more proactive in encouraging cellphone users to find ways to limit their exposure, and … to empower parents to make healthy choices to reduce their children's exposure," explained James McNamee, division chief for health effects and assessments in Health Canada's bureau of consumer and clinical radiation protection. The new advice, a response to a World Health Organization report issued in May, reminds people they can reduce their exposure to radio-frequency energy by limiting the length of their cellphone calls and substituting text messages or chats on hands-free devices in the place of phone-to-ear cellphone calls. For more, go here.
The Canadian Press
Posted: Oct 4, 2011 5:07 PM ET
click headline to view video and full story.
Parents should encourage children under 18 to limit the time they spend talking on cellphones, Health Canada said Tuesday in new advice on mobile phone usage. The guidance is a nuanced change from previous advice, which suggested that people could limit their use of cellphones if they were concerned about an unproven suggestion the devices increase one's risk of developing brain cancer. "Really it's more proactive in encouraging cellphone users to find ways to limit their exposure, and … to empower parents to make healthy choices to reduce their children's exposure," explained James McNamee, division chief for health effects and assessments in Health Canada's bureau of consumer and clinical radiation protection. The new advice, a response to a World Health Organization report issued in May, reminds people they can reduce their exposure to radio-frequency energy by limiting the length of their cellphone calls and substituting text messages or chats on hands-free devices in the place of phone-to-ear cellphone calls. For more, go here.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
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
Saturday, June 9, 2012
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!
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!
Thursday, June 7, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Congress Asked to Investigate Marketing of Mobile Phones to Children
Children's Advocates Ask Congress to
Investigate the Marketing of
Mobile Phones to Kids
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 customersÒ’ 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.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Issues Important Position Paper - Correlates RF Exposure with Multiple Diseases
(click headline for details) In April, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine issued a position paper entitled, Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health.
According to the report, "multiple studies correlate RF exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity..... many in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure...Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature."
According to the report, "multiple studies correlate RF exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity..... many in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure...Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature."
Read the full report. Visit the AAEM website for more details.
HB 1299 Signed by Gov. Nathan Deal; JULY 31 Call to Action - VOTE NO to School Cell Towers
JULY 31, 2012 - ON THE BALLOT
Gov. Nathan Deal has signed HB 1299, which was the negotiated compromise between Committee Leader Rep. Chuck Sims (R - Ambrose) and Rep. Dr. Karla Drenner (D - Avondale Estates) when the bills introduced by Drenner to ban cell towers from school grounds were halted by Sims with questionable logic of unconstitutionality.
Sims has ties to the highly controversial group ALEC, recently in trouble for its support of the "Stand Your Ground" law that may play a role in the Trevon Martin shooting death in Florida. ALEC members seek to push forth a highly conservative agenda that favors big business interests, disguised as being for the citizens. ATT is one of the large corporate backers of ALEC that has not pulled out of the group recently like so many others have. For more about ALEC, see ALEC Exposed.
More urgently for DeKalb County residents is that HB 1299 will result in a question being posed to voters on the upcoming July 2012 ballot. This question needs your NO vote. Warn everyone you know to show up for this election, or get an absentee ballot if they will not be in town, so that your area does not accidentally vote that you WANT cell towers at your schools. It will most likely result in your school being next on the list and may even result in an attempt to overturn our county ordinances already in place to protect our health and property values!
LAST YEAR: July 2011 - the month when the School Board of DeKalb County voted to lease property to T-mobile over objections made by Get the Cell Out - Atlanta and others that communities were not properly notified and public opinion had not been duly considered.
Upon return to school in August 2011, the board began to hear exactly what we warned them about, an uprising of parents and community members began coming forward to complain that the decision was snuck past them in the middle of Summer when most families are not focused on school activities and many people are out of town.
THIS YEAR July 2012 - were there any lessons learned from past mistakes? No, in fact, if anything, the school board learned that July is a great time for them to sneak things past the school communities, so they plan to do it to us again. Not only will they hold school board elections during this Presidential Primary period, they will also add the question about cell towers, without calling them cell towers, and without the support of those who lobbyed their state officials in order to gain their help.
The question was drafted by a desperate telecomm group seeking to pinpoint where the "uprising" is coming from since they were unable to slow down or quiet the citizens of DeKalb County. The pressure from the county residents and parents led to the county commissioners doing the right thing and telling the CEO that they wish to exercise their power to deny the T-mobile permits. They urge the CEO to deny any permits that may come to him or his office for approval that do not follow proper process and procedures.
The unamimous support of the county commissioners should have been enough to stop the state from interfering. The attempts at state bills were not successful, largely because they were introduced too late in the session to make it through the committee process, esp. when stalled by the committe chairman Rep. Chuck Sims (R - Ambrose).
But, rather than stop there, the telecomm industry is pushing back against the wishes of the people. By introuducing a question onto the ballot that will do nothing to help the citizens, they are attempting to take control away from the citizens and override the power of local control in a very ALEC-sort of way. The power of this decision belongs with the county commissioners and the Office of Planning and Sustainability and the Office of Public Works, as headed by the DeKalb County CEO Burrell Ellis.
What will CEO Burrell Ellis do? We asked him this question MONTHS AGO. To hear his response, check out our blog entry and YOUTUBE video from the CEO's Town Hall Meeting back in November 2011. We even wrote to him long before this entire issue got out of control: our letter here.
Local Power, Local Control
The FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996, the one that the telecomm gurus like to quote so often, actually speaks to the fact that the ultimate power should always remain under local control when it comes to the placement and design of cell towers. While it does state that a local municipality cannot deny a cell tower SOLELY on the basis of environmental factors if it complys with FCC regulations, it does not state that they must approve anything that is contrary to local zoning ordinances already in place.
In fact, we have sent a letter to CEO Ellis with backup of a legal case from Cobb County where a federal court upheld the rights of the local government to uphold its own regulations. We will be posting that letter in the next couple days once we have confirmed receipt by all the intended recipients.
Social media and person-to-person networking is going to have to work overtime the next few months if there is any hope of beating these folks at their own game!
Please, tell everyone you know: VOTE NO on the ballot question about "telecommuications towers on school grounds." What they are really asking is whether you wish to have your county commissioners' opinions ignored and your local ordinances disobeyed so that they can put a cell tower at YOUR school in YOUR neighborhood. They want YOU to be next!
And write to CEO Burrell Ellis asking that he uphold the county ordinances in DeKalb for safe siting of cell towers AWAY from residentially zoned communities.
Contact CEO Burrell Ellis:· CEO Burrell Ellis
Chief Executive Officer
DeKalb County Government
330 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, 6th Floor
Decatur, GA 30030
· Email: schedulingceoellis@dekalbcountyga.gov
· Or ceo@dekalbcountyga.gov
And, sign the countywide petition at: www.thepetitionsite.com/1/GTCO-ATL
Please, forward this link to as many people in our county as you can.
Gov. Nathan Deal has signed HB 1299, which was the negotiated compromise between Committee Leader Rep. Chuck Sims (R - Ambrose) and Rep. Dr. Karla Drenner (D - Avondale Estates) when the bills introduced by Drenner to ban cell towers from school grounds were halted by Sims with questionable logic of unconstitutionality.
Sims has ties to the highly controversial group ALEC, recently in trouble for its support of the "Stand Your Ground" law that may play a role in the Trevon Martin shooting death in Florida. ALEC members seek to push forth a highly conservative agenda that favors big business interests, disguised as being for the citizens. ATT is one of the large corporate backers of ALEC that has not pulled out of the group recently like so many others have. For more about ALEC, see ALEC Exposed.
Coke, Pepsi, Kraft, McDonald's, Wendy's, Intuit, Reed-Elsevier, and others have dropped their membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
Click here to tell other firms bankrolling ALEC to do the same.
More urgently for DeKalb County residents is that HB 1299 will result in a question being posed to voters on the upcoming July 2012 ballot. This question needs your NO vote. Warn everyone you know to show up for this election, or get an absentee ballot if they will not be in town, so that your area does not accidentally vote that you WANT cell towers at your schools. It will most likely result in your school being next on the list and may even result in an attempt to overturn our county ordinances already in place to protect our health and property values!
VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO!
26 "( ) YES NONBINDING ADVISORY REFERENDUM
27 Should the local or independent school system of DeKalb County or a
28 (X ) NO charter school in DeKalb County place or operate a telecommunications
29 tower on any elementary, middle, or high school property?"
VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO!
LAST YEAR: July 2011 - the month when the School Board of DeKalb County voted to lease property to T-mobile over objections made by Get the Cell Out - Atlanta and others that communities were not properly notified and public opinion had not been duly considered.
Upon return to school in August 2011, the board began to hear exactly what we warned them about, an uprising of parents and community members began coming forward to complain that the decision was snuck past them in the middle of Summer when most families are not focused on school activities and many people are out of town.
THIS YEAR July 2012 - were there any lessons learned from past mistakes? No, in fact, if anything, the school board learned that July is a great time for them to sneak things past the school communities, so they plan to do it to us again. Not only will they hold school board elections during this Presidential Primary period, they will also add the question about cell towers, without calling them cell towers, and without the support of those who lobbyed their state officials in order to gain their help.
The unamimous support of the county commissioners should have been enough to stop the state from interfering. The attempts at state bills were not successful, largely because they were introduced too late in the session to make it through the committee process, esp. when stalled by the committe chairman Rep. Chuck Sims (R - Ambrose).
But, rather than stop there, the telecomm industry is pushing back against the wishes of the people. By introuducing a question onto the ballot that will do nothing to help the citizens, they are attempting to take control away from the citizens and override the power of local control in a very ALEC-sort of way. The power of this decision belongs with the county commissioners and the Office of Planning and Sustainability and the Office of Public Works, as headed by the DeKalb County CEO Burrell Ellis.
What will CEO Burrell Ellis do? We asked him this question MONTHS AGO. To hear his response, check out our blog entry and YOUTUBE video from the CEO's Town Hall Meeting back in November 2011. We even wrote to him long before this entire issue got out of control: our letter here.
The FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996, the one that the telecomm gurus like to quote so often, actually speaks to the fact that the ultimate power should always remain under local control when it comes to the placement and design of cell towers. While it does state that a local municipality cannot deny a cell tower SOLELY on the basis of environmental factors if it complys with FCC regulations, it does not state that they must approve anything that is contrary to local zoning ordinances already in place.
In fact, we have sent a letter to CEO Ellis with backup of a legal case from Cobb County where a federal court upheld the rights of the local government to uphold its own regulations. We will be posting that letter in the next couple days once we have confirmed receipt by all the intended recipients.
Social media and person-to-person networking is going to have to work overtime the next few months if there is any hope of beating these folks at their own game!
Please, tell everyone you know: VOTE NO on the ballot question about "telecommuications towers on school grounds." What they are really asking is whether you wish to have your county commissioners' opinions ignored and your local ordinances disobeyed so that they can put a cell tower at YOUR school in YOUR neighborhood. They want YOU to be next!
And write to CEO Burrell Ellis asking that he uphold the county ordinances in DeKalb for safe siting of cell towers AWAY from residentially zoned communities.
Contact CEO Burrell Ellis:· CEO Burrell Ellis
Chief Executive Officer
DeKalb County Government
330 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, 6th Floor
Decatur, GA 30030
· Email: schedulingceoellis@dekalbcountyga.gov
· Or ceo@dekalbcountyga.gov
And, sign the countywide petition at: www.thepetitionsite.com/1/GTCO-ATL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)