Subject: Re Code of Practice (fwd)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 162151 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 12:51:05 +0000
From: Christopher Beaver
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: Code of Practice (fwd)
Dear Friends:
I'd like to toss in my two-bits worth on the issue of safety standards
while I continue working on the Antenna Free Zones conference in San
Francisco. (And this is just me personally, not what I'm trying to get
the conference to call for or anything... our conference is designed to
have people exchange information. I'm sure there's better ideas out
there than mine.)
Having stated my apology and disclaimer:
It's my perception that here in San Francisco, we have been so
overwhelmed by the cellular phone industry and our own government's lack
of concern with safety issues -- our Telecommunication Commission never
once used the term "health and safety" with regard to the in-progress
formulation of a master telecommunication plan for San Francisco -- that
the hour is very late not to propose SOME beginning standard. If we
don't, we will be faced with a done deal and antennas wherever the
industry wants to put them. One current plan, for example, calls for PCS
antennas every one thousand feet throughout San Francisco.
I'm not really conversant in terms of microwatts, etc. I have a hard
time understanding the details of the scientific discussions on Roy
Beavers' forum. But six weeks from now, whether all the research has
been done or not, the Telecommunication Commission is going to formulate
their guidelines for our city. My personal remedy has been to propose
the set of standards adopted from the Local Councils of New South Wales.
Below is the one-pager that I submitted to our Telecommunication
Commission. Rightly or wrongly I felt we needed to start someplace.
Cellular Phone Antennas
Proposed San Francisco Health
and Safety Guidelines
Submitted by: Christopher Beaver
394 Elizabeth Street
San Francisco 94114
Tel: 824-5822
To: The San Francisco Telecommunication Commission,
January 20, 1998
Adopted from a resolution passed unanimously
by the Local Councils of New South Wales, Australia
November 25, 1997.
Resolved: that the City and County of San Francisco adopt a wireless
zoning plan that would:
(a) limit the location of cellular phone antennas (and other
commercial electromagnetic emitting facilities) to no less than
500 meters from residences, schools, child care centers, hospitals
nursing homes, and small businesses;
(b) require cellular phone antennas (and other electromagnetic
emitting facilities) to emissions of no more than .001 microwatts
per square centimeter;
(c) adopt a policy of non-redundancy of cellular phone antennas;
(c) require the owners of cellular phone antennas to monitor
emissions in accordance with this level and report to the appropriate
Public Health Department at least yearly on levels achieved;
(d) require that the City and County of San Francisco establish a
Task Force to enter into negotiations with cellular phone companies
to establish programs of progressive relocation on a priority basis of
those cellular phone antennas that are already located within 500 meters
of residences, schools, childcare centres, hospitals and nursing homes;
and that the negotiations ensure that these facilities would be
monitored annually for electromagnetic radiation and the results be
reported to the Health Department.
[Chris] Resuming my e-mail:
My proposal offers an opening negotiating position. Otherwise, while we
keep calling for more studies or trying to remedy things on a procedural
level, the antennas will approved, constructed and the exposures
commence. The figure is 100,000 more within five years according to the
Denver Business Journal.
The New South Wales recommendations at least begin (and BEGIN is the
important concept) to suggest how we might live with these damn things.
And they are written by government agencies and they have been adopted.
The wording and approach is sound. I added the phrase about
non-redundancy which comes from a policy recommendation made by the
Australian Democratic Party.
The other public policy approach that I can sense may have some weight
is to insist that the antennas not be constructed in areas that are
zoned for residential use. Here in San Francisco that represents only 5%
of the antenna applications. However, of those 5%, many call for
construction on firehouses, schools, and churches in densely populated
residential neighborhoods, packed with apartment buildings and singile
family dwellings. One compromise first step with our city government may
be a ban on construction in residential neighborhoods.
(If this plan sounds too modest or wishy-washy you should see what the
situation's like here in San Francisco: The City claims the antennas are
safe and there's nothing we can do about it anyway because the federal
government's pre-empted our ability to regulate the antennas from an
environmental viewpoint. My position practically puts me in the
late-night, political ranter and raver on the radio talk shows
UFO/nut-house category in the public view of most of the people in
city-government.)
However, a residential ban may at the same time be a goal that is
achievable now or within months, not sometime off in the next century.
We do have superb elected officials in San Francisco who share my
concern with antenna placement, a minority at this point but not
necessarily out of the running for fostering a coalition. Almost
everyone agrees that we need to exercise extreme caution when it comes
to the health of children. To my mind, the protection of children
equates with the protection of residential neighborhoods.
Libby Kelley, co-founder of the Ad-Hoc Association of Parties Concerned
About FCC's RadioFrequency Health & Safety Rules, helps preserve my
sanity in this madness of antennas and lack of government regulation by
pointing out that we have a very long struggle ahead of us, perhaps one
like the efforts to curb smoking or protect us from asbestos and lead
contamination. The standards from Australia may be wrong. Maybe we don't
need that much protection...maybe we need more. But we must start
somewhere. They started in Australia with limits that seem to move in
the right direction.
Libby, by the way, also works on the principal that we must maintain
good will toward all...even the industry, even the US senators who voted
for the Telecommunications Bill. People may remember that only five
senators voted against it. She often points out, that even those who
voted for the law often don't know what they've done and they often
don't think there's any reason whatsoever to worry about any microwave
antenna exposures. Our task, then, is education; it is more research.
But we've also got to start saying we want, even if it's a guess. That's
what the government officials I've met with would like to hear: What, at
least in general principles, do we want?
I personally oppose cellular phones and digital television on a societal
basis, I think they're too dangerous (and I'm a filmmaker whose
documentaries and fiction films are often on television). When I see
anyone using a cellular phone, the image that comes to mind is
second-hand tobacco smoke. But I'm not in the majority for sure and
maybe shouldn't be. But I'm willing to work out a consensus. Until we've
reached a point of more certainty that may put me in the majority or
perhaps put a less extreme position in the majority, I think the
guidelines from Australia are a good opening salvo. (I'm trying to leave
a lot of room here for the shifting of positions, mine included, as more
scientific information is revealed.)
Many thanks for indulging my meditation on this topic. I hope those of
you who can attend our conference will raise these same issues with Dr.
Cherry. It will be an amazing opportunity to ask any question you've
always wanted to ask someone really knowledgable in this field of
scientific and public policy debate.
Christopher Beaver
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html