A tower at 200 ft is worse than on and above a school

A tower at 200 ft is worse than on and above a school

On 2015-04-18 à 05:24, Alasdair Philips <alasdair@powerwatch.org.uk> wrote

This highlights the problems with how you restrict mast location and microwave RF exposure.

As Toni writes, they don’t want 200 feet but a 1500 feet distance restriction.

However, they got 200 feet.  That is actually WORSE than having the mast on and above the school as it puts the school buildings right into the main antenna beams from the mast! It is like the authorities giving a rude finger sign to the concerned people.

We (and the UK Radiocommunications Agency) have measured many schools in the UK and the schools with masts a few hundred feet to about 1000 feet away are almost always more highly exposed than the schools with masts on their roofs who sit well underneath the main beam radiation.

If the schools have comprehensive WiFi, that will usually expose the pupils to more than the nearby cellphone masts.

See the BBC Panorama programme (May 2007) with many interesting people (including me!) in it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rOkB3as-Xs (part 1 – there are 3 parts)

(uploaded in 2011 by “Vidiootix”)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuNaDj6VLHw  (part 1 – there are 3 parts)

another You Tube set of 3 uploaded in 2008 by “domi1928” – they don’t seem such good quality.

Alasdair

www.powerwatch.org.uk

From: André Fauteux [mailto:andre@maisonsaine.ca]
Sent: 18 April 2015 03:54
Subject: Cell tower regulations

From: "Toni Stein" <tweil@igc.org>

Objet: RE: urgent: cell tower regulations?

Date: 17 avril 2015 19:20:22 UTC−4

À: 'André Fauteux' <andre@maisonsaine.ca>

Andre:

Two years ago a letter I wrote (see attached)  was posted up on this website addressing this issue: http://wifiinschools.com/lausd-testimony.html   (https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/127930770?access_key=key-23msqlo59vdalml8p2n3&allow_share=false&escape=false&show_recommendations=false&view_mode=scroll )

There are some applicable restrictions for schools in California.  In the California Education Code: Title 5, Division 1, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations and Education Code sections 17213, 17213.1, 17213.2, 17268  that include including Article 2. School Sites § 14010. Standards for School Site Selection g. Classrooms that requires all classrooms have available “Conduit/cabling and outlets for technology in each classroom to provide network and stand alone equipment related to the planned and future potential educational functions”.   AND  there is the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Division 13, (commencing with Section 21000 with particular attention to Section 21151.8) on all new projects at a school in CA.  

The promising thing about these codes is that they have been put to use by the largest School District in the US called LAUSD in their Health and Safety Distance Criteria.  

The good thing is that they  are bundled together with other toxic emission sources.

However within it there are mis-interpreted limitations to its scope resulting its use and practice despite the fact that the misinterpretations do not apply.  There is specific case interpretation in CA that provides precedent law relating to school health and safety developed in LAUSD by  that is in practice and stands today that can be cited. It is important to articulate whenever referencing these codes what the history and spirit of these codes are so that they are not lost or misinterpreted by the opposition parties claiming that they are specific only to LAUSD because they are not; they apply by precedent to all public schools in CA.

LAUSD has had many toxic issues like a school that was built on top of a Superfund site that has resulted in the creation of the DTSC Schools https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/Schools/unit. 

 Although this State Agency office was created for chemical toxics EMF is a WHO 2B carcinogen making it applicable in Labor Code; and since DTSC has engaged in the other toxic emissions that the WHO IARC declared as 2B carcinogens EMF in the bundle of toxic exposures is relevant and furthermore LAUSD has articulated EMF from Cellular Phone Antennas within their Distance Criteria policy.  This has set important legal framework and precedent law for us in the future.

With community demand asking for application of the codes and policies  there is high probability that there  will be feasible for children’s protections possible surrounding EMF exposures in CA. 

LAUSD distance is not what we want but it is something and its is official.  It is only 200 ft! But it does prohibit the placement of a school “Within or adjacent to a cellular antenna site” and this is better than nothing.  It definitely means that it cant be on the school, and this is good. It also could be argued that routers should not be placed inside the school now that cellular phones have wi-fi in them.

We would like the distance to be changed from 200 ft to be at least 1500 ft away.

Another useful document: https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/Schools/upload/SCCGHS_LAUSD_Env_Rev_of_Proposed_Projects.pdf please note that the Distance Criteria are inside of this document on page 9 of 11  ( I attached the document to this email too)

LAUSD followed up the letters with a report from URS that is worth reviewing too. 

Best,

Antoinette “Toni” Stein, PhD

Berkeley, CA 94707

510-525-2944

tweil@igc.org

I hope this is helpful.  Please let me know if you have any questions, 

Best, 

Antoinette “Toni” Stein, PhD

Berkeley, CA 94707

510-525-2944

tweil@igc.org

From: André Fauteux [mailto:andre@maisonsaine.ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:23 AM
Subject: urgent: cell tower regulations?

Which countries have the strictest restrictions, at what distance do they

limit cell towers from housing and schools?

Thanks very much

--
Andre Fauteux, Editor
La Maison du 21e siècle magazine
2955 Domaine-lac-Lucerne
Ste-Adèle (Qc)  Canada J8B 3K9

450 228-1555
www.maisonsaine.ca
info@maisonsaine.ca