Small cell facilities

That is the same argument as the Nazis who implemented abuse: they were told to do it by their superiors. In the case of cell tower radiation there is strong evidence of public harm. There is an unproven opinion from the FCC in 1997 (when the so called "guidelines" you reference were implemented), acting in alignment with for-profit corporate interests and prior to the current batch of technology - which is far more powerful -that in effect has subjected the public to an involuntary medical experiment. According to the Nuremberg Code of ethics it is immoral to carry on medical experimentation without informed consent. The "obeying orders" defense is a violation of the Nuremberg code of ethics. The FCC rule disallowing consideration of radiation is an order, not “guidelines” since as you are pointing out they are allowed to be disobeyed.

The legally mandated moral course of action is to refuse to comply with unethical orders and to resist them , for example, by joining into a lawsuit against federal law on behalf of and to protect the citizens you are supposed to represent.

There is evidence that the City of San Mateo individuals implementing the allowance of cell tower placement in San Mateo are aware of the potential danger of the technology. According the small cell wireless facility map on the City of San Mateo website, there are currently 14 constructed small cell towers in North Central district alone, covering just 2 square miles. In all other areas of San Mateo, covering an area of approximately 11 square miles, there are a total of 17 constructed small wireless towers ( 7 of which are in close proximity to North Central. North Central is a district with the lowest property values in the city.

In addition, there are 16 approved for construction in North Central and 36 in all other areas of the city (7 of which are in close proximity to North Central), which is also grossly disproportionate. Of permits that were allowed to expire, there was only 3 in North Central and around 75 (hard to count on a map) in all other areas of the city!

While we understand that certain arguments cannot be used by the commissioners when deciding cell towers, when it comes to wireless safety, it is left to local governments to protect their constituents. 

Concerned residents are not asking that the city officials argue FCC RF levels on the basis of health effects; it is our right, however, to share with the commissioners our concerns about cell tower placement near homes and schools during public comment and help them understand the bigger picture of why the residents are fighting this.

It’s true, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits localities from basing their decisions exclusively on environmental effects when ruling on cell tower applications. The courts have interpreted environmental effects to include health effects. Thus, official bodies should not exclusively base their determinations on health effects because cell tower companies may sue and win.

However, as Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health argues, community members should still present information on the health effects of cell tower radiation at official hearings anyway. Knowledge of these effects may alter the position of those who are indifferent about having a cell tower in their neighborhood.

As one wireless safety advocate advised ... 

" ... we have the First Amendment.  People opposing cell towers can present health concerns all they want in these official hearings, and I have done just that over and over. The official bodies cannot show they made a decision based upon this, but you cannot tell me that the information on health will not affect government body members who usually live in the community themselves.“

We do not want to help the industry keep health effects out of the dialogue.

This recent cell tower denial near a local historic school was a major win for the 300 children at St. Matthew’s and for all of the residents of San Mateo.

Some facts residents have previously shared with the city:

1. Although the FCC sets the wireless safety guidelines, it is not a health organization and cannot speak on human health and safety. 

2. Biological damage from microwave radiation at a cellular level occurs at levels much lower than the current government safety standards. The FCC only considers the heating of tissue to be a health concern.

3. The current wireless safety guidelines are based on ONE study of 11 monkeys and 12 rats exposed for less than one hour in the 1980s. 

4. Since 2021, the FCC has ignored the DC Circuit Court of Appeals remand order to re-evaluate its wireless radiation exposure guidelines based on their docket submission of 11,000 pages of scientific evidence of biological harm to humans. A link to all 11,000 pages was submitted to the City of San Mateo and placed in the public record.