Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, May 10, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

_____________________
B. “Playground” A portion of land used for and equipped with public facilities for recreation specially by children. A playground includes the sand or rubberized floor around the apparatus.

C. “Pole-mounted facility” means a wireless communications facility that is, or is proposed to be, attached to or contained in a pole.

D. “School” any building, campus or sports field which is designed, constructed or used for education, instruction or school sports, whether public or private, in any branch of knowledge.

E. “Stealth facility” (or “stealth facilities”) means a wireless communications facility designed to look like something other than a wireless tower or base station.

General Standards for all Facilities The following general requirements apply at all times to all wireless communications facilities located in all zoning districts:

A. All wireless communications facilities shall be engineered and designed to minimize the visual impact by means of placement, screening, camouflaging, painting and texturing and to be compatible with existing architectural elements, building materials and other site characteristics. The applicant shall use the smallest and least visible antenna possible to accomplish the facility’s objectives. All antennas and support structures shall be painted and/or textured to achieve architectural compatibility with the structures for which they are attached and/or located.

B. Each facility must comply with any and all applicable provisions of the Malibu Municipal Code, including but not limited to provisions of the California Building Code, California Electric Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Fire Code, and any conditions of approval imposed as part of the approval process.

C. Each facility must comply with any and all applicable regulations and standards promulgated or imposed by any state or federal agency, including, but not limited to, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Further, all wireless communications facilities, associated equipment and services shall comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

D. Fire and Electrical Safety Standards. All wireless communications facilities shall contain:

1. Surge protection for lightning discharge or other significant electrical disturbances; and
231
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 3 of 27 ends

_____________________

2. Signage as required by the permit conditions, the National Electric Code or the Los Angeles County Fire Department Chief or their designee.

E. The facility must at all times comply with all applicable health requirements and standards pertaining to radio frequency emissions.

F. All antennas shall meet the minimum siting distances to habitable structures required for compliance with FCC regulations and standards governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.

G. Noise. Wireless communications facilities and equipment must comply with the City’s noise ordinance in MMC Chapter 8.24, or any successor provisions, and be designed to prevent noise and sound from being plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the facility or within ten (10) feet of any residence.

H. Signs. No facility may display any signage or advertisement unless it is expressly allowed by this paragraph, necessary for stealth concealment purposes, or required by law or a permit condition. Every facility shall at all times display signage that accurately identifies the facility owner and provides the owner’s unique site number and a local or toll-free telephone number to contact the facility owner’s operations center.

I. Landscaping. Where appropriate, facilities shall be installed so as to maintain and enhance existing landscaping on the site, including trees, foliage and shrubs, whether or not utilized for screening. In addition to any landscaping used for concealment or screening purposes, the applicant shall replace any existing landscaping displaced during construction or installation of the applicant’s facility. The applicant’s landscaping plan shall be subject to the City’s review and approval but shall, at a minimum, match the existing landscaping and foliage surrounding the installation site consistent with MMC Section 17.53.090. The permittee shall ensure that any vegetation allowed to remain in place under the Fire Code, including vegetation provided for screening, is properly maintained and watered.

J. All electrical support equipment located within cabinets, shelters, or similar structures shall be screened from public view. Roof-mounted electrical support equipment shall be discouraged. Ground-mounted electrical support equipment shall be encouraged. In addition, under grounding of support equipment is required wherever practicable.

K. All antennas shall be located such that any person walking adjacent to the transmitting surface of the antenna will be walking on a grade that is a minimum of eight and one-half feet below the transmitting surface. 232
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 4 of 27 ends

_____________________
L. Lighting of antenna structures and their electrical support equipment is prohibited, except as required by any order or regulation of the FCC or the FAA and except for manually operated emergency lights for use when official operating personnel are on site.

M. A backup power supply must be required for all new wireless communications facilities to the extent allowed by law and in compliance with California Fire Code 1206.2.2.

Location Standards for All Facilities The location standards for all wireless communications facilities, other than those that qualify as eligible facilities requests, are as follows:

A. No wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of any school, playground, or park unless a finding is made, based on technical evidence acceptable to the reviewing authority showing a clear need for the facility and that no technically feasible alternative site exists.

Except for facilities installed on the same pole or tower as an existing wireless telecommunication facility, wireless telecommunication facilities located within any residential zone district shall not be located within five hundredone thousand (5001,000) feet of any other wireless communications facility, except from those facilities placed on utility poles along Pacific Coast Highway, unless a waiver is granted.

B. All new freestanding wireless communications facilities and monopoles shall be set back a minimum distance of at least one hundred and ten twenty (1001120) percent of the height of the facility or monopole from any property line abutting a residentially zoned property. This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution.

C. Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:

1. Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title.

2. Facilities attached or sited adjacent to existing structures. Whenever possible, facilities shall be located on and/or inside existing structures. Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but are not limited to: buildings, water tanks, telephone poles and utility towers and poles, sign standards, light standards and roadway overpasses.

3. Sites with minimum separation. Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks. 233
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 5 of 27 ends

_____________________

4. Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways.

5. Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17.46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.

6. The City expressly designates residential, public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts, parks and schools as the least appropriate possible locations, and the absolute last choices for siting.

Engineering and Design Standards for all Facilities The general design standards for wireless communications facilities subject to MMC Chapter 17.46 are as follows:

A. Basic Requirements. The proposed wireless facility and its supporting structure (if needed) shall be limited to the minimum size necessary to serve the defined service objectives of the wireless service provider or providers that will be using the facility, except where a larger facility has superior concealment elements.

B. Materials. The materials used shall be non-reflective and non-flammable.

C. Cabinet doors and other openings must be designed to stay securely closed, and openings in all facilities shall be shielded or made the smallest size feasible to protect against fire and wind-blown embers.

D. The tower, or other support structure, and all equipment shall be designed to withstand forces from seismic events. To that end, all wireless facility sites must be built to the applicable standards of Hardening Requirements including but not limited to APCO ANSI 2.106.1–2019, or their replacements. The telecommunications tower, pole or structure when fully loaded with antennas, transmitters, and other equipment and camouflaging shall be designed as determined by the Building Official. All equipment mounting racks and equipment used shall be anchored in such a manner that such a quake will not tip them over, throw the equipment off its shelves, or otherwise act to damage it.

E. All connections between various components of the facility, power lines, and conduit shall be designed in a manner to protect against damage by a natural disaster, a vehicular accident, an act of vandalism or similar external forces.

F. Stealth. The wireless facility shall be stealth. Stealth elements and techniques should be used to blend the facility with surrounding materials 234
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 6 of 27 ends

_____________________
and colors of the support structure and make the facility appear to be something other than a wireless facility. Stealth elements include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Radio frequency (RF) transparent screening or shrouds;

2. Matching the color of the existing support structure by painting, coating, or otherwise coloring the wireless facility, equipment, mounting brackets, and cabling;

3. Placing cables and wires inside the pole or beneath conduit of the smallest size possible;

4. Minimizing the size of the site;

5. Installing new infrastructure that matches existing infrastructure in the area surrounding the proposed site; and

6. Using paint of durable quality.

7. Built with weather-resistant materials while permitting weathered treatment for aesthetic reasons and to avoid reflective material.

G. Minimum Height. All antennas shall be located such that: (1) any person walking adjacent to the transmitting surface of the antenna will be walking on a grade that is a minimum of eight and one-half feet below the transmitting surface; and (2) no person at ground level will be exposed to an exposure level that is higher than allowed by the FCC’s general population exposure rules.

H. Facade-Mounted Equipment. Facade-mounted antennas and equipment shall be architecturally integrated into the building, or other support structure, design and otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible so that the facility does not appear to be a wireless facility. Antennas and equipment should be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. Facade-mounted facilities shall generally not extend more than eighteen (18) inches out from and may not project above the building face. Façade-mounted wireless telecommunication facilities shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet in height above the ground. However, antenna elements, mounted flush on the facade of an existing structure that exceeds twenty-eight (28) feet, may have a height equal to the height of the building.

I. Ground-Mounted Equipment. Outdoor ground-mounted equipment associated with base stations shall be avoided whenever feasible. In locations visible or accessible to the public, applicants shall conceal outdoor 235
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 7 of 27 ends

_____________________
ground-mounted equipment, including ancillary power generation equipment, with opaque fences or landscape features that mimic the adjacent structure(s) (including, but not limited to, dumpster corrals and other accessory structures) and by painting, texturing, or otherwise concealing the facility as much as possible. Ground-mounted wireless communications facilities shall be located near existing structures or trees at similar heights for screening purposes where feasible. Not more than one ground-mounted antenna, provided that licensed amateur radio station antennas consistent with MMC 17.46.020(B)(2), shall also be permitted on each site.

J. Roof-Mounted Facilities. Roof-mounted antennas and necessary equipment shall be screened from above if visible from higher elevations. Rooftopmounted wireless telecommunication facilities shall not exceed twentyeight (28) feet in height or three (3) feet above the roof parapet from which they are attached, whichever is less restrictive. Associated roof-mounted equipment cabinets shall not extend more than three (3) feet above the roof from which it is attached and shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the edge of the roof. All roof-mounted equipment cabinets shall be located behind a mechanical screen wall. In the event that a roof parapet wall screens the equipment cabinets, a mechanical screen wall will not be required.

K. Freestanding Facilities. Freestanding facilities requiring a new monopole or other new support structure shall be stealth facilities. Further, they shall be located as close as possible to existing above-ground utilities, such as electrical towers or utility poles (which are not scheduled for removal or under grounding for at least 18 months after the date of application), light poles, trees of comparable heights, and in areas where they will not detract from the appearance of the City.

1. Freestanding wireless telecommunication facilities, including monopoles, shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet in height and shall not extend higher than the top of the ridgeline nearest the antenna. The height of a freestanding facility shall be measured from the natural undisturbed ground surface below the center of the base of the tower itself to the tip of the highest antenna or piece of equipment attached thereto.

2. Aside from the antenna itself, no additional equipment may be visible. All cables, including, but not limited to, electrical and utility cables, shall be run within the interior of the freestanding facility and shall be camouflaged or hidden to the fullest extent feasible without jeopardizing the physical integrity of the facility. 236
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 8 of 27 ends

_____________________

3. Monopole installations shall be situated so as to utilize existing natural or man-made features including topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures to provide the greatest amount of visual screening.

4. All antenna components and accessory wireless equipment shall be treated with exterior coatings of a color and texture to match the predominant visual background or existing architectural elements so as to visually blend in with the surrounding development. Subdued colors and non-reflective materials that blend with surrounding materials and colors shall be used.

5. Monopoles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is necessary for the proper functioning of the facility.

L. All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be designed to prevent unauthorized climbing and graffiti.

M. Fire Safety Standards. All wireless facilities designs shall include:

1. a power shut off, such as by means of rapid entry Knox or similar type systems shall be installed;

2. surge protection devices capable of mitigating a direct or partial direct lightning discharge; and

3. surge protection devices capable of mitigating significant electrical disturbances that may enter the facility via conductive cables.

N. Satellite dish or parabolic antennas shall be situated as close to the ground as possible to reduce visual impact without compromising their function.

O. Support equipment pads, cabinets, shelters and buildings require architectural, landscape, color, fencing, or other camouflage treatment to minimize visual impacts to the extent deemed necessary by the Planning Director. Landscaping screening should also be provided if irrigation water is available.

P. No freestanding facility or ancillary support equipment may be located between the face of a building and a public street, bikeway, park or residence.
237
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 9 of 27 ends

_____________________
Waivers of These Standards.

A. A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:

1. Pursuant to MMC Section 17.46.060(D), if an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission through clear and convincing evidence that denial of an application would, within the meaning of federal law, prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, or otherwise violate applicable laws or regulations;

2. If an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission through clear and convincing evidence set forth in a feasibility study that compliance with a requirement of these Standards would be technically infeasible and the proposed wireless facility complies with the requirements of these Standards to the greatest extent technically feasible. For example, an exception to a requirement to conceal antennas in a shroud may be granted if shrouding is shown to be technically infeasible and an alternative concealment such as a colored film wrap is proposed; or

3. If an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission with clear and convincing evidence that the particular engineering, design or location proposed involves an alternative that better meets the purposes of Chapter 17.46 and only minor non-compliance with a requirement of these design Standards and results in no increase in public visual impact to the community or provides other benefits.

For example, an exception to the wireless facility location limitations may be granted when the applicant can demonstrate that the placement is less visible from viewsheds of residences or shielded by vegetation or existing infrastructure (such as barriers), or is less physically intrusive (for example, less impactful to tree roots or reduces noise). Among other factors, in deciding whether or not to grant an exception, the Planning Commission may consider the impact of expansions to the facility that the applicant would be entitled to make as of right if granted.

B. Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies.

Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application. A request for waiver from one or more 238
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 10 of 27 ends

_____________________
requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance with all other applicable provisions of law or of MMC Section 17.46.060.

Standard Conditions of Approval for Permits Under MMC Chapter 17.46.

A. Generally. In addition to any supplemental conditions imposed by the Planning Director or Planning Commission, as the case may be, all development permits or conditional use permits granted for wireless communications facilities subject to this Chapter 17.46 shall be subject to the following conditions, unless modified by the approving authority:

1. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the city, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project, or to hold the City liable in whole or in part as a result of the engineering, design, construction or operation of the facility. The City shall promptly notify the provider(s) of any such claim, action or proceeding if the city bears its own attorney’s fees and costs, and the city defends the action in good faith.

2. The permittee shall be strictly liable for interference caused by its facilities with city communications systems. The permittee shall be responsible for costs for determining the source of the interference, all costs associated with eliminating the interference (including but not limited to filtering, installing cavities, installing directional antennas, powering down systems, and engineering analysis), and all costs arising from third party claims against the city attributable to the interference.

3. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be in substantial compliance with the plans date-stamped received by the Planning Department on _____________. The project shall comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in the referral sheets attached to the agenda report for this project. In the event the project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence and revised plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to the Environmental Sustainability Department for plan check.

4. The permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the permittee signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 30 days of this decision or prior to issuance of 239
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 11 of 27 ends

_____________________
any development, conditional use, building, electrical or encroachment permit.

5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans, including the items required in Condition No. 6 to the Planning Department for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. The Notice of Decision (including the signed and notarized Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit) shall be copied in its entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet(s) to be included in the development plans prior to submitting any development permits from the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department and encroachment permit.

7. A development permit or conditional use permit, as applicable, shall be valid for a period of ten (10) years from issuance, unless pursuant to another provision of the Code or these conditions, it expires sooner or is terminated. At the end of ten (10) years from the date of issuance, such development or conditional use permit shall automatically expire, unless an extension or renewal has been granted. A person holding a development permit or conditional use permit must either (1) remove the facility within thirty (30) days following the permit’s expiration (provided that removal of support structure owned by City, a utility, or another entity authorized to maintain a support structure need not be removed, but must be restored to its prior condition, except as specifically permitted by the City); or (2) prior to expiration, submit an application to renew the permit, which application must, among all other requirements, demonstrate that the impact of the wireless facility cannot be reduced. The wireless facility must remain in place until it is acted upon by the City and all appeals from the City’s decision exhausted.

8. The installation and construction authorized by a permit shall be completed within three (3) years after its approval, or it will expire without further action by the City unless prior to the three (3) years the applicant submit an extension request and the City, in its sole discretion, grants a time extension for due cause. The installation and construction authorized by a permit shall conclude, including any necessary post-installation repairs and/or restoration to the property, within thirty (30) days following the day construction commenced. The permittee must provide written notice to City within ten (10) days after completing construction, and may not begin operations until all City and Fire Department (if applicable) inspections have been completed and the project is found to be 240
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 12 of 27 ends

_____________________
consistent with the permit. The expiration date shall be suspended until an appeal and/or litigation regarding the subject permit is resolved.

9. The Planning Director may grant up to four one-year extensions of the timeline, in Condition 7 above, for completing the installation and construction authorized by a development or condition use permit, if the Planning Director finds that the conditions, including but not limited to changes in the wireless ordinance under which the permit approval was issued, have not significantly changed.

10. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

11. All structures shall conform to the requirements of the Environmental Sustainability Department, City Public Works Department, FCC and Los Angeles County Fire Department
requirements, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits, including but not limited to an encroachment permit from the City, shall be secured.

12. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the MMC. An application with all required materials and fees shall be required.

Cultural Resources

13. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Where, as a result of this evaluation, the Planning Director determines that the project may have an adverse impact on cultural resources, a Phase II Evaluation of cultural resources shall be required pursuant to MMC Section

17.54.040(D)(4)(b).

14. If human bone is discovered, the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed.

These procedures require notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native 241
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 13 of 27 ends

_____________________
American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Wireless Facility Conditions

15. All antennas shall meet the minimum siting distances to public/uncontrolled areas required for compliance with the FCC regulations and standards governing the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. Permittee shall keep up-to-date on current information from the FCC in regards to maximum
permissible radio frequency exposure levels. In the event that the FCC changes its guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency, permittee shall, within 30 days after any such change, submit to the Planning Director a report prepared by a qualified engineer that demonstrates actual compliance with such changed guidelines. The Director may, at permittee’s sole cost, retain an independent consultant to evaluate the compliance report and any potential modifications to the permit necessary to conform to the FCC’s guidelines. Failure to submit the compliance report required under this condition, or failure to maintain compliance with the FCC’s guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency at all times shall constitute grounds for permit revocation.

16. All antennas shall be located so that any person walking adjacent to the transmitting surface of the antenna will be walking on a grade, which is a minimum of eight and one-half feet below the transmitting surface.

17. All antennas, equipment, and support structures shall be engineered and designed to prevent unauthorized climbing.

18. The wireless facility shall be erected, operated, and maintained in compliance with the general requirements set forth in the Standards and any specific requirements in the permit.

19. The antenna and electrical support equipment shall, at all times, be operated in a manner that conforms to the applicable health and safety standards, including those imposed by MMC Chapter 17.46 and this Resolution.

20. Wireless communications facilities and equipment must comply with the City’s noise ordinance in MMC 8.24, or any successor provisions, and prevent noise and sound from being plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the facility or within ten (10) feet of any residence.
242
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 14 of 27 ends

_____________________

21. The Planning Director’s approval is required if a generator is to be placed onsite for temporary or permanent use.

22. All non-ground-mounted equipment associated with the application shall be located no lower than eight feet above grade or ground level on the monopole or support structure.

23. The City or its designee may enter onto the facility area to inspect the facility upon 48 hours prior notice to the permittee. The permittee shall cooperate with all inspections and may be present for any inspection of its facility by the City. The City reserves the right to enter or direct its designee to enter the facility and support, repair, disable, or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or property.

The City shall make an effort to contact the permittee prior to disabling or removing any facility elements, but in any case, shall notify permittee within 24 hours of doing so.

24. Testing of any equipment shall take place on weekdays only, and only between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., except that testing is prohibited on holidays that fall on a weekday. In addition, testing is prohibited on weekend days.

25. Permittee shall obtain and maintain throughout the term of the permit commercial general liability insurance with a limit of five million dollars ($5,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage and six million dollars ($6,000,000) general aggregate including premises operations, contractual liability, personal injury, and products completed operations. The relevant policy(ies) shall name the City, its elected/appointed officials, commission members, officers, representatives, agents, and employees as additional insureds. A true and correct copy of the policy of insurance shall constitute proof of insurance required by this Subsection. Permittee shall use its best efforts to provide thirty (30) days’ prior notice to the City of to the cancellation or material modification of any applicable insurance policy. Failure to maintain insurance consistent with this Condition shall automatically void the permit, and the permittee shall immediately deenergize and remove the facility from operation. The policy shall not have a pollution or other exclusion which excludes injuries or damages from EMF/RF exposures.

26. Prior to issuance of a City permit or encroachment permit, the permittee shall file with the City, and shall maintain in good standing throughout the term of the approval, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security for the removal of the 243
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 15 of 27 ends

_____________________
facility in the event that the use is abandoned or the permit expires, or is revoked, or is otherwise terminated. The security shall be in the amount equal to the cost of physically removing the facility and all related facilities and equipment on the site, based on the higher of two contractor’s quotes for removal that are provided by the permittee. The permittee shall reimburse the city for staff time associated with the processing and tracking of the bond, based on the hourly rate adopted by the City Council. Reimbursement shall be paid when the security is posted and during each administrative review.

27. Permittee shall not move, alter, temporarily relocate, change, or interfere with any existing structure, improvement, or property without the prior consent of the owner of that structure, improvement, or property. No structure, improvement, or property owned by the City shall be moved to accommodate a permitted activity or encroachment, unless the City determines that such movement will not adversely affect the City or any surrounding businesses or residents, and the Permittee pays all costs and expenses related to the relocation of the City's structure, improvement, or property. Prior to commencement of any work pursuant to any permit, the permittee shall provide the City with documentation establishing to the city's satisfaction that the permittee has the legal right to use or interfere with any other structure, improvement, or property to be affected by permittee's facilities.

28. No possessory interest is created by a Wireless Permit. However, to the extent that a possessory interest is deemed created by a governmental entity with taxation authority, permittee
acknowledges that City has given to permittee notice pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107.6 that the use or occupancy of any public property pursuant to a development or conditional use permit may create a possessory interest which may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied upon such interest. Permittee shall be solely liable for, and shall pay and discharge prior to delinquency, any and all possessory interact taxes or other taxes, fees, and assessments levied against permittee’s right to possession, occupancy, or use of any public property pursuant to any right of possession, occupancy, or use created by this development or conditional use permit.

29. If not already completed, permittee shall enter into the appropriate agreement with the City, as determined by the City, prior to 244
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 16 of 27 ends

_____________________
constructing, attaching, or operating a facility on municipal infrastructure. This permit is not a substitute for such agreement.

30. If a facility is not operated for a continuous period of three (3) months, the Wireless Permit and any other permit or approval therefor shall be deemed abandoned and terminated automatically, unless before the end of the three (3) month period (i) the Director has determined that the facility has resumed operations, or (ii) the City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. No later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation, or the permittee has notified the Director of its intent to vacate the site, the permittee shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition to the satisfaction of the Director. The permittee shall provide written verification of the removal of the facilities within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. If the facility is not removed within thirty (30) days after the permit has been discontinued pursuant to this subsection, the site shall be deemed to be a nuisance, and the City may cause the facility to be removed at permittee’s expense or by calling any bond or other financial assurance to pay for removal. If there are two (2) or more users of a single facility or support structure, then this provision shall apply to the specific elements or parts thereof that were abandoned but will not be effective for the entirety thereof until all users cease use thereof.

31. In the event the City determines that it is necessary to take legal action to enforce any of these conditions, or to revoke a permit, and such legal action is taken, the permittee shall be required to pay any and all costs of such legal action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by the City, even if the matter is not prosecuted to a final judgment or is amicably resolved, unless the City otherwise agrees, in its complete discretion, to waive said fees or any part thereof.

32. Interference with city communications systems and other governmental emergency systems is prohibited. Further, no permits issued pursuant to this chapter of the City Code establish any guarantee or warranty that Licensee’s facility will be free from interference from city or third-party communication systems.

Construction

33. Installation hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No installation activities shall be permitted on Sundays and City245 Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 17 of 27 ends

_____________________
designated holidays. The restricted work hours described in this condition do not apply to emergency maintenance necessary to protect health or property. The City of Malibu may issue a Stop Work Order if permittee violates this condition. Construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with, and abide by, all applicable safety codes and permit conditions.

34. All sites must be designed and build to the standards of ANSI/APCO Public Safety Grade Site Hardening Requirements, also referred to as “APCO ANSI 2.106.1-2019”.

Site Specific Conditions

35. In the event that the electric service provider does not currently offer an alternative metering option, the permittee shall remove the above-grade electric meter when such option becomes available.

Prior to removing the above-grade electric meter, the permittee shall apply for any encroachment and/or other ministerial permit(s) required to perform the removal. Upon removal, the permittee shall restore the affected area to its original condition that existed prior to installation of the equipment.

36. The permittee acknowledges that the City specifically includes conditions of approval related to (a) painting, coloring or finishing the equipment to match the monopole or support structure; (b) undergrounding all equipment to the extent possible; (c) installing equipment within shrouds, conduits and risers as concealment elements engineered and designed to integrate the wireless facility with the surrounding built and natural environment; and (d) specific structural, seismic, electrical, fire and operating/maintenance requirements. Any future modifications to the permittee’s wireless facility must maintain or improve all concealment elements and safety precautions.

37. Before the permittee submits any applications for construction, encroachment, excavation or other required permits in connection with this permit, the permittee must incorporate a true and correct copy of this permit, all conditions associated with this permit and any approved photo simulations into the project plans (collectively, the “Approved Plans”). The permittee must construct, install and operate the wireless facility in substantial compliance with the Approved Plans as determined by the Director or the Director’s designee. Any substantial or material alterations, modifications or other changes to the Approved Plans, whether requested by the permittee or required by other departments or public agencies with jurisdiction over the wireless facility, must be submitted in a written 246
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 18 of 27 ends

_____________________
request subject to the Director’s prior review and approval, who may refer the request to the original approval authority if the Director finds that the requested alteration, modification or other change substantially deviates from the Approved Plans or implicates a significant or substantial land-use concern.

38. The permittee shall install and at all times maintain in good condition a “Network Operations Center Information” and “RF Caution” sign on the utility pole no less than three (3) feet below the antenna (measured from the top of the sign) and no less than nine (9) feet above the ground line (measured from the bottom of the sign). Signs required under this condition shall be installed so that a person can clearly see the sign as he or she approaches within three (3) feet of the antenna structure. If any person on or within the property is or may be exposed to emissions that exceed applicable FCC uncontrolled/general population limits at any time the sign shall expressly so state, and provide instructions on how persons can avoid any such exposure. The sign shall also include the name(s) of the facility owner(s), equipment owner(s) and operator(s)/carrier(s) of the antenna(s), property owner name, as well as emergency phone number(s) for all such parties. The sign shall not be lighted, unless applicable law, rule or regulation requires lighting. No signs or advertising devices other than required certification, warning, required seals or signage, other signage required by law, this Chapter, any City or applicable state code or the Los Angeles County Fire Department Chief or his or her designee shall be permitted. The sign shall be no larger than two (2) square feet.

39. The permittee shall ensure that all signage complies with FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65, CPUC General Order 95 or American National Standards Institute C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this site as required by the FCC.

40. In the event that the FCC changes any of radio frequency signage requirements that are applicable to the project site approved herein or ANSI Z535.1, ANSI Z535.2, and ANSI C95.2 standards that are applicable to the project site approved herein are changed, the permittee, within 30 days of each such change, at its own cost and expense, shall replace the signage at the project site to comply with the current standards.
247
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 19 of 27 ends

_____________________

41. The permittee shall maintain the paint, color and finish of the facility in good condition at all times.

42. All improvements, including foundations, and appurtenant ground wires, shall be removed from the property and the site restored to its original pre-installation conditions within 90 days of cessation of operation or abandonment of the facility.

43. Build-Out Conditions.
a. Permittee shall not commence any excavation, construction, installation or other work on the project site until and unless it demonstrates to the City Public Works Department that the project complies with these Conditions along with all
applicable laws, regulations, codes and other rules related to public health and safety, including without limitation all applicable provisions in California Public Utilities
Commission General Order 95 and MMC Chapters 8.12,

8.24 and 15.08.
b. To the extent that a pole owner or any provision in the MMC or this resolution require greater or more restrictive
standards than California Public Utilities Commission
General Order 95, if applicable, those standards shall
control.

44. Permittee shall at all times maintain compliance with all applicable federal, State and local laws, regulations, ordinances and other rules, including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

45. The permittee shall cooperate with all inspections. The City and its designees reserve the right to support, repair, disable or remove any elements of the facility in emergencies or when the facility threatens imminent harm to persons or property.

46. Permittee shall at all times maintain accurate contact information for all parties responsible for the facility, which shall include a phone number, street mailing address and email address for at least one natural person. All such contact information for responsible parties shall be provided to the Planning Department at the time of permit issuance and within one business day of permittee’s receipt of City staff’s written request.

47. Permittee shall undertake all reasonable efforts to avoid undue adverse impacts to adjacent properties and/or uses that may arise 248
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 20 of 27 ends

_____________________
from the construction, operation, maintenance, modification and removal of the facility.

48. The site and the facility must be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in accordance with all approved plans and conditions of approval.

49. Permittee shall promptly remove any graffiti on the wireless facility at permittee’s sole expense within 48 hours after notice.

Prior to Operation

50. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection and final building inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department immediately after the wireless facility has been installed and prior to the commencement of services.

51. Within thirty (30) calendar days following the installation of any wireless communications facilities, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department with a field report prepared by a qualified engineer verifying that the unit has been inspected, tested, and is operating in compliance with FCC standards. Specifically, the onsite post-installation radiofrequency (RF) emissions testing must demonstrate actual compliance with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety guidelines for general population/uncontrolled RF exposure in all sectors. For this testing, the transmitter shall be operating at maximum operating power, and the testing shall occur outwards to a distance where the RF emissions no longer exceed the uncontrolled/general population limit. Such report and
documentation shall include the make and model (or other identifying information) of the unit tested, the date and time of the inspection, a certification that the unit is properly installed and working within applicable FCC limits, and a specific notation of the distance from the transmitter at which the emissions are equal to or less than the uncontrolled/general population limit.

52. The operation of the approved facility shall commence no later than one (1) month after the City completes its post-installation inspections of the facility, any issues with the facility are resolved, and the City receives the RF testing report required in the condition of approval above, or the development or conditional use permit will expire without further action by the City.
249
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 21 of 27 ends

_____________________
Fixed Conditions

53. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval shall be cause for revocation and termination of all rights thereunder.

Eligible Facilities Requests
All permits for an eligible facilities requests under MMC Chapter 17.46 shall be subject to the following conditions and all of the other conditions of approval placed on a Wireless Permit, unless modified by the approving authority:

54. Any permit granted in response to an application qualifying as an eligible facilities request shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the underlying permit.

55. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request permit constitutes a federally-mandated modification to the underlying permit or approval for the subject tower or base station.

Notwithstanding any permit duration established in another permit condition, the City’s grant or grant by operation of law of a eligible facilities request permit will not extend the permit term for the underlying permit or any other underlying regulatory approval, and its term shall be coterminous with the underlying permit or other regulatory approval for the subject tower or base station.

56. The City’s grant or grant by operation of law of an eligible facilities request does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the City to challenge Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, any FCC rules that interpret Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, or any modification to Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act.

Small Cell Facilities
In addition to the other conditions of approval placed on a Wireless Permit, all permits for a small cell facility under MMC Chapter 17.46 shall be subject to the following additional condition, unless modified by the approving authority:

57. The City’s grant of a permit for a small cell facility request does not waive, and shall not be construed to waive, any standing by the city to challenge any FCC orders or rules related to small cell facilities, or any modification to those FCC orders or rules.

Basic Application Requirements for Permits Under MMC Chapter 17.46.

A. Generally. In addition to providing all required fees, all wireless telecommunication facility carriers or providers shall provide the information required by a separate application form published, and updated 250
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 22 of 27 ends

_____________________
from time to time, by the City. If no such form is available, then the applicant must submit all documents, information, and any other materials necessary to allow the City to make required findings and ensure that the proposed facility will comply with applicable laws and not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare. Such information may include:

1. Contact information for:
a. Applicant and their representatives
b. Owner of proposed wireless communications facility
c. If different from facility owner, the identity of the person or entity responsible for operating the proposed wireless
facility
d. The property owner or owner of the structure on which the proposed wireless facility would be installed
e. Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of anyone acting on behalf of the applicant with regard to the application;
f. The name, address and phone number of all persons that prepared or assisted in preparing the application and any required reports;
g. The postal address, parcel number, or utility pole identifier of the property;
h. The location of the schools, playgrounds and parks within 500 feet of the project site;
i. Local contact person for emergencies
j. Assessor’s Parcel Number

2. Purpose of new wireless communications facility or amendment

3. Type of Application (Select all that apply)
a. Eligible Facilities Request
b. Small Cell – Collocation
c. Small Cell – New Structure
d. Collocation (Non-Small Cell)
e. All Other Wireless Communications Facilities
f. Permit Renewal
g. Waiver

4. Letter of authorization signed by the property owner authorizing the applicant to submit and process the application, including executed copies of any leases, letters of agency, or proof of ownership, of private property involved in the project.

5. Authorizations, and Licenses

6. Provide previous approvals, if applicable, and Certificate of Completion. Site inspection fees may apply if a final inspection was never requested

7. Identify all other required permits and approvals for the subject facility.
251
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 23 of 27 ends

_____________________

8. Electrical and Structural Safety Information. The following engineering documents prepared under the responsible charge of and sealed by a California licensed Professional Engineer must be included in the application:
a. A short circuit and coordination study (“SCCS”) calculated pursuant to the IEEE 551-2006: Recommended Practice for Calculating AC Short-Circuit Currents in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems or the latest version of that
standard. The study must demonstrate the protection devices will ensure the equipment enclosure will not be breached.

The SCCS must include analysis of Voltage Transient
Surges due to contact of conductors of different voltages; b. A one-line diagram of the electrical system;
c. Voltage Drop & Load Flow Study;
d. Load Calculation;
e. Panel Directories;
f. A plot plan showing the location of the mounting structure including address, or structure designation, or GPS location on the front sheet;
g. A plot plan showing the location of the service disconnecting means; and
h. An elevation drawing of the equipment and the service disconnecting means.
i. A demonstration there will be signage as required by the California Electric Code or the Los Angeles County Fire Department Chief or their designee
j. A demonstration the service disconnecting means shall be mounted at an elevation determined by the Los Angeles
County Fire Chief or their designee in conjunction with the electric utility;
k. A demonstration there will be instructions for deenergizing the equipment by First Responders.

9. Structural Safety Information. The structural/civil engineering documents prepared under the responsible charge of and sealedas recommended by a California licensed professional civil engineer. a. Photo simulations, from at least three different angles, showing the pole and streetscape before and after
installation. In some cases, more than three different angles may be required;
b. The azimuth, size and center-line height location of all proposed and existing antenna(s) on the supporting
structure;
c. The number, type and model of the antenna(s) that will be used with a copy of the specification sheet;
252
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 24 of 27 ends

_____________________
d. The make, model, type and manufacturer of any tower
involved and a design plan stating the tower’s capacity to accommodate multiple users;
e. Site and Construction Plans. Complete and accurate plans, drawn to scale, signed, and sealed by a California-licensed engineer, land surveyor, and/or architect, which include the following items.
(1) A site plan and elevation drawings for the facility as existing and as proposed with all height and width
measurements explicitly stated.
(2) A site plan describing the proposed tower and
antenna(s) and all related fixtures, structures,
appurtenances and apparatus, including height above
pre-existing grade, materials, color and lighting;
(3) A depiction, with height and width measurements
explicitly stated, of all existing and proposed
transmission equipment.
(4) A depiction of all existing and proposed utility runs and points of contact.
(5) A depiction of the leased or licensed area of the site with all rights-of-way and easements for access and
utilities labeled in plan view.
f. Detailed map with locations of the poles or other property on which equipment is to be located, including specific pole identification number, if applicable, and the areas it will service;
g. Description as to why the desired location is superior to other similar locations, from a community perspective, including, but not limited to:
(1) Proximity to residential buildings and descriptions of efforts to prevent any blocking of views of
impressive scenes; and
(2) Written documentation demonstrating a good faith
effort to locate the proposed facility in the least
intrusive location in accordance with the location
requirements of this Resolution.;
h. A description in writing and a visual rendering
demonstrating effective screening of all ground-mounted or roof-mounted equipment of the facility from view.
i. Color-coded carrier-generated RF Coverage (propagation) maps, at a scale no smaller than 1 inch (1”) to a quarter (1/4) mile with all appropriate legends, showing the coverage for the highest and lowest frequencies to be used by the facility.

Frequencies are to be stated numerically, not qualitatively. 253
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 25 of 27 ends

_____________________
Provide a represented value in dB of each colors it
specifically represents.
j. If the project involves, modifies or will use an existing facility or structure, a description of the type of structure (e.g., guyed, self-supporting lattice or monopole), and a report on the physical condition of the facility certified by a professional engineer licensed in the state of California. k. If the application is for a new tower, clear and convincing technical evidence by a carrier or wireless service provider justifying the total height of the proposed facility and the need for such to the exclusion of all reasonable alternatives.

Evidence in the form of propagation studies must include all modeling data and assumptions used to produce the studies at the requested height and should take into consideration the ability to collocate other carriers in the future.
l. A siting analysis which identifies other feasible locations within or outside the City which could serve the area
intended to be served by the facility, unless the applicant provides compelling technical reasons for providing fewer than the minimum.
m. An affirmation, under penalty of perjury, that the proposed installation will be FCC compliant, in that it will not cause members of the general public to be exposed to RF levels that exceed the emissions levels deemed safe by the FCC. A copy of the fully completed FCC form “A Local
Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF
Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance:

Appendix A” titled “Optional Checklist for Determination of Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded” for each frequency band of RF emissions to be transmitted from the proposed facility upon the approval of the application. All planned radio frequency emissions on all frequency bands must be shown on the Appendix A form(s) attached to the application. All planned radio frequency emissions are to be entered on each Appendix A form only in wattage units of “effective radiated power.”
n. A statement detailing the frequency, modulation and class of service of radio or other transmitting equipment;
o. A copy of the FCC license applicable for the intended use of the proposed facilities;
p. A HazMat Business Plan for all new generators, and any storage and/or use of hazardous materials during the project, to include:
254
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 26 of 27 ends

_____________________
i. A list of toxic substances that may develop during
arcing or fire that may impede fire suppression
efforts;
ii. A list of hazards that may develop during arcing or fire that may impede fire suppression efforts;
q. A demolition plan, if applicable.
r. A written statement of the applicant’s willingness to allow other carriers to co-locate on the proposed personal wireless service facility where technically and economically feasible and aesthetically desirable, subject to the qualification that colocation should not occur when public exposures from the resulting higher cumulative sources would exceed FCC
limits.
s. Such other information as the Director shall establish. t. A statement signed by a person with legal authority to bind the applicant attesting under penalty of perjury to the accuracy of the information provided in the application. If attester not an authorized employee of the applicant, then the attester must demonstrate that it is an authorized agent of the applicant, with lawful Power of Attorney from the applicant.

SECTION 10. Environmental Review
This Resolution is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The Resolution does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries.

Moreover, when and if an application for installation is submitted, the City will at that time conduct preliminary review of the application in accordance with CEQA. Alternatively, even if the Resolution is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines section 15378, the Resolution is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the Resolution is exempt CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the Resolution is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). That is, approval of the Resolution will not result in the actual installation of any facilities in the City. In order to install a facility in accordance with this Resolution, the wireless provider would have to submit an application for installation of the wireless facility. At that time, the City will have specific and definite information regarding the facility to review in accordance with CEQA. And, in fact, the City will conduct preliminary review under CEQA at that time. Moreover, in the event that the Resolution is interpreted so as to permit installation of wireless communications facilities on a particular site, the installation would be exempt from CEQA review in accordance with either State CEQA Guidelines section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction), State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and/or State CEQA Guidelines section 15304 (minor alterations to land).
255
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 21-17

Page 27 of 27 ends

_____________________
SECTION 11. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2021. ______________________________
MIKKE PIERSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
______________________________
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
JOHN COTTI, Interim City Attorney
256
Agenda Item # 9.
257
Agenda Item # 9.
258
Agenda Item # 9.
259
Agenda Item # 9.
260
Agenda Item # 9.
261
Agenda Item # 9.
262
Agenda Item # 9.
263
Agenda Item # 9.
264
Agenda Item # 9.
265
Agenda Item # 9.
266
Agenda Item # 9.
267
Agenda Item # 9.
268
Agenda Item # 9.
269
Agenda Item # 9.
270
Agenda Item # 9.
271
Agenda Item # 9.
272
Agenda Item # 9.
273
Agenda Item # 9.
274
Agenda Item # 9.
275
Agenda Item # 9.
276
Agenda Item # 9.
277
Agenda Item # 9.
278
Agenda Item # 9.
279
Agenda Item # 9.
280
Agenda Item # 9.
281
Agenda Item # 9.
282
Agenda Item # 9.
283
Agenda Item # 9.

To: Los Altos City Council
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
From: Cindy Russell, MD
Re: Revisions to 2019 Los Altos Ordinance to Regulate Small Wireless Facilities Date April 11, 2022
Dear Los Altos City Council:

Encinitas and Malibu have passed ordinances which have elements that are protective but allow flexibility for cities and exceptions/waivers for the carriers. They remain uncontested. • Encinitas, CA- Revised from 2019- Passed June 20, 2020 https://encinitasca.gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Servi ces/Planning/Land%20Development/Small%20Wireless%20Facilities/Resolution%20No .%202020-38%20With%20Policy.pdf?ver=2020-07-13-192634-373 • Malibu Resolution 21-17 – Attached please find an executed copy of Res. 21-17 is officially binding because Ordinance 484 adopts it by reference.

I will summarize my ask of the Los Altos City Council with these key points below, followed by backup for those points with additional pertinent legal information which does impact the issue of health/science, as per a court ruling from the second highest court in the land on August 13, 2021, a ruling that referred to the existing RF radiation regulatory limits as "arbitrary and capricious". Arbitrary and capricious means that the law and/or the facts were knowingly disregarded. That is a high bar indeed and the plaintiffs reached that bar. It behooves us to consider what is going on in the courts and pass ordinance language accordingly:

PLEASE PAUSE: There are resolutions as mentioned above that have successfully balanced the unique needs of communities with the rights of the telecommunications industry. The new resolution does not have to be passed Tuesday night. Some reflection on the best that Encinitas and Malibu have to offer may benefit all of us in the long run. 284
Agenda Item # 9.

Key Points

1. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: Clarification if this applies to Small Cell or Macro Cells; macro towers must go through conditional use permits

2. LOCATION STANDARDS – PREFERRED SITES

3. WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS

4. FIRE SAFETY

5. APPEALS PROCESS

Thank you for passing the 2019 Wireless Facilities Telecommunications Ordinance. The original wireless facilities ordinance for Los Altos took into consideration public concerns, was well thought out and protects the city of Los Altos from poorly designed and poorly placed cell towers.

I understand, however, that there is a lawsuit against the City for Los Altos from Verizon and AT&T claiming that the 2019 ordinance as written “effectively prohibits” wireless communications. You are commended for taking on this task of revising the ordinance in response. Some of the 2022 proposed changes are good and clarify the permitting process for carriers to avoid lawsuits and provide for “personal wireless services”, however, I believe there are some gaps in protections and flexibility for the city that I would like to point out which could be remedied in addition to some clarifications.

It is important to consider adding the provisions below. As you note with the FCC lawsuit to reevaluation the 20 year-old FCC safety standards, the courts have judged that the FCC did not take into account several aspects of human health and environmental effects in setting their standards. We do not know what the future holds for the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 or state law. The city of Los Altos needs to be prepared to alter its ordinance in case there is a change in the law in the future.

Representative Anna Eshoo Supports Local Control for Cell Towers The 2018 FCC small cell order that fast tracks deployment of small cells in order to “cut the red tape” has prompted cities around the country, like Los Altos, to write these emergency ordinances and now revise them. The FCC Declaratory ruling has been considered an overreach of the Telecom Industry which dominates the FCC (FCC: Captured Agency, N. Alster), overriding the basic rights of cities to have local control. This was recognized by our local representative Anna Eshoo who in 2019 introduced HR530 to protect the rights of states and government by deeming that the “Federal Communications Commission’s Declaratory Ruling in ‘‘Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling’’ (FCC 18-111) shall have no force or effect.” This bill had 52 co-sponsors. Senator Feinstein introduced in 2019 a companion federal bill SB 2012 to block the FCC order. Neither moved.
285
Agenda Item # 9.

Representative Eshoo also sent a letter to the FCC in 2020 to ask that the vote on the FCC order be delayed stating, “we worry that if this Declaratory Ruling does not benefit from meaningful input from local governments, the result could undermine municipalities’ ability to balance their responsibilities to public safety and community design with their desire to ensure access to affordable wireless networks and the next generation services.” Please fight for the rights of your residents and government as our local representatives have done. You have more power than you know. Please exercise it.

Important Provisions to Add
1) Title of Ordinance
To clarify whether the ordinance title should apply only to Small Wireless Facilities or if this is for both Small Cell and Macro Towers it may be helpful to rename the ordinance to its original title and keep the descriptions separate within the ordinance. It is not clear to me in this rewrite. Small cell applications are different than for macro towers due to difference in structure of towers, power emitted and location in right of way as per FCC ruling. (Section 14.82.050) See Encinitas Small Cell wireless Ordinance. Resolution 2019- 91-

REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

DEPLOYMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
https://encinitasca.gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Servi ces/Planning/Land%20Development/Small%20Wireless%20Facilities/CC%20Policy%20 C035.pdf
2) Location Standards- Preferred Sites- Despite what the telecommunications industry says, you as a city can still have preferred sites and less preferred sites in your ordinance. (Encinitas and Malibu Ordinances) You can add an exception clause or waiver process to allow for placement of a cell tower if the carrier proves it is necessary (and other locations are not technically feasible) for “Personal Wireless Services” under the 1996 Telecom Act of 1996 and so that this does not constitute an “effective prohibition”.
* Special Zones can be designated for schools, day care centers, residential dwellings, protected habitat or trees, parks, etc.
* Keep the 1000 foot distance between towers, not 200 feet. Explanation below.

Here are examples of Location Standards in the Encinitas Small Cell Wireless Ordinance passed in June, 2020 and in Malibu April 2021, which to date are uncontested. 286
Agenda Item # 9.

Encinitas Ordinance Passed June 10, 2020
SECTION 10. LOCATION STANDARDS

1. (a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy:

1. (1) any location within a residential zone;

2. (2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit;

3. (3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or primary school;

4. (4) any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and

5. (5) any location within the Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park Zone. (b) Location Preferences. To better assist applicants and decision makers understand and respond to the community’s aesthetic preferences and values, this subsection sets out listed preferences for locations to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in an ordered hierarchy. Applications that involve lesser-preferred locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in the written record that: (1) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible; and (2) if the proposed site or the most- preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site is within a Restricted Site Location, the applicant qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy. The City prefers small cells in the public rights-of-way to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:
(1) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along prime arterials;
(2) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along major arterials;
(3) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along collector roads;
(4) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along local streets;
(5) any location within 500 feet from any residential zone; (6) locations within residential zones on or along prime arterials; (7) locations within residential zones on or along major arterials; (8) locations within residential zones on or along collector roads; (9) locations within residential zones on or along local streets; 287
Agenda Item # 9.
(10) any location within 1,000 feet from an existing/proposed small wireless facility; In the event that a proposed facility would be within 500 feet from two or more restricted site locations (as defined in Subsection 10(a)), and the proposed facility qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy, the technically feasible location furthest from all such restricted site locations will be deemed to be the most preferred alternative. (c) Encroachments Over Private Property. No small cell antennas, accessory equipment or other improvements may encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-ofway without the property owner’s express written consent.

Malibu Wireless Ordinance Resolution 21-17 Standards Passed April 2021. https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/27969/Ordinance-No-484 Location Standards for All Facilities
The location standards for all wireless communications facilities, other than those that qualify as eligible facilities requests, are as follows:

1. No wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of any school, playground, or park unless a finding is made, based on technical evidence acceptable to the reviewing authority showing a clear need for the facility and that no technically feasible alternative site exists. Except for facilities installed on the same pole or tower as an existing wireless telecommunication facility, wireless telecommunication facilities located within any residential zone district shall not be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any other wireless communications facility, except from those facilities placed on utility poles along Pacific Coast Highway, unless a waiver is granted.

2. All new freestanding wireless communications facilities and monopoles shall be set back a minimum distance of at least one hundred and twenty (120%) percent of the height of the facility or monopole from any property line abutting a residentially zoned property.

This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution.

3. Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:

1. Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title.

3. Sites with minimum separation. Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks.

4. Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways.

5. Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17.46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the 288
Agenda Item # 9.
surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.

3) Waivers for Standards
Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has added a section on Waivers for Standards that clarifies the process and protects the city from liability.

Resolution No. 21-17 Page 9

1. A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:

2. Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application 289
Agenda Item # 9.
complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application. A request for waiver from one or more 4) Fire Safety
All electrical equipment including small cell towers are a fire risk. The fire cannot be put out in a conventional manner with firefighters blasting water on the fire.

They have to wait until the power is shut off or electrocution will result.

Examples are
• San Diego tower that caught fire in a high school stadiumhttps://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/stadium-light-catches-fire-at-south-bayhigh-school/ • The Malibu fire in 2007 due to pole overload. CPUC finds Edison and 4 telecom carriers $51.5 million - https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-malibu-firesettlements-approved-state-puc-20130919-story.html

Considering the increase in wildfires and the risk of earthquakes. Fire safety is a priority for citizens. The Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has language in the Fire Safety Standards that can be incorporated. In the attached Executed Copy of Malibu Res. 21-17, please note fire language on pages 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, and particularly beginning on page 23 with "Electrical and Structural Safety Information."
5) Appeals Process
Language for appeal is not in the ordinance
Applications.

A) Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Director pursuant to this Chapter may request an administrative hearing to appeal the Director’s decision. In order to request a hearing, the person shall submit to the City Clerk in the manner directed in the Director’s decision notice a fully completed request for administrative hearing form along with a full amount of the appeal fee set by the City Council (by way of check or money order). The request for administrative hearing shall be incomplete if it does not include the appeal fee in the full amount. … etc.

Public health and ecosystem health are still important issues with new 5G systems untested for long term or short term safety for either human health or environmental health. 5G systems with a complex mix of low, medium and high frequencies (thus the need for macro and microcells) are very onerous to measure, requiring very expensive complex equipment that is very difficult 290
Agenda Item # 9.
for engineers to accomplish let alone city facility engineers. Precaution in placement is paramount in this discussion. Once cell towers are placed there is no going back and you just wait for people to experience symptoms or develop cancer or a neurologic condition that you will not be able to sort out from the common toxic exposures we all encounter on a daily basis.

Elon Musk tells us that 5G millimeter wave systems are not needed for autonomous cars. 5G millimeter wavelengths are also not required for “personal wireless services”. For the later this technology can be effectively replaced with safer and more secure fiberoptic networks and current wireless technologies. I will explain why health matters.

Health Matters
I am a practicing physician who has studied the health impacts of environmental toxins through our local County Medical Association and the California Medical Association for over 25 years.

I began studying the health impacts of wireless radiation when I learned of a proposal to place a cell tower on my daughter’s school.

After 10 years of research into the literature and talking to a variety of people affected by cell towers and wireless radiation I, like many others in the medical and scientific community, have come to the conclusion that wireless radiation is a pollutant just like lead or pesticides or mercury or toxic industrial waste. The mechanisms are similar - oxidation, the effects are broad on all living organisms and people are often unaware they are exposed to the toxin - unless they are “sensitive”. Wireless radiation causes oxidative stress on organisms and stem cells, and at low levels of radiation. These low levels cause a slow decline in physiologic processes, and for those who have become sensitive- an immediate reaction.

Antioxidants and Health
As we now know small amounts of toxins can cause harm in certain windows of development thus children are more vulnerable. We also know effects are cumulative. People vary in their vulnerability due to age, genetics and other toxic exposures. Not all people react the same. Our health, wellness and aging are determined by oxidation levels in our tissues that injure our DNA, proteins and lipids, thus antioxidants in foods have been shown to block oxidation, neutralize cellular injury and promote health. This is well established in the nutrition literature. The literature also demonstrates that taking antioxidants (Vitamin E, zinc and melatonin) protects the cell from oxidation injury from wireless radiation. Oxidative stress plays a major part in the development of chronic, degenerative and inflammatory illnesses such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, aging, cataracts, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as some acute pathologies (trauma, stroke). It is well established that wireless radiation at non-thermal levels causes oxidative stress. Effects of this are cumulative on our DNA, lipids and cellular membranes.

We Evolved in a Low Electromagnetic Environment
The natural environment of the Earth is electromagnetic. We have terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, radiation from the sun and cosmic microwaves. All living things evolved in 291
Agenda Item # 9.
harmony with the Earth’s natural but very very low-level electromagnetic rhythms. Birds, bees and mammals have magnetite in their bodies and brains that use the Earth’s magnetic field for the delicate tasks of navigation and foraging. Our human nervous system, heart, reproductive and endocrine systems rely on minute electromagnetic signals for complex functions. Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by our modern technology can distort our bodies electric currents, delicate cell membranes and cause broad dysfunction. This can be with long term or sometimes short exposures with higher power and different pulsations. Science has shown us that organisms adapt to constant electromagnetic fields found in nature much easier than artificial pulsed radiation that is emitted from cell towers and wireless devices. It makes perfect sense that wireless radiation can be harmful to living organisms even it does not knock an electron out of its orbit.

Wildlife
You need to consider the unique ecosystem which surrounds this lovely town. Science has shown us that levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation we are increasingly exposed to is harming not only humans but the sensitive environment that we tend to ignore but depend upon for our sustenance and mental health. https://mdsafetech.org/environmental-and-wildlife-effects/ New Review on Wildlife and wireless Radiofrequency Radiation The most comprehensive 3 part peer reviewed article by Levitt, Lai and Manville (2021) provides an updated, thorough and well referenced overview of RFR and effects on all wildlife, revealing a disturbing picture of the future if we continue to expand wireless in our homes, communities and for the commercialization of space.

The authors state, “But is there a larger environmental downside to rising ambient EMF exposures — particularly RFR — from popular mobile communication devices, WiFi antennas, and all accompanying infrastructure that is being overlooked by environmentalists, researchers, and government regulators alike. We may be missing critical physiological effects across species based on obsolete assumptions about low-level far-field exposures being too weak to adversely affect living tissue. We have yet to take into consideration the unique physiologies of other species, or how they use the environment in ways that humans do not, when we assume that the unfettered use of EMF/RFR can continue unabated and be allowed to grow indefinitely.” Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. (2021) Levitt BB et al. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May

27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
MOEF Report on Wildlife
The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of expert scientists reviewed the literature of the effects of RF-EMF radiations on wildlife, humans and the biosphere. In their 2010 MOEF Report they found that out of the 919 research papers collected on birds, bees, plants, other animals, and humans, 593 showed impacts, 180 showed no impacts, and 196 were inconclusive studies. All organisms had effects.
292
Agenda Item # 9.

Human Effects– 62% showed effects, 13% no effect and 25% inconclusive Plant Effects– 87% showed effects and 13% were inconclusive
Wildlife Effects- 62% showed effects, 4% no effect and 36% inconclusive Bee Effects—85% showed effects and 15% no effect
Bird Effects- 77% showed effects, 10% no effect and 13% inconclusive Current Standards are Scientifically Out of Date
UNESCO World Heritage Wildlife Area Species Disappearing An abundance of peer reviewed literature demonstrates adverse impacts to the environment with declines in insect, bird and wildlife populations in cities and where cell towers are placed. This spells disaster for biodiversity, fragile wildlife areas, critical pollinators and agriculture, especially with additive effects of pesticides, toxins and loss of habitat. A report on Unesco’s Mt.

Nardia World Heritage Park documents this slow decline in populations of species after cell towers were placed. Unesco Report on Disappearance of Species from Mt. Nardia Park World Heritage Area 2000-2015 with Increased Expansion of Telecommunications Antenna. EthnoBotonist Mark Broomhall. UNESCO Report on Disappearance of Species from Mt. Nardia with Increased EMR 2000-2015
Cell Tower Health Effects
Current standards are based on short term thermal exposures and discount the abundant peer reviewed literature on harm from low level, non -thermal effects. It is clear that the limits for radiofrequency radiation are set too high in the U.S. and Canada. These limits are 100 times higher than that of Italy and Russia, who set their standards based on methodical research on immunologic, neurologic and biologic effects of low-level radiation fields. Current U.S. limits are up to 1,000 microwatts/cm2 with symptoms seen at levels of 0.005 microwatts /cm2.

Physicians in Germany ask for Health Investigation of Cell Towers in 2005 An open letter from Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam was sent to the German State Chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, on behalf of 114 physicians (Bamberger Appeal) asking for an investigation into the newly reported adverse health symptoms of 356 residents who lived near cell towers in Oberfranken, Germany. Dr. Waldmann-Selsam noted, “Many humans get sick from emissions far below the recommended limit values, which consider only thermal effects, and we have a sickness picture with characteristic symptom combinations, which are new to us physicians,” The list of symptoms were, ” Sleep disturbances, tiredness, concentration impairment, forgetfulness, problem with finding words, depressive tendencies, tinnitus, sudden loss of hearing, hearing loss, giddiness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, feeling of numbness, heart rhythm disturbances, 293
Agenda Item # 9.
increased blood pressure , hormonal disturbances, night-time sweat, nausea.” Resident noted almost immediate improvement when moving away.”
Dr. Waldmann-Selsam goes on to say, “physicians were able to prove, by re-testing the patients, the normalization of blood pressure, heart rhythm, hormone disturbances, visual disturbances, neurological symptoms, blood picture,”. She called this an emergency medical situation and requested an official health investigation. http://www.nextup.org/pdf/Letter_to_Edmund_Stoiber.pdf Cell Tower Effects on Cognition and Learning
The majority of studies, which have been done internationally, have shown an increase in neurologic symptoms in a percentage of residents living near cell towers. Symptoms vary with the distance from the cell tower. Symptoms include insomnia, headache, heart palpitations, dizziness, poor concentration, and fatigue. A study in Japan (Shinjyo 2014) showed a decrease in symptoms when the cell tower was removed. There is also a well done study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants.

Moreover, a recent study conducted over a 2 year period looked at effects of cell towers near two schools by Meo et al (2018) and clearly demonstrated cognitive dysfunction in students closest to the higher power cell tower.

Firefighters Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towers
After noticing that many of the firefighters where developing neurologic symptoms when first responder cell towers were placed on the fire stations the International Association of Firefighters studied the matter and passed a resolution in 2004 asking that cell towers not be placed in proximity to fire stations. In AB 537 (Quirk), signed into law by Gov. Newsom on October 4, 2021, the firefighters achieved the first ever health/readiness exemption in the world.

Every fire station in California is now exempt from having a 5G tower on their station. This movement began when cell towers were initially targeted for fire stations because of their location and the revenue received by the cities. Many firefighters developed symptoms including headaches, fatigue, memory impairment and insomnia within a week of the installation of the towers. An exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers. AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects. AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.” SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown.
294
Agenda Item # 9.
500 Meter (1640 ft) Buffer from Cell Tower Recommended
Cell tower health studies that show impacts from cell towers with symptoms within about 1500 feet of the cell towers. That is why Pearce et al (2019) recommended a “500 Meter buffer around schools, hospitals and homes “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.”
Cancer and Cell Towers
3 Studies investigated the rates of cancer and cell towers looking at the distance from cell towers and the incidence of cancer. They found the rate of cancer incidence increased significantly in those living within about 350 -400 meters (around 1000 feet) to the cell tower.

Dode 2011 performed a 10 year study (1996-2006) examining the distance from cell towers and cancer clusters. He and his colleagues found a highly significant increase in cancers in those living within 500 meters of the cell tower. They noted “The largest density power was

40.78 µW/cm2, and the smallest was 0.04 µW/cm2.” The current guidelines are about 1000 µW/cm2. The authors conclude “Measured values stay below Brazilian Federal Law limits that are the same of ICNIRP. The human exposure pattern guidelines are inadequate. More restrictive limits must be adopted urgently.”
Wolf and Wolf 2004 investigated the rates of cancer versus distance from cell towers in small towns in Israel. He found the rate of cancer incidence was 129 cases per 10,000 persons per year in those living within 350 meters of a cell tower versus a rate of 16-31/10,000 in those living greater than 350 meters from the cell tower.

Eger (2004) showed an increase in the development of new cancer cases within a 10 year period if residents lived within 400 meters of a cell tower. Their results revealed that within 5 years of operation of a transmitting station the relative risk of cancer development tripled in residents near the cell towers compared to residents outside the area.

Insurance Has an Exclusion for Radiofrequency Radiation as an Emerging Risk Insurance companies consider wireless radiation to be similar to asbestos in long term health impacts and do not provide coverage from harm for RF health effects. The cities are left with that liability unless they can provide insurance.

In a 2019 report, New Emerging Risk Insights, by Swiss RE Insurance Company, the second largest reinsurance company in the world, 5G is listed as an emerging concern in the high risk category within 3 years. Included in the high-risk trends are artificial intelligence and the existential threats of climate change. “The top five emerging risks in our SONAR 2019 report are digital technology’s clash with legacy hardware, potential threats from the spread of 5G mobile networks, increasingly limited fiscal and monetary flexibility by central banks, genetic testing’s implications on life insurers, and the impact of climate change on the life and health sector.” https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html 295
Agenda Item # 9.

National Academy of Sciences Report on the Havana Syndrome and Harm from RFR
A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the “sonic attacks” on diplomats in Cuba and China were most likely due to pulsed radiofrequency from directed energy weapons. They had symptoms similar to those who live near cell towers (headache, nausea, insomnia, dizziness, memory loss, heart palpitations, depression). Dr. Beatrice Golomb wrote the most extensive report to date on this subject linking these mystery “directed energy attacks” to pulsed microwaves similar to the wireless devices we use daily. In the case of these high powered beams there was documented injury to brain networks found by the University of Pittsburg physicians who studied the diplomats. Dr Golomb highlights that the strength of the health effects are related to the peak power not the average power. The pulse makes the poison.

New Hampshire 5G Commission Finds Radiofrequency Radiation Problematic
The first Commission formed in the United States to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology released their comprehensive final report November 1, 2020. The Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was mandated by HB 522 passed by the state legislature in New Hampshire. Their final report included 15 recommendations addressing the need for public education about wireless hazards, RF health studies, RF measurements, cell antenna setbacks, fiberoptic rather than wireless deployment, commercial warning signs and wildlife protection. After hearing extensive testimony in a series of 13 meetings over the course of a year and reviewing an abundance of research, the Commission highlighted the lack of a single definition for 5G, insufficient evidence of safety for 5th generation technology, a concern that safety standards for wireless technologies have not been updated with the latest science and that 5G is largely a marketing concept. They also expressed concern that the FCC has a long history of being accountable to industry over the desires of communities and individuals.

FCC Told by DC Court to Reevaluate Safety Standards
On August 13, 2021 a joint lawsuit was won by petitioners against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation. The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal 296
Agenda Item # 9.
to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of the RF radiation standards established by the FCC did not use "reasoned decision-making" (they did not go by the science) and thus the standards were considered by the court to have been set in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. This was an extremely high bar for the Plaintiffs to reach. The Circuit Court of Appeals rarely admonishes a federal agency or commission in this way. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to re-examine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms.

The Court Decision stated, “The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and it’s implementing regulations require federal agencies to “establish procedures to account for the environmental effects of [their] proposed actions.” And “To fulfill its obligations under NEPA, the Commission has promulgated guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation…The Commission last updated its limits for RF exposure in 1996… The ANSI and IEEE developed limits are designed to protect against “thermal effects” of exposure to RF radiation, but not “nonthermal” effects. In March 2013, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry regarding the adequacy of its 1996 guidelines in response to changes in the ubiquity of wireless devices and in scientific standards and research since 1996. In December 2019, the Commission issued a final order resolving its 2013 notice of inquiry by declining to undertake any of the changes contemplated in the notice of inquiry. Petitioners challenge the 2019 final order under NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
5G: A Manufactured Need by Industry
Reports indicate that the telecommunications industry has largely manufactured a “need” for expanding wireless technology in cities, while halting projects for safer fiberoptic broadband.

Note a 2020 European Parliament report, 5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. In Depth Analysis, suggests 5G is a manufactured need. “As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment.” In my opinion, from all the research I have done, it appears the telecommunications industry has influenced laws to prevent health or environmental effects from being considered in the placement of cell towers (See FCC Captured Agency). They knew of the harm in early studies done by Dr. George Carlo in the 1990’s but suppressed the data so they could move forward.

That is well documented in Dr. Carlo's book, "Cell phones: Invisible Hazards in The Wireless Age".

A blizzard of robust science has appeared now to show biological and health impacts of wireless technology, but it is still denied, and the basis for genuinely safe RF radiation guidelines is flawed. An exponential growth in cell towers is now being played out with cities being left on their own to figure out how to regulate these towers locally. Industry places a heavy hand and complex laws on local policy makers who must navigate these complex FCC policies to prevent legal action.
297
Agenda Item # 9.

Board of Health in Pittsfield Massachusetts Orders Verizon to Cease and Desist
For the first time in the U.S. a Board of Health has issued a cease and desist order to Verizon to remove or shut off a cell tower after 17 people in a neighborhood reported they became ill after the Verizon cell tower was turned on. Courtney Gilardi and her 2 children as well as residents living near the cell tower, reported experiencing a constellation of symptoms including stabbing headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, “buzzing in the head”, and insomnia so severe her family had to move to the next town and into a house with no heat and no hot water to escape the sickness. Other neighbors drove an hour away to sleep at a relative’s house or slept in their cars away from the tower. These are classic symptoms of electromagnetic illness experienced in firefighters and military personnel working on radar and well documented by NASA, the Air Force and other military agencies as well as the “Havana Syndrome”. These symptoms were also seen in Japan after 2 cell towers were turned on and when the tower was removed the resident’s symptoms largely resolved.

Apple stops 5G Phone MMW: Is This the Death of 5G Millimeter Wavelengths?
You are probably aware that Verizon and AT&T built special hotspots in many cities in the U.S. to house 5G high band millimeter wavelengths that were to revolutionize wireless with ultrafast speeds. These small wavelengths the size of bees have been put into some community small cells which need to be about 1000 feet apart without obstruction to function properly. Apple, who already has some 5G MMW phones, just announced that it is not building any millimeter wave spectrum antennas in its next generation SE iphones. With 4G LTE low and mid band wavelengths they apparently do not need the millimeter 5G bandwidth. The article notes, “It’s not a surprise that Apple is dropping the spectrum from its phones. It costs chip space and power for every additional spectrum that is supported by a cellphone. Cell manufacturers care more about long battery life than they do about a technology that never made it out of the downtowns of a few major cities.”
FCC Limits: A False Sense of Security
We are told by the FCC that wireless radiation and cell towers are safe within current safety guidelines, or that we do not really know if there is harm or that the research is inconclusive or that it is not ionizing (like x-rays) so it cannot hurt us. This is the same dismissive and doubt creating language used by the tobacco industry and a host of other chemical companies to protect their toxic products, thus profits. The research shows that we do know, beyond a doubt, that wireless radiation is harmful to all living systems below the current safety standards. The most obvious evidence is that more and more children and adults are reporting symptoms of electrosensitivity (EHS) in the presence of wireless radiation when they live in a home near a cell tower, or use a cell phone, or in schools where wireless devices and cell towers are increasing.

Please use your authority and wisdom to keep this ordinance strong. Take more time if you need to in order for you to sort this out and be sure of your decision. Remember that you all live in Los Altos as well so you are protecting you and your families and the next generation as well. 298
Agenda Item # 9.

Sincerely,
Cindy Russell, MD
Attached- Malibu Ordinances
References
• Pearce (2019) 500 Meter buffer recommended around schools, hospitals and homes. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” (2019) Pearce M. Environmental Research, Nov 2019; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119306425 • Waldman-Selsam, C. (2004). Bamberg Appeal, on behalf of 114 physicians. Open Letter to Edmund Stoiber, Prime Minister, Germany, August 3. http://www.vws.org /documents/cell- project- documents/BambergAppeal.pdf
• Waldmann-Selsam C 2016. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. (2016). Waldmann-Selsam C et al. Science of the Total Environment. 572 (2016) 554-569.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306435017_Radiofrequency_radiation_injures_ trees_around_mobile_phone_base_stations
• The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html • Researcher links diplomats’ mystery illness to radiofrequency/microwave radiation.

Eureka alert. August 29, 2018. American Academy for the Advancement of Science. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub releases/2018-08/uoc–rld082918.php • Diplomats in China report similar brain injuries as Americans in Cuba: In 2016 and 2017, 25 Americans in the U.S. embassy in Cuba suffered serious, unexplained brain injuries. Now, at least 15 American officials in China are reporting similar symptoms. 60 Minutes reports. March 15, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/diplomats-in-chinareport-similar-brain-injuries-as-americans-in-cuba-60-minutes/ • Swanson RL (2018) Neurological Manifestations Among US Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cuba. (2018) Swanson RL et al. JAMA. 2018 Mar 20;319(11):1125-1133.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 • Levitt, Lai, Manville. (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May

27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
• Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/ • Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep 27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563106/ 299
Agenda Item # 9.
• PanagopoulosDJ. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being. University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece. Electromagnetic Fields, Nova
• MOEF Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Cell Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) The Ministry of Environment and Forest. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) Ministry of the Environment and Forests (MOEF) India. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958381.pdf • Sciences. http://www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulosnova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf • SwissRe Insurance- Sonar 2019: New emerging risk insights. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html • Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety. Sept 23, 2020. PST. https://mdsafetech.org/2020/09/23/landmarklawsuit-filed-against-fcc-for-failing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/ • Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. State of New Hampshire, General Court. Nov 1, 2020. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20 report.pdf
• We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American. Joel M. Moskowitz. Oct 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-haveno-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ • 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL. Environ Res. 2018 Apr

11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646. or
at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10913927726988/5%20G%20wireless%20telecommunicati ons%20expansion%3A%20Public%20health%20and%20environmental%20implications. pdf
• Firefighters Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towershttps://mdsafetech.org/2019/09/28/firefighters-fighting-fires-and-now-cell-towers/ • 5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. In Depth Analysis, European Parliament.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)6 31060 EN.pdf
• Apple ditches mmWave 5G with newest iPhone.
https://www.lightreading.com/5g/apple-ditches-mmwave-5g-with-newest-iphone/d/did/775901 300
Agenda Item # 9.
301
Agenda Item # 9.
302
Agenda Item # 9.
303
Agenda Item # 9.
304
Agenda Item # 9.

From: ana pareja
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:09:44 PM
Attachments: Los Altos Letter Final 4 11 2022 PDF(1).pdf Dear Los Altos City Council,
I'm writing you to let you know that I strongly support Dr. Cindy Russell's attached letter regarding the Los Altos Wireless Ordinance and ask that you include all of the requests that she has brought to the attention of the Council and place them in the updated ordinance.

Sincerely,
Ana Pareja
305
Agenda Item # 9.

Key Points

1. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: Clarification if this applies to Small Cell or Macro Cells; macro towers must go through conditional use permits

2. LOCATION STANDARDS – PREFERRED SITES

3. WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS

4. FIRE SAFETY

5. APPEALS PROCESS

REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

Here are examples of Location Standards in the Encinitas Small Cell Wireless Ordinance passed in June, 2020 and in Malibu April 2021, which to date are uncontested. 308
Agenda Item # 9.

Encinitas Ordinance Passed June 10, 2020
SECTION 10. LOCATION STANDARDS

1. (a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy:

1. (1) any location within a residential zone;

2. (2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit;

3. (3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or primary school;

4. (4) any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and

5. (5) any location within the Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park Zone. (b) Location Preferences. To better assist applicants and decision makers understand and respond to the community’s aesthetic preferences and values, this subsection sets out listed preferences for locations to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in an ordered hierarchy. Applications that involve lesser-preferred locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in the written record that: (1) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible; and (2) if the proposed site or the most- preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site is within a Restricted Site Location, the applicant qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy. The City prefers small cells in the public rights-of-way to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:
(1) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along prime arterials;
(2) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along major arterials;
(3) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along collector roads;
(4) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along local streets;
(5) any location within 500 feet from any residential zone; (6) locations within residential zones on or along prime arterials; (7) locations within residential zones on or along major arterials; (8) locations within residential zones on or along collector roads; (9) locations within residential zones on or along local streets; 309
Agenda Item # 9.
(10) any location within 1,000 feet from an existing/proposed small wireless facility; In the event that a proposed facility would be within 500 feet from two or more restricted site locations (as defined in Subsection 10(a)), and the proposed facility qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy, the technically feasible location furthest from all such restricted site locations will be deemed to be the most preferred alternative. (c) Encroachments Over Private Property. No small cell antennas, accessory equipment or other improvements may encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-ofway without the property owner’s express written consent.

This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution.

3. Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:

1. Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title.

3. Sites with minimum separation. Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks.

4. Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways.

5. Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17.46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the 310
Agenda Item # 9.
surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.

3) Waivers for Standards
Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has added a section on Waivers for Standards that clarifies the process and protects the city from liability.

Resolution No. 21-17 Page 9

1. A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:

2. Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application 311
Agenda Item # 9.
complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application. A request for waiver from one or more 4) Fire Safety
All electrical equipment including small cell towers are a fire risk. The fire cannot be put out in a conventional manner with firefighters blasting water on the fire.

They have to wait until the power is shut off or electrocution will result.

Public health and ecosystem health are still important issues with new 5G systems untested for long term or short term safety for either human health or environmental health. 5G systems with a complex mix of low, medium and high frequencies (thus the need for macro and microcells) are very onerous to measure, requiring very expensive complex equipment that is very difficult 312
Agenda Item # 9.
for engineers to accomplish let alone city facility engineers. Precaution in placement is paramount in this discussion. Once cell towers are placed there is no going back and you just wait for people to experience symptoms or develop cancer or a neurologic condition that you will not be able to sort out from the common toxic exposures we all encounter on a daily basis.

I began studying the health impacts of wireless radiation when I learned of a proposal to place a cell tower on my daughter’s school.

We Evolved in a Low Electromagnetic Environment
The natural environment of the Earth is electromagnetic. We have terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, radiation from the sun and cosmic microwaves. All living things evolved in 313
Agenda Item # 9.
harmony with the Earth’s natural but very very low-level electromagnetic rhythms. Birds, bees and mammals have magnetite in their bodies and brains that use the Earth’s magnetic field for the delicate tasks of navigation and foraging. Our human nervous system, heart, reproductive and endocrine systems rely on minute electromagnetic signals for complex functions. Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by our modern technology can distort our bodies electric currents, delicate cell membranes and cause broad dysfunction. This can be with long term or sometimes short exposures with higher power and different pulsations. Science has shown us that organisms adapt to constant electromagnetic fields found in nature much easier than artificial pulsed radiation that is emitted from cell towers and wireless devices. It makes perfect sense that wireless radiation can be harmful to living organisms even it does not knock an electron out of its orbit.

Physicians in Germany ask for Health Investigation of Cell Towers in 2005 An open letter from Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam was sent to the German State Chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, on behalf of 114 physicians (Bamberger Appeal) asking for an investigation into the newly reported adverse health symptoms of 356 residents who lived near cell towers in Oberfranken, Germany. Dr. Waldmann-Selsam noted, “Many humans get sick from emissions far below the recommended limit values, which consider only thermal effects, and we have a sickness picture with characteristic symptom combinations, which are new to us physicians,” The list of symptoms were, ” Sleep disturbances, tiredness, concentration impairment, forgetfulness, problem with finding words, depressive tendencies, tinnitus, sudden loss of hearing, hearing loss, giddiness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, feeling of numbness, heart rhythm disturbances, 315
Agenda Item # 9.
increased blood pressure , hormonal disturbances, night-time sweat, nausea.” Resident noted almost immediate improvement when moving away.”
Dr. Waldmann-Selsam goes on to say, “physicians were able to prove, by re-testing the patients, the normalization of blood pressure, heart rhythm, hormone disturbances, visual disturbances, neurological symptoms, blood picture,”. She called this an emergency medical situation and requested an official health investigation. http://www.nextup.org/pdf/Letter_to_Edmund_Stoiber.pdf Cell Tower Effects on Cognition and Learning
The majority of studies, which have been done internationally, have shown an increase in neurologic symptoms in a percentage of residents living near cell towers. Symptoms vary with the distance from the cell tower. Symptoms include insomnia, headache, heart palpitations, dizziness, poor concentration, and fatigue. A study in Japan (Shinjyo 2014) showed a decrease in symptoms when the cell tower was removed. There is also a well done study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants.

Every fire station in California is now exempt from having a 5G tower on their station. This movement began when cell towers were initially targeted for fire stations because of their location and the revenue received by the cities. Many firefighters developed symptoms including headaches, fatigue, memory impairment and insomnia within a week of the installation of the towers. An exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers. AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects. AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.” SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown.
316
Agenda Item # 9.
500 Meter (1640 ft) Buffer from Cell Tower Recommended
Cell tower health studies that show impacts from cell towers with symptoms within about 1500 feet of the cell towers. That is why Pearce et al (2019) recommended a “500 Meter buffer around schools, hospitals and homes “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.”
Cancer and Cell Towers
3 Studies investigated the rates of cancer and cell towers looking at the distance from cell towers and the incidence of cancer. They found the rate of cancer incidence increased significantly in those living within about 350 -400 meters (around 1000 feet) to the cell tower.

FCC Told by DC Court to Reevaluate Safety Standards
On August 13, 2021 a joint lawsuit was won by petitioners against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation. The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal 318
Agenda Item # 9.
to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of the RF radiation standards established by the FCC did not use "reasoned decision-making" (they did not go by the science) and thus the standards were considered by the court to have been set in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. This was an extremely high bar for the Plaintiffs to reach. The Circuit Court of Appeals rarely admonishes a federal agency or commission in this way. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to re-examine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms.

That is well documented in Dr. Carlo's book, "Cell phones: Invisible Hazards in The Wireless Age".

27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
• Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/ • Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep 27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563106/ 321
Agenda Item # 9.
• PanagopoulosDJ. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being. University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece. Electromagnetic Fields, Nova
• MOEF Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Cell Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) The Ministry of Environment and Forest. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) Ministry of the Environment and Forests (MOEF) India. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958381.pdf • Sciences. http://www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulosnova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf • SwissRe Insurance- Sonar 2019: New emerging risk insights. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html • Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety. Sept 23, 2020. PST. https://mdsafetech.org/2020/09/23/landmarklawsuit-filed-against-fcc-for-failing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/ • Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. State of New Hampshire, General Court. Nov 1, 2020. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20 report.pdf
• We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American. Joel M. Moskowitz. Oct 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-haveno-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ • 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL. Environ Res. 2018 Apr

From: roger heyder
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 3:23:00 PM
Hello,
This is public comment on Item 6, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Please have this read into the record for the meeting, and included as public comment in the meeting minutes.

Thanks -- Roger Heyder, resident of Los Altos
The 5G emergency ordinance was enacted after several large public meetings, where many hundreds of residents supported the 5G ordinance, and only 1 or 2 residents opposed the ordinance. Nothing has changed, yet Council used a back-door approach, via the Planning Commission, to alter the ordinance to the extent of basically eliminating it.

It seems Council supports many outside special interests, and the collecting of money, over the interest of residents. That is unacceptable. Council members that hold that posture should resign immediately, since you are failing in your responsibility to serve the residents of Los Altos. If Council wants to eliminate the 5G ordinance, then do hold a specific, public vote to do so, and residents can see which council members disrespect the residents’ clearly stated wishes.

It is essential that Council inform residents how much money the city will make if the ordinance is lifted - right of way fees paid to the city by the 5G providers. That way residents can clearly see how much it takes to sell us out.

Pursuing the effective elimination of the 5G Emergency Ordinance through the Planning Commission, with little to no community visibility and transparency, is sleazy and dishonest. Seemingly pretty standard behavior for both the Planning Commission and Council. It is very hard to understand how residents could have any remaining trust or respect for Council or Planning Commission members. But then, it is unlikely you care much about that, or your behavior would be very different. 323
Agenda Item # 9.
324
Agenda Item # 9.
buffers from 1000 feet to 200 feet (for all carriers collectively) on the targeted (second class) streets (i.e., arterials, collectors and local collectors, and parts of local roads near the arterials, collectors and local collectors). They stated the following reason:"The city wireless facilities team recommends adoption of the first option as in our view it most effectively balances the need to allow for technological advances in wireless facilities while preserving the beauty and aesthetics of Los Altos.” This makes me feel marginalized and mistreated if you live on one of the targeted streets!
The wireless team then goes on to say on page 50: "In addition, several members of the public testifying before the PC requested the city assist in providing improved wireless coverage.". (This was after they made the other statement on page 50 that I noted the testimony of people who live along arterials, collectors and local collectors.) Actually, the "several members of the public" were three men (one who testified at both meetings).

In my opinion, this was an overstatement.At the first PC meeting, seven residents expressed concern about the revised ordinance, and one man was in support of it (7 to 1 ratio). At the second meeting, 9 people expressed concerns about the revised ordinance, while 3 men expressed support (9 to 3, or a 3 to 1 ratio). The written communications that had been sent in were even more lopsided, with most of it coming from people who are opposed to allowing cell facilities in residential areas and close to schools.

KEY POINT:

If homes are on corner lots, like ours at 951 Castilleja Ct, we should not be dealing with a wireless cell tower fully exposed from the street into our side yard. Reason being that this side yard is where we spend the majority of our private time, when outside. Exposure to a cell tower would be devastating to our health, rural feel, beauty and character of our residence! The ordinance should explicitly spell out avoiding placement in front of side yard locations, as I just described. As we have been active in contributing to the wellbeing of the Los Altos community for many years, we feel that we should be listened to, please! A rigid 200 feet distance might therefore not be practical and importantly technically not necessary! The 5G microwaves could carry up to 1,500 feet without obstructions. Therefore I am opposed to having Verizon place repeaters at every 200 feet: overkill and unwanted impact onto residents. Flexibility is key to solve esthetics and radiation exposure of residents, please!
Thank you for your kind attention and best regards.

Willem and Margriet De Lange
951 Castilleja Ct
Los Altos, CA 94024
325
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Nicole Wallace
To: Public Comment; City Council
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 10:05:19 PM
Attachments: Los Altos Letter Final 4 11 2022 PDF(1).pdf Dear Los Altos City Council,
I strongly support Dr. Cindy Russell's attached letter regarding the Los Altos Wireless Ordinance and ask that you include all of the requests that she has brought to the attention of the Council and place them in the updated ordinance.

Sincerely,
Nicole Wallace
326
Agenda Item # 9.

Key Points

1. TITLE OF ORDINANCE: Clarification if this applies to Small Cell or Macro Cells; macro towers must go through conditional use permits

2. LOCATION STANDARDS – PREFERRED SITES

3. WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS

4. FIRE SAFETY

5. APPEALS PROCESS

REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

Here are examples of Location Standards in the Encinitas Small Cell Wireless Ordinance passed in June, 2020 and in Malibu April 2021, which to date are uncontested. 329
Agenda Item # 9.

Encinitas Ordinance Passed June 10, 2020
SECTION 10. LOCATION STANDARDS

1. (a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy:

1. (1) any location within a residential zone;

2. (2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit;

3. (3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or primary school;

4. (4) any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and

5. (5) any location within the Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park Zone. (b) Location Preferences. To better assist applicants and decision makers understand and respond to the community’s aesthetic preferences and values, this subsection sets out listed preferences for locations to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in an ordered hierarchy. Applications that involve lesser-preferred locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in the written record that: (1) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible; and (2) if the proposed site or the most- preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site is within a Restricted Site Location, the applicant qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy. The City prefers small cells in the public rights-of-way to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows:
(1) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along prime arterials;
(2) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along major arterials;
(3) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along collector roads;
(4) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along local streets;
(5) any location within 500 feet from any residential zone; (6) locations within residential zones on or along prime arterials; (7) locations within residential zones on or along major arterials; (8) locations within residential zones on or along collector roads; (9) locations within residential zones on or along local streets; 330
Agenda Item # 9.
(10) any location within 1,000 feet from an existing/proposed small wireless facility; In the event that a proposed facility would be within 500 feet from two or more restricted site locations (as defined in Subsection 10(a)), and the proposed facility qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy, the technically feasible location furthest from all such restricted site locations will be deemed to be the most preferred alternative. (c) Encroachments Over Private Property. No small cell antennas, accessory equipment or other improvements may encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-ofway without the property owner’s express written consent.

This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution.

3. Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:

1. Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title.

3. Sites with minimum separation. Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks.

4. Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways.

5. Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17.46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the 331
Agenda Item # 9.
surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.

3) Waivers for Standards
Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has added a section on Waivers for Standards that clarifies the process and protects the city from liability.

Resolution No. 21-17 Page 9

1. A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:

2. Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application 332
Agenda Item # 9.
complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application. A request for waiver from one or more 4) Fire Safety
All electrical equipment including small cell towers are a fire risk. The fire cannot be put out in a conventional manner with firefighters blasting water on the fire.

They have to wait until the power is shut off or electrocution will result.

Public health and ecosystem health are still important issues with new 5G systems untested for long term or short term safety for either human health or environmental health. 5G systems with a complex mix of low, medium and high frequencies (thus the need for macro and microcells) are very onerous to measure, requiring very expensive complex equipment that is very difficult 333
Agenda Item # 9.
for engineers to accomplish let alone city facility engineers. Precaution in placement is paramount in this discussion. Once cell towers are placed there is no going back and you just wait for people to experience symptoms or develop cancer or a neurologic condition that you will not be able to sort out from the common toxic exposures we all encounter on a daily basis.

I began studying the health impacts of wireless radiation when I learned of a proposal to place a cell tower on my daughter’s school.

We Evolved in a Low Electromagnetic Environment
The natural environment of the Earth is electromagnetic. We have terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, radiation from the sun and cosmic microwaves. All living things evolved in 334
Agenda Item # 9.
harmony with the Earth’s natural but very very low-level electromagnetic rhythms. Birds, bees and mammals have magnetite in their bodies and brains that use the Earth’s magnetic field for the delicate tasks of navigation and foraging. Our human nervous system, heart, reproductive and endocrine systems rely on minute electromagnetic signals for complex functions. Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by our modern technology can distort our bodies electric currents, delicate cell membranes and cause broad dysfunction. This can be with long term or sometimes short exposures with higher power and different pulsations. Science has shown us that organisms adapt to constant electromagnetic fields found in nature much easier than artificial pulsed radiation that is emitted from cell towers and wireless devices. It makes perfect sense that wireless radiation can be harmful to living organisms even it does not knock an electron out of its orbit.

Physicians in Germany ask for Health Investigation of Cell Towers in 2005 An open letter from Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam was sent to the German State Chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, on behalf of 114 physicians (Bamberger Appeal) asking for an investigation into the newly reported adverse health symptoms of 356 residents who lived near cell towers in Oberfranken, Germany. Dr. Waldmann-Selsam noted, “Many humans get sick from emissions far below the recommended limit values, which consider only thermal effects, and we have a sickness picture with characteristic symptom combinations, which are new to us physicians,” The list of symptoms were, ” Sleep disturbances, tiredness, concentration impairment, forgetfulness, problem with finding words, depressive tendencies, tinnitus, sudden loss of hearing, hearing loss, giddiness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, feeling of numbness, heart rhythm disturbances, 336
Agenda Item # 9.
increased blood pressure , hormonal disturbances, night-time sweat, nausea.” Resident noted almost immediate improvement when moving away.”
Dr. Waldmann-Selsam goes on to say, “physicians were able to prove, by re-testing the patients, the normalization of blood pressure, heart rhythm, hormone disturbances, visual disturbances, neurological symptoms, blood picture,”. She called this an emergency medical situation and requested an official health investigation. http://www.nextup.org/pdf/Letter_to_Edmund_Stoiber.pdf Cell Tower Effects on Cognition and Learning
The majority of studies, which have been done internationally, have shown an increase in neurologic symptoms in a percentage of residents living near cell towers. Symptoms vary with the distance from the cell tower. Symptoms include insomnia, headache, heart palpitations, dizziness, poor concentration, and fatigue. A study in Japan (Shinjyo 2014) showed a decrease in symptoms when the cell tower was removed. There is also a well done study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants.

Every fire station in California is now exempt from having a 5G tower on their station. This movement began when cell towers were initially targeted for fire stations because of their location and the revenue received by the cities. Many firefighters developed symptoms including headaches, fatigue, memory impairment and insomnia within a week of the installation of the towers. An exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers. AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects. AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.” SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown.
337
Agenda Item # 9.
500 Meter (1640 ft) Buffer from Cell Tower Recommended
Cell tower health studies that show impacts from cell towers with symptoms within about 1500 feet of the cell towers. That is why Pearce et al (2019) recommended a “500 Meter buffer around schools, hospitals and homes “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.”
Cancer and Cell Towers
3 Studies investigated the rates of cancer and cell towers looking at the distance from cell towers and the incidence of cancer. They found the rate of cancer incidence increased significantly in those living within about 350 -400 meters (around 1000 feet) to the cell tower.

FCC Told by DC Court to Reevaluate Safety Standards
On August 13, 2021 a joint lawsuit was won by petitioners against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation. The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal 339
Agenda Item # 9.
to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of the RF radiation standards established by the FCC did not use "reasoned decision-making" (they did not go by the science) and thus the standards were considered by the court to have been set in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. This was an extremely high bar for the Plaintiffs to reach. The Circuit Court of Appeals rarely admonishes a federal agency or commission in this way. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to re-examine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms.

That is well documented in Dr. Carlo's book, "Cell phones: Invisible Hazards in The Wireless Age".

27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/
• Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/ • Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep 27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563106/ 342
Agenda Item # 9.
• PanagopoulosDJ. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being. University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece. Electromagnetic Fields, Nova
• MOEF Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Cell Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) The Ministry of Environment and Forest. Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) Ministry of the Environment and Forests (MOEF) India. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958381.pdf • Sciences. http://www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulosnova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf • SwissRe Insurance- Sonar 2019: New emerging risk insights. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019.html • Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety. Sept 23, 2020. PST. https://mdsafetech.org/2020/09/23/landmarklawsuit-filed-against-fcc-for-failing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/ • Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. State of New Hampshire, General Court. Nov 1, 2020. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20 report.pdf
• We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American. Joel M. Moskowitz. Oct 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-haveno-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ • 5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL. Environ Res. 2018 Apr

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 9:44:16 AM
From: Edgar Saadi
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:17 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Planning Services <[email protected]>; Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>
Subject: What she said below thank you
Dear City Council members…..
“Regarding the proposed modifications to the ordinance for small wireless facilities, I object to the inequitable treatment of and failure to represent residents who live on and adjacent to arterials, collectors, and local collectors. These locations are ranked as more preferred than other “residentially zoned” streets. Most of the collectors and local collectors in Los Altos, however, are residentially zoned! All residents of Los Altos will benefit equally from the 5G upgrade, so all neighborhoods should equally bear the brunt of the visual blight, noise, and estimated decrease in property values.

The authors of the revised ordinance state they are recommending the higher density of facilities on the local collectors, collectors, and arterial streets to retain the beauty and essential rural character throughout Los Altos, (p. 38 and p. 39). In other words, they think it is OK to destroy the character and safety and livability of some streets (collectors, local collectors, adjacent local roads, and arterials) in order to retain the beauty and character of the rest of the streets. There is absolutely no justification for this creation of two classes of residents.

Please remove this preference to protect the character of all residential properties equally.

Regards,
Katherine Weller
Los Altos Resident”
Best regards
Ed Saadi
1010 Loma Prieta Ct
Los Altos, CA 94024
Sent from my iPhone
344
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Cindy Russe l
To: Andrea Chelemengos; Public Comment
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 1:38:38 PM
Attachments: Malibu Resolution No. 21-17 as adopted.pdf Executed Copy Malibu Res. 21-17.PDF
Los Altos Letter Final 4112022 PDF.pdf
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cindy Russell
Date: Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:04 PM
Subject: Los Altos City Council Agenda item #6 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities To: <aenander@losaltosca gov>, <smeadows@losaltosca gov>, <nfligor@losaltosca gov>, Lynette Lee Eng <lleeeng@losaltosca gov>, <jweinberg@losaltosca gov>, <publiccomments@lossltosca gov>, <council@losaltosca gov> Dear Los Altos City Council:

Enclosed is my letter to you regarding the revised Wireless facilities ordinance I am attaching it as well as a PDF as well along with the Malibu Ordinance Thank you for your consideration
To:Los Altos City Council
From: Cindy Russell, MD
Re: Revisions to 2019 Los Altos Ordinance to Regulate Small Wireless Facilities Date April 11, 2022
Dear Los Altos City Council Members:

I am writing today to strongly urge you to reinstate (with legally appropriate revisions) several of the major aspects of the original 2019 Small Cell Wireless Ordinance that diminish blight and protect the beauty, character and health of your lovely Silicon Valley communityIn addition, after reading the new 2022 proposed Wireless Facilities Ordinance it appears thatsome important provisions may have been missed in crafting a new Small Cell ordinance which are critical for the safety of the residents and also reduce liability for the city This includes several insurance provisions, permitting process, and more
Encinitas and Malibu have passed ordinances which have elements that are protective but allow flexibility for cities and exceptions/waivers for the carriers They remain uncontested ·
Encinitas, CA-Revised from 2019- Passed June 20, 2020
https://encinitasca gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Services/Planning/Land%20Development/Small%20Wireless%20Facilities/Resolution%20No %202020- 38%20With%20Policy pdf?ver=2020-07-13-192634-373
·
Malibu Resolution 21-17 – Attached please find an executed copy of Res 21-17 is officially binding because Ordinance 484 adopts it by reference I will summarize my ask of the Los Altos City Council with these key points below, followed by backup for those points with additional pertinent legal information which does impact the issue of health/science, as per a court ruling from the second highest court in the land on August 13, 2021, a ruling that referred to the existing RF radiation regulatory limits as "arbitrary and capricious" Arbitrary and capricious means that the law and/or the facts were knowingly disregarded That is a high bar indeed and the plaintiffs reached that bar It behooves us to consider what is going on in the courts and pass ordinance language accordingly:

PLEASE PAUSE:There are resolutions as mentioned above that have successfully balanced the unique needs of communities with the rights of the telecommunications industry The new resolution does not have to be passed Tuesday night Some reflection on the best that Encinitas and Malibu have to offer may benefit all of us in the long run Key Points
1 TITLE OF ORDINANCE:Clarification ifthis applies to Small Cell or Macro Cells; macro towers must go through conditional use permits 2 LOCATION STANDARDS – PREFERRED SITES
3 WAIVERS FOR STANDARDS
4 FIRE SAFETY
5 APPEALS PROCESS
Thank you for passing the 2019 Wireless Facilities Telecommunications Ordinance The original wireless facilities ordinance for Los Altos took into consideration public concerns, was well thought out and protects the city of Los Altos from poorly designed and poorly placed cell towers I understand, however, that there is a lawsuit against the City for Los Altos from Verizon and AT&T claiming that the 2019 ordinance as written “effectively prohibits” wireless communications You are commended for taking on this task of revising the ordinance in response Some of the 2022 proposed changes are good and clarify the permitting process for carriers to avoid lawsuits and provide for “personal wireless services”, however, I believe there are some gaps in protections and flexibility for the city that I would like to point out which could be remedied in addition to some clarifications
It is important to consider adding the provisions below As you note with the FCC lawsuit to reevaluate the 20 year-old FCC safety standards, the courts have judged that the FCC did not take into account several aspects of human health and environmental effects in setting their standards We do not know what the future holds for the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 or state law The
city of Los Altos needs to be prepared to alter its ordinance in case there is a change in the law in the future Representative Anna Eshoo Supports Local Control for Cell Towers The 2018 FCC small cell order that fast tracks deployment of small cells in order to “cut the red tape” has prompted cities around the country, like Los Altos, to write these emergency ordinances and now revise them The FCC Declaratory ruling has been considered an overreach of the Telecom Industry which dominates the FCC (FCC: Captured Agency, N Alster), overriding the basic rights of cities to have local control This was recognized by our local representative Anna Eshoo who in 2019 introduced HR530 to protect the rights of states and government bydeeming that the“Federal Communications Commission’s Declaratory Ruling in ‘‘Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling’’ (FCC 18-111) shall have no force or effect.”This bill had 52 co-sponsors Senator Feinstein introduced in 2019 a companion federal bill SB 2012 to block the FCC order Neither moved Representative Eshoo also sent a letter to the FCC in 2020 to ask that the vote on the FCC order be delayed stating, “we worry that if this Declaratory Ruling does not benefit from meaningful input from local governments, the result could undermine municipalities’ ability to balance their responsibilities to public safety and community design with their desire to ensure access to affordable wireless networks and the next generation services.”
Please fight for the rights of your residents and government as our local representatives have done You have more power than you know Please exercise it Important Provisions to Add
1)Title of Ordinance
To clarify whether the ordinance title should apply only to Small Wireless Facilities or if this is for both Small Cell and Macro Towers it may be helpful to rename the ordinance to its original title and keep the descriptions separate within the ordinance It is not clear to me in this rewriteSmall cell applications are different than for macro towers due to difference in structure of towers, power emitted and location in right of way as per FCC ruling (Section 14 82 050) See Encinitas Small Cell wireless OrdinanceResolution 2019- 91- REGULATING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE 345
Agenda Item # 9.

DEPLOYMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OFWAYhttps://encinitasca gov/Portals/0/City%20Documents/Documents/Development%20Services/Planning/Land%20Development/Small%20Wireless%20Facilities/CC%20Policy%20C035 pdf 2)Location Standards- Preferred Sites- Despite what the telecommunications industry says, you as a city can still have preferred sites and less preferred sites in your ordinance (Encinitas and Malibu Ordinances)
You can add an exception clause or waiver process to allow for placement of a cell tower if the carrier proves it is necessary (and other locations are not technically feasible) for “Personal Wireless Services” under the 1996 Telecom Act of 1996 and so that this does not constitute an “effective prohibition” * Special Zones can be designated for schools, day care centers, residential dwellings, protected habitat or trees, parks, etc. * Keep the 1000 foot distance between towers,not 200 feet.Explanation below Here are examples of Location Standards in the Encinitas Small Cell Wireless Ordinance passed in June, 2020 and in Malibu April 2021, which to date are uncontested Encinitas Ordinance Passed June 10, 2020
SECTION 10. LOCATION STANDARDS
1 (a) Restricted Site Locations. All of the following locations will be deemed “Restricted Site Locations” that require an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy 1 (1) any location within a residential zone;
2 (2) any location within 500 feet from a residential dwelling unit; 3 (3) any location within 500 feet from a daycare facility or primary school; 4 (4) any location within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and 5 (5) any location within the Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park Zone. (b) Location Preferences. To better assist applicants and decision makers understand and respond to the community s aesthetic preferences and values, this subsection sets out listed preferences for locations to be used in connection with small wireless facilities in an ordered hierarchy. Applications that involve lesser-preferred locations may be approved so long as the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence in the written record that (1) any more preferred locations or structures within 500 feet from the proposed site would be technically infeasible; and (2) if the proposed site or the most- preferred location within 500 feet from the proposed site is within a Restricted Site Location, the applicant qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy. The City prefers small cells in the public rights-of-way to be installed in locations, ordered from most preferred to least preferred, as follows (1) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along prime arterials; (2) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along major arterials; (3) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along collector roads; (4) locations within industrial zones, commercial zones, business parks or office professional zones on or along local streets; (5) any location within 500 feet from any residential zone; (6) locations within residential zones on or along prime arterials; (7) locations within residential zones on or along major arterials; (8) locations within residential zones on or along collector roads; (9) locations within residential zones on or along local streets; (10) any location within 1,000 feet from an existing/proposed small wireless facility; In the event that a proposed facility would be within 500 feet from two or more restricted site locations (as defined in Subsection 10(a)), and the proposed facility qualifies for an exception pursuant to SECTION 13 of this Policy, the technically feasible location furthest from all such restricted site locations will be deemed to be the most preferred alternative. (c) Encroachments Over Private Property. No small cell antennas, accessory equipment or other improvements may encroach onto or over any private or other property outside the public rights-of-way without the property owner s express written consent.

Malibu Wireless Ordinance Resolution 21-17Standards Passed April2021. https://www malibucity org/DocumentCenter/View/27969/Ordinance-No-484 Location Standards for All Facilities
The location standards for all wireless communications facilities, other than those that qualify as eligible facilities requests, are as follows:
1 No wireless telecommunication facility shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of any school, playground, or park unless a finding is made, based on technical evidence acceptable to the reviewing authority showing a clear need for the facility and that no technically feasible alternative site exists Except for facilities installed on the same pole or tower as an existing wireless telecommunication facility, wireless telecommunication facilities located within any residential zone district shall not be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of any other wireless communications facility, except from those facilities placed on utility poles along Pacific Coast Highway, unless a waiver is granted 2 All new freestanding wireless communications facilities and monopoles shall be set back a minimum distance of at least one hundred and twenty (120%) percent of the height of the facility or monopole from any property line abutting a residentially zoned property This minimum setback is not subject to the waivers allowed under Section 7 of this Resolution 3 Location preference for wireless communications facilities should be given to the following:
1 Property designated non-residential (except for public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts), unless otherwise prohibited pursuant to this title 2 Facilities attached or sited adjacent to existing structures Whenever possible, facilities shall be located on and/or inside existing structures Appropriate types of existing structures may include, but are not limited to: buildings, water tanks, telephone poles and utility towers and poles, sign standards, light standards and roadway overpasses 3 Sites with minimum separation Sites that are more than five hundred (500) feet from school, playgrounds, and parks 4 Sites that are not highly visible from adjacent roadways 5 Unless otherwise indicated in MMC Chapter 17 46 or these Standards, no wireless facility shall be installed on an exposed ridgeline unless the facility blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible 6 The City expressly designates residential, public open space and recreational vehicle park zoning districts, parks and schools as the least appropriate possible locations, and the absolute last choices for siting
3)Waivers for Standards
Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has added a section on Waivers for Standards that clarifies the process and protects the city from liability Resolution No 21-17 Page 9
1 A waiver of one or more of these Standards may be granted in the following circumstances:
1 Pursuant to MMC Section 17 46 060(D), if an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission through clear and convincing evidence that denial of an application would, within the meaning of federal law, prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, or otherwise violate applicable laws or regulations; 2 If an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission through clear and convincing evidence set forth in a feasibility study that compliance with a requirement of these Standards would be technically infeasible and the proposed wireless facility complies with the requirements of these Standards to the greatest extent technically feasible For example, an exception to a requirement to conceal antennas in a shroud may be granted if shrouding is shown to be technically infeasible and an alternative concealment such as a colored film wrap is proposed; or
3 If an applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission with clear and convincing evidence that the particular engineering, design or location proposed involves an alternative that better meets the purposes of Chapter 17 46 and only minor non-compliance with a requirement of these design Standards and results in no increase in public visual impact to the community or provides other benefits For example, an exception to the wireless facility location limitations may be granted when the applicant can demonstrate that the placement is less visible from viewsheds of residences or shielded by vegetation or existing infrastructure (such as barriers), or is less physically intrusive (for example, less impactful to tree roots or reduces noise) Among other factors, in deciding whether or not to grant an exception, the Planning Commission may consider the impact of expansions to the facility that the applicant would be entitled to make as of right if granted
2 Waivers may only be requested at the time an application is initially submitted for a discretionary permit The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which waiver is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies Any request for waiver after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed wireless facility and shall be considered a new application A request for waiver from one or more 4)Fire Safety
All electrical equipment including small cell towers are a fire risk.The fire cannot be put out in a conventional manner with firefighters blasting water on the fire. They have to wait until the power is shut off or electrocution will result.

Examples are
·
San Diego tower that caught fire in a high school stadium- https //fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/stadium-light-catches-fire-at-south-bay-high-school/ ·
The Malibu fire in 2007 due to pole overload. CPUC finds Edison and 4 telecom carriers $51 5 million - https://www latimes com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-malibu-fire-settlements-approvedstate-puc-20130919-story html 346
Agenda Item # 9.

Considering the increase in wildfires and the risk of earthquakes Fire safety is a priority for citizens The Malibu Wireless Facilities Ordinance 2021 has language in the Fire Safety Standards that can be incorporated. In the attached Executed Copy of Malibu Res 21-17, please note fire language on pages 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, and particularly beginning on page 23 with "Electrical and Structural Safety Information "
5)Appeals Process
Language for appeal is not in the ordinance
Applications
A)Any person adversely affected by a decision of the Director pursuant to this Chapter may request an administrative hearing to appeal the Director s decision. In order to request a hearing, the person shall submit to the City Clerk in the manner directed in the Director s decision notice a fully completed request for administrative hearing form along with a full amount of the appeal fee set by the City Council (by way of check or money order). The request for administrative hearing shall be incomplete if it does not include the appeal fee in the full amount. … etc.

Precaution is Warranted
We understand that, as per Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, environmental concerns, and as courts have interpreted these it includes heath impacts, cannot be a factor in denial of cell towers but we are early in the game
Public health and ecosystem health are still important issues with new 5G systems untested for long term or short term safety for either human health or environmental health5G systems with a complex mix of low, medium and high frequencies (thus the need for macro and microcells)are very onerous to measure, requiring very expensive complex equipment that is very difficult for engineers to accomplish let alone city facility engineers Precaution in placement is paramount in this discussion Once cell towers are placed there is no going back and you just wait for people to experience symptoms or develop cancer or a neurologic condition that you will not be able to sort out from the common toxic exposures we all encounter on a daily basis Elon Musk tells us that 5G millimeter wave systems are not needed for autonomous cars 5G millimeter wavelengths are also not required for “personal wireless services”For the later this technology can be effectively replaced with safer and more secure fiberoptic networks and current wireless technologies I will explain why health matters
Health Matters
I am a practicing physician who has studied the health impacts of environmental toxins through our local County Medical Association and the California Medical Association for over 25 years I began studying the health impacts of wireless radiation when I learned of a proposal to place a cell tower on my daughter’s school After 10 years of research into the literature and talking to a variety of people affected by cell towers and wireless radiation I, like many others in the medical and scientific community, have come to the conclusion that wireless radiation is a pollutant just like lead or pesticides or mercury or toxic industrial waste The mechanisms are similar - oxidation, the effects are broad on all living organisms and people are often unaware they are exposed to the toxin - unless they are “sensitive” Wireless radiation causes oxidative stress on organisms and stem cells, and at low levels of radiation These low levels cause a slow decline in physiologic processes, and for those who have become sensitive- an immediate reaction Antioxidants and Health
As we now know small amounts of toxins can cause harm in certain windows of development thus children are more vulnerable We also know effects are cumulative People vary in their vulnerability due to age, genetics and other toxic exposures Not all people react the same Our health, wellness and aging are determined by oxidation levels in our tissues that injure our DNA, proteins and lipids, thus antioxidants in foods have been shown to block oxidation, neutralize cellular injury and promote health This is well established in the nutrition literature The literature also demonstrates that taking antioxidants (Vitamin E, zinc and melatonin) protects the cell from oxidation injury from wireless radiation Oxidative stress plays a major part in the development of chronic, degenerative and inflammatory illnesses such as cancer, autoimmune disorders, aging, cataracts, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as some acute pathologies (trauma, stroke). It is well established that wireless radiation at non-thermal levels causes oxidative stress Effects of this are cumulative on our DNA, lipids and cellular membranes We Evolved in a Low Electromagnetic Environment
The natural environment of the Earth is electromagnetic We have terrestrial electric and magnetic fields, radiation from the sun and cosmic microwaves All living things evolved in harmony with the Earth’s natural but very very low-level electromagnetic rhythms Birds, bees and mammals have magnetite in their bodies and brains that use the Earth’s magnetic field for the delicate tasks of navigation and foraging Our human nervous system, heart, reproductive and endocrine systems rely on minute electromagnetic signals for complex functions Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by our modern technology can distort our bodies electric currents, delicate cell membranes and cause broad dysfunction This can be with long term or sometimes short exposures with higher power and different pulsations Science has shown us that organisms adapt to constant electromagnetic fields found in nature much easier than artificial pulsed radiation that is emitted from cell towers and wireless devices It makes perfect sense that wireless radiation can be harmful to living organisms even it does not knock an electron out of its orbit Wildlife
You need to consider the unique ecosystem which surrounds this lovely town Science has shown us that levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation we are increasingly exposed to is harming not only humans but the sensitive environment that we tend to ignore but depend upon for our sustenance and mental health https://mdsafetech org/environmental-and-wildlife-effects/ New Review on Wildlife and wireless Radiofrequency Radiation The most comprehensive 3 part peer reviewed article by Levitt, Lai and Manville (2021) provides an updated, thorough and well referenced overview of RFR and effects on all wildlife, revealing a disturbing picture of the future if we continue to expand wireless in our homes, communities and for the commercialization of space The authors state, “But is there a larger environmental downside to rising ambient EMF exposures — particularly RFR — from popular mobile communication devices, WiFi antennas, and all accompanying infrastructure that is being overlooked by environmentalists, researchers, and government regulators alike. We may be missing critical physiological effects across species based on obsolete assumptions about low-level far-field exposures being too weak to adversely affect living tissue. We have yet to take into consideration the unique physiologies of other species, or how they use the environment in ways that humans do not, when we assume that the unfettered use of EMF/RFR can continue unabated and be allowed to grow indefinitely.” Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment (2021) Levitt BB et al Rev Environ Health 2021 May 27 https://pubmed ncbi nlm nih gov/34047144/
MOEF Report on Wildlife
The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) of expert scientists reviewed the literature of the effects of RF-EMF radiations on wildlife, humans and the biosphere In their 2010 MOEF Report they found that out of the 919 research papers collected on birds, bees, plants, other animals, and humans, 593 showed impacts, 180 showed no impacts, and 196 were inconclusive studies All organisms had effects
Human Effects– 62% showed effects, 13% no effect and 25% inconclusive Plant Effects– 87% showed effects and 13% were inconclusive Wildlife Effects- 62% showed effects, 4% no effect and 36% inconclusive Bee Effects—85% showed effects and 15% no effect Bird Effects- 77% showed effects, 10% no effect and 13% inconclusive Current Standards are Scientifically Out of Date UNESCO World Heritage Wildlife Area Species Disappearing An abundance of peer reviewed literature demonstrates adverse impacts to the environment with declines in insect, bird and wildlife populations in cities and where cell towers are placed This spells disaster for biodiversity, fragile wildlife areas, critical pollinators and agriculture, especially with additive effects of pesticides, toxins and loss of habitat A report on Unesco’s Mt Nardia World Heritage Park documents this slow decline in populations of species after cell towers were placed Unesco Report on Disappearance of Species from Mt Nardia Park World Heritage Area 2000-2015 with Increased Expansion of Telecommunications Antenna Ethno- Botonist Mark Broomhall UNESCO Report on Disappearance of Species from Mt Nardia with Increased EMR 2000-2015 Cell Tower Health Effects
Current standards are based on short term thermal exposures and discount the abundant peer reviewed literature on harm from low level, non -thermal effects It is clear that the limits for radiofrequency radiation are set too high in the U S and Canada These limits are 100 times higher than that of Italy and Russia, who set their standards based on methodical research on immunologic, neurologic and biologic effects of low-level radiation fields Current U S limits are up to 1,000 microwatts/cm2 with symptoms seen at levels of 0 005 microwatts /cm2 Physicians in Germany ask for Health Investigation of Cell Towers in 2005 An open letter from Dr Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam was sent to the German State Chancellor, Edmund Stoiber, on behalf of 114 physicians (Bamberger Appeal) asking for an investigation into the newly reported adverse health symptoms of 356 residents who lived near cell towers in Oberfranken, Germany Dr Waldmann-Selsam noted, “Many humans get sick from emissions far below the recommended limit values, which consider only thermal effects, and we have a sickness picture with characteristic symptom combinations, which are new to us physicians,” The list of symptoms were, ” Sleep disturbances, tiredness, concentration impairment, forgetfulness, problem with finding words, depressive tendencies, tinnitus, sudden loss of hearing, hearing loss, giddiness, nose bleeds, visual disturbances, frequent infections, sinusitis, joint and limb pains, nerve and soft tissue pains, feeling of numbness, heart rhythm disturbances, increased blood pressure , hormonal disturbances, night-time sweat, nausea.” Resident noted almost immediate improvement when moving away ” Dr Waldmann-Selsam goes on to say, “physicians were able to prove, by re-testing the patients, the normalization of blood pressure, heart rhythm, hormone disturbances, visual disturbances, neurological symptoms, blood picture,” She called this an emergency medical situation and requested an official health investigation http://www next- up org/pdf/Letter to Edmund Stoiber pdf Cell Tower Effects on Cognition and Learning
The majority of studies, which have been done internationally, have shown an increase in neurologic symptoms in a percentage of residents living near cell towers Symptoms vary with the distance from the cell tower Symptoms include insomnia, headache, heart palpitations, dizziness, poor concentration, and fatigue A study in Japan (Shinjyo 2014) showed a decrease in symptoms when the 347
Agenda Item # 9.
cell tower was removed There is also a well done study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017) DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants Moreover, a recent study conducted over a 2 year period looked at effects of cell towers near two schools by Meo et al (2018) and clearly demonstrated cognitive dysfunction in students closest to the higher power cell tower
Firefighters Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towers
After noticing that many of the firefighters where developing neurologic symptoms when first responder cell towers were placed on the fire stations the International Association of Firefighters studied the matter and passed a resolution in 2004 asking that cell towers not be placed in proximity to fire stations In AB 537 (Quirk), signed into law by Gov Newsom on October 4, 2021, the firefighters achieved the first ever health/readiness exemption in the world Every fire station in California is now exempt from having a 5G tower on their station. This movement began when cell towers were initially targeted for fire stations because of their location and the revenue received by the cities Many firefighters developed symptoms including headaches, fatigue, memory impairment and insomnia within a week of the installation of the towers An exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.” SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown
500 Meter (1640 ft) Buffer from Cell Tower Recommended
Cell tower health studies that show impacts from cell towers with symptoms within about 1500 feet of the cell towers That is why Pearce et al (2019) recommended a “500 Meter buffer around schools, hospitals and homes “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” Cancer and Cell Towers
3 Studies investigated the rates of cancer and cell towers looking at the distance from cell towers and the incidence of cancer They found the rate of cancer incidence increased significantly in those living within about 350 -400 meters (around 1000 feet)to the cell tower Dode 2011 performed a 10 year study (1996-2006) examining the distance from cell towers and cancer clusters He and his colleagues found a highly significant increase in cancers in those living within 500 meters of the cell tower They noted “The largest density power was 40 78 μW/cm2, and the smallest was 0 04 μW/cm2 ” The current guidelines are about 1000 μW/cm2 The authors conclude “Measured values stay below Brazilian Federal Law limits that are the same of ICNIRP The human exposure pattern guidelines are inadequate More restrictive limits must be adopted urgently ”
Wolf and Wolf 2004 investigated the rates of cancer versus distance from cell towers in small towns in Israel He found the rate of cancer incidence was 129 cases per 10,000 persons per year in those living within 350 meters of a cell tower versus a rate of 16-31/10,000 in those living greater than 350 meters from the cell tower Eger (2004)showed an increase in the development of new cancer cases within a 10 year period if residents lived within 400 meters of a cell tower Their results revealed that within 5 years of operation of a transmitting station the relative risk of cancer development tripled in residents near the cell towers compared to residents outside the area Insurance Has an Exclusion for Radiofrequency Radiation as an Emerging RiskInsurance companies consider wireless radiation to be similar to asbestos in long term health impacts and do not provide coverage from harm for RF health effects The cities are left with that liability unless they can provide insurance In a 2019 report,New Emerging Risk Insights, by Swiss RE Insurance Company, the second largest reinsurance company in the world, 5G is listed as an emerging concern in the high risk category within 3 years Included in the high-risk trends are artificial intelligence and the existential threats of climate change “The top five emerging risks in our SONAR 2019 report are digital technology’s clash with legacy hardware, potential threats from the spread of 5G mobile networks, increasingly limited fiscal and monetary flexibility by central banks, genetic testing’s implications on life insurers, and the impact of climate change on the life and health sector.” https://www swissre com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019 html National Academy of Sciences Report on the Havana Syndrome and Harm from RFR A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the “sonic attacks” on diplomats in Cuba and China were most likely due to pulsed radiofrequency from directed energy weapons They had symptoms similar to those who live near cell towers (headache, nausea, insomnia, dizziness, memory loss, heart palpitations, depression) Dr Beatrice Golomb wrote the most extensive report to date on this subject linking these mystery “directed energy attacks” to pulsed microwaves similar to the wireless devices we use daily In the case of these high powered beams there was documented injury to brain networks found by the University of Pittsburg physicians who studied the diplomats Dr Golomb highlights that the strength of the health effects are related to the peak powernot the average power. The pulse makes the poison.

The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses is a comprehensive guide written by many scientists and physicians in Europe who are part of the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) – EMF working group who have recognized and treated those with electrosensitivity for many years This is a thorough, well researched and well-referenced scientific paper that is based on the 2012 Austrian Medical Association Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF Illness A questionnaire from their group is included in the attachments New Hampshire 5G Commission Finds Radiofrequency Radiation Problematic The first Commission formed in the United States to study the environmental and health effects of 5G technology released their comprehensive final report November 1, 2020 The Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was mandated by HB 522 passed by the state legislature in New Hampshire Their final report included 15 recommendations addressing the need for public education about wireless hazards, RF health studies, RF measurements, cell antenna setbacks, fiberoptic rather than wireless deployment, commercial warning signs and wildlife protection After hearing extensive testimony in a series of 13 meetings over the course of a year and reviewing an abundance of research, the Commission highlighted the lack of a single definition for 5G, insufficient evidence of safety for 5th generation technology, a concern that safety standards for wireless technologies have not been updated with the latest science and that 5G is largely a marketing concept They also expressed concern that the FCC has a long history of being accountable to industry over the desires of communities and individuals
FCC Told by DC Court to Reevaluate Safety Standards
On August 13, 2021 a joint lawsuit was won by petitioners against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failure to protect human health and the environment by dismissing scientific evidence of harm from wireless radiation The Petitioners challenged the FCC’s refusal to reevaluate and update their 24-year-old radiofrequency (RF) safety guidelines for existing and new telecommunications technologies
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the majority of the RF radiation standards established by the FCC did not use "reasoned decision-making" (they did not go by the science) and thus the standards were considered by the court to have been set in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner This was an extremely high bar for the Plaintiffs to reach The Circuit Court of Appeals rarely admonishes a federal agency or commission in this way The DC Circuit Court of Appeals returned this decision back to the FCC and ordered the FCC to re-examine its standards for wireless radiation exposure and provide a review of wireless harms that is compliant with the law for non-cancer harms The Court Decision stated, “The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and it’s implementing regulations require federal agencies to “establish procedures to account for the environmental effects of [their] proposed actions ” And “To fulfill its obligations under NEPA, the Commission has promulgated guidelines for human exposure to RF radiation The Commission last updated its limits for RF exposure in 1996 The ANSI and IEEE developed limits are designed to protect against “thermal effects” of exposure to RF radiation, but not “non- thermal” effects In March 2013, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry regarding the adequacy of its 1996 guidelines in response to changes in the ubiquity of wireless devices and in scientific standards and research since 1996 In December 2019, the Commission issued a final order resolving its 2013 notice of inquiry by declining to undertake any of the changes contemplated in the notice of inquiry Petitioners challenge the 2019 final order under NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) 5G: A Manufactured Need by Industry?
Reports indicate that the telecommunications industry has largely manufactured a “need” for expanding wireless technology in cities, while halting projects for safer fiberoptic broadband Note a 2020 European Parliament report, 5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. In Depth Analysis,suggests 5G is a manufactured need “As 5G is driven by the telecoms supply industry, and its long tail of component manufacturers, a major campaign is under way to convince governments that the economy and jobs will be strongly stimulated by 5G deployment.” In my opinion, from all the research I have done, it appears the telecommunications industry has influenced laws to prevent health or environmental effects from being considered in the placement of cell towers (See FCC Captured Agency) They knew of the harm in early studies done by Dr George Carlo in the 1990’s but suppressed the data so they could move forward That is well documented in Dr Carlo's book, "Cell phones: Invisible Hazards in The Wireless Age" A blizzard of robust science has appeared now to show biological and health impacts of wireless technology, but it is still denied, and the basis for genuinely safe RF radiation guidelines isflawed An exponential growth in cell towers is now being played out with cities being left on their own to figure out how to regulate these towers locally Industry places a heavy hand and complex laws on local policy makers who must navigate these complex FCC policies to prevent legal action Board of Health in Pittsfield Massachusetts Orders Verizon to Cease and Desist For the first time in the U S a Board of Health has issued a cease and desist order to Verizon to remove or shut off a cell tower after 17 people in a neighborhood reported they became ill after the Verizon cell tower was turned on Courtney Gilardi and her 2 children as well as residents living near the cell tower, reported experiencing a constellation of symptoms including stabbing headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, “buzzing in the head”, and insomnia so severe her family had to move to the next town and into a house with no heat and no hot water to escape the sickness Other neighbors drove an hour away to sleep at a relative’s house or slept in their cars away from the tower These are classic symptoms of electromagnetic illness experienced in firefighters and military personnel working on radar and well documented by NASA, the Air Force and other military agencies as well as the “Havana Syndrome” These symptoms were also seen in Japan after 2 cell towers were turned on and when the tower was removed the resident’s symptoms largely resolved Apple Stops 5G Phone MMW: Is This the Death of 5G Millimeter Wavelengths? You are probably aware that Verizon and AT&T built special hotspots in many cities in the U S to house 5G high band millimeter wavelengths that were to revolutionize wireless with ultrafast speeds These small wavelengths the size of bees have been put into some community small cells which need to be about 1000 feet apart without obstruction to function properlyApple, who already has some 5G MMW phones, just announced that it is not building any millimeter wave spectrum antennas in its next generation SE iphones With 4G LTE low and mid band wavelengths they apparently do not need the millimeter 5G bandwidth The article notes, “It’s not a surprise that Apple is dropping the spectrum from its phones It costs chip space and power for every additional 348
Agenda Item # 9.
spectrum that is supported by a cellphone Cell manufacturers care more about long battery life than they do about a technology that never made it out of the downtowns of a few major cities ” FCC Limits: A False Sense of Security
We are told by the FCC that wireless radiation and cell towers are safe within current safety guidelines, or that we do not really know if there is harm or that the research is inconclusive or that it is not ionizing (like x-rays) so it cannot hurt us This is the same dismissive and doubt creating language used by the tobacco industry and a host of other chemical companies to protect their toxic products, thus profits The research shows that we do know, beyond a doubt, that wireless radiation is harmful to all living systems below the current safety standards The most obvious evidence is that more and more children and adults are reporting symptoms of electrosensitivity (EHS) in the presence of wireless radiation when they live in a home near a cell tower, or use a cell phone,or in schools where wireless devices and cell towers are increasing
Please use your authority and wisdom to keep this ordinance strongTake more time if you need to in order for you to sort this out and be sure of your decisionRemember that you all live in Los Altos as well so you are protecting you, your families and the next generation as well Sincerely,
Cindy Russell, MD
Attached- Malibu Ordinances
References
·Pearce (2019) 500 Meter buffer recommended around schools, hospitals and homes. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.”(2019)Pearce M Environmental Research, Nov 2019; https://www sciencedirect com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119306425 ·Waldman-Selsam, C (2004) Bamberg Appeal, on behalf of 114 physicians Open Letter to Edmund Stoiber, Prime Minister, Germany, August 3http://www vws org /documents/cellproject- documents/BambergAppeal pdf ·Waldmann-Selsam C 2016 Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. (2016).Waldmann-Selsam C et al Science of the Total Environment 572 (2016) 554-569 https://www researchgate net/publication/306435017 Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations ·The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses https://www degruyter com/document/doi/10 1515/reveh-2016-0011/html Researcher links diplomats’ mystery illness to radiofrequency/microwave radiation. Eureka alert August 29, 2018 American Academy for the Advancement of Science https //www.eurekalert.org/pub releases/2018-08/uoc–rld082918.php Diplomats in China report similar brain injuries as Americans in Cuba:In 2016 and 2017, 25 Americans in the U S embassy in Cuba suffered serious, unexplained brain injuries Now, at least 15 American officials in China are reporting similar symptoms 60 Minutes reports March 15, 2019 https://www cbsnews com/news/diplomats-in-china-report-similar-brain-injuries-as-americansin-cuba-60-minutes/ ·Swanson RL (2018)Neurological Manifestations Among US Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cuba. (2018)Swanson RL et al JAMA 2018 Mar 20;319(11):1125-1133 https://jamanetwork com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 ·Levitt, Lai, Manville. (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May

27. https //pubmed ncbi nlm nih gov/34047144/
·Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul

8. https //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243228/
·Levitt, Lai, Manville (2021) Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions. Rev Environ Health. 2021 Sep

27. https //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34563106/
·PanagopoulosDJ. (2013) Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being. University of Athens, Department of Biology, Athens, Greece Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Research Centre, Athens, Greece. Electromagnetic Fields, Nova ·MOEF Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Cell Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) The Ministry of Environment and Forest.Report on Possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife Including Birds and Bees. (2010) Ministry of the Environment and Forests (MOEF) India. https //ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958381.pdf ·Sciences. http //www.wendywalksfores.com/uploads/1/3/9/0/13908728/panagopoulos-nova-2013-emfs-chapter-1.pdf ·SwissRe Insurance-Sonar 2019: New emerging risk insights https://www swissre com/institute/research/sonar/sonar2019 html ·Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety.Sept 23, 2020 PST https://mdsafetech org/2020/09/23/landmark-lawsuit-filed-against-fcc-forfailing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/ ·Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. State of New Hampshire, General Court Nov 1, 2020 http://www gencourt state nh us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report pdf ·We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks (2019) Scientific American Joel M Moskowitz Oct 17, 2019 https://blogs scientificamerican com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ ·5G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL Environ Res 2018 Apr 11 https://www ncbi nlm nih gov/pubmed/29655646 or
at https://ecfsapi fcc gov/file/10913927726988/5%20G%20wireless%20telecommunications%20expansion%3A%20Public%20health%20and%20environmental%20implications pdf ·Firefighters Fighting Fires and Now Cell Towers-https://mdsafetech org/2019/09/28/firefighters-fighting-fires-and-now-cell-towers/ ·5G: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. In Depth Analysis, European Parliament.https://www europarl europa eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL IDA(2019)631060 EN pdf ·Apple ditches mmWave 5G with newest iPhone. https://www lightreading com/5g/apple-ditches-mmwave-5g-with-newest-iphone/d/d-id/775901 --
Cindy Lee Russell, M.D.

Executive Director, Physicians for Safe Technology
WWW.MDSafeTech.org
Our vision is a world where technology serves our needs without undermining our physical, psychosocial or environmental health. --
Cindy Lee Russell, M.D.

Immediate Past President, Santa Clara County Medical Association Executive Director, Physicians for Safe Technology
WWW.MDSafeTech.org
Our vision is a world where technology serves our needs without undermining our physical, psychosocial or environmental health.

Notice to Recipient: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are proh bited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing ts contents.If you have received this e-mail in error, please not fy the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.

Thank you.
349
Agenda Item # 9.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
350
Agenda Item # 9.

From: roger heyder
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Los Altos Council meeting of 5/10, item 9 - public comment Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 9:24:02 AM
Hello,
This is public comment on item 9 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Please read out, and include this public comment in the formal meeting minutes.
regards -- Roger Heyder
resident of Los Altos
The 5G emergency ordinance was enacted after several large public meetings, where many hundreds of residents supported the 5G ordinance, and only 1 or 2 residents opposed the ordinance. Nothing has changed, yet Council is considering altering the ordinance to the extent of basically eliminating it.

Misleadingly calling the initiative 'Wireless Telecommunications Facilities' rather than what it really is, 5G, is just typical - maybe residents won’t notice.

The residents of Los Altos have made their opinion very clear on the 5G issue. Council was elected to represent the residents, and implement their wishes. Sometimes that means fighting for what is right, something Council seems very incapable and unwilling to do.

It seems Council supports many outside special interests over the interest of residents. That is unacceptable. Council members that hold that posture should resign immediately, since you are failing in your responsibility to serve the residents of Los Altos. If Council wants to eliminate the 5G ordinance, then hold a vote to do so, and the residents can see which council members disrespect the residents’ clearly stated wishes.

Council must also inform residents how much money the city will make if the ordinance is lifted - right of way fees paid to the city by the 5G providers. That way residents can see how much it takes to sell us out.

Pursuing this initiative through the Planning Commission, with limited community visibility and transparency, is sleazy and dishonest. Seemingly pretty standard behavior for both the Planning Commission and Council. It is very hard to understand how residents could have any remaining trust or respect for Council or Planning Commission members. But then, it is unlikely you care much about that, or your behavior would be very different.
351
Agenda Item # 9.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
352
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Roberta Phillips
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: May 10 the Council meeting Item #9/ Wireless Ordinance Date: Saturday, May 7, 2022 6:42:32 PM
Dear Council Members
I noticed on the Wireless Ordinance Report #2 subsection #4 is states for locations that :
"c. A minimum of 25 feet from the nearest residential dwelling unit. In no case, however, shall any portion of a wireless communications facility be permitted within 10 feet of a residential dwelling unit. "
Ten feet is an unreasonably small distance from a residential unit. I can't imagine anyone accepting 10' from a bedroom window is acceptable.

At a minimum there should be 25 feet.

Please adjust this section .

Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
353
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Pat Marriot
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT Item 9 May 10, 2022
Date: Sunday, May 8, 2022 3:08:24 PM
Council Members:

I’m confused by this section of the proposed wireless ordinance:

4. Permitted wireless telecommunications facilities within Residential Zoning Districts Municipal Code Sections 14.04.010 A-J, M, U, W are preferred to be located:
a. Within a median where one is present;
b. Where no residential dwelling unit is present;
c. A minimum of 25 feet from the nearest residential dwelling unit. In no case, however, shall any portion of a wireless communications facility be permitted within 10 feet of a residential dwelling unit.

The second sentence (10 feet) seems to contradict the first sentence (minimum of 25 feet).

Since this is an issue of “public health, safety and welfare,” I hope this will be clarified and corrected before you approve the ordinance.

Thank you,
Pat Marriott
354
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Monica Waldman
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment on Item 9
Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:25:11 AM
Dear City Council Members,
As stated in the packet for Agenda Item 9, two of the goals for the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance and Design Guidelines for Los Altos state “Cell towers should be placed in commercial areas and within the medians of major streets rather than within residential neighborhoods close to people’s homes” and “Los Altos neighborhood aesthetic guidelines and property values are among the main reasons people are willing to stay in this great City.” One of the recommended revisions to proposed “Ordinance No. 2022-___” includes placing small cell facilities “That are 25 feet or more from residential dwelling units and requiring that no wireless facility be located within 10 feet of a residential dwelling unit.” Ten or 25 feet seems a very small buffer for a small cell facility when cities such as Los Gatos have maintained “"Installation of a facility on residential streets, abutting or within fifty (50) feet of residences on any streets, or within one hundred (100) feet from a school campus will not be permitted."
(https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22613/Small-Cell-StreetlightGuidelines) Please increase the buffer between residential dwelling units and small cell facilities to protect our residents and our neighborhood aesthetics.

Thank You,
Monica Waldman
355
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Heather Lattanzi
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please create a 3 tier preference element in the wireless ordinance Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:50:50 AM
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I would like to request that Council create a 3-tier preference element in the wireless ordinance (Most preferred, less preferred, and least preferred) as presented in the council meeting on 4/12/22. San Diego County first came up with the tiered order of preference 20 years ago so that industry would go to industrial zones first, and residential last. The County of San Diego had 4 different tiers. They pioneered this order of preference for the entire country because when Sprint sued County of San Diego, San Diego defended their right to suggest an order of preference for telecom coming into their communities. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was upheld. Therefore, this tiered order preference has been challenged to the highest court in the land and upheld.

We are only asking for 3 tiers. We would like to have residential and schools including daycare centers in the third and most protected tier.

The recent fires have been a lesson in which many cities understand how important having a 3-tier order of preference would be to ensure public safety. Having the additional tier will limit fire exposure and provide time for residents to be able to escape safely. Please make public safety a top priority and return it to the 3 tiers of preferences.

Sincerely,
Heather Lattanzi
Los Altos
356
Agenda Item # 9.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
357
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Peter Gise
To: Public Comment
Subject: Wireless Ordinance
Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 2:35:57 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We would like to request that Council create a 3-tier preference element in the wireless ordinance (Most preferred, less preferred, and least preferred) as presented in the council meeting on 4/12/22. San Diego County first came up with the tiered order of preference 20 years ago so that industry would go to industrial zones first, and residential last. The County of San Diego had 4 different tiers. They pioneered this order of preference for the entire country because when Sprint sued County of San Diego, San Diego defended their right to suggest an order of preference for telecom coming into their communities. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was upheld. Therefore, this tiered order preference has been challenged to the highest court in the land and upheld.

We are only asking for 3 tiers. We would like to have residential and schools including daycare centers in the third and most protected tier. We are writing to you as a voice for the children, including very little ones in daycare/preschool facilities where escape in the midst of the fire is going to be more difficult and potentially deadly.

Sincerely,
Dr. Peter Gise
Susan Gise
358
Agenda Item # 9.
1540 Oak Ave
Los Altos CA 94024
359
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Jane Osborn
To: [email protected]; Public Comment
Cc: Jane Osborn; Jonathan Shores
Subject: Fw: Public Comment, Agenda Item #9, May 10, 2022, Wireless Facilities Ordinance Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 3:14:25 PM
Dear Angel,
I am re-sending the email I sent last night, but adding the public comment address, in case it would be more likely to reach your attention. In retrospect, I should have included the public comment address in my email I sent last night. I wanted to clarify that the email below is a re-edited version of a previously edited version I sent on Sunday April 10, 2022. I had previously edited a version I had sent for a PC meeting in March 2022, in order to add some more references. It was this version that I did not find in the public correspondence for the Council Meeting held on April 12th, even though I had sent it on Sunday April 10th. The email below has the same content as that previous email, but is shorter. Primarily I had thought the references might be useful to some people in the public who might be new to this issue. Thank you again.

Best Regards,
Jane Osborn, Los Altos Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jane Osborn
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Jane Osborn Jonathan Shores >
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022, 11:54:46 PM PDT
Subject: Public Comment, Agenda Item #9, May 10, 2022, Wireless Facilities Ordinance Dear Angel,
Below is an edited version of an email I sent on Sunday April 10, 2022, as a "public Comment," for the Council Meeting that was held on April 12, 2022, (in regard to Item #6, Wireless Facilities Ordinance). I did not see it included in the public correspondence for that meeting.

If possible, could you please include the email below as part of the public correspondence for the upcoming City Council Meeting being held on May 10th, 2022, for Agenda Item #9.

Thank you very much.

With regards,
Jane Osborn
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jane Osborn
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Shores Jane Osborn <j
Planning Services <[email protected]>
360
Agenda Item # 9.
361
Agenda Item # 9.
like 5G cellphone radiation."
Additional Resources Compiled by Joel Moskowitz, PhD., U.C. Berkeley School of Public Health:
https://www.saferemr.com/2016/08/key-cell-phone-radiation-research.html (Updated April 1, 2022; Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D.)
Key Cell Phone Radiation Research Studies (Updated November 1, 2021; Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D.)
These resources provide a compilation of links to videos, papers, presentations, overviews, and literature reviews of scientific research findings, focusing primarily on the possible biological and health effects of wireless technology, including Rf radiation exposure.

The following websites also are highly recommended as a resource for people interested in researching some of the literature related to possible effects of wireless technology, including peer reviewed studies reported in respected scientific and medical journals:
https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-effects/ (Physicians for Safe Technology) https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/scientific-studies (Americans for Responsible Technology)
These websites are well organized into topics and categories, and you can scroll through and select links to articles that are of particular interest. Also. they appear to be frequently updated.

Hopefully you will have time to check out some of these resources, and get a sense for what is available in a significant body of scientific literature, based on research, with regard to possible biological and health effects of wireless technology.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Jane Osborn and Jonathan Shores
Los Altos Residents
E. Jane Osborn, Ph.D. Nationally Certified School Psychologist, NCSP 24709. Licensed Educational Psychologist, LEP 1610. Cognitive and Developmental Psychology. Cell: 650-346-6390. Land Line: 650- 967-5167 (Preferred Option)
362
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Couture, Terri
To: City Council; Public Comment
Cc: Andrea Chelemengos
Subject: City council members Agenda item 9 Tuesday May 10 meeting Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 3:37:14 PM
Attachments: 05092022145216-0001.pdf
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 363
Agenda Item # 9.
364
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Kerry Lindell
To: Anita Enander; City Council; Public Comment
Subject: 3-Tier Fire Escape Wireless Ordinance
Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:42:33 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I would like to request that the Los Altos City Council create a 3-tier preference element in the wireless ordinance (Most preferred, less preferred, and least preferred) as presented in the council meeting on 4/12/22. San Diego County first came up with the tiered order of preference 20 years ago so that industry would go to industrial zones first, and residential last. The County of San Diego had 4 different tiers. They pioneered this order of preference for the entire country because when Sprint sued County of San Diego, San Diego defended their right to suggest an order of preference for telecom coming into their communities. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was upheld. Therefore, this tiered order preference has been challenged to the highest court in the land and upheld.

I am only asking for 3 tiers. I would like to have residential and schools including daycare centers in the third and most protected tier. I am writing to you as a voice for the children, including very little ones in daycare/preschool facilities where escape in the midst of the fire is going to be more difficult and potentially deadly.

Fire Consultants have advised that cell tower fires are electrical fires, and they cannot be extinguished conventionally. First the power has to be cut and then someone from PG&E has to arrive on scene before the firefighters can fight the fire through conventional means. Otherwise, anyone attempting to extinguish the fire will be electrocuted. Because of this unique fire risk and the need for escape, we are asking for more time to escape for certain groups of people.

Anyone caring for babies or young children in the daycare setting should be allowed to have this extra time & space for escape, as should a classroom full of children of any age, and the same for residential. Los Altos has resi dents who have special needs in a variety of ways from the wheelchair-bound with ALS, to those walking with walkers, and some residents with cognitive decline and dementia who are going to need assistance.

The recent fires have been a lesson in which many cities understand how important having a 3-tier order of preference would be to ensure public safety.

Having the additional tier will limit fire exposure and provide time for residents to be able to escape safely. Please make public safety a top priority and return it 365
Agenda Item # 9.
to the 3 tiers of preferences.

In appreciation for making a firm stance in a positive direction to keep our residents safe,
Dr. Kerry Lindell
(Los Altos resident and Small Business Owner)
366
Agenda Item # 9.

From: ana pareja
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Wireless Ordinance: Fire Escape 3-Tiers
Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:46:19 PM
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I would like to request that Council create a 3-tier preference element in the wireless ordinance :
1 - Most preferred
2- less preferred
3- least preferred
This was presented in the council meeting on 4/12/22. San Diego County first came up with the tiered order of preference 20 years ago so that industry would go to industrial zones first, and residential last. The County of San Diego had 4 different tiers. They pioneered this order of preference for the entire country because when Sprint sued County of San Diego, San Diego defended their right to suggest an order of preference for telecom coming into their communities. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was upheld.

Therefore, this tiered order preference has been challenged to the highest court in the land and upheld.

We have been advised by a Fire Consultant that cell tower fires are electrical fires, and they cannot be extinguished conventionally. First the power has to be cut and then someone from PG&E has to arrive on scene before the firefighters can fight the fire through conventional means. Otherwise, anyone attempting to extinguish the fire will be electrocuted. Because of this unique fire risk and the need for escape, we are asking for more time to escape for certain groups of people. Anyone caring for babies or young children in the daycare setting should be allowed to have this extra time & space for escape, as should a classroom full of children of any age, and the same for residential. We have residents in Los Altos who have special needs in a variety of ways from the wheelchair-bound with ALS, to those walking with walkers, and some residents with cognitive decline who are going to need assistance. 

The recent fires have been a lesson in which many cities understand how important having a 3-tier order of preference would be to ensure public safety. Having the additional tier will limit fire exposure and provide time for residents to be able to escape safely. Please make public safety a top priority and return it to the 3 tiers of preferences.

Sincerely,
367
Agenda Item # 9.

Ana Pareja
368
Agenda Item # 9.

From:

To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Wireless Ordinance: Fire Escape 3-Tiers
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 9:38:49 AM
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I would like to request that Council create a 3-tier preference element in the wireless ordinance (Most preferred, less preferred, and least preferred) as presented in the council meeting on 4/12/22. San Diego County first came up with the tiered order of preference 20 years ago so that industry would go to industrial zones first, and residential last.

The County of San Diego had 4 different tiers. They pioneered this order of preference for the entire country because when Sprint sued County of San Diego, San Diego defended their right to suggest an order of preference for telecom coming into their communities. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was upheld. Therefore, this tiered order preference has been challenged to the highest court in the land and upheld.

We are only asking for 3 tiers. We would like to have residential and schools including daycare centers in the third and most protected tier.

We are writing to you as a voice for the children, including very little ones in daycare/preschool facilities where escape in the midst of the fire is going to be more difficult and potentially deadly.

Anyone caring for babies or young children in the daycare setting should be allowed to have this extra time & space for escape, as should a classroom full of children of any age, and the same for residential. We have residents in Los Altos who have special needs in a variety of ways from the wheelchair-bound with ALS, to those walking with walkers, and some residents with cognitive decline who are going to need assistance.

Sincerely,
Nancy Colace
369
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Karen Haberstock
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Wireless Ordinance: Fire Escape 3-Tiers
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 1:27:36 PM
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I would like to request that Council create a 3-tier preference element in the wireless ordinance (Most preferred, less preferred, and least preferred) as presented in the council meeting on 4/12/22. San Diego County first came up with the tiered order of preference 20 years ago so that industry would go to industrial zones first, and residential last. The County of San Diego had 4 different tiers. They pioneered this order of preference for the entire country because when Sprint sued County of San Diego, San Diego defended their right to suggest an order of preference for telecom coming into their communities. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was upheld. Therefore, this tiered order preference has been challenged to the highest court in the land and upheld.

I am asking for 3 tiers. Residential areas and schools, including daycare centers, should be included in the third and most protected tier. I am writing to you as a voice for the children, including very little ones in daycare/preschool facilities where escape amid a fire is going to be more difficult and potentially deadly.

A Fire Consultant has advised that cell tower fires are electrical fires, and they cannot be extinguished conventionally. First, the power must be cut and then someone from PG&E must arrive on scene before the firefighters can fight the fire through conventional means. Otherwise, anyone attempting to extinguish the fire will be electrocuted. Because of this unique fire risk and the need for escape, I am asking for more time to escape for certain groups of people. Anyone caring for babies or young children in the daycare setting should be allowed to have this extra time & space for escape, as should a classroom full of children of any age, and the same for residential. There are residents in Los Altos who have special needs in a variety of ways, from the wheelchair-bound with ALS to those walking with walkers and some residents with cognitive decline, who are going to need assistance.

The recent fires have been a lesson in which many cities understand how important a 3-tier order of preference would be to ensure public safety. Having the additional tier will limit fire exposure and provide time for residents to be able to escape safely.

Please make public safety a top priority and return it to the 3 tiers of preferences.

Sincerely,
Karen Haberstock
370
Agenda Item # 9.

From: Melissa Smith
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Studies showing environmental impact of wireless Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2:10:20 PM
Attachments: Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure of Western Honey Bees.pdf Tree damage caused by mobile phone base stations An observation guide.pdf EMF and Wildlife Part 3 Levitt Lai Manville .pdf
Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the declineof insects Balmori copy.pdf EMF and Wildlife Part 1.pdf
EMF and Wildlife Part 2.pdf
Santa Fe New Mexican Report says wireless radiation may harm wildlife copy.pdf Dear Los Altos City Council,
Please include in the record of public comment the attached studies demonstrating adverse environmental impact of wireless:

The studies show damage to trees, bees and wildlife from wireless emissions. Please vote against the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.

Thank you,
Melissa Smith
Los Altos resident
371
Agenda Item # 9.

Scientific Reports | (2020) 10:461 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56948-0 1 www.nature.com/scientificreports
Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic
Field Exposure of Western Honey
Bees
ArnoThielens1,2*, Mark K.Greco3, LeenVerloock1, Luc Martens1 & Wout Joseph1 Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) can be absorbed in all living organisms, including Western Honey Bees (Apis Mellifera). This is an ecologically and economically important global insect species that is continuously exposed to environmental RF-EMFs. This exposure is studied numerically and experimentally in this manuscript. To this aim, numerical simulations using honey bee models, obtained using micro-CT scanning, were implemented to determine RF absorbed power as a function of frequency in the 0.6 to 120GHz range. Five different models of honey bees were obtained and simulated: two workers, a drone, a larva, and a queen. The simulations were combined with in-situ measurements of environmental RF-EMF exposure near beehives in Belgium in order to estimate realistic exposure and absorbed power values for honey bees. Our analysis shows that a relatively small shift of 10% of environmental incident power density from frequencies below 3GHz to higher frequencies will lead to a relative increase in absorbed power of a factor higher than 3.

Wireless communication is a widespread and growing technology. Most of the wireless networks and personal devices operate using Radio-Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The current networks rely on frequencies between 0.1GHz and 6GHz1 . These EMFs can be absorbed in dielectric media and can cause dielectric heating2
. This dielectric heating can occur in any living organism, including insects.

Absorption of RF EMFs in insects has been studied previously. Wang et al. 3 studied absorption of RF EMFs in
mashed codling moth larvae at 27MHz and 915MHz. Shrestha et al. 4 studied dielectric heating of Cryptolestes
ferrungineus S. in different stages (eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults) at 27MHz. Shayesteh et al. 5 exposed Tribolium
confusum and Plodia interpunctella to RF EMFs at 2450MHz6–8 . are reviews of RF heating of insects. Dielectric
porperties of insects are measured by Nelson et al.
9 from 0.2 to 20GHz through the determination of loss of RF EMF power in insect samples (rice weevil, red flour beetle, saw-toothed grain beetle, and lesser grain borer).

Absorption of RF EMFs was studied by Halverson et al.
10 in insects between 10–50 GHz. Thielens et al.11 used numerical simulations to study absorption of RF EMFs from 2–120GHz in four insect models. The main conclusions from the aforementioned studies are that (i) RF EMFs can be absorbed and can cause dielectric heating in insects and (ii) this absorption of RF-EMFs is frequency dependent. This frequency dependency is important since 5th generation (5G) networks are expected to partially operate at higher frequencies (up to 300GHz)12,13.

This shift might induce a change in RF EMF absorption for insects11.

Western Honey Bees (Apis Mellifera) are particularly important insects because of the environmental and economical importance of this species. Therefore, previous studies have focused on the potential effects of EMF exposure of Western Honey Bees. Low-frequency EM properties and exposure of honeybees was studied in14.

The influence of Low-frequency magnetic fields on honey bee orientation has been studied in15. There have also been some studies on effects of RF EMF on honey bees. Potential effects of RF EMF exposure on reproduction of honey bee queens were investigated in16. Behavioral effects potentially caused by exposure to RF EMFs in honey bees have been investigated in17–19. A disadvantage is that these studies are lacking a quantification of the amount of power that is absorbed in the studied honey bees, so called RF dosimetry20. On the other hand, this absorption has been determined for a single honey bee worker in11. However, Thielens et al. 11 do not provide any coupling
of this absorption to a real RF-EMF exposure situation and only study a single honey bee, which provides no 1 Ghent University - imec, Department of Information Technology, Ghent, B-9052, Belgium. 2University of California Berkeley, Berkeley Wireless Research Center, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, Berkeley, CA, 94704, USA. 3Charles Sturt University, Medical Imaging, SDHS, Faculty of Science, Wagga Wagga, NSW, 2678, Australia. *email: [email protected]
OPEN
372
Agenda Item # 9.
373
Agenda Item # 9.
374
Agenda Item # 9.
375
Agenda Item # 9.
376
Agenda Item # 9.
377
Agenda Item # 9.
378
Agenda Item # 9.
379
Agenda Item # 9.
380
Agenda Item # 9.
381
Agenda Item # 9.
382
Agenda Item # 9.
383
Agenda Item # 9.
384
Agenda Item # 9.
385
Agenda Item # 9.
1 Tree damage caused by mobile phone
base stations
An observation guide
By Helmut Breunig
Photos and RF measurements by Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam
Additional photos by Alfonso Balmori, Helmut Breunig, Örjan Hallberg, Volker Schorpp and Monika Schuberth-Brehm
March 2O17
386
Agenda Item # 9.
2 Why an observation guide?
Since the rollout of GSM mobile phone networks in the 199Os, scientists have criticized that the effects of radiofrequency or RF radiation (microwaves) on living organisms and the environment have not been sufficiently studied. In the setting of exposure limits for mobile phone base stations, RF radiation effects on plants have not been considered. In view of the explosive proliferation of the diverse wireless communication technologies across the entire environment and almost all areas of life, this represents an uncovered risk. This is why available studies and documentations on how RF radiation affects and damages trees engage our particular attention. They contain important evidence that justifies the urgent call for further thorough investigations. No research, however, has been initiated by the established science community and official radiation protection agencies to date.

The observation guide presented here is meant to encourage independent observations and documentations of trees and any damage they may sustain through exposure to radiofrequency radiation. It builds on the work and foundational findings of BERNATZKY, BALMORI, SCHORPP, HALLBERG, WALDMANNSELSAM, and others.

In light of the increasingly visible consequences of climate change, the continuation of their work is an important step toward forming an independent judgment. This is all the more important since the observations described here will take extra efforts — especially in view of the massive climatic changes — to ensure that this issue is not denied the scientific recognition by the established research community it deserves.

This call for research is based on the reasonable suspicion suggesting an association between health symptoms in humans and damage in trees at locations in the line of sight of mobile phone base stations, which was pointed out by EGER and WALDMANN-SELSAM.

Why observe trees?
As stationary and perennial living organisms, trees are well suited for studying the question as to whether radiofrequency emissions from phone masts may cause damage in plants. The observation guide is designed to help 387
Agenda Item # 9.
3 observers recognize visible crown damage in free-standing trees exposed to radiofrequency radiation. The photos show typical damage patterns and thus can sharpen the observer’s eye. Based on this observation guide, scientists and laypersons alike can systematically observe trees in their immediate living environment or in other regions when they travel.

In urban areas, it is not uncommon that trees are located within the exposure area of different phone masts from multiple directions. In crowns of free-standing (solitary) trees, which are exposed to RF radiation from one side only, it is rather easy to show the signs that may indicate a possible exposure to RF radiation. Advanced stages of sustained damage are best suited for describing the typical characteristics. This is also how the examples for this observation guide have been selected. The majority of the examples are deciduous trees.

Based on the analysis of advanced patterns of damage and their development, general characteristics for the crown damage in exposure areas of RF transmitters can be derived, which, in turn, can help recognize damage in trees with a less advanced stage and under conditions where the exposure occurs from multiple directions.

Observation of one-sided crown damage in trees in the line of sight of mobile phone base stations
Visual signs include irregular leaf coloration, leaf wilt, leaf loss, temporal and spatial irregularities in the seasonal leaf color change and leaf loss, fewer shoots, greatly elongated shoots with foliage at the tip and bare patches farther down the shoot, changes in branching patterns, and dead limbs and branches. The damage is most prominent at the edge on one side of the crown. This area is referred to as the starting point of damage. From there, the damage decreases in its intensity toward the opposite side of the crown that may be less affected or not at all. The crown volume, which is damaged within this geometric space, is referred to as the damage area. It will continue to develop further over the course of several growing seasons.
388
Agenda Item # 9.
389
Agenda Item # 9.
5 generate meaningful documentations, even without measuring the actual RF exposure levels.

In conjunction with heat, cold, drought, soil composition, soil compaction and sealing, salting, air pollutants, soil contaminants, and pests, different types of crown damage can occur. By observing negative effects on the foliage, spatial orientation and crown damage development over time described here, specific characteristics of the exposure pattern due to radiofrequency radiation become apparent.

Linden tree, July 2O15
Well-developed tree crown in the city
No RF transmitter in the line of sight
Norway maple tree, August 2O12
Badly damaged tree crown on the side
facing an RF transmitter
At both locations, soil sealing is a concomitant adverse factor. The difference in the crown pattern, therefore, is most likely not a result of soil sealing.

At the location of the red oak tree shown here, none of the known stress factors are obvious. Still, the crown is damaged in a way that corresponds to the above-shown graph. The tree is in the line of sight of a nearby mobile phone base station.
390
Agenda Item # 9.
6 Exposure ->
Red oak tree,
August 2O13
The direction of the RF emission source and the location of the starting point of damage on the side of the tree facing the mobile phone base station coincide with each other.

Red oak tree, August 2O13 Red oak tree, August 2O15
391
Agenda Item # 9.
7 Section of red oak tree, August 2O13 Section of red oak tree, August 2O15 The damage area spreads across the crown over the course of the coming years. At the individual branches, the sight is similar to drought damage.

The spatial and temporal development of the damage area as a whole, however, is not typical for drought damage that occurs as a result of a lack of water at the roots.

The loss and discoloration of the leaves is most prominent where the tree faces the RF transmitter. The spread of the damage area follows a pattern independent of the branch architecture of the tree.

The location of the damage area is independent of the natural environment and the sky direction.

Tree damage in the line of sight of RF transmitters has already been extensively documented. The damage in these documentations shows diverse patterns and developmental stages (see Documentations).

The photos presented here place a special emphasis on the unique damage pattern due to RF radiation exposure from one side.

Some of the photos also show the location of the tree crown in relation to the associated RF transmitter within sight. If the RF transmitter is not shown, the distance to the RF transmitter is given.

Examples of different spruce trees show that similar damage patterns can also be observed in conifers to various degrees.
392
Agenda Item # 9.
8 Exposure from the right side,
26O m (ca. 85O ft)
Exposure from the right side,
19O m (ca. 62O ft)

Spruce, October 2O1O Spruce, March 2O12
Exposure from the left side,
2OO m (ca. 66O ft)
Exposure from the left side,
31O m (ca. 1OOO ft)
Spruce, June 2OO3 Spruce, October 2OO8
393
Agenda Item # 9.
9 The damage decreases on the side of the crown facing away from the RF transmitter (damage gradient), which can be explained by the attenuation effect of the foliage. Due to the absorption and scattering of the RF radiation along its path through the foliage, the power flux density of the RF radiation decreases (used measurement unit: microwatt per square meter = µW/m²). Comparison measurements between the side of the tree crown facing the RF transmitter and the side facing away from it confirm this.

Exposure from
upper left ->
Norway maple tree,
June 2O15
Measurement:
14 July 2O15
Side facing the RF transmitter:
2,1OO µW/m²
Opposite side:
29O µW/m²
The agreement between the spatial orientation of the damage gradient and the gradient of the RF measurements suggests that the damage is associated with the RF radiation exposure from the RF transmitter.

According to the Twenty-sixth Ordinance Implementing the Federal Immission Control Act, German exposure limits for mobile phone base stations range from 4,5OO,OOO to 1O,OOO,OOO µW/m², depending on the respective mobile phone network.

May 2O13 July 2O16
394
Agenda Item # 9.
10 The damage increases over the years and spreads from the direction of the RF transmitter across the crown. No regeneration can be seen. This is a sign of chronic exposure to a damaging factor. The RF exposure from the mobile phone base station within sight began between 2OO6 and 2OO8.

Observing the development of the damage over the long term provides insight into the unique characteristics of the damage.

May 2O13
The tree is located at a strip of
greenery, running in a north-south
direction. To the east (foreground),
the root area is sealed by a traffic
area. The damage area points toward
south where the RF transmitter is
located. Despite the less than
favorable climate conditions at this
side, the crown on the north side has
expanded.

At the upper left — where the RF
radiation hits the crown — the
dieback at the edge is the most
severe.

The annual increase in leaf loss most
likely can be traced back to an
impairment of the buds in the year
before. The resulting decreased level
of shoots for leaves and branches
causes the closed crown to open at
those points, whereby one quarter of
the crown outline starts breaking up.

With increasing leaf dieback, the
attenuation effect of the foliage
decreases, starting at the edge of
the crown.

Inside the crown, there are naturally
less leaves because of shadow
June 2O14
June 2O15
395
Agenda Item # 9.
11 The renewal of pruned crowns, which are exposed to radiofrequency radiation, should be included in observations.

July 2O16
effects. This is why — after the more
dense foliage at the crown edge has
receded — it is easier for the RF
radiation to cross over to the other
side of the crown. As a result of the
increasing RF exposure level, the
crown then also starts to lose leaves
in this opposite area and thus the
tree’s inherent attenuation also
decreases. In this way, the damage
area spreads from the inside to the
outside of the side of the crown edge
facing away from the RF transmitter.

April 2O15
In bloom
The more the branches and buds are
protected by the attenuation inherent
to the crown, the higher the density
of the flowering shoots will be.

Due to the crown dieback at the side
facing the RF transmitter, more light
reached the inside of the crown,
resulting in shorter shoots with buds
on branches closer to the trunk
compared to the right side.

Because the right side of the crown
had denser foliage, the inside of the
crown experienced more shade.

Consequently, the shoots are more
elongated, trying to reach the edge
with more light exposure, resulting
in less branching along the way.

After pruning, the crown then has
less buds for renewal at this side.

February 2O17

After renewal
pruning
396
Agenda Item # 9.
12 If trees, which are lined up in a row, show all damage on the same side, this may also be a sign of RF radiation causing damage to the crowns.

June 2O16
<-Exposure from
upper right
Distance
73O m (ca. 24OO ft)
July 2OO8
Month not known 2O1O
Sycamore maple tree
Starting point of damage and damage gradient coincide with the direction of the RF emission source. The damage increases over the years. 397
Agenda Item # 9.
13 If the RF radiation exposure comes from above, the damage is particularly prominent at the top of the tree.

Gleditsia tree
September 2O11
Beech trees,
June 2OO9
398
Agenda Item # 9.
14 Crowns can show damage when a tree stands in front of a building that faces an RF transmitter and also when a tree stands behind such a building if the treetop reaches above the rooftop.

(Figure taken from BERNATZKY 1994)
The following example shows a situation similar to the tree in the above graphic in the upper left.

Exposure from the right
above the rooftop
Distance to multiple RF transmitters
15O-5OO m (ca. 5OO-16OO ft)
Cherry tree, September 2O12 June 2O15
399
Agenda Item # 9.
15 Trees of the same species planted along a roadside are especially well suited for comparing RF radiation exposure patterns. The trees in the radio shadow of the building show a different pattern compared to those exposed directly to RF radiation.

RF radiation exposure
->

Tree-lined road
Turkish hazel trees,
June 2OO8
Tree-lined road
Turkish hazel trees,
August 2O13
The Turkish hazel trees on the left are mostly in the radio shadow of the buildings. The line of trees on the right side of the road are more exposed; both directly and indirectly (reflection from buildings). The bare shoots and dead twig tips of the transparent crowns of the trees on the right side of the road reveal the level of stress caused by the RF radiation.
400
Agenda Item # 9.
16 The shielding effect of buildings can be demonstrated with measurements of the RF exposure levels. In the radio shadow, the tree crowns are only marginally affected.

Distance to RF transmitter 13O m (ca. 43O ft)
Exposure and view from south View from north
Maple tree Hornbeam tree Hornbeam tree Maple tree
October 2OO9
In spring, dead branches were removed
8,OOO
2OO
3O
µW/m2
July 2O12 RF measurements, May 2O12
401
Agenda Item # 9.
17 Maple tree Hornbeam tree
October 2O14
Hornbeam tree Maple tree
The upper part of the crown that reaches above the bridge structure is exposed by an RF transmitter. Despite excellent light conditions and a good water supply, leaf loss occurs at this location. The lower part of the foliage is dense and healthy because it is protected by the bridge structure.
402
Agenda Item # 9.
18 Microwave exposure
from a traffic radar
<-
Viburnum hedge
in a strip of greenery
The damage area in the foliage of the hedge clearly delineates the focused exposure area of the radar.

A disparate fall coloration inside the crown with regard to its timing can be conspicuous. The one-sided discoloration of the foliage occurs on the side facing the RF transmitter.

RF exposure from the upper
left
->
Distance to RF transmitter
6O m (ca. 2OO ft)
Hornbeam tree,
October 2O1O
At the edge facing the RF transmitter, the leaf loss and the coloration differences within the crown show the damage gradient from the starting point of damage to the damage area.
403
Agenda Item # 9.
19 Ash trees naturally lose their leaves in fall without major discoloration.

If the leaves of one tree start falling in different areas of the crown at different times, this can be the result of a one-sided RF exposure. This characteristic requires observing the tree over several years. Thus it would be possible to distinguish the damage from the acute effects of frost, which can be caused by cold air that blows in from the side.

In winter, bare crowns of deciduous trees will reveal differences in their sides, if applicable, which would indicate an exposure to RF radiation.

Ash tree, October 2O16

Tree site at a slope
<- Exposure from the right
from RF transmitter a
the same height,
distance 5OO m
(ca. 16OO ft)
404
Agenda Item # 9.
20 RF exposure from the left
from a distance of 32O m
(ca. 1O5O ft)
->
Sycamore maple tree,
February 2O17

The branching differs between the left and the right side.

On the side of the crown facing the RF transmitter, less branching of branches and shoots occurs. The closed crown starts opening from the left and above.
405
Agenda Item # 9.
406
Agenda Item # 9.
407
Agenda Item # 9.
408
Agenda Item # 9.
24 Due to the limited knowledge in this research area, it cannot be ruled out at this time that differences among trees in the line of sight of a given RF transmitter may also be traced back to characteristics of the tree species and their provenances.

The expectation that trees within the exposure area of a given mobile phone base station should respond in the same way is therefore unfounded as long as this matter has not been studied in depth.

Furthermore, crown damage can be caused by different factors that overlap with each other. In laboratory studies, it could be demonstrated that RF radiation is capable of triggering physiological stress responses in plants. This finding suggests that we should focus our observations on whether the damaging effect of a possible additional stress factor tends to be more prominent on the side of the crown exposed to RF radiation. For example, it should be noted if the point from which the damage spreads and the incidence and degree of infestations with e.g. fungi, viruses, worms, and insects are associated in any way with the side of the tree facing an RF transmitter.

The same basically also applies to other common natural and technical factors, which may only affect one side of the tree such as wind direction, solar exposure, traffic exhausts, road salt, root and trunk damage.

The initial stages of damage development caused by heat, drought due to a lack of water in the soil, root damage, damage to the water pathways in the tree, and limited frost damage may at first sight look like a crown damaged by the exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

The more the damage of the crown advances, as can be observed as the result of the chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation over several growing seasons, the clearer the distinguishing characteristics become. “The damage follows a path along the direction of the RF radiation” (see the documentation by SCHORPP, 2OO7).

At any location without RF radiation exposure, it should be rather unlikely to find a damage pattern as shown here.
409
Agenda Item # 9.
410
Agenda Item # 9.
26 In times of climate change, to what extent will efforts to maintain trees in urban areas for their balancing effect be challenged if we do not consider the consequences of chronic RF radiation exposure? Tree crowns in a strip of greenery become damaged through the exposure to radiofrequency radiation
July 2OO8
In an urban green space, healthy tree crowns in the radio shadow August 2O15
411
Agenda Item # 9.
27 Scientific application of the observation method
Owing to the new and unique type of damage pattern, an in-depth investigation into its causes seems indicated and can be carried out with relatively little effort. The above-described observation method can serve as a guide for locating and assessing crown damage in trees. By applying the knowledge of the developmental characteristics of the above-described type of crown damage, it is possible to also include less advanced levels of damage.

For the study Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations, 6O trees with the above-described damage pattern were located in the cities of Bamberg and Hallstadt, some of which have been documented over the course of several years.

The visual inspections at each location revealed that, in the case of onesided crown damage, it was exclusively the damaged side facing an RF transmitter. The RF exposure level measurements on the damaged side were on average about 2,OOO µW/m² and on the opposite side about 2OO µW/m².

Another group of 3O trees was randomly selected. Thirteen trees of this group had crown damage. The visual inspections revealed that six of the trees had crown damage only on one side of the tree, which was facing an RF transmitter; five of the trees had damage on more than one side all of which were facing RF transmitters on the respective damaged sides. One tree (spruce) with a damaged top also was in the line of sight of an RF transmitter, as was another tree that had dead parts of the crown removed.

The RF radiation exposure levels for the trees of this group were on average about 1,6OO µW/m² on the side facing an RF transmitter and about 6OO µW/m² on the opposite side.

The crown damage occurred regardless of different soil characteristics of the tree locations such as sealing, strips of greenery, gardens, parks, in the vicinity of water bodies, etc.

The RF radiation exposure levels for the 17 trees of the randomly selected group that were not in the line of sight of any RF transmitter ranged from about 8 to 5O µW/m², both on the side with the highest reading and the opposite side.
412
Agenda Item # 9.
413
Agenda Item # 9.
29 o BERNATZKY, A., 1994: Baumkunde und Baumpflege (Dendrology and Tree care); Bernhard Thalacker Verlag Braunschweig
o BALMORI, A., 2OO4: ¿Pueden afectar las microondas pulsadas emitidas por las antenas de telefonía a los árboles y otros vegetales? http://tinyurl.com/j89d24w
o EGER, H., WALDMANN-SELSAM, C., 2O13: Tree damages in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations
http://kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Tree-damages-in-thevicinity-of-mobile-phone-base-stations.pdf o Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H., Balmori, A., 2O16: Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306435017 Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations
Contact:

This private manuscript was written by Diplom-Forstwirt Helmut Breunig (Diplom degree in forestry).

You can download the Observation Guide at:

Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, the Environment and Democracy e.V.
http://kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/KIT/new-observation-guide-tree-damage/ German version: http://kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/KIT/beobachtungsleitfaden-baumschaedendurch-mobilfunkstrahlung/ If citing this work, please provide the author’s name and the Internet link of the document.

If you would like to contact the author regarding the contents of the Observation Guide, please send an e-mail to
[email protected]
Feedback and suggestions are always welcome. If you wish to send me photos, please contact me by e-mail before sending any photos.
414
Agenda Item # 9.

Review Article
B. Blake Levitt*, Henry C. Lai and Albert M. Manville II Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on
flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public
policy, laws, and future directions
https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0083
Received June 21, 2021; accepted September 1, 2021;
published online September 27, 2021
Abstract: Due to the continuous rising ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) used in modern societies—primarily from wireless technologies—that have now become a ubiquitous biologically active environmental pollutant, a new vision on how to regulate such exposures for non-human species at the ecosystem level is needed. Government standards adopted for human exposures are examined for applicability to wildlife. Existing environmental laws, such as the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the U.S. and others used in Canada and throughout Europe, should be
strengthened and enforced. New laws should be written to accommodate the ever-increasing EMF exposures. Radiofrequency radiation exposure standards that have been adopted by worldwide agencies and governments warrant
more stringent controls given the new and unusual
signaling characteristics used in 5G technology. No such standards take wildlife into consideration. Many species of flora and fauna, because of distinctive physiologies, have been found sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. Such exposures may now be capable of affecting endogenous bioelectric states in some species. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that low-level EMF exposures have numerous
adverse effects, including on orientation, migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance, defense, vitality, longevity, and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. A robust dialog regarding technology’s high-impact role in the nascent field of electroecology needs to commence. Long-term chronic
low-level EMF exposure standards should be set accordingly for wildlife, including, but not limited to, the redesign of wireless devices, as well as infrastructure, in order to reduce the rising ambient levels (explored in Part 1).

Possible environmental approaches are discussed. This is Part 3 of a three-part series.

Keywords: aeroecology; electroecology; International
Council on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP);
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); non-ionizing electromagnetic fields
(EMFs); radiofrequency radiation (RFR); rising ambient
levels; U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Introduction
This is Part 3 and concludes a three-part series on electromagnetic field (EMF) effects to wildlife.

Part 1 focused on measurements of rising background
levels in urban, suburban, rural, and deep forested areas as well as from satellites. Discussed were different physics models used to determine safety and their appropriateness to current exposures. The unusual signaling characteristics and unique potential biological effects from 5G were
explored. The online edition of Part 1 contains a Supplement Table of measured global ambient levels.

Part 2 is an in-depth review of species extinctions,
exceptional non-human magnetoreception capabilities,
and other species’ known reactions to anthropogenic EMF exposures as studied in laboratories and in the field. All animal kingdoms are included and clear vulnerabilities are seen. Part 2 contains four Supplement Tables of extensive low-level studies across all taxa, including ELF/RFR genotoxic effects. *Corresponding author: B. Blake Levitt, P.O. Box 2014, New Preston, CT 06777, USA, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Henry C. Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Albert M. Manville II, Advanced Academic Programs, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Policy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Rev Environ Health 2021; aop
415
Agenda Item # 9.

Part 3 discusses current exposure standards, existing
federal, and international laws that should be enforced but often are not, and concludes with a detailed discussion of aeroecology—the concept of defining air as habitat that would serve to protect many, though not all, vulnerable species today.

Government exposure standards
Extremely Low Frequency (ELF)
In the U.S., there are no federal government exposure
standards for humans, much less wildlife, for the
extremely low frequency (ELF) bands between 0 and
300 Hz. Within this range are the 50–60 Hz exposures
common to powerlines and electric utility wiring that
continue to rise due to our increasing energy demands, as well as electric utility grounding practices that use the Earth itself as the return neutral for excess current back to substations. Today in many regions, rather than run
additional neutral lines (at significant expense) on utility poles along roadways to handle the extra harmonic load
that all of our new electronic and wireless devices place on the lines, utilities siphon off excess voltage every few poles apart directly into the ground. Earth itself becomes the neutral line, sometimes with significant accumulations
near substations that can elevate contact currents in
nearby homes and outdoor environments, affecting pets
and urban wildlife, as well as on underground metal gas pipelines that can form dangerous corrosion and hotspots [1]. In addition, new technologies like “wireless electricity”—called wireless power transfer (WPT)—to charge electric vehicles, batteries, computers, and chargers are coming on the market, creating novel ambient wireless and DC power exposures that we have never seen before,
spanning from ELF through the 9 kHz to 40 GHz frequency bands. The technology is in nascent stages but involves transmission of power via RFR, most likely in the microwave bands at 2.45 GHz, to a special receiver called a rectenna that then converts it back to DC power for use in an ELF ambient capacity. The goal is to get rid of wires. This is a completely new exposure to which many species of flora and fauna are sensitive (see Part 2). Such industrial-scale grounding practices and wireless ELF/RFR have never
been studied as environmental factors for air, land-based, or underground wildlife. This includes potential damage to flora with vulnerable root systems in the ground while their primary growth is above ground level (AGL), making flora susceptible to both ELF and radiofrequency radiation
(RFR) exposures. Standards-setting groups may soon turn attention to ELF in light of WPT that is coming on the
market with virtually no environmental review.

The U.S. Federal Communications
Commission
In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission
(U.S. FCC) has jurisdiction over the licensing of electromagnetic spectrum use between 100 kilohertz (kHz) and 100 gigahertz (GHz), which includes cable TV/Internet,
amateur radio, AM/FM commercial broadcast stations,
wireless cellular facilities, satellite communications, and all other communications devices/services (See Figure 1). There are adopted and enforceable exposure standards in the
radiofrequency bands between 300 kHz and 100 GHz under
FCC—a non-health agency that relies on other agencies and outside expert groups for advice regarding human exposures ([2, 3], and see Part 1). FCC’s 1997 standards were reviewed and reaffirmed in 2020 with minimal changes [4].

The model for the FCC standards are human-centric,
based on short-term, acute high-intensity exposures to RFR that are capable of heating tissue the way a microwave
oven cooks food. Thermal heating effects were wellquantified decades ago and are reasonably easy to regulate while allowing technology to flourish. It is the ubiquitous lower intensity exposures that are problematic and unregulated (see Part 2, Supplement 3 for effects at very low intensity exposures).

It is important to understand that the FCC standards
(and other similar models) are exposure limits, not emissions allowances from generating sources although the two are intricately linked. As such, the standards are distance related with accessibility to a generating source being the most important factor, and they are relevant only to locations that are accessible to workers and/or members of the public [2, 5, 6]. This means that despite safety factors built in to such standards, ambient levels are largely unregulated outside of built environments.

However, while standards by any group are derived
with only humans in mind, all measurement factors are
potentially relevant metrics to species in the wild. Thus the large body of research intended to help set exposure limits for humans are germane to determining new standards to
protect wildlife, at least in some very broad ways. But in regulating for wildlife, factors involving rising ambient levels (see Part 1) must include both exposure and emission considerations, due to the increased sensitivity to
EMF/RFR of many species (see Part 2) based on taxonomy, size, physiology, habitat, magnetoreception, seasonal
2 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
416
Agenda Item # 9.
migration, and many other factors. Many airborne species, for example, have the ability to reach close proximities to antennas mounted on towers or buildings and routinely
reach areas with detrimental levels of RFR even at some distance from transmitters. And several bird species fly at altitudes high enough to experience exposures from satellite systems that humans would never encounter. In essence, other species can experience both near-and-farfield exposures that humans rarely, if ever, experience and likely move in and out of such fields on a routine and/or seasonal basis.

Below is information on how governments regulate
this subject regarding human exposures that point to
possibilities for wildlife protection.

The U.S. FCC exposure standards are a two-tiered model
based on recommendations from key regulatory agencies
and two expert organizations: the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) report in 1986 [7, 8] and a subcommittee recommendation from 1992 to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) by the International Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE; [9]). The NCRP is a non-profit corporation chartered by the U.S.

Congress to develop information and recommendations
across many public and private sectors on radiation protection. The ANSI is a non-profit, privately funded, membership organization that coordinates the development of voluntary U.S. national standards used across all industry sectors. The IEEE is a non-profit, privately funded, technical, and professional/industry group that widely represents the technology sector with a membership of over 300,000 engineers and scientists worldwide; they have almost no biologists or members with medical backgrounds. ANSI, IEEE, and FCC are not health or environment-related entities, yet they play pivotal roles in non-ionizing radiation exposure regulation. NCRP does include human health expertise on their review panels. These various groups issue exposure guidelines. Once a government entity with enabling authority adopts such guidelines, they become enforceable and the government entity can require the private sector to abide by them as well as impose fines when they transgress.

The FCC was given authority over RFR exposure standards adoption and enforcement by The Telecommunications
(TCA) Act of 1996 [10].

At the impetus of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA), the multi-agency Radiofrequency
Interagency Working Group (RFIAWG) was formed in the
1990s. EPA, which has primacy over environmental radiation effects, was specifically defunded for non-ionizing radiation research and oversight in 1996 [11] just as the TCA was coming into effect. In lieu of EPA writing its own RFR exposure standards at the time—something they were
poised to do and took criticism for not completing—EPA
instead recommended a two-tiered exposure standard (see below) be adopted at FCC taken from recommendations by
both NCRP and ANSI/IEEE, which FCC did in 1996. Subsequent to that, the RFIAWG also sent a letter in 1999 to the IEEE committee responsible for developing RF standards
that listed 14 major topics and/or areas of concern
related to any future revision of the IEEE standard [12].

Those concerns have yet to be addressed. The RFIAWG
was comprised of key bioelectromagnetics scientists
from seven or more U.S. federal regulatory agencies, representing health, the environment, and professional exposures (One of the authors of this paper was on RFIAWG Figure 1: Illustration shows FCC area of regulatory responsibility between 100 kilohertz (kHz) up to the far microwave bands in the non-ionizing section of the spectrum. The frequency range for FCC limits cover from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. ([5] p. 3).

Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 3
417
Agenda Item # 9.
representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Although RFIAWG still exists on paper, it rarely meets, if at all, and is no longer the analytical advisory authority it once was to FCC. Consequently FCC regulates and issues rule-makings in an environmental vacuum, other than minimal comments provided by the Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) which advises on devices like cell phones over which it has authority.

FCC is often now seen as an agency that is captured by
the industries it is supposed to regulate [13] and because of cutbacks at key advisory agencies like EPA, FCC lacks the wider expertise upon which it relies to conduct thorough assessments regarding exposure safety [11].

What today’s exposure standards measure
Most of the current guidelines used in Western countries are based on the specific absorption rate (SAR)—the rate of energy absorbed per unit mass of biological tissue with units expressed in watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per kilogram (mW/kg) of tissue. Harmful effects from
which the SAR was originally derived were based upon
relatively few animal studies in the 1980s [14, 15] in
which behavioral disruption was observed at approximately 4 W/kg when test animal body temperatures rose by about 1°C. Safety factors were built in to allow for
unknown/unidentified effects and are reflected in the
allowances noted below, but it is important to know that these additional margins are purely hypothetical. SARs are also studied on fluid-filled phantom laboratory models in the shape of human body parts, as well as cadavers which can never reflect the complexities of whole living electrodynamic organisms. SARs are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure in living models.

The FCC standards divide exposure allowances (based
on the baseline or 4 W/kg) into two tiers legally defined as:
– Occupational/controlled limits based on ANSI/
IEEE: Applies when people are exposed due to
employment, provided they are fully aware of exposures and can exercise control over them. SAR is

0.4 W/kg, reflecting a safety factor of 10.
– General population/uncontrolled limits based on
NCRP: Applies to when the general public may be
exposed, or when people who are exposed as a consequence of employment may not be fully aware of potential exposure, or cannot exercise control over the exposure.

SAR is 0.08 W/kg, reflecting a safety factor of 50.
– Limits are different for cell phone exposures when
partial body exposure would be experienced and is
derived by complicated methods of scaling from the
whole body exposure. The SAR for partial body exposure is 1.6 W/kg measured over 1.0 g cube of tissue—a limit that all cell phones must meet in the U.S., and
which is stricter than what is used in Europe as recommended by the ICNIRP guidelines (see below) at

2.0 W/kg averaged over 10 g of tissue. SAR evaluation
continues to be required as the only acceptable
compliance metric for portable devices below 6 GHz.
– In addition, there are whole-body SAR limits at

0.08 W/kg related to various factors including size,
shape, and orientation toward a generating source,
among other things. There are also higher SAR
allowances for the body’s extremities defined as
hands, wrists, feet, and ankles, where the limit is
4 W/kg as averaged over any 10 g of tissue and where
some peak allowances can be up to 8 W/kg over 1 g of
tissue (it is assumed that extremities can absorb more
energy without tissue heating [the ear—or pinna—was
included as an extremity in 2013 – see discussion
below]). There are also resonant SAR peaks for humans
(maximum absorption rates) reflected in the illustration below. For whole-body human irradiation of a 6′ male, peak resonant SARs are reached in the bands
between 70 and 100 Megahertz (MHz)—the middle of
the FM radio band, where exposures are therefore most
stringent (see Figure 2).

The frequency range for FCC limits covers from 300 kHz to 100 GHz and is dependent on frequency as defined in
maximum permissible exposures (MPE). MPE’s are given in terms of power density—milliwatts per centimeter squared (mW/cm2
)—or in field strength as volts per meter (V/m) or
amperes per meter (A/m). Often far-field exposures from infrastructure are given in mW/cm2 and MPE. (For a table of FCC MPE limits for occupational and general populations see reference [5], p. 15).

The International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP) compared to the FCC
Countries throughout Europe and Canada have adopted
standards based on recommendations by The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP), a self-selecting group chartered in Germany in 1992 that functions as a collaborating non-state entity with the World Health Organization [16– 18]. ICNIRP is a
4 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
418
Agenda Item # 9.
relatively new entity in standards setting, given that the ANSI-IEEE basic thermal exposure framework was first
delineated and published in 1968 (at higher allowances) and the U.S. NCRP’s basic reports on RF were published in 1986 and 1993 ([7, 8], respectively).

The FCC standards remain more stringent than
ICNIRP’s although in 2020 ICNIRP published an update of their 1998 allowances and adopted a few of FCC’s measurements. Both remain two-tiered, human-centric, thermal-based models. ICNIRP differs in some exposure
levels and averaging times, as well as allowances in some lower as well as upper frequency ranges that are more
lenient than FCC. There is variation between countries that have adopted other standards, i.e., Italy and Switzerland use standards far below FCC and ICNIRP (see below).

By way of comparison: For power density (MPE) the
U.S. standards are between 0.2 and 1.0 mW/cm2 and for
SAR between 0.08 and 0.40 W/kg of human tissue. For cell phones and uncontrolled environments, FCC SAR levels
require hand-held devices to be at or below 1.6 W/kg
averaged over 1.0 g cube of tissue. For whole body exposures in uncontrolled environments, the limit is 0.08 W/kg.

Canada, which previously had used the ICNIRP standard,
now uses the FCC’s 1.6 W/kg averaged over any 1.0 g
of tissue and for whole body exposures, the limit is

0.08 W/kg. The peak spatially-averaged SAR in the limbs, averaged over any 10 g of tissue, is 4 W/kg. In European countries and elsewhere where the ICNIRP standard is
used, the SAR limit for hand-held devices is higher than FCC at 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10 g cube tissue mass (than measurement, which changed in 2020, used to be over any contiguous tissue). Whole body exposure limits are the
same at 0.08 W/kg but until recently were averaged
differently: in the FCC standards they are averaged over 30 min; ICNIRP used to be averaged over 6 min but has now gone to 30 min for whole body exposures too [19]. ICNIRP’s local body-area SARs are still averaged over 6 min.

The 2020 ICNIRP revision made some other critical
changes that many find troubling (see below). Hardell et al. [20] published a recent thorough review and analysis of why these standards are not as protective of public health as many assume.

Longstanding criticism of FCC and ICNIRP
standards
The longstanding primary criticism of both the FCC and
ICNIRP standards is that they are based on short-term acute exposures for tissue heating—unlike today’s more realistic long-term chronic low-level exposures—and that the safety factors of 10 and 50 below that acute heating threshold are purely suppositional [21]. There are other flaws with how these standards are written, for instance the effect of time averaging diminishes the biological significance of peak intensity short-term exposures. And because real-life exposures can be quite organ-specific, such as a cell phone held against the head or carried in a pocket, partial body Figure 2: Worker limit is the solid line; general public is the dotted line.

Note that the strictest limit is in the 30–300 MHz range where human whole body resonance occurs. Standards-setting organizations have all made limits strictest in that region. Also note that higher limits are allowed on both sides of that area ([2] p. 69).

Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 5
419
Agenda Item # 9.
exposure guidelines for specific organs may not be accurate, especially after the FCC ruled in 2013 that the human ear (pinna) can be classified as an appendage like arms or legs [22, 23], thereby allowing cell phones to transmit at higher levels with higher SAR limits.

This reclassification only changes exposures to the ear.

FCC standards are still 1.6 W/kg as averaged over 1 g of tissue, except for extremities where the limit is 4 W/kg as averaged over 10 g of tissue (For occupational exposures, the localized SAR limit is 8 W/kg as averaged over 1 g of tissue, except for within the extremities where it is limited to 20 W/kg as averaged over 10 g of tissue). The ear now fits that higher allowance even though the auricle is simply not an ‘extremity.’ The auricle is histologically very different from arms or legs and lacks bone, tendon, and skeletal muscle. It is also very close to the human brain and eyes. In addition auricle nerves are innervated by the vagus nerve which in turn innervates many other vital organs in the body, including the heart, GI-tract, and reproductive organs. The higher allowance may also affect the eyes as many now text and look directly into a cell phone screen. This entire new classification should be reconsidered. The eye is a highly conductive
aqueous saline organ—the exact opposite of cartilage. The reclassification is inviting adverse effects to the ear, the brain, the eyes, and potentially other systems in the body [23]. It also exponentially increases ambient RFR levels with the number of active cell phones in operation at any given location.

Health concerns over human eyes directly translate to species with eye structures similar to humans which includes most mammals. But in other species, effects are potentially more dire. Many insect species, for instance, have compound eye structures with sometimes thousands of lenses in addition to which insects do not dissipate heat efficiently. Their smaller size also makes them a resonant match with RFR’s higher frequencies.

Given the scale of human cell phone use today, that
technology’s contribution alone to ambient levels is not insignificant (see Part 1). Yet people rarely understand that their cell phone may cause downstream effects to other
species. Raising the power density output of cell phones may be an environmental factor in and of itself. In fact many of the fundamental criticisms of the human exposure standards may have consequences at the ecosystem level
to wildlife species (see Part 2 and below).

In addition, no current exposure standards at FCC or
ICNIRP take into consideration signal modulation, wave
form, or cumulative exposures from multiple low-power
devices transmitting simultaneously—all biologically
important factors that have been found in numerous
studies to be independent of frequency alone (see Parts 1 and 2). And both FCC and ICNIRP categorically exclude
whole classes of low-power devices from review if they
adhere to a certain transmission level around 1 mW effective radiated power (ERP).

In other words, there are multiple problems and significant deficits with the most widely adopted exposure standards as originally conceived, formulated, written, and defended. Both major entities have recently reinforced and justified their exposure parameters despite decades of recent research pointing to adverse effects from exposures far below heating thresholds. Both FCC and ICNIRP are
actually dosimetry-based models—meaning a defined
minimum exposure that will allow technology to function without causing gross short-term adverse heating effects— rather than true biological models based on thresholds
where effects are seen [12].

Today a growing number of people, domestic pets,
and urban and suburban wildlife are exposed to 24 h EMFs from individual devices, products, and infrastructure
[21, 24–27]. Popular wireless devices such as baby monitors, smart grid/meters, home and industrial appliances, WiFi routers, remote controls, security systems, personal “assistants” like Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri, and
some wireless laptop computers fall at, or below, the power density level of 1 mW ERP which qualifies them for categorical exclusion (CE, or CatEx) from licensing review. This can include CatEx for small cell infrastructure too but there is complex overlap in some situations.

There is a distinction between “no license required” for low-power individual consumer devices vs. “no environmental review pursuant to a CatEx” for low power infrastructure. Small cell networks do require FCC licensing because they use the spectrum, even though individual
antennas can be categorically excluded as low-powered.

And because issuing a license is a major federal action, NEPA should apply, even though under some circumstances, a CatEx can satisfy NEPA compliance—see below.

Today, FCC CatExs include most consumer wireless products and the infrastructure for hundreds of thousands of individual 4G and 5G small cells. Exclusion criteria are based on such factors as type of service, antenna height, and operating power. CatExs are not exclusions from
compliance itself, but rather exclusions from performing routine evaluations to demonstrate such compliance and
therein lay problems because no one is monitoring. Qualifying for CatEx is based on manufacturer’s declarations.

According to FCC OET Bulletin 65 (2 p. 12), “… the exclusion itself from performing routine evaluation will be a sufficient basis for assuming compliance, unless an
applicant or licensee is otherwise notified by the FCC or has reason to believe that the excluded transmitter or facility encompasses exceptional characteristics that could cause 6 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
420
Agenda Item # 9.
non-compliance …” In other words, much of this semiregulated area is based on the honor system.

CatEx does not mean that significant exposures are
unrealistic or unlikely, especially from cumulative exposures from many devices working simultaneously as is the case in most homes and workplaces today. Although
infrastructure is the dominant contributor to outdoor
pollution (see Part 1), cell phones and some domestic WiFi systems can be significant contributors to ambient exposures in indoor as well as outdoor environments at levels known to affect wildlife (see Part 2, Supplement 3). What are widely thought to be local indoor transmitters such as personal WiFi and home signal boosters, can and do
penetrate walls to become outdoor exposures too. Every
new application, though functioning within its own categorically excluded parameter, adds that much more to the aggregate, in essence creating a synergistic effect with the sum of exposures being greater than the individual effects of each component part. Although aggregate RFR levels are not supposed to exceed the FCC or ICNIRP regulations, no regulatory entity today measures, enforces, or attempts to mitigate for this [23] unless complaints are filed over interference issues with other systems. Each CatEx exists within its own technical realm, considered safe if kept under 1 mW ERP. Most such excluded devices and/or networks have considerable overlap, creating multiple exposures, and possible elevated effects. This is not a realistic, scientifically sound, or safe way to determine actual exposures to humans, domestic animals, or wildlife from aggregate, ambient radiation.
5G: changes at FCC and ICNIRP
5G is poised to bring radical changes to the ambient landscape from individual devices and especially infrastructure exposures, yet the major standards-setting groups have
recently reinforced and justified their existing exposure allowances [3, 18, 19]. They continue to adhere to acute dosimetry-based frameworks rather than true biological
models based on more sensitive thresholds where effects are seen. Plus, a most urgent area in need of clarification concerns how traditional standards have been written from the outset, which may, in fact, be based on a fundamental
theoretical flaw. We may not even be using the correct
physics model in today’s standards setting (see Part 1) in light of actual exposures. The entire justification for adhering to thermoregulatory models rests on the classic physics theory of non-ionizing radiation not having enough energy to knock electrons off cellular orbits and thereby cause DNA damage. This may not be the most accurate
model regarding biological reactions/interactions with lowlevel energy found in current exposures [28–32]. The classic theory is based on a mathematical calculation best suited to ionizing radiation and a narrow definition of a one-cell, one-photon concept whereas today’s exposures are many
simultaneous and often-overlapping streaming photons
arriving at multiple cells from multiple angles at the same time in what behave more like photon wave “packets” rather than single photons [33–39] Our entire regulatory concept needs further attention if we are to truly understand and trust where we are headed with 5G’s new technology.

To better accommodate 5G’s buildout, all exposure
limits at FCC and INCIRP may soon become more lenient.

FCC has opened a new docket (Docket #19-226) to target
the need for different regulations for 5G [40], even as they have stated their current regulations are adequate for 5G exposures [3]. The new FCC docket covers a wider frequency range from 3 kHz to 3 THz for permissible
human exposures and has allocated certain applications
in the millimeter (MMW) bands from 57.05 to 64 GHz for
unlicensed use, meaning CatEx for some devices and
infrastructure. FCC is also seeking comments on
applying localized exposure limits above 6 GHz in parallel to the localized exposure limits already established below 6 GHz, as well as specifying new conditions and
methods for averaging RFR for both time and exposure
area. They are also seeking comment on new issues
raised by WPT devices [3].

There have been numerous comments submitted to
FCC regarding Docket 19-226 by citizens, organizations, and professional groups like the American Public Power
Association (APPA) urging FCC not to further expand unlicensed operations in the 6 GHz bandwidth due to possible interference with present licensed systems, among many
other issues. Numerous comments also center on health/
environmental concerns [41].

There has been significant discussion at FCC and
ICNIRP about changing SAR exposure categories that are
now used for cell phones and other mobile/portable devices to a mW/cm2 power density exposure measurement (MPE) for devices above 6 GHz, which 5G phones will be.

FCC states that for portable devices operating at frequencies above 6 GHz, ‘special frequency’ considerations are necessary [2]. The localized SAR criteria used by the FCC only apply at operating frequencies between 100 kHz and 6 GHz. For portable devices that operate above 6 GHz
(e.g., 5G millimeter-wave devices) they say that localized SAR is not an appropriate means for evaluating exposure; that at the higher frequencies, exposure from portable devices should be evaluated in terms of power density MPE limits instead of SAR, adding that power density values can Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 7
421
Agenda Item # 9.
be either calculated or measured, as appropriate, at a minimum distance of 5 cm from the radiator of a portable device to show compliance with FCC standards (2 p. 43–44). They do not elaborate on their reasons but it may have to do with the assumption that MMW do not penetrate skin deeply,
which has been proven false (see Part 1 and below).

With 5G in mind, ICNIRP (2020) also addressed the
subject of special “transition frequency” [19]—the frequency at which the measurement quantity changes—regarding local RF restrictions. Prior to 2020, the ICNIRP SAR was used up to 10 GHz (vs. FCC’s 6 GHz), while power density was used above 10 GHz. They noted that the different quantities are used because SAR may underestimate superficial exposures at
higher frequencies, whereas power density may underestimate deeper exposures at lower frequencies. As a pragmatic approach, ICNIRP reduced the transition frequency from 10 to 6 GHz to “… provide the most accurate account of exposure overall” [19].

ICNIRP’s 2020 update [16–19] includes new allowances
for 5G that many find disturbing [20, 42–45]. The new
guidelines allow higher power densities above 6 GHz that replaced the SAR values, larger temperature increases in localized areas that may exceed thermal thresholds for both short and long periods of time, and divide skin into different types with different allowances (Type-1 tissue includes all tissues in the upper arm, forearm, hand, thigh, leg, foot, pinna and the cornea, anterior chamber and iris of the eye, epidermal, dermal, fat, muscle, and bone tissue. Type-2 tissue includes all tissues in the head, eye, abdomen, back, thorax, and pelvis, excluding those defined as Type-1 tissue). ICNIRP adheres to a thermal-effects-only model and now indicates assumed safety with increases to 5 °C in skin, the cornea and iris, and bones, as well as a 2 °C increase in brain temperatures on an indefinite basis. Their 1998 guidelines only allowed a 1 °C maximum increase for localized tissue and overall body temperature. Their rationale for the increased 2020 allowances stated that the 1998 safety margins were too conservative. For comparisons between ICNIRP’s 1998 and 2020 allowances, see ICNIRP [19], and charts in Leszczynski [46] as well as Hardell et al. [20].

In the U.S., there has been significant longstanding
pressure from industry over the years to harmonize FCC
standards with ICNIRP—an action that FCC has resisted. As of this writing, which excludes any new standards pertinent to 5G being adopted, the current FCC standards are still more stringent in some frequency bands, exposures, and time allowances than ICNIRP’s [47].

Other countries have adopted more stringent standards than FCC or ICNIRP based on different health criteria orientation—some more precautionary than others [25, 48].

There are calls to disband ICNIRP [49] as well as numerous lawsuits in various states of deposition against the U.S. FCC regarding NEPA enforcement (see below), federal preemptions in favor of industry over local/state infrastructure review and siting [50], and the adequacy of FCC’s exposure standards [51]. A 2021 court ruling found that the FCC’s decision terminating its inquiry into the adequacy of the RF health standards was unlawful [51]. There are other significant issues—such as the defunding of the U.S. EPA for nonionizing EMF research and oversight—that are
mentioned in this 2021 case [11].

What wildlife may be experiencing
At a 100–200 ft (30.5–61 m) distance from a cell phone
tower/base station (i.e., antennas or antenna arrays), a person or animal moving through the area can be exposed to a power density of 0.001 mW/cm2 (i.e., 1.0 μW/cm2
). The
SAR at such a distance can be 0.001 W/kg (i.e., 1.0 mW/kg) for a standing man. Throughout this three-part series, we defined low-intensity exposure where effects are seen to RFR for power density at 1 μW/cm2 and a SAR of 0.001 W/kg. The reason for using such a very low level is to show that biological effects have been widely observed much lower than at the 4 W/kg used in standards setting. (For extensive tables of studies that match these low levels, see Part 2, Supplement Tables 1–4).

Many biological effects have been documented at low
intensities comparable to what the population—and therefore wildlife—experience within 200–500 ft (61–152 m) of a cell tower [21]. These can include effects seen in in vitro studies of cell cultures and in vivo studies of animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR. Reported effects include: genetic, growth, and reproductive alterations; increases in permeability of the blood brain barrier; stress protein increases; behavioral changes; molecular, cellular, and metabolic alterations; and increases in cancer risk (see Part 2 Supplement 3 for broad animal effects and Supplement 4 for flora effects).

Unlike field research, in vitro and in vivo laboratory
studies are conducted under highly controlled circumstances, often with immobilized test animals, typically at near-field exposure, for set durations, at specific frequencies and intensities. Extrapolations from laboratory research to species in the wild are difficult to make
regarding uncontrolled far-field exposures, other than, for example, to seek possible correlations with laboratoryobserved DNA, behavioral, or reproductive damage. In the wild, there is more genetic variation and mobility, as well as variables that confound precise data assessment. There are also numerous variables like orientation toward
the generating source, exposure duration, animal size,
8 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
422
Agenda Item # 9.
species-specific physical characteristics, and genetic variation that also come into play. Assessments for wildlife may vary considerably depending on abundant factors.

It is highly likely that the majority of wildlife species are constantly moving in and out of varying artificial fields.

Although precise exposure data are difficult to estimate, there is a growing body of evidence that finds damage to various wildlife species near communications structures, especially where extrapolations to, or measurements of, radiation exposure have been made [52–63].

The introduction of 5G broadband using frequencies in
the mid-MHz through mid-GHz millimeter wave (MMW)
bands—radiating from both land and satellite-based
transmitters in urban, suburban, and rural/forested areas —has the ability to impact numerous species at very low intensities based on several mechanisms. These involve a plethora of unique magnetoreception factors in nonhuman species, depending on taxonomy, size, season, and habitat (see Part 2). Some of these include resonance factors and intense heating effects for some insect species as insects do not dissipate heat and therefore have no
thermoregulatory compensatory responses; interference
with orientation in some insect and bird species based on the presence of natural magnetite and cryptochrome in
their physiologies that enable complex interactions with the Earth’s geomagnetic fields and sunlight for all their life’s activities; and adverse die-off effects in flora such as trees in close proximity to infrastructure like small cells, to name but a few (see Parts 1 and 2 and their Supplements for a more thorough analysis). 5G’s effects on insects alone have the ability to create holes in critical food webs
affecting all other species, and ultimately humans.

The exposure allowances used by FCC and ICNIRP are
already higher in the MMW bands to be used in 5G. This is based on whole human body resonance factors and partly
on efficient skin absorption—estimated at 90–95% MMW
incident energy absorbed in human skin [64]. But this
simplistic assessment does not factor in that skin tissue— human and some non-human species alike—contains
critical structures like blood and lymphatic vessels, nerve endings, collagen, elastin fibers, and hair follicles, as well as sweat, sebaceous, and apocrine glands. MMW effects to skin have been found to be considerable in glandular tissue with multiple cascading effects throughout the human
body even without deep penetration [65]. One study by
Cosentino et al. [66] found effects to unilamellar vesicles made of phospholipid—or lipid vesicles—with decreased
cell membrane water permeability and partial dehydration of the cell membrane, as well as cell membrane thickening/ rigidity seen at 52–72 GHz at incident power densities of

0.0035–0.010 mW/cm2
. Human sweat ducts in particular
may act as coiled helical antennas and propagate MMW
energy as a waveguide deep into the body at these higher frequency exposures causing uniquely higher SARs [67]
not reflected in today’s standards. Where there are similar physical characteristics in other species, the above information would also apply.

Because of sub-millimeter depths of penetration in
skin tissue with MMW, “superficial” SARs as high as
65–357 W/kg are possible. Eyes are of particular concern in all species. MMW frequencies penetrate less than 1/64 of an inch (0.4 mm)—about the thickness of three sheets of
paper. That is thick enough to penetrate deeply into thinskinned amphibian frog and salamander species, for instance, as well as most flora, and is more than half the depth of some small insects that are primary food sources for other species. The wavelength of MMWs is shorter
(about 1/8th inch or 3.2–5 mm long) than microwaves used in cell phone/WiFi technology at 2.4 GHz (6.3 inch or

12.5 cm). The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy density per wavelength unit. In this case, with MMWs it is about 25 times higher than with cell technology microwaves [68]. This means MMW are capable of resulting in significant damage throughout the biome, including
possibly to all flora and fauna present, but effects are not due to wavelength alone. The multiple biological effects from intense energy absorption at very short wavelengths—e.g., in human skin cells or any thin-skinned species, and
especially in insects that lack efficient heat dissipation— may cause intense heating with concomitant cellular
destruction and organism death. Many of these effects are independent of power density, and therefore not covered by current regulations which are power-density and/or
SAR-based. In other words, thermal exposure standards
that may protect humans against heating have the ability to cause thermal damage to other species with more extreme consequences.

There are other interesting environmental characteristics regarding MMW. For instance, Betskii et al. [69] pointed out that MMW radiation, unlike other frequencies, is virtually absent from the natural environment due to strong absorption by the atmosphere. The authors hypothesized that low-intensity MMW may have broad nonspecific effects on biological organisms and that vital cell functions may be governed by coherent electromagnetic EHF waves. Their
study results found alternating EHF/MMWs were used for
interaction between adjacent cells, thereby interrelating and controlling intercellular processes in the entire organism.

Other authors [70–73] expounded on the idea that because MMW are absent in the environment, living cells may make specific and dedicated use of them. While these ideas are theoretical, they may plausibly explain the high MMW
Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 9
423
Agenda Item # 9.
sensitivity observed in biological subjects (see Part 1), especially in human therapeutic applications which have long been popular in Russia.

MMW below 100 GHz are maximally absorbed by water
vapor (H2O) at 24 GHz, and by oxygen (O2) at 60 GHz
[74–76], raising the possibility that 5G could destabilize the climate even more than current trends, especially from
satellite transmission. Rain, foliage, and other things easily attenuate MMW signals so 5G must operate at higher power density, as well as utilize different modulation characteristics such as phasing to enhance signal propagation’s penetration through physical objects like building walls. At 60 GHz, 98% of transmitted energy is absorbed by atmospheric oxygen. As far back as 1997, the FCC issued a report [74] on MMW propagation characteristics, noting that between 200 MHz and 95 GHz, there was significant signal loss at 40 GHz due to foliage (see Part 1), as well as resonant matches for atmospheric water vapor at 24 GHz and oxygen at 60 GHz.

Despite this, the FCC has already licensed the buildout of 5G in the 24, 28, 37, 39, and 47 GHz ranges thus far with higher bands extending above 95 GHz allocated for future use. FCC has also allocated MMW from 57.05 to 64 GHz for unlicensed use; ICNIRP may follow. Concerns include both land-based networks as well as satellite transmissions. By the time satellite transmissions reach the Earth’s surface, the power density is low (see Part 1) but with 5G’s phased array signals, the biologically active component is in the waveform, not power density alone. There is no research to predict how this will affect wildlife in remote areas but given what is known about extreme sensitivity to EMFs in many species, it is likely that effects will occur and likely go undetected. Even weak signals from satellites using phased array characteristics may be a significant contributor to species effects in remote regions (see Part 1 and Part 2, Supplement 3).

Much of the research on MMW and phased array with
accompanying unusual biological effects—e.g., precursor formation capable of causing deep nonlinear body penetration (see Part 1)—has been done in lossy materials like water. We therefore have models to suggest that 5G may
have particular effects not only on insect populations (due to resonance factors) and amphibians (due to thin membranes and deep body penetration) but also in some aqueous species since water is a highly conductive medium. Both aqueous environments and the high water content in living organisms may make MMW exposures
particularly unique due to the way MMWs propagate
though water with virtually no impedance [77–82].

In addition, Betskii and Lebedeva [83] described the
complex hypothetical mechanism that stochastic resonance (see Part 2) may play in very sensitive water-containing biological species to very-low intensity EMF (in μm ranges) based on the generation of intrinsic resonance frequencies by water clusters that fall between about 50 and 70 GHz.

When biological species are exposed to extremely weak EMF at these frequencies, their water-molecule oscillators can lock on to the external signal frequency and amplify the signal by means of synchronized oscillation or regenerative amplification. Since MMWs pass through aqueous media
almost without loss but also with high absorption, in the process they are capable of deep penetration involving internal tissue and organ structures. The researchers summarized a long list of MMW effects that included EHF strong absorption by water and aqueous solutions of organic
and inorganic substances; effects to the immune system; changes in microbial metabolism; stimulation of ATP
(adenosine 5′-triphosphate) synthesis in green-leaf cells; increases in crop capacity (e.g., pre-sowing-seed treatment); changes in certain properties of blood capillaries; stimulation of central nervous system receptors; and the induction of bioelectric responses in the cerebral cortex. Biological effects were dependent on exposure site, power flux density, and wavelength in very specific ways. In addition, lowintensity MMWs were detected by 80% of healthy people, but perception was asymmetrical. Peripheral applications were found to affect the spatiotemporal organization of brain biopotentials, resulting in cerebral cortex nonspecific activation reactions. MMW-induced effects are perceived primarily by the somatosensory system with links to almost all regions of the brain. The authors also discussed water and aqueous environments’ unique role on MMW effects,
which induce convective motion in the bulk and thin fluid layers and may create compound convective motion in intra and intercellular fluid. This can result in transmembrane mass transfer and charge transport can become more active.

EHF can also increase protein molecule hydration. The
theory of stochastic resonance playing a mechanistic role in the effects noted in the above study deserves further investigation given its known function in non-human species perception abilities that are used for survival (see Part 2).

And then there’s the role of unique wildlife magnetoreceptor cells. Akoev et al. [84] studied MMW effects to the specialized electroreceptor cells called Ampullae of Lorinzini in anesthetized rays (an elasmobranch fish) and found that the spontaneous firing in the afferent nerve fiber from the cells could be enhanced or inhibited by MMWs at 33–55 GHz continuous wave (CW). The most sensitive receptors increased firing rates at intensities of 1–4 mW/cm2 ,
which produced less than a 0.1 °C temperature increase.

The authors emphasized they were not observing just a
MMW bioeffect but rather a specific response to that
10 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
424
Agenda Item # 9.
frequency range by a unique electro-receptor cell. This one study points out the inadequacy of assuming that MMW’s
superficial skin penetration is enough to base exposurestandard extrapolations to nonhuman species (For an extensive reviews of other MMW studies pertinent to
wildlife, see Parts 1 and 2).

In wildlife, especially small thin-membrane amphibians like frogs and salamanders, even at penetration less than 1/64 of an inch (0.4 mm), deep body penetration
would result. In some insect species that would equal
deadly whole body resonance exposure [85]. In a study,
Thielens et al. [86], modeled three insect populations and found that a shift of just 10% of the incident power density to frequencies above 6 GHz would lead to an increase in absorbed power between 3 and 370% in some bee species,
possibly leading to behavior, physiology, and morphology changes over time, ultimately affecting their survival. Insects smaller than 1 cm showed peak absorption at frequencies above 6 GHz. In a 2020 follow-up study of RFR, Thielens et al. [87] used in-situ exposure measurements near 10 bee hives in Belgium and numerical simulations in honey bee (Apis mellifera) models exposed to plane waves at frequencies from 0.6 to 120 GHz—frequencies carved out for 5G. They concluded that with an assumed 10% incident power density shift to frequencies higher than 3 GHz, this would lead to an RFR absorption increase in honey bees
between 390 and 570%—resulting in possible catastrophic consequences for bee survival.

In birds, hollow feathers have piezoelectric properties that would allow MMWs to penetrate deep within the
avian body cavity [88, 89]. 5G’s complex phased MMWs
may also be capable of disrupting crucial biological function in other species and critical ecosystems with broad effects throughout their entire food webs. In addition, the top end of these ranges reach infrared (IR) frequencies, some of which are actually visible to other species, especially birds, and could impede their ability to sense natural magnetic fields necessary for migration [90] as well as other crucial aspects of avian life.

Any assumed wildlife protection in exposure standards for humans is purely hypothetical at the ecosystem level. Chronic long-term, low-level ambient exposures to MMWs are yet to be studied but some extrapolations can be made based on the extensive database that does exist (see Parts 1 and 2, plus Supplements). FCC rules do not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) for new towers, for
example, unless a proposed structure can be proven to
negatively affect birds or other species federally listed as threatened or endangered (see below). EAs as currently
applied can include effects from physical tower placement itself, but not typically RFR exposures. As a result, no one is required to assess ambient environmental EMF effects,
let alone answer questions about impacts to other species from such technologies (see the Section “Discussion: synthesis of linear and nonlinear disciplines needed” below for some reasons why this situation exists at the federal level). There is a critical hole in our regulatory environmental apparatus when it comes to electroecology.

Regulations and laws pertinent to
EMF
There are several significant U.S. federal environmental statutes and their implementing regulations intended to protect wildlife and their habitats. All potentially apply directly or indirectly to the impacts created by EMF if we choose to use these statutes in that capacity. In some cases, treaty protocols and international laws also extend to
Canada, Mexico, Russia, and elsewhere. Some states,
provinces, counties, and cities also have similar laws in place but space precludes detailed listing here. The focus of the sections below is on key U.S. federal laws and those of Canada and Europe that could incorporate EMF into
assessment considerations.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973
While the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA)—discussed in detail below—is the oldest U.S. environmental wildlife protection law, having been enacted over 100 years ago, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq). [91] is considered the key U.S. environmental statute. The ESA is intended to recover plant and animal species from extinction, preventing further extinctions or extirpations, and provides subsequent protections
including at ecosystem levels. ESA has been amended
many times over the years1 [92]. Somewhat like the MBTA, ESA was designed to implement an international protocol called the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) [93], which 1 To view the entire contents of each section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended and to click on a section title below that cor responds with your interest see: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ laws policies/esa.html. Many section pages include audio or slideshow summaries that provide a more general overview of that section. Or to download the entire Act or individual sections in PDF format from US FWS’s document library, go to: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa library/index.html.

Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 11
425
Agenda Item # 9.
itself was designed to protect plant and animal species worldwide through restrictions on such trade.

ESA was implemented to protect all plant and animal
species listed as threatened or endangered, and to protect habitats designated as critical. ESA also contains provisions for designating species as candidates under Section 4(b)3(A) [94] for possible future threatened or endangered status—i.e., listings that may have been
warranted but precluded for one reason or another, or are in need of additional population assessment before determinations can be made. While the process is supposed to be based strictly on sound scientific review and findings, politics have often impacted listing decisions.

Nevertheless, since its passage in 1973, some 1,400 plant and animal species have been afforded protections, with many on the path to recovery (e.g., grizzly bears and gray wolves) or fully recovered (e.g., Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons). ESA is a longstanding highly successful environmental law.

The ESA is administered by two agencies: The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service [95] and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) [96]. U.S. FWS maintains a
worldwide ESA list of threatened and endangered species and is responsible for overseeing terrestrial and freshwater organisms, including four species of marine mammals—
i.e., manatees, polar bears, walrus, and sea otters. The NMFS oversees all ESA listed marine wildlife, including large and small cetaceans, sea turtles, and anadromous
and steelhead salmon, as well as some flora critical to marine wildlife survival such as Johnson’s sea grass which is important for shelter and sea bottom nursery habitat.

All oversight agencies use the ESA as part of their
enforcement toolkit.

The ESA regulations make it illegal to kill, harm or
otherwise “take” a listed species. ESA definitions include:
– “Take”: A “taking” under ESA is defined as to
“… harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
– Endangered: A species is listed as: endangered if it
faces a significant risk of extinction in the near foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
– Threatened: A threatened species is defined as at risk of becoming endangered in the near future.

The ESA and its implementing regulations include a
detailed consultation process. Under Sections 7 and 10
[97, 98] the regulations can authorize “incidental or accidental take.” Under Section 7, a federal agency must consult with either U.S. FWS or NMFS (depending on the
species and/or habitat affected) and specifically provides that, “… each federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the U.S. FWS or NMFS, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined to be critical” [97]. Further, the “action agency,” meaning the agency that retains discretionary federal control and is responsible for its actions on the environment, must determine at the earliest possible time whether any listed species or critical habitat may be affected in any manner by the proposed action. In the case of RFR, the FCC is the action agency whose licensing effects from EMFs on ESA-listed migratory birds, for example,
must be addressed. That includes radiation from any
communications tower, device, or whole communications
networks. More specifically, the action agency must
consider the potential risks/impacts from RFR emitted from towers or other sources. Unfortunately, such determinations have yet to occur for wildlife at FCC. (For an inventory of listed species, see reference [99]).

Under Section 10 of the ESA, private landowners can
develop their own habitat conservation plans, which must be approved by U.S. FWS. These may also allow for some
level of “take” of listed species [100]. Under Section 11 [101], citizens can file lawsuits against U.S. FWS or NMFS for actions they deem illegal under the statute and such suits may proceed if litigants prove they have legal standing (For some examples of legal suits brought by the Department of Justice, see reference [102]).

For decades, the ESA—a most significant law—has
been challenged by politicians, numerous industries, and some public segments, including Congressional attempts
to defund the programs altogether. But the ESA is vitally worth protecting and has stood the test of time thus far.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 [103], as amended, is over 100 years old and still among the most effective laws protecting avian species [26]. Migratory birds—those that migrate across U.S., Canadian, Mexican, and/or Russian
borders, of which 1,093 species are currently protected in the United States [104]—are a public trust resource that belong to every U.S. citizen. Almost all native North American continental birds are protected by the MBTA. Exceptions include theWild Turkey, Asian Pheasant, Lesser and Greater Prairie Chicken, other grouse species, European Starlings, 12 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
426
Agenda Item # 9.

English Sparrows, and Monk Parakeets (among others)
which have been accidentally or intentionally introduced to the U.S. The ESA also addresses birds [105].

The MBTA implements/regulates bilateral protocols
with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia regarding the
shared migratory bird resources of the U.S. and its treaty partners [26]. It is a strict prima facia liability statute, meaning that proof of criminal intent in the injury or killing of birds is not required by U.S. FWS or the Department of Justice for cases to be made. The statute currently protects migratory birds, their parts, eggs, feathers, and nests, with migratory bird nests protected during the breeding season, while eagle nests are protected year-round. A federal
permit is required to “possess” a migratory bird and its parts, but the MBTA contains no provisions for the accidental or incidental “take” (i.e., causing injury or death) of a protected migratory bird, even where normal, legal
business practices or personal activities are involved. Bird death, injury, and crippling loss are the only “takings” that matter under the MBTA, not the circumstances under
which they occur, although those circumstances can
certainly come under investigation.

When the MBTA was enacted, Congress was serious and
intended the “take” of even one protected migratory bird to be a violation of the statute, sometimes backed by extensive fines and criminal penalties [26]. Examples include: the 1999 Moon Lake Electric Cooperative fined $100,000 for electrocuting migratory birds; the 2009 criminal settlement with PacifiCorp for $10,500,000 for electrocuting birds (the final settlement resulted in $400,000 in fines, $200,000 restitution to the State of Wyoming, and $1,900,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for eagle conservation); and the 2012 settlement agreement with Duke Energy Wind Facility for $1,000,000 for bird deaths from wind turbine blade collisions. All of these settlements involved several years of probation for company executives, and required significant improvements to facilities (an author of this paper was involved with these criminal cases while at the U.S.

FWS) [26].

Unfortunately there were recent potentially serious
erosions of the legal interpretations involving MBTA. Up until 2017, companies could be fined under criminal
misdemeanor provisions when steps to avoid or minimize
“take” of birds were not implemented—especially if U.S.

FWS’s Office of Law Enforcement had made requests to
proponents to avoid/minimize dangers and such recommendations were ignored or minimally implemented. In late 2017, the former Trump Administration refused to
enforce the MBTA for so-called “accidental or incidental take,” while only enforcing provisions for poaching (illegal harvest) and illicit trade in birds and their parts in its then new legal opinion (M-37050). But on March 8, 2021, under a new Administration, the U.S. Department of the Interior withdrew M-37050 after a U.S. District Court invalidated the rollback of the MBTA [106] (One of the authors of this paper was involved in these court cases).

The MBTA has no consultation process like that under
ESA’s Section 7, and it does not authorize “incidental or accidental take” which ESA does under ESA Sections 7 and 10 [26, 97, 98]. Where “take” was likely to occur under MBTA, various agencies, entities, and individuals were
working proactively with U.S. FWS (especially its Office of Law Enforcement, Ecological Service Field Offices, and
Division of Migratory Bird Management) to implement all necessary and appropriate steps to avoid or minimize any future damage to birds. MBTA was intended to protect all migratory birds—no excuses accepted but solutions were
appraised by U.S. FWS officials—while the ESA allowed
some room to negotiate and remediate. But M-37050, as
discussed above, until it was invalidated by the court and withdrawn by the Department of the Interior [106],
completely upended that protective balance, demonstrating how fragile some of these longstanding effective laws can be due to political caprice. Both the ESA and
MBTA could pertain to ambient EMF if applied that way.

Birds of Conservation Concern: how U.S.
agencies track non-listed but imperiled
migratory birds
There are two primary ways that U.S. federal agencies keep track of birds. In addition to ESA-listed birds, the U.S. FWS maintains the list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) [107]. There are currently at least 147 species designated nationally of the 1,093 species now protected and the
number grows with each BCC update [104]. When U.S. FWS
regional lists are included in the overall tally, there are some 272 BCC species (>26% of all protected birds) designated in trouble [104]. BCC lists require periodic reviews/ updates under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 2901–2912) [108]. The overall objective of the U.S. FWS is to maintain bird populations at stable or increasing numbers—a daunting challenge due to both
direct and indirect impacts, including EMFs discussed in detail in Part 2. The BCC list is designed to serve as an early warning system of birds in trouble but not yet candidates for listing under the ESA [26]. A species designation on the BCC list could impact both infrastructure siting as well as potentially measured or modeled/projected rising ambient EMF levels in some regions (see Part 1).

Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 13
427
Agenda Item # 9.

Federally listed bird species are those protected under the ESA. On the List of Threatened and Endangered
Species, there are currently 77 endangered and 15 threatened birds [104]. An endangered species faces significant risk of extinction in the near foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, while a threatened species is at risk of becoming endangered in the near
future. Extinction is irreversible and permanent.

Collectively, migratory birds are in decline, some precipitously (see Part 2), with numbers of both listed and BCC species increasing [26, 107]. With 272 BCC-designated
species and 92 Federally Endangered and Threatened
migratory birds, out of 1,093 protected migratory birds, at least 364 (>33%) species are in trouble. Those numbers
continue to increase at a sizable rate and once a bird
population is in trouble, reversing its decline is extremely difficult [26, 109, 110]. The MBTA has no provisions for acquiring and protecting bird habitats although there have been bilateral discussions between the U.S., Canada,
Mexico, Japan, and Russia that have resulted in some bird habitat protection efforts.

Other protections: presidential Executive
Order 13186—Migratory birds, and The Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act
In January 2001, the Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186 [111] was signed by President Clinton. It stipulates that, “… each Federal agency taking actions that have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations …” is to develop and implement a Memoranda
of Understanding (MOU) “… to promote the conservation
of migratory bird populations.” Simply put, if the actions of a federal agency are now, or will in the near future, impact bird populations, that agency is to sign and implement an MOU with the U.S FWS in an effort to protect migratory
birds and their habitats [26]. While many of the previous Executive Orders in place from the Clinton, Bush, and
Obama administrations were rescinded by the Trump
Administration, E.O. 13186 was not among them. An executive order from the White House does not have the full force of a law implemented by the U.S. Congress, but in this case E.O. 13186 does have the force of the MBTA clearly backing it. E.O. 13186 provides specific opportunities for habitat protection, land management, and conservation
planning. U.S. FWS has the responsibility under the E.O. to protect migratory birds and their habitats.

In addition to protections under the MBTA, the U.S.

FWS is also responsible for maintaining stable and/or
increasing breeding populations of Bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Golden (Aquila chrysaetos) Eagles under The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act [112, 113]. The definition of “take” under BGEPA is broader than under
MBTA, and includes provisions against pursuit, shooting, poisoning, capturing, killing, trapping, collecting,
molesting, and disturbing both species (ref. [112], 50 C.F.R.

22.3). Permits are required from U.S. FWS for “disturbance take” and “take resulting in mortality” (ref. [112], 50 C.F.R.

22.26), and for “take of nests” (ref. [112], 50 C.F.R. 22.27).

Disturbing, injuring or killing eagles without an “eagle take” permit under BGEPA could result in criminal
culpability. Any infrastructure-related EMF effects to Bald or Golden Eagles would be actionable under these
regulations.

The National Environmental Policy Act: how
it applies to environmental EMF and
categorical exclusions
The second most iconic U.S. environmental law, after the ESA, is the 50 year old National Environmental Policy Act [114, 115]. Among the most effective laws ever passed, it was signed by President Nixon in 1970 and has become an
important means for protecting wildlife in the face of large government actions. As such it is a constant target for various industries regulated by the government, most
recently the telecommunications industry seeking exemptions from the FCC for any effects from their operations, including RFR [50].

NEPA has been applied to any major federal, state, or
local project where a federal regulatory nexus or action is involved, including actions taken by federal agencies
themselves. This includes:
– Where federal funding had been, is, or will be used.
– Where a permit has been issued by a federal agency.
– Where work or action by a federal agency has been
contracted for a project [26].

Courts have also expanded the purviews of NEPA. In
addition, the NEPA legislation established the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) which is housed within the
U.S. Executive Office of the President to advise the President on the state of the environment and environmental policy.

The primary role of NEPA rules is to establish national environmental policy and to determine the regulations that require all federal agencies to prepare EAs, and/or Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) that accompany 14 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
428
Agenda Item # 9.
official reports and/or recommendations whenever they
are submitted to Congress for funding. A vast array of
federal agencies is involved in NEPA review/compliance, including agencies like the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and U.S. FWS.

Unlike MBTA and BGEPA, which are both strict liability
statutes (see above), NEPA regulations have no criminal or civil penalties or sanctions. As such, all enforcement of NEPA must go through the courts which may order a
federal agency to require a proponent to perform
NEPA-compliant analysis and performance. This would
include, for instance, compliance with the previously
described bird protection laws where migratory birds could be impacted by EMF and other radiation exposures.

To effectively apply NEPA, an evaluation is required of the relevant environmental effects of a federal project. For instance, in the case of environmental EMFs, assessing the impacts of 5G on wildlife (including insects and migratory birds), NEPA review should be performed by the FCC before instituting any rulings that would facilitate 5G buildout, or an evaluation of an action mandated by NEPA where the
“nexus” conditions apply. This process begins when an
agency or commission, such as the FCC or the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, develops a proposal that
addresses the need to take an action. If that action is covered under NEPA, three levels of analysis are required by the action agency (i.e., the agency with responsibility for its action on the environment) for that action to be in compliance with NEPA. These include where applicable:
– Preparation of a CatEx.
– Preparation of an EA.
– The determination of either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or …
– The preparation/release of an EIS if there will likely be significant impact to species or habitats.

Because NEPA allows public review and comment on these
documents and the process, this provides a venue for litigation and possible court action.

A CatEx [116] is a list of actions that an agency has
determined do not individually or cumulatively significantly affect the quality of the human environment ([116], 40 C.F.R. §1508.4). A lot of things can slip through the cracks with such exclusions. The “quality of the human
environment” represents a key phrase in interpreting
NEPA. As such, if a proposed action such as the use of 5G and its impacts on wildlife were to be included in an
agency’s CatEx—say by FCC and U.S. FWS—the agency
must ensure that no extraordinary circumstances might
cause the proposed action to affect the environment (in this case, humans and wildlife). Extraordinary circumstances include negative effects/impacts on endangered species, protected cultural sites, and wetlands. If the proposed action is not included in the description provided in the CatEx, an EA must be prepared and can be published in the Federal Register, which allows the public to comment, and if necessary, to litigate. (Notice of all EISs must be published in the Federal Register; some, but not all, agencies choose to also publish notice of EAs—no absolute requirements to do so exist. The Council of Environmental Quality [CEQ] regulations also do not mandate notice of EAs—only EISs).

The release of an EA and a FONSI represent specific
public documents which include information on the need
for a proposal, a list of alternatives, and a list of agencies and persons consulted in the drafting of the proposal. “The purpose of an EA is to determine the significance of the proposal’s environmental outcomes and to look at alternatives for achieving the agency’s objectives. An EA is supposed to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS, aid an agency’s
compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, and it
facilitates preparing an EIS when one is necessary.”
[115, 116].

If it is determined that a proposed federal action does not fall within a designated CatEx or does not qualify for a FONSI, then the responsible agency—which in the case of 5G buildout would involve the FCC with significant input from U.S. FWS—must prepare an EIS. The purpose of an EIS is to help public officials make informed decisions based on the relevant environmental consequences and the
alternatives available.

From the information presented in Parts 1 and 2 of this paper and elsewhere, the environmental consequences of
5G and rising background levels of RFR could be catastrophic to some species. The drafting of an EIS includes public parties, outside parties, and other federal agency input concerning its preparation. These groups subsequently comment on the draft EIS. However, the FCC has systematically categorically excluded many devices and
current technologies that use RFR, as well as ruling that their exposure standards extend to 5G exposures [4, 117], thus allowing their use/buildout to proceed without full NEPA/EIS review.

Even when NEPA has been applied to an RFR exposure
situation, there have been problems. Part 1 included discussion of a U.S. military training proposal throughout a protected wilderness area that involved a lengthy, but ultimately inadequate, NEPA review with the U.S. FWS (see Part 1 for further details). What that case revealed was the necessity for environmental agencies to have their own inhouse bioelectromagnetics expertise with knowledge of Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 15
429
Agenda Item # 9.
nonionizing radiation effects to wildlife—something now lacking throughout regulatory agencies. In light of
continuing new information, to do otherwise fosters large loopholes through which entire networks of low-power
infrastructure can avoid larger environmental review.

It is important to note, as described above, that all
small cells intended for 5G deployment, are categorically excluded by the FCC, thereby bypassing NEPA requirements despite significant studies (see Part 2) of adverse effects to all taxa that would apply for review under EAs, and EISs. Part 1 explored measured levels from the 1980s to today’s measured rising background RFR that
should also apply to NEPA review, given the expansion of a large new technology like 5G about to make its own significant contribution. Instead, FCC categorically excluded small cells from NEPA without any examination of the
unique signaling characteristics of 5G that are new to
broadband telecommunications technology in the built
environment, or 5G’s higher frequencies to be used widely at significant scale that may especially impact insects and birds (see above, “Government exposure standards”).

Instead, FCC ruled that states and municipalities must
streamline small cell network applications and buildouts without NEPA [117]—a position that was successfully
challenged in U.S. courts [50].

At the moment, NEPA requirements still stand. But
other suits challenging FCC’s small cell streamlining
without also updating their exposure standards were less successful [118]. Under the former Trump Administration, industry-friendly legislation was introduced [119] that would have excused the FCC from all NEPA review as a
matter of course. No other federal agency with the ability to impact the environment had ever gotten such a pass. The bill did not succeed but such an attempt again demonstrates the fragility of these iconic environmental protections.

Canada’s environmental laws and
regulations: Species at Risk Act, and
Migratory Birds Convention Act
In conjunction with U.S. laws that are observed across
borders, Canada has some strong regulations of its own
such as the Species at Risk Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA).

The Species at Risk Act, known as SARA [120], is similar in many respects to the U.S. ESA. SARA encourages the
various government entities in Canada—e.g., Provincial, Federal, First Nations, territorial, county, city, town, and fort—to cooperate in protecting wildlife species in Canada.

SARA also includes protocols for consultation and cooperation with Aboriginal/First Nations peoples which Canada views as essential to successfully implementing the statute.

Like the U.S. ESA, SARA can affect entities or individuals who own property or have a vested interest in land where a species at risk (designated in the List of Wildlife Species at Risk [121] is found at any time
throughout the year. The statute also defines critical
habitat, designated in the SARA Public Registry [122]. Like the purposes of the ESA, SARA is intended to prevent
wildlife species in Canada from disappearing; to recover wildlife species extirpated (i.e., no longer found in the wild in Canada), endangered or threatened as a result of human activity; and to manage species of special concern so as to avoid threatened or endangered designation [123]. To
accomplish these purposes and goals, SARA establishes
how governments, organizations, and individuals in Canada should work together, and establishes guidelines for implementing a species assessment process to ensure the protection and recovery of species. Like the ESA, SARA
incorporates penalties for violations; and like NGOs in the U.S. that support/publicize specific issues pertaining to threatened and endangered species, Canada also has NGOs doing the same thing [124].

Canada’s Migratory Birds Convention Act
(MBCA) of 1994
As with the U.S.’s MBTA, the vast majority of bird species in Canada are protected by the 1994 MBCA [125]. Passed in
1917 and updated in 1994 and 2005, MBCA implements the
Migratory Birds Convention, a treaty signed with the United States in 1916. The Canadian Federal government is
authorized to pass, implement, and enforce Migratory Bird Regulations [126] designed to protect the species included in the Convention. The lists of bird species protected by Canada and the U.S. may be different. Bird species that are not listed in Canada or the U.S., and/or defined under
Article 1 of the MBCA, may or may not be protected by
Provincial or territorial legislation, or by SARA, or the UN Convention on Biological Diversity [127] which is an international legal instrument for “… the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources” that has been ratified by 196 nations [128].

Persons, industries or other entities making any decisions (e.g., installing cell towers) that would impact the 16 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
430
Agenda Item # 9.
protected status of a bird species in Canada should also consult SARA. Environment and Climate Change Canada
requires that three criteria be met to qualify for the list of bird species protected in Canada under the MBCA. They
include:
(1) Birds designated in Article 1 of the MBCA as amended under the 1995 Protocol [128].
(2) Species native or naturally occurring in Canada noted under regulations.
(3) Species known to regularly occur in Canada. Although species that occur infrequently (i.e., “accidentals”) and that meet criteria 1 and 2 are not included on this list, they continue to be considered as having protection
under the MBCA any time they occur in Canadian
territory.

While birds such as grouse, quail, pheasants, ptarmigan, and turkeys—which also in the U.S. are not migratory and/ or have been introduced (e.g., pheasants)—are not protected under MBCA nor the MBTA, in Canada birds such as hawks, owls, eagles, falcons, cormorants, pelicans, crows, jays, kingfishers, and some species of blackbirds are also not protected under MBCA. This represents a significant difference between MBTA protection in the U.S., and eagle protection under the U.S. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (discussed above) where all birds in the latter category are protected in the United States.

There are three introduced bird species that do not
meet criterion 2 above, but continue to appear on the MBCA list. They include the Mute Swan (Cygnus olor), the
Eurasian Collared-Dove (Streptopelia decaocto), and the Sky Lark (Alauda arvensis). Environment and Climate
Change Canada [128] continues to consult with provincial and territorial governments, which share responsibility for the management of birds in Canada, regarding a proposal to remove these species from the list of MBCA birds. Until a decision is reached by the concerned parties, these three species will remain under MBCA protection. The list of
birds protected under the MBCA follows the American Ornithologists’ Union’s Check-list of North American Birds, and its supplements to 2014, on matters of taxonomy,
nomenclature, and sequence [129].

European environmental laws: European
Union (EU) initiatives addressing
endangered species and habitat protection
The EU, with its 27 member nations, has recently implemented a four-pronged approach to better address species protection, recovery, and restoration of imperiled plants and animals found on the continent [130, 131]. This
includes:
– Species protection through a Birds Directive.
– Species protection under a Habitats Directive.
– Ensuring that plants and animals are not threatened
by illegal and/or unsustainable international wildlife
trade through stronger implementation of CITES—the
Convention discussed above [93].
– Developing and implementing an EU pollinators
initiative to reverse negative impacts to pollinators
including effects from EMF/RFR [132].

The EU began an ambitious effort in 2011 to develop and implement a Biodiversity Strategy to institute the framework for this four-pronged approach above. The Strategy includes the following targets:
(1) Protect 100% more habitats and 50% more species
above 2011 levels.
(2) Establish green infrastructure and restore at least 15% more ecosystems.
(3) Achieve more sustainable agriculture and forestry.
(4) Make fisheries more sustainable and the seas healthier. (5) Combat invasive alien species.
(6) Help stop or reverse the global loss of biodiversity.

At this writing, the EU may still be on track to achieve their strategy, although progress calls for a much greater effort among all parties involved, and the transition
from BREXIT is creating many difficulties, unknowns, and complexities [130–132].

It is clear that all industrialized Western countries are trying to address serious environmental issues with more and/or less success—depending on politics, funding, and the will to act. EMF as an environmental pollutant needs to be part of that effort.

Airspace as habitat: aeroecology
Birds, bats, insects, and other species that use airspace for critical life functions are of cornerstone significance to us all. Birds, for instance, provide key ecosystem functions that fuel multi-billion dollar industries through pollination and insect/weed/seed control in the agribusiness sector, as well as in the forestry industries. Without migratory birds, there would be untold problems and money spent globally for more pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals. In addition, in the U.S. alone, feeding, photographing, and observing birds fuels a $32 billion annual recreation industry, representing 20% of the U.S. adult population Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 17
431
Agenda Item # 9.
engaging in these activities. Human/bird-related activities are reportedly more popular than golf [26, 133].

Birds also have spiritual significance to indigenous
peoples. A number of migratory bird species—notably Bald and Golden Eagles, Common Ravens (Corvus corax),
American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), hawks, falcons, doves, owls, and hummingbirds—are revered and protected by the Tribal laws of several U.S. indigenous American Tribes and Canadian First Nation peoples. Some of these very species are at considerable risk from habitat disturbance/fragmentation, injury, and death, including from EMF and other radiation impacts which will undoubtedly increase exponentially without a change in human awareness.

We have a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to protect migratory species of every kind, the airborne included.

Impacts from EMF may add to species declines and ultimately threaten their survival if we do not understand and respond appropriately because airspace is as critical a habitat as are water and soils for non-airborne species.

Thus far we have failed to muster the macroscale vision of the air-as-habitat concept that also includes flora, which are exquisitely sensitive to the ELF of the Earth’s
geomagnetic fields with their root systems underground as well as to RFR with their primary stem and leaf growth in the air (see Part 2 and Part 2 Supplement 4). Humans have collectively done a poor job of addressing impacts to living organisms that use the airspace—most especially migratory birds, bats and beneficial insects—along with being negligent in protecting what is on, as well as below, the ground, and in aqueous environments. We need to understand EMF as a form of energetic air pollution, especially biologically active anthropogenic RFR that is endemic today in airspace.

Defining the habitat of airspace
The airspace used by plants and animals includes the
space just above ground level (AGL) to ceilings in excess of 26,245 ft (8 km) AGL. These upper ranges are used, for
example, by Demoiselle Cranes (Grus virgo) and other
migratory bird species, as well as Golden Eagles which prey on the cranes and other quarry. But airspace should be
considered as habitat for a variety of plants and animals too that use and depend on it during, and in some cases throughout, significant portions of their lives. These living organisms include, but are not limited to, flying insects, some arachnids, birds, bats, flying squirrels, flying fish, and some reptiles, as well as seeds, spores, vegetative plant parts, and forest canopies. Organisms use airspace for
purposes of transport, dispersal, feeding, mating, territorial defense, escape, migration, daily movements, and for other reasons [134]. In most cases, unimpeded airspace is critical to mating, nesting, survival, food acquisition, territorial defense, daily movements, and migrations of birds and bats (including microchiropterans and megachiropterans) [27, 109, 110].

Impacts to species using airspace have been well
documented, including of migratory birds and communication towers and their guy-wire support structures [135]— annual mortality now conservatively estimated at

6.8 million birds killed in the U.S. and Canada solely from collisions with communication structures [136–139]. However, the impacts to migratory birds, other wildlife, and plants generally do not include adequate cumulative effects analyses (cumulative biologically and under the legal mandates of NEPA). Cumulative effects under NEPA must
consider and evaluate all impacts from all human-built
structural sources including EMFs that they may emit and/ or receive, where applicable.

Currently, environmental impacts from RFR on wildlife
are not being assessed by the FCC, EPA, or the Department of Interior (DOI), nor is ELF-EMF being considered by the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding powerline exposures. However, it is important to note that precedent was set in 2014 when DOI publicly charged that the FCC’s
standards for RFR from cellular towers were outdated,
based on narrow thermal heating effects, and inadequate to protect migratory birds and other wildlife [139]. A
letter from DOI’s Director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance was sent in February 2014 to the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), housed in the Department of Commerce [140]. The letter—and subsequent meetings with staff from the U.S. FWS—resulted in the initiation of an EIS process under NEPA by NTIA to begin an independent research
study to address the impacts of radiation from cell towers on migratory birds using the airspace. Unfortunately, efforts languished and were completely suspended under the former Trump Administration with nothing similar initiated subsequent to that as of this writing. Under NEPA, cumulative effects must include impacts from all humanrelated sources that affect humans, wildlife, plants, and all living organisms that depend on/use airspace for survival.

The effects of EMF on flora and fauna remain widely
unassessed [27, 110].

Air as an actual habitat is a relatively new concept for many in the scientific community, including federal
agencies such as U.S. FWS whose goal (including for
wildlife that use the airspace) has been to “do no harm” [141]. Reducing harm to wildlife that use the airspace is a 18 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
432
Agenda Item # 9.
tall order because a lot of things occupy it—both permanently and on a temporary basis—but we do not generally think of it that way. Airspace interference and adverse effects to wildlife comes in many forms. For instance, in addition to the communication-tower bird-collision mortality estimates referenced by Longcore et al. [138] above, Manville [142] estimated that 440,000 protected migratory birds were killed annually by blade strikes at U.S. commercial wind energy facilities in 2008. Smallwood [143] increased that estimate to 573,000 bird fatalities per year (including 83,000 raptor deaths) based on increases in
commercial wind turbines, and estimated that an additional 888,000 bats died in turbine blade collisions annually in the U.S. In addition, based on the variety of survey methods used, differences in survey detail,
longevity of assessment, and robustness, as well as differences in infrastructures being investigated, Loss et al. [144] estimated between 8 and 57 million birds are killed annually by collisions with power distribution and transmission lines, and between 0.9 and 11.6 million birds die from wire and infrastructure electrocution each year in the U.S. This is not to mention the estimated 1.4–3.7 billion birds (median = 2.4 billion) killed annually in the U.S. by domestic and feral cats at ground level and/or near-ground while birds are in flight [145]; or the annual estimated 97.6– 976 million U.S. bird deaths from building window collisions [146] which Klem and Saenger [147] later estimated was greater than any other source of human-associated
bird mortality. Taken collectively, this is massive
anthropogenic-caused avian mortality, all of which occurs within the airspace. There are reduction strategies for some of these—like keeping domestic cats indoors and/or
placing bells on their collars, installing non-reflective window panes, and using vertical axis designs in wind
turbines—but these do not substantially solve the problem.

ELF and RFR problems can only be handled at the transmission source through use reduction. Approaches that use frequencies such as radar to repel birds only create an additional ambient source capable of affecting another
species, such as insects, in a different way.

The staggering avian mortality rates noted above fail to include impacts from pesticides, contaminants, oil spills, disease, parasites, natural mortality, predators, entanglement, and other non-airspace related sources. Impacts to individual animal and plant species are cumulative. The potential role that EMF plays in adverse effects to animals that use the airspace should be added to the list as a
growing concern based on evidence presented throughout
this three-part series of papers, and elsewhere.

Aeroecology—a macrovision
The interdisciplinary field of aeroecology has evolved to encompass a variety of issues affecting airspace. The
concept was founded around 2008 by Dr. T.H. Kunz, Professor of Biology and Director of the Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology at Boston University who sadly died from Covid-19 complications in April 2020. Kunz laid out an aeroecology vision that includes technological solutions for studying animals that use the aerosphere as well as the key questions that unite aeroecology. Frick et al. [148] wrote an excellent review of this emerging unifying
discipline.

Aeroecology integrates domains that include atmospheric science, animal behavior, ecology, evolution, earth science, geography, computer science, computational
biology, and engineering [134, 149, 150].

In 2008, Kunz and colleagues organized a symposium
in San Antonio, Texas, entitled, “Aeroecology: Probing and Modeling the Aerosphere: the Next Frontier.” At that
symposium and since, the concept evolved to define the
field, including:
– The aerosphere comprises one of the three major
components of our biosphere, yet it is one of the least understood substrata of the troposphere, especially in
regard to how organisms interact with and are influenced by this highly variable and fluid environment [134].
– The biotic interactions and physical properties in the aerosphere provide significant selective pressures that influence the size and shape of organisms, as well as
important influences affecting their behavioral, sensory, metabolic, and respiratory functions. – While organisms that spend their entire lives on land or in the water tend to be less varied based on adaptive pressures, organisms that use the airspace can be
immediately affected by the changing boundary layer
conditions of the airspace.
– These conditions include winds, air density, oxygen
concentrations, precipitation, air temperature, sunlight, polarized light, and moonlight, as well as geomagnetic and gravitational forces [134].

The authors of this paper would add to that growing
list the impacts of ELF and RFR to organisms that use the airspace at varying durations and intensities.

The discipline of aeroecology allows us to better assess the impacts from anthropogenic factors affecting wildlife that use the airspace—ranging from nearly all, or
Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 19
433
Agenda Item # 9.
significant portions of their lives, to minimal amounts of time. While no organism spends its entire life in the aerosphere, anthropogenic factors located within, or that directly or indirectly affect, the aerosphere can have significant impacts. These anthropogenic factors, for example, include skyscrapers, office buildings, homes,
structural lighting, city/community lighting, power transmission and distribution wires and infrastructure, radio/ television/cellular/emergency broadcast communication
towers and structures, commercial wind turbines, industrial solar arrays (especially ‘power’ towers and large solar panel facilities), bridges, aircraft, air pollution, increases in greenhouse gases, climate change, and radiation emitted from communication structures and related devices,
among others [26, 137]. Staff at U.S. FWS emphasized the importance of airspace as habitat, and garnered the
attention of top service officials to respond through
improved voluntary guidance addressing the various industries impacting airspace.

To study the impacts of communication structures on
migratory birds (including from RFR), the U.S. Forest Service invited the Division of Migratory Bird Management at U.S. FWS, to design and develop a research protocol to
study towers in several national forests in Arizona. While the protocol, which was written by one of the authors of this paper while at the U.S. FWS [151], would benefit from updating and peer-review, it nevertheless provides a
framework for independent studies of EMF impacts to
migratory birds, mammals, and other wildlife and plants in the field.

It is important that future studies be conducted by independent scientific sources without vested interests in the outcome. Such inquires clearly fall under the auspices of aeroecology. We first need the vision and will to move this forward.

Discussion: synthesis of linear and
nonlinear disciplines needed
Nonionizing EMF is virtually uncontrolled as an environmental pollutant. This was observed as far back as the 1970s [152] and has only gotten progressively worse with each passing decade. There are several reasons for this, including the likelihood that in many regulatory agencies there is an assumption that the science is not robust or adequately developed upon which to base regulations,
much less enforce them. There is also a pervasive attitude that risks to wildlife, if any, are minor compared to the human benefits of widespread wireless technology.

Technology is seen as beneficial in many environmental
circles for the information it can provide, for instance, via animal tracking devices (see Part 1), while potential adverse effects that create hidden variables from such devices rarely occur to environmental researchers. The need to study EMF effects is not obvious to many regulators or environmentalists. That may change once air is understood as ‘habitat’ and EMF is seen as an energetic pollution source.

Wildlife has also historically been considered resilient (despite much evidence to the contrary) and nonionizing radiation has been seen as relatively harmless beyond
tissue heating and electric shock. If non-human species have been considered at all regarding EMF, broad but
inaccurate assumptions have been made that protecting
humans from the worst adverse effects also extend to other species. What has been lacking is the right government
agency expertise with an understanding of how nonhuman species interact with exogenous EMFs, and at what intensities. There has never been funding in any agency to track or develop that area of interdisciplinary knowledge because the need was not obvious until recently. Other
than at the FCC which is mostly staffed with engineers who lack knowledge of biology, civil scientists who are trained in bioelectromagnetics and/or biophysics are found
throughout many regulatory agencies. Their work, however, is primarily focused on human health issues, not wildlife. Agencies tasked with wildlife protection have been completely defunded for such work—i.e., the U.S.

FWS which does not have a bioelectromagnetics expert on staff, and most importantly the U.S. EPA which at one time had the world’s foremost bioelectromagnetics basic
research laboratory staffed with scientists who made
groundbreaking discoveries (see Part 2, Mechanisms).

Many agencies have simply not replaced what little bioelectromagnetics expertise they have had when those scientists retire and new ones have not been trained or hired.

And it is only recently that environmental nonionizing radiation has increased to measurable levels high enough to warrant investigation to all living beings. Europe, for instance, is now taking an interest in potential 5G effects and developing standards that apply to wildlife protection [153].

One aspect of rising environmental EMF levels may,
however, spur attention—the shadow role it could be
playing in global climate change. Scientists know that
what occurs in the ionosphere directly affects our weather patterns—of sudden importance given the dramatic increase in satellites being deployed globally for 5G telecommunications (see Part 1). Erratic weather and its consequences have grown to dangerous levels in most
parts of the world. Thunderstorms increased 25% over
20 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
434
Agenda Item # 9.

North America between 1930 and 1975, vs. between 1900
and 1930 [154]. That period directly parallels our first introduction of environmental EMFs along with other
contaminants. As far back as 1975, a team of researchers at the Stanford University Radioscience Laboratories, then headed by Robert Helliwell, found evidence that powerline emissions are amplified within the magnetosphere [155], causing a veritable rain of electron precipitation into the ionosphere, which could theoretically lead to both highly localized as well as global changes in weather patterns.

The technologies we have added since 1975—both ELF and
RFR—which we assumed to be atmospherically benign,
may not be as harmless as originally thought. The exponential growth planned for 5G broadband (including MMW) from satellites and millions of accompanying
ground-based transmitters is certainly reason for caution.

It is already well established that MMW bands at 60 GHz are maximally absorbed by atmospheric oxygen (O2), as well
as by H2O at 24 GHz—ranges planned for 5G (see Part 1).

Oxygen molecules readily absorb the 60 GHz frequency
range and rain droplets easily attenuate signals [74–76, 156, 157]. In fact, at 60 GHz, 98% of transmitted energy is absorbed by atmospheric oxygen. This makes that frequency spectrum good for short-range transmission but no one understands how a large infusion of RFR in that band— or any other—may affect atmospherics. It could be highly destabilizing (see Part 1).

There is a need to re-integrate biology, which studies
whole dynamic living systems, with the non-living sciences of physics and engineering that focus on how to create and make technology work. The latter have dominated EMF
research and its applications in every way since the 1940s, including research protocols regarding human health and standards setting which are outside their areas of expertise.

Today, physics and biology—although fundamentally very
different disciplines with their own inherent cultures and biases—increasingly converge when it comes to environmental concerns. While we already understand how to make modern societies and accompanying technologies work, the most important questions now concern the potential effects to the living systems in the path of technology.

Electromagnetism is fundamental to life—indeed all
living things function with biological microcurrent without which life would not exist. Technology, which also requires EMF to function, therefore speaks the same fundamental
language as living cells. Yet biologists have consistently been left out of full participation in safety and environmental issues in anything other than cursory inclusion. If there is to be a better integration of physics and biology, it will need to be at the behest of the biology community. The physics/engineering disciplines have had the subject to themselves for decades and are somewhat territorial about it. Plus their inherent focus is on linear cause-effect dosimetry models in both technology design and exposure standards setting. They tend be less interested in the confounding complexities of biology which are mostly
nonlinear and unpredictable.

The natural world typically demonstrates nonlinear
dynamics, meaning that a small stimulus can result in a large, seemingly disproportionate outcome. The weather is nonlinear, for instance, as illustrated by the imagined “butterfly effect” in which a butterfly can theoretically flap its wings in Indonesia and cause a hurricane on the other side of the globe [158–160]. Some disease states are
nonlinear, allergies being a prime example. A person with a severe peanut allergy can go into anaphylactic shock by merely being in the same room with the offending agent. Or someone with an allergy to bees, upon experiencing a
sting, will react far out of proportion to the tiny amount of venom being injected by the insect. Physics and engineering, on the other hand, are highly linear—an exemplary asset in that realm. Humanity, after all, has no patience for machines or systems that don’t work [161].

Until there is a synthesis between physics/engineering
and biology, with an emphasis on nonlinear models, the
potential environmental effects of our increasing EMF exposures will not be well understood. Each area has much to learn from the other. Biologists can benefit from the precision emphasized in physics and engineering while physicists and engineers can benefit for the savvy that biologists have acquired in environmental observation, measurement, quantification, hypothesis testing, and
formulating policy in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Given the rising background levels in urban, rural, and some wilderness environments, EMF should be classified
as an energetic air pollutant capable of adversely affecting wildlife and habitats as delineated throughout these papers. Cumulative effects should be taken into consideration from myriad sources, and continuing evidence should be
evaluated by unbiased entities, including governments
and NGO’s. We can no longer presume that the status quo of ever-increasing EMF ambient levels is safe without much closer scrutiny.

Some solutions
Existing environmental laws in the U.S., Canada, and
throughout Europe should be enforced. For example, in the U.S., NEPA and its EISs should be required each time a new broadly polluting EMF technology like 5G is introduced, not as the current policy is being interpreted through
Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 21
435
Agenda Item # 9.
“CatEx” or simple dismissal. EISs should be required for all new technologies that create pervasive ambient EMF such as ‘smart’ grid/metering, Distributed Antenna Systems
(DAS), small cell networks, and the 5G “Internet of Things.” Where wildlife species are affected, systems and networks that currently meet radiation levels for CatEx (and are therefore exempt from review) should be required to
develop/implement NEPA and EIS reviews for cumulative
exposures to wildlife from multi-transmission sources.

Efforts should begin to develop acceptable exposure
and emissions standards for wildlife, which today do not exist. Setting actual exposure standards for wildlife will be an enormous challenge, and for some species there may be no safe thresholds, especially with 5G and MMW. We may
simply need to back away from many wireless technologies altogether, especially the densification of infrastructure, and refocus on developing better dedicated wired systems in urban, suburban and rural areas. Environmentally sensitive wilderness areas should be considered off limits for wireless infrastructure. Once air is seen as ‘habitat,’there may come a time when a cell phone call voluntarily not made will be understood as removing something detrimental from air’s waste-stream, the way we now see plastic bags regarding terrestrial/aquatic pollution.

There are some reasonably simple things that can be
done in the ELF ranges that would benefit insect, bird, and many wild mammal and ruminant species. For example,
high-tension electric utility corridors can be built or changed to cancel magnetic fields with different wiring configurations.

This is already widely done in the industry for other reasons but it also coincidentally eliminates at the source at least the magnetic field component for wildlife. There are other approaches too but further discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

Research into the long-term, low-level ambient exposures to humans and wildlife is imperative given the picture that is emerging. There is a likelihood that low-level ambient EMF is a factor, or co-factor, in some of the adverse environmental effects we witness today—many previously
discussed in this series of papers. There is currently no research in any industrialized country that looks to the broader implications to all flora and fauna from these rising background levels, even as effects to individual species are observed. This is an important, emerging environmental issue that must be addressed.

Conclusions
In this broad three-part review, we sought to clarify if rising ambient levels of EMF were within the range of effects
observed in in vitro, in vivo, and field studies in all animal phyla thus far investigated. We further discussed mechanisms pertinent to different animal physiology, behavior, and unique environments. The intention was to determine if current levels have the ability to impact wildlife species according to current studies. The amount of papers that find effects at today’s EMF levels to myriad species is robust. Some unusual patterns did emerge, including
broadly in flora that react beneficially to static EMF but adversely to AC-ELF and especially to RFR.

There is a very large database supporting the hypothesis that effects occur in unpredictable ways in numerous species in all representative taxa from modern ambient
exposures. Associations are strong enough to warrant
caution. New enlightened public policies are needed, as well as existing laws enforced, reflecting a broader
understanding of non-human species’ interactions with
environmental EMF. Emerging areas, such as aeroecology, help define airspace as habitat and bring better awareness of challenges faced by aerial species—including animals and plants. But we are in the nascent stages of understanding the full complexity and detailed components of electroecology—the larger category of how technology affects all biology and ecosystems.

Historically, control over the realm of nonionizing radiation has been the purview of the physics and engineering communities. It is time that the more appropriate branches of biological science, specializing in living systems, stepped up to fill in larger perspectives and more accurate knowledge. We need to task our technology sector engineers to create safer products and networks with an emphasis on wired systems, and to keep all EMF exposures as low as reasonably achievable.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the excellent reviewers who made this series of papers far better.

Research funding: None declared.

Author contributions: All authors have accepted
responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

Informed consent: Not applicable.

Ethical approval: Not applicable.

References

1. Zipse DW. Death by grounding. In: PCIC technical conference, IAS/ PCIC 08-03; 2008.

2. U.S. FCC 1997. Federal Communications Commission 1997.

Evaluating compliance with FCC-specified guidelines for human 22 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
436
Agenda Item # 9.
exposure to radiofrequency radiation. In: U.S. Federal
Communications Commission. Office of Engineering and
Technology, OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97–101, August 1997, Washington, DC; 1997:67 p. Available from: https://transition. fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering Technology/Documents/
bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf.

3. U.S. FCC 2020. U.S. Federal Communications Commission 2020.

Human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and reassessment of FCC radiofrequency exposure limits and
policies. A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/01/2020. The Federal Register; 2020. Available from: https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/ human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-andreassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency.

4. U.S. FCC 2020. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 2020. Federal register, human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields; correction. A proposed rule by the federal communications commission on 05/04/2020. Available from:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/04/
2020-08738/human-exposure-to-radiofrequencyelectromagnetic-fields-correction.

5. U.S. FCC 1999. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 1999.

Questions and answers about biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. In: U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and
Technology, OET bulletin 56, 4th ed., Washington, D.C.; 1999:3 p.

Available from: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf.

6. Cleveland RF. Human exposure to radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields: FCC guidelines; global standards; evaluating compliance; federal and local jurisdiction. In:

Levitt BB, editor. Cell towers, wireless convenience? Or environmental hazard? Proceedings of the cell towers forum, state of the science/state of the law. Authors Guild
backinprint.com Edition, Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, Inc.; 2011:
116–28 pp.

7. NCRP 1986, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Biological effects and exposure criteria for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, NCRP Report No. 86.

Bethesda, MD: Copyright NCRP; 1986.

8. NCRP 1993, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). A practical guide to the determination of human exposure to radiofrequency fields, NCRP Report No. 119.

Bethesda, MD: Copyright NCRP; 1993. For copies contact: NCRP Publications at: 1-800-229-2652.

9. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency
electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, ANSI/IEEE C95.1- 1992 (previously issued as IEEE C95.1-1991), Copyright 1992.

New York, NY, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE); 1992.

10. The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Public Law 104-104, February 8, 1996, 110 Stat 56, §704(b) (“RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS—within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93–62 to
prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions”). The FCC’s regulations governing exposure to RF radiation are found at 47 C.F.R. §§1.1307(b), 1.1310. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/ 104/plaws/publ104/PLAW-104publ104.pdf.

11. NRDC. Brief: Natural Resources Defense Council et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Envtl. Health Trust et al. v. FCC, D.C. Circuit Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138; 2020. Available from: https:// www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/amicus-brief-fcc-20200805. pdf.

12. Radio Frequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG). RF guideline issues identified by members of the federal RF Interagency Work Group, June 1999 Letter to Richard Tell, Chair, IEEE SCC28 (SC4), Risk Assessment Group; 1999. Available from: https://ehtrust. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1999-radiofrequencyinteragency-workgroup-letter.pdf.

13. Alster N. Captured agency, how the federal communications commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Cambridge, MA 02138, USA: Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University; 2015. Available from: https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ and https://ethics. harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency alster.pdf.

14. de Lorge JO. Operant behavior and colonic temperature of Macaca mulatta exposed to radiofrequency fields at and above resonant frequencies. Bioelectromagnetics 1984;5:233–46.

15. de Lorge J, Ezell CS. Observing-responses of rats exposed to 1.28- and 5.62-GHz microwaves. Bioelectromagnetics 1980;1:183–98.

16. ICNIRP 1998. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz).

Oberschleisseim, Germany: International Council on NonIonizing Radiation (ICNIRP); 1998.

17. ICNIRP 2010. International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation.

ICNIRP Publication – 2010 ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposures to time-varying electric and magnetic fields 1 Hz–100 kHz). Health Phys 2010;99:818–36.

18. ICNIRP 2020. International Commissions on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 KHz to 300 GHz), Health Physics; 2020. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/
ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf [Epub ahead of print].

19. ICNIRP 2020. Differences between the ICNIRP (2020) and previous guidelines: Difference between the 1998 and 2020 RF EMF Guidelines. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; 2020. Available from: https://www.icnirp. org/en/differences.html.

20. Hardell L, Nilsson M, Koppel T, Carlberg M. Aspects on the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 guidelines on radiofrequency radiation. J Canc Sci Clin Ther 2021;5:250–85.

21. Levitt BB, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ Rev 2010;18:369–95.

22. U.S. FCC FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 95 [ET Docket No. 03-137; FCC 13-39]. Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, AGENCY: Federal
Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. Federal
Register/Vol. 78, No. 107/Tuesday, June 4, 2013/Rules and Regulations. Available from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2013-06-04/pdf/2013-12716.pdf.

23. Levitt BB, Lai H. Comments filed, Docket No. 13-89. Before the Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of
Reassessment of Federal Communications Limits and Policies ET Docket No. 13-84, and Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 23
437
Agenda Item # 9.

Electromagnetic Fields ET Docket No. 03-137. Sect. 9,
Washington, D.C., USA 20554, August 24; 2013:12–3 pp.

24. Sage C, Carpenter DO. Public health implications of wireless technologies. Pathophysiology 2009;16:233–46.

25. BioInitiative Working Group. BioInitiative report: a rationale for a biologically-based public exposure standard for electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF). Report updated: 2014–2020. Sage, C., Carpenter, D.O (eds.); 2012. Available from: www.bioinitiative. org.

26. Manville AM, II. Impacts to birds and bats due to collisions and electrocutions from some tall structures in the United States – wires, towers, turbines, and solar arrays: state of the art in addressing the problems. In: Angelici FM, editor. Problematic wildlife: a cross-disciplinary approach, Chap. 20. Springer International Publishing; 2016:415–42pp.

27. Manville AM., II. A briefing memo: what we know, can infer, and don’t yet know about impacts from thermal and non-thermal nonionizing radiation to birds and other wildlife — for public release.

Peer-reviewed briefing memo, July 14, 2016. 12 pp.

28. Adey WR. Tissue interactions with nonionizing electromagnetic fields. Physiol Rev 1981;61:435–514.

29. Adey WR. Ionic nonequlibrium phenomena in tissue interactions with electromagnetic fields. In: Illinger KH, editor. Biological effects of nonionizing radiation. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Soc.; 1981:271–97 pp.

30. Adey WR. Nonlinear, nonequlibrium aspects of electromagnetic field interactions at cell membranes. In: Adey WR, Lawrence AF, editors. Nonlinear electrodynamics in biological systems. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press; 1984:3–22 pp.

31. Gandhi OP. The ANSI radio frequency safety standard: its rationale and some problems. IEEE Eng Med Biol 1987;6:22–5.

32. Frey AH, editor. On the nature of electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems. Austin, TX, USA: R.G.

Landes Company; 1994:5–6 pp.

33. Panagopoulos DJ, Margaritis LH. Theoretical considerations for the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. In: Stavroulakis P , editor. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields. New York, NY, USA: Springer International Publishing; 2003:5–33 pp.

34. Panagopoulos D, Karabarbounis A. Comment on “behavior of charged particles in a biological cell exposed to AC–DC electromagnetic fields” and on “comparison between two
models for interactions between electric and magnetic fields and proteins in cell membranes”. Environ Eng Sci 2011;28:749–51.

35. Panagopoulos DJ. Considering photons as spatially confined wave-packets. In: Reimer A, editor. Horizons in world physics.

New York, USA: Nova Science Publishing; 2015, vol 285.

36. Panagopoulos DJ. Man-made electromagnetic radiation is not quantized. In: Reimer A, editor. Horizons in world
physics. Nova Science Publishers, Inc; 2018, vol 296.

Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 327578880 Man-Made Electromagnetic Radiation Is
Not Quantized.

37. Peleg M. Biological phenomena are affected by aggregates of many radiofrequency photons. In: International conference on environmental indicators (ISEI), 11 to 14 Sept. 2011 in Haifa.

Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 233324730 Bioelectromagnetic phenomena are affected by
aggregates of many radiofrequency photons.

38. Peleg M. Thermodynamic perspective on the interaction of radio frequency radiation with living tissue. Int J Biophys 2012;2:1–6.

39. Bruno WJ. What does photon energy tell us about cellphone safety? arXiv preprint arXiv: 1104.5008; 2011. Available from:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5008.

40. U.S. FCC 2019, Docket 19-226 FCC 2019. In the Matter of Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies Targeted Changes to the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, Docket Nos. ET 03-137, 13-84, 19-226, FCC 2019 WL 6681944.

41. U.S. FCC 2020. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 2020c. FCC 19-226 comments. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/
search/filings?proceedings name=19-226&sort=date
disseminated. DESCcite FCC site.

42. Simkó M, Mattsson MO. 5G wireless communication and health effects – a pragmatic review based on available studies regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2019;16:3406.

43. Hardell L, Nyberg R. Comment: appeals that matter or not on a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation, 5G, for microwave radiation. Mol Clin Oncol 2020;12:247–57.

44. Buchner K, Ravasi M. The International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection: conflicts of interest, corporate capture and the push for 5G; 2020. June 2020 Online Report.

Available from: https://www.radiationresearch.org/campaigns/ the-international-commission-on-non-ionizing-radiationprotection-conflicts-of-interest-corporate-capture-and-thepush-for-5g/.

45. Melnick R. ICNIRP’S evaluation of the National Toxicology Program’s carcinogenicity studies on radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields. Health Phys 2020;118:678–82.

46. Leszczynski D. New ICNIRP Guidelines… nothing really new… just the same stonewalling. Between a Rock and a Hardplace.

Science Blog on Mobile Phone Radiation and Health by Dariusz Leszcyznski; 2020. Washington Post, USA, posted online January 23, 2020. Available from: https://betweenrockandhardplace. wordpress.com/2020/01/23/new-icnirp-guidelines-nothingreally-new-just-the-same-stonewalling/.

47. Kim S, Nasim I. Human electromagnetic field exposure in 5G at 28 GHz. IEEE Consumer Electron Mag 2020;9:41–8.

48. World Health Organization. Exposure limits for radio-frequency fields (public): Data by country. Global Health Observatory Data Repository. World Health Organization; 2017. May 31, 2017.

Available from: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.

EMFLIMITSPUBCRADIOFREQUENCYv.

49. Microwave News 2020. The lies must stop, disband ICNIRP, facts matter, now more than ever; 2020. Available rom: https:// microwavenews.com/news-center/time-clean-house.

50. NRDC. United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Okla. V.

FCC, 933 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2019); 2019.

51. Env’t Health Tr. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, No. 20-1025, 2021 WL 3573769, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021); 2021. Available from:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
FB976465BF00F8BD85258730004EFDF7/$file/20-1025-1910111. pdf.

52. Balmori A. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology 2009;16:191–9.

53. Balmori A. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on wild mammals: a new “poison” with a slow effect on nature?
Environmentalist 2010;30:90–7.
24 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
438
Agenda Item # 9.

54. Balmori A. Electrosmog and species conservation. Sci Total Environ 2014;496:314–6.

55. Balmori A. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Sci Total Environ 2015;518–519:58–60.

56. Balmori A. Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects. Sci Total Environ 2021;767:144913.

57. Engels S, Schneider NL, Lefeldt N, Hein CM, Zapka M, Michalik A, et al. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature 2014;509:353–6.

58. Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 1997;18:455–61.

59. Nicholls B, Racey PA. Bats avoid radar installations: could electromagnetic fields deter bats from colliding with wind turbines? PLoS One 2007;2:e297.

60. Nicholls B, Racey PA. The aversive effect of electromagnetic radiation on foraging bats: a possible means of discouraging bats from approaching wind turbines. PLoS One 2009;4:
e6246.

61. Schwarze S, Schneibder NL, Reichl T, Dreyer D, Lefeldt N, Engels S, et al. Weak broadband electromagnetic fields are more disruptive to magnetic compass orientation in a night-migratory songbird (Erithacus rubecula) than strong narrow-band fields.

Front Behav Neurosci 2016;10:55.

62. Wiltschko R, Thalau P, Gehring D, Nießner C, Ritz T, Wiltschko W.

Magnetoreception in birds: the effect of radio-frequency fields.

J R Soc Interface 2015;12:20141103.

63. Zosangzuali M, Lalremruati M, Lalmuansangi C, Nghakliana F, Pachuau L, Bandara P, et al. Effects of radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation emitted from a mobile phone base station on the redox homeostasis in different organs of Swiss albino mice. Electromagn Biol Med 2021;40:393–407.

64. Gandhi O, Riazi A. Absorption of millimeter waves by human beings and its biological implications. IEEE Trans Microw Theor Tech 1986;34:228–35.

65. Betzalel N, Feldman Y, Ishai B. The Modeling of the absorbance of sub-THz radiation by human skin. IEEE Trans Terahertz Sci Technol 2018;7:521–8.

66. Cosentino K, Beneduci A, Ramundo-Orlando A, Chidichimo G. The influence of millimeter waves on the physical properties of large and giant unilamellar vesicles. J Biol Phys 2013;39:395–410.

67. Betzalel N, Ishai P, Feldman Y. The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – does 5G pose a danger to it or not? Environ Res 2018; 163:208–16.

68. Marshall TG, Rumann Heil TJ. Electrosmog and autoimmune disease. Immunol Res 2017;65:129–35.

69. Betskii OV, Devyatkov ND, Kislov VV. Low intensity millimeter waves in medicine and biology. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 2000;28:
247–68.

70. Betzkii OV. Use of low-intensity electromagnetic millimeter waves in medicine. Millimetrovie Volni Biol Med 1992;1:5–12 (in Russian).

71. Pakhomov AG, Akyel Y, Pakhomova ON, Stuck BE, Murphy MR.

Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves: a review of the literature. Bioelectromagnetics 1998;19:393–413.

72. Golant MB. Problem of the resonance action of coherent electromagnetic radiations of the millimetre wave range on living organisms. Biophysics 1989;34:370–82.

73. Golant MB. Resonance effect of coherent millimetre-band electromagnetic waves on living organisms. Biofizika 1989;34:
1004–14 (in Russian). English translation: Biophysics 1989:34:
1086–98.

74. U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Federal
Communications Commission Office of Engineering and
Technology bulletin number 70 July, 1997, millimeter wave propagation: spectrum management implications. Federal
Communications Commission Office of Engineering and
Technology, New Technology Development Division; 1997.

Available from: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Engineering Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet70/oet70a. pdf.

75. Hakusui SS. Fixed wireless communications at 60 GHz unique oxygen absorption properties. RF Globalnet, News; 2001.

Available from: https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/
fixedwireless-communications-at-60ghz-unique-0001.

76. Koh C. The benefits of 60 GHz unlicensed wireless
communications. Comments filed at FCC; 2004. Available from:
https://www.fcc.gov/file/14379/download.

77. Berezhinskii LL, Gridina NI, Dovbeshko GI, Lisitsa MP, Litvinov GS . Visualization of the effects of millimeter radiation on extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation on the function blood plasma. Biofizika 1993;38:378–84 (in Russian).

78. Fesenko EE, Gluvstein AY. Changes in the state of water induced by radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. FEBS Lett 1995;367:
53–5.

79. Khizhnyak EP, Ziskin MC. Temperature oscillations in liquid media caused by continuous (nonmodulated) millimeter
wavelength electromagnetic irradiation. Bioelectromagnetics 1996;17:223–9.

80. Kudryashova VA, Zavizion VA, Khurgin YV. Effects of stabilization and destruction of water structure by amino acids. In: Moscow, Russia: 10th Russian symposium “millimeter waves in medicine and biology” (Digest of papers). Moscow: IRE RAN; 1995:213–5 pp. (in Russian).

81. Litvinov GS, Gridina NY, Dovbeshko GI, Berezhinsky LI, Lisitsa MP . Millimeter wave effect on blood plasma solution. ElectroMagnetobiol 1994;13:167–74.

82. Zavizion VA, Kudriashova VA, Khurgin YI. Effect of alpha-amino acids on the interaction of millimeter-wave radiation with water.

Millimetrovie Volni Biol Med 1994;3:46–52 (in Russian).

83. Betskii OV, Lebedeva NN. Low-intensity millimeter waves in biology and medicine. Available from: https://
stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lowintensity-Millimeter-Waves-in-Biology-and-Medicineby-O.V.- Betskii-and-N.N.-Lebedeva-Moscow-Russia-2000.pdf.

84. Akoev GN, Avelev VD, Semen’kov PG. Perception of the low level millimeter-range electromagnetic radiation by electroreceptors of the ray. Dokl Akad Nauk 1992;322:791–4 (in Russian).

85. Michaelson SM, Lin JC. Biological effects and health implications of radiofrequency radiation. New York and London: Plenum Press; 1987:272–7 pp.

86. Thielens A, Bell D, Mortimore DB, Greco MK, Martens L, Joseph W.

Exposure of insects to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Sci Rep 2018;8:3924.

87. Thielens A, Greco MK, Verloock L, Martens L, Joseph W.

Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure of western honey bees. Sci Rep 2020;10:461.

Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 25
439
Agenda Item # 9.

88. Tanner JA. Effect of microwave radiation on birds. Nature 1966; 210:636.

89. Tanner JA, Romero-Sierra C, Davie SJ. Non-thermal effects of microwave radiation on birds. Nature 1967;216:1139.

90. Yong E. Robins can literally see magnetic fields, but only if their visions is sharp. DiscoverMagazine.com. Available from: http:// blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/07/08/ robins-can-literally-see-magnetic-fields-but-only-if-theirvisionis-sharp/#.WlU2d3lG3Z4.

91. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Available from: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/ pdf/ESAall.pdf and https://www.fws.gov/endangered/lawspolicies/esa.html.

92. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq).

Revisions available from: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ improving ESA/regulation-revisions.html.

93. Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES 1973). Available from: https://www.fws. gov/international/cites.

94. Endangered species act (ESA) of 1973, section 4(b)3(A), candidate species. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/ endangered///laws-policies/section-4.html.

95. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Engendered species. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

96. U.S. National oceanic and atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) national marine fisheries service (NMFS). Available from: www. fisheries.noaa.gov/laws-and-policies/glossary-end.

97. Endangered Species Act (ESA97) of 1973. Section 7: Interagency Cooperation. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/ Endangered/section7/section7.html and Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Interagency Cooperation U.S.C. S. 1536(a)(2).

Available from: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=% 2Fprelim%40title16%2Fchapter35&edition=prelim.

98. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Section 10: exceptions.

Available from: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/lawspolicies/section-10.html.

99. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. List of endangered and threatened species. Available from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ ecp0/reports/ad-hoc-species-report?kingdom=V&
kingdom=I&status=E&status=T&status=EmE&
status=EmT&status=EXPE&status=EXPN&status=SAE&status
=SAT&mapstatus=3&fcrithab=on&fstatus=on&fspecrule
=on&finvpop=on&fgroup=on&header=Listed+Animals.
100. The California Biologists Handbook 2021. Section 10 ESA – HCP process. Available from: https://biologistshandbook.com/ permits/federal-permits/section-10-consultation-federal-esa. 101. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Section 11 penalties and enforcement. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/
endangered/laws-policies/section-11.html.
102. Endangered Species Act (ESAd) of 1973. U.S. Department of Justice. Implementation of ESA and related litigation. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/endangered-species-act. 103. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16. U.S.C. 703-712, MBTA).

Available from: https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-andregulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php? mod=article inline.
104. Code of Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 10.13 list). List of Endangered, threatened and species of special concern.

Gpo.gov e-CFR Navigation aids. Current May 28, 2021. Available from: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?
SID=b85587342ebe4f607983dfb6d1e07461&mc=true
&node=se50.1.10 113&rgn=div8.
105. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Birds: Available from:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds. php and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/.
106. United States Department of the Interior 2021. Letter and Memorandum regarding: M-37065, To: Secretary Assistant
Secretary – Fish and Wildlife and Parks, From: Principal Deputy Solicitor. Subject: Permanent Withdrawal of Solicitor Opinion M37050 “The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take”. Washington, D.C: Office of the Solicitor. March 8, 2021. Available from: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/permanent-withdrawl-of-sol-m-37050-mbta-3.8.2021.pdf. 107. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC).

Arlington, Virginia: United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2008:85 p. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/ grants/BirdsofConservationConcern2008.pdf.
108. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 2901-2912). Available from: https://www.fws.gov/ laws/lawsdigest/FWCON.HTML.
109. Manville AM, II. Anthropogenic-related bird mortality focusing on steps to address human-caused problems. A white paper for the Anthropogenic Panel. In: 5th International Partners in Flight Conference, August 27, 2013. Utah: Snowbird; 2013:16 p. 110. Manville AM. Status of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developments with communication towers with a focus on
migratory birds: updates to Service staff involved with tower issues. In: Webinar summary talking points 2014:14 p.
111. Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds; 2001. Available from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/ 17/01-1387/responsibilities-of-federal-agencies-to-protectmigratory-birds. 112. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (50 C.F.R. 22.,

22.26 and 22.27). Available from: https://www.fws.gov/
southeast/our-services/permits/eagles/.
113. Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Module 1 – Land-based Wind Energy Version 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Migratory Bird Management; 2013. Available from: https://fws. gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/
eagleconservationplanguidance.pdf.
114. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. 1969. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/summary-national-environmental-policy-act. 115. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Available from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National Environmental
Policy Act.
116. Categorical exclusions 40 C.F.R. §1508.4. Available from:
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2010-title40-vol32/ CFR-2010-title40-vol32-sec1508-4 and https://www.law.
cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/1508.4. 115 p.
117. U.S. FCC. U.S. Federal Communications Commission 2019a.

Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing
Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, FCC 18-30, WT Docket No. 17-79. A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 11/05/2019. The Federal Register; 2019. Available from: https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/05/2019-24071/ accelerating-wireless-broadband-deployment-by-removingbarriers-to-infrastructure-investment. 26 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
440
Agenda Item # 9.
118. Montgomery County v. FCC et al. Case: 19-70123, 06/10/2019, ID: 11325914; 2019. Reply brief available from: https://www. montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/
ZTAFiles/Mont%20Co%20Reply%20Brief%20(RF%
20emissions).pdf.
119. H.R. 6488 (116th). Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure Act of 2020. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/housebill/6488?s=1&r=3. 120. Species at Risk Act (SARA S.C. 2002, c. 29). Available from:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/.
121. Species at Risk Act (SARA S.C. 2002, c. 29). List of Wildlife Species at Risk. Available from: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ eng/acts/s-15.3/page-17.html#h-435647.
122. Species at Risk Act (SARA S.C. 2002, c. 29). Critical Habitat.

Available from: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/. 123. Species at Risk Act (SARA S.C. 2002, c.29) Recovery of Endangered, Threatened and Extirpated Species. Available from: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-15.3/page-5. html#h-434811.
124. Environment and Climate Change Canada – Canada. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climatechange.html. 125. Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) 1994 (S.C. 1994, c. 22).

Available from: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-7.01/. 126. Migratory Birds Regulations (C.R.C., c. 1035) Available from:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.%2C c. 1035/index.html.
127. UN Convention on Biodiversity 2021. Available from: https://www. un.org/en/observances/biological-diversity-day/convention. 128. Migratory Birds Convention as amended under the 1995 Protocol. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/
environment-climate-change/services/migratory-birds-legalprotection/convention-act.html. 129. Chesser RT, Billerman SM, Burns KJ, Cicero C, Dunn JL, Kratter AW, et al. Check-list of North American Birds (online).

American Ornithological Society; 2020. Available from: http:// checklist.aou.org/taxa.
130. European Commission 2020. Nature and Biodiversity Law.

Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ legislation/index en.htm.
131. European Commission 2020. Birds Directive. Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/
birdsdirective/.
132. European Commission 2021. Progress in the implementation of the EU Pollinators Initiative 2021. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions. Brussels, 27.5.2021 COM(2021) 261 final. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/nature/
conservation/species/pollinators/Progress in the
implementation of the EU Pollinators Initiative.pdf.
133. Carter E. Birding in the United States: demographic and economic analyses. Arlington, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report 2011-1; 2013:16 p.
134. Kunz TH, Gauthreaux SA Jr., Hristov NI, Horn JW, Jones G, Kalko EKV, et al. Aeroecology: probling and modeling the aerospace. Integr Comp Biol 2008;48:1–11.
135. Manville AM, II. Recommended lighting standards and lighting protocols for structures requiring pilot warning lighting, and for security lighting purposes. Peer-reviewed report. Div. Mgt. Bird Mgt., USFWS; 2013:6 p.
136. Manville AM, II. Comments of the U.S. Fish and wildlife service submitted electronically to the FCC on 47 CFR parts 1 and 17, WT docket No. 03-187, FCC 06-164, notice of proposed rulemaking.

Effects of Communication Towers on Migratory Birds. February 2, 2007; 2007:32 p.
137. Manville AM. Status of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developments with communication towers with a focus on
migratory birds: updates to Service staff involved with tower issues. A Webinar. Talking points and literature citations; 2014:
13 p. Available to the Public [Released to the public March 7, 2014.
138. Longcore T, Rich CP, Mineau PB, MacDonald B, Bert DG, Sullivan LM, et al. An estimate of avian mortality at
communication towers in the United States and Canada. PLoS One 2012;7:e34025.
139. Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. Dept. of Interior attacks FCC regarding impact of cell tower radiation on wildlife. Press release; 2014:2 p. March 24, 2014.
140. Department of Interior. Letter from W.R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance to E. Veenendaal, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, ER 14/0001) (ER 14/0004), Feb. 7, 2014; 2014:8 p. Available from: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/ 1070795887708/Department%20of%20Interior%20Feb%
202014%20letter%20on%20Birds%20and%20RF.pdf.
141. Manville AM, II. U.S. Fish and wildlife service involvement with towers, turbines, power lines, buildings, bridges and MBTA E.O. 13186 MOUs – lessons learned and next steps. In: Migratory Bird Treaty Act Meeting – a workshop held in the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Lacey, WA. March 20, 2009, 32 PowerPoint slides; 2009.
142. Manville AM, II. Towers, turbines, power lines and buildings – steps being taken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid or minimize take of migratory birds at these structures. In:

Rich TD, Arizmendi C, Demarest DW, Thompson C, editors.

Tundra to tropics: connecting birds, habitats and people.

Proceedings 4th international partners in flight conference, Texas. McAllen; 2009:262–72 pp.
143. Smallwood KS. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildl Soc Bull 2013:37:19–33.
144. Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP. Refining estimates of bird collision and electrocution mortality at power lines in the United States. PLoS One 2014;9:e101565.
145. Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP. The impact of free ranging domestic cats on wildlife in the United States. Nat Commun 2013;4:1396. 146. Klem D, Jr. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of mortality on earth. In: Rich TD, Arizmendi C, Demarest DW, Thompson C, editors. Tundra to tropics:
connecting birds, habitats and people. Proceedings 4th
international partners in flight conference, Texas. McAllen; 2009:244–54 pp.
147. Klem D, Jr, Saenger PG. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. Wilson J Ornithol 2013;125:406–11.
148. Frick W, Chilson P, Fuller N, Bridge E, Kunz T. Aeroecology. In:

Adams RA, Pedersen SC, editors. Bat evolution, ecology, and conservation. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2013.

Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 27
441
Agenda Item # 9.
149. Hristov NI, Betke M, Kunz TH. Applications of thermal infrared imaging for research in aeroecology. Integr Comp Biol 2008;48:
50–9.
150. Horn JW, Kunz TH. Analyzing NEXRAD Doppler radar images to assess nightly dispersal patterns and population trends in Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida basiliensis). Integr Comp Biol 2008;48:24–39.
151. Manville AM, II. Protocol for monitoring the impacts of cellular communication towers on migratory birds within the Coconino, Prescott, and Kaibab National Forests, Arizona. Peer-reviewed research monitoring protocol requested by and prepared for the U.S. Forest Service. Division of Migratory Bird Management, USFWS, March 2002; 2002:9 p.
152. Tanner JA, Romero-Sierra C. Biological effects of nonionizing radiation: an outline of fundamental laws. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1974;238:263–72.
153. Thielens A. Environmental impacts of 5G: a literature review of effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposure of non-human vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA). European Parliament; 2021:137 p. PE 690.021.
154. National Climate Assessment 2014, Melillo JM,
Richmond TC, Yohe GW, editors. Out Changing Climate:

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third
National Climate Change Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program 19-67. GlobalChange.gov. National
Academy of Sciences.
155. Raghuram R, Bell TF, Helliwell RA, Katsufrakis JP. A quiet band produced by VLF transmitter signals in the magnetosphere.

Geophys Res Lett 1977;4:199–202.
156. Hakusui SS. Fixed wireless communications at 60 GHz unique oxygen absorption properties. RF Globalnet, News; 2001. https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/fixed-wirelesscommunications-at-60ghz-unique-0001. 157. Helliwell RA. Whistlers and related ionospheric phenomena.

Mineola, NY, USA: Dover Publications; 1965.
158. Lorenz EN. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J Atmos Sci 1963;20:
130–41.
159. Lorenz EN. The predictability of hydrodynamic flow. Trans N Y Acad Sci 1963;25:409–32.
160. Lorenz EN. Predictability. In: AAAS 139th meeting, Washington, DC, USA; 1972.
161. Marino A. Assessing health risks of cell towers. In:

Levitt BB, editor, Cell towers, wireless convenience? Or environmental hazard? Proceedings of the cell towers forum, state of the science/state of the law. Authors Guild
backinprint.com Edition. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, Inc.; 2011:87–103 pp.
28 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
442
Agenda Item # 9.
443
Agenda Item # 9.

4. Bee studies on electromagnetic radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5. Action mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

6. The precautionary principle and the importance of seriously considering EMR as a factor of insect decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. Insects and their importance in ecosystem services
There are numerous studies that show the fundamental importance of insects as key species in ecosystems (see for example: Noriega et al., 2018). Some of the most important ecosystem services they provide are climate regulation, crop pollination, pest control, decomposition and seed dispersal (Kremen and Chaplin Kramer, 2007; Schowalter, 2013). Insects are at the structural and functional base of many of the world's ecosystems (Sánchez Bayo and Wyckhuys, 2019), and numer ous birds, lizards, frogs and bats feeds on insects (Nocera et al., 2012).

The group of insect pollinators plays an important role in crop pollina tion, and insects provide an important contribution to crops as well as to wild plants (Powney et al., 2019).

2. The current decline of insects and causative drivers of this decline Numerous studies have reported the serious decline in insects that has occurred in recent decades (Vogel, 2017). A study carried out in protected nature areas throughout Germany found a 76 82% decline in total flying insects between 1989 and 2016. The authors consider that agricultural intensification, with increased use of pesticide and fertilisers, may have aggravated the reduction in insect abundance over the last decades, whereas landscape modifications and climate change are unlikely explanatory factors (Hallmann et al., 2017).

A study of insects crashing into car windscreens in rural Denmark, based on data collected between 1997 and 2017, concluded that the number of insects had decreased by 80% in those 20 years, and the au thors point out that reductions in insect abundance must mainly be at tributed to agricultural practices and pesticide use (Møller, 2019). In a survey conducted in Kent (UK) in 2019, which examined the presence of crushed insects in the front grille above the licence plates of cars, a 50% reduction compared to 2004 was reported (Tinsley Marshall et al., 2019).

Some authors also point out climate change as a cause of insect de cline (Baranov et al., 2020). In a tropical rainforest in Puerto Rico, one study found a 30 to 60 fold decline (a 97 98% decline) in total insects captured in sticky traps between 1976 and 2012. This decline may be at tributed to climate change, since between 1976 and 2012, mean maxi mum temperatures have risen by 2.0 °C, and tropical arthropods are particularly vulnerable to climate warming (Lister and Garcia, 2018).

However, in colder climes and the mountains of temperate zones, this factor affects only a minority of species (Sánchez Bayo and Wyckhuys, 2019).

After reviewing 73 historical reports of insect declines from across the globe, a recent study revealed that the biodiversity of insects is threatened worldwide (Sánchez Bayo and Wyckhuys, 2019). The rates of decline may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species, both specialists and generalists. Based on the results of this review, the most affected groups in terrestrial ecosystems are Lepidoptera, Hyme noptera and Coleoptera, whereas in terms of aquatic taxa, Odonata, Ple coptera, Trichoptera and Ephemeroptera are most affected. The authors conclude that the main plausible drivers are, in order of importance:
i) habitat loss and conversion to intensive agriculture and urbanisation; ii) pollution, mainly by synthetic pesticides and fertilisers; iii) patho gens and introduced species; iv) climate change (Sánchez Bayo and Wyckhuys, 2019).

This same is happening with the important group of pollinators. A study has found evidence of declines across a large proportion of pollina tor species in Britain between 1980 and 2013 (Powney et al., 2019).

Another study strongly suggests a causal connection between local ex tinctions of functionally linked plant and pollinator species (Biesmeijer et al., 2006). Further, pollinator populations may collapse suddenly once drivers of pollinator decline reach a critical point (Lever et al., 2014).

Key threats to pollinators include agricultural intensification (particularly habitat loss and pesticide use), climate change and the spread of alien spe cies (Powney et al., 2019). The decline of pollinators may have important ecological and economic impacts that could significantly affect the main tenance of wild plant diversity, crop production and human welfare (Lázaro et al., 2016).

Loss of insect diversity and abundance is expected to provoke cas cading effects on food webs and ecosystem services (Hallmann et al., 2017; Møller, 2019). For example, associated with the decline of insects, parallel decreases in insectivorous lizards, frogs and birds have been documented (Lister and Garcia, 2018). Pesticides have dramatically al tered insect community structures and decimated populations, trigger ing nutritional consequences for aerially foraging insectivorous birds and bats (Nebel et al., 2010; Nocera et al., 2012). Agriculture is the larg est contributor to insect and biodiversity loss, destroying biodiversity by converting natural habitats into intensely managed systems and by re leasing pollutants, fertilisers and pesticides (Dudley and Alexander, 2017).

3. Scientific evidence for electromagnetic radiation as a factor contributing to insect decline Insects are especially sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. An increasing number of reports indicate that flies and spiders, among other invertebrates, disappear from areas that receive the highest levels of radiation from mobile telephone antennas, and these ob servations are consistent with numerous laboratory studies show ing the negative effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on reproductive success, development and navigation (Balmori, 2009; Lázaro et al., 2016).

Evidence for the effects of non thermal microwave radiation on in sects has been known for at least 50 years, e.g., the abnormal develop ment of irradiated coleopteran pupae (Carpenter and Livstone, 1971).

Radio frequency (RF) signals produced by mobile phones increased the numbers of offspring, elevated hsp70 levels by non thermal stress and caused other effects on reproduction and development of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster (Weisbrot et al., 2003). Another study showed that the reproductive capacity of fruit flies decreased by 50 60% after exposure to the RF signal of a mobile phone during the first 2 5 days of adult life (Panagopoulos et al., 2004). The same authors compared the biological activities of the two systems, GSM (900 MHz) and DCS (1800 MHz), and concluded that both types of radiation signif icantly decrease the reproductive capacity of fruit flies (Panagopoulos et al., 2007). This non thermal effect diminished with distance (decreas ing intensity) and is provoked by induction of cell death (Panagopoulos et al., 2010).

Other authors have also worked with this species and have observed a statistically significant decrease in mean fecundity (Atli and Ünlü, 2006). Further, the mean pupation time was delayed linearly with an in creasing period of exposure to an electromagnetic field (EMF), and the A. Balmori Science of the Total Environment 767 (2021) 144913 2 444
Agenda Item # 9.
mean offspring number was significantly lower than that of the control (Atli and Ünlü, 2007). Pupae from another dipteran, the house fly Musca domestica, were exposed to an EMF (50 Hz), and the results showed that the field significantly slowed down metamorphosis (Stanojević et al., 2005).

Insects may be equipped with the same magnetoreception system as birds, and there is evidence that the geomagnetic field reception in the American cockroach is sensitive to a weak RF field (Vácha et al., 2009).

Several laboratory studies have been carried out with ants, demonstrat ing the important effects of artificial EMFs on their orientation by geo magnetic fields (Camlitepe et al., 2005). Other authors demonstrate how changes of low intensity in the normal local magnetic field values affect the behaviour of workers of three magnetosensitive ant species, inducing significant changes in their foraging activities (Pereira et al., 2019). Belgian researchers experimentally demonstrated the effect of 900 MHz electromagnetic waves on ant olfactory and visual learning, revealing an impact on their physiology (Cammaerts et al., 2012). The ants' speed of movement was immediately altered by the presence of electromagnetic waves (Cammaerts and Johansson, 2014). These au thors state that electromagnetic radiation affects the behaviour and physiology of social insects, and such results provide convincing evi dence of a negative impact of electromagnetic waves on insects, at least on those whose life depends on communication and memory (Cammaerts et al., 2012). Wireless technology has negative impacts on living organisms; ants react quickly to the existence of electromag netic waves in their environment, and bees may behave abnormally when exposed to EMFs generated by GSM masts (Cammaerts et al., 2013).

To replace chemical insecticides for controlling pests of various spe cies of plants and seeds, in several different studies, radiofrequency ex posure was applied to Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera), Maruca vitrata (Lepidoptera), Nysius plebeius and Nysius hidakai (Hemiptera).

The EMF affected the developmental period, adult longevity, adult weight and the fecundity of subsequent generations in all these species of insects from different orders in the same way (Maharjan et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2020).

Studies have also been conducted on other invertebrates. A study performed in an RF electromagnetic field (RF EMF) anechoic chamber, irradiating ticks (Dermacentor reticulatus) with a 900 MHz RF EMF at levels below the proposed limit for public exposure to mobile phone base stations, found that exposure induces an immediate tick locomotor response manifested as a jerking movement, and ticks exhibited overall significantly greater movement in the presence of this electromagnetic radiation (Vargová et al., 2017).

In some studies conducted in natural habitats with real phone masts, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by telecommunication anten nas affected the abundance and composition of several guilds of wild pollinator insects (Lázaro et al., 2016). Another study, also carried out in the field, examined the impact of exposure to the fields from mobile phone base stations (GSM 900 MHz) for a 48 h period on the reproduc tive capacity of four different invertebrate species. Although a signifi cant impact on reproductive capacity was not found, probably because the exposure time was too short, the authors warned that more atten tion should be paid to the possible impacts of EMF radiation on biodiver sity because the exposure to an RF EMF is ubiquitous and is still increasing rapidly over large areas (Vijver et al., 2014).

As a result of most of the studies carried out, EMF radiation can be a problem for insects and for their orientation (Balmori, 2006, 2009, 2014 and 2015), and both laboratory and field studies on different inverte brate species have shown this.

4. Bee studies on electromagnetic radiation
Bees are highly sensitive to magnetic fields, especially for orientation and navigation, and for this reason, most of such studies have been car ried out on bees. Adult honeybees possess a magnetoreception sense, and significant differences in their return rates have indicated that in teractions exist between forager losses and exposure to magnetic fields, as well as during fluctuations in the Earth's magnetosphere (Ferrari, 2014).

The first study on the effects of EMFs on bees were carried out under power lines. Honeybee colonies exposed to a 765 kV, 60 Hz transmis sion line at 7 kV/m showed increased motor activity, abnormal propolisation, impaired hive weight gain, queen loss, abnormal produc tion of queen cells, decreased sealed brood and poor winter survival.

When the colonies were exposed to different electric fields with in creasing distance from the line, different thresholds for biological effects were obtained (Greenberg et al., 1981). Another more recent study has shown that the extremely low frequency EMF (50 Hz) emitted from powerlines affects honeybee olfactory learning, flight, foraging activity and feeding and may represent a prominent environmental stressor for honeybees, potentially reducing their ability to pollinate crops (Shepherd et al., 2018). In Italy, deleterious results of both pesticides and EMFs from a 132 kV (50 Hz) high voltage power line have been found. In the electromagnetic stress site, the effect of a behavioural over activation of all analysed biomarkers was observed at the end of the season, and this finding poses potential problems for the winter sur vival of bees (Lupi et al., 2020).

Lopatina et al. (2019) studied the effect of non ionising EMR from a Wi Fi router on sensory olfactory excitability, food motivation and memory in honeybees and observed that a 24 hour exposure to Wi Fi EMR had a significant inhibitory effect on food excitability and short term memory. In natural conditions, worker piping announces either the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of disturbance, and active mobile phone handsets have a dramatic impact on the be haviour of the bees by inducing the worker piping signal (Favre, 2011). In another study, with GSM (900 MHz) cell phones, a significant decline in colony strength and egg laying rate by the queen was ob served. The behaviour of exposed foragers was negatively influenced by such exposure: there was neither honey nor pollen in the colony at the end of the experiment (Sharma and Kumar, 2010). In another study, queens exposed to telephone radiation in the test colonies pro duced fewer eggs/day compared to the control (Sainudeen Sahib, 2011). A more recent study provided solid evidence that mobile phone radiation significantly reduces hatching and may alter pupal de velopment (Odemer and Odemer, 2019).

In a study carried out in Germany, with bees exposed to DECT radi ation, only a few bees returned to the beehive, and they needed more time; also, honeycomb weight was lower in irradiated beehives (Stever et al., 2005; Harst et al., 2006). The concentrations of carbohy drates, proteins and lipids in the haemolymph increased under the in fluence of cell phone radiation (Kumar et al., 2013). Another study observed an increase in mortality in two conditions: after exposure to HF (13.56 MHz) and to UHF (868 MHz) (Darney et al., 2016).

Regarding the colony collapse disorder (CCD) observed in honeybee colonies around the world, several authors consider that EMR exposure provides a better explanation than other theories (Sainudeen Sahib, 2011; Cammaerts et al., 2012). Several authors warn that the massive amount of radiation produced by mobile phones and towers disturbs the navigational skills of honeybees, preventing them from returning to their hives (Warnke, 2009; Sainudeen Sahib, 2011). In fact, winter colony losses in the northeast USA correlated with the occurrence of an nual geomagnetic storms, and abnormal fluctuations in magnetic fields related to the epidemiology of honeybee losses are consistent with their behaviour and development (Ferrari, 2014).

5. Action mechanisms
There are well known mechanisms of action of low frequency pulsed RF, such as interference with calcium channels in cells (Pall, 2013; Panagopoulos and Balmori, 2017) and deleterious effects on sperm and reproductive systems (Panagopoulos et al., 2004; A. Balmori Science of the Total Environment 767 (2021) 144913 3 445
Agenda Item # 9.

Panagopoulos, 2012; Adams et al., 2014). In vertebrates, studies have also found a pathologic leakage across the blood brain barrier (Salford et al., 2003) and interference with brain waves (Mann and Roschkle, 1996; Beasond and Semm, 2002; Kramarenko and Tan, 2003). Micro wave radiation has particular effects on nervous, immune and repro ductive systems (Balmori, 2009).

In recent years, there has been an important advance in understand ing the underlying mechanisms for orientation in birds, insects and other groups. It has also been verified that RF EMFs alter the biological response characteristics of cryptochrome receptors. These results are consistent with the radical pair mechanism of magnetosensing. Since cryptochromes are molecules highly sensitive to RF radiation and are found in many organisms, including humans, these results also may have more general implications for the capacity of living organisms to respond to man made electromagnetic noise by analogy with broad band RF, which has previously been shown to disrupt the orientation of birds (Engels et al., 2014). These possible risks have already been in dicated by Balmori (2015).

A recent study has warned that future, more short wavelengths of electromagnetic fields used for the wireless telecommunication systems (5G), will become comparable to the body size of insects, and therefore, the absorption of RF EMF in this group is expected to increase (Thielens et al., 2018).

6. The precautionary principle and the importance of seriously considering EMR as a factor of insect decline Despite the strong scientific evidence of the negative impacts of elec tromagnetic radiation on insects, a recent study funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (EKLIPSE) stated that our current knowledge concerning the impact of anthropo genic RF EMR on pollinators (and other invertebrates) is inconclusive (Vanbergen et al., 2019). Thus, the extent to which anthropogenic EMR represents a significant threat to insect pollinators is unresolved.

For these reasons, and taking into account the benefits they provide to nature and humankind, the precautionary principle of the European Union (Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, 2000) should be applied.

The potential effects of RF EMFs on most taxonomic groups, includ ing migratory birds, bats and insects, are largely unknown, and the po tential effects on wildlife could become more relevant with the expected adoption of new mobile network technology (5G), raising the possibility of unintended biological consequences (Sutherland et al., 2018). Thus, before any new deployment (such 5G) is considered, its effects should be clearly assessed, at least while conclusions are drawn and these existing uncertainties are overcome, according to the official document ‘Late Lessons of Early Warnings’ (European Environ ment Agency, 2013).

A letter by the United States Department of the Interior sent to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce warns about the scarcity of studies carried out on the impacts from non ionising EMR emitted by communication towers (United States Department of the Interior, 2014). The precise po tential effects of increases in EMR on wildlife, which are not yet well recognised by the global conservation community, have been identified as an important emerging issue for global conservation and biological diversity (Sutherland et al., 2018). Thus, as we have explained in this re view, EMR should be seriously considered as a complementary driver for the dramatic decline in insects in recent studies, acting in synergy with agricultural intensification, pesticides, invasive species and climate change.

Funding
This work has not had any funding support.

Declaration of competing interest
The author declare that have no conflict of interest.

References
Adams, J.A., Galloway, T.S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S.C., Mathews, F., 2014. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 70, 106–112.

Atli, E., Ünlü, H., 2006. The effects of microwave frequency electromagnetic fields on the development of Drosophila melanogaster. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 82, 435–441.

Atli, E., Ünlü, H., 2007. The effects of microwave frequency electromagnetic fields on the fecundity of Drosophila melanogaster. Turk. J. Biol. 31, 1–5.

Balmori, A., 2006. Efectos de las radiaciones electromagnéticas de la telefonía móvil sobre los insectos. Revista Ecosistemas 15, 87–95.

Balmori, A., 2009. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Pathophysiology 16 (2–3), 191–199.

Balmori, A., 2014. Electrosmog and species conservation. Sci. Total Environ. 496, 314–316.

Balmori, A., 2015. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Sci. Total Environ. 518, 58–60.

Baranov, V., Jourdan, J., Pilotto, F., Wagner, R., Haase, P., 2020. Complex and nonlinear climate-driven changes in freshwater insect communities over 42 years. Conserv.

Biol. 34, 1241–1251.

Beasond, R.C., Semm, P., 2002. Responses of neurons to an amplitude modulated microwave stimulus. Neurosci. Lett. 33, 175–178.

Biesmeijer, J.C., Roberts, S.P.M., Reemer, M., Ohlemuller, R., Edwards, M., Peeters, T., Schaffers, A.P., Potts, S.G., Kleukers, R., Thomas, C.D., Settele, J., Kunin, W.E., 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354.

Camlitepe, Y., Aksoy, V., Uren, N., Yilmaz, A., Becenen, I., 2005. An experimental analysis on the magnetic field sensitivity of the black-meadow ant Formica pratensis Retzius (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Acta Biol. Hung. 56 (3–4), 215–224.

Cammaerts, M.C., Johansson, O., 2014. Ants can be used as bio-indicators to reveal biological effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 33, 282–288.

Cammaerts, M.C., De Doncker, P., Patris, X., Bellens, F., Rachidi, Z., Cammaerts, D., 2012.

GSM 900 MHz radiation inhibits ants’ association between food sites and encountered cues. Electromagnetic biology and medicine 31, 151–165.

Cammaerts, M.C., Rachidi, Z., Bellens, F., De Doncker, P., 2013. Food collection and response to pheromones in an ant species exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic biology and medicine 32, 315–332.

Carpenter R.L. y Livstone E.M. 1971. Evidence for nonthermal effects of microwave radiation: abnormal development of irradiated insect pupae. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 19 (2): 173–178.

Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, 2000. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52000DC0001.

Darney, K., Giraudin, A., Joseph, R., Abadie, P., Aupinel, P., Decourtye, A., Gauthier, M., 2016. Effect of high-frequency radiations on survival of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Apidologie 47 (5), 703–710.

Dudley, N., Alexander, S., 2017. Agriculture and biodiversity: a review. Biodiversity 18, 45–49.

Engels, S., Schneider, N.L., Lefeldt, N., Hein, C.M., Zapka, M., Michalik, A., Elbers, D., Kittel, A., Hore, P.J., Mouritsen, H., 2014. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature13290.

European Environment Agency. Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. EEA Report No 1/2013; 2013. (Available from http://www.eea.europa).

Favre, D., 2011. Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie 42, 270–279.

Ferrari, T.E., 2014. Magnets, magnetic field fluctuations and geomagnetic disturbances impair the homing ability of honey bee (Apis m.) J Apicult Res. IBRA 53, 452–456.

Greenberg, B., Bindokas, V.P., Gauger, J.R., 1981. Biological effects of a 765-kV transmission line: exposures and thresholds in honeybee colonies. Bioelectromagnetics 2, 315–328.

Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., ... Goulson, D., 2017. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PloS one 12 (10), e0185809.

Harst, W., Kuhn, J., Stever, H., 2006. Can electromagnetic exposure cause a change in behaviour? Studying possible non-thermal influences on honeybees—an approach within the framework of educational informatics. Acta Syst IIAS Int J 6 (1), 1–6.

Kramarenko, A.V., Tan, U., 2003. Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: a brain mapping study. Int. J. Neurosci. 113, 1007–1019.

Kremen, C., & Chaplin-Kramer, R. (2007). Insects as providers of ecosystem services: crop pollination and pest control. In Insect Conservation Biology: Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society's 23rd Symposium (pp. 349–382). CABI Publishing.

Kumar, N.R., Rana, N., Kalia, P., 2013. Biochemical changes in haemolymph of Apis mellifera L. drone under the influence of cell phone radiations. Journal of Applied and Natural Science 5, 139–141.

Lázaro, A., Chroni, A., Tscheulin, T., Devalez, J., Matsoukas, C., Petanidou, T., 2016. Electromagnetic radiation of mobile telecommunication antennas affects the abundance and composition of wild pollinators. J. Insect Conserv. 20, 315–324.

Lever, J.J., van Nes, E.H., Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., 2014. The sudden collapse of pollinator communities. Ecol. Lett. 17, 350–359.

Lister, B. C., & Garcia, A. (2018). Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, E10397–E10406.

A. Balmori Science of the Total Environment 767 (2021) 144913 4 446
Agenda Item # 9.

Lopatina, N.G., Zachepilo, T.G., Kamyshev, N.G., Dyuzhikova, N.A., Serov, I.N., 2019. Effect of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation on behavior of the honeybee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Entomological Review 99, 24–29.

Lupi, D., Tremolada, P., Colombo, M., Giacchini, R., Benocci, R., Parenti, P., ... Vighi, M., 2020.

Effects of pesticides and electromagnetic fields on honeybees: a field study using biomarkers. International Journal of Environmental Research 14, 107–122.

Maharjan, R., Yi, H., Ahn, J., Roh, G.H., Park, C., Yoon, Y., Bae, S., 2019a. Effects of radiofrequency on the development and performance of Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) on three different leguminous seeds. Appl.

Entomol. Zool. 54 (3), 255–266.

Maharjan, R., Bae, S., Kim, G.H., Yoon, Y., Jang, Y., Kim, Y., Yi, H., 2019b. Oviposition preference and development of Maruca vitrata (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on different radiofrequency fields. Entomological Research 49 (5), 214–222.

Maharjan, R., Yoon, Y., Jang, Y., Jeong, M., Jung, T.W., Cho, H.S., Yi, H., 2020. Artificial radiofrequency driven life-table parameters of perilla seed bugs (Nysius sp.) (Heteroptera:

Lygaeidae). J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 23 (4), 1264–1271.

Mann, K., Roschkle, J., 1996. Effects of pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human sleep. Neuropsychobiology 33, 41–47.

Møller, A.P., 2019. Parallel declines in abundance of insects and insectivorous birds in Denmark over 22 years. Ecology and Evolution 9, 6581–6587.

Nebel, S., Mills, A., McCracken, J.D., Taylor, P.D., 2010. Declines of aerial insectivores in North America follow a geographic gradient. Avian Conservation and Ecology 5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00391-050201.

Nocera, J.J., Blais, J.M., Beresford, D.V., Finity, L.K., Grooms, C., Kimpe, L.E., ... Smol, J.P., 2012.

Historical pesticide applications coincided with an altered diet of aerially foraging insectivorous chimney swifts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279 (1740), 3114–3120.

Noriega, J.A., Hortal, J., Azcárate, F.M., Berg, M.P., Bonada, N., Briones, M.J., ... Moretti, M., 2018. Research trends in ecosystem services provided by insects. Basic and Applied Ecology 26, 8–23.

Odemer, R., Odemer, F., 2019. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RFEMF) on honey bee queen development and mating success. Sci. Total Environ. 661, 553–562.

Pall, M.L., 2013. (2013). Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 17, 958–965.

Panagopoulos, D.J., 2012. Effect of microwave exposure on the ovarian development of Drosophila melanogaster. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 63, 121–132.

Panagopoulos, D.J., Balmori, A., 2017. On the biophysical mechanism of sensing atmospheric discharges by living organisms. Sci. Total Environ. 599, 2026–2034.

Panagopoulos, D.J., Karabarbounis, A. y Margaritis, L.H. (2004). Effect of GSM 900 MHz mobile phone radiation on the reproductive capacity of Drosophila melanogaster.

Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 23: 29–43.

Panagopoulos, D.J., Chavdoula, E.D., Karabarbounis, A., Margaritis, L.H., 2007. Comparison of bioactivity between GSM 900 MHz and DCS 1800 MHz mobile telephony radiation.

Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26, 33–44.

Panagopoulos, D.J., Chavdoula, E.D., Margaritis, L.H., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 86, 345–357.

Pereira, M.C., Guimarães, I.D.C., Acosta-Avalos, D., Antonialli Junior, W.F., 2019. Can altered magnetic field affect the foraging behaviour of ants? PLoS One 14 (11), e0225507.

Powney, G.D., Carvell, C., Edwards, M., Morris, R.K., Roy, H.E., Woodcock, B.A., Isaac, N.J., 2019. Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–6.

Sainudeen Sahib, S., 2011. Impact of mobile phone on the density of honey bees. Munis Entomology & Zoology 6 (1), 396–399.

Salford, L.G., Brun, A.E., Eberhardt, J.L., Malmgren, L., Persson, B.R., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111, 881–893.

Sánchez-Bayo, F., Wyckhuys, K.A., 2019. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27.

Schowalter, T.D., 2013. Insects and Sustainability of Ecosystem Services. CRC Press.

Sharma, V.P., Kumar, N.R., 2010. Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations. Curr. Sci. 98, 1376–1378.

Shepherd, S., Lima, M.A.P., Oliveira, E.E., Sharkh, S.M., Jackson, C.W., Newland, P.L., 2018.

Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields impair the cognitive and motor abilities of honey bees. Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 1–9.

Stanojević, V., Prolić, Z., Savić, T., Todorović, D., Janać, B., 2005. Effects of extremely low frequency (50 Hz) magnetic field on development dynamics of the housefly (Musca domestica L.). Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24 (2), 99–107.

Stever, Kuhn, J., Otten, C., Wunder, B., Harst, W., 2005. Verhaltensanderungunter elektromagnetischer Exposition. Pilotstudie, Institut für mathematik. Arbeitsgruppe, Bildungsinformatik. Universität Koblenz-Landau.

Sutherland, W.J., Butchart, S.H., Connor, B., Culshaw, C., Dicks, L.V., Dinsdale, J., ... Jiang, Z., 2018. A 2018 horizon scan of emerging issues for global conservation and biological diversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33 (1), 47–58.

Thielens, A., Bell, D., Mortimore, D.B., Greco, M.K., Martens, L., Joseph, W., 2018. Exposure of insects to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields from 2 to 120 ghz. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–10.

Tinsley-Marshall, P., Alana Skilbeck and Alison Riggs (2019). Monitoring of ecosystem function at landscape-scale demonstrates temporal difference in invertebrate abundance in Kent and South-East England. https://www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/sites/ default/files/2020-02/Bugs%20Matter%20report%20website%20version_0.pdf.

United States Department of the Interior. Letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce; 2014 [Available from https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf (accesed 30 september 2020)].

Vácha, M., Půžová, T., Kvíćalová, M., 2009. Radio frequency magnetic fields disrupt magnetoreception in American cockroach. J. Exp. Biol. 212 (21), 3473–3477.

Vanbergen, A.J., Potts, S.G., Vian, A., Malkemper, E.P., Young, J., Tscheulin, T., 2019. Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): evidence and knowledge gaps. Sci. Total Environ. 695, 133833.

Vargová, B., Kurimský, J., Cimbala, R., Kosterec, M., Majláth, I., Pipová, N., ... Majláthová, V., 2017. Ticks and radio-frequency signals: behavioural response of ticks (Dermacentor reticulatus) in a 900 MHz electromagnetic field. Systematic and Applied Acarology 22, 683–693.

Vijver, M.G., Bolte, J.F., Evans, T.R., Tamis, W.L., Peijnenburg, W.J., Musters, C.J.M., de Snoo, G.R., 2014. Investigating short-term exposure to electromagnetic fields on reproductive capacity of invertebrates in the field situation. Electromagnetic biology and medicine 33, 21–28.

Vogel, G., 2017. Where have all the insects gone? Science (New York, N.Y.) 356 (6338), 576–579.

Warnke, U., 2009. Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’ Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies. A Brochure Series by the Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy, Kempten, 1st edn, November 2007, ISBN: 978-3-00-023124-7, English edn, March 2009 pp. 14–33.

Weisbrot, D., Lin, H., Ye, L., Blank, M., Goodman, R., 2003. Effects of mobile phone radiation on reproduction and development in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Cell. Biochem. 89, 48–55.

A. Balmori Science of the Total Environment 767 (2021) 144913 5 447
Agenda Item # 9.

Review Article
B. Blake Levitt*, Henry C. Lai and Albert M. Manville II Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on
flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels
in the environment
https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0026
Received February 19, 2021; accepted March 20, 2021;
published online May 27, 2021
Abstract: Ambient levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last 80 years, creating a novel energetic exposure that previously did not exist. Most
recent decades have seen exponential increases in nearly all environments, including rural/remote areas and lower atmospheric regions. Because of unique physiologies,
some species of flora and fauna are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that may surpass human reactivity. There is limited, but comprehensive, baseline data in the U.S. from the 1980s against which to compare significant new surveys from different countries. This now provides broader and more precise data on potential transient and chronic exposures to wildlife and habitats. Biological effects
have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today’s ambient exposures. Broad wildlife effects have been seen on
orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction,
mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance
and defense, and longevity and survivorship. Cyto- and
geno-toxic effects have been observed. The above issues are explored in three consecutive parts: Part 1 questions today’s ambient EMF capabilities to adversely affect
wildlife, with more urgency regarding 5G technologies.

Part 2 explores natural and man-made fields, animal
magnetoreception mechanisms, and pertinent studies to
all wildlife kingdoms. Part 3 examines current exposure standards, applicable laws, and future directions. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants.

Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until
tipping points are reached. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards, which do not now exist, should
be set accordingly for wildlife, and environmental laws should be strictly enforced.

Keywords: 2G – 4GLTE; 5G; cell phone towers/masts/base
stations/small cells; “Internet of Things” (IoT); magnetoreception; millimeter waves (MMW); nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF); radiofrequency radiation (RFR); satellites; wildlife.

PART 1: DEFINING THE PROBLEM: TECHNOLOGY

AND RISING EMF LEVELS
Introduction: environmental
disconnect
Since the advent of electrification in the late 1800s and wireless communications in the 1930s, ambient levels of radiation from devices, broadcast facilities, land-based telecom infrastructure, satellites, and military applications have gradually risen across a range of frequencies in the nonionizing bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. There has been broad discussion in the media and elsewhere
about nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) effects
to humans, especially since the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health
Organization (WHO) classified extremely-low frequency
(ELF) magnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation (RFR) ([1, 2] respectively) as 2B possible human carcinogens — similar to lead, exhaust fumes, DDT and formaldehyde. But is there a larger environmental downside to rising ambient EMF exposures — particularly RFR — from popular mobile communication devices, WiFi antennas, and all accompanying infrastructure that is being overlooked by *Corresponding author: B. Blake Levitt, P.O. Box 2014, New Preston, CT 06777, USA, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Henry C. Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Albert M. Manville II, Advanced Academic Programs, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Policy, Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC Campus, USA, E-mail: [email protected] Rev Environ Health 2021; aop
448
Agenda Item # 9.
environmentalists, researchers, and government regulators alike. We may be missing critical physiological effects across species based on obsolete assumptions about
low-level far-field exposures being too weak to adversely affect living tissue. We have yet to take into consideration the unique physiologies of other species, or how they use the environment in ways that humans do not, when we
assume that the unfettered use of EMF/RFR can continue
unabated and be allowed to grow indefinitely. Ambient
electromagnetic fields, such as ELF from powerlines, wiring and electrical appliances, and RFR used in all broadcast, wireless communications, and transmitting devices, are
biologically active and may cause adverse effects to
different species of living organisms.

Because of the extensive research that applies to this
subject, this work is divided into three consecutive parts:

Part 1 explores the research on rising ambient levels of EMFs, how fields are measured, the use of tracking devices in animals, and what new technologies like 5G will add.

Part 2 explores the Earth’s natural geomagnetic fields
and non-human species mechanisms of magnetoreception, as well as cyto- and genotoxin effects from manmade EMFs. It focuses on the unique physiologies of
non-human species, their specific habitats, and how energy travels through different environments. The section then ties what has been seen in the laboratory, as well as field studies, in all frequencies and representative biological taxa at exposures now seen in ambient environments.

Part 3 discusses government exposure standards and
explores existing laws already in place in Western countries, then points to how a new vision of aeroecology and electroecology can use those laws to inform policy
regarding nonionizing radiation’s impacts.

Supplementary materials include extensive Tables of applicable studies per section at extremely low intensity exposures and accompanying references.

There is abundant research on how low-level EMFs
affect non-human species, including extensive reviews
of nonionizing radiation across all frequencies and environments about which many environmentalists and regulators are unaware [3–14]. In research into the biological effects of EMF, it has been known since the 1960s that
many species are sensitive to low-level energy exposures.

Numerous laboratory and field studies have noted
heightened sensitivity and adverse effects in birds [15–32]; mammals (cows and bats [33–38]); insects [39–54]
bacteria/protozoa [55–61]; amphibians [62–67]; fish and turtles [68–82]; and in trees and plants [83–85], among many others.

Living organisms evolved in a matrix of environmental
nonionizing electromagnetic fields, particularly the Earth’s geomagnetic field. These natural fields are required to keep organisms well and living in harmony. For example, it
has long been known that the geomagnetic field is needed to coordinate embryonic development and provide
information for directional migration of insects and birds.

These fields are relatively weak and also vary with location.

For millions of years, living organisms lived and thrived in these fields. It is therefore logical to assume that man-made fields, which are unfamiliar to living organisms, could disturb their normal physiological functions. And this
could happen at very low intensities of the unfamiliar
fields. The proliferation of wireless communication systems in particular may pose a dangerous challenge to living organisms on Earth. In addition, there is the more difficult challenge that these novel EMF exposures do not allow
living organisms to adapt or adjust since technology’s
signaling characteristics change rapidly as new technologies emerge and are constantly being developed.

Despite accumulating evidence, there has been a
broad disconnect in environmental circles regarding the possibility that there may be serious consequences to this increasing cumulative EMF background from devices like
cell phones, smart phones/tablets (iPods, iPads, Kindles), wireless Internet (WiFi, 2G, 3G, 4G, 4G LTE, and now the 5G “Internet of Things”), tower/antenna infrastructure
needed to support vast wireless services, and the
recent ‘smart’ grid/metering systems being built across industrialized countries by numerous utility companies, as well as the auto industry with anti-collision/remotesensing devices now embedded in vehicles, among others.

In fact, major national organizations like the Natural
Resources Defense Council [86] and the Sierra Club [87] are active proponents of smart grid/meters and other wireless technologies in the name of energy conservation without considering EMF’s biological effects. When organizations fail to address the growing database of EMF impacts,
however, the result is the tacit and/or explicit approval to introduce whole new layers of EMF into every home and
neighborhood, without a full examination of what potential consequences may arise. Federal and state regulatory environmental protection agencies in the U.S. are also
proponents of smart grid technology [88] with no mention of possible effects to wildlife from EMF.

Reasons for this disconnect include the fact that many
biologists are unfamiliar with the research that exists and/ or lack the specialized knowledge of bioelectromagnetics needed to assess the published research. There is also an absence of familiarity — and often low comfort levels — with the cross-discipline of bioelectromagnetics, as well as a professional bias against or feelings of intimidation in biologists regarding the ‘hard’ sciences of physics and 2 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
449
Agenda Item # 9.
engineering which are the natural homes of technology. In fact, other than the embrace of technology to facilitate various research objectives, such as imbedding RFID
microchips and/or attaching radio-transmitters to wildlife in order to track migration, behavior, and breeding
patterns, biologists can seem incurious about the effects of environmental EMF on living systems. They appear
more focused on technology’s end point of what it can
accomplish rather than how it actually functions as a
biologically active entity.

At one time, electromagnetism was understood as integral to the natural world, and still is in many indigenous cultures and throughout Asia. But that knowledge was
largely lost in Western cultures during the 20th Century during an era of over-specialization among the sciences, especially between the physics/engineering disciplines, which provide the underpinnings of EMF and energy
propagation, and the biological sciences. This has created a chasm in which background levels of EMF continue to
rise with each new added technology, yet little research is called for by environmentalists to determine what effects, if any, may be occurring in technology’s path in myriad
species as well as their habitats.

We are on the cusp of introducing a massive new level
of exposures in the extremely high frequency range (EHF 30–300 GHz) never previously used in civilian telecommunications, although it has been used in military radar and some medical applications. This is the new 5G
and Internet of Things [89], which uses complex phased
millimeter waves that are smaller in wavelength, and
therefore capable of reaching resonant match with some
insect species [90], as well as disrupting crucial biological functions of numerous other organisms. In theory, this one technology has the ability to disrupt important ecosystems with broad-based effects to food webs. In addition, the top end of these ranges reach infrared frequencies, some of which are actually visible to other species — especially birds — and can impede their ability to sense natural
magnetic fields necessary for migration and orientation [91]. Yet no environmental review in the U.S. has been
recommended before buildout [89]. Other countries,
especially in Europe, are being more cautious.

Historically, the U.S. was the leader in EMF health
and environmental research, but now most of that
work — and any accompanying public policy recommendations — are coming from Europe and elsewhere [92, 93]. There is virtually no public or private funding in the U.S. for ambient EMF research into the effects on
wildlife, despite appeals from federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [94–96] to study the effects of EMF on nonhuman species, and requests to the U.S. EPA and FCC to address exposures to wildlife [94,
96–100]. Industry funded research cannot be considered
unbiased. There are no regulations specifically designed to protect wildlife from EMF. All regulations are intended for human health, even as most research has historically been conducted on animal models [94, 95]. The unintended consequences of this, in fact, may be that we know more about EMF effects to nonhuman species than
we realize, making a large amount of information
available for ecological integration and environmental
utilization.

Review studies chosen: defining
how low level spatial energy may
translate to non-human tissue
absorption
Studies on the biological effects of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields number in the thousands (101) and span more than eight decades. However, the majority of the
early research studied EMF at intensities much higher than those of man-made EMF in the environment. We raise a
fundamental question in this paper: Is low-intensity
anthropogenic EMF in the environment capable of
affecting physiological functions in living organisms?
There is an abundance of studies in very low-level ranges to draw from (see Part 2: Supplements 1, 2, 3 and 4).

The primary focus of this review is on low-intensity
far-field EMF exposures, i.e., at some distance for the radiating source, comparable to ambient fields that
various species might repeatedly encounter. The studies we reference were chosen according to general significance and specific relevance to the species being discussed in both the text and Supplemental Charts.

There are literally thousands of studies going back to
the 1930s (e.g., [90, 102–107]) that used test animals in controlled laboratory conditions to determine EMF effects on humans. To conduct such work directly on humans is
ironically considered unethical at the same time we allow technology to flourish. Although most research has been conducted on rodent models such as mice and rats, one
unintentional byproduct is that we actually know a
considerable amount about how both high and low intensity EMF can affect species such as rabbits, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, primates, amphibians, fruit flies, bees, Earth worms, various microbes, and yeast cells which have all been used as research models. Typically this work has not been understood as broadly germane to wildlife but in Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 3
450
Agenda Item # 9.
many instances it can be seen as important as illustrated throughout this paper.

The vast majority of the early research prior to the
1960s using animal models was done with high-intensity
RFR [108–112] unlike most low-level ambient exposures
today. The early work was specifically designed to
determine gross thermal effects in humans at a time when electrophysiology and thermoregulatory mechanisms
were not well understood. The more subtle non-thermal
effects were of little interest then, although certainly known to exist [104–106, 113–115]. Additionally, signaling characteristics were unlike today’s complex pulsed digital exposures. Thus the large body of early work is not
included in this review except where appropriate for the general understanding of trans-species physiological
patterns and for an overall understanding of how energy couples with living tissue which the early work helped
delineate.

How government exposure standards relate
to wildlife
To develop a sense of the potential relevance of ambient exposures to wildlife, it is necessary to briefly compare standards for human exposure. In the U.S., the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) is the agency authorized by law to regulate the communications industry and grant licenses for radiation transmission/reception/
exposure from communications devices. FCC adopted
exposure standards [116–118] that include both power
density for ambient exposures from transmitting sources (generally defined as the rate of energy transmitted in space) and specific absorption rates (SARs) reflecting the dose rate of energy absorbed in tissue – both potentially relevant metrics to species in the wild.

For power density, the U.S. standards are between 0.2
and 1.0 mW/cm2 and for SAR between 0.08 and 0.40 W/kg of human tissue. For cell phones, SAR levels require hand-held devices to be at or below 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1.0 g of tissue. For whole body exposures, the limit is 0.08 W/kg. In Canada and throughout most European countries that use
the exposure standards created by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection [119, 120], the SAR limit for hand-held devices is 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10 g of tissue. Whole body exposure limits are 0.08 W/kg. At 100–200 ft (30.5–61 m) distances from a cell phone base station (i.e., an antenna or antenna array), a person or animal moving through the area can be exposed to a power density of

0.001 mW/cm2 (i.e., 1.0 μW/cm2
). The SAR at such a distance
can be 0.001 W/kg (i.e., 1.0 mW/kg) for a standing man.

For the purposes of this paper we will therefore
define low-intensity exposure to RFR for power density of 1 μW/cm2 or a SAR of 0.001 W/kg.

Many biological effects have been documented at
low intensities comparable to what the population — and therefore wildlife — experience within 200–500 ft (61–152 m) of a cell tower [100]. These can include effects seen in in vitro studies of cell cultures and in vivo studies of animals after exposures to low-intensity RFR. Reported effects include:
genetic, growth, and reproductive alterations; increases in permeability of the blood brain barrier; stress protein increases; behavioral changes; molecular, cellular, and metabolic alterations; and increases in cancer risk (see Ref. [100], Table 1).

Sensitivity to RFR and the setting of exposure standards for humans are mostly based on research data from rats (another mammalian species). In general, however, it is not valid to apply the same data to species more distant on the evolutionary scale, e.g., birds, insects, and trees.

Realistically one should only use the available dosimetric data on each particular species to understand its RFR
sensitivity, which is why this paper goes into such detail in Part 2 on EMF studies covering all taxa. However, exposure standards set by the FCC and others do not set limits with nonhuman species in mind.

Unlike field research, in vivo and in vitro laboratory
studies are conducted under highly controlled circumstances often with immobilized test animals, typically at nearfield, for set durations, at specific frequencies and intensities. Extrapolations from laboratory research to species in the wild are difficult to make regarding uncontrolled far-field exposures, other than for example to seek possible correlations with laboratory-observed DNA, behavioral, or reproductive damage. In the wild, there is more genetic variation and mobility, as well as variables that confound precise data assessment. In addition, there are complex variables like orientation toward the generating source, exposure duration, animal size, speciesspecific physical characteristics, and genetic variation that also come into play. Assessments for wildlife may
vary considerably depending on numerous factors.

It is highly likely that the majority of wildlife species are constantly moving in and out of varying artificial
fields. Precise exposure data, however, are difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, there is a growing body of evidence that finds damage to various wildlife species near
communication structures, especially where extrapolations to radiation exposure have been made [15, 17, 32, 36, 37, 121–123].

The major question of whether man-made environmental EMF creates biological effects in wildlife species 4 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
451
Agenda Item # 9.
has now become urgent with 5G technologies and potentially more lenient allowances being considered by the major standards-setting committees at FCC and ICNIRP
(see Part 3 on government exposure standards and new
proposed changes).

Are we using the right physics model in standards
setting?
From the beginning, there has been discussion regarding basic physics models used to determine manmade EMF
effects to living systems [124–131]. The discussion has focused on classic models of photonic energy vs. wave
energy in relationship to thermodynamic equilibrium.

These are highly complex biophysics discussions beyond
the scope of this paper in anything other than the broadest description. They are included here because of ramifications to the standards-setting models noted above and in Part 3, and particularly regarding effects to DNA discussed in Part 2. These factors are linked and apply to all species.

The electromagnetic spectrum is divided into ionizing
and nonionizing bands. Classic quantum theory EMF
photon models used to assess ionizing radiation [132]
established long ago that ionizing radiation has enough inherent energy to knock electrons off orbits within atoms thereby causing structural cellular changes that are potentially carcinogenic and mutagenic due to DNA damage.

Those same models were then extrapolated to conclude
that since nonionizing EMF does not have enough inherent power to displace electrons from atoms, it therefore cannot damage molecules such as DNA directly and certainly not indirectly. Historically, held against that one definition regarding inherent photonic energy, man-made nonionizing EMF has been presumed to be relatively innocuous beyond its ability to heat tissue and cause electrical shock.

Most modern technology, including all current exposure
standards and categorical exclusions, are based on that rationale, along with observed behavioral effects in animal models. Exposure standards have been strictly based on the easily quantifiable thermal hazards of tissue heating with safety margins built in [116–120]. While those safety margins vary between countries, the fundamental exposure mechanism assumption is not challenged.

What is left out of that narrow model, however, is the
fact that all living things are fundamentally coherent
electrical systems that interact in highly sensitive ways to minute levels of nonionizing EMF — sometimes at
vanishingly low intensities far below current standards [3, 4, 100, 133–135]. This is particularly true of other species that have evolved to sense and use low level EMF fields in surprising ways (see Part 2).

In addition, much of biology is nonlinear. For
example, a small amount of bee venom can create an
outsized effect (anaphylaxis) in people allergic to bee stings. The weather is also nonlinear [136], e.g., a small perturbation in one part of the world can theoretically result in a major weather event like a tornado in a far distant area [137–139] (This is not to be confused with the so-called Butterfly Effect — or chaos theory of butterfly wing flapping affecting weather events in other parts of the globe, which has never been documented). Evidence has
been mounting for decades that biology is more related
to quantum states and resonant responses, not to the
traditional linear equilibrium thermodynamic models
currently used to define what biological effects should occur but often do not [127].

Also left out of that narrow linear model, which is
based on a single photon acting on a single cell at a
singular moment in time, is the fact that today’s uses of EMF/RFR involve many photons acting in unison [140]
in extremely complex ways such as in phased array
technology. In other words, the entire thermodynamic
model traditionally used to promote RFR safety regulation may not apply. It also excludes most recent research pointing to both cumulative and synergistic
effects [141], and is unable to embody the complexity
and totality of today’s exposures, much less biological sensitivity in general.

Radiation is not a classical closed system in a thermodynamic equilibrium [142]. Yet it has been repeatedly put forth that devices and infrastructure must be safe
because a single microwave photon, for instance, does not have enough energy to break a chemical bond. While that might be accurate for some sources of ionizing radiation, it may not hold true for lower frequency bands that operate within the classical wave limit of high photon densities where the energy of each photon is often irrelevant ([132], updated 2017).

Panagopoulous et al. [143–146] have written extensively on this issue, noting that man-made electromagnetic emissions are very different than what is found naturally in light spectra and the ionizing bands; that man-made EMF is not “quantized.” They posit instead
that nonionizing EMFs do not consist of photons but
rather of continuous waves in high-density photon
“packets” described in classical electromagnetism that
interact very differently with biological systems than
traditional models assume. It remains to be seen if this hypothesis gains wide acceptance.

If we are to truly shift to safer exposure standards, we need an accurate model based on biology, observation,
and experimentation, not just physics theory. Typically Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 5
452
Agenda Item # 9.
when contradictory information that goes against popular assumptions reaches a sufficient critical mass, those assumptions eventually give way to more current knowledge.

At present, there are no true biologically based standards in existence other than for a narrow range of heating
effects. What we appear to have are dosimetry models that easily allow technology to function.

What may be the most accurate model has yet to be
determined but may evolve into a new hybrid. It is already well known that distribution of absorbed RF energy in
living tissue is not uniform, varying widely within cells and different body areas and organs, which is why SARs are
generally averaged [142]. If nonuniformity can be more
accurately factored in, subthermal interactions may make sense with or without new mechanistic models being
delineated. What has become increasingly clear is that
current models no longer withstand close scrutiny in the face of so much contradictory science begging for a more accurate assessment.

Increasing ambient background
levels
Exposure to anthropogenic environmental RFR began little more than 100 years ago – an extremely short window from an evolutionary perspective. Amplitude modulation (AM)
radio broadcasting was first introduced in the 1920s in the medium-frequency band (500–1,600 kHz), with both frequency modulation (FM) radio and television broadcast in the very-high frequency band (VHF 30–300 MHz) introduced in the 1930s. The end of World War II and advances in
technology saw the rapid expansion throughout the 1950s with television stations operating in the ultra-high frequency ranges (UHF 300 MHz–3 GHz; [147]). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, FM came to dominate commercial radio but AM
never stopped broadcasting. From the 1980s through the
present, large swaths of high-powered commercial radio
infrastructure (50,000,000 W and more) has moved
from terrestrial-based towers to satellite platforms, while low-powered FM stations (1,000 W) have increased their
terrestrial footprint. There was another exponential increase from the mid-1990s through the present with the introduction of cell phone technology, also in the UHF bands, which has become by far the dominant RFR exposure today
[148, 149]. Ambient RFR has since grown into a constant ubiquitous exposure in all industrialized nations from both terrestrial and satellite-based infrastructure.

Today’s wireless applications are legion. The latest
include smart grid/metering, 3G/4G LTE and now 5G
telecommunications networks offering endless click-on
“apps,” TV/music/video downloads, e-books, photos in
the “Cloud”, voice, ‘smart’ homes and personal assistants like Amazon’s Alexa, Apple’s Siri, and Google Homes,
WiFi/WiMax Internet connectivity and texting — all
available from a cell phone. Then there are universal GPS systems that work off of satellites and a host of vehiclemounted radar RFR collision avoidance devices built into vehicles to automatically stop, detect people or animals on the road, or park the vehicle without engaging the
driver. Already out of prototype are driverless cars and trucks, as well as a new broadband wireless service that will introduce a new form of ubiquitous WiFi with
antennas capable of transmitting in a 12,000 mi2
(31,080 km2) radius with a 62 mi (100 km) reach from one antenna. Also rapidly being built in many areas are
augmented cell services via distributed antenna systems (DAS) and small cells mounted on utility poles targeted for urban as well as rural mostly RFR-free areas. DAS/
small cells will host the 5G Internet of Things (IoT). Then there are new Homeland Security networks like GWEN and
FirstNet, and emergency first responder systems
like Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA). All of these technologies use extremely complex signaling characteristics carrying a lot of information with potentially complex biological effects. Each new technology introduces a new level of environmental exposure. Just 70 years ago, very little of this existed and its consequences had been little studied or understood until now — a focus of this paper.

With the exception of some developing countries, 2G
has largely faded from use in most industrialized nations where third generation (3G) is still operational for global system mobile communications (GSM), while fourth
generation (4G) long-term evolution (LTE) has become
increasingly popular for smart phones/technology using
the universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS).

Gonzalez-Rubio et al. [150] found the highest environmental mean radiation values measured today are for GSM/UMTS/DCS, accounting for approximately 70
percent of outdoor environmental mobile communication
exposures, although in some countries, like Turkey, the highest exposure still comes from radio and television
broadcasts. First and second generation systems were
very frequency specific (850–1,200 MHz) but today there are multi-frequency bands used within systems for
up-and download frequencies from devices and base
stations — e.g., GSM + UMTS 900 MHz, UMTS 2,100 MHz,
LTE 800 MHz, LTE 2,600 MHz and GSM 1,800 MHz bands.

Prior to the telecom buildout in the early 1990s, a
detailed sample of ambient baseline data existed based on a 1980 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 6 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
453
Agenda Item # 9.
(EPA) which we can compare to today’s rising exposures.

In the first study of its kind, EPA researchers Tell and Mantiply [151] assessed background levels of broadcast
signal field intensity of RFR for three years and obtained data at 486 locations distributed throughout 15 large
U.S. cities. The data collectively represented 14,000
measurements of very high frequency (VHF) and ultra
high frequency (UHF) radiation (used in television
broadcast) in ambient environments with estimated
exposure at 47,000 census districts within the metropolitan boundaries of those cities. At the time, ground-based broadcast signals from TV, AM radio and the thenincreasing FM radio transmissions were the primary exposures. There were no cellular services, very few
wireless devices, and very little satellite transmission compared to today.

The Tell and Mantiply [151] study found that 20 percent of the total U.S. population was exposed to time-averaged VHF and UHF broadcast radiation at a median level
(i.e., the middle value of the highest and lowest measured values) of 0.0005 μW per centimeter squared (μW/cm2
).

This represents a measurement of power density in a set space commonly used to delineate RFR field intensity. In Los Angeles, for instance, Tell and Mantiply [151] found the median level was 0.005 μW/cm2 [152]. Their data also
suggested that only 1% of the population, or about 441,000 people, were potentially exposed to levels greater than 1 μW/cm2 — the safety limit recommended by the USSR
which was 1,000 times more stringent than the U.S. safety guidelines in 1980. At the time, the researchers clearly found the data reassuring for the general population.

Tell and Kavet [147] revisited the subject in 2014 but
specifically did not replicate or try to update the large 1980 study. Their goal was to determine if, and how, environmental levels could now be assessed, given the number and variety of RF transmitters used today. They tested in four small-to-medium size municipalities and found that the FM bands were still a major contributor to overall RFR exposure, but noted that over time, intensities in the VHF bands decreased while the UHF bands increased, reflecting the shift in the UHF bands for cellular use since 1980.

European researchers, however, did not find FM to be a
significant factor in today’s exposures [153–155].

The original 1980 U.S. study cannot be replicated since the profile and nature of RFR has completely changed since that time. But an international team of researchers [149] measured EMF/RFR in 94 matched microenvironments in
six countries, including Switzerland, Ethiopia, Nepal,
South Africa, Australia and the Los Angeles area of the U.S. — one of the 1980 EPA sites — where they found a
70-fold increase in RF levels compared to the late 1970s measurements [152]. See below for more information on
this study with cell phone infrastructure as the dominant contributor. Other than the one Sagar et al. [149] study, there are no current data on background radiation levels in the U.S. However, findings from U.S. and Canadian cities are thought to be comparable to studies coming from
Europe which takes more interest in the subject in general as well as quantifying the continuously rising indoor and outdoor levels in particular.

Although cell service did not exist when the original
1980 EPA study was performed, cell technology now
functions in similar UHF bands measured by Tell and
Mantiply in 1980 [151]. Thus today’s rising exposures can be assessed against the baselines noted back then. When the U.S. switched to digital television in 2008, it freed up spectrum “white space” previously used for analog TV
transmission. That spectrum space is now allocated for 4G wireless Internet, and both the VHF and UHF bands will
be used in expanding ubiquitous broadband/Internet
service in rural areas. But the advent of digital technology, which simulates pulsed waves, significantly changed communications signaling characteristics, essentially
allowing for a second universal transmission system to be built on top of the old analog signals [100]. This not only doubled overall environmental RFR exposures, it introduced a completely new kind. It was the global introduction of digital technology that facilitated the reshuffling of various RFR bands in the finite “real estate” of the electromagnetic spectrum. The introduction of 5G is now doing the same thing.

There is never enough spectrum to satisfy society’s
desire for it, a consequence of which is that we have now completely filled in most of the lower nonionizing bands with commercial and military use, and are branching into much higher frequencies using millimeter waves between
30 and 300 GHz for communications and other applications. The U.S. was the first country to approve the buildout of the fifth Generation (5G) communications, to date in the 28, 37, and 39 GHz ranges for 5G. The new 5G systems, using small cells and Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) networks, are being built with antennas attached to buildings and powerline utility poles in very close proximity to the population, using extremely complex phased array
signaling heretofore mostly used by the military. Neither these frequencies nor signaling characteristics existed for civilian use in 1980 and therefore constitute a whole new and novel environmental exposure since that early EPA
review, along with all of the other wireless technologies since introduced. One thing is certain — exposure patterns Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 7
454
Agenda Item # 9.
are rapidly changing with each new technology development, far in advance of our biological understanding of the consequences.

With the advent of cell technologies in the mid-to-late 1990s, background ambient RFR exposures began to
steadily increase, particularly — though not exclusively — in urban areas [18–149, 156–165]. Cellular infrastructure, though orders of magnitude lower in power density than
that from broadcast facilities, has become vastly more
ubiquitous and is placed much closer to the human population in both urban and rural areas [155].

Difficulties in assessing ambient exposures
Assessing ambient exposures, both indoors and outdoors, has frustrated researchers and regulators alike regarding how best to capture field exposure data. Should it be
through computer simulation or actual field measurements? Variables in environmental assessments can be blindingly complex. Power density and distance from a generating
source have traditionally been used as the surrogate for ambient exposures but those metrics can be imperfect given how RFR couples with the environment once transmitted, as well as the necessary factoring in of multiple overlapping sources today. Aside from distance and multiple sources, environmental assessments involve variables such as
orientation toward the transmitting source, species, size, physical composition, the presence of metal objects, and topography, to name but a few [100, 155].

RF field strength falls off rapidly with distance from
the transmitting source (Maxwell’s inverse square law)
but predicting actual exposures based on simple distance from antennas using standardized computer formulas is
inadequate. Actual exposures are far more complex in
both urban and rural environments to both humans and
wildlife.

Contributing to the complexity is the fact that the
narrow vertical spread of the beam creates a low RF field at ground level directly and at some distance below the antenna. As a person or wildlife species moves away from or within a particular field, exposures create peaks and valleys in field strength. In addition, scattering and
attenuation alter field strength in relation to building placement, architectural composition, the presence of
trees, soil type, and topographical features such as
mountains and rock formations [166]. Power density
levels can be 1–100 times lower inside a building, for
instance, depending on construction materials used and
antenna gain [155]. Exposures can differ greatly depending on the presence of conductive mediums like water or soil containing mineral salts with sodium, iron, copper, and zinc, among others. Exposures can be twice as high in upper floors of buildings as in lower floors [167, 168]. This would also apply to birds/bats/bees and other insects
receiving higher exposures when flying at a lateral plane with transmitting antennas mounted on a tower or atop
other structures.

Although distance from a transmitting source has
been shown to be an unreliable determinant for accurate exposure measurements due to potential creation of RFR
hotspots [155], the metric is nevertheless useful in some general ways. For instance, Rinebold [169] has shown that radiation levels from a tower with 15 non-broadcast radio systems will fall off to natural background levels at a distance of approximately 1,500 ft (457 m). This would be in general agreement with the lessening of symptoms in human populations living near cell towers at a distance greater than 1,000 ft (300 m; [170]). There is, of course, no adequate or reasonable way to restrict wildlife from approaching,
defending territories, and/or living near towers, including birds nesting directly on or immediately near them.

Animal radiotracking devices: RFID and radio collars
In human populations, wearing or carrying personal
dosimetry devices appears to be a promising area for
capturing cumulative exposure data. But attaching such
devices for the same purposes to wildlife is ill-advised given the amount of tracking equipment — RFID chips,
radio collars, and radio/satellite implants — already
globally deployed by biologists on/in numerous species of avian, terrestrial, aquatic and marine wildlife for study and media entertainment.

Arguably, important behavior and migratory findings have been discovered for myriad species from such use — including the deep dives of great white sharks
(Carcharodon carcharias) and the 50,000+ mi (80,470 km) annual “figure eight” migrations of Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea), among many others. One of the authors
[171] radio-tagged black bears (Ursus americanus) in
Michigan’s Lower Peninsula for three years using
receivers on the ground and in aircraft, investigating
impacts from humans on bears, but at the time he was
unaware of possible impacts from EMF. Aside from the
newest telemetry technologies with safety features such as immediate break-away telemeter/collar options, lost
collar signaling, and data-card download capabilities,
there can still be difficulty removing such devices after attachment/insertion, if at all, or collecting such devices once an animal has died, or devices have slipped off and/ or self-released in remote areas.
8 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
455
Agenda Item # 9.

Most important, however, are data available that
confound the additional exposures [172] from the devices themselves, which has not been broadly addressed by the wildlife community. Balmori [8] noted that radio transmitters attached to animals can induce negative effects leading to biased results. Documented effects from use of the devices include decreased productivity, behavioral
and movement changes/patterns, increased energy
expenditure, biased sex ratios, and reduced survival. Biologists often attribute such factors to the weight of the radio transmitter and/or associated devices. Also the type of attachment (harness, collar, leg clamp, glue, or
implant) and where mounted (subcutaneous anchoring,
tail, head, wing, etc.) are also considered factors in
adverse outcomes. So far, however, EMF/RFR has largely
been left out as a confounder, even as adverse effects were found to be significantly associated with the duration of RFR transmitter attachment [8, 173]. This parallels similar effects seen in all wildlife taxa from RFR as demonstrated throughout this paper. Balmori [8] posited that ironically scientists investigating animal orientation understand
they must shield their labs to prevent anthropogenic EMF from distorting or skewing research results, yet they
directly attach transmitters to species in field studies without considering the confounding exposure of the radio tracking devices themselves on behavior, movement, orientation, and even survival.

Barron et al. [173] published a meta analysis of effects to avian species from use of radio tracking devices. Up until this large analysis, studies were limited to investigations of either the type of device or to a single species. The researchers reviewed 84 studies to determine if devices had an overall effect on avian species, which aspects of
behavior and ecology were affected, and importantly, if mere capture and restraint were factors. They found
significant overall device-induced negative effects as well as negative effects from eight of 12 specific aspects — most markedly from increased energy expenditure and reduced
likelihood to nest. In fact, devices negatively affected every aspect considered except flying ability. Effects were independent of sex, age, primary method of locomotion
and body mass. They also found no evidence of greater
effects from heavier devices, but breast‐mounted and
harness attached equipment increased device‐induced
behaviors such as preening. Device‐induced mortality
differed between attachment methods with anchored
and implanted transmitters (which generally require
anesthesia) showing the highest reported device‐induced mortality rates. Harnesses and collars also had relatively high mortality rates, possibly due to entanglement with vegetation. They further noted that cumulative impacts
from some aspects of attachment were substantial. For
example, reductions in nesting propensity, success,
productivity, and foraging can all decrease reproductive potential, while reduced foraging, body condition and
flying ability, along with increased device‐induced behaviors and energetic expenditure, are likely to increase bird mortality with use of transmitters. Also, transmitters on some birds indirectly reduced the fitness of untagged mates if they had to compensate for decreased parental
activities by the bird with the transmitter. Capture and restraint however, as independent variables, were not found to be of consequence. The authors deduced negative effects were primarily due to transmitters. They concluded that transmitters and other devices could negatively affect birds and may bias resulting data. Unlike Balmori’s 2016 review [8], this study did not specifically include EMF/RFR but it can generally be implied.

Deadly sarcomas have also been observed in tissue
around RFID chips imbedded in research animals and
domestic pets [174–182] which some attributed to the
casing material. Also noted were severe metabolic changes in animals exposed to 915-MHz RFID [183].

Not all animals studied with RFID chips however
showed adverse effects [184–187] although most of those tests were of short duration [174]. Very little follow-up data have been collected on possible effects to wildlife after radio collars or other tracking devices have been attached, or what contribution, if any, such devices may be
contributing to ambient exposures. Much still remains
unknown about the impacts of telemeters in and/or on
wildlife.

One field study by Raybuck et al. [188] of Cerulean
Warblers (Setophaga cerulea), a small long-distance
migratory songbird, found a 35% lower return rate when
geolocators (also known as dataloggers or geologgers)
were attached than in control populations without geolocators. Geolocators are miniature devices with tiny computers that produce a small magnetic field and record light at regular intervals, usually two times per day,
enabling general position to be calculated. Birds must be re-captured to gather the range of location information over time. Devices are externally attached to birds with thin straps under their legs or harnesses on their backs and are widely used by biologists to track avian migration over their full annual cycle of spring return, mating, nesting, fledging, fall migration and overwintering. While Raybuck et al. [188] found no negative effects from geolocators during the breeding season, the return rate of geolocatortagged birds was lower than that of control birds (16 ± 5% vs. 35 ± 7%). They attributed the loss to increased weight from the devices, adverse weather patterns especially to Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 9
456
Agenda Item # 9.
species flying over large bodies of water, return to areas other than expected, and death. The researchers did not explore potential effects from EMF but noted that caution was warranted.

Most wildlife biologists do not factor in the effects of exposures from microcurrents in batteries/computers,
RFID chips that do or do not transmit RFR, or GPS radio collars that transmit to satellites which can create independent exposures to wildlife and surrounding
environments. Because there is so little information
regarding effects of EMF exposure in tagged wildlife, the use of dosimeters carried by humans may provide better
information about ambient exposures that may then be
extrapolated to wildlife as they move in and out of
different habitats. Wildlife should not be equipped with devices to assess ambient EMF, even in remote wilderness areas. Biologists should reconsider the abundant use
of such devices as if there are no consequences or
confounding of data gathered from them.

Human personal dosimetry devices: capturing ambient
field measurements
A novel approach for capturing and quantifying ambient
exposures for larger built areas was created by Estenberg and Augustsson [153] for the Swedish Radiation Safety
Authority. It involved a car-based measuring system for estimating general public outdoor exposures. The complicated but carefully designed system enabled fast, largearea, isotropic spectral bandwidth measurements covering the frequency range between 30 MHz and 3 GHz. The
method allowed the complete mapping of a town with
15,000 inhabitants and a 115 km (71+ mi) reach performed in one day. Areas chosen in Sweden represented typical rural, urban and city areas. The data sets consisted of more than 70,000 measurements performed between 8:00 AM and
6:30 PM local time. Results found median power density was

0.0016 μW/cm2 in rural areas, 0.027 μW/cm2 in urban areas, and 0.24 μW/cm2 in city areas. In urban and city areas, mobile phone base stations were the clear dominating
sources with GSM and UMTS downlinks. The many factors
that affected measurement results were discussed, most
crucial being the variation of the actual field strength over time caused by sporadic, pulsed or moving transmitters or by multipath fading due to reflections from moving objects.

The authors said “…a single measurement of the field
strength from transmitters like the global system for mobile communication (GSM) base stations can be both under- and overestimated depending on whether the burst is caught by the measurement,” but added that “the extensive amount of measurements in each data set still ensures that the median or mean power density within a measured district is robust.” They also noted that due to the antenna mount on top of the vehicle, both over- and underestimates may also occur between transmitters closer to the ground vs. those placed at a higher level, but added that the repeatability of the measurement method and its ability to locate local hotspots is a positive outcome acquired from using this method. While there are many complexities involved with such mobile
measurements, on top of the fact that no standard or existing solution for how such mobile measurements should be carried out yet exists, the approach summarized above
nevertheless seems a good start.

Gonzalez-Rubio et al. [150] tried another creative
mobile method by placing an EME Spy 140 inside the
plastic basket of a bicycle, performing measurements in all 110 administrative (electoral) regions with homogenous
population counts in the city of Albecete, Spain. The use of the bicycle allowed better access to all areas of those districts — especially those areas inaccessible with motorized vehicles. The authors specifically sought to correlate
exposure levels to known fixed mobile base station sites but surprisingly found they did not correlate. Possible reasons given for the absence of correlation were: orientation of the base station antennas, building construction features, land topography, RFR deflection off of buildings and signal attenuation. Gonzalez-Rubio et al. [150] did not characterize what, if any, contribution to outdoor ambient levels were made by possible leakage from indoor RF
transmitters or handheld devices but they did use domestic DECT phones as their control since DECT operates without involving links with outside base stations. Their results averaged three bands of mobile telephone antennas (GSM, Digital Combat Simulator [DCS], and UMTS) in the different regions and found variations of average intensity from

0.04 V/m (0.00042 μW/cm2
) to 0.89 V/m (0.21 μW/cm2).

The study points to the complexities of how RFR dissipates in the environment and that distance from a generating
source is an unreliable metric. Calvente et al. [189] earlier found similar wide spatial variability outside of 123 residences in Southern Spain using the same variables, plus seasonal differences. Lahham and Ayyad [190] measured
environmental RFR in Palestine using a personal exposure meter EME SPY 140. The total daily exposure from all
radiofrequency electromagnetic field sources varied widely among participants depending on their location, the mobile network they use, their activities, and their mode of transportation, ranging from about 0.2 to 0.9 V/m, mainly from WiFi 2G, GSM900 uplink, GSM900 downlink, and FM
broadcasting.

Using such mobile measurement approaches in
expansive rural areas with road access, as well as fixed 10 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
457
Agenda Item # 9.
measurement sites in very remote locations, would better capture real-time exposures (including intermittent peaks from space-based networks capable of affecting wildlife) than computer simulations or personal dosimeter
methods, although dosimeters carried or properly attached to trekking gear could gather pertinent information as well.

Measured levels: (for a table of studies, see
Part 1, Supplement 1, “Environmental EMF
measurements from around the world”)
Prior to the widespread use of the UMTS network in one of the earliest ambient environmental studies after Tell and Mantiply [151], Hamnerius and Uddmar [191] investigated EMF/RF at 16 different sites in Sweden, both indoors and outdoors in city areas like bus stops. The maximum value observed was 0.3 μW/cm2 and was dominated by GSM
900 MHz. An indoor measurement in an office revealed a
value of 0.15 μW/cm2
, 96% of the power density coming
from a GSM-900 MHz antenna 328 ft (100 m) away. Measurements in the vicinity of radio and TV transmitters resulted in values up to 0.23 μW/cm2
.

Frei et al. [157] used dosimeters to examine the total
exposure levels of RFR in the Swiss urban population.

What they found was startling — nearly a third of the test subjects’ cumulative exposures were from cell tower base stations. Prior to this study, exposure from base stations was thought to be insignificant due to their low emissions and to affect only those living or working in close proximity to such infrastructure. But this study showed that the
general population moves in and out of these particular fields with more regularity than previously expected. That assessment would apply to wildlife, too.

In Frei et al.’s [157] sample of 166 volunteers from
Basel, Switzerland, study participants wore a dosimeter for one week and also completed an activity diary. Results
found a mean weekly exposure to all RFR and/or EMF
sources was 0.013 μW/cm2
. Exposure was mainly from
mobile phone base stations (32.0%), mobile phone handsets (29.1%), and domestic digital enhanced cordless telecommunications (DECT) phones (22.7%). Mean values were highest in trains (0.116 μW/cm2
), airports (0.074 μW/cm2),
and tramways or buses (0.036 μW/cm2
) and were higher
during the daytime (0.016 μW/cm2
) than the nighttime
(0.008 μW/cm2
).

Another surprising finding of the Frei et al. (157) study implied that at the belt, backpack, or in close vicinity to the body in test subjects, the mean base station contribution corresponded to about 7 min of mobile phone use. In other words, ambient exposure from infrastructure alone was a significant contributor beyond one’s personal choice to use individual devices. Frei et al. estimated that there had been a 10-fold increase in RFR outdoor radiation since mobile phone technology was introduced than when broadcast
RFR had been quantified by Tell and Mantiply [151]. That trend has continued to be measured by numerous researchers today.

Joseph et al. [158] tried to make sense of the measured but differing results coming from various countries. Their objectives were to compare exposure levels and contributions from different sources in different European countries, including Belgium, Switzerland, Slovenia, Hungary, and the Netherlands, standardizing with the same personal dosimeter across countries. Results found that levels were of the same magnitude in all countries except the
Netherlands, which was higher in all environments. There was no adequate explanation for these Netherland findings. Highest total exposures, like other studies, were in transport vehicles (trains, cars, buses) due to mobile phone handsets (up to 97%). Exposure in offices was higher than in urban homes. For outdoor urban environments, mobile
phone base stations and handsets dominated the
exposure.

Others have also looked at various ambient exposures
relevant to this paper, including domestic pets and animals sheltering in indoor environments. Viel et al. [165] investigated varying exposures according to day of the week, concluding that the highest exposure to residents was on Sundays, primarily due to UMTS upload transmission and
domestic DECT phone use. Markakis and Samaras [159]
took indoor measurements with dosimeters in 40 different urban and suburban locations throughout Greece from
2010 to 2012 and found that RF from mobile base stations was dominant in workplaces and schools during the day,
whereas in home environments dominant exposures at
night were from DECT/wireless phones and computer
networks. Bolte and Eikelboom [156] posited that bodyworn dosimeters may both under- and -over estimate actual exposures depending on how they are worn and that a calibration determination should be made. They found in their study, using 98 subjects wearing dosimeters, that train stations had a high mean power density of 0.0304–

0.0354 μW/cm2
, but that pubs or cafés where more people
gathered using mobile phones and laptops in crowded
quarters showed even higher exposures with mean exposures of 0.0526 μW/cm2 . That study was conducted in 2011
when GSM use was prevalent, before smart phones using
UMTS proliferated. Similarly, Gryz and Karpowicz [192]
measured indoor RFR in the Warsaw, Poland, metro. The
major source of exposure was the 900 GSM system. Rowley and Joyner [160] found the mean exposure based on 173,323 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 11
458
Agenda Item # 9.
measurements in 21 countries worldwide was 0.073 μW/
cm2 over a decade. Joyner et al. [193] did further assessments in Africa for seven years and found results consistent with the previous 2012 study. Rowley and Joyner [161]
further analyzed a database of more than 50 million data points from the Italian fixed radiofrequency field monitoring network between June 2002 and November 2006 and found the mean value for mobile communications band
was 0.047 μW/cm2
. They concluded that the findings of all
three studies were consistent irrespective of continent, country, network operator or regulatory RFR exposure
limit, leading to confidence that mean environmental
levels from cellular mobile communications systems are
less than 0.1 μW/cm2
. However, according to Estenberg and
Augustsson [153], the methods of these last studies were not well described.

With the introduction of new communications systems
and more mobile phone use, measured background levels,
not surprisingly, increased. Urbinello et al. [162], who used dosimeters, found a combined 57.1% increase in total RFR levels in European outdoor areas studied within just one year from 2011 to 2012, representing a significantly altered environment over a very short period. They measured three European cities — Basel, Switzerland; Ghent, and Brussels, Belgium — in various microenvironments that included
public transportation hubs (train and bus stations), indoor areas (airports, railways, shopping centers), and outdoor areas (residential, downtown and suburb). The highest
RFR radiation occurred in public transportation areas
which found combined measurement values from 0.32
(272 μW/m2
) to 0.59 V/m (862 μW/m2). In all outdoor areas
combined, values ranged from 0.0128 μW/cm2 to

0.0446 μW/cm2
. The authors found that the strongest
increase in outdoor areas was from communications
infrastructure rather than from mobile handsets.

Ambient levels in urban areas can be quite site specific as demonstrated by Hardell et al. [154] when they investigated the Stockholm Central Railway Station, Sweden, using the dosimeter EME Spy 200, which scans 20 different radiofrequency bands from 88 to 5,850 MHz, in order to
collect RF exposure data. A total of 1,669 data points were recorded with primary exposures found from downlinks.

The median value for total exposure was 0.092 μW/cm2
. The
mean total RF radiation level varied between 0.28 and

0.49 μW/cm2 for each scanning survey (High mean measurements were obtained for GSM + UMTS 900 downlink varying between 0.17 and 0.21 μW/cm2
. High levels were
also obtained for UMTS 2100 downlink; 0.044–0.16 μW/
cm2
. Also LTE 800 downlink, GSM 1800 downlink, and LTE
2,600 downlink were in the higher range of measurements).

Hot spots were also identified, such as close to a wall mounted antenna yielding over 9.55 μW/cm2 and exceeding the dosimeter’s detection limit. It should be noted that these are mostly transient exposures to humans moving through the station, although employees there are subjected to
extended exposures as well as any urban wildlife in such environments. This work illustrates the high indoor levels experienced today, perhaps affecting pets, and contributing to rising background levels in general beyond a building’s walls. It is also generally indicative of what wildlife would encounter moving near such installations in outdoor areas.

Hardell et al. [155] later investigated outdoor exposures in major areas of Stockholm, Sweden. RF levels were
measured during five tours in Stockholm Old Town in April of 2016 using the EME Spy 200 dosimeter with the same 20 predefined frequencies noted above. The results were based on a total of 10,437 samples from which they found the mean total RFR level was 0.4293 µW/cm2
. Similar to their indoor
study, the highest mean levels obtained were for
GSM + UMTS 900 downlink and long-term evolution (LTE)
2,600 downlink at 0.16 and 0.13 µW/cm2
, respectively. The
town squares displayed highest total mean levels, with one example at Järntorget Square measured at 2.4 µW/cm2
(minimum 0.0257, maximum 17.33 µW/cm2), compared with
results in other areas near the Supreme Court that showed the lowest total exposure with a mean level of 0.0404 µW/ cm2 (minimum 0.002, maximum 0.4088 µW/cm2
). Street
measurements surrounding the Royal Castle area were
lower than the total for Old Town, with a mean of

0.0756 µW/cm2 (min 0.00003, max 5.09 µW/cm2
).While
their results were below the reference level of 1,000 µW/cm2 established by the International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), that high-exposure standard, Hardell et al. [155] said, is less credible since it does not take effects into consideration below thermal
thresholds for tissue heating and are “…not based on sound scientific evaluation”. Their highest measured mean level at Järntorget was 0.24% of the ICNIRP level. Numerous studies have found adverse health effects far below ICNIRP or other such guidelines [100].

The Hardell et al. [155] studies were not compatible
with Tell and Kavet [147] that found FM bands were still a significant contributor to ambient RFR exposures. Indeed, Hardell et al. [154, 155] found FM orders of magnitude lower than the most current frequencies used for mobile telecommunications from all sources, the highest contributors were download frequencies from base stations at
GSM + UMTS 900, UMTS 2, 100, LTE 800, LTE 2,600 and
GSM 1,800 bands.
12 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
459
Agenda Item # 9.

Similarly, in a study in Switzerland, Sagar et al. [194] reported RFR measurements in 51 different outdoor
microenvironments in 20 different municipalities while
walking with backpack-mounted exposimeters (ExpoMRF) through five city centers, five central residential areas, five non-central residential areas, 15 rural residential areas, 15 rural centers, and six industrial areas. They too found infrastructure downlink exposures were most relevant in outdoor areas and that exposures increased with urbanity.

They also found uplink exposures from cell handsets were only relevant within public transportation areas (trains, buses, trams), and that repeat measurements were highly reproducible within 2–4 months. Their reported mean
RF-MF exposure (sum of 15 main frequency bands between

87.5 and 5875 MHz) was 0.53 V/m in industrial zones;

0.47 V/m in city centers; 0.32 V/m in central residential areas; 0.25 V/m non-central residential areas; 0.23 V/m in rural centers and rural residential areas; 0.69 V/m in trams;

0.46 V/m in trains; and 0.39 V/m in buses. The major
exposure in all outdoor locations was from cell phone base stations (480% for all outdoor areas regarding power
density).

In the most comprehensive review to date, Sagar et al.
[148, 149] measured EMF/RFR in 94 matched microenvironments in six countries, including Switzerland, Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa, Australia and the Los Angeles area of the U.S. They included both urban and rural areas and
matched microenvironments in city centers, central residential, non-central residential, rural centers, rural residential, industrial, and tourist and university areas. This was the first study — ironically initiated by European researchers — to reassess one of the original EPA/Tell and Mantiply (1980) sites in the U.S. where they found a 70-fold (i.e., 7,000%) increase in mean ambient levels
since that pioneering 1980 baseline data were recorded
[152]. Cell infrastructure was the dominant contributor to the increase. Using portable RFR ExpoM-RF and EME Spy
201, walking with backpack-mounted devices at head
height at a distance of 7.8–11.8 in (20–30 cm) from the body, or by driving a car with the devices roof mounted at

5.57–5.9 ft (170–180 cm) above the ground, they measured 94 outdoor microenvironments as well as within 18 public transport vehicles throughout the six countries. Measurements were taken for approximately 30 min while walking and about 15–20 min while driving in each microenvironment, with a sampling rate of once every 4 s (ExpoM-RF) and 5 s (EME Spy 201). They found great variability between countries, and regions within countries, with cell phone infrastructure being the major outdoor contributor to
background levels today. Broadcast RFR was second. Total mean RFR exposure in various outdoor microenvironments
varied between 0.23 V/m in Swiss non-central residential areas and 1.85 V/m in an Australian university area; and in buses in rural Switzerland between 0.32 and 0.86 V/m in an auto rickshaw in urban areas in Nepal respectively. Uplink RFR connections from mobile phone handsets was generally very small, except in Swiss trains and buses and other transport in sample countries.

Exposure in urban areas tended to be higher. Mean total RFR exposure for city centers was 0.48 V/m in Switzerland,

1.21 V/m in Ethiopia, 0.75 V/m in Nepal, 0.85 V/m in South Africa, 1.46 V/m in Australia and 1.24 V/m in the U. S. Corresponding downlink exposure was 0.47 V/m (Switzerland),

0.94 V/m (Ethiopia) 0.70 V/m (Nepal), 0.81 V/m (South
Africa), 0.81 V/m (Australia) and 1.22 V/m (U.S.).

Compared to other countries, the U.S. had high exposure levels, ranging from 1.4 mW/m2 in a non-central residential area of Los Angeles to 6.8 mW/m2 in a less populated area within the center of the city near a freeway.

The median total exposure to RFR across all eight outdoor microenvironments in Los Angeles was 3.4 mW/m2
.

Switzerland, which has stricter exposure standards based on precautionary limits, had the lowest measured levels among all countries in the study.

What the above studies show are steady increasing
environmental levels of RFR, primarily due to the introduction of mobile telecommunications. All of the above studies were conducted prior to the introduction of 5G
which will greatly increase RFR background levels. The
above RFR levels now ubiquitous in the environment are
capable of affecting wildlife, as we report in Part 2.

Wilderness areas: cell towers in
national parks; military training
over the Olympic Peninsula
The studies cited in Part 1, Supplement 1 were conducted primarily in urban and suburban areas with limited
attention paid to rural environments. No one has yet
measured environmental RFR in heavily forested areas,
likely because it is assumed exposures are negligible to nonexistant. Investigators are traditionally more curious about effects in human populations. However, cell towers now transmit into our deepest vast wilderness areas. In addition, sources of environmental RFR include spacebased transmissions aimed back toward Earth for military and commercial use, universal satellite transmissions for GPS, airborne transient infrastructure exposures such as Google blimps [195] intended for rural areas, new satellite platforms for 5G Internet connectivity, drone technology, Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife 13
460
Agenda Item # 9.
and military blimps used in both war zones and/or for security and surveillance in remote areas [196]. Such blimp “airships” create their own infrastructure by circling large areas or being positioned over a single point on the Earth’s surface for both civil and defense applications. They are intended to provide mobile communications specifically in remote areas lacking land-based infrastructure, as well as during disasters when land-based infrastructure becomes dysfunctional. There may actually be more ambient RFR
exposure in our remote regions than we have assumed.

In the U.S., the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration [197] houses the Socioeconomic Data and
Applications Center (SEDAC) and along with the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN 2018, [198]) at
Columbia University, published “The Last of the Wild
Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP-2): Global Human Footprint Dataset (Geographic), v2 (1995–2004).” Under this program, which accumulated information between 1995 and 2004, NASA facilitated large global data sets to map the Human Influence Index (HII) regarding impacts on the
environment intended for use in wildlife conservation
planning, natural resource management, and research on
human-environment interactions. In 1 km (0.6 mi) grid
cells created from nine global data layers, the HII assessed human population pressure (population density), human
land use/infrastructure (built-up areas, nighttime lights, land use/land cover), and human access (coastlines, roads, railroads, navigable rivers). CIESIN 2018 had not considered cell technology or transmission infrastructure as factors in wildlife conservation but it is an important new yardstick for future consideration.

A group of researchers [199] used cell phone coverage
as a surrogate measurement for human influence on
wildlife. In a case study of the vast Brazilian Atlantic forest, the researchers first demonstrated the correlation between cell phone coverage and the global human wireless footprint, using a database of over 23 million antennas. They then correlated the presence of 45 species of medium to large-size mammals and cell phone coverage for the forest.

Researchers recorded 18,211 points of mammalian presence from in-person sightings, animal tracks, and remote
camera images. They found wildlife probability of being present under cell phone coverage conditions was on
average only 18%, with threatened species correlated far lower at 4%. In other words, species appeared to be
avoiding such radiated areas. They further noted: “Most of the species showed a clear negative relationship with cell phone coverage, and threatened species presented an even lower probability, of at least 4% when compared with nonthreatened ones. The strong positive relationship between cell phone coverage and the Human Footprint gradient at a global scale corroborated our a priori hypothesis that cell phone coverage can act as a surrogate for human presence, even in forested areas were no other footprint evidence is easily detectable.” Large cat species, like the Jaguar (Panthera onca), and other threatened mammals appeared
most affected due to their absence in areas studied. The authors did not take RFR into consideration or individual cell phones in use, only the ability to make a cell phone call.

There are many reasons for wildlife abandonment of
such areas, including human presence itself as well as the increased cell infrastructure with accompanying lighting, noise, access roads, and powerline connections creating disturbed/broken habitat since the 2005 Human Footprint Index work noted above. Mining, logging, road building, dams, and other human perturbations can also result in
wildlife abandonment. The Macedo et al. study [199] may be a useful new metric for detecting human interference along with what is currently being used in conservation planning and decision making. Factoring the introduction of increased EMF from transmissions, electrical conduit, and new ground currents in pristine areas may create
important new exposures that wildlife may sense (see Part 2 for information on magnetoreception), also leading to wildlife abandonment. Areas without cell phone coverage may provide an important new indicator for areas needing enhanced protection before wildlife damage is done [200].

In 2016, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, had five
towers that provided coverage into some of the remotest regions with additional coverage coming into the Park
from towers on all of its vast perimeters [201]. There were proposals for Theodore Roosevelt National Monument,
North Dakota, to put a 4G cell tower on the edge of one of the largest stretches of designated wilderness there. Mount Rainier National Park, Washington State, despite opposition, planned to install a 4G cell system at a visitor center that would send RFR deep into the surrounding wilderness [202]. Mount Rainier National Park also reviewed right-ofway permit applications from Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile to install wireless communications facilities
within the Jackson Visitor Center in Paradise, an area
completely surrounded by wilderness. There was already
significant coverage to that federally designated wilderness from surrounding towers on its periphery.

Within a few short years, tower proposals increased
exponentially as the U.S government, spurred by industry, made coverage into our remotest regions on federally
owned public lands a priority. While many see this as
necessary for public safety, others see it as an incursion into our last iconic wild sacred refuges. Grand Teton
14 Levitt et al.: EMF and wildlife
461
Agenda Item # 9.

National Park, Wyoming, is planning a sprawling network of cell towers within its boundaries to run along its 45 mi (72 km) length from which there may be significant signal penetration [203]. Yosemite National Park has seen six new towers permitted in recent years; Sequoia National Park has a new 138’ (42 m) tower; Mt. Rainier has new antennas on a visitor center; Grand Canyon has five new towers
proposed along the canyon’s rim and Yellowstone is
improving infrastructure that would increase capacity by 38 times [203]. The fact that the National Park Service is promoting a sweeping tech build-out of wireless sites — including small cells attached to existing buildings,
towers, and enhanced WiFi hubs across many of the 62
national parks — is troubling. Grand Teton alone is slated for nine new tower sites in addition to two existing ones, as well as 60 mi (100 km) of new fiberoptic cable as backhaul.

Glacier National Park, Montana, is planning at least four new towers; new towers are also planned at Olympic and
Bryce Canyon, and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

At Yellowstone, cell phone users can reportedly already get weak signals across significant portions of the
3,500-square-mile (9,065 km2
) Park’s backcountry [204].

While some of the early tower applications got minimal
environmental review, the most recent build-outs have
evaded regulatory oversight due to the National Park
Service declaring specific proposals as categorically
excluded, thus negating full National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review and implementation of an Environmental Impact Statement/EIS [204]. All of this was made easier by new FCC rules that limited local control, environmental review, and compliance with the National
Historic Preservation Act. That FCC ruling has since been successfully challenged in Federal court by the Natural Resources Defense Council [205]. Potential effects to forest wildlife from RFR have not been included but should be
part of all applications under NEPA review (see Part 3).

It is well known that signal propagation loss can be
due to several factors, including antenna height, depolarization, humidity/rain, tree species, and other variables [206]. Any attempt to intentionally direct strong RFR
signals into remote forested areas from ground-based
transmitters is confounded by tree leaves that absorb,
defract, and scatter signals in myriad directions due
primarily to moisture content. Live trees with wet leaves absorb RFR most efficiently while dead trees without leaves absorb the least [207]. Some evergreen tree species also have resonant properties due to needle configurations.
5G is of particular concern regarding vegetation,
especially if satellite-based. The technicalities of propagation loss in forest environments are therefore getting renewed attention since rural areas are targeted 5G-service regions for satellite use. The subject is also of interest in the development of wireless sensor networks using low-power transceivers in remote regions for scientific and surveillance purposes [206]. As far back as 1997, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission issued a report [208] on
millimeter wave (MMW) propagation characteristics that
included information on signal loss due to foliage. In the frequency range between 200 MHz–95 GHz, the foliage
signal loss at 40 GHz at a penetration of 32.9 ft (10 m) — equivalent to one large tree or two in tandem — was
determined to be about 19 dBm (a unit of measurement of EMF-RFR power levels expressed in decibels referenced to 1 mW). The report noted this is not a negligible signal loss value. The report also discussed signal attenuation effects due to rain, as well as water vapor absorption and oxygen, noting resonant frequencies below 100 GHz occur at 24 GHz for water vapor and at 60 GHz for oxygen. Hakusui [209] also investigated 60 GHz and O2 absorption properties, as have others. There may be implications for climate change (see Part 3).

Clearer dosemitry standardization is being called for
regarding 5G buildout in general, including in urban areas as trees can also affect 5G network designs there too.

Government entities are now issuing reports on performance impacts to 5G networks from physical features not previously considered in network planning, including
vegetation. The accumulation of new propagation data is now considered an essential prerequisite to 5G’s use of higher frequencies [210].

Unfortunately, such reviews are conducted as a
component of cost-effective 5G buildout which will use the broadband spectrum spanning low-MHz-through-MMW,
not as a tool to mitigate damage to flora which can be
considerable. Ultimately the ‘greening’ of cities to offset impacts of climate change may prove incompatible with
5G. And there is no way to know at this point what 5G
exposures from satellites may do to deep forested areas or to climate conditions given resonant factors involving
water and oxygen molecules.

Los Altos City CouncilMay 10, 2022

Los Altos City Council
May 10, 2022