Keep local control of cell towers
A bill taking away the ability of the city of Benicia–and all California cities– to regulate and approve the placement of cell phone antennas and related equipment is on a fast track towards approval in Sacramento.
Senate Bill 649 would remove the power of cities to control where the equipment goes, and how much telecoms should pay for the use of public property like street lights and utility poles.
Verizon and AT&T are arguing that this is a way to streamline the approval process and improve coverage, but I don’t believe the city of Benicia has ever delayed, much less turned down, a request to install cell phone equipment.
Existing rules already give telecoms access to phone poles and utility posts as a way to expand coverage. Health concerns about cell phone towers are governed by federal rules.
This bill has already passed the State Senate, and last week was approved by the Assembly’s Local Government Committee. Our Assemblyman, Tim Grayson, is a member of that committee and voted yes.
It is curious as to why Grayson, a former mayor of Concord, would vote in favor of this bill against the expressed wishes of the more than 400 cities that compose the League of California Cities.
If you support the ability of cities to control where cell equipment is placed, let our elected officials know you oppose SB 649.
Assemblyman Grayson can be reached at 916-319-2014, and Sen. Bill Dodd can be reached at 916-651-4003.
Steve Young,
Benicia vice mayor
Sharing is caring!
Does this mean this bill overrides the City of Benicia land use? Please answer this question. If that is the case then our land use issue means nothing in this case. Thank you for your attention to this question.
Yes, my understanding is that the state law would overrule local land use controls on this issue.
Is it just your understanding or is it the truth.?
You can read the bill in its current form here;
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
Note it applies to cell facilities in the public right of way in areas zoned to allow commercial or industrial use, including mixed zoned areas. Small cell is defined as any wireless communication facility that meets the volume requirements specified in the bill. Read the preamble, hilarious;
(a) Reaffirms local governments’ historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally. !! by taking away local authority, it reaffirms it!! Anyone buy that, besides the legislature?
Thank you Greg. You are an asset to this fine community. Keep ,on it.
From today’s Sacramento Bee:
A second, Senate Bill 649 by Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, would give wireless providers such as AT&T virtually unfettered ability to place wireless transmitters on utilities poles control by cities and counties, for a nominal fee.
It’s part of a national effort by wireless providers to introduce 5G technology, which promises to vastly increase wireless’ ability to provide super-fast connections, and compete more directly with old-line cable providers. Similar bills are pending or have been approved in 20 states.
Hueso’s bill would cap fees that local governments could impose on wireless companies at $250 plus expenses for placing their devices on polls. Certainly, local authorities should not gouge companies that provide what could be useful technology. But Hueso’s bill also strips local authorities of the right to regulate the use of property in their jurisdictions. We side with local officials: they should be able to determine what corporations build in public spaces, not Sacramento legislators.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article160251249.html#storylink=cpy
Councilmember Young I read the memo/letter by the League written on 6-23-17. Your LTTE was very weak.
Vice- mayor Steve Young thank you
for bringing this issue of cell towers up for discussion.
Comment and Questions: In a city with a history of polluting industries…Military ordnance cleanup (Tourtelot; the Arsenal ); Rose Drive; Valero Refinery emissions are just a few off the top…which residents of our city have fought to clean-up over the years. Key questions: for appointed ( city staff) and elected representatives and our citizenry to seriously consider.
How many cell towers are located in our “little city? Where are they located? Has the city of Benicia ever done a study to find out what dangers these towers may pose to the health and safety of our residents? Is electromagnetic radiation ( which we cannot see, hear or smell) a form of pollution? What does the General Plan of Benicia have to say about this kind of pollution? And, finally, when crude by rail was defeated by a united city council vote of 5-0 when all the facts were finally brought to the public’s attention..//. with that said, what, would the public’s reaction be if they knew all the facts/ scientific studies about cell towers and electro-magnetic radiation on people, animals and the environment? Vice- mayor Young what is your stance on this important topic of (cell towers) community concern?
The articles posted below should give our community a reason to seriously ponder this kind of technology being positioned all over our “little city without any public discussion. Our history in this town is one of open dialouge on issues of public concern THINK: Seeno development; Valero refinery problems; Crude by Rail; Arsenal clean-up to mention a few.
An excerpt for the interested citizen/reader to contemplate:
“A global movement challenging the increasing presence of electromagnetic (EMF)/ radiofrequency (RF) radioactive contamination via “smart” gadgets and meters, antennas, Wi-Fi, and WiMAX is indeed afoot. Yet it resides in the shadows of popular awareness because the public communication media — who might, but do not report on the effort — are largely owned by the same corporate entities perpetrating the contaminating technologies, and they are motivated to not reveal the health and ecological dangers of wireless technologies. And so welcome to an unheralded, but vastly important, movement that is growing every day:”
And:
“At the conclusion of Silent Spring, Rachel Carson called on pesticide users’ humility. She asked pesticide users to acknowledge “the vast forces with which they tampered.” Could we get humble and acknowledge that using wireless technologies tampers with vast forces?”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/17/an-electronic-silent-spring/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/08/the-growing-movement-against-electromagnetic-contamination/
Actually, you can see electromagnetic radiation: it is caled light and, with its high frequency, it is far more energetic than the low energy photons that comprise radio waves. You are being bombarded with electromagnetic radiation from your computer screen as you read this.
The science on all this is not new (Maxwell’s equations that describe it are about 140 years old). Einstein won the Nobel Prize for figuring out why, no matter how intense the source, radio waves do not ionize metal, while light waves can (the energy level of radio waves is just too low; light waves, being much more energetic, can knock those electrons flying off).
We are bathed in electromagnetic radiation, and we generate our own (ever get an EKG or an EEG: that is measuring electromagnetic radiation generated by your nerves). The biggest source near us is of course the sun, which emits unimaginable levels of electromagnetic radiation. Cosmic microwave background radiation passes through us continuously (thanks to the Big Bang, the real one, not the TV show). You can’t escape electromagnetic radiation, It is fundamental to one of the basic forces of nature and is responsible for the way atoms and molecules form and work in the sun, on the earth, in our bodies, in the cosmos.
The article on the “growing movement” against WiFi etc, is from 2011. The movement did not grow much, simply because the science is not there to support it (real science, not bogus science from the industry or from anti-science people). Research continues as it should. There will be new information with that research, but it would be better to have a discussion without trying to mislead and misinform.
The best science I have seen suggests one would be wise to not spend a lot of time with the cell phone on your ear (use the speaker or the earphones) but there is no definitive link (the data are ambiguous). Nothing to suggest WiFi, smart phones, smart devices, radios, TVs, computers. microwave ovens, toaster ovens, electric coffee grinders, all of which emit electromagnetic radiation, are unsafe in normal use. If you have peer reviewed published papers that suggest otherwise, I would love to read them.
Vice- mayor Steve Young thank you for bringing this issue of cell towers up for discussion to the public you serve.
From the above commentator:
“Research continues as it should. There will be new information with that research, but it would be better to have a discussion without trying to mislead and misinform.”
Well stated, Mr. Gartrell.
More information and testimony( see Firefighters speaking on this issue) on Senate Bill 649 for our community and our appointed and elected officials to seriously ponder….
THE FIREFIGHTER’S WAKE UP CALL TO US ALL
An excerpt from the article below:
“The industry-friendly California legislature may claim they know nothing about health concerns, but in fact they do. The legislature granted an exemption from SB 649 to the firefighters who have fought cell towers on their stations in court and in their cities for almost 20 years. Throughout California firefighters have long complained of often disabling symptoms from cell towers on their stations. Cities frequently rent out space on fire stations to add to city revenue. Firefighters live and sleep in the stations when on duty, and have experienced significant RF radiation exposure.”
“A 2004 SPECT brain scan study of firefighters in Central California found brain abnormalities in all the men tested, as well as delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control and cognitive impairment. None of the men worked HazMat, so chemical exposure was ruled out. All the firefighters tested had suffered from sleep disturbances, headaches, lack of focus and memory loss following installation of a tower adjacent to their station five years earlier. They sued the wireless company that told them the towers were perfectly harmless, but Sec. 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow health to be taken into consideration when siting a tower, so the judge dismissed the lawsuit.”
“Thus the current firefighter exemption does not specify “health” as a reason for the exemption. Yet the history of the firefighters is well known, and society depends on them for health and safety emergencies. This exemption is an implicit acknowledgment of health risk, and the firefighters deserve this exemption.”
“The fact is, we all deserve an exemption. Since the State’s granting of the exemption for fire stations implies acknowledgement of the health risk for firefighters, this begs the obvious question: What about the rest of us who are inherently more vulnerable – particularly the unborn, children, teens, those who are ill and disabled, and the elderly? We should all be allowed to retain local control and have as much say as possible to protect our communities and our families.”
https://ehtrust.org/firefighters-wake-call-us-susan-foster-re-sb-649-opposing-cell-towers-rights-way/
The article you cite gives a lot of good political reasons for opposing SB649, and I agree with those. SB649 takes away local authority and hands it to cell phone corporations: they get to decide where the cells towers go, not the city.
However, the article you recommend does not cite peer-reviewed, published studies to support the potential health aspects. It cites a “2004 SPECT study” which was done by…the author herself! She is an advocate, not a disinterested scientist (check her bio at the end of her article). It has been 13 years since, and there have been many valid studies since. I haven’t seen any peer reviewed published studies with definitive results pointing to health issues. If there are any (not done or paid for by industry pro-cell advocates or anti-cell advocates), I would love to read them.
Maybe Will can find them. I doubt that. I respect Greg Gartrell vast experience and for sure his first hand knowledge over Will Gregory. Please Greg keep at it and keep us informed with your advanced knowledge. Thank you. You know more about this than the Vice Mayor. I hope you will be given the opportunity to speak about this at a Council meeting. Your knowledge is very valuable by a very well informed person. Thank you.
I am sure the vice Mayor knows plenty on this topic. I hope the City Council will band together with cities all over the state to vehemently oppose this terrible legislation.
They should also lobby the Congress to remove the anti-science part of the law that prohibits conditioning permits or denying them based on potential health risks. While I have seen no valid studies showing health risks, there are situations where the precautionary principle would apply and it would be valid that it be used to limit cell tower locations.
“He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” – Charles Peguy
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad.” – Aldous Huxley
Vice- mayor Steve Young thank you for bringing this issue of cell towers up for discussion to the public you serve.
From the above commentator:
“Research continues as it should. There will be new information with that research, but it would be better to have a discussion without trying to mislead and misinform.”
Well stated, Mr. Gartrell
More cell tower information and testimony from peer reviewed (and published) on Senate Bill 649 for our community and our appointed and elected officials to seriously ponder…
Key quote from one of three article posted below:
Dr. Gerard Hyland, a physicist who was nominated twice for the Nobel Prize in medicine, says, “Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate … Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests.”
Horst Eger & Manfred Jahn Study Feb 2010
This study shows a significantly increased health risk in the vicinity of cell phone base stations and underscored the inadequacy of the currently accepted exposure limits:
The publishers of the journal have affirmed that this study was a peer-reviewed by members of their scientific board. This study is now available in English.*
An excerpt to contemplate:
* This work provides a protocol for surveys of medical practitioners and municipality administrations to estimate possible health effects of mobile telephone basic stations situated near population residents.
* A clearly increasing incidence of disease is already taking place far below legally binding exposure guideline limits.
* From a legal perspective, it should be noted here that the current exposure limit regulations basically do not provide sufficient protection against health risks.
* It is a physician’s responsibility—not bound by directives—to work towards the preservation of the natural basis of life regarding human health. As representatives of public health agencies, state offices such as the Public Health Department, the State Office for the Environment, and the Bavarian Ministry of the Environment as well as higher-ranking government levels such as the Federal Ministry of the Environment and the European Union are invited to specify the cause of this possible slow poisoning.”
Notes:
https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/horst-eger-manfred-jahn-study-feb-2010
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/09/28/what_are_the_dangers_of_living_near_cell_phone
_towers.htm
http://www.slideserve.com/simone/the-truth-about-cell-towers
Will I would advise you to leave this Issue with Greg Gartrell. You nor the Vice Mayor have enough info to be involved in a deep discussion on this very important topic/issue…
Thanks for the reference (Horst Eger Study). That study in 2010 relied upon self-reported (voluntary) surveys on health issues (respondents marked zero to 5 on various symptoms) and examined the responses, correlating with distance from a cell tower. They measured the electric field (V/m) in 5 zones (in the US, emissions are regulated in mW/cm-squared or microW/cm-squared; the French translation of the paper converted the 1.7 V/m to 0.35 microW/cm-squared while the German and English versions did not). Typical results were in the range of 1 to 1.8 (out of 5) so to begin with the data are not overwhelming.
The results are not definitive in either cause-effect (since they did not turn off the tower to see if anything changed) or in a definitive statistical sense (they relied upon a p-value statistic which, even at 0.01 leaves a good chance the results are random). This is not atypical of such studies; it is why even today (7 years later), such studies still do not show definitive results.
The only work I could find by Dr. Hyland is either very old and seldom cited (and not at all definitive) or related to children using cellphones (nothing to do with cell towers).
In the Eger study, their dividing line was about 500m from the tower for no effect. In large cities, with high populations and high use, where it is hard to be more than 500 m from an antenna, one would expect by now (seven years later) a definitive health result if there is a problem. I have not seen one yet.
Here is a good reference from Harvard that discusses, in lay terms, the issue at length, with references:
https://www.ehs.harvard.edu/sites/ehs.harvard.edu/files/CellphoneTowerFacts.pdf
Note that the Harvard paper points to the use of the cell phone, not the towers, as higher exposure and recommends 1) use the speaker or earphones, 2) don’t sleep with your cell phone close by and 3) especially don’t use it while driving (the biggest health risk of all, for multiple reasons).
At any rate, the legislation is terrible, but even if it fails, no city or county or state can regulate cell towers based on health issues even if they were proved–Federal law prohibits it. Unless that changes, if you are worried about health effects (with or without evidence) adjusting your cell phone use behavior is the most prudent thing you can do.
Will as I said you are of no use. Way over your head as usual.
Thank you for the phone numbers center to Grayson’s phone had a full mailbox and no message could be left. Hey a human actually answered assemblyman dodd’s phone and said he would pass the message along to assemblyman dad that I am calling in opposition to SB 649..perhaps we can start a petition to this affect.
I sent both Dodd and Grayson an email before the gas tax vote that was rushed through in less than one week. Never heard a word from either, although both now send me regular email updates that I do not remember signing up for. Follow the money, they will vote for this just like the gas tax.
Laws written by the state or federal government eliminating local authority over land use or any local responsibility, should be a last resort measure. Wes Gould not take this move lightly. It appears the state legislature is moving this bill forward for a mere convenience; to assist AT&T and Verizon in installing towers.
This is a bold move and the city should push back.
Again, this should be a last resort move, not a quick convenient first step. If the state legislature finds it easy to strip localities of their given responsibilities, what is next?
You are correct Matter. The voters elected a super majority to both houses and the state elected officials are all Democrats. Some may think that is fine but what it does it lets this move very quickly without opposition. It just shows that the League of California Cities has no power. The State of California is run by far too many small power groups. We as a city do use them to our advantage when needed. Lets hope this move by the League and the voters using their individual power works. I sure hope so. This bill must be reworked. It may be too late. Where was the League as this bill was being developed? Bad news.