Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Tensen Family Farm v Consumers Energy Company / Testimony, T-Mobile Tower & Compound / A Concerned Politician

W.E.E.P. News
Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News 
29 December 2010
Tensen Family Farm v Consumers Energy Company  MPSC Case No 16129
Please carefully read the excellent attached letter from Prof. Don Hillman.  It is further evidence about harm being caused to people and animals by electrical companies more concerned about profit, than health and safety.  It was sent in response to another recent story about ground current, linked below.  Our thanks go to Prof. Hillman for his continued concern and all his extensive efforts to try and ensure a safe electrical system in North America.  (Martin)
Re: Owen Veterinarian Fights Over Electrical Pollution ( http://firstdonoharmblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/owen-veterinarian-fights-xcel-energy.html )

"Dr. Pamela Jaffke and her cat Magic are likely victims of the Collusion and Conspiracy involving Utilities and PSC that were revealed and are contained in a letter to the Governor-Elect, Mr. Richard Snyder of Michigan, attached.  This is a matter of public record, testimony was given in hearings at the Michigan Public Service Commission MPSC Case No. U-16129, Tensen Family Farm v Consumers Energy Company".
Don Hillman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science (Dairy)
Michigan State University,
750 Berkshire Lane
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
T-Mobile Tower & Compound
Another excellent letter, (written by Angela Flynn) was used as testimony in a recent cell phone tower hearing.  Thanks Angela.

Planning and Zoning CommissionCarroll County Government225 N Center StreetWestminster, MD 21157410-386-2145888-302-8978fax 410-386-2120 
Dennis E. Wertz, ChairmanCharles M. Chadwick, Vice ChairmanMelvin E. Baile, Jr.Alec YeoR. Wayne BarnesRichard S. SoissonCynthia L. Cheatwood 
December 21, 2010 
Re: a.  S-09-024 - Condon Property T-Mobile Tower & Compound - Owner:  John Condon; Developer:  T-Mobile Northeast LLC; located on the north side of Old Liberty Road, east of Salem Bottom Road; Tax Map 67, Block 2, Parcel 635; E.D. 9  
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, 
I write to express my opposition to the proposed cell tower base station at S-09-024 - Condon Property on Old Liberty Road 
I am a health advocate and work on the issue of non ionizing radiation exposure in the radio frequency (RFR) band.   I have a personal stake in this work, as I am one of the growing numbers of people who have become functionally impaired due to prolonged chronic exposure to RFR from a base station near to my home. I am aware that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) prohibits the consideration of environmental concerns in the siting of base stations, if, the RFR emissions are under the FCC Safety Standard.  However, the TCA does not prohibit the consideration of a loss of property value, and, as many people perceive that there is a loss of property value due to the negative health impact from the exposure to the RFR from cell towers it is incumbent upon the Commissioners to be informed of these impacts. 
Additionally, while there is cell phone coverage in this area, T-Mobile claims this tower is necessary to provide cell phone coverage along MD Route 26 and to the interior of people's homes.  Neither of these is true.
 It is important to point out that the use of cell phones while driving is considered distracted driving and studies show that it is as bad as drunk driving.  The Department of Transportation (DOT) says, we heard America's call to end the dangerous practice of distracted driving on our nation's roadways. Distracted driving is a serious, life-threatening practice and we will not rest until we stop it … The message is simple – Put it down! . (http://www.distraction.gov/ )   
In Maryland, there is a handheld ban for all drivers; a ban on all cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) for novice drivers; and, a ban on texting for all drivers. 
No Telecom company should be promoting cell phone coverage for drivers as this encourages unsafe driving practices. 
Winfield has an estimated 348 residents.  Of these, close to 250 have signed a petition against the cell tower.  If the remainder of the people must have better coverage in their homes they can purchase their own femtocell. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtocell)  This would be the far better option rather than unnecessarily exposing all Winfield residents to the RF radiation emitted by the transmitters on cell towers. 
The proposed 120 foot tower would be in close proximity to South Carroll High and Winfield Elementary schools.  Children are more susceptible to environmental toxins, absorb more RFR into their bodies and face longer cumulative exposure than adults.  This greater danger is being taken seriously by many scientific and governmental agencies.   
In April 2009, the EU Parliament adopted a resolution on health concerns associated with RFR, which includes criteria for setting up Cell Towers. They state: "In this context, it is important to ensure at least that schools, nursery schools, retirement homes, and health care institutions are kept clear, within a specific distance determined by scientific criteria, of facilities of this type." (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN )
In January 2008, the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, issued a report saying that we do not know enough about the potential health risks of long-term exposure to RF radiation from cell phones, cell towers, television towers, and other components of our communications system. The scientists emphasized, in particular, the unknown risks to the health of children, pregnant women, and fetuses as well as of workers whose jobs entail high exposure to RF radiation.  The report states: 
"Wireless networks are being built very rapidly, and many more base station antennas are being installed.  A crucial research need is to characterize radiated electromagnetic fields for typical multiple-element base station antennas and for the highest radiated power conditions with measurements conducted during peak hours of the day at locations close to the antennas as well as at ground level." (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12036.html ) 
Jason Campbell, senior development manager for T-Mobile, USA, reports that the RF radiation levels from this cell tower will be 100 times lower than the FCC standards. This means the estimated RFR level will be 10 microwatts per centimeter squared (µW/cm2).  This is the maximum allowable RFR exposure level in Russia, China, Switzerland, Italy and Monaco.  The level claimed by Campbell may not take into account additional transmitters, which will further increase the RFR levels.  In addition the reflective and amplifying nature of RFR in the environment may lead to localized RFR hot spots that exceed the estimated levels. 
 The wide variance in RFR exposure limits around the world is due to the fact that some countries, such as the United States, dismiss non-thermal biological effects from RFR exposure.  The limits only protect against thermal heating.  Many countries have lower limits that factor in the non-thermal cumulative effects, which have been shown to occur at levels thousands of times lower than the thermal effects.  
According to Norbert Hankin, an environmental scientist in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, who has studied the effects of RFR for 33 years, the FCC's standards are "thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations…Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified."http://americanassociationforcellphonesafety.org/uploads/noi_epa_response.pdf 
The BioInitiative Report, published in 2007, provides detailed scientific information on health impacts when people are exposed to EMF/RFR hundreds or even thousands of times below the limits currently established by the FCC.  The authors reviewed more than 2000 scientific studies and reviews, and concluded that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health.  Their conclusion is that:  From a public health policy standpoint, new public safety limits, and limits on further deployment of risky technologies are warranted based on the total weight of evidence.  Their recommendation is to set an exposure standard of 0.1 microwatt per centimeter squared (µW/cm2) limit.  This is 10,000 times lower than the FCC standard of 1,000 µW/cm2 and 100 times lower than T-Mobile's estimation of the RFR levels from the proposed cell tower.  (http://www.bioinitiative.org/ )
 The non-thermal biological effects of RFR have been documented by the international scientific community and the military since the 1950s.  As Dr. David Carpenter, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, State University of New York, lead author of the BioInitiative Report, Advisor to the President's Cancer Panel and the Executive Secretary of the New York Power Lines Project, coveys quite well in his report Setting Prudent Public Health Policy for Electromagnetic Field Exposures: "Clear evidence has emerged from animal and cell culture studies that [RFR] has biological effects.  Furthermore, such effects occur at intensities commonly experienced by humans.  We know a number of ways in which EMF's alter cell physiology and function.  Electromagnetic fields affect gene transcription, induce the synthesis of stress proteins, and cause breakage of DNA, probably through the generation of reactive oxygen species.  Changes in the blood-brain-barrier and in calcium metabolism have been demonstrated for various RF frequencies.and such effects occur at exposures that do not cause significant heating.  Any one of these actions might be responsible for the carcinogenic and/or neuro-degenerative actions of EMF's[RFR]." (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4090137/Setting-Prudent-Public-Health-Policy-for-Electromagnetic-Field-Exposures ) 
In addition, 10 out of the 14 peer-reviewed epidemiological studies analyzed, and conforming to the specified WHO/ICNIRP standards of scientific quality, including their assessment criteria of consistency and replication found significant increases in ill health effects.  Included in this database are only those studies that are about cell tower exposures.  (Kundi, 2008 at the London EMF International Conference). Populations close to cellular antennas show an increase in the effects of ill health in those closest to the antennas with the risks factors dropping off as distance and RFR levels decrease.  Symptoms ranged from sleep disturbances to breast and brain cancers. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBB-4VRWNH1-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b22f07bbd6f4e2076bdc07dbc4e94df6 )
 Cell towers should not be placed near our homes and schools. As public officials you have a legal and moral duty to educate yourselves on this matter and to base your decisions on all of the information regarding negative health impacts from exposure to the radio frequency radiation from wireless communication transmitters and their subsequent negative impact on property values.  And, in fact, if you go to this web site – No Cell Tower in Our Neighborhood http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/other-communities-saying-no - you will see some of the hundreds of communities, organizations, municipalities, school parents, individuals and residents who are opposing cell towers and are fighting off wireless facilities in their neighborhoods, including my local high school, Walt Whitman in Bethesda, Md. 
Angela Flynn
5309 Iroquois Road
Bethesda, MD  20816
Member of Wireless Radiation Alert Network
Board Member of Center for Safer Wireless
A Concerned Politician

To sign up for WEEP News: http://www.blogger.com/  (provide name and e-mail address)
W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution