Saturday, June 18, 2016

Action Items against AB 2788 - CA Bill for cell towers on public schools, light/telephone poles, city property WITHOUT local approval

Action Items against AB 2788 - CA Bill for cell towers on public schools, light/telephone poles, city property WITHOUT local approval


STOP AB 2788

Loss of Municipal Regulation of Wireless Facilities on the PUBLIC RIGHT OF

Loss of Local Discretionary Review for all of CA

AB 2788 Is heading to the Senate Rules Committee on Tuesday, June 28.

Immediate Action is needed to OPPOSE AB 2788.

Excerpt from the City of Calabasas Staff Report dated 6-14-16:

"California Assembly Bill 2788 (AB 2788) was introduced June 14, 2016 by
Assembly Member Mike Gatto (Burbank, Glendale).  The bill would remove
local control of all small cells in any right of way in California.  AB
2788 appears to have been written by attorneys for the wireless industry.

AB 2788 would deny local governments locational or aesthetic control over
small cells anywhere in the public-right-of-way (PROW). It would give
cities or counties 60 days to issue a permit for whatever was requested by
a wireless applicant.  If the city failed to issue the permit in 60 days,
the law would not deem the project approved, it would deem the project

A Massive Land Grab by Wireless Hits California Legislature
By Jonathan Kramer, on June 14th, 2016

"The legislation he introduced, ghosted by wireless industry attorneys and
helped by other wireless industry firms, would DENY any local government
the ability to require a different and less intrusive location, or any
different or better design that is more harmonious with the surrounding."

"Mr. Gatto wants to allow his wireless company partners to place all sorts
of wireless towers in the public right of way (that’s RIGHT IN FRONT OF
YOUR HOME) WITHOUT giving you, your city or county, any say in the design
or location of the cell site."

"But that’s not all:  Mr. Gatto’s proposed legislation will REQUIRE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS to make ALL OF THEIR PROPERTY…not just the right of
way…available for cell sites.  Except fire stations."

"Under Mr. Gatto’s proposed law, SCHOOLS run by cities or counties would
also be fair game for new cell sites, regardless of how the parents might
feel about that."

AB 2788 started out as a Natural Gas Storage Emergency Regulation Bill and
morphed into a Wireless Bill???


Wireless companies are now looking for future mass deployment of small
cell sites on the Public Right of Way and this bill is paving the way for
them to deploy without the constraints of municipal oversight.

It is important that we contact our government officials and try to reign
in the politicians who are voting for legislation that chips away and
erodes muncipal authority over the siting of wireless facilities.  They
have forgotten who voted them into office in the first place and they need
to be held accountable.

Articles on small cell densification:
SPRINT /3-11-16

VERIZON / 3-18-16

AT&T / 6-9-16


Encourage them to write to their Assemblymember and State Senator to
oppose AB 2788.



Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0043
Tel: (916) 319-2043
Fax: (916) 319-2143

District Office:
300 East Magnolia Boulevard
Suite 504
Burbank, CA 91502
Tel: (818) 558-3043
Fax: (818) 558-3042

Friday, June 17, 2016

Prenatal exposure to iPhone radiation reduces cerebellum & impairs social behavior in chicks

Prenatal exposure to iPhone radiation reduces cerebellum & impairs social behavior in chicks

Joel's comments: Several recent studies have found that prenatal exposure to cell phone radiation is associated with increased risk of headaches, hearing loss, and behavioral problems in children.

Since it is unethical to experiment on humans, numerous studies have been conducted on fetal development using animal models. Recently, fifteen peer-reviewed, experimental studies have found that prenatal exposure to wireless radiation produces the following adverse health effects on offspring in the following species.
Ratsbrain (5 studies), liver (2 studies), kidneys (2 studies), bone & muscle tissue, cochlea, testes

brain and behavior

aggressive behavior

Chicks brain and behavior (see new study below)
For links to these studies see "Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation Risks" on my EMR Safety website at


Social behavioral testing and brain magnetic resonance imaging in chicks exposed to mobile phone radiation during development

Zhou Z, Shan J, Zu J, Chen Z, Ma W, Li L, Xu J. Social behavioral testing and brain magnetic resonance imaging in chicks exposed to mobile phone radiation during development. BMC Neurosci. 2016 Jun 10;17(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12868-016-0266-7.


BACKGROUND: The potential adverse effect of mobile phone radiation is currently an area of great concern in the field of public health. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the effect of mobile phone radiation (900 MHz radiofrequency) during hatching on postnatal social behaviors in chicks, as well as the effect on brain size and structural maturity estimated using 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging. At day 4 of incubation, 76 normally developing chick embryos were divided into the control group (n = 39) and the radiation group (n = 37). Eggs in the radiation group were exposed to mobile phone radiation for 10 h each day from day 4 to 19 of incubation. Behavioral tests were performed 4 days after hatching. T2-weighted MR imaging and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) were subsequently performed. The size of different brain subdivisions (telencephalon, optic lobe, brain stem, and cerebellum) and corresponding DTI parameters were measured. The Chi-square test and the student's t test were used for statistical analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS: Compared with controls, chicks in the radiation group showed significantly slower aggregation responses (14.87 ± 10.06 vs. 7.48 ± 4.31 s, respectively; P < 0.05), lower belongingness (23.71 ± 8.72 vs. 11.45 ± 6.53 s, respectively; P < 0.05), and weaker vocalization (53.23 ± 8.60 vs. 60.01 ± 10.45 dB/30 s, respectively; P < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the radiation and control group for brain size and structural maturity, except for cerebellum size, which was significantly smaller in the radiation group (28.40 ± 1.95 vs. 29.95 ± 1.41 cm(2), P < 0.05). The hatching and heteroplasia rates were also calculated and no significant difference was found between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Mobile phone radiation exposure during chick embryogenesis impaired social behaviors after hatching and possibly induced cerebellar retardation. This indicates potential adverse effects of mobile phone radiation on brain development.
Open Access Paper;

Global system for mobile communication (GSM) is widely used in mobile phones and its electromagnetic waves range in frequency from 300 MHz to 3 GHz. The electromagnetic field (EMF) produced by these electromagnetic waves could lead to various pathological changes in viable tissues and cells via heat-related and non-heat-related effects, such as oxidative stress, Ca2+-signal channel’s adjustment, and DNA damage[8–11].

Many pregnant women wear so-called radiation-proof clothes to avoid potential influence of EMF on the fetus. One epidemiological research study showed that exposure to mobile phones prenatally and postnatally is associated with emotional problems and hyperactivity in children at approximately the age of school entry [12]. However, another epidemiological study suggests that maternal mobile phone use during pregnancy does not increase the risk of behavioral problems in children [13]. Few clinical studies have been performed because of ethical limitations. Some experiments in small animals such as rats and chicks have been performed to investigate the effect of EMF on brain development, with conflicting results [14–17].

The chick embryo is an accessible and economical model, which has an extensive history of use in developmental biology, transplantation research, pharmaceutical teratogenicity evaluation, and cancer research [18].

Since the brains of rodent embryos mature quite late and are not completely developed at birth [26], the chick embryo is a more suitable animal model than the rodent to investigate the effect of exposure to environmental factors during embryogenesis on brain development.

An iPhone 4s (GSM 900 MHz) was used as a source of radiation and placed in the center of the hatching plate. Experimental eggs were placed around the mobile phone as shown in Fig.1. The average intensity of electromagnetic radiation next to the iPhone 4s during 1 min of ringing was 3.03 µW/cm2 .... Embryos in the experimental group were continuously irradiated for 10 hours each day (from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) from day 4 to 19 of incubation. An Android-based custom-made software was used to call the iPhone 4s in the incubator automatically. Each call lasted 1 min with 30 second gaps between calls .... The surface temperature of the experimental eggs was 37–38 °C, which was randomly measured five times a day to exclude possible heating effects of electromagnetic radiation and/or battery charging.

Our present research established that exposure to mobile phone radiation during embryonic development has an adverse effect on chick social behaviors after hatching, reducing aggregation time and belongingness, and resulting in weaker vocalization. Similar animal studies have been carried out in rat offspring, yielding similar results [27, 28]. Here, T2-weighted MRI showed no adverse effect of radiation exposure on the size of different brain subdivisions, except the cerebellum. The cerebellum size in the radiation group was smaller than that in the control group. The cerebellum is associated with motor coordination and balance skills. The retardation of cerebellar development may influence these functions and manifest as an adverse effect on social behaviors. A previous electrophysiological and behavioral study showed that EMF radiation affects the cerebellar function of rat offspring [28]. EMF radiation emitted from mobile phones may cause structural damage to neurons.

The mechanism underlying the effect of electromagnetic radiation on brain growth has not been fully clarified. Attention has widely been paid to the harmful effects of oxidative stress caused by electromagnetic radiation exposure during embryogenesis. Moderate oxidative stress promotes neuronal differentiation and proliferation; however, excessive oxidative stress causes apoptosis and necrosis [29]. The embryo is most sensitive to oxidative stress in the early developmental stage. With the development-related formation of antioxidant defenses, the embryo becomes more resistant to oxidative stress. The balance between moderate oxidative stress and the embryo’s antioxidant defenses is important for neuronal survival. “Reductive stress” caused by antioxidants may be as dangerous to neuronal survival as oxidative stress [30]. In addition, the magnitude of oxidative stress is different in different regions of brain. Electromagnetic radiation may upset the balance between the oxidative and anti-oxidative stress systems in a specific region of the brain during the period of brain growth and thus affect its function.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
News Releases:
Twitter:                  @berkeleyprc

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Urge Dr. Oz to Interview an NTP Scientist about NTP's New Report Relating Cell Phone Radiation to Brain Cancer and Heart Tumors Inbox x

Urge Dr. Oz to Interview an NTP Scientist about NTP's New Report Relating Cell Phone Radiation to Brain Cancer and Heart Tumors

June 14, 2016
Dear Colleagues,

I have just submitted a suggestion to the Dr. Oz Show that Dr. Oz interview one of the scientists who worked on the new NTP study that just reported a causal link between exposure to cell phone radiation and both malignant brain cancer (glioma) and benign heart tumors (schwannomas) in male rats.
If you feel so inclined, I urge you to send a similar suggestion to Dr. Oz.  He has shown an interest in this topic in the past, and may well respond if enough of us express an interest.  Such visibility for this important new study can help our efforts to raise awareness about the health risks that accompany multiple wireless technologies, including Smart Meters.  Smart Meters using Mesh Network Technology for communications, including virtually all Smart Meters that I know of in Maryland, and so many others throughout the USA, operate at the same frequency, 900 MHz, as the cell radiation used in the NTP study, albeit with a different form of modulation (the method use to impress information on the radiofrequency signal).  This fact gives the new NTP study a special relevance to the concerns about the radiation from Smart Meters.
Below is the message that I sent to Dr. Oz, through his contact form at
and in the category "Suggestions".
Please interview, on the Dr. Oz Show, one or more of the scientists from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institutes of Health about the new study that NTP just released entitled "Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposure)". This study found a causal relationship between cell phone radiation and both brain cancer (glioma) and heart schwannomas in male rats. This finding adds more evidence that use of cell phones may increase the risk of these diseases in humans, too. The full report, as a PDF file, may be accessed here: And the NTP announcement of the report can be found here: NTP notes that this report is very important to public health because of the wide use of cell phones.
Ron Powell

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Do Cellphones Cause Cancer? Probably, but it's Complicated (Drs, Portier & Melnick)

Do Cellphones Cause Cancer? Probably, but it's Complicated (Drs, Portier & Melnick)

Joel's comments:
With few exceptions, mainstream media coverage about the National Toxicology Program's study on cellphone-radiation and cancer in rats has been biased to manufacture doubt about the study. The news stories raise various specious concerns about the validity of the results from this $25 million study in the opinion of the scientists with the most expertise regarding the study.

The following article on the NTP study was written by Christopher Portier, PhD, a senior collaborating scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. Until 2013, Dr. Portier was the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Prior to CDC, Dr. Portier was with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences where he served as the NIEHS Associate Director, Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program, and Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and Senior Scientific Advisor to the Director. During his 32 years at NIEHS, Dr. Portier maintained his own research laboratory focused on the impact of the environment on human health.

In 2011, Dr. Portier was one of 31 scientists who served on the expert working group formed by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified radiofrequency radiation "possibly carcinogenic" in humans (Group 2B). Dr. Portier's comments below suggest that IARC should review the research from the past five years and classify radiofrequency radiation "probably carcinogenic" in humans (Group 2A).
Also see "Setting the Record Straight on NTP Cell Phone Cancer Study" by Ronald Melnick, PhD. Dr Melnick led the design of the NTP/NIEHS Rodent Study. Dr. Melnick was a Senior Toxicologist and Director of Special Programs in the Environmental Toxicology Program at NIEHS, and is now retired.
On June 9, Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, who was also one of the 31 experts selected for the 2011 IARC working group, reported on a presentation by Michael Wyde, director of the NTP study at the Bioelectromagnetics Society annual conference. In addition to increased cancer risk in male rats, the NTP reported statistically significant evidence of DNA damage from cellphone radiation exposure in mice as well as rats:
  • male rats: frontal cortex, hippocampus, liver, blood
  • male mice: frontal cortex
  • female rats: frontal cortex
  • female mice: liver, blood

Do Cellphones Cause Cancer? Probably, but it's Complicated
The degree of risk almost certainly depends on the length and strength of exposure—but we still don't know how significant the actual danger is
By Christopher J. Portier, Wendy L. Leonard, Scientific American Blog, June 13, 2016
Before you trash your cellphones (or rather, responsibly recycle and dispose of them), a careful review of the data—and the real life human implications—is needed. Here are the facts:
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) just concluded a massive 2-year study investigating the potential health hazards of cellphone use on rats and mice – most notably including the specific radio frequencies and modulations (RF-EMF) currently used in our U.S. telecommunications industry.
The NTP have chosen to publish their preliminary findings in rats, rather than wait. This study found that cellphone exposure increases the incidence of malignant gliomas of the brain, i.e., brain cancer, and schwannomas  (also called neuromas) of the heart in the male rats. While schwannomas are not cancers, they are tumors and can profoundly impact the protective sheathing of the peripheral nerves, which can lead to severe pain and disability. 
The increases were small (3-4 percent over controls), but since these are rare tumors, the findings are still significant. What make these studies even more significant are the findings of similar tumors in humans.
Human Studies: Pre and Post 2010
In humans, there have been numerous case-control studies of cancer and exposure to RF-EMF. The case-control studies (studies that compare exposure to cellphones of people who have glioma (case) with those who don’t (control)) conducted prior to 2010 were all negative—meaning, no increases in tumors were found. However, those findings could easily be due to a lack of sufficient time for cancers to develop, or perhaps the sample size was too small.
Three case-control studies conducted since 2010 have all been positive (an increase in gliomas were found) in the highest exposure groups. Two studies found that the tumors occurred on the same side as phone use. These studies are subject to recall bias –people were asked about their cellphone usage and those with the tumor could have exaggerated their usage. 
One study had high relative risks (comparing an exposed group to a non-exposed group) that would suggest we should be seeing an increase in gliomas in the general population. This has been examined in several countries with mixed, and often controversial, results. 
Cohort studies, which follow people who don’t have tumors, to see if cellphone use results increases cancer risk, have also been conducted; the results were all negative. One of these studies had serious exposure misclassification (i.e., many of the people listed as unexposed actually used cellphones), and the other studies suffered from short follow-up times. 
After evaluating these data, an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group concluded these data show limited evidence of a glioma increase in humans. This means an association exists, but the data is not sufficient to be able to say they were certain the cellphones were the cause.
There have also been several case-control studies  that specifically examined the risk of developing acoustic neuromas (a schwannoma of the acoustic nerve). As with the gliomas, the earlier studies were all negative, and most of the studies since 2010 have shown a positive risk ratio in the highest exposure categories. 
So, why is this NTP study a potential game changer? 
Back to the Rats
The NTP study is a long-term cancer bioassay in a specific strain of rats. There have been other long-term cancer bioassays in rats, all of which have been negative. Here’s the thing: In all of the previous studies, the length of exposure and/or the magnitude of exposure was much less than what was used in the NTP study. For example, one study used almost the same magnitude of exposure used by the NTP (1.5-4 Watts/kilogram), but only two hours per day (the NTP exposed the rats for 9 hours per day). Another used 21 hours per day of exposure, but with a magnitude 10 to 20 fold less than the NTP.  Finally, some of these studies used different rat strains, and it’s well known that different rat strains don’t always respond the same way to environmental exposures.
The new NTP rodent study is not without its critics. For both the gliomas and the schwannomas, there were no tumors in the control (unexposed) animals. Critics argue this inflates the chances of a false positive finding (that a certain result seems to have occurred, but really didn’t). However, 50% or more of the recent (historical) NTP control groups have resulted in no tumors; thus, it’s not an unusual finding. The significant findings remain positive if you compare the exposed rats to the historical control data. Another criticism is that there were no positive findings in the female rats for either tumor—again suggesting this was a false positive finding. However, male and female rats having the same tumor increase in the same site only occurs about 65 percent of the time.
In our opinion, the exposure to RF-EMF caused the tumors seen in the male rats in the NTP study. With the positive case-control studies seen in humans and a similar positive finding in a well-conducted laboratory study in rats, the evidence that call phones can cause cancer has strengthened.
Do we think cellphones cause cancer in humans? Probably. But proximity matters, as does duration, and level of exposure. Think of it this way: sitting around a campfire is a fine thing, but sitting in the flames yields a very different outcome. 
Steps You Can Take
1) With mobile phones, distance is definitely your friend. Exposure decreases as an inverse function of distance from the head to the second power. This means that if you double the distance between your head and the phone, exposure is four times less. If you put it on the table, maybe about 50 times the usual distance from your head, the exposure would be 2500 times less.  Thus, using a wired headset (or the speakerphone) with the phone on the table would yield a huge reduction in exposure.
Before you ask, studies on Bluetooth headsets have yet to be conducted.
3) Carrying your cellphone in your purse or backpack rather than in a pocket or close to your body will also greatly reduce exposure.
4) Modern cellphones don’t always emit the same amount of RF-EMF when in use.  The better the reception, the less exposure from the phone. So limiting the use of your cellphone in areas of poor reception would also reduce exposure.
5) Turn it off if you are not using it.
6) If you feel grave concern over this issue, then don’t use a cellphone. You might also want to prevent or limit the amount of time your children use a cellphone—since they will have much longer exposure over their lifetime.
Bottom Line
Cellphones probably cause cancer if the exposure is close enough, long enough, and in sufficient magnitude. We don’t yet know the risk for a given level of exposure in humans. We need more data in this area, not only for cellphones, but for bluetooth devices, wifi and all the other RF-EMF devices out there. Until then, reduce your exposure whenever possible.


Also see:

National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer

National Toxicology Program: Not the First Government Study to Find Wireless Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Lab Rats

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
News Releases:
Twitter:                  @berkeleyprc

Monday, June 13, 2016

Town for Sale Within the U.S.’s 13,000-square-mile National Radio Quiet Zone, where no cellphones, wi-fi or any equipment operating on radio frequencies are allowed.

Town for Sale Within the U.S.’s 13,000-square-mile National Radio Quiet Zone, where no cellphones, wi-fi or any equipment operating on radio frequencies are allowed.

Spy town for sale: $1M for 92 homes plus dorms, police and fire stations, sport facilities. Don’t mind all those satellite dishes

Shari Kulha | June 7, 2016 | Last Updated: Jun 8 9:56 AM ET
More from Shari Kulha

We’ve seen entire towns go up for sale, but two unique factors in this listing hold more intrigue but less practicality than usual. For an auction reserve of US$1 million, the buyer will get a 120-acre former government spy station in Sugar Grove Station, W. Va. The giant satellite dishes are still there and still track the location and content of international telecommunications activity, but they’re not part of the deal, and anyway they’re hidden behind a thick forest a mile away (makes you feel better, right?).

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govA view of the back yards of one housing area.
Then there’s the fact that the property sits within the 

 (The NRQZ also attempts to prevent radio interference to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory 30 miles away; they’re listening for sounds of space stations other than the ISS, we’d guess.) Sugar Grove and the NRAO have the tightest telecommunications restrictions within the zone. CB radio is 10-4, good buddy, but even microwave ovens are on the negatory list.

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govTypical suburban-style houses in this town.

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govA typical kitchen in one of the houses.
As the station can house 500 people, the listing suggests this would make a great resort area, which might put the whole no-cell thing in a plus column for those trying to disconnect, but we can’t see it operating as a conference centre, as was also suggested.

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govThe lobby area of the dorm building, which also has a canteen and other amenities.
It could be a private school or campus; graduating marks of students without access to IG or Snapchat could make for an interesting educational study. Using it as a family compound without airwave distractions could help the cousins get acquainted by being forced to interact old-school with each other.

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govThe playground area.
The highest bidder will get a fenced and gated town, with 80 charming houses (“in like-new condition”) on tree-lined streets just as many small American towns have.

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govThe pool area can be operational longer in this area than in most Canadian towns.
Included in the price are a pool, a bowling alley, a daycare centre, a community centre, a gym, a full-size indoor basketball court, tennis and racquetball courts, a football field, a playground with kiddie pool, a hobby shop for cars or woodworking, a police station and a fire hall. And dorms and administrative buildings.

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govThe massive basketball / sports court.
Government employees used to live in Sugar Grove, but last fall “it became unnecessary to house related analytical staff at the base,” says; we suppose they’re all telecommuting now.

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govThe spic-and-span new five-bay fire hall.
The George Washington and Jefferson National Forests surround Sugar Grove, situated between the Allegheny Mountains and the south fork of the Potomac River.

TopTenRealEstateDeals via gsaauctions.govThen entry gate. Perhaps in need of a more-welcoming facelift.
The auction end date has not yet been determined, but open house tours are given intermittently. No need to fashion a tin-foil hat for the occasion. Click here for more information.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Sprint aims to roll out thousands of wireless antennas on utility poles to improve service

Sprint aims to roll out thousands of wireless antennas on utility poles to improve service

A few months back I sent an email about FCC pushing wireless companies to provide faster speeds which would increase the number of cell towers.  June 2015: FCC fined AT&T $100mil for slowing down their data speeds, slower than advertised, for their unlimited data plan customers.

Then the wireless industry has been lobbying to remove proof of gap/need from cell tower applications, looking to substitute capacity instead (because there are no more significant gaps anymore) - Skip to p. 7  When this happens, wireless companies can  easily justify the need for a cell tower anywhere - all they have to say is that if they don't get it, speeds will slow during peak times.  Proof of "significant gap" is required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and challenging the wireless provider to prove "significant gap" was one of the ways that residents could stop a cell tower installation.  Telecom almost succeeded this year in February 2016 with the passage of the Mobile Now Act.  The original drafted version from November 2015 would have prohibited of local governments from requiring the provider to perform a drive test to prove that a new site is needed - i.e. cities will have to accept the wireless provider's claim that they need a new facility without any proof, but it was rejected because it gave telecom too much power.  Then the Mobile Now Act was revised and the provision for removing proof of need was removed.  However, telecom will no doubt try again at the next opportunity to remove proof of gap/need..

In August 2015 Sprint announced plans to have the best network coverage by 2017 (which will mean more cell towers)

See below for article on how they will do it - by attaching cell antennas to telephone poles
If you haven't read the research on cell towers and health effects, please do so.  This is an issue that affects you, your children, your grandchildren.  Click on "Please Read Examples of Research on Cell Towers" and  You may end up with a cell antenna light pole near your school or residence, and you might be powerless to stop it when it gets proposed.  The time to do something about it is NOW through legislation through your city and state.  One way is to get a setback of cell towers to schools and residences - 1500 ft. is recommended by most experts.

Lastly, I would like to remind everyone that cell towers, cell phones, all wireless were never tested for long-term health effects from chronic exposure by the US government until the NTP study which exposed rats to cell phone radiation for 2 years at levels that were not high enough to cause increases in body temperature - yet cancer showed up at 1.5W/kg which is below FCC SAR limit of 1.6W/kg.  In industrialized nations all wireless products have been presumed to be safe (and are allowed to be sold) as long as there is not enough microwave radiation emitted to cause increases in body temperature - i.e. personal wireless devices sold in the US must be rated at SAR of 1.6W/kg or below.  iphone 6 plus SAR rating is 1.59W/kg with all antennas on 


Sprint’s Wireless Fix? More Telephone Poles

Wireless provider’s innovative plan to boost cell service runs into local hurdles

One of the wireless antennas being installed on light poles in cities around the country for Sprint and other carriers to increase cellphone service quality at lower cost than much-larger tower antennas. Pole above is in Los Angeles. 

June 7, 2016 6:03 p.m. ET
Don Budreski earlier this year noticed a roughly three-story-tall utility pole pop up across the street from his Baltimore electronics shop.
“It was just odd,” he said of the slender, steel post. “I thought, ‘What are they putting that thing there for?’ ”
Mr. Budreski had caught a glimpse of a key element of Sprint Corp.’s plan to improve its network and win back customers: thousands of sidewalk utility poles.

The Overland Park, Kan., company wants to install low-power cellular antennas in public rights of way, land typically holding utility poles, street lamps and fire hydrants. In places where it can’t strap antennas to existing poles, it wants to erect new poles.
Sprint is primarily working with Mobilitie LLC, a Newport Beach, Calif., company to build these cellular antenna systems from California to Massachusetts. Mobilitie has begun installing them, which it says are typically the size of a briefcase and often inside boxes attached to the poles.
But the rollout has been delayed as communities confront what some consider unsightly installations and authorities wrestle with new regulatory questions. Sprint recently slashed its capital spending plans for the year as it waits for zoning approvals. Mobilitie says it has about 1,000 permits approved and will start large-scale installations once more are in hand.
In the past, wireless carriers built towers of 200 feet or more that could send signals over large areas to cover as many customers as possible. Now that more people use smartphones to stream videos and surf the Web, carriers want to put lower-power antennas closer to the ground so that fewer people will connect to each one—resulting in less network congestion.
“It’s not a new concept,” said John Saw, Sprint’s chief technology officer. “All carriers are trying to ‘densify’ their networks.” But Sprint’s goal is to be “cheaper and faster and more innovative” than its rivals, he said.

Popping antennas on existing utility poles is something most carriers are hoping to do. But cash-strapped Sprint aims to take the concept further than rivals: It is hoping to install as many as 70,000 antennas in the public right of way over the next few years. By comparison, it has 40,000 traditional antenna sites on towers or rooftops.
It is a central piece of a strategy devised in early 2015 by Sprint Chairman Masayoshi Sonto improve service while keeping costs down. Companies can negotiate with a city for one deal that includes various permits. Mobilitie Chief Executive Gary Jabara says building and operating these so-called small cells costs about $190,000 over 10 years, whereas a traditional tower costs $732,000 because of real estate rents, power and other costs.
The airwaves Sprint owns are ideally suited for this design because their high frequency prevents them from traveling long distances. Rather than string fiber-optic cables to each antenna, Sprint hopes to link them via wireless connections, further bringing down costs and speeding deployment.
Analyst Jonathan Atkin at RBC Capital Markets is skeptical, saying Sprint may only be able to build a fraction of the sites it wants in public rights-of-way governed by federal, state and local laws.
Mobilitie’s practices in some places have faced local resistance. It has filed applications under various corporate names, including the Illinois Utility Pole Authority, NC Technology Relay Networking, and Interstate Transport and Broadband. It has used similar-sounding names in at least 30 states.
Joseph Van Eaton, a lawyer who represents municipalities dealing with the applications, says the names are misleading. “You may very well end up with some of these applications being granted for exactly the reason why they like these names—it sounds official,” he said.
Mobilitie is willing to modify its applications to avoid being disruptive, Mr. Jabara says. “It’s more important to be a good citizen” than to move quickly, he said. “You have to do the right thing.”
Mr. Jabara says the names also make it easier for local officials to understand the status of his firm. The company is a registered utility and those business names help reflect that status, he says. “In some states it’s more comprehensible for a jurisdiction to work with an authority,” he said. In the future, the company will most often use the name “Mobilitie” in dealings with local officials, he said.
In Salem, Mass., Mobilitie applied last fall to install antennas on seven poles. After some residents expressed concerns over the look of the antennas, the company withdrew three applications and agreed to camouflage the other four.
Not in my backyard has been around for a very long time.

—John Saw, Sprint CTO

In Baltimore, Mobilitie was fined $5,000 for failing to get proper permits for the temporary pole across from Mr. Budreski’s shop, which was taken down after a few days. The company since has received approval to attach equipment to 14 poles across the city. It will pay Baltimore $70,000 for pole attachment rights in the first year of the deal. Mr. Jabara says that amount is unusually high, and many places charge less than $50 a year per pole.
Mr. Jabara says such incidents were inadvertent mistakes. Sprint’s Mr. Saw says his company is committed to being patient and making sure municipalities are comfortable with its plans.
“We’re not surprised that sometimes you will run into opposition in certain jurisdictions,” Mr. Saw says. “ ‘Not in my backyard’ has been around for a very long time.”
Write to Ryan Knutson at