Fwd: letter

Friends,

If you can, please take a moment to write a letter before June 28  
addressed to Raleigh City Councilwoman

Mary Ann Baldwin
Raleigh City Council
P. O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602


asking her to get the city council Public Safety committee assigned to  
look at the wireless radiation issue from my June 15, 2010 speech  
"Stop Expansion of the City’s Wireless Network."

In a special committee, I hope to be able to invite experts like Dr.  
Larry Burk, a radiologist from Duke, and Dr. Carl Blackman from the  
EPA and others to work the committee.

Background: The new 3G and 4G wireless networks Raleigh will have  
redundant towers and emitters that are unnecessary for basic service  
and will cover Raleigh with unhealthy amounts of radiation. A more  
efficient method must be explored and in the meantime, I am asking for  
a moratorium on all new systems until there is a healthy plan. Other  
cities have done this like Glendale, CA., which had an 18 month  
moratorium while they researched the health effects and efficient  
placement of towers and emitters. Right now no one is measuring the  
radiation levels or restricting towers near schools or residential  
areas where radiation levels are most damaging to children.

Getting this topic to a special committee is the first step so the  
unplanned and unhealthy expansion of wireless radiation can be  
stopped. As you know, Fiber Optic Cable is the best option.

Any other of your suggestions are welcome!

Thank you!
Andrew McAfee




6135 Westglen Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-787-3022







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sure Andrew when does it need to be done by?  Loni

--- On Tue, 6/22/10, Andrew McAfee <[hidden email]> wrote:


From: Andrew McAfee <[hidden email]>
Subject: [eSens] Fwd: letter
To: "Andrew McAfee" <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 9:10 AM



Friends,

If you can, please take a moment to write a letter before June 28 
addressed to Raleigh City Councilwoman

Mary Ann Baldwin
Raleigh City Council
P. O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602


asking her to get the city council Public Safety committee assigned to 
look at the wireless radiation issue from my June 15, 2010 speech 
"Stop Expansion of the City’s Wireless Network."

In a special committee, I hope to be able to invite experts like Dr. 
Larry Burk, a radiologist from Duke, and Dr. Carl Blackman from the 
EPA and others to work the committee.

Background: The new 3G and 4G wireless networks Raleigh will have 
redundant towers and emitters that are unnecessary for basic service 
and will cover Raleigh with unhealthy amounts of radiation. A more 
efficient method must be explored and in the meantime, I am asking for 
a moratorium on all new systems until there is a healthy plan. Other 
cities have done this like Glendale, CA., which had an 18 month 
moratorium while they researched the health effects and efficient 
placement of towers and emitters. Right now no one is measuring the 
radiation levels or restricting towers near schools or residential 
areas where radiation levels are most damaging to children.

Getting this topic to a special committee is the first step so the 
unplanned and unhealthy expansion of wireless radiation can be 
stopped. As you know, Fiber Optic Cable is the best option.

Any other of your suggestions are welcome!

Thank you!
Andrew McAfee




6135 Westglen Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-787-3022







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

June 28 is my self imposed deadline. The city council meets July 6 but  
with people going on vacation, the earlier the better!
Thank you!
Andrew

On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Loni wrote:

Hi Andrew;
 
I drafting a letter for you but is it going to be effective coming from someone that does not live there?  Loni

--- On Tue, 6/22/10, Andrew McAfee <[hidden email]> wrote:


From: Andrew McAfee <[hidden email]>
Subject: [eSens] Fwd: letter
To: "Andrew McAfee" <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 9:10 AM



Friends,

If you can, please take a moment to write a letter before June 28 
addressed to Raleigh City Councilwoman

Mary Ann Baldwin
Raleigh City Council
P. O. Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602


asking her to get the city council Public Safety committee assigned to 
look at the wireless radiation issue from my June 15, 2010 speech 
"Stop Expansion of the City’s Wireless Network."

In a special committee, I hope to be able to invite experts like Dr. 
Larry Burk, a radiologist from Duke, and Dr. Carl Blackman from the 
EPA and others to work the committee.

Background: The new 3G and 4G wireless networks Raleigh will have 
redundant towers and emitters that are unnecessary for basic service 
and will cover Raleigh with unhealthy amounts of radiation. A more 
efficient method must be explored and in the meantime, I am asking for 
a moratorium on all new systems until there is a healthy plan. Other 
cities have done this like Glendale, CA., which had an 18 month 
moratorium while they researched the health effects and efficient 
placement of towers and emitters. Right now no one is measuring the 
radiation levels or restricting towers near schools or residential 
areas where radiation levels are most damaging to children.

Getting this topic to a special committee is the first step so the 
unplanned and unhealthy expansion of wireless radiation can be 
stopped. As you know, Fiber Optic Cable is the best option.

Any other of your suggestions are welcome!

Thank you!
Andrew McAfee




6135 Westglen Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-787-3022







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think it will be helpful for them to know that there are people  
everywhere suffering from this and also that this is a true condition  
and I am not just making it up.
I am working on getting more people locally to show up but till I get  
a herd of people wearing T-Shirts, I am very happy to have you and  
others write letters.
If you can, copy me or email it to me so I can keep a pile.
Thank you!
Andrew

On Jun 23, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Loni wrote:

Hi Andrew, You might find the following doc helpful to show that people
from all over are suffering from this:
http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/emrpi_comment_gn_09_51_fcc_09_31\
.pdf
It contains affidavits collected across the country by the EMR Policy
Institute in protest of a National Broadband Policy.

--- In [hidden email], Andrew McAfee <amcafeerr@...> wrote: to for

Wow. Great letter from Janet Newton! Thank you emraware for bringing  
it to my attention. I will forward it far and wide.

For those that are interested but don't want to read the whole 48  
pages, here are my highlights...
Andrew


http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/index.htm
June 7, 2009 - EMR Policy Institute Comment in FCC 09-31 Notice Of  
Inquiry in GN Docket No. 09-51 A National Broadband Plan for Our Future.

PDF Link:
http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/emrpi_comment_gn_09_51_fcc_09_31.pdf




"The Federal Communications Act of 1996 and local promoters of the  
cell-phone tower failed to disclose that EMF generated by AC/DC switch  
mode devices from cellular telephone towers appear on the neutral  
wires and radiate into homes, schools, and workplaces." p. 6


"The FCC seldom monitors the amount of RF being generated, and acts  
only to promote the expansion of RF technology, and is strongly biased  
towards industry desires." p. 12


Ronald Hurston MD, decries the siting of cell towers near his home,  
schools,...
"I find the decisions to place these towers in close proximity to  
areas where people spend long periods of time (such as residential,  
neighborhood, and industrial areas) to be an outrage. The short-range  
financial goals of large corporations have once again taken priority  
over the well being of the general public, and it will be the general  
public who will have to bear the personal consequences and foot the  
financial expenses years later of such irresponsible corporate and  
public planning." p. 14

Margaret Patton: "I was in the court room in New York City and heard  
at least two of the three United States Court of Appeals judges for  
the Second Circuit ask the FCC lawyers if they had looked at any  
biological research before the FCC released the wireless licenses. The  
answer was “No Sir” each time." p. 15

Two thousand studies document that these frequencies are harmful to  
biological systems. p. 20

A series of unmet research needs have been identified by Federal  
agencies and their expert consultants -- including the National  
Academies of Science (NAS) -- which show that the 1996 FCC regulations  
do not provide "adequate safeguards of the public health and safety"  
from RF emissions today. p. 24

Most of the existing limits on this form of radiation, including the  
FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation, are 1 to 4  
thousand times too lenient to prudently protect humans from adverse  
health effects ranging from Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative  
diseases, reproduction problems, sleep reduction, learning problems,  
memory deficits, slowed ability of the body to repair damage,  
interference with immune function, cancer and EHS. The increasing  
danger to children and the inadequacy of the FCC RF limits for long-
term exposure were examined in the Sept. 25, 2008 - US Congressional  
hearing - Cell Phone Use and Tumors: What the Science Says convened by  
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic  
Policy of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2199
FCC’s Director of its Office of Engineering and Technology Julius  
Knapp presented written and oral testimony at the September 2008  
Congressional Hearing. When asked by Chairman Kucinich if the FCC’s RF  
safety standards are appropriate to protect children and vulnerable  
adults and other
p.24
cases that were the subject of the hearing, Knapp replied that, “the  
FCC does not have the expertise to evaluate whether the standard is  
appropriate.” He stated that the FCC exposure standard is a “flat  
limit” based on RF absorption of an adult male body. He concluded his  
remarks by stating that the FCC, “completely supports further analysis  
of this issue.”

Wireless broadband deployment throughout the Nation is a major federal  
action that will permanently and negatively alter the human  
environment. p. 26

In 2009 U.S. states and municipalities are voicing their  
dissatisfaction with current FCC RF radiation safety policy especially  
as it applies to long-term, chronic RF radiation exposure to children  
and the disabled. Colorado and Connecticut, Los Angeles County and Los  
Angeles Unified School District, and the cities of Portland, Oregon;  
and Boca Raton, Florida are recognizing these impacts on their  
citizens and calling for awareness. These actions challenge the  
adequacy of the FCC’s public exposure standards based upon new and  
emerging scientific evidence. These US states and municipalities are  
calling for revision of Section 704 of the TCA’s preemption of  
consideration of the health and environmental effects of RF radiation  
at levels below current FCC standards in decisions involving the  
placement, construction and modification of wireless facilities. They  
also call explicitly for responsible deployment of fiberoptic  
broadband technology, citing its superiority to wireless technology in  
speed, reliability, security, durability and protections it affords  
people and the environment from the potential hazards of exposure to  
RF radiation. Exhibit 44 is a compilation of these recent state and  
municipal statements and actions.
p. 26

Current safety standards have been developed with a model of the  
“average male” and do not address these characteristics of children’s  
anatomy and physiology: p. 27

from the FDA Executive Summary: "The existing exposure guidelines are  
based on protection from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR  
exposure, and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of  
chronic exposure...A significant research effort,
p. 30
involving large well-planned animal experiments is needed to provide  
the basis to assess the risk to human health of wireless  
communications devices. ...the FCC is not a health agency. These  
exposure guidelines . .. are subject to continuing review and revision  
as new scientific information which could define a better basis for  
such exposure guidelines becomes available. " p. 31

...physicians evaluated the personal data of almost 1,000 patients.  
The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing  
cancer cases was
p. 33
significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the  
past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres from the cellular  
transmitter site, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to  
those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on  
average 8 years earlier.
In the years 1999-2004, i.e., after five years’ operation of the  
transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had  
trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the  
installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila [village studied]  
outside the area. p. 34

...What the House Report says is this:
The siting of facilities cannot be denied on the basis of Radio  
Frequency (RF) emission levels which are in compliance with Commission  
RF emission regulated levels. (Emphasis added.)

35
In short, state and local agencies are not preempted from restricting  
the siting of facilities on the basis of other environmental factors  
that are not addressed or covered by the FCC in its regulated RF  
emission levels.

It is undisputed that the FCC does not regulate RF emission levels  
based on the length of exposure, or non-thermal effects, or age or  
other characteristics of the persons exposed.

Until such time as the FCC regulates RF emissions based on these  
factors -- and others like them -- state and local agencies have a  
public duty to prevent harm to the public from unregulated emission  
levels of unknown risk of potential harm. One way to do this is  
through the use of setbacks or “buffer zones.” p. 36

The Tenth Amendment now takes over to fill the regulatory vacuum left  
by the FCC's failure, and state and local governments are free to make  
their own siting decisions on cell antennas based on their retained  
police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the state's  
citizens against risks not addressed by the FCC's obsolete 1996  
guidelines. p. 40

Where a Federal regulatory agency has refused to comply with a  
statutory command, especially in the arena of "public health and  
safety," the state itself may not shirk its duty to do so under the  
Tenth Amendment.
International Scieitific Publications Lead to Precautionary Actions
The FCC candidly acknowledges that more RF radiation research is being  
done internationally than in the U.S. Here are some of the results of  
recent international studies:
In 2005, a scientific study in Austria of a random cross-section of  
inhabitants living near cell towers ("base stations") showed that  
people living for more than one year near the towers experienced  
headaches, vertigo, palpitations, tremors, hot flashes, sweating, loss  
of appetite, loss of energy, exhaustion, tiredness, difficulties in  
concentration, and stress.
In 2003, a scientific study in France of a random cross-section of  
inhabitants living near cell towers ("base stations") showed that  
persons living close to cell towers experienced nausea, loss of  
appetite, visual disturbances and difficulty in moving. Those living  
within 100 meters of base stations experienced irritability,  
depressive tendencies, difficulties in concentration, loss of memory,  
dizziness, and lowering of libido. For persons living in the zone of  
100 to 200 meters from base stations, the symptoms experienced  
included headaches, sleep disruption, feelings of discomfort and skin  
problems. Beyond 200 meters, the principle symptom was fatigue.
A group of doctors in Bavaria, Germany, reported observations of  
patients living in the vicinity of cell towers ("base stations")  
experienced the following symptoms: sleep disturbance,
p. 41
tiredness, headache, restlessness, lethargy, irritability, inability  
to concentrate, forgetfulness, depression, impaired hearing,  
dizziness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, joint and muscle pains,  
palpitations, increased blood pressure, hormone disturbances,  
nocturnal sweating and nausea.
In 2003, a double-blind study conducted in the Netherlands of  
subjective complaints of persons exposed to wireless signals found a  
statistically significant relation between wireless signal and  
cognitive impairment including anxiety, inadequacy, reaction time,  
visual selection, and found such effects in all samples.
In 2003, a in scientific study in Spain of persons exposed to wireless  
signals for more than six hours a day, seven days a week, at power  
levels far below safety guidelines, subjects experienced symptoms such  
as fatigue, irritability, headache, nausea, appetite loss, discomfort,  
gait difficulty, sleep disturbance, depression, difficulty in  
concentration, memory loss, dizziness, skin alterations, visual  
dysfunction, auditory dysfunction and cardiovascular alterations.
In 2004, a scientific publication in Sweden concluded that there was  
an increase in malignant melanomas of the skin related to pulsed  
signals from FM broadcasting antennas in Sweden, Norway and Denmark  
attributed to impairment of the skin repair mechanism by electronic  
radiation.
In 2000, as a result of scientific studies in the United Kingdom, the  
Department of Health recommended a "precautionary approach," to the  
placement of base stations "until more research findings become  
available."
In 2004, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) reported  
that some firefighters with cell towers currently located on their  
stations are experiencing symptoms that "put our first responders at  
risk." The IAFF specifically referred to headaches, slow response and  
clouded ability to make decisions caused by "a sort of brain fog" they  
attributed to the presence of these cell towers. At their 2004 annual  
convention, the IAFF members passed a resolution to study the health  
effects of cell towers on fire stations and urged a moratorium on the  
placement of new cell towers on fire stations until the completion of  
the study.
In 2006, a group of scientists meeting at Benevento, Italy adopted a  
resolution urging a "precautionary approach" to the exposure of people  
to EMF and RF radiation. The resolution specifically stated: "Based on  
our review of the science, biological effects can occur from exposures  
to both extremely low frequency fields (ELF EMF) and radiation  
freqency fields (RF EMF)." The scientists added that "epidemiological  
and laboratory studies that show increased risks for cancers and other  
diseases from occupational exposures to EMF cannot be ignored."
In 2007, The Sunday Times in the United Kingdom reported that a study  
of sites around mobile phone masts show "high incidences of cancer,  
brain haemorrhages, and high blood pressure within a radius of 400  
yards of mobile phone masts." The news report stated "a quarter of the  
30 staff at a special school within sight of the 90 ft high mast have  
developed tumors since 2000, while another quarter have suffered  
significant health problems."
42

In November, 2007 at a scientific conference at the Royal Society in  
London, scientists endorsed The BioInitiative Report; called for the  
development and implementation of biologically-based public safety  
limits for EMF exposure; advised that based on the Precautionary  
Principle, children and vulnerable groups (such as people with  
epilepsy and heart conditions) should not be exposed to a risk of  
harm; and proposed that no Wi-Fi, Wi-Max or other forms of wireless  
networking be placed in homes, schools, or public areas or be promoted  
for the use thereof.
In 2009 a study sponsored by the Swiss National Research Program  
completed its set of ambient RF radiation measurements, which take  
into account the proliferation of wireless sources. Overall, the  
survey found a roughly tenfold increase in overall RF exposures in  
Switzerland compared to the levels found in the by the EPA in the U.S.  
in the mid-1970s. Mobile phones and towers are major contributors to  
overall exposure, but so are cordless (DECT) phones, as is riding on a  
train or a bus. Airports may be hot zones, too. As for passive or  
second-hand RF exposures, their contribution can be important in  
confined spaces such as on public transportation.
All of these reports confirm the inadequacy of the FCC’s present  
safety guidelines. p. 43

France is shutting down cell phone use in its elementary schools, due  
to health concerns. The government ban comes after a study on mobile  
phone use and wi-fi radiation. Currently cell phone use is permitted  
on elementary school grounds, but not in classrooms. The new mandate  
will shut down their usage completely. Under the measure, companies  
will also be required to supply phones that only work with a headset,  
in order to reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
Libraries and schools in France are removing Wi-Fi because of concern  
from both the scientific community and their employees and patrons.
Elementary schools in the UK and Ireland are removing WiFi systems.
43
The Vancouver School Board (VSB) passed a resolution in January 2005  
that prohibits construction of cellular antennas within 1000 feet (305  
m) from school property.
Members of the French Senate have presented a bill to restrict  
exposure to electromagneticfields (April 2009):
Article 14: The Wi-Fi function of all Wi-Fi-equipped devices is  
deactivated by default. Instruction booklets contain clear and visible  
information about the health risks of using Wi-Fi and preventative  
measures to take when it is activated.
Article 15 When possible, in public buildings wired connections will  
be obligatory for all new communications networks, except in special  
circumstances which are in the public interest. Where possible,  
existing Wi-Fi installations will be replaced by wired networks within  
5 years of the promulgation of the present law.
Article 16 WiMax roll-out is suspended for 5 years from the  
promulgation of the present law and will be replaced by wired broadband.
Based on studies like those outlined above and the recommendations of  
The BioInitiative Report the April 2, 2009 EU Resolution makes the  
following recommendations to its member countries: www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
The Resolution recalls that wireless technology (mobile phones, Wi-Fi/
WiMAX, Bluetooth, DECT landline telephones) emits EMFs that may have  
adverse effects on human health. p. 44
The Resolution calls upon Member States to follow the example of  
Sweden and to recognise persons that suffer from  
electrohypersensitivity as being disabled so as to grant them adequate  
protection as well as equal opportunities. p. 45

STATES’ RIGHTS
In New York v. United States and Printz v. United States the United  
States Supreme Court forcefully reconfirmed the long-standing  
principle that “Congress may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative  
processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and  
enforce a federal regulatory program.’” 505 U.S. at 161 quoting Hodel,  
supra, 452 U.S. at 288. See also New York, “the Constitution has never  
been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require states  
to govern according to Congress’ instruction.” citing Coyle v. Smith,  
221 U.S. 559, 565 (1911); Printz, 521 U.S. at 925: “ . . . the Federal  
Government may not compel the states to implement, by legislation or  
executive action, federal regulatory programs.” p. 45

The Federal Government may, of course, exercise the power to set  
public health standards in areas relating to interstate commerce.  
However, where it has defaulted on its obligation to protect public  
health, the Federal Government may not simultaneously prevent the  
States from taking action to do so. Such preemption would be  
irreconcilable with the “dignity and essential attributes inherent in”  
the States’ status as sovereigns. (Alden, 527 U.S. at 714). p. 46

The EMR Policy Institute
by Janet Newton, President
P.O. Box 117
Marshfield VT 05658
e-mail: [hidden email]
Telephone: (802) 426-3035




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]