Apologies for cross posting if you already received this from me or Ellie Marks, Doug Loranger, Libby Kelley et al.
NEED YOUR HELP- Please sign on to the attached Letter—Please REPLY to me with what Name (and org, etc. if you want) you want me to paste into the letter
1. Please Sign on to the letter below.
If you have not yet signed on please consider it as it will really help all of our EMF issues. --If you see errors in the text of the letter below or misspellings in any signatures please let me know so they can be fixed. Please understand that this is not easy and I am trying my best. Your help with this is GREATLY APPRECIATED !! btw. You do not have to live in SF or in the US to sign on.
2. Please come to the SF Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting
Tell the BOS to VOTE NO on Item 8/Continue Item 8!
Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - 2:00 PM
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Legislative Chamber, Room 250
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
—CTIA has hijacked the process! – We need to ASK for a CONTINUANCE AT A MINIMUM!
SF Rules Committee met in closed session on April 18th and has recommended killing SF’S 2011 RIGHT TO KNOW DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS through a stipulated SETTLMENT Agreement.
Antoinette “Toni” Stein PhD
892 Arlington Ave
Berkeley, CA 94707
Sign on letter to follow and Table 1 attached:
May 4, 2013
Dear Honorable San Francisco Board of Supervisors:
We the undersigned support the May 3, 2013 “Expert Physician and Scientist Letter on Cell Phone Safety”. We agree that you should further evaluate all of the significant new scientific information tabulated in Table 1 below before you decide on settling the CTIA-The Wireless Association® law suit.
Please do not rush into any YES VOTE on Settlement of Lawsuit with CTIA – The Wireless Association that is Item # 8 130315 on the May 7th Board of Supervisor Meeting Agenda without first carefully reviewing the new scientific information including the newly published scientific information in the 480 page WHO IARC Monograph published on April 24th and the other new information listed in Table 1.
Because a substantial amount of new scientific information has been released after the Rules Committee deliberated and voted, we respectfully ask you to reject the April 18th Board of Supervisor’s Rules Committee recommendation to settle with CTIA-The Wireless Association® lawsuit because it was made without any consideration of the new and significant scientific information listed in Table 1. And we respectfully ask you to CONTINUE this item due to these special circumstances and permit needed time for both the City and County of San Francisco, the public, and the CTIA-The Wireless Association® to review the substantial new scientific information relevant to this matter that the Rules Committee recommendation did not consider in their closed door deliberations (because it was not published when they met).
We also encourage the City and County of San Francisco to try to meet and confer with the CTIA-The Wireless Association® to discuss these new significant scientific information and discuss if in fact the narrowly asserted CELL PHONE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS that are in the SF Environment Code do not in fact act to support the city’s governmental interests of Protecting Children’s Health in light of the new substantial scientific information in the official WHO IARC Monograph under its classification that cell phone radiation is officially a Group 2B carcinogen and the other new scientific reports including that brain tumor treatment costs in the US exceed $1 Million per victim.
We encourage you not to take any rash or arbitrary and capricious actions that are not in accordance with the full constitutional GOVERNMENTAL rights and powers afforded under the law especially under the Central Hudson test. Do not decide without first carefully reviewing and considering in depth the significant new scientific information tabulated in Table 1 including the 480 page World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph that classifies cellular telephone and other Electromagnetic Radiation (RF EMF) as a Group 2B carcinogen.
Under the City’s Fair Public Process Rules, the public has a right to know about all of the important new and relevant technical information before you vote on this matter consistent with the responsibilities of this great city to protect public health and safety. Accordingly, we respectfully ask you to:
1. Provide the public with posted information on this key new science on the City’s websites linking to the 480 page WHO IARC Monograph on RF EMF radiation and the other new significant scientific information listed in Table 1 below and other new studies.
2. Reopen the “Public Comment Period” and allow the public to speak about this new information as it pertains to the passed ordinance.
As articulated in the “Expert Physician and Scientist Letter on Cell Phone Safety” we agree that the new science brought forth in Table 1 introduces materially changed facts and circumstances that need to be carefully considered before finalizing the Cities actions on the CTIA-The Wireless Association® lawsuit because the new information brings new information on health hazards and never before peer reviewed cost estimates on health impacts that the City may incur. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission will be formally issuing a new inquiry into its approach to cell phones reflecting new technical information as well.
We share the goal of saving lives in San Francisco, and we urge that the Board continue to ensure the public right to know about cell phone safety and assist in promoting broad public understanding of basic precautions that can be taken to reduce radiation exposure from cell phones. People have a right to know about ways to use phones more safely that they otherwise may be unaware of including the best practices currently embedded within phones or printed in small type in pamphlets they receive after purchasing these devices. We applaud your efforts to promote this basic right.
We urge you NOT to authorize any permanent injunction against enforcement of the Cell Phone Right-to-Know Law that was unanimously passed by the SF Board of Supervisors before reviewing the relevant new information that was released after the Rules Committee meeting including the WHO IARC Monograph and the other the other key new scientific information (See Table 1).
We the public request a minimum of 60 days to review and comment on the new science that the city and its people have not yet had a chance to review and consider. Thank you for your efforts to protect our health and safety.
SIGNATURE LIST (chronological order)
Health Professionals, Scientists, Public Officials and Community based Organizations
Ellen Marks, California Brain Tumor Association
Antoinette “Toni”, Stein, PhD: Co-moderator of Collaborative on Health Working Group on Electromagnetic Fields (CHE-EMF)
Arthur Firstenburg, President Cellular Phone Task Force
Tony La France, MD
Max Anderson, Berkeley City Council
David Shapiro, Attorney, Calabasas City Council
Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates Co-editor BioIniative Report 2012
Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, SF
Mona Nilsson, Fonderu, Vice Chairman, Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
Ms. Kiku Iwata, Co-founder Burbank Action (Against Cell Towers in Our Neighborhoods)
Kevin Kunze, Director, Mobilize
Katie Hickox, Member SF Women’s Forum, SF for Democracy
Dana Nachman, CTF Films
B. Blake Levitt, Former New York Times writer, author A Conusmer;s Guide to the Issues and how to Protect Ourselves
Sam Schwartz, MD
Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown (D-190, PA General Assembly and Chairwoman of the PA legislative Black Caucus
Rep. Andrea Boland (D) Maine
Leland Mew, MD
Katharina Gustavs, Certified EOH Building Biology Consultant
George Spathis, Attorney at Law,
Ariel Barfield, HEAL of Southern Arizona
Katharina Gustavs, Cert. EOH Building Biology Environmental Consultant IBN
Ann McCampbell, MD, Environmental Health Consultant
Jonathan Franklin, MD
Cynthia Franklin, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones
Sandi Maurer, Director EMF Safety
Rae Amey, President, Rae Amey Enterprises
Mary Beth Brangan and James Heddle, Co-Directors Ecological Options Network, EON
Daphne Jasperes, widow of Steven, died age 48 cell phone related brain tumor
Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust
Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, MES, PhD, University of Toronto
Lew Levenson, Chair, Rim Country Environmental Health Coalition, Payson, AZ
Lisa Tully, PhD
Sharon L. Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
Commissioner Phoebe Sorgen,
SIGNATURE LIST: BRAIN TUMOR and EMI VICTIMS
Alan Marks, victim
Zachary Marks, son of victim
Jordan Marks, son of victim
Amanda Marks, daughter of victim
Mindy Brown, widow of Coach Dan Brown, Defensive Coordinator Fresno State football, father of 6, deceased at age 50 from cell phone related brain tumor
Abigail Marks, widow of Milton Marks
Cristin Prischman, widow of Paul- deceased age 42 cell phone related brain tumor
Monique Solomon, widow of Andrew Solomon, age 43, cell phone related brain tumor
Stuart Cobb, victim
Jenna Weiss, daughter of brain tumor survivor
Alisha Buller Kidd
Sean Kidd, victim
Laura Ingram, Sf resident- long term cell phone user, now environmentally ill
Jeri Brooks, widow of victim
John Lawler, victim, age 40
Ashley Lawler, victim
Jimmy Gonzalez, attorney, victim, age 41
Anthony Patch, victim, age 40
SIGNATURE LIST: Concerned People
Donna La France,
Wendy A. Ferguson, Fairfax
Karen Leuthner Johnson
MIke Pellegatti, Phoenix, AZ
Marianne Shannon, Pantagonia, AZ
Gary Widman, Tiburon, CA
David and Dawn Roberts, Gold Canyon, AZ 85118
Susan Riley-concerned citizen, retired RN, Tucson, AZ
Monnie Ramsell, 50 Bronco Drive, Sedona AZ 86336
Susan Benson, Tucson, AZ 85704
If you want to send your own letter to the BOS directly (I recommend it in addition to sign on). Here are their emails and their STAFF emails:
Eric....@sfgov.org; Mark.F...@sfgov.org ; David...@sfgov.org ; Katy...@sfgov.org ; London...@sfgov.org ; Jane...@sfgov.org ; Norma...@sfgov.org ; Scott....@sfgov.org ; David....@sfgov.org ; Malia...@sfgov.org ; John....@sfgov.org ; mayore...@sfgov.org
'Nickolas....@sfgov.org'; 'Victo...@sfgov.org'; 'Peter.La...@sfgov.org'; 'Catherine....@sfgov.org'; 'Judso...@sfgov.org'; 'Amy....@sfgov.org'; 'Catherin...@sfgov.org'; 'Margau...@sfgov.org'; 'Jess.Mo...@sfgov.org'; 'Ashley....@sfgov.org'; 'Dyanna...@sfgov.org'; 'Caro...@sfgov.org'; 'Vallie...@sfgov.org'; 'Ahmad.E...@sfgov.org'; 'Conor.J...@sfgov.org'; 'Sunny....@sfgov.org'; 'Ivy...@sfgov.org'; 'Danny....@sfgov.org'; 'Esther...@sfgov.org'; 'Matthias...@sfgov.org'; 'Olivia....@sfgov.org'; 'Adam....@sfgov.org'; 'Andres...@sfgov.org'; 'Jeff....@sfgov.org'; 'Hillar...@sfgov.org'; 'Joseph...@sfgov.org'; 'Nate....@sfgov.org'; 'Stephan...@sfgov.org'; 'Megan.H...@sfgov.org'; 'Andrea...@sfgov.org'; 'Michae...@sfgov.org'; 'Raquel.R...@sfgov.org'; 'France...@sfgov.org'; 'Avalo...@sfgov.org';
 United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:10-cv-03224 (WHA)
 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 571 n.13 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/95-815_20081210.pdf