Dr Magda Havas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2I
4:50 in
30 MARCH 2021 news interview w/ Dr Devra Davis, echoing much the same caution, advocating much less wireless tech, no tower proliferation, etc.
Despite this plethora of compelling scientific evidence, every councilmember voted (led by Hans Riemer of Takoma Park, Maryland) against public safety or even basic ‘precautionary principle’ and chose to allow cellular/communications companies to poison wantonly.
SENT VIA EMAILS —
Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov
ocemail@montgomerycountymd.gov
info@mocosafeg.org
I am writing to implore you to vote against ZTA 19–07, which would allow densified 4G and 5G “small” cell microwave radiation antennas in residential areas of Montgomery County. Microwave radiation poisons the environment and all life — US military.
Evidence of 5G/4G/3G microwave radiation is toxic —
https://toxi.com/files/COVID_AKA_Microwave_Allergy-Rubik_Brown_COVID19_RFR.pdf
https://toxi.com/files/5G_CAUSES_COVID.pdf
https://toxi.com/files/Summary-Invisible_Rainbow.pdf
https://toxi.com/files/Mortality_in_Rats_Exposed_to_CW_Microwave_Radiation.pdf
Numerous articles, studies, scientific evidence of danger, harm:
https://radiationdangers.com
YOUTUBE TESTIMONY — Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician & professor gives her testimony regarding 5g technology dangers specifically involving electromagnetic radiation. She says: “Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period.”
Dr. Sharon Goldberg excerpted transcript —
“Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate [after] you look at PubMed and the peer-reviewed literature. These effects [og 5G radiation] are seen in all life form, plants, animals, insects, microbes.
“In humans we have clear evidence of cancer [causation] now; there is no question. We [also] have evidence of DNA damage, cardio-myopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, and neuro-psychiatric effects.
“So 5G is not a conversation about whether these biological effects exist; they clearly do. 5G is [therefore always] a conversation about unsustainable healthcare expenditures.
“Diabetes is the first epidemic [caused by exposure to wireless radiation]. One in three American children will become diabetic within their lifetimes, and if they are hispanic females, the number is one in two. So what does this have to do with wireless radiation? Wireless radiation and magnetic fields including dirty electricity have been clearly associated with elevated blood sugar and diabetes – that is what the peer-reviewed literature says; it is not opinion.
“The closer you live to a cell tower, the higher your blood glucose.
“So the idea with ‘small cells’ [necessary component of 5G technology], of putting the cells closer to peoples’ homes and bedrooms [and living spaces], scientifically is very dangerous…
“I was shocked to learn this: The way you create model [diabetic rats] in the laboratory is by exposing them to 2.4 GHz [wireless radiation, one of the most common wireless frequencies presently in widespread use] [for merely short-term exposure]. [2:03 in]”
Here’s a detailed breakdown of Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-07 (ZTA 19-07) in Montgomery County, Maryland, especially how it relates to cell towers / small wireless antennas.
What is ZTA 19-07
- It’s a County zoning change adopted July 27, 2021, effective August 16, 2021. (Montgomery County Maryland)
- The formal title is Telecommunications Towers – Limited Use. (Montgomery County Maryland)
- Its goal is to facilitate deployment of newer wireless infrastructure (4G/5G small cell antennas) while complying with federal requirements, especially the FCC “Small Cell Order.” (Montgomery Planning Board)
What ZTA 19-07 Actually Changes / Allows
Here are the key points of what it authorizes or requires:
- Allowing certain towers/antennas in residential zones
- Before this, many residential zones did not allow small cell towers / antennas except via a more burdensome conditional use process. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- ZTA 19-07 allows certain telecommunications towers as limited use or conditional use in residential zones depending on conditions. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- Replacement poles / use of existing types of poles
- Antennas can replace a pre-existing utility pole, streetlight pole, or a site-plan approved parking lot light pole. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- If replacing such poles, they may be allowed as limited use under certain setback / design / screening standards. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- Setback / distance from buildings (habitable buildings)
- For limited use in residential zones, the distance must be at least 30 feet from the nearest habitable building. (Earlier drafts had 60 feet, but the Council reduced it from 60 to 30 ft in many cases. ) (Montgomery County Maryland)
- If under 30 feet from a habitable building, then a modified conditional use is triggered, which includes public hearings, more scrutiny, etc. (Montgomery County Maryland)
- Height limits, pole design, visual mitigation, etc.
- The antenna must be installed at least 15 feet above ground level (antenna height minimum) in many cases. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- There are requirements around concealment: the enclosure for the antenna should be the same color as the pole; cabinets must match or be visually compatible; no exterior wiring (or it must be in shielded conduit) etc. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- The design has to minimize visual impact: screening, color, considering alternate locations (that may be less obtrusive) etc. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- Review / approval / timelines
- Applications must get a recommendation from the Transmission Facility Coordinating Group (TFCG) within 90 days. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- The “conditional use” process (or modified conditional use) includes certain findings that the Hearing Examiner must make, including choosing the least visually obtrusive location possible. (Montgomery Planning Board)
- Appeals from the Hearing Examiner go directly to the Circuit Court (so bypasses some prior higher-level appeals) to keep timing tighter. (Montgomery County Maryland)
- Waiver & objection process
- There is a process that allows for waivers or objections under certain conditions, such as when no existing pole is available within 150 feet, or for poles that are taller than what limited use allows but below 50 feet. (Montgomery County Maryland)
- Notice must be sent to property owners / civic associations within 300 feet in many objection cases. (Montgomery County Maryland)
- Limits on pole proliferation
- ZTA 19-07 includes language that a small wireless facility should not be located within 150 feet of a facility occupied or controlled by the same carrier. This is to prevent clustering of many poles by one provider. (Montgomery County Maryland)
Why It Was Passed / What Impetus
- To comply with the FCC Small Cell Order (which imposes certain timelines, limits on how local jurisdictions can restrict deployment, etc.). Without updating zoning, some existing rules would likely have been out of compliance. (Montgomery County Maryland)
- To improve broadband / wireless coverage, especially in parts of the county underserved, support innovations, telemedicine, safety, etc. (GovDelivery)
Criticisms / Concerns Raised
Some of the pushback or concerns from residents / groups have included:
- Visual / aesthetic impact (new poles, equipment, etc.).
- Setback being too small (30 feet might still be too close for some people).
- Lack of direct notice / public hearing in some cases when the limited use criteria are met. (Tech Wise Montgomery County, MD)
- Potential for health / environmental concerns (radio frequency, tree loss, etc.). (Environmental Health Trust)
- Concerns over property values or sense of intrusion. (Montgomery County Maryland)
What It Doesn’t Do / Limitations
- ZTA 19-07 still preserves more stringent conditional use processes in cases where the antenna / pole does not meet the limited use criteria (for example, too close to a habitable building, or replacing a pole that doesn’t qualify). (Montgomery Planning Board)
- There’s still room for local design standards, screening, etc., so it’s not a free-for-all.
- Some issues (e.g. setbacks for existing structures) were addressed later by ZTA 22-01. (Montgomery Planning Board)