From: Mark Baker
To: Clerk; Attorney
Cc: council; CMO; PublicWorks; Engineering
Subject: LED Streetlights Are Not FDA Approved
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 6:53:17 PM
Attachments: Unapproved LED Streetlights - National City, CA.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear City Clerk and City Attorney, National City, California, Please find attached our public comments regarding LED streetlights which have not been FDA approved. Please forward to the city council.
Sincerely,
Mark Baker
President
Soft Lights Foundation
General Comment
1 of 3
Foundation
July 19, 2023
BY EMAIL
Barry Schultz, City Attorney
National City, California
[email protected]
Re: LED Streetlights Lack FDA Approval
Dear Barry Schultz,
An LED streetlight is an electronic product which is regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The FDA presentation “How to Get Your Electronic Product on the U.S. Market” details the authority of the FDA to regulate the radiation from electronic products and the requirements of manufacturers to receive FDA approval for their electronic products that emit radiation.1 The city of National City, California has installed or is considering installing LED streetlights.
However, the FDA has not approved any LED streetlight products to ensure the comfort, health, and safety of the public. The FDA is mandated by the 1968 Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act (21 U.S.C. 360ii) to publish performance standards for electronic products that emit radiation, and yet the FDA has failed to comply with 21 U.S.C. 360ii for LED products, including LED streetlights. The Harvard University research article The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968: History, Accomplishments, and Future2 details the history of US radiation regulation. With LEDs, the FDA, Congress, and cities are repeating the same errors from the 1960s and failing to protect the public from this new source of radiation.
LED streetlights are a human health hazard which have been documented to cause seizures, migraines, anxiety, nausea, eye pain, and eye injury. In addition, artificial light at night has been documented to cause significant increases in risk for mood disorders, diabetes, heart disease, breast cancer, and early mortality. It is likely that LED streetlights have increased acts of misbehavior and violence. The street lighting company Cree Lighting states that LED streetlights are dangerous.3 The LED chip company Lumileds states that blue wavelength light is a hazard to human health.4 The contact person at the FDA is Robert Ochs, Director, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, OHT8 1 https://www.fda.gov/media/88417/download
2 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846732/Tran06.pdf 3 http://www.softlights.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Cree-Lighting-White-Paper.pdf 4 https://lumileds.com/lumileds-nightscape-technology-lowers-blue-light-below-2-to-support-our-naturalecosystem-and-dark-sky-initiatives/ 2 of 3
([email protected]). The contact person at the Access Board is Christopher Kuczynski ([email protected]).
It is negligent for a city to install and operate an electronic product that has no FDA approval, and which is known to put the public at risk of harm. In order to pursue a claim against a public entity under California Government Code section 835, a person must show: (1) that the property was owned or controlled by a public entity at the time of the incident; (2) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; (3) the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; (4) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury; and (5) that there was a negligent or wrongful act or omission within the scope of employment of the public entity’s employee that created the dangerous condition or the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.5(Moncur v. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Airports (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 118; Gov. Code §§ 830(a)-(c), 835.2.). The installation or operation of LED streetlights meets the criteria for negligence, harm, discrimination, and liability.
To protect the public from LED visible radiation, LED streetlights must not be operated in public spaces. To recover expenses related to the removal of any existing LED streetlights, the Soft Lights Foundation recommends that National City sue the FDA and the DOE for failing to disclose to National City that LED products are a human health hazard and for failing to comply with 21 U.S.C 360ii and publish the required performance standards for LED streetlights.
To protect the public and the environment from further harm, the Soft Lights Foundation recommends that the city adopt the following ordinance(s) to protect against light pollution and LED visible radiation:
1. Any LED outdoor lighting must be FDA approved.
2. Outdoor lighting must be fully shielded.
3. Outdoor lighting must have a Color Temperature in the amber range, not exceeding 2700K.
4. Outdoor lighting must be turned off when not in direct or immediate use.
5. LED flashing/strobing lights must be FDA approved.
In any case, National City must not install or operate LED streetlights knowing that the LED streetlights have not been FDA approved, knowing that the LED streetlights are causing serious adverse health impacts, knowing that LED streetlights are creating discriminatory barriers, and knowing that LED streetlights are defective and dangerous.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mark Baker
President
Soft Lights Foundation
5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=835. 3 of 3
cc:
City Clerk - [email protected]
City Council - [email protected]
City Manager – [email protected]
Public Works - [email protected]
ADA Coordinator - [email protected]
From: Ted Godshalk
To: Public Comment
Cc: Luz Molina
Subject: Comment for Item 8.5 of the Council Meeting of August 2, 2023 from Mr. Ted Godshalk Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 7:32:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Comment for Item 8.5 of the Council Meeting of August 2, 2023 from Mr. Ted Godshalk:
Council and Mayor,
Please pull the Item 8.5 from the Consent Calendar to review several key factors and ask several questions about the project titled “Paradise Creek Water Quality and Community Enhancement Project Phase II.” This project and its first phase were started by our previous City Engineer, Mr. Yano, and initiated by an earlier City Council. Like this one, some of the earlier projects that you and the public will see over the next year need more serious scrutiny.
New staff in the Engineering Department will benefit from a new review of upcoming projects. You will understand how these projects were started. The community will be better served in the process.
First, the Staff Report does not give you the exact address of the project. All reports for your consideration should have this information. Also, there should be a simple Site Plan blueprint of the project and aerial photo of the location. Details about the adjacent neighborhood and nearby residences or buildings should also be included. Further, you should see more specific Strategic Goals and Objectives for projects like this. Does it control storm water flows in a more safe and healthy manner? Does it lead to less public dumping and transient camping? Will there be improvements to water quality in the lower sections of Paradise Creek and in San Diego Bay? What will maintenance of the creek cost in the future? Why will be proud of this area after spending more than 2.6 million dollars? As you consider approving this contract tonight, I think it is important to know what the “Community Enhancement,” part of this project is. I have studied Phase I of the project which was built within the last two years. It is clear that there were increased flooding issues last winter since its construction. It is also clear that the first phase was a stormwater conveyance project and could have been designed to improve the “look" of our community. I think this new phase also does very little to improve our community’s aesthetics. Today, it is an antiquated approach to just engineer a drainage ditch and fence it in. So much more can be designed to restore habitat with native plants, make maintenance cost less going forward, and produce in the public space an “enhancement" we can all be proud of, not just used as grant marketing buzzword.
In addition, I would like to have the following questions answered by Engineering staff.
How much has been spent so far on Construction documents and which firm has done this work?
How much time and cost for staff has been charged to the project already? Is there a separate Construction Manager firm on contract for overseeing this project Item 8.5 - Godshalk
and what will their costs be?
Which internal city fund has been paying and will continue to pay for these charges? Thank you for studying this project now before letting out the contract, Ted Godshalk