MESSAGE FROM SUSAN FOSTER:
Attached (below) please see the case I have made to San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob regarding the FCC’s small cell [5G] directive. I am taking the position that San Diego County legally can, and must, accommodate individuals with EHS in the face of the planned exponential increase in 5G towers close to homes, schools, workplaces and throughout our lives. I am arguing that the ADA is not preempted under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [Section 704] because of a Massachusetts District court judge's ruling in a separate case. You will see my logic within the letter.
Also attached is my filing with the FCC from 2013 regarding the brain study I organized of California firefighters exposed to a cell tower on their station for over five years. And here is the link to a pretrial ruling from District court judge Timothy S. Hillman in the Fay School Wi-Fi case. I refer to both throughout letter.
I sat on San Diego County’s 2002 cell tower ordinance siting committee, and I am a stakeholder in the shaping of the current ordinance which was passed in February 2019, but was remanded to staff to craft some more protective amendments. I was brought in to help with this, but the pushback from industry was relentless. We tried to get ADA language into the ordinance that was expanded beyond just addressing the installation of the cell tower itself. Industry is fine complying with ADA as long as it's isolated only to the cell tower construction. But of course they're not going to put their backup generators on the sidewalks. They would get sued if children got hurt while riding their bikes, etc. The industry does not want ADA to apply to individuals with EHS. When the topic of shielding was brought up during one of our discussions with the county, the industry said that shielding was preempted under the Telecom Act. It was the industry's claim that shielding was going to be preempted that made me look at Judge Hillman's ruling in the Fay School case. In that case the judge decided the ADA did apply and was not preempted by the TCA. I am arguing that San Diego County is not any different.
The industry is trying to tell the County zoning planners that EHS is not a "real" illness. My position is that acknowledgment of EHS, also known as radiofrequency radiation exposure, is not a debatable issue. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid offer a number of billing codes related to RF radiation exposure. If the government pays for it on one hand, it cannot pretend it does not exist on the other.
Perhaps most importantly I am urging Chairwoman Dianne Jacob to contact California Gov. Gavin Newsom and urge a statewide moratorium on the deployment of 5G. We can and we must accommodate those individuals who are already EHS, and we must prepare for the additional numbers of people who will become ill following deployment of 5G. We need to get wording into contracts with telecom to pay for shielding in public places so that all public buildings are accessible to those with EHS. You will see that I'm making a case for shielding in some homes, as well.
It has been argued that it would be extremely impractical and prohibitively expensive to shield entire wings of schools, hospitals, libraries, court houses and other public facilities. I would argue that is extremely impractical and prohibitively expensive to risk making our entire population ill, unproductive, and in need of medical care they will no longer be able to access.
SUSAN FOSTER
U.S. Adviser, Radiation Research Trust (UK)
Honorary Firefighter, San Diego Fire Department
Medical Writer
Rancho Santa Fe CA 92091
No comments:
Post a Comment