Sage is a featured speaker at the November 10 Southern California Smart Meter Community Forum in Glendale.

In talks with general audiences, Sage has said:

“Some smart meters will produce RF as high as living directly in the zone 200′ to 600′ away from a major cell tower.”

“Installing millions of RF transmitters in peoples’ homes when we already have substantial scientific evidence about the risks of chronic, low-level RF is a risk not worth taking. Especially without any discussion, or disclosure to the public about trade-offs made without their knowledge or consent.”

“Comparing wireless meters to other wireless devices that are voluntary, and which many people choose not to use is not a fair comparison to government-mandated meters that expose people in their homes 24 hours a day.”

“The costs for having guessed wrong is likely to have enormous economic and public health consequences for Californians for decades to come.”

Sage’s comprehensive computer modeling report on smart meters was released in January of this year. Excerpts are below:

“The installation of wireless ‘smart meters’ in California can produce significantly high levels of radiofrequency radiation (RF) depending on many factors (location of meter(s) in relation to occupied or usable space, duty cycle or frequency of RF transmissions, reflection and re-radiation of RF, multiple meters at one location, collector meters, etc).

Power transmitters that will relay information from appliances inside buildings with wireless smart meters produce high, localized RF pulses. Any appliance that contains a power transmitter (for example, dishwashers, washers, dryers, ranges and ovens, convection ovens, microwave ovens, flash water heaters, refrigerators, etc) will create another ‘layer of RF signals’ that may cumulatively increase RF exposures from the smart meter(s).

It should be emphasized that no single assertion of compliance can adequately cover the vast number of site-specific conditions in which smart meters are installed. These site-specific conditions determine public exposures and thus whether they meet FCC compliance criteria.

…FCC compliance violations are likely to occur under widespread conditions of installation and operation of smart meters and collector meters in California. Violations of FCC safety limits for uncontrolled public access are identified at distances within 6” of the meter. Exposure to the face is possible at this distance, in violation of the time-weighted average safety limits (Tables 10-11). FCC violations are predicted to occur at 60% reflection and 100% reflection factors*, both used in FCC OET 65 formulas for such calculations for time-weighted average limits. Peak power limits are not violated at the 6” distance (looking at the meter) but can be at 3” from the meter, if it is touched.

This report has also assessed the potential for FCC violations based on two examples of RF exposures in a typical residence. RF levels have been calculated at distances of 11” (to represent a nursery or bedroom with a crib or bed against a wall opposite one or more meters); and at 28” (to represent a kitchen work space with one or more meters installed on the kitchen wall).

FCC compliance violations are identified at 11” in a nursery or bedroom setting using Equation 10* of the FCC OET 65 regulations (Tables 12-13). These violations are predicted to occur where there are multiple smart meters, or one collector meter, or one collector meter mounted together with several smart meters.

FCC compliance violations are not predicted at 28” in the kitchen work space for 60% or for 100% reflection calculations. Violations of FCC public safety limits are predicted for higher reflection factors of 1000% and 2000%, which are not a part of FCC OET 65 formulas, but are included here to allow for situations where site-specific conditions (highly reflective environments, for example, galley-type kitchens with many highly reflective stainless steel or other metallic surfaces) may be warranted (see Methodology Section).

In addition to exceeding FCC public safety limits under some conditions of installation and operation, smart meters can produce excessively elevated RF exposures, depending on where they are installed. With respect to absolute RF exposure levels predicted for occupied space within dwellings, or outside areas like patios, gardens and walk-ways, RF levels are predicted to be substantially elevated within a few feet to within a few tens of feet from the meter(s).

For example, one smart meter at 11” from occupied space produces somewhere between 1.4 and 140 microwatts per centimeter squared (uW/cm2) depending on the duty cycle modeled (Table 12). Since FCC OET 65 specifies that continuous exposure be assumed where the public cannot be excluded (such as is applicable to one’s home), this calculation produces an RF level of 140 uW/cm2 at 11” using the FCCs lowest reflection factor of 60%. Using the FCC’s reflection factor of 100%, the figures rise to 2.2 uW/cm2 – 218 uW/cm2, where the continuous exposure calculation is 218 uW/cm2 (Table 12). These are very significantly elevated RF exposures in comparison to typical individual exposures in daily life.

Multiple smart meters in the nursery/bedroom example at 11” are predicted to generate RF levels from about 5 to 481 uW/cm2 at the lowest (60%) reflection factor; and 7.5 to 751 uW/cm2 using the FCCs 100% reflection factor (Table 13). Such levels are far above typical public exposures.

RF levels at 28” in the kitchen work space are also predicted to be significantly elevated with one or more smart meters (or a collector meter alone or in combination with multiple smart meters). At 28” distance, RF levels are predicted in the kitchen example to be as high as 21 uW/cm2 from a single meter and as high as 54.5 uW/cm2 with multiple smart meters using the lower of the FCCs reflection factor of 60% (Table 14).

Using the FCCs higher reflection factor of 100%, the RF levels are predicted to be as high as 33.8 uW/cm2 for a single meter and as high as 85.8 uW/cm2 for multiple smart meters (Table 14). For a single collector meter, the range is 60.9 to 95.2 uW/cm2 (at 60% and 100% reflection factors, respectively) (from Table 15).

Table 16 illustrates predicted violations of peak power limit (4000 uW/cm2) at 3” from the surface of a meter. FCC violations of peak power limit are predicted to occur for a single collector meter at both 60% and 100% reflection factors. This situation might occur if someone touches a smart meter or stands directly in front.

Uncertainty About Actual RF Levels

Consumers may also have already increased their exposures to radiofrequency radiation in the home through the voluntary use of wireless devices (cell and cordless phones), PDAs like BlackBerry and iPhones, wireless routers for wireless internet access, wireless home security systems, wireless baby surveillance (baby monitors), and other emerging wireless applications.

Neither the FCC, the CPUC, the utility nor the consumer know what portion of the allowable public safety limit is already being used up or pre-empted by RF from other sources already present in the particular location a smart meter may be installed and operated.

Consumers, for whatever personal reason, choice or necessity who have already eliminated all possible wireless exposures from their property and lives, may now face excessively high RF exposures in their homes from smart meters.

The first post was a critique of Halloween costume stores dotting Brand Blvd. I wondered then what impression their merchandise made among Chinese factory workers. This October, three years into the Great Recession, I’ve seen no temporary costume shops at all on Brand Blvd., and in fact only one in Glendale (but I haven’t driven around looking for them). This is progress. The less environmentally unfriendly, useless junk imported and sold in the U.S., the better.

My second post lamented the death of a Toll Middle School student in a crosswalk. Even before then, but certainly with intensity since then, city council, city staff, the school district, and the community have focused on improving safety for all users of our roads. Glendale’s Safe and Healthy Streets Plan was created from 2009-2011 and approved this April. GUSD, the city, and concerned parents reached out to National Safe Routes to School and other transportation safety groups, and Glendale has since been awarded more than $2 million in competitive grants to improve pedestrian and bicycling safety around schools.

Reporting on a neighbor’s fight against a parkway cell site led to Sunroom Desk’s focus on wireless technology deployment issues. Cell towers, cell sites, wireless broadband, cell phones, smart phones, wi-fi, smart meters, and more. There’s a lot to consider and a lot to write about. Just yesterday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who is hearing the wireless industry’s lawsuit challenging San Francisco’s cell phone radiation warnings, ordered the city to tone down its requirements for retailers. According to the San Francisco Chronicle report on the decision, “City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he would appeal the ruling.”

According to Public CEO:

Such a move, the local government organizations say, would lead to the loss of billions of dollars in much needed cost-recovery fees for cities and counties. The organizations said zoning and right-of-way management are purely local matters and the federal government should stay out.

Glendale, San Francisco, and other municipalities have enacted ordinances restricting facilities in the public right-of-way, as citizens have expressed significant concerns and opposition to such installations. T-Mobile is currently suing the city of San Francisco over its new public right-of-way rules; it has also filed suit over specific permit denials or reversals, ignoring local residents’ strong objections.

The FCC’s “Shot-Clock” rule setting time limits for cities to decide on wireless application permits, was enacted in late 2009 in spite of strong municipal protests. This existing rule also helps them bypass opposition in communities all over the country to cell towers and other wireless telecommunications facility installations. Arlington, Texas filed suit in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the FCC ruling, and Glendale is a party to that suit.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to settle T-Mobile’s lawsuit over the board’s 11-0 vote in May 2010 to deny a conditional use permit. T-Mobile filed the lawsuit after residents steadfastly opposed its plans and after that successful appeal to the board. Several residents spoke at last week’s Rules Committee, urging a vote against settlement, reasoning that it would send a message to wireless carriers that all they
have to do is sue the city and then settle the lawsuit to get what they want. One resident said, “By catering to these well-heeled corporate litigators, this board will be sending the wrong message. Since 2001, there have been 17 conditional use appeals involving cell sites like this one. Just last year there were two; both were unanimous 11-0 votes in favor of the residents. 14 have been decided in favor of residents, 3 resulted in federal lawsuits, the city prevailed in all three which entailed the same questions before you today.”

Court decisions prevent carriers from seeking attorneys fees or damages for contested site denials, even if they prevail against municipalities. In this case, neighborhood residents even offered to pay for the city’s retention of an expert for trial of the ‘significant gap’ issue. Despite the pleas, Supervisors voted 7-4 to settle, with John Avalos, David Campos, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi voting against: Avalos and Campos spoke about the settlement as being bad precedent, while Supervisors who voted in favor of settlement gave no reasons for doing so.

More on public comments in this matter: citizens pointed to charts showing the large number of cell sites maintained and proposed by T-Mobile and AT&T and speculated that T-Mobile was attempting to muscle in as many sites as it could in advance of a hoped-for merger. Citizens were also concerned about the settlement’s effect on T-Mobile’s lawsuit filed with NextG Networks and ExteNet opposing newly-enacted legislation that regulates public right-of-way installations in San Francisco.

Those rules, and the impact of that lawsuit’s outcome, were referenced more than once by the Los Angeles City Attorney in a Planning and Land Use Management/Public Works Committee meeting yesterday on proposed new rules for LA. Members present included Paul Krekorian, 2nd Council District, who has had ongoing discussions with Sherman Oaks and Sunland/Tujunga residents upset about T-Mobile installations in their neighborhoods.

Krekorian warned there could be negative impacts if utility pole exemptions in existing city code were removed, because carriers would have less incentive to “co-locate.” Richard Alarcon, 7th Council District, raised other provocative points. He asked how decisions about cell sites could be based on aesthetics when utility poles on which they are often placed are already ugly. The City Attorney responded that such arguments are attempts by municipalities to “carve out some means of discretion over siting.” During public comment, Pacific Palisades Residents’ Association President Barbara Kohn said that there was no fine line between ugly and uglier – the bulk of additional equipment and associated electrical boxes made utility poles burdened with wireless equipment far more prominent and far uglier. She and every other neighborhood representative speaking emphasized that it was critical something be done to regulate installations.

Alarcon also opined that the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, which greatly restricts municipal authority over wireless siting, was enacted in response to local attempts to make money off of telecom installations. He said it is a question of “who gets the campaign contributions.”

Tally of speakers at the LA hearing: Residents/resident association representatives – 8; Wireless industry/business interests – 5. Among the residents were representatives of the Sherman Oaks group Get the CELL Out, who have worked extensively with Krekorian and voiced strong support for the City Attorney’s recommendations to 1) remove the utility pole/light pole exemption; 2) expand notification requirements; and 3) enhance existing aesthetic criteria. They also asked for permit duration limits, and a requirement that renewed permits and pending applications fall under the new ordinance. Pacific Palisades resident Patrick Hart said that the city should consider evaluating permit applications by additional criteria including functionality, public safety, and environmental standards.

Cindy Cleghorn, Secretary of the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council, said residents need to see “the full project”, since what is sent out in notifications for proposed new sites is often not complete. She complained about emissions and noise from existing sites which were not adequately disclosed.

Anita Gabrielian, current Glendale Community College Trustee and Executive Director of External Affairs for AT&T in Los Angeles, recited stats heard before and urged the committee to consider how to improve policies for everyone including the wireless industry. Just as Richard Roche, AT&T External Affairs VP, stated recently in Burbank, Gabrielian said that demand has grown 8000 percent over the past four years and is projected to grow 8-10 times higher by 2015. She said AT&T invested $19 billion last year, and $20 billion this year on infrastructure, to bring optimum wireless service to customers.

The three other representatives of wireless companies, together with Doug Arseneault of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, all urged the committee to establish a working group drawing from city departments, LA DWP, wireless carriers, residents, and other stakeholders to study the issues and report back to city council.

Committee members resisted the industry delay tactic suggestion to form another body to study an issue that more than 50 residents groups want to see resolved. They directed the City Attorney to start drafting a document while identifying working group members that could provide input once the document is drafted. Staff were directed to return in 60 days with ordinance recommendations.

This is just California, and San Francisco and Los Angeles are just two very big cities in a huge state, and that was just yesterday’s news in those two cities. Similar fights have started for more than a decade, they are growing in number, and they are going on all over this state, and all over the country, in municipalities and counties large and small. The reason: municipalities are bound by federal law which enforces acceptance of FCC guidelines in these matters, but citizens do not trust current FCC guidelines for safe exposure to wireless frequencies, and they do not trust the FCC to have the best interests of local communities in mind as it handicaps local zoning authorities.

Also yesterday, a coalition of three environmental and health advocacy groups issued a public call to citizens, urging them to contact their representatives in Congress to request the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to update its obsolete cell tower safety regulations. Excerpt:

The FCC’s cell tower safety regulations need to be revised immediately because:

1. WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified RF Radiation as a “Possible Carcinogen”

2. Current Regulations Have Long Overlooked the Harm from RF Radiation’s “Non-Thermal” Biological Effects

3. Biological and Health Effects from RF Radiation Are Widely Occurring In Both Adults and Children

4. Evidence for RF Damage to the Ecosystem is Mounting

To protect the public from risks from radiofrequency radiation (RF) the FCC must establish new safety guidelines for cell towers, Wi-Fi and cell phones that reflect the current science showing harm to human health, wildlife and nature.

The Pasadena City Council just agreed to review approval of a T-Mobile cell site in an area identified on the National Register of Historic Places. Residents mobilized to protest the installation, which was proposed for a wooden pole. Pasadena Now reports “The wooden pole is owned by the Joint Pole Association of which T-Mobile is a member, and not by the city, so the city would not receive rent. Relocating the array to a city-owned pole would result in T-Mobile paying the city $8,000 per year in rent. Members of the City Council were not aware of this until the Monday meeting.”

The Joint Pole Association and its regulations have been studied extensively by Pacific Palisades advocate Christina Spitz. Palisades Post just published this report on her continuing efforts to enact better cell site regulations for the whole city of Los Angeles.

This means public school grounds could be sites for cell towers. Across the country, parents and families have protested leasing of school property for cell towers. Why would Burbank want to allow or encourage this? Glendale’s new ordinance prohibits sites in residential areas unless needed to fill a significant gap. Most Glendale schools are located within residential zones, and there is no exemption for “institutional properties.”

The LA Public Works Committee reviewed the long-anticipated Los Angeles City Attorney’s report on cell tower siting rules yesterday. Several leaders of LA neighborhood councils and homeowner associations spoke, some asking for a moratorium on sites in residential zones while new rules are drafted.

Link to June 7, 2011 report, signed by LA City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and Assistant City Attorney Ted Jordan: Developments in the law regarding regulation of the placement of cell towers and related equipment

Also this week, the Calabasas City Council enacted a wireless installation moratorium to address residents’ concerns about oversight of wireless installations and loopholes in the city’s regulations. Staff are completing a new draft ordinance and developing procedures for the city’s Communications and Technology Commission to review permits.

Council members were critical of the way wireless permit applications and residents’ concerns had been handled to date. The council agendized consideration of a moratorium (to be heard probably June 8), and authorized drafting of a new ordinance as well as an RFP to select an independent, third-party expert on these matters, to review the ordinance with residents’ concerns foremost.

The city council meeting can be watched via this video archive link – http://calabasas.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
Item 5 discussion starts around 7:30 pm.

Glendale Mayor Laura Friedman appeared at the request of Calabasas residents to relate that the ordinance Glendale enacted to regulate cell sites is working well. Many Calabasas residents spoke, calling for stricter rules and citizen oversight, and the city council methodically went through a list of recommendations developed by its commissions and staff. The hearing took about 3 hours.

Cell Phones: The industry may have won the legal battle, but it is losing ground on public relations. San Francisco Chronicle columnist John Diaz wrote, “Consumers should have access to that data and can decide for themselves whether they want to wait for a scientific consensus before considering radiation levels when shopping for a phone.” CNET mobile device blogger Kent German wrote, “I’ve always thought the ‘Are cell phones dangerous or not debate?’ is one worth having. What’s more, the CTIA’s reaction to the ordinance was rather extreme…the CTIA needs to recognize that public concerns can’t be stopped with a lawsuit.”

Cell sites: San Francisco residents have mobilized to oppose proliferation of equipment in their neighborhoods. T-Mobile lost the first round of its lawsuit to overturn the Board reversal of a Taraval Street CUP approved by the Planning Commission. Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the decision met the Telecommunications Act of 1996’s requirement that it be ‘in writing’ and based on ’substantial evidence.’

T-Mobile prevailed in a mid-April Supervisors vote against further CEQA review for a Grant Avenue installation, but residents’ unsuccessful appeal did result in some important developments. Doug Loranger reports:

“Board President David Chiu instructed the Planning Department to begin treating microcell antenna applications with the same standards and procedures as the Department currently uses for macrocell antenna applications. Chiu also asked the Planning Department to begin outlining the process for the City to develop a ‘master plan’ for future wireless build-out in San Francisco, which a number of Planning Commissioners, as well as members of the public, have been requesting for some time.

In addition, Supervisors Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi voted in favor of the appellants. Mar stated that the appellants had made a case for the ‘cumulative impact’ of so many wireless facilities within a short distance in North Beach, whereas Mirkarimi questioned the FCC standards and the extent to which they are truly protective and may be open to change in the future.’”

At the city attorney’s request, advocates for a new Los Angeles wireless ordinance summarized key provisions of other California cities’ rules (including Glendale’s). Focusing on public right-of-way (PROW) installations, they completed two summaries: Discretionary PROW Permits and Administrative PROW Permits.

While they worked on the first two documents, the CPUC adopted General Rule 170. According to a third summary the citizens compiled on CPUC and FCC Recent Developments, it “appears to assert that the CPUC has sole authority to issue discretionary permits and conduct CEQA reviews for telecommunications construction projects in the PROW.”

The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties have filed petitions for rehearing and a motion for a stay. Even some cell carriers have filed a petition for rehearing. The League argues that the decision exceeds the CPUC’s authority, violates local governments’ rights, conflicts with CEQA requirements, and is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation.

Several weeks earlier, an LA homeowner asked for information on a surprise Pacific Palisades cell site right next to her home. Days went by without any information obtained; no clear chain of authority or responsibility could be identified. A report on these efforts was sent to senior city staff with the comment: “It is truly astounding that citizens are forced to go to these lengths just to get information about one of these installations. If we had a proper regulation scheme then obviously the City would know how to get in touch with the appropriate persons.”

To date, 47 Los Angeles neighborhood councils, associations and/or federations (representing 82 organizations city-wide) have expressed concerns or called for reform of the city’s regulation of wireless facilities (including the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils and the Hillside Federation) – not to ban all cell towers, but to provide for proper planning, community input in siting decisions and aesthetic protection for residents.