Physicians for Safe Technology | Wireless Technology and ...



June 19, 2019 Board of Appeals MeetingSan Francisco, CaliforniaTo: Rick Swig, PresidentDarryl Honda, CommissionerAnn Lazarus, CommissionerRachael Tanner, CommissionerDiscussion to Appeal Number 19-040. Good Evening. My name is Cheryl Lea Hogan. I am standing here before you on June 19, 2019 to present some research that I have gathered since last summer. The situation commenced last August when I was awoken by construction workers digging on the sidewalk at 11:30 at night. These workers said that the city did not allow them to work during the day because of traffic. I said that there was no traffic day or night on the sidewalk. The workers were subcontractors from out of state. The workers had no permit with them. The workers said that they were preparing to install a Microwave/Cell Tower. My reason for being here is to protest the installation of a Microwave/Cell Tower outside the window where I live. Have you read the 560 plus page document of the history of these events, and the research presented that I submitted on May 29,2019 to the Board of Appeals? You are in possession of the legal Brief I delivered to the Board of Appeals. Is that true? Have you read the Brief?Do any of you have a Microwave Cell Tower in front or in close proximity to the place where you live?Are you aware that the Microwave Cell Towers are forbidden near Fire Stations? I have been researching the issues of Electromagnetic Frequency Emissions with the help of a University of California Berkeley professor. Actually, you have many of the journal articles which are in the Book and CD that was delivered to the Board of Appeals May 29, 2019. Department of Public Works and the opposing attorney, Paul Albritton representing Verizon also have copies. All of you have a Book of research and a CD and I was assured by Gary Cantaras at the Board of Appeals that all was uploaded to the city website. Do you have a copy of the original permit? I would like to see it.From last summer until the middle of April 2019 I was told by the Department of Public Works that the permit holder was Verizon. Is that true?On April 22, 2019 I was informed by the Board of Appeals that the permit holder for permit number 18WR-0171 is GTE Mobilnet of California, same address for the permit of 3529 Sacramento Street.Can you clarify the situation of the change of name of the permit holder from Verizon to GTE? Opposing attorney, Albritton, in his latest documents refers to the permit holder as Verizon.It has been brought to my attention by the many scientists, physicians, physics professors, biologists, nuclear physicists , molecular biologists, and professors of applied physics in electromagnetic frequency radiation emissions around the world that they are so concerned about the issue of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure that they have all signed a document called “International Appeal:Scientists call for Protection from Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure”and sent it to: His Excellency Antonio Guterres, Secretary –General of the United Nations. His Honorable Dr. Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the World Health Organization.Honorable Joyce Msuya, Acting Executive Director of the U.N. Environmental Program and Assistant Secretary-General of the U.N.U.N. Member Nations.I have been told that these issues that we are discussing today have been brought to the attention of the City of San Francisco for over 20 years. Is that true?It has become increasingly frustrating for the scientists, professors, and medical doctors in their attempt to present their research to the lawmakers, and actually have the lawmakers listen. The lawmakers are perhaps influenced by the telecommunications lobby and their funded research. There is an interesting quote by my father, the lateC. Lester Hogan, Ph.D. (Harvard Physics Professor, Pioneer in Microwave Technology, Former President of Fairchild, Former Vice President of Motorola) during the hearings in Silicon Valley before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, August 27, 1984. 98th Congress, Second Session. Congressional Members came to Cupertino, California at that time in August 1984 and interviewed the major CEO’s of technology and semiconductor companies here in the Bay Area. I will quote C. Lester Hogan, Ph.D. “So if Congress is truly interested in strengthening the scientific base upon which our technology is founded, then I suggest one of the most useful things you can do is remove some of the bureaucratic supervision that rides herd over the government sponsored research in America’s universities.”Do you suppose he meant by “industry funded” when he used the words “ government sponsored”? Most credible scientists know that their grants from the government are terminated when the scientific research they are presenting doesn’t synchronize with what the industry funded politician thinks must be revealed. Today too there seems to be a wide gap between industry funded research and the pure pursuit of using the scientific method in research. We all need to be cautious about who is funding the research. On June 13, 2019, I received a multipage document from the Department of Public Works. I will comment on the Paragraph: “Recommendations: Findings # 3 Department of Public Health and test reports from Hammett & Edison, Inc. (consultant to applicant, Verizon) determined that the noise and frequencies emitted by the facility meet the Public Health Compliance Standard.” Let me now ask . What are you referring to? Is there some city ordinance that preempts another law? Is there a medical doctor or physicist at the city who wrote this “ Public Health Compliance Standard.”? I will now quote, Gil Amelio, Ph.D., former researcher at Bell Laboratories, President of the semiconductor division at Rockwell International, President of National Semiconductor, President of Apple, and an IEEE fellow. Dr. Amelio has also been awarded 16 patents. In a 2016 letter Dr. Amelio wrote to the FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler. Dr. Amelio wrote:“ Dear Mr. Chairman Wheeler,I’m writing to follow up on our meeting of April 25,2016. I was encouraged that we agreed that our goal must be to both support the continued growth of our Nation’s wireless infrastructure and protect American workers whose jobs require them to come in close proximity to RF transmitters. Because of changes in the wireless infrastructure environment more and more roofers, painters, firefighters, and telecommunications technicians find themselves working within the restricted zone of RF transmitters every day, often without any knowledge that they are doing so. But, unfortunately, neither the FCC nor our industry has addressed the implications of this change. The law is clear. FCC rules prohibit all but specially trained workers from working close to RF transmitters while they are operating. But the extraordinary growth in the number, type, and placement of transmitters has rendered the 20th Century approach to complying with this rule—the use of nothing more than faded signs with outdated contact information on rooftop doors and fences around increasingly rare stand-alone towers –to be unreliable and therefore non-compliant. Transmitters are now everywhere. They are in church steeples, lampposts, building facades, and anywhere else an enterprising wireless company can place them. Often companies design them to be invisible to comply with regulations or for aesthetic reasons. As a result, signs and fences simply no longer reliably protect the tens of thousand of third-party workers repairing shingles, changing light bulbs, or applying paint in situations when they don’t even know they are being overexposed.”A complete copy of Dr. Amelio’s letter is in the documents delivered to the Board of Appeals.I have included for your reading a Harvard University article written by Norm Alster. “Captured Agency. How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates.” Published by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.The Federal Communications Commission (FCC )has now told the cities that they have to comply and issue permits quickly for the installation of the Microwave Cell Towers. Some cities now fear lawsuits from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for not complying with their (the FCC’s) orders. Read the Mike Maharrey article published in December 28, 2013. New York vs. United State. “States don’t have to Comply, The Anti –Commandeering Doctrine”. This article might help any city attorney or state attorney in standing up tall against the FCC. As I had mentioned, the FCC is a government agency with its board filled with executives from industry.Now, let’s get back to the scientific research…. Many of the journal articles and letters given in the “List of Documents “ delivered to the Board of Appeals actually have a long list of citations at the end of these letters or journal articles. These bibliographies back up the research presented. I present to you the scientific perspectives, journal articles, and letters that have already been delivered to the Board of Appeals and more research that has come to light in the last several weeks. I am not a scientist but I do read as we all do who are gathered here in this room. After reading all of the research presented, I think you will agree that the decisions made here today and going forward are of great importance to all of us here in San Francisco and to mankind around the world. Let’s now talk about what happens if the Board of Appeals grants the Appeal. I received on June 14, 2019 more documents and responses from the attorneys representing Verizon and a stack of documents via email from The San Francisco Department of Public Works. I will respond to both The Department of Public Works and to attorneys MacKenzie and Albritton now. It seems from reading these two sets of documents that The Department of Public Works and Verizon and their attorneys, Mackenzie and Albritton are allied together? Is that how you see it? Can you explain that to me? If the Appeal is granted then Verizon might sue the City of San Francisco. So…. What then motivates the Board of Appeals of San Francisco to grant the Appeal? Perhaps the Board is motivated to grant the Appeal by their concern for liability issues for the City of San Francisco. San Francisco is now liable for health damages for any Electromagnetic Radiation Frequency Emissions incurred upon its citizens? Continuous and Cumulative exposure to EMF emissions affects the heart and neurological systems of the body. See M. Pall, Ph.D. Chapter 3, “Strong Evidence for Cumulative and Irreversible EMF Effects.”You are aware, I am sure that the insurance carriers insuring the telecommunications companies will not protect, in their insurance policies for the telecommunications companies, against any damages to citizens from Electromagnetic Radiation Frequency Emissions produced by the Microwave Cell Towers or other potentially hazardous RF (radio frequency) emissions and equipment. The Securities and Exchange Commission mandates that companies alert their stockholders to potential investment risks. (See copies of Security and Exchange and insurance carrier notices in the documents given to the Board of Appeals).Let’s all get this straight in our minds. The City and cities (except for Mill Valley, California) seem to believe the Federal Communications Commission (which is run by CEO’s from telecommunications companies on its Board of Directors) that they (the cities) must obey their (the FCC’s) outdated emission standards (See quote of Dr. Gil Amelio) which then may hand all of the liability from hazards of RF emissions over to the city. Liability issues will then abound. Will it be the City of San Francisco which will then be liable? I think so. Will you the Board of Appeals be liable depending on your decision today? Will it be the apartment owner who is liable when he installs a Microwave Cell Tower on his apartment building? Will it be the School, University or Hospital that is at fault when their employees, students and visitors enter these buildings? Will the Planning and Public Works employees be liable as they have issued the permits? Who is liable when the telecommunications company pays a landlord to install Microwave Cell Towers on the roofs of buildings that the landlord owns? Is there an insurance company that will insure either the landlord or the city or the telecommunications company (such as Verizon or A T & T) for health damages from Electromagnetic Frequency Emissions from Microwave/Cell Towers? The answer seems to be NO. As the expression goes…. “The buck stops where?” Who will take the final responsibility? It is mistaken for The San Francisco Department of Public Works or attorneys at MacKenzie & Albritton to quote any standards (from 1996) of the FCC which are out of date. (Again see Dr. Amelio’s letter to the FCC). In response to the Department of Public Health letter dated October 11, 2018, is it true that the letter quotes the engineering firm of Hammett & Edison and that Verizon paid for this report? Is it true that there is no “Edison” at the company? Why does the Department of Public Health circulate letters that are written by engineers and not health professionals? Are there any medical professionals versed in the issues of EMF (electromagnetic frequency) emissions at the Department of Public Health? What is the relationship between the San Francisco Department of Public Health and an engineering firm? I remind you that that the Appeal Title is Hogan vs. SFPW-BSM. That puts Verizon and The Department of Public Works on the other side both together against me. Is that correct? In another meeting lately in San Francisco, AT&T was presenting to a group of citizens in order to install 12 Microwave/Cell Towers on the roof of the building where the residents live. Towards the conclusion of the A T &T presentation, AT &T representatives introduced their next speaker as a “Health Expert”. I recognized the gentleman who had been introduced as a “Health Expert” and I said that this gentleman was in fact an engineer. The AT & T representative persisted in saying that the engineer was a health expert. To his credit, the engineer from Hammett and Edison finally told the other attendees at the meeting that in fact he was an engineer. I am in a unique position to speak to the politicians and board members and lawmakers even though I am not a scientist. My father, C. Lester Hogan, Ph.D. was a Pioneer in Microwave Technology. Without his inventions we would not have earth to satellite communications as we know them today. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. Industry is equally generous to both parties in their funding. Perhaps I should have said that it is “equally” a Republican and Democrat issue and most of us here in the room are either Republican or Democrat, or of other very interested political parties. This is a Scientific Quest and I am in an uphill situation to try to explain to you the ideas I have uncovered and present to you the ideas and research that the scientists have been working on for decades and tell you all about this in the three minutes that I am allotted. I will not agree that the city of San Francisco mandate Child Endangerment by installing a Microwave/Cell Tower so near to the place where I live or near other residences here on Sacramento Street and San Francisco. Please refer to my letter to the City Attorney about the potential installation of a Microwave/Cell tower on the corner of Sacramento and Laurel, which is outside the window of a child living on the upper floor. I will now quote the “Child Endangerment Law”. “Reckless Endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn’t required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.” I suggest that you now Google the word, ”Danger”. Up comes an immediate reference to 5G. “oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature aging) disruption of cell metabolism, increased blood brain barrier permeability, melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and cancer risks.)”If you find this challenging or worrisome because of the scientific research here presented by the doctors, professors, engineers, and scientists and I attempt to educate you because of these findings and you, the Board of Appeals persist in installing a Microwave/Cell Tower in close proximity to the window where I live and all of us here in the room then witness and know that any child visiting me will be in danger, who then is guilty? Who then is liable? Who then knowingly will be showing defiance to the Child Endangerment Law? Which decision will you make given the evidence in your hands? As I said before, I am not a lawyer or a scientist. I cannot help you with your internal moral or ethical dilemmas while you try to place the blame on someone else, “who made you do it”? and that you had to decide because you imagine that some higher government power said you had to. That sounds like a child’s mantra in the playground…. “He/she made me do it.”I would now like to comment on the letter that I received June 13, 2019 from MacKenzie and Albritton, which is the law firm retained by Verizon.On the first page, the word “unobtrusive” is meaningless. Quote from Albritton… “the Facility has been carefully designed to avoid any significant adverse impacts.” What is the meaning of this sentence? Does it mean that the design itself will have no adverse impacts. I suggests you again read Dr. Amelio’s letter about the RF transmitters. Dr. Amelio’s quote: “Often companies design them to be invisible to comply with regulations or for aesthetic reasons.” On the bottom of the first page and top of the second page, Albritton refers to the preemtion of Federal Law. I offer you here in this next book of legal arguments, “the States Don’t have to Comply, as the Anti Commandeering Doctrine-5G”. I won’t embarrass all the lawyers here and go into the explanation as all of the lawyers here understand that law. For more explanation read the document submitted in this next book. Under the next paragraph: I. Facility Description.Paragraph one. “Verizon needs to install small wireless facilities around San Francisco to fill localized gaps in coverage.” Coverage in this neighborhood is fine. Let’s look at the word, “Need.”. I see the problem as to which companies need, and want to rush to corner the market. Will it be the fiber optic companies or the wireless companies? Perhaps Verizon feels that it “needs” to rush and compete with the fiber optic companies.The location of the pole near 3529 Sacramento Street is intertwined with a tree and actually is between 3529 and 3533 Sacramento Street. To remove the pole and reconstruct a new pole will result in the damage to the roots of the tree. I understand that Verizon pays the Public Utilities Commission to rent the pole. Is that true? Next paragraph from Albritton under “Facility Description.”“…the Facility consists of a roughly 10 inch diameter cylindrical antenna attached to the top of the pole, and two small remote radio units (“RRUs”) attached farther down.” I understand that to mean that the Facility will be even closer than the previously measured distance from the window of the building where I live. That would be a distance shorter than the distance that is safe for roof workers. Again refer to Dr. Amelio’s letter. I will not be wearing a meter or protective vest all day. Again the issue here is Continuous and Cumulative effects of EMF exposure into private spaces.Paragraphs II on page two. The Paragraph entitled, “The City Thoroughly Reviewed the Facility.”What do you mean by “independently reviewed by three City departments.?” An independent review would be by an outside firm, not paid by Verizon or the City of San Francisco.Next Sentence… “The Department of Public Health confirmed that the Facility “would be in compliance with the FCC standards and would not produce radio frequency energy exceeding the FCC public exposure limits.” Let’s look at the words, “Public Exposure Limits.” These Public Exposure limits do not refer to continuous and cumulative exposure to private spaces from the transmitters to citizens living continuously nearby on upper floors or to continuous exposure to workers near the transmitters when they work. Public Exposure is when a person quickly walks by on the sidewalk far below. Cumulative and Continuous effects need to be taken into consideration. The 1996 standards are outdated anyway. Who is the medical professional at the Department of Public Health who believes outdated standards at the FCC are valid health guidelines to follow? The arguments stated in the research or the Brief are not baseless as attorney Albritton believes. I have quoted many scientists in the book presented so they are not “appellants’ arguments” but scientific proof written by professionals from around the world. I do agree though with the scientists and with the research that I have presented. Last paragraph, page 4 …”Verizon Wireless must take RF power density measurements with the antenna operating at full power to verify the level reported in the Hammet & Edison report and to ensure that the FCC public exposure level is not exceeded in any publicly accessible area.” As stated above, the issue at hand is not “publicly accessible areas”. The Appeal concerns Continuous and Cumulative Exposure over long term and near a private space. We are not talking about quick exposure on the sidewalk far below, which would be “Public Exposure”. From the research presented that you have read, the RF transmitters are not to be allowed nearer than 300 meters to residential areas. The City of San Francisco does not allow these Microwave/Cell Towers near or on the roofs of the fire stations in San Francisco. According to the research presented to the Board of Appeals and to the Department of Public Works, City of San Francisco, 1996 FCC public exposure limits are out of date. Continuous and Cumulative Exposure to Microwave/Cell Towers and the transmitters and close proximity of these Microwave/Cell Towers to workers on roofs and close proximity to the citizens of San Francisco is the issue brought before the Board of Appeals.Page 5, first paragraph of Albritton document, Mr. Albritton states, “this Board is not the proper agency to opine on how to weigh and analyze those studies.” Mr. Albritton is referring to the extensive list of scientific studies that I presented to the Board of Appeals. Is Mr. Albritton suggesting that the Board of Appeals does not have scientific knowledge to understand or read and understand all that I have presented? See also quote by Richard P. Feynman, Ph.D. in physics, included here in the next book presented. Dr. Feynman’s quote is an extensive quote but I will add here the last sentences. “ ..that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that that is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do; that they are not to decide the various description of history or of economic theory or of philosophy. Only in this way can the real possibilities of the future human race be ultimately developed.” I agree with Richard P. Feynman, Ph.D. and if Mr. Albritton is in agreement with Dr. Feynman, then I agree too with Mr. Albritton, …” that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories.”Next quote by attorney Albritton…. “the FCC is tasked as the subject matter expert on radio frequency emissions and federal law preempts the City’s authority to regulate them.” Please again refer to the “States Don’t Have to Comply as the Anti- Commandeering Doctrine”, which discusses preemption of individual States in the United States. Also, again refer to Dr. Amelio’s suggestions to the FCC Chairman. As far as Mr. Albritton’s view that the FCC is tasked as the subject matter expert on radio frequency emissions, this sounds like a statement out of the Dark Ages hundreds of years ago when the uneducated religious leaders ruled and argued with the scientists and doctors who were revealing new thoughts about astronomy, scientific theories , and medical and mathematical discoveries. Meticulous, rigorous, orderly, accurate, and precise and controlled studies in the Scientific Method were introduced by these early inventors, physicists, astronomers, professors, and other researchers. We must surely all agree and Logic would tell us that the scientific studies presented should be taken very seriously and would preempt any political or industry funded views presented by the FCC. Page 5 of Albritton document. “However, the FCC’s primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters.” Why then are the cities or states then led to believe that no one can protest against the outdated FCC standards and that citizens cannot protest against the health effects of radio frequency emissions, when the FCC’s jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area?In the book of documents that I presented to the Board of Appeals, letters from the EPA and other Federal Agencies are included. These letters date as far back as the 1970’s and 80’s. Please read those letters before you believe that the FCC actually follows the suggestions of the scientists or researchers from these agencies, or that independent scientists are actually being listened to by the FCC. Included in the documents is a declassified Central Intelligence Agency paper (declassified in the 2000’s) originally written in the 1970’s in a Russian journal, explaining the dangers of Microwave emissions. Page 6 of Albritton documents …. Sentence that refers to the FCC taking recommendations from the IEEE or other scientists. I will quote one of the former Vice Presidents of the IEEE, Fellow of the IEEE, recipient of the Frederik Philips Gold Medal of the IEEE. This quote is in his extensive resume. His name is C. Lester Hogan, Ph.D. (Pioneer in Microwave Technology) Dr. Hogan was a Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. 1975-1977. He “ Resigned when he decided that the committee was a fraud. The Congress did not want or use the recommendations.” I do not interpret Dr. Hogan’s statement as having the Congress or a Federal agency listening to a prominent scientist!In response to Mr. Albritton’s last paragraph page 6, I differ in opinion. I have presented many studies from scientists and doctors around the world who have followed the Scientific Methods and these are independent studies. It has been said that some of the Industry Funded studies did not follow Scientific Methods. I believe the Board of Appeals should Grant the Appeal even though Mr. Albritton does not feel that the Board is qualified to to make such decisions and that the Board is not qualified to evaluate the scientific articles presented in the research that I presented. I would also like to state that the Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to invalidate the Child Endangerment Law. I do not think that the Board of Appeals has in its best interest to nullify the Child Endangerment Law. Independent Research and Revelations in this new Era of Scientific Endeavor of the 21st Century now preempts any outdated government rules or political views. I would like to quote Martin L. Pall, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, Portland, Oregon. You have in your possession the documents delivered to the Board of Appeals and again here today in another book of the article written by Martin L. Pall, Ph.D. entitled, “5G Great Risk for EU, US, and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them.”Martin L. Pall, Ph.D. quote.“There have been certain points in our history where people have stood up to the strong destructive forces against what often appeared to be insurmountable odds. Those people are THE most honored people in our history. The people who failed to do so are among the most despised people in our history. I am not at all sure we will have historians to record us 100 years from now or even 30 years from now, given the direction in which we are heading. But if we do, rest assured that these are the standards by which you will be judged.” I encourage you at the Board of Appeals to Grant the Appeal.Cheryl Lea Hogan, M.A. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download