From: Irena Mavridis
To: Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom; Richard Hedges; Adam Loraine; Amourence Lee; Martin McTaggart; Linda San Felipe Subject: Fw: [cell-tower] California: Cell facilities in San Mateo | Letters To Editor Date: Saturday, May 4, 2024 2:24:15 PM
Good Afternoon Honorable Mayor and Council members.
Please see below, sent today and circulated by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley
Dr. Moskowitz also shares documents though a google group with thousands of members. His own professional website has been visited over 3 million times. Dr. Moskowitz just shared the San Mateo Daily Journal “Letter to the Editor” from neurosurgeon Dr. Aleksandyr Lavery highlighting brain cancer concerns related to the small cell facilities being placed near homes.
Please see below.
Thank you,
Irena
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
On Saturday, May 4, 2024, 1:07 PM, 'Joel M. Moskowitz' via Cell tower wrote:
Cell facilities in San Mateo
Editor,
As a neurosurgeon who operates on patients with brain
cancer, I’m concerned with the well documented links
between glioblastomas and radiation exposure. There is
false reassurance given by the wireless industry that
cell facilities operate within FCC radiation guidelines. I am deeply troubled by the small cell facility proliferation in San Mateo residential areas.
The International Commission on the Biological
Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), a
“consortium of scientists and doctors” who study RF
radiation, argued the FCC’s limits were based on scant
science and erroneous assumptions in an October 2022
peer-reviewed article.
Citing more than 200 scientific studies, ICBE-EMF said:
“Adverse effects observed at exposures below the
assumed threshold include non-thermal induction of
reactive oxygen species, DNA damage,
cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and
neurological effects. Multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR
exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk.
… Consequently, these exposure limits, based on false
suppositions, do not adequately protect workers,
children, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures” (icbe-emf.org
).
I urge San Mateo to take action and revoke the nearly
200 permits mentioned by Irena in her Op-Ed “Don’t
‘Cell Out’ San Mateo.” These antennas are potentially
dangerous and studies show non-thermal radiation
below outdated 1996 approved limits causes harm,
including cancer. I don’t want this next to my home. As a surgeon, I have a duty to the public’s health. The city has just as much of a duty to the community’s health
and safety as I do.
Aleksandyr Lavery
San Mateo
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/cell- facilities-in-san-mateo/article_c5e54afc-09ae-11ef-
b326-a7da7fe65457.html
--
Aleksandyr Lavery, MD, is a neurosurgeon with Kaiser Permanente in Redwood City.
https://mydoctor.kaiserpermanente.org/ncal/providers/aleksandyrwlavery --
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website:
https://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cell tower" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]
.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cell- tower/CAAc%3DJ5KztziQb_TCH8hrXqn7gAZQjZYMkGO4Uk%2Bj_O-
DKcmq%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.
From: Kolja Schlütter
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Support for 5G Deployment in San Mateo
Date: Saturday, May 4, 2024 3:45:41 PM
Dear San Mateo City Council,
I'm reaching out today amidst concerns and scheduled rallies against the deployment of 5G and associated Small Cell technology in our city. With the upcoming council meeting's public comment section likely to address these issues, I feel it's important to present a perspective grounded in global research and regulatory compliance.
5G technology, along with Small Cells, is not a novel or untested experiment. It's a globally deployed mobile advancement that has been rigorously tested and approved by hundreds of regulatory bodies around the world. The overwhelming scientific consensus confirms that 5G technology is safe for public use. This isn’t just an opinion—it's a conclusion backed by a multitude of studies from reputable organizations worldwide.
Despite the skepticism some community members might have, we need to consider the legal framework established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC's guidelines on 5G are clear and are not merely suggestions but federal mandates. The council's role does not include regulating telecommunications at this level—this is a federal matter, and deviation from this could lead not only to legal entanglements but also to significant, unforeseen expenses for our city budget. It’s a path that could set a concerning precedent for future interactions with federal regulations.
For those in our community who are convinced of the dangers of 5G and believe they possess contrary evidence, the appropriate course of action would be to take their concerns to our representatives in Washington DC or directly to the FCC. It is at that level that their evidence can and should be evaluated, not at the local council level.
I fully support the deployment of 5G in the city of San Mateo. This technology promises enhanced connectivity, which is particularly crucial in areas of our community currently facing inadequate data speeds and service—many of which are in the hillier regions of our city.
I trust the council will consider the broader benefits of 5G technology, the scientific consensus on its safety, and the legal framework we operate under. Let's ensure San Mateo remains a forward-thinking community, ready to embrace technologies that promise to improve our quality of life and economic prosperity.
Best regards,
Kolja Schluetter
From: Michael
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Cc: Martin McTaggart
Subject: 5/6 Council Special Meeting - Small Cell Wireless Facilities Ordinance - Please Support and Fund Strengthening Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 10:31:29 AM
Greetings Mayor Nash and Councilmembers - Please support and fund strengthening our small cell wireless facilities ordinance. Residents rely on the city to protect us from indiscriminate companies who don't prioritize our health and safety. I'm concerned that our city seems to consistently roll over on issues - we're told we have little ability to push back against federal laws, but in reality we have substantial latitude as evidenced by numerous other cities' stronger ordinances. We need to adopt a stronger culture of putting residents first, and this ordinance would be a good start. I'm also concerned learning that the city reduced group presentation times from 15 mins to 5, ironically without soliciting input. There is a concerning quelling of input by reducing times to 1 minute along with group times that has the effect of silencing important voices. We're going in the wrong direction here. The city should also fund Ariel Strauss' time - it's clear our city attorney is not an expert here, and we end up hiring out for many issues. Madam Mayor - please allow Mr. Strauss to answer questions as well - I understand that is your prerogative.
Let's get this right - it's too important.
Thank you - Michael Weinhauer
From: Mary Komatsu
To: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Small cell near my home, permit # 2023-000136
Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 1:20:28 PM
Dear City Council,
There is a small cell facility proposed and partially approved near my home at 2321 Armada Way. I can see the proposed unit from my bedroom window. I appealed the decision in the October/November, 2023.
Crown Castle deceptively omitted the very large, four foot tall above ground smart meter from the photo visualization of the project. The infrastructure committee decided not to approve the smart meter during my appeal.
But they did approve the permit.
I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a 24/7 cell device that I can see from my bedroom window. I think this could impact my health as I have a skin condition. There is no proof that the radio energy emission is safe over the long term.
I know we are drafting a new ordinance and I want to be protected under the terms of the NEW ordinance. I want the original permit REVOKED. The original permit should never have been approved in the first place, especially as my community did not get due process because Crown Castle omitted the four foot tall smart meter from the photo visualization.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary Komatsu
Sent from my iPad