Members of 5GFreeRI presented oral and written testimonies to the Cranston City Council this past August. Here you can read 3 featured testimonies regarding health, environment, decline in property value, liability and the FCC.
TESTIMONY 1
August 16, 2020
To all Councilmembers and Solicitors:
Re: 5G “Small” cell Wireless Telecommunications Facilities on utility poles
I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.
Throughout the past year, I have listened to dozens of lectures by prominent scientists, medical doctors and attorneys on 5G, the pulsed microwave radiation that is deployed via sWTFs, so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in Cranston.
Convinced of the absolute threat of harm to me and the creatures with whom I share
my 2 acres, and the loss of my property’s value, I contacted in February Mayor Fung, and Cranston’s council members. Councilman Stycos did respond by
saying he was receptive to knowing more on the subject, suggested I submit a sample moratorium, and kindly connected me with several other Cranston residents who had also voiced their objections to so-called “small” site antennas.
In May, I telephoned several City Hall offices in an attempt to determine the application process for permitting of WTFs. I was repeatedly told that no permitting had ever gone through City Hall, and that I should contact National Grid, which I have since learned is owned by National Grid, PLC in the UK.
On June 5th, I hand-delivered a very thorough 9 page Cease and Desist notice, signed also by 2 other Cranston residents. I returned to City Hall after also mailing a copy by certified mail, to confirm that the Cease and Desist was on an appropriate desk. I also emailed the document to every council member and the solicitors. I received no response. Several weeks later I contacted council members, and Mr. Stycos and Mr. Brady replied they had never seen it, nor were aware of its delivery. Mr. Brady advised me to contact the solicitors, and Solicitor Rossen told me succinctly that this is a matter for the Public Utilities Commission.
The PUC’s engineer Ken McCarthy told me on August 6th that “the PUC does not regulate small cell wireless or any wireless.” However, the audio recording of the 2017 Hearings on the Small Cell Siting Act reveals that then-Administrator for the DPUC Macky McLeary was instrumental in advocating on behalf of the telecommunications companies, advocating for antennas in RI. Why would the PUC not know about the significant lobbying of its sister agency, the DPUC? I did learn that Mr. McCleary was appointed to the DPUC by Gov. Raimondo, was only there for 10 months, and was known for being “a big fan of 5G.”
When I asked a DPUC administrator Kogut why, if the DPUC doesn’t regulate wireless, Mr. McCleary was even involved in the Small Cell Siting hearings, his response was “Good question.” Yet Mr. McCleary’s LinkedIn profile states that
The DPUC independently regulates broadband and wireless carriers.
His profile also features his work towards implementation of autonomous vehicles, one of the hallmarks of 5G.
An article appearing October 1, 2017 in the Providence Journal said that the Small Cell Siting Act capped at $150 per pole per year the price cities can charge phone companies to rent space on a utility pole.
Is Cranston renting out space on the telephone poles to telecommunications companies?
It is clear from the details of my communications with multiple departments over the last six months that there is nothing clear about the process by which I am told I will be required to submit to pulsed microwave radiation at 60GHz from my telephone pole.
If my telephone pole has been rented out for an antenna, I assert that the goal of financial gain is short-sighted. It has been assessed by a number of communities listed below that properties with an antenna on a nearby pole lose value up to 20%. Residents will have their properties reassessed and the accompanying loss of tax revenue to Cranston will far exceed the annual gain of $150 per pole.
Further, who will fund the lawsuits that will be brought by residents whose health has been damaged? Or by gardening businesses in western Cranston when pollination isn’t occurring? Brain tumors have already been directly attributed to the antennas on California residents’ poles. Asbestos, cigarettes, glyphosate, lead in gasoline and paint are painful reminders of short-sighted promotion of industry for financial gain ultimately costing immeasurably in lost health, lost lives, destroyed environments and enormous legal bills. Lloyds of London and Swiss Re have already rejected insuring telecomms on 5G, as they recognize the immense liability.
It is also clear that municipal leaders are suffering under the erroneous “consensus
trance” that because of a 1996 bill, the FCC can have its way, which is the way of
the telecommunications industry that it is supposed to be regulating. The other
oft-uttered error is that “our hands are tied” because of an Act in 2017 that was
rushed through during a special session.
Allow me to remind you of the beauty of our Rhode Island Constitution, the power it provides, and indeed demands, of elected officials and residents to honor and uphold.
Preamble: “Looking to Almighty God for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure, and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations…” Unimpaired, yes by freedom from assaulting microwave radiation. To secure and transmit to succeeding generations who have not been harmed as children with vulnerably thin skulls.
Article 1, Section 1. Right to make and alter Constitution
In the words of the Father of his Country, we declare that “the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government; but that the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
WHOLE people. The 2017 Small Cell Siting Act was in special session and the hearings were not involving the general population.
Article 1, Section 5. Right to justice.
Every person within this state ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which may be received in one’s person, property, or character.
Article 1, Section 18. Subordination of military to civil authority
Article 1, Section 19 Quartering of soldiers
No soldier shall be quartered in any house in time of peace, without the consent of the owner.
sWTFs are a surveillance tool. They are already used in China as such. The verbiage
used by the industry is “deployed,” a military term.
The stakes are high. Covid and other matters have captured attention, while the duo of the FCC and the telecommunications industry continue their wanton quest. It is the path of least resistance to defer to the lie that “our hands our tied.” I will not tell my grandchildren that I took that path, while their health was squandered in the name of Rhode Island’s being ahead in a dangerous quest of “ever-faster.” What will you tell your grandchildren?
I have expressed no matter of mere concern, but solely matters of substance, fact and law.
Claire Stadtmueller, M.M.
Property value:
April 1, 2020 Sandy Springs, Georgia
If the U.S. District Court judge assigned the complaint decides the installation can’t be legally stopped, he asked that Verizon Wireless be ordered to pay every one of the 110 homeowners in the subdivision $128,200 in compensation for what he claims will be reduced property values.
Kaspers, who is an attorney, said in his suit that installation and operation of 5G cells in a neighborhood “is viewed by the general public as analogous to residing adjacent to a toxic waste site” in justifying his claim of a 20% devaluation of a residence.
There has been a redress concerning this issue and municipal officials found in favor of Kaspers and others concerned for the safety of these towers.
Montgomery County, Maryland
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1berIdn_1Pwrm4bcvEHBZnkkheQe665Tp/view?
On 9/12/18, Redfin confirmed the following sales information for 503 Mariano Drive, Sonoma, CA.
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Sonoma/503-Mariano-Dr-95476/home/2501530
After a homebuyer of 503 Mariano Drive learned of the plans of a so-called “Small Cell” Cell Tower to be installed 28′ from his house next to the home they selected in Sonoma, CA,the buyer canceled escrow and walked away.
Six months later, the house still hasn’t sold; the owner has now reduced his price by $150,000. Similar property value losses are occurring in other areas. See the targeted utility pole next to the For Sale sign in the photo.
TESTIMONY 2
Written testimony to the Cranston City Council in advance of the August 24, 2020 City Council Meeting
Topic: The deployment of “small cell” antennas to enable 5G in Cranston and across RI
This information provides background and evidence in support of the comments I will make to the City Council during the August 24, 2020 City Council Meeting.
Court Rulings, 2019—subsequent litigation that supersedes Rhode Island’s 2017 Small Cell Siting Act
On August 9, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its Ruling in Case 18-1129 vacated FCC Order 18-30‘s deregulation of WTFs (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) and remanded this to the FCC. In Case 18-1129, the judges stated that “the FCC failed to justify its determination that it is not in the public interest to require review of [WTF] deployments” and ruled that “the Order’s deregulation of [WTFs] is arbitrary and capricious.”
The D.C. Circuit judges published reasons for their 8/9/19 Ruling, concluding:
- The FCC failed to address that it was speeding densification “without completing its investigation of . . . health effects of low-intensity radiofrequency [microwave] radiation.”
- The FCC did not adequately address the harms of deregulation.
- The FCC did not justify its portrayal of those harms as negligible.
- The FCC’s characterization of the Order as consistent with its longstanding policy was not “logical and rational.” . . . because the FCC mischaracterized the size, scale and footprint of the anticipated nationwide deployment of 800,000-unit network of small WTFs.
- Such WTFs are “crucially different from the consumer signal boosters and Wi-Fi routers to which the FCC compares them.”
- “It is impossible on this record to credit the claim that [WTF] deregulation will ‘leave little to no environmental footprint.’”
- The FCC fails to justify its conclusion that small WTFs “as a class” and by their “nature” are “inherently unlikely” to trigger potential significant environmental impacts.
Briefly, from 2015 to 2019, both wireline and wireless internet transmissions fell under FCC Title II, regulated as “Telecommunications Services.” However, on October 1, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals further ruled against FCC overreach in Case 18-1051, Mozilla et al. v. FCC, which states on page 146, re: Restoring Internet Freedom, 33 FCC Rcd. 311 (2018) (“2018 Order”):
“[Because] the Commission’s Preemption Directive, see 2018 Order ¶¶ 194–204, lies beyond its authority, we vacate the portion of the 2018 Order purporting to preempt ‘any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with [the Commission’s] deregulatory approach,]’ see id. ¶ 194.”
This Ruling confirms that internet “Services” be reclassified by the FCC as Title I, unregulated “Information Services,” which is regulated by localities and is not subject to the TCA (Telecommunications Act of 1996) or any preemption therein. At present, only wireline and wireless voice and text transmissions are classified as Title II, regulated “Telecommunications Services.” Title I and Title II applications, therefore, need to be regulated differentially by local planning boards and commissions: for example, with separate file cabinets. Ideally, in larger cities, separate staff should evaluate the respective applications. This regulatory distinction means that no preemption applies to WTF applications purposed for internet transmissions. However, at this time, to my knowledge, local officials in Rhode Island are at present incorrectly considering applications for internet transmissions to fall under Title II.
These sWTFs (small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities), so-called “small” cell facilities, which emit pulsed, modulated microwave radiation, have been deployed in Cranston and throughout RI on public rights-of-way in residential neighborhoods without the consent of the governed, and contrary to the intent of the TCA. Said facilities have “25 million times more [effective radiated power (ERP)] than Macro Cell Towers, once you consider the metric that matters — the intensities of the toxic pollutant (RF/MW [radiofrequency/microwave] radiation) that reaches second- and third-story bedrooms.” (https://ourtownourchoice.org/glenellyn/)
Throughout the TCA, Congress confirmed that local authorities have jurisdiction over the placement, construction, modification and operations of WTFs. The FCC allows local residents to file “controversies” when they are at odds with their local officials regarding these activities. Claims that residents are blocked from addressing their local officials directly on these matters, i.e., claims removing or further preempting local authorities, are not in accordance with federal law, and where nevertheless in effect, require your legal challenge.
Legislative purposes cannot be ignored, as they supersede specific laws and rules thereunder. The FCC does not make the laws. The primary purpose of the U.S. Congress’s TCA “mobile services” is to “to promote the safety of life and property.” Congress set up FCC, for, among other purposes, “promoting safety of life and property.” Therefore, where a local government sees actual and potential consequences of WTFs contrary to the said purposes, it is authorized to ensure that U.S. Congressional intent is rather fulfilled.
The Environmental Health Trust and the Children’s Health Defense have recently sued the FCC for failure to update its obsolete and woefully inadequate safety guidelines for wireless emissions:
The FCC’s December 2019 Order Upholds its Outdated Safety Standards: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on December 4th, 2019 issued a new order essentially maintaining that the FCC, despite having only conducted a cursory review that failed to take into account the accumulating scientific evidence, would stand by its outdated public-health and safety standards, related to human exposure to Radio Frequency (RF) radiation. That action basically gave a green light to the rollout of 5G technology and a dense network of small cell towers on residential streets across the country.
The Environmental Health Trust v. FCC: In response, the EHT filed suit on January, 31st, 2020, as the lead petitioner in a case that faults the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failing to have ever updated cellular phone and wireless RF radiation limits and cellular phone testing methods since they were first set in 1996. These failures, the petitioners contend, ignore “peer-reviewed scientific studies showing that radiation from cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters is associated with severe health effects in humans, including cancer, DNA damage, damage to the reproductive organs, and brain damage (including memory problems).” This historic legal action challenges the FCC for their non-protective, inadequate, and outdated wireless regulations. EHT filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See: https://ehtrust.org/ehtlegalaction-againstfcconhealtheffectsofcellphones/
Children’s Health Defense v. FCC: CHD was the lead petitioner in a case filed slightly later that also challenges the FCC’s December refusal to update their 24-year-old guidelines, and to promulgate scientific, evidence-based rules for human exposure to radio frequency emissions that adequately protect public health and safety from wireless technology radiation. CHD filed in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in California on February 2, 2020. See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z11EuV1f2sAHJUSTalcsCXjBLIDeXu9Q/view?usp=sharing
Consolidation of Petitions, EHT Designated as Lead Petitioner: The courts have consolidated the two petitions against the FCC and ordered the case to be heard in the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. The courts have designated the EHT – which filed first, and filed in that court – as the lead petitioner for the single new case.
For more on the FCC, See Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates by Norm Alster, published by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University: “Perhaps the best example of how the FCC is tangled in a chain of corruption is the cell tower and antenna infrastructure that lies at the heart of the phenomenally successful wireless industry. It all begins with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, legislation once described by South Dakota Republican senator Larry Pressler as ‘the most lobbied bill in history.’” And further, this 1996 law intended to preempt the jurisdiction of local cities and towns, to prohibit them from interfering in the business (pun intended) of the proliferation of wireless technologies, without pre-market testing for safety or post-market follow-up. Keep in mind that this was many years before 4G smart phones came into use exponentially for all age groups. “Obviously, cellular technology is wildly popular because it offers many benefits to consumers. But even allowing for that popularity and for the incomplete state of science, don’t some of these findings raise enough concern to warrant some backtracking on the ham-fisted federal preemption of local zoning rights? In reality, since the passage of the 1996 law, the very opposite has occurred. Again and again both Congress and the FCC have opted to stiffen—rather than loosen—federal preemption over local zoning authority.”
On June 22, 2020, I had a phone conversation with Jason Pezzullo, the head of the Cranston Planning Commission, in which I expressed my opposition to the rollout of the small cell antennas for 5G in Cranston. He told me that actual cell towers can be regulated for height, etc., but that the small cell antennas are not actually “towers,” and so are not under the city’s jurisdiction. He further said that the FCC has the jurisdiction for the small cell antennas, and that there is “not much we can do,” and “cities are powerless due to federal law.” He also said that we don’t have the financial resources to fight the FCC. However, according to New York lawyer Andrew Campanelli, who has won many lawsuits on behalf of cities across the country against the installation of these small cells: “Even if a local government somehow violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there’s nothing to be fearful of. And the reason is, if a wireless company sues a local government under the Telecommunications Act, they don’t win money damages and they don’t win attorneys fees. So there’s no threat of financial loss to the local government. As far as the hands being tied, quite the contrary is true. Congress specifically preserve power to local governments to regulate the placement of wireless facilities.” https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2020-05-07-5G-Free-CA-Ask-The-Lawyers-Executive-Summary-1.pdf
So, if not through wireless technology, how can people continue to utilize the internet? There is a way—fiber-optic cable to the premises, which the industry was supposed to be installing for decades with fees paid in every phone bill from the 1990s on, for a total of ~$500 Billion. This technology is not only safe, but it is actually much faster, more secure, not a threat to privacy, consumes less energy, and doesn’t go down in a power failure. What’s more, Rhode Island is currently the state with the most fiber-optic coverage, at 84.2%.
As a member of our Cranston group 5GFreeRI, which seeks a statewide moratorium on sWTFs, I encourage you to view our website: 5GFreeRI.com. Here are a few links that will give you a quick introduction to the severity and urgency of this problem:
- Dr. Sharon Goldberg, “We Are The Evidence” Medical Advisory Board https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK0AliMe-KA&feature=emb_logo
2. Kevin Mottus testimony at the Washington DC Council 5G Small Cell Roundtable 11/19/18 (first speaker, and again at about minute 19)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=ljLynbr5iPc&feature=emb_logo
3. San Francisco 4G/5G “Small” Cell Near Apartment Window Leads to Fast Brain Tumor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=67&v=SmJ4mNr6FWI&feature=emb_logo
4. US LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCES TO REGULATE AND CONTROL WIRELESS FACILITIES 5G & 4G SMALL CELLS
Sheila Resseger, M.A.
TESTIMONY 3
Testimony for the August 24th 2020 Cranston City Council Meeting regarding the topic of 5G.
Dear Cranston City Council,
Thank you for considering my testimony opposing the deployment of pulsed, modulated radiofrequency microwave radiation (also known as “small cell”, wireless telecommunications facilities (sWTFs) and “5G”) in our Cranston community. For this testimony I will be referring to this as the brand name ‘5G’.
In early April I took my children for a walk in our neighborhood of Meshanicut Lake. While walking past the Cranston West High School, I could not help but notice a 5G infrastructure on a telephone pole in the school’s parking lot. I was immediately disturbed. This is what prompted me to contact local officials to try and get some information. Little did I know, the information was going to be found from hours upon hours of investigating and educating myself.
If we all open our eyes and do our research, we will see that wireless in general is a hazard to the wellbeing of all living organisms. Science proves that our public health and environments are in jeopardy from the excessive exposure of non-ionizing pulsed modulated/radio frequency microwave radiation. It gets worse though-now we are introducing another layer of exposure only this time it will be closer to home. These 5G transmitters with antennae will be deployed in every residential neighborhood, every 2-10 houses on telephone poles and light posts in our front yards. They will be deployed on high buildings, abandoned water towers, added to existing cell towers, at our hospitals, nursing homes and schools throughout Rhode Island.
The evidence that radio frequency (RF) radiation is in fact harmful to life is overwhelming! According to the 297,000+ scientists, physicians, and environmental organizations worldwide, electromagnetic pollution is being shown to cause a plethora of negative biological effects. Even before 5G was introduced, there have been scientists around the world raising awareness on the 10,000+ peer reviewed studies that have been done on these exposures to human beings. The harmful effects demonstrated include, but are not limited to cardiovascular disease, DNA damage, neurological damage, learning and memory deficiencies, cognitive impairment, impaired fertility, and cancers.
In 2015, Professor and Scientist Dr. Devra Davis gave a lecture to the University of Melbourne on the truth of mobile phone use and wireless radiation. Dr. Davis is an expert in her field and has dedicated her life, researching heavily, the environmental impacts of cancer. She is also the Founder and President of Environmental Health Trust, a nonprofit showcasing the health hazards of environmental impacts. Back when she was a young scientist, she was involved in the committee who reviewed that data and recommended that there be no smoking on airplanes. Isn’t it shocking to even think that this was once a question in science? Dr. Davis claims to see many similarities regarding questions raised by researchers and scientists when it comes to wireless radiation.
Many Scientists have been warning us of health effects and it is time we start listening.
Even our Firemen are aware of these hazards. According to the 2004 resolution from The International Association of Fire Fighters, they oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and antennae until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity on health effects of exposure is conducted and it is proven to be non-hazardous to the health of its members. IAFF also goes on to say that “The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the RF/MW radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, i.e., a “thermal effect.” Research done by experts in the field of RF/MW radiation have shown that RF/MW transmissions have found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities) of serious health effects at “non-thermal levels,” where the intensity of the RF/MW radiation was too low to cause heating.” Such serious health effects include childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF, changes in sleep patterns, headaches, decreased memory and attention in school children, increased blood pressure and of course cancers, as well as many others.
Firefighters are not only having to fight fires but now they must fight against cell towers.
‘Health Exemption for Firefighters sends a Message to the World’ by Susan Foster (a medical writer who has worked with firefighters on health, safety and policy with respect to cell towers on their stations since 2000).
The American Cancer Society cannot even assure its safety. So why is the State of RI taking this risk, especially since RI is one of the top states in the US with the most cancer cases. Don’t you think we would take more precautions? Maybe we should have required more safety testing before signing on to install over 100,000 mini cell (5G) towers throughout our state. Economic gain and having the title of a “high tech State” will come with a cost to the public health of Rhode Islanders. As for the city of Cranston, we can no longer say that we were not aware.
Our trees are a topic up for discussion as well. This technology requires a direct line of sight between small cells. That would require chopping off large portions of tree branches. Trees play a vital role in mitigating climate change, pulling in millions of tons of carbon that would otherwise pollute our climate. There is also proof that radiofrequency radiation injures our trees when around mobile phone base stations. Unusual and unexplainable damage occurred in trees that have had long term exposure to radiofrequency and electromagnetic radiation. The conclusion to this is that damage starts to occur on one side (exposed side) and gradually extends to the entire tree.
Did you also know that various chapters of The Sierra Club are writing resolutions in opposition against 5G due to tree damage, climate change and energy consumption?
What about the saying “No bees, No food”? According to Toxicology International they have found that radiofrequency exposure causes behavioral problems on bees such as disturbance, aggression and leaving their hive location. The International Journal of Environmental Science stated in their study that “Bees and other insects have survived and evolved complex immune systems on this planet over a span of millions of years. It is not logical that they would now suddenly die out due to diseases and natural parasites. This suggests another factor has been introduced to their environment that disrupts their immune system. These man-made factors are mobile towers and mobile phones.” More information can be found at Environment Health Trust.
These installations also invade our personal choice. If we are privileged to do so, we choose to buy a home in far distance from a cell tower. We also have a choice on when we use our cell phone. As of now, we can choose how much exposure we have in our home and in our outdoor environment, but 5G will soon take that away from us. There will be no animal, plant or human who will be able to escape from the constant exposure to these harmful frequencies. They are silent, they are odorless, and they are invisible, but they are still harmful. They will be radiating our environment and our bodies 24/7 with no way to measure their effects besides ‘time will tell’.
In 2017 Governor Raimondo signed the Small Cell Siting Act, fast tracking this for RI to be one of the first states to get the rollout. This was done with no hesitation, no need for safety testing, not much of a public hearing, nothing more was needed besides industry affiliates claiming that this is safe. The desire to put RI on the map as being a ‘high tech’ state may come with major consequences to public health. Those who sponsored this bill and those who are looking forward to the rollout of 5G are certainly NOT considering the public health and welfare of our community or our environment.
Scientists around the world are calling for a moratorium on 5G and now your fellow Cranston residents are calling for one as well. While budgets and economic gain are important to our City, please consider public health a priority as well.
Thank you again for your time and your consideration.
Kendra Morales