Friday, September 8, 2017

French Polynesia Launches Major Public Awareness Campaign To Reduce Exposure To Cell Phones, Wi-Fi and Other Electromagnetic Radiation Sources


French Polynesia Launches Major Public Awareness Campaign
To Reduce Exposure To Cell Phones, Wi-Fi and Other Electromagnetic Radiation Sources
Prohibition placed on advertising cell phones to children under 14 and wireless internet banned from nursery school.



This information is From the Environmental Health Trust Press Release

French Polynesia has launched a major public awareness campaign to raise awareness about how to reduce exposure to the electromagnetic radiation from electronics, cell phones, and wireless devices as part of the country’s new law to reduce citizens’ exposures to electromagnetic radiation exposure. Legislation the country adopted in 2016 prohibits advertising of cell phones to children under 14, prohibits advertising cell phones without showing how to minimize radiation exposure to the head, prohibits wireless in nursery schools, limits wireless in primary schools and reduces exposures to workers.

The multimedia campaign of the French Polynesia Directorate-General for the Digital Economy (DGEN) includes video and graphics promoted on television, radio, and social networking platforms.

DGEN’s video “Electromagnetic Waves: Good Practices” visually depicts how common household electronics – such as a Wi-Fi router, video game console, and wireless baby monitor – emit microwave electromagnetic radiation like cell phone emissions. The campaign also addresses the electromagnetic radiation from electricity-powered alarm clocks and appliances.

A “Best Practices Guide” provides specific recommendations to reduce electromagnetic radiation in order to “protect children and youth.”

  • Prohibition of advertising that promotes the sale or use of a cell phone to children under fourteen years old. Advertising should clearly and legibly show the limiting of exposure to the head. An offender is liable to a fine not exceeding 8,900,000 F CFP.
  • Cell phones may not be marketed without an accessory that limits exposure to the head.
  • Recommendations to limit head exposure and SAR levels should be readable and intelligible.
  • Wireless is prohibited in nursery schools and spaces dedicated to “reception, rest and activities of children under three years of age.”
  • Wireless should be turned to OFF in primary school unless specifically in use for digital activities.
  • The government is implementing measurement and monitoring of levels of public exposure to electromagnetic fields throughout the country of French Polynesia.

Summary of Recommendations to Reduce Wireless Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation (Best Practices Guide)
  • Children under 15 are advised to not use cell phones.
  • Distance the phone away from the head.
  • Make voice calls with a headset to reduce exposure to the brain.
  • Move the mobile device away from electronic implants (pacemaker, Insulin pump, neuro-stimulator, etc.). A mobile device near the implantation area may interfere with the operation of a medical device.
  • Do not call in areas of bad reception.
  • Avoid carrying your phone in your pants pocket.
  • Prefer texting SMS instead of voice calls.
  • The base of the home cordless phone emits radiation constantly, so keep it at a distance and use loudspeaker.
  • When indoors, prefer to connect to networks outside the building by using your device near a window.
  • Distance the phone away from the head after dialing, as wave emission can be the strongest at that time.
  • Avoid calling during high-speed travel (in cars or other vehicles) as the phone must emit at full-power to connect successively with different antennas to maintain the connection.
  • Place yourself at least 1.50 m from your Wi-Fi box or router, and turn it off overnight. If you are ready to part with it, opt for cable (ethernet) connections (with Wi-Fi capability turned off) or very high-speed fiber optic if possible.

Summary of Recommendations to Reduce ELF Electromagnetic Radiation
  • Do not charge your mobile phone near the bed, distance it as far away as possible.
  • Maximize distance from the front of the television or computer monitor.
  • Have a professional check home electrical wiring.
  • Turn off electricity where no device or appliance is in use.
  • Place the wireless baby monitor at least 2 meters (about 6.5 feet) distance from the baby and never in the crib or bed.
  • Buy a new microwave oven every five years. Always distance yourself and others at least 1 meter away from the oven and unplug the oven when not using it.
  • Distance yourself and others at least 1 to 1.5 meters (3 to 4.5 feet) away from induction stovetop or any appliance capable of generating electromagnetic waves such as your refrigerator.
  • Install the electrical panel and large electrical equipment away from rooms and living areas.
  • Turn off electrical appliances (by switching off power) when they are not in use, rather than putting them to sleep. This is also a gesture in favor of the environment and your budget.

Workplace Environment
  • Suppression or reduction of risk:
Select equipment or processes that emit less intense electromagnetic fields, taking account of the work to be carried out. Use other working methods leading to less exposure to electromagnetic fields.
  • Collective protection:
Establish technical or organizational measures to reduce the emission of electromagnetic fields (shielding, distance, locking, etc.).
  • Access control:
Places where the electromagnetic field exceeds regulatory thresholds must be marked, labeled, barred, or marked on the ground in order to limit or control access.

All multimedia resources are officially provided in both French and Tahitian.

Public Education Video “Good Practices with Electromagnetic Waves”




NEWS ARTICLES

Testimony to Anne Arundel City Council and School Board on Milestone Cell Tower

Shady Side Parents Testified to the County Council and To the School Board This Month
Watch the strong opposition to the proposed Milestone Communications  cell tower on an elementary school below.

Go to Safe Schools Youtube playlist on Shady Side Elementary here to watch all testimony

Milestone Community Meeting on Cell Tower for Shady Side Elementary School

Milestone Community Meeting on Cell Tower for Shady Side Elementary School
Please watch the meeting in full here as parents protest behind Len Forkas, Milestone President. Below are several videos on the meeting We recommend watching all of them.







"Education Not Radiation" Shady Side Community Creates Signs To Protest Milestone Communications Tower


Shady Side Community Creates Signs To Protest Milestone Communications Tower  to be placed on Elementary School .

Saturday, September 2, 2017

HERE IS HOW I LEARNED THE DANGERS OF CELL TOWERS AT SCHOOLS

HERE IS HOW I LEARNED THE DANGERS OF CELL TOWERS AT SCHOOLS


Shady Side Parent Switches Sides on Cell Tower at Child's School

I thought I was in favor of the tower. Better cell service, money for our school, win-win, right? One thing that did concern me is the cancer risk in children near the tower. That’s pretty important, and I wanted to know for sure. So I did what I always do, research the topic, find out the facts, and make my own decision. So I sent the kids to their grandparents for the weekend, and got to work; 48 hours of research with a sleep break. What I found scared the hell out of me. I’d like to share it with you, so that you can make a truly educated decision. It’s an extremely complicated issue, but here is the short version:

Milestone says the tower poses no health risk to the children and surrounding community. They say the FCC, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization have deemed it safe, and that there are no studies to suggest a cancer risk. The tower will be well within FCC standards.

Well, partially true, partially not. All of these statements are true, if this were still 1985. How many towers were up then?

The RF radiation standards were put in place by the FCC in 1985, were never meant to address cell towers as we have today, and the studies done then deal strictly with “thermal” effects. So great, we are in no danger from thermal effects. HOWEVER, much more recently, studies into the “non-thermal” effects have been done. And there is no shortage of those studies. It is a very rapidly expanding research field, and the science being conducted today does NOT point to its safety.  

On their website, the American Cancer Society website cites a lot of studies proving RF safety, but states this about its research:
“Very few human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk.”

The Federal Communications Commission website admits this about non-thermal effects:
"It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health."
The World Health Organization is currently organizing research into this area for a new determination on RF. Many of their own scientists have recently spoken out claiming that current medical research is proving that RF radiation is dangerous, cancer-causing, and that developing children are more biologically susceptible to this type of radiation.

Doesn’t sound like the agencies, that are supposed to assure us of tower safety, as are very sure themselves. And there is so much more.

MANY high level agencies have recently expressed concerns about the inadequacies of the FCC's current standards on cell tower radiation. The EPA DISAGREES with these standards and NOW classifies it “PROBABLE human carcinogen.” The California Medical Association issued a resolution stating that FCC standards are “INADEQUATE to protect human health” and that “peer reviewed research has demonstrated ADVERSE biological effects.” An article by The International Journal of Cancer Prevention concluded that there was a significantly HIGHER rate of cancer near a cell phone transmitter station. It states “The proportion of newly developing cancer cases is significantly higher among patients that live within 400 meters of a cell phone transmitter when compared with the general population.” Dr. Neil Cherry, PhD Biophysicist in New Zealand, wrote a 120 page review of 188 scientific studies. He said, “The radiation causes cells to change in a way that makes them cancer forming. To claim there is no adverse effect from phone towers flies in the face of a large body of evidence.”

There are thousands of scientists, researchers, and biophysicists worldwide that now believe cell towers are cancer causing, have the research and data to prove it, and are screaming for their governments to stop and reevaluate this issue before the harm that is to come. Based on the latest scientific research, FIFTEEN other countries have recently reduced their RF standards to hundreds of thousands of times lower than the current US FCC standard. We are currently now among the least protected in the world. 

I kept digging, and the more I found, the more I felt that I had not originally been given enough information to make an informed decision. Now, armed with more facts, I can’t imagine anyone accepting such a high risk for their children. Besides leukemia and various cancers, studies also show children developing ADHD, memory problems, sleep disturbances, and behavioral problems from being near this type of radiation. 

It was enough to make me change my mind. The risk is too high, a huge amount of credible, current scientific research is proving it. I ask simply that you become better educated. Ten years from now, will you wish you had?

By a parent at Shady Side Elementary School 

Press Release: PGCPS and Milestone Communications End Deal to Construct Future Cell Towers on School

PGCPS AND MILESTONE COMMUNICATIONS ENDS DEAL TO CONSTRUCT FUTURE CELL PHONE TOWERS
Victory! 
Prince George's County Public Schools issues several press releases related to their historic decision to terminate the contract with Milestone Communication in August 2017. See them below. 

PGCPS and Milestone Communications End Deal for Future Cell Towers | Announcement by Executive Director, Dr. Kevin M. Maxwell, regarding cell towers in PGCPS properties

Dear Parents / Guardians,
Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS) is committed to providing a safe and supportive environment for students and staff. To this end, we have terminated an agreement with Milestone Communications to place future cell phone towers on school system properties.
We heard your concerns about the potential impact of cell phone towers on student health, questions about the site selection process, opportunities for community engagement and other issues. Therefore, we believe this decision is in the best interest of our schools, students and families.
Milestone Communications, the Virginia-based firm, will continue to manage existing tower locations at seven sites. PGCPS has not made a decision regarding future agreements with telecommunications providers.
We appreciate your continued input and support in ensuring healthy learning environments for all students.
Sincerely,
Dr. Kevin M. Maxwell
Chief Executive Officer

August 29, 2017 Press Release: 

For Immediate Release
CONTACT: 
Office of Communications
301-952-6001
PGCPS AND MILESTONE COMMUNICATIONS END DEAL TO CONSTRUCT FUTURE CELL PHONE TOWERS

UPPER MARLBORO, MD – Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) announced Tuesday an agreement with Milestone Communications to not pursue future cell phone towers on school system properties.

The Virginia-based firm will continue to manage existing tower locations at Charles H. Flowers High School; Charles Carroll, Madison, Kenmoor, Oxon Hill, Benjamin Tasker middle schools; and Green Valley Academy.
“We appreciate Milestone’s compliance with our agreement over the years,” said Dr. Kevin M. Maxwell, Chief Executive Officer. “However, we had significant concerns about the site selection process and overall community engagement. Terminating the marketing agreement is in the best interests of Prince George’s County Public Schools.”

“As a Board, we understood the community’s concerns about transparency and accountability related to cell phone tower placement,” said Carolyn M. Boston, vice chair of the Prince George’s County Board of Education and chair of the Financial, Audit and Budgeting Committee. “We are pleased the Administration took these concerns seriously. We must always balance community concerns with financial benefits to the school system.”

Milestone informed Dr. Maxwell in a letter last week that it wished to end the marketing relationship due to “a lack of commitment from the administration regarding the continued growth of the program.”

The original agreement permitting Milestone to lease Board of Education property was approved in November 2010 and signed February 2011.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Parents Oppose Cell Tower at ShadySide Elementary School: Watch BOE Testimony

A new cell tower has been proposed for Shadyside Elementary School in Annapolis.
At the recent Board of Education meeting, parents testified in opposition. Please see their testimony here.
Parents are also very concerned that the community meeting is held during the summer? How can parents even know about this meeting?








PGCPS School Cell Tower Radiation Exceeds Safety Limits Set By LA School District!!!

Milestone Communications has been measuring the radiation exposure from their school cell towers. This measurement information is publicly shared. You can view the reports of all measurements here.


Here is what we found out. 
According to the documentation sent, PGCPS school cell towers were emitting radiation at levels that well exceed what other localities- such as LA School District allow. 





PGCPS cell tower radiation is higher than the LA School District radiation limits.
Los Angeles School District would not allow the radiation levels PGCPS schools have!

The Los Angeles School District uses a radiofrequency radiation threshold level that is 10,000 times lower than the current Federal Communications Commission standard. The LA School District has BANNED cell towers at schools. 

The LA School District uses a  lower radiation limit of 10, 000 times lower than the FCCRead a letter here. 

"The District shares your concerns as many questions remain regarding RF exposures. That is why the OEHS established a precautionary threshold level that is 10,000 times lower than the current Federal Communications Commission standard. A supplemental report was recently commissioned by our office to validate the use of this threshold as well as conduct in-classroom monitoring to
document compliance." 
-Yi Hwa Kim, Office of Environmental Health and Safety, Los Angeles School District California

The LA School District states that, “ the District is committed to ensuring the health and safety of its students and staff and will continue to review all relevant and appropriate information regarding RF exposures and health.” You can read the LA report on radiation here http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/domain/135/pdf%20files/RadiofrequencyEvaluationReport.pdf.


Note: The FCC guidelines refer to a power density limit of 1,000 W/cm2. The LA School District uses a limit of 0.1 W/cm2 .

Therefore, it seems that the following calculations apply to Prince George's County Schools with cell towers. Please correct our calculations if we made a mistake here.

The Tasker Middle School cell tower 
Maximum radiation documented by the Report dated 4/8/2015 found radiation levels at 0.6645% of the FCC limits. This means the maximum radiation measured at Tasker was at 6.6545 W/cm2.  

The Tasker Middle School cell tower radiation is resulting in roughly 66 times the radiation allowed at Los Angeles Public Schools. See the Tasker Radiation Level Report.




The Flowers School cell tower
The radiation measurement survey dated 2/4/2015 found maximum radiation was at .50%  FCC limit which which means the maximum radiation level was surveyed at 5W/cm2. 

Therefore, the compared with LA public schools, the Flowers School cell tower is resulting in about 50  times the radiation allowed at Los Angeles Public Schools.




The Oxen Hill cell tower
In a survey 3/29/2016, maximum radiation was at .0490 % FCC limit which which means the maximum radiations level was at .49 W/cm2. 

Therefore, The Oxen Hill cell tower is resulting in about 4  times the radiation allowed at Los Angeles Public Schools.




The Green Valley Academy cell tower 
In a survey 2/4/2015, the  maximum radiation was at .040 % FCC limit which which means the maximum radiations level was at .49 W/cm2. 

The Green Valley cell tower is resulting in about 4  times the radiation allowed at Los Angeles Public Schools.


The American Academy of Pediatrics says this specifically about cell towers.See this screen save from their website.


The radiation measurements show that these towers are not violating federal law which states that cell towers can not result in radiation levels that exceed FCC limits. However, meeting FCC regulations is NOT proof of safety because FCC regulations are 20 years old and based on 30 year old science. Many many medical and expert groups state that FCC limits are NOT protective. Read about that here. 

If any of these calculations are incorrect, please contacts at safeschoolspg@gmail.com.
See this video of firefighters who HALTED cell towers at their fire stations.









Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Home Values Drop Up to 20% When A Cell Tower is Erected Nearby: Read Documentation Here


Home Values Drop When A Cell Tower is Erected Nearby

A survey conducted in June 2014 by the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP) in Washington, D.C., “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?”, shows home buyers and renters are less interested in properties located near cell towers and antennas, as well as in properties where a cell tower or group of antennas are placed on top of or attached to a building.
  • 94% said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact interest in a property or the price they would be willing to pay for it.
  • 94% said a cell tower or group of antennas on top of, or attached to, an apartment building would negatively impact interest in the apartment building or the price they would be willing to pay for it.
  • 95% said they would opt to buy or rent a property that had zero antennas on the building over a comparable property that had several antennas on the building.
  • 79% said under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas.
  • 88% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property with a cell tower or group of antennas on top of, or attached to, the apartment building.
  • 89% said they were generally concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood.
Read the Press Release: Survey by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy. A special thank you to ElectromagneticHealth.org for details on this survey.

Research Studies and Publications
Sandy Bond, Ph.D., Ko-Kang Wang, “The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods,
The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005; Source: Goliath business content website
 
 "Cellular Phone Towers: Perceived impact on residents and property values" University of Auckland, paper presented at the Ninth Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Brisbane, Australia, January 19-22, 2003;  Source: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society website,

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers cell towers as “Hazards and Nuisances.”
HUD requires its certified appraisers to take the presence of nearby cell towers into consideration when determining the value of a single family residential property.
HUD guidelines categorize cell towers with "hazards and nuisances." HUD  prohibits FHA underwriting of mortgages for homes that are within the engineered fall zone of a cell tower.
“The appraiser must indicate whether the dwelling or related property improvements is located within the easement serving a high-voltage transmission line, radio/TV transmission tower, cell phone tower, microwave relay dish or tower, or satellite dish (radio, TV cable, etc).” Read it here at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

With regard to the new FHA originations, the guide provides that:  “The appraiser must indicate whether the dwelling or related property improvements are located within the easement serving a high-voltage transmission line, radio/TV transmission tower, cell phone tower, microwave relay dish or tower, or satellite dish (radio, TV cable, etc).”



“The domino effect that would occur if a cell tower were installed at Annapolis Middle School would cause a devaluation in home prices, which in turn would lead to lower property taxes, which would lead the local and state governments to increase the tax base, which would result in less money in the homeowner’s pocket; again!”

"The courts in New York and other jurisdictions across the country have recognized that the public perception of health risks arising from proximity to an EMF may be a factor that adversely affects property values, regardless of whether the actual adverse health effects are proven."
New York State Public Service Commission, Case No. 06-T-0650, Exhibit JMO-2
Effect of the NYRIHVTL on Residential Property Values

Windsor Hills/View Park, CA: residents who were fighting off a T-Mobile antenna in their neighborhood received letters from real estate companies, homeowner associations and resident organizations in their community confirming that real estate values would decrease with a cell phone antenna in their neighborhood.  To see copies of their letters to city officials, look at the . Report from Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission regarding CUP Case No. 200700020-(2), from L.A. County Board of Supervisors September 16, 2009, Meeting documents, Los Angeles County website,  here at: http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/48444.pdf
a.    See page 295, August 31, 2008 Letter from Donna Bohanna, President/Realtor of Solstice International Realty and resident of Baldwin Hills to Los Angeles Board of Supervisors explaining negative effect of cell tower on property values of surrounding properties. “As a realtor, I must disclose to potential buyers where there are any cell towers nearby. I have found in my own experience that there is a very real stigma and cellular facilities near homes are perceived as undesirable.”
b.    See page 296, March 26, 2008 Letter from real estate professional Beverly Clark, “Those who would otherwise purchase a home, now considered desirable, can be deterred by a facility like the one proposed and this significantly reduces sales prices and does so immediately…I believe a facility such as the one proposed will diminish the buyer pool, significantly reduce homes sales prices, alter the character of the surrounding area and impair the use of the residential properties for their primary uses.”
c.     See Page 298, The Appraiser Squad Comment Addendum, about the reduced value of a home of resident directly behind the proposed installation after the city had approved the CUP for a wireless facility there: “The property owner has listed the property…and has had a potential buyer back out of the deal once this particular information of the satellite communication center was announced….there has been a canceled potential sale therefore it is relevant and determined that this new planning decision can have some negative effect on the subject property.”
d.    See Page 301, PowerPower presentation by residents about real estate values: “The California Association of Realtors maintains that ‘sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of the property,’ including ‘known conditions outside of and surrounding’ it.  This includes ‘nuisances’ and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses.”
e.    See Pages 302-305 from the Baldwin Hills Estates Homeowners Association, the United Homeowners Association, and the Windsor Hills Block Club, opposing the proposed cell tower and addressing the effects on homes there: “Many residents are prepared to sell in an already depressed market or, in the case of one new resident with little to no equity, simply walk away if these antennas are installed.
f.      See Pages 362-363, September 17, 2008, Letter from resident Sally Hampton, of the Windsor Hills Homeowner’s Assoc., Item K, addressing effects of the proposed facility on real estate values.