You may have recently noticed special antennas being attached to light poles across the city of San Mateo. Perhaps this is happening on your street in front of your own home.
These are “small cell facilities” — antennas not for cellphone service. They are for wireless broadband home internet, a service we already all have access to through safe, more reliable cabled/fiber optic internet providers.
These cell facilities emit a constant pulsated radiation at the 28,000 megahertz frequency, making their placement in front of our bedroom windows potentially unsafe. For comparison, cellphones operate within the 600-900 megahertz range.
The people of San Mateo are pushing back against the proliferation of such cell facilities being littered across the city in our residential zones.
A group of 500 households called “No Cell Outs” has been leading the fight against cell facilities near our homes, working with expert attorney Ariel Strauss over the last several months. Strauss has helped other communities across California take hold of the federal and state protections from this rampant flooding of cell equipment.
These cell facilities, steps from homes, emit radiation 24/7. Radiation emitting at levels even well below current “approved” Federal Communications Commission limits have been shown to cause harm.
Studies have shown tinnitus, sleep disturbances, heart rhythm abnormalities, infertility, migraines and cancer are all linked to this non-thermal radiation emitting from this equipment. This equipment also poses real fire hazards and reduce property values.
In fact, the FCC has been sued by a number of health organizations, most recently by Environmental Health Trust. In the 2021 case, EHT v. FCC, based on thousands of pages of peer reviewed scientific data, the D.C. Court of Appeals questioned the FCC’s outdated 1996 radio-frequency radiation guidelines and mandated they “address the impacts of RF on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”
Recommended for you
In the meantime, cities across the nation, especially wealthier communities, are wising up. When city officials claim their “hands are tied,” nonindustry experts are called in by well-informed, concerned residents showing how this is false.
Strauss most recently assisted Encinitas in developing its wireless ordinance, making it one of the most protective ordinances in the nation. There are no cell facilities in residential zones in their city. Other communities such as Carmel, Malibu, Mill Valley, Calabasas, Petaluma, have all successfully fought and prevailed. And now Ariel Strauss is showing our city how this can also be done here. San Mateo officials are taking note. There is now a study session coming up — 5 p.m. May 6 at City Hall — where the City Council will be discussing in detail the specifics for updating its wireless ordinance.
Our fight is not yet over. Unfortunately, the city has already approved nearly 200 small cell facilities mostly in residential zones truly steps away from homes where we live, sleep and heal. We are still in process of working with the city to get these permits closest to homes revoked, as they are noncompliant even with current city code.
According to national telecom expert attorney Andrew Campanelli: “For more than two decades, local governments from New York to California have adopted Smart Planning Provisions. These are zoning ordinances designed to obtain three objectives simultaneously: allow the wireless companies to saturate the area with coverage, but at the same time, minimize the number of facilities you need to provide that coverage. And to the extent possible, minimize the adverse impacts on homes and residential areas. Armed with this, local governments have forced applicants to prove two things if they want to put in a facility near a residential neighborhood: They have to prove that they suffer from a ‘significant gap in personal wireless services’ and that their installation is the least intrusive means of remedying that gap.”
The fact that San Mateo approved 200 permits all across the city steps from our bedrooms is not the “least intrusive means” of remedying a true “gap in coverage.”
While we are pleased the city has finally agreed to work with the community and seek input from expert telecom attorney Ariel Strauss for the new wireless ordinance, the city was misinformed and misled by the telecom industry, and should have never approved the 200 locations for cell equipment in the first place. Our group intends to fight this injustice.
Please join us in this important fight 5 p.m. May 6 at San Mateo City Hall. Contact nocellouts@gmail.com for more information.
Irena Mavridis is a cardiovascular registered nurse and leader of the NoCellOuts coalition fighting cell equipment near homes in San Mateo.
(4) comments
When I was the national energy manager for Sun Microsystems, we were alerted by their employees in a Mountain View facility that their CRTs (predecessors to flat screens) close to close PG&E transmission lines outside the building were blurry and at times nonfunctional. I brought in a PG&E RMF expert who took many measurements but he decided their was no harm to the employees. I saw with my own eyes that the CRTs were acting up and based on my recommendation Sun eventually moved out of the building due to employee concerns. To this day, there may not have been any scientific evidence, but RMF concerns remain and that is what counts. I believe that the LTE author is bringing up a legitimate issue and the City must err on the side of health and safety, regardless of what the science world is telling them. When even a former tech giant like Sun Microsystems took responsible action it should send a clear message.
Tell that to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which is binding to the entire US. The judges accepted the thousands of pages of scientific peer-reviewed data showing non-thermal harmful effects when making their ruling to the FCC regarding their outdated guidelines. Also please look up Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity which is recognized by both the ADA and Medicare. People living next to these cell facilities have lost their hearing, experienced heart arrhythmias and strokes, and developed brain tumors. These simply do not belong near our bedrooms. There is a reason discerning and usually wealthy communities do not allow these in residential areas! The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves local control to communities to not allow these near homes. This story is trending at number 2 for a reason. People do not want these in front of their bedrooms.
It seems my previous comment was truncated by the SMDJ website, so here it is again, hopefully more readable:
The concerns regarding the health risks of small cell facilities are largely unsupported by robust scientific evidence. These antennas operate within stringent safety limits established by regulatory bodies such as the FCC, which are grounded in comprehensive research.
It's crucial to understand that a higher frequency does not inherently pose greater danger; the notion that 28,000 megahertz from small cells is more harmful than the lower frequencies used by traditional cellphones is a misconception. Additionally, widespread scientific studies have not confirmed the assertions that RF exposure at these regulated levels is linked to health problems like cancer or infertility.
Historical context shows that new technologies often provoke unfounded health fears; a similar phenomenon occurred in 1862 when The Lancet London published concerns about the health impacts in trains. Other sources questioned the effects on women when train speeds exceeded 50 mph. As we advance technologically, it is vital to base public policy on evidence rather than fear or misinformation. Here's a pertinent historical reference from The Lancet London that illustrates this pattern: https://t.ly/5J88Q
The concerns regarding the health risks of small cell facilities are largely unsupported by robust scientific evidence. These antennas operate within stringent safety limits established by regulatory bodies such as the FCC, which are grounded in comprehensive research. It's crucial to understand that a higher frequency does not inherently pose greater danger; the notion that 28,000 megahertz from small cells is more harmful than the lower frequencies used by traditional cellphones is a misconception. Additionally, widespread scientific studies have not confirmed the assertions that RF exposure at these regulated levels is linked to health problems like cancer or infertility. Historical context shows that new technologies often provoke unfounded health fears; a similar phenomenon occurred in 1862 when The Lancet London published concerns about the health impacts of train speeds exceeding 50 mph. As we advance technologically, it is vital to base public policy on evidence rather than fear or misinformation. Here's a pertinent historical reference from The Lancet London that illustrates this pattern: https://books.google.com/books?id=-RdAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA107&dq=%22investigation+of+the+Influence+upon+Health%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmyLrIu_bXAhUPJ1AKHSbKCKcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22investigation%20of%20the%20Influence%20upon%20Health%22&f=false
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.