The Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN) – News Update for September 23, 2008
by Angela Flynn (
angelaflynn [at]
skyhighway.com )
Tuesday
Sep 23rd, 2008 1:36 PM
News and Actions regarding Radio Frequency Microwave Radiation in Santa Cruz, California
The
Wireless Radiation Alert Network (WRAN) – News Update for
September 23, 2008
1. October 1st - Electromagnetic Pollution
and Your Health – Presentation by Michael Neurert, MA, BSME at
Vet’s Hall.
2. This week on Community TV - Lucid Universe
#3 ‘Citizen Activists – Radiation Frequencies’ -
See viewing schedule below.
3. September 25th – Congressman
Dennis Kucinich holds hearing on Cell Phone Use and Health
4.
September 29th – Deadline to Send Comments to FCC on CTIA
Petition
1. Electromagnetic Pollution and Your Health
How Cell Phones, Wi-Fi, Power Lines, and even the Wiring in
Your Home Can Affect Your Health, and What You Can Do About It.
Wednesday, October 1st 7:00 – 9:00 pm
Veteran’s
Memorial Bldg Auditorium 846 Front Street, Santa Cruz
Free
(Donations Appreciated)
Presentation and Discussion on
Electromagnetic Fields Featuring Michael R. Neuert, MA, BSME
(See
http://www.emfcenter.com)
Today’s level of EMF (electromagnetic field) emissions
from cell phones, wi-fi, computers, TVs, and other equipment are
millions of times higher than the levels at which human beings
evolved. Exposure is linked to serious health problems.
Being
informed protects your health –
http://www.emrpolicy.org;
http://www.mercola.com;
http://www.bioinitiative.org
"The Bioinitiative Report which is the work of leading
scientists who have reviewed over 2000 reports on Electro-Magnetic
Fields (EMFs) and health states:
“The existing public
safety standards limiting radiation levels in nearly every country of
the world look to be thousands of times too lenient. Change is
needed”
More Info: 831-688-4603/ 831-469-4399/
angelaflynn [at]
skyhighway.com
Sponsored by the Wireless Radiation Alert
Network (WRAN)
2. Lucid Universe #3 'Citizen
Activists-Radiation Frequencies' on Community Television of Santa
Cruz County
Public Access Channel - Comcast 27/Charter 73
Lucid Universe #3 'Citizen Activists-Radiation
Frequencies'
Producer: Mariola Lichacz Topic: Citizen
Activists-Radiation Frequencies
Guests: Angela Flynn, Marilyn
Garrett
Schedule:
Tuesday 9/23 at 12 noon and 7:00 pm
Thursday 9/24th at 12:30 pm and 7:00 pm
Saturday, 27TH at
3:30 pm
Sunday, 28TH at 11 am
3. Congressional
Hearing on 9/25 on Cell Phones and Health
Congressman Dennis
Kucinich will hold a hearing on cell phones and health in Washington
on Thursday, September 25th. Among the witnesses will be Dr. Ronald
Herberman of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Dr.
David Carpenter of the Institute for Health and Environment in
Albany.
4. Send Comments to the FCC by 9/29/08
The
CTIA, representing the wireless industry, has filed a petition with
the FCC to create a set of "shot clocks" for wireless site
approvals. If the local government misses a deadline (generally 45
days or 75 days), a site would be automatically deemed approved.
The CTIA also asks the FCC to interpret Congressional intent
in favor of the wireless industry regarding the interplay of several
key sections of the Telecom Act.
Download this petition by
clicking here. (PDF Format; 234Kb)
http://www.telecomlawfirm.com/articles/pdf/080711_Shot_Clock_Petition.pdf
Then, take action to oppose this petition. Comments are
due at the FCC by 9/29/08.
Click here for public comments -
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1913A1.pdf
Or here is the direct link to comment. Put 08-165 in the
"Proceeding" box
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
The telecommunications industry is trying to stop all citizen
influence on restricting cell tower sites. On July 11, 2008, the
Cellular Telephone Industries Association (CTIA), petitioned the FCC
to declare new limitations on local zoning authority as it affects
cell tower siting.
Specifically, CTIA requests the Federal
Communications Commission to:
1. Force municipalities to act
on wireless antenna or tower zoning applications within 45 or 75
days.
2. Rule that applications are automatically "deemed
granted" if a local government misses the FCC's deadline.
3.
Prevent municipalities from considering the presence of service by
other carriers in evaluating an additional carrier's application for
an antenna site.
4. Pre-empt any local ordinance that would
automatically require a variance for cell tower applications.
For
more on this please visit http://www.emrpolicy.org/
http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/local-state-gov.html
http://www.millervaneaton.com/00141415.PDF
http://www.telecomlawfirm.com
Recent Court Rulings on Regulations of Cell Tower
Placement
Court ruling allows regulation of cell towers
Bob
Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008
http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/12/BAAT12SF2D.DTL
(09-11) 17:42 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court
reversed itself Thursday and said cities and counties can regulate
the location and appearance of wireless towers and poles, a ruling
that could revive a dormant San Francisco ordinance.
The
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld San Diego
County's limits on the placement, size and design of towers and poles
that are needed for companies to provide cell phone service and
wireless Internet connections. The court also voted 11-0 to discard a
standard it had established in 2001 that barred local governments
from adopting any restrictions that "may have the effect of
prohibiting" wireless services.
Federal courts in the
nine-state circuit have relied on the 2001 ruling to overturn
restrictions on telecommunications structures in several communities,
including San Francisco and Berkeley. The court said Thursday that it
had misinterpreted federal law when it issued the earlier ruling, and
that local governments can regulate wireless towers and poles as long
as they don't actually prohibit wireless service within their borders
or create a "significant gap in service coverage."
San
Diego County's 2003 ordinance was intended to keep unsightly
structures out of neighborhoods. It required poles to be camouflaged
in residential areas, set height limits, required companies to submit
a "visual impact analysis," and allowed a zoning board to
deny an application if it was inconsistent with the character of the
community. Two courts had overturned the ordinance, based on the 2001
appellate standard, before Thursday's ruling reinstated it.
The
new ruling gives cities and counties "the ability to
even-handedly control the environment in our neighborhoods,"
with no exemption for wireless companies, said attorney William
Marticorena, president of the California-Nevada chapter of a national
association of telecommunications regulators. "There isn't some
special place for the telecom operators to put the 50-foot-tall red
monopole (cellular tower) in front of city hall."
Thomas
Bunton, a deputy county counsel who represented San Diego County,
said the ruling allows local governments to hold public hearings and
require wireless towers and poles to be concentrated in certain areas
and camouflaged to fit in with their surroundings.
Lawyers
for Sprint, which challenged the San Diego County ordinance, and
Verizon, which filed supporting arguments, were unavailable for
comment.
In San Francisco, Deputy City Attorney William
Sanders said the ruling could restore portions of a 2007 law that a
federal judge struck down in June.
The ordinance required
wireless companies to seek a city permit before locating transmitters
or other installations near a park, a historic landmark or a building
with architectural importance, or on a street that the city has
designated as scenic.
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel,
citing the appeals court's 2001 decision, ruled that the ordinance
was invalid because it allowed public hearings in permit disputes and
failed to set precise standards for denying a permit. San Francisco
supervisors have already drafted a new ordinance to comply with the
ruling, but the city now has the option of asking Patel to reconsider
in light of Thursday's decision, Sanders said.
The 2001
decision was also the basis of a January 2006 appeals court ruling
that allowed Qwest Communications to install a fiber link to the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory over the city of Berkeley's
objections. The court said in 2006 that Berkeley's ordinance, which
required telecommunications companies to pay a fee or go through an
extensive permit process, had the effect of denying service.
Marticorena, who took part in the Berkeley case, said
Thursday's ruling won't affect Qwest, which has installed its link,
but will allow Berkeley and other cities to take another look at
their regulations.
Read the ruling
The ruling in
Sprint vs. County of San Diego can be found at:
links.sfgate.com/ZDXO
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko
[at] sfchronicle.com.