U.S. Antenna Permit Denied on Health Grounds
Please disable Wi-Fi on Laguna Beach School Campuses
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/please-disable-wi-fi-on-laguna-beach-school-campuses/
U.S. Antenna Permit Denied on Health Grounds
January 19, 2011
The Santa Fe Board of Adjustment heard an application filed by AT&T for a permit to install twelve antennas in the chimney of St. John's Methodist Church.
About 100 Santa Feans attended the hearing. An electrical engineer, an MD, a neuropsychologist, a physicist, a web designer and numerous others testified. People said that radiation emitted by antennas harms human health and thereby violates Santa Fe's telecom ordinance, the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Many people said that while they use wireless devices, they would never live near an antenna because they can turn off their personal devices, but not an antenna. They cautioned that property values decrease around antennas. Others warned that the church will be subject to lawsuits from neighbors and/or parents of children who attend its preschool, nearby preschools and/or the Children's Museum.
When a representative from St. John's listed hospitals (including Christus St. Vincent's and Sloan-Kettering) that have WiFi, and thereby determined that this technology is safe, Commissioner Susan Rooney told him, "My husband interned at Sloan-Kettering, he's an oncologist, and he would never live near a cell tower."
Commissioner Peter Komis moved to deny AT&T's request for a permit to install an antenna at St. John's based on Section 14-6.2 (E) (1) (n) of Santa Fe's telecom ordinance, which requires the City to "provide remedies for the public health and safety impacts of communications towers." Commissioner Rooney seconded the motion. Chairman Brock abstained from voting. Commissioner Alexandra Ladd voted against the motion.
The motion passed. This is the first time in the U.S. that a governing body has denied a telecom company a permit to install equipment based on health concerns.
Santa Fe, NM
Michelle
Informant: Martin Weatherall
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=telecom+compan
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=telecom+compan
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=health+concern
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=health+concern
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=AT%26T
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=AT%26T
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Disabilities+Act
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Disabilities+Act
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Magda+Havas
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Magda+Havas
http://www.buergerwelle.de:8080/helma/twoday/bwnews/search?q=Libby+Kelley
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Libby+Kelley
Starmail - 23. Jan, 07:39
The TCA of 1996 applies to wireless facilities (i.e., cell towers and mobile phone related wireless antenna and base stations) and prohibits local governments denying a proposed wireless facility based on health/environmental concerns.
The utilities and local governments have been pretty clear in defining smart meters installations NOT as wireless facilities, so as a result, a smart meter installation does not require planning permits from the city's Planning Dept. etc., and so we and local governments CAN indeed raise health concerns when opposing or regulating them without violating federal law. I.e., the TCA of 1996 currently does not apply to smart meter installations or their wireless mesh network, as far as I know.
In a message dated 1/24/2012 4:49:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, isisferal@yahoo.com writes:
Please also include the federal mandate to offer, rather than force....
** Penal Code sections (below)
** 2005 Energy Policy Act (pages 370-374, SEC. 1252. SMART METERING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
‘‘(14) TIME-BASED METERING AND COMMUNICATIONS.—
** Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: TITLE XIII- SMART GRID SEC. 1301- 1308 STATEMENT OF ...
1301- 1308 STATEMENT OF POLICY ON MODERNIZATION OF ELECTRICITY GRID. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
** http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless/NIST_Priority_Action_Plan_2_r06_St_Louis_meet (needs update?)
** Public Utilities Code:
Sections 745 (particularly (b) and (d)
Section 761 (incl (3d)
Sections 2901-2906 (particularly 2902 and 2906)
** [and maybe?]
The FCCs Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) [47 U.S.C. 332 (c)(7)(B)(iv) of
Section 704 preempts local governments from effectively regulating the
placement of wireless communications facilities on the basis of potential or
known environmental effects from f radiofrequency radiation. It has been
assumed that this prohibits local governments from considering siting on an environmental
and health basis. However in this case the regulation does not specifically state health effects,
therefore, health effects are not subject to the preemption.
The wireless industry continues to perpetuate the fiction that federal law preempts basing the
siting of transmitters due to known or potential health effects from RFR, and, local
governments, fearful of being sued by one of the most powerful industries, have not been
willing to challenge this misinterpretation of the TCA.
The FCC issued a recent ruling (11/18/09) on antenna siting. They found: “In the event a
State or local government fails to act within the appropriate time period, the applicant is
entitled to bring an action in court under Section 332(c)(7)(B) (v) of the Communications
Act, and the court will determine whether the delay was in fact unreasonable under all the
circumstances of the case. We conclude that the record supports setting the following
timeframes: (1) 90 days for the review of collocation applications; and (2) 150 days for the
review of siting applications other than collocations.
Accordingly, if State or local governments do not act upon applications within those
timeframes, then a “failure to act” has occurred and personal wireless service providers
may seek redress in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days, as provided in Section
332(c)(7)(B) (v). The State or local government, however, will have the opportunity to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.”*
(* http://www.fcc.gov/ November 18, 2009 "FCC Issues Declaratory Ruling Establishing
Timeframes for State and Locality Processing of Applications for Wireless Towers")
Just a few of possible Penal Code section violations by the PUC and Utility
companies.
California Penal Code Section 422.55
For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other
state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly
requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.
CAL. PEN. CODE § 422.6 : California Code - Section 422.6
Bottom of Form
(a)No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or
threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or
threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or
by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because
of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim
listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(b)No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly
deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person
for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the
Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or
perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section
422.55.
(c)Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a
fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above
imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a
minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over
a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours
of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of
violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing
that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or
group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry
out the threat.
(d)Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law, including, but
not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section
11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4, may be charged under all
applicable provisions. However, an act or omission punishable in different
ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under
more than one provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined
as set forth in Section 654.
CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1 : California Code - Section 52.1
Bottom of Form
(a)If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law,
interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere
by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any
individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of
this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney
may bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to
protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.
An action brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any
city attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed
individually against each person who is determined to have violated this
section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose rights
under this section are determined to have been violated.
(b)Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted
to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and
prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action
for damages, including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52,
injunctive relief, and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the
peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured.
(c)An action brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) may be filed either
in the superior court for the county in which the conduct complained of
occurred or in the superior court for the county in which a person whose
conduct complained of resides or has his or her place of business. An action
brought by the Attorney General pursuant to subdivision (a) also may be
filed in the superior court for any county wherein the Attorney General has
an office, and in that case, the jurisdiction of the court shall extend
throughout the state.
(d)If a court issues a temporary restraining order or a preliminary or
permanent injunction in an action brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or
(b), ordering a defendant to refrain from conduct or activities, the order
issued shall include the following statement: VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER IS A
CRIME PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 422.77 OF THE PENAL CODE.
(e)The court shall order the plaintiff or the attorney for the plaintiff to
deliver, or the clerk of the court to mail, two copies of any order,
extension, modification, or termination thereof granted pursuant to this
section, by the close of the business day on which the order, extension,
modification, or termination was granted, to each local law enforcement
agency having jurisdiction over the residence of the plaintiff and any other
locations where the court determines that acts of violence against the
plaintiff are likely to occur. Those local law enforcement agencies shall be
designated by the plaintiff or the attorney for the plaintiff. Each
appropriate law enforcement agency receiving any order, extension, or
modification of any order issued pursuant to this section shall serve
forthwith one copy thereof upon the defendant. Each appropriate law
enforcement agency shall provide to any law enforcement officer responding
to the scene of reported violence, information as to the existence of,
terms, and current status of, any order issued pursuant to this section.
(f)A court shall not have jurisdiction to issue an order or injunction under
this section, if that order or injunction would be prohibited under Section
527.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(g)An action brought pursuant to this section is independent of any other
action, remedy, or procedure that may be available to an aggrieved
individual under any other provision of law, including, but not limited to,
an action, remedy, or procedure brought pursuant to Section 51.7.
(h)In addition to any damages, injunction, or other equitable relief awarded
in an action brought pursuant to subdivision (b), the court may award the
petitioner or plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees.
(i)A violation of an order described in subdivision (d) may be punished
either by prosecution under Section 422.77 of the Penal Code, or by a
proceeding for contempt brought pursuant to Title 5 (commencing with Section
1209) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in any proceeding
pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, if it is determined that the person
proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged, in addition to any
other relief, a fine may be imposed not exceeding one thousand dollars
($1,000), or the person may be ordered imprisoned in a county jail not
exceeding six months, or the court may order both the imprisonment and fine.
(j)Speech alone is not sufficient to support an action brought pursuant to
subdivision (a) or (b), except upon a showing that the speech itself
threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; and the
person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably
fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them
or their property and that the person threatening violence had the apparent
ability to carry out the threat.
(k)No order issued in any proceeding brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or
(b) shall restrict the content of any person's speech. An order restricting
the time, place, or manner of any person's speech shall do so only to the
extent reasonably necessary to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment
of constitutional or statutory rights, consistent with the constitutional
rights of the person sought to be enjoined. |
