News

With pressure rising, city eyes overhaul of cell-antenna rules

Palo Alto seeks to reconcile federal regulations, citizens' concerns

Facing a flood of applications from telecommunications companies wanting to install new wireless antennas throughout Palo Alto, city staff and elected leaders find themselves caught between new federal rules that require them to speed up the permitting process and a chorus of concerned residents calling for them to resist.

Both of these factors are sure to come into play on Monday, when the City Council considers creating a new process for approving "wireless communication facilities" — radio equipment that telecoms such as Verizon and AT&T are installing with ever-greater frequency on streetlights and utility poles throughout the city. The city has approved dozens of such applications in the past year and has at least 100 more wireless "clusters" in the pipeline, according to staff.

That trend is expected to continue, with telecoms rolling out new 5G technologies, which typically rely on equipment that have less power and shorter range. As such, they will require a "greater density of WCFs (wireless communication facilities) to support a network," according to a new report from the Department of Planning and Community Environment.

As city planners review the applications, they are facing pressure to speed things along from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which in September approved an order creating a new time limit for the review process.

The FCC order defines a category of "small wireless facilities," many of which are designed for streetlights and utility poles, that cities must make rulings on within 60 or 90 days, depending on the technology being installed. In Palo Alto, this federally mandated "shot clock" speeds up the city's prior time limit of either 90 days or 150 days.

The federal order also requires local jurisdictions to make decisions on these applications based on aesthetic regulations that are "reasonable, objective, non-discriminatory, and published in advance." It gave cities until April 15 to adopt such regulations, which a public official must be able to apply "without exercise of personal judgment," according to the planning report.

At the same time, city leaders are facing an intensifying pushback from residents, who in recent months have submitted hundreds of letters protesting the new pole fixtures that are slated to go up near their homes. Last month, about a hundred residents attended a meeting of the Barron Park Neighborhood Association to hear a presentation from resident Tina Chow about the latest wireless proposals. They also heard from City Manager Ed Shikada and Planning Director Jonathan Lait, who in January approved an application from Vinculums, on behalf of Verizon, to install seven nodes, some of them in Barron Park.

Chow, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, told the Weekly that residents expressed concern about the city's approval of the latest batch of wireless nodes. One resident, Jerry Fan, confronted Lait at the meeting and asked him why he had rejected the Architectural Review Board's recommendation that the project be denied. Lait's decision "put my three kids' and wife's health at risk," Fan told the council on March 18, referring to his fear that the radio frequencies are harmful.

Dozens of other residents sent letters to the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council in recent weeks, complaining about the aesthetic, health and environmental impacts of the new technology. Some people have called for more restrictions for wireless equipment, including setback requirements in cases where antennas are installed near homes and schools. Others, like resident Francesca Kautz, urged the council to place a moratorium on nodes in residential neighborhoods.

"I am not saying we can't have 5G, but please put the cell nodes along freeways and on top of commercial, industrial and city owned buildings, not in our residential neighborhoods," Kautz wrote to the council on March 22.

Four designs, three tiers

On Monday, the City Council will consider a new wireless-facilities ordinance and a set of "objective standards," which include four designs for wireless equipment that city planning staff believe are "among the smallest, least conspicuous, camouflaged, and/or stealth design options available," the department's report states. These include underground vaults for radio equipment; cylindrical "shrouds" that hide pole-mounted antennas; a boxy "sunshield" cover for equipment mounted on the side of poles; and the use of existing street signs to conceal wireless equipment.

The new standards would bring some consistency and clarity to what has often been a protracted, convoluted and highly contentious process, according to staff. Applications typically undergo numerous Architectural Review Board hearings, which span months and routinely involve design changes. Even after the board and the planning director approve the application, residents and applicants can appeal it to the City Council.

That's what happened in January, when both Verizon and its critics appealed Lait's approval of the telecom's proposal to install five pole-mounted wireless equipment "nodes" in the downtown area. Crown Castle, the company that is installing the equipment on Verizon's behalf, protested Lait's rejection of its proposed design — fake mailboxes on downtown sidewalks — and his requirement that the equipment be placed in pole-mounted shrouds.

Residents also criticized his approval and maintained that the radio equipment should be placed underground, in keeping with the Architectural Review Board's recommendation.

After a long debate, council voted 4-3, with Tom DuBois, Lydia Kou and Greg Tanaka dissenting, to reaffirm Lait's decision, leaving Verizon unsatisfied and the resident appellants furious.

While the proposed ordinance aims to facilitate a "more efficient review and help to alleviate the significant burden on staff resources and ARB agendas created by the influx of WCF applications," the report states, it is facing pushback from both sides of the debate.

Verizon and AT&T are both arguing that the proposed rules are too restrictive. The companies are specifically opposing a provision that would create three different tiers for wireless equipment, based on the type of equipment sought. The least intrusive equipment ("Tier 1") would require approval by the planning director, whose decision would be final and not subject to appeal. Equipment that requires modification of poles and support structures would be considered "Tier 2." The planning director would have the option of referring these applications for ARB review, and residents would be able to appeal his decision to the council.

A similar process would apply to "Tier 3" permits, which would be required for equipment that is not collocated on existing poles. In this case, however, the applicant would need to acquire a conditional-use permit. And for both Tier 2 and Tier 3 proposals, the applicant would be required to host community meetings and notify all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project sites at least 14 days before the meeting.

Jeremy Stroup, a representative from Vinculums, which is installing wireless equipment on behalf of Verizon, told the planning commission that Verizon believes all applications for small cells should be approved under the Tier 1 process.

"Verizon strongly believes that conditional-use appeals to the City Council for small cells that already meet objective design standards would overburden the City Council, where they have limited authority under the federal law and will prove impossible to complete within the required 60 to 90 day shot clock," Stroup said.

AT&T made a similar argument in its March 26 letter to the city. Attorney Paul Albritton, who represents AT&T, wrote that soliciting public comments "introduces subjectivity and the illusory impression that personal concerns would override objective standards, frustrating both the public and decision-makers."

"The public's subjective personal concerns simply cannot be addressed by decision-makers implementing what must be an objective process," Albritton wrote. "While a community meeting could be optional, the notice and meeting required for Tier 2 and 3 facilities are irrelevant to objective review."

Residents want a say

But for Chow and many of her neighbors, community input is paramount. At recent public hearings, residents have urged the council to include ARB in all reviews of wireless facilities and criticized the proposed ordinance for giving the planning director the sole discretion to approve applications without public meetings.

Todd Collins, a Barron Park resident and member of the Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Education, argued that the city's proposed ordinance appears "rushed." Collins, who had attended the March meeting and heard Chow's presentation, told the planning commission during its March 27 review that the proposed ordinance appears to be in need of "more thoughtful consideration" and "public input."

"I think it's fair to say at the end (of the meeting) that a large majority of those present — including council members (Tom) DuBois, (Greg) Tanaka, and (Lydia) Kou — felt that the topic deserves more discussion and public input, especially before passing an ordinance that curtails future public input, as this one does," said Collins, speaking as an individual and not as a representative of the school board.

Palo Alto is far from the only city dealing with the federal order. A coalition of cities that includes San Jose, Los Angeles, Portland and New York has sued to have the order overturned and Palo Alto has publicly come out in favor of H.R 530, a resolution by U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, that would do exactly that. In February, the city submitted a letter to Eshoo expressing support for her legislation.

"We agree that deployment of the infrastructure supporting new cellular technology must be completed in a thoughtful and deliberate manner," the Feb. 7 letter signed by Mayor Eric Filseth states. "We also believe that it should be done through the usual public process associated with local government, a process that has worked well and needed no modifications from the FCC.

"As you noted, the FCC's decision to implement a time limit on our ability to review the applications — thus limiting our public process — cap fees, and restrict our ability to best determine the needs for our own city represents the FCC's failure to listen to local governments across the country."

The proposed ordinance accounts for the possibility that the FCC order would be struck from the books. It specifies that if the council repeals the "objective standards" necessitated by the FCC order, the city would effectively revert to the existing process requiring architectural-review findings as part of the approval of Tier 2 and Tier 3 applications.

Chow and others believe the city can do a lot more to protect neighbors. The architecture board, she said, should continue to review wireless applications and Lait should respect its recommendations, as planning directors have traditionally done.

The city can also include in its objective standards a list of "preferred locations" for new wireless equipment and consider requiring a minimum distance between wireless nodes.

While the Telecommunications Act of 1996 precludes states or cities from regulating radio-frequency emissions (other than to verify that wireless equipment comply with FCC standards), several cities, including Mill Valley and Fairfax, have prohibited installations of wireless equipment in residential zones, in some cases using residents' health concerns as a justification.

But Palo Alto planners note that Mill Valley and Fairfax have yet to receive any applications for "small cells," while Palo Alto has numerous such applications pending. Adopting a residential ban, the staff report notes, "would result in a large number of exception requests and would warrant additional legal analysis."

Cities that restrict the placement of wireless equipment received a boost on April 4, when the California Supreme Court ruled that cities are allowed to adopt regulations to accommodate aesthetic concerns. In upholding a San Francisco ordinance on wireless facilities, Justice Carol Corrigan wrote that the city has "inherent police powers" to determine uses of its land, a power that "includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use."

Chow and others argue that Palo Alto should use this power and, at the very least, impose setback requirements for cell equipment in residential areas. She also wants to tighten up the "exceptions" provision in the proposed ordinance, which allow applicants to get waivers from objective standards under certain circumstances.

Chow argued that the city should require applicants seeking exceptions to commission an analysis from an independent third-party reviewer, demonstrating why other alternatives (including those recommended by the city and by members of the public) aren't feasible. Telecom companies should also be required to use "the least non-compliant configuration that would work," Chow told the council this week.

Chow also noted that other cities that have recently crafted new regulations for wireless equipment. Petaluma, she said, requires underground vaults for its equipment. Fairfax recently passed an urgency ordinance with new regulations for wireless equipment, including setback requirements. In Ripon, an uproar from residents prompted Sprint to relocate a cell tower that was installed near an elementary school. It's important, she said, for Palo Alto to consider the issue carefully and craft a solution that works for its residents.

"We are fortunate that we have many nearby cities who are also working on this issue," Chow told the council on April 8. "Now, we have to figure out how to do this here, for Palo Alto."

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

23 people like this
Posted by Ming Le
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2019 at 9:28 am

How much does wireless phone companies pay to install cell phone towers? They have one in my church parking lot and church got paid for it.

I'd be willing to have cell phone tower in my back yard if they pay me as well.




10 people like this
Posted by Coquelicot
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 12, 2019 at 9:30 am

Coquelicot is a registered user.

What concerns me the most is the lack of local control for our elected officials to make decisions on wireless equipment installations by any number of communications companies who are competing for customers.

Why can't telecoms share wireless infrastructure to save costs and to avoid unnecessary redundancy and blight? How many different proprietary wireless networks will be installed on our city-owned poles or sidewalks? And who pays for pole upgrades?

I appreciate having a robust communications system but there must be a limit to control the impacts to our community and that should be governed by City Council and not the FCC!


9 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2019 at 9:47 am

I agree that cell phone service is becoming more and more important these days. I bet that the majority of calls to police and fire emergency services are via cell phone now. There are still many parts of town with poor service (especially the southern part of town).

Is there some way to consolidate all these antennas to make installation and maintenance more efficient? I agree that installing them in existing tall structures (like churches and athletic field lights) makes a huge amount of sense. Maybe churches should work together to streamline this process and come up with a unified fee structure. Churches could use the money these days. Is it just me, or do other people think that row of churches on Middlefield Road (between Loma Verde and San Antonio) has some of the worst cell phone coverage in town?


6 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 12, 2019 at 10:29 am

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


13 people like this
Posted by On and on it goes
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Apr 12, 2019 at 11:25 am

There are federal laws in place to deal with this matter. Palo Alto, despite their egos, are not above federal law. The nervous nellies use bogus data and fear monger Ing to try to prevent us from having good cell service. Yet, I bet they are the first to complain when they do not get good cell phone service. Look for the city to take about 10 years to resolve this issue, as the squeaky wheels in the city, no matter how small their number, will need major, long term oiling


18 people like this
Posted by 5+ Bars = Excellent
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Apr 12, 2019 at 12:37 pm

>> I'd be willing to have cell phone tower in my back yard if they pay me as well.

Me too. What's the big deal? Everyone uses a cell phone nowadays and extended coverage is important.

A cell tower in my backyard wouldn't make it look any worse than it already is.

Sign me up.


3 people like this
Posted by Jonathan Brown
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 12, 2019 at 2:21 pm

Jonathan Brown is a registered user.

Can the City at least request that AT&T be required to sell 3350 Birch St. to the City at a significant discount (plus an exclusive option to purchase the remainder of the parcel if AT&T ever chooses to sell it in the future) in exchange for permission to build and maintain these small cells? Web Link Palo Alto would get land to expand Boulware Park, AT&T would get what it needs to deploy true 5G (not "5Ge") in Palo Alto, and citizens get the benefit of a better park, better cell service and a reduction in the power at which radiation is being transmitted. Is it too much to hope that the City might not bungle this win-win opportunity?


4 people like this
Posted by Novelera
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2019 at 3:10 pm

Novelera is a registered user.

My cell service in Midtown is AWFUL. When someone calls me I need to run out to the driveway, sometimes in a bathrobe, in order for the call not to drop. Add me to the list of those willing to have a tower in the back yard.


5 people like this
Posted by marc665
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2019 at 3:12 pm

marc665 is a registered user.

For large cell phone towers, the different networks DO share the poll. The problem comes in that the residents of Palo Alto keep blocking any new large cell phone towers (think about the 5 years it took to the the tower built on Middlefield at the little league facility). The large towers are the ones at churches, fire department, etc where the property owners do get paid.

So the networks take an alternate approach. They install mini-cells on non-private property (telephone poles) that fall under telecommunications rules that say cities can't stop the installation. But you need more of the mini-cells and they are not shared by the different networks. So there are more of them.

Blame you neighbors. We could have a couple more large towers and solve the problem or lots of small cells. Pick one.

/marc


Like this comment
Posted by marc665
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2019 at 3:12 pm

marc665 is a registered user.

Sorry, I meant pole, not poll

/marc


7 people like this
Posted by Bill Ross
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 12, 2019 at 3:33 pm

The Council should delay action on the proposed Ordinance. As before with the Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission, Staff has not presented an accurate picture of all that is going on.In several other cities the providers are agreeing that if the underlying FCC regulations are set aside either by the federal legislation introduced by our Congressperson or the litigation, then there will be an agreed upon annual pole rental fee much greater than allowed by the FCC regulations (the range being discussed is between 1500 to 3000 dollars annually for each pole) and for the possibility of "claw--back" aesthetic review of 5G SAF devices authorized after the litigation was filed. One would think that City Staff should be proactive and provide for that type of prospective City revenue which is three times greater than that allowed by the Ordinance. As someone who is involved from the representation of other cities on this issue I know of no threat to enforce the Federal Regulations. The providers are represented by different counsel when it comes to local agency ordinances dealing with the FCC regulations and then different lawyers when negotiating the master lease agreements based on the respective Ordinances and although I have not met them all the consensus is to not threaten litigation, period. If there has been such a threat, City Staff should produce evidence of such a threat. Also, it is assumed that the "new 500 foot rule" of the FPPC should be integrated into any proposed Ordinance so that no City Official making a decision on a proposed facility (Planning Director, Commission or Council Member)could do so unless there was evidence that they did not own or lease property within 500 feet of a proposed facility. Also it can be fairly argued that it is not certain that facility placement will not have health impacts--so there needs to be an environmental review. Continued reliance on the CEQA exemption will only lead to further controversy. Given all of the above, Council should continue the matter and appoint applicant representatives and interested community members to bring back a more balanced approach that considers the factors mentioned. The City should not be in the position,to have several sites approved based on FCC regulations that may be declared to be invalid.


6 people like this
Posted by Palo Alto Resident
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 12, 2019 at 4:57 pm

Why is no one providing proof of cell tower health effects? Is there any proof? Since short range radio waves require less power, doesn't it make sense that it's more healthy to have a lot of low power cell towers? Otherwise, requiring very powerful cell towers few and far between will expose people to more powerful radio waves. I would argue for more low power towers. If you don't agree, please show some proof from clinical studies that conclude otherwise.


6 people like this
Posted by Sign Me Up For A Tower As Well
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2019 at 5:46 pm

> I'd be willing to have cell phone tower in my back yard if they pay me as well.

> Me too...A cell tower in my backyard wouldn't make it look any worse than it already is.

> My cell service in Midtown is AWFUL...Add me to the list of those willing to have a tower in the back yard.

Don't appear too enthusiastic as the cell phone companies may decide to charge rather than pay for a backyard cell tower!

> Why is no one providing proof of cell tower health effects?

That's 'tin hat' paranoia. People want better cell coverage & that's all that matters.





1 person likes this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 12, 2019 at 5:55 pm

"Lait's decision "put my three kids' and wife's health at risk," Fan told the council on March 18, referring to his fear that the radio frequencies are harmful."

Sorry, but Verizon's, AT&T's, Comcast's, ... , profits Trump such concerns in this administration. Fortunately, 5G is low power by design. But that's why it needs lots and lots of antennas.


8 people like this
Posted by Phil
a resident of Professorville
on Apr 12, 2019 at 6:21 pm

Here's a collected list of articles that yield a great amount of relevant info on 5G:
Web Link

Among that list is this for your consideration:
Web Link

Here is an interesting proposal to construct a municipal fiber service for Palo Alto:
Web Link

Last fiber optics network play a part of 5G deployment. "Verizon’s 5G network is dependent on a fiber optic-fed network of small cells placed on top of utility and light poles at least every few city blocks."
- as seen here:Web Link

I hope this helps folks to be more informed on this matter.


6 people like this
Posted by Brad
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2019 at 6:25 pm

There are 150-and-counting ugly, noisy and potentially unsafe cell towers that companies such as Verizon and AT&T are poised to install right next to our homes.


3 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 13, 2019 at 12:36 am

There is research (not necessarily evidence - yet) of increasing breast cancer risks for women who keep their phones in their bras when not in use. When I mentioned this to someone who was crazy about not having a cell phone near her home while she kept her phone in her bra it didn't change her habit and make her keep her phone elsewhere. To me, it is selective data collection. Some people want everyone else to change their lifestyle while continuing to do whatever they like themselves.


12 people like this
Posted by Brussels: The First Major City To Halt 5G Due To Health Effects
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 13, 2019 at 4:22 pm

Brussels: The First Major City To Halt 5G Due To Health Effects is a registered user.

See Web Link

Posted on Apr 05, 2019, 7 p.m.

Belgian government Minister Fremault announced that Brussels is halting their 5G plans due to the negative health effects.

Celine Fremault, Minister of the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region Responsible For Housing, Quality Of Life, Environment And Energy released the statement in an interview with L’Echo:

“I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards, which must protect the citizen, are not respected, 5G or not. The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt."

Minister Fremault accurately identified that the 5G pilot project will not be compatible with Belgian radiation safety standards of 9 V/m, or 95 mW/m2, and has stated that she will not be making an exception.

In the guidelines the threshold for extreme concern is 1 mW/m2, however many government agencies still only consider thermal effects and profit rather than the cumulative body of the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies.

With Brussels heading up the EU, and with one of the 2 major 5G appeals being addressed to the EU officials officials they seem to be better informed and motivated to protect themselves in the EU. Hopefully support continues to build for Minister Celine Fremault and all officials who are hearing the call to sanity and plea of the people to prioritize their safety over the technocratic oligarchy. Perhaps officials in North America and elsewhere should take note and follow suit, after all that motivating profit will soon stop once more people get sick and can no longer spend money.
...


Like this comment
Posted by Cell Phone Dangers
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 13, 2019 at 5:36 pm

What is more dangerous...exposure to cell phone towers or carrying a cell phone within close proximity of one's body?

This has never been clarified or fully explained...just subject to theories.


2 people like this
Posted by Brussels: The First Major City To Halt 5G Due To Health Effects
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 14, 2019 at 9:15 pm

Brussels: The First Major City To Halt 5G Due To Health Effects is a registered user.

@ Cell Phone Dangers: It's not a simple answer.

Cell phones emit less radiation than cell phone towers. And cell phones farther from cell phone towers emit more radiation than cell phones nearer to the cell phone towers. That's because the cell phone emits more radiation when it knows it needs to reach a farther cell tower. Radiation is proportional to the square of the distance from the emitter.

The effects of radiation increase with higher frequency, and 5G uses higher frequencies than 4G or LTE so they can carry more information.

People who use a cell phone chooses to expose themselves to the cell phone radiation. But those who choose not to use a cell phone cannot exempt themselves from the radiation of cell towers.


1 person likes this
Posted by Quack Quack Quack
a resident of Mountain View
on Apr 14, 2019 at 9:33 pm

So someone on this discussion board uses a website called worldhealth.net to argue against 5G technology?

It's worth noting that the website is run by two self-described "doctors" who are anything but.

Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by VictoriaV
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 15, 2019 at 7:46 am

Regarding "low power" not affecting health, please search Martin Pall, PhD, professor of medical science, he has extensively researched effects of RF on cells. Quote from entrust.org:

According to industry, the forces electromagnetic fields place on electrically- charged groups in the cell are too weak to produce biological effects. However, the unique structural properties of the voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) protein can, it turns out, explain why the force on a cell’s voltage sensor from low-intensity EMFs are millions of times stronger than are the forces on singly-charged groups elsewhere in the cell.
It would be a disaster for the health of Californians to be exposed to the antennas envisioned in SB.649. The State of California would be making a grave mistake to proceed with supporting the commercial interests of the wireless industry with this legislation. Legislators would best pause to understand the gravity of the biological effects, and the ramifications for physical and mental health, as well as consequences from continual damage to human DNA, and learn the facts from scientists who are independent of the wireless industry, not from the industry lobbyists who have a gigantic conflict of interest.
VGCC activation in cells produced by low intensity EMFs can explain long-reported findings that electromagnetic fields and a wide range of biological changes and health effects. The first 6 of these (see below) were well documented 46 years ago in the U.S. Office of Naval Medical Research report, published in 1971 [8]. The others that follow have been extensively documented subsequently in the peer-reviewed scientific literature: 1) Various neurological/neuropsychiatric effects, including changes in brain structure and function, changes in various types of psychological responses and changes in behavior. (See entrust.org for list of symptoms)


Like this comment
Posted by VictoriaV
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 15, 2019 at 7:51 am

Correction to my previous comment:

ehtrust.org


Please research Dr. Martin Pall and his published research on "Voltage-gated Calcium Channel"


2 people like this
Posted by Cell Phone Dangers
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 15, 2019 at 8:14 am

> There is research (not necessarily evidence - yet) of increasing breast cancer risks for women who keep their phones in their bras when not in use.

Is this potential health risk similar to men keeping a cell phone in their pants pockets...prostate & testicular cancer risks?

> People who use a cell phone chooses to expose themselves to the cell phone radiation. But those who choose not to use a cell phone cannot exempt themselves from the radiation of cell towers.

Is a 'low-tech' cellphone (i.e. flipper or slider with far lower data transfer/reception capabilities) safer than a more modern Android smartphone or Apple Iphone with all the bells & whistles?

And what would be a reasonable distance to avoid crossing paths with a cell tower?


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 15, 2019 at 1:41 pm

Please add "noise" to the objective standards. Some installations are annoyingly loud.

And, generally, streetlights are further from people's windows, and would be preferred imho to power poles. Besides, I still have hope for undergrounding utilities before I die.



6 people like this
Posted by Behavioral/Biological/Genetic Ramifications
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 15, 2019 at 8:38 pm

> Legislators would best pause to understand the gravity of the biological effects, and the ramifications for physical and mental health, as well as consequences from continual damage to human DNA, and learn the facts from scientists who are independent of the wireless industry, not from the industry lobbyists who have a gigantic conflict of interest.

The adverse effect of excessive cell phone radiation on human DNA could have noteworthy repercussions later down the road in terms of ongoing genetic mutations that might eventually alter the physiology & appearance of human life forms.

From a psychological standpoint, cell phone usage has become an addiction of sorts for some individuals as there are countless 5G junkies who would at lost without their Androids & Iphones.

The overall risks of cell phone usuage have yet to be determined as it is extremely difficult to correlate the hypothetical pathologies using laboratory mice as control groups. Except for radiation exposure experimentation, the mice are incapable of communicating, gaming & maximizing social media opportunities.

The use of primates (i.e. chimpanzees & orangutans etc.) might provide better test subjects as they are highly capable of acquiring many common human activities & outlets such as smoking, drinking, gluttony & promiscuity. Advanced primates also communicate verbally so comprehensive cell phone experimentation might be better served using them as test subjects.





2 people like this
Posted by Behavioral/Biological/Genetic Ramifications
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 15, 2019 at 8:44 pm

EDIT > there are countless 5G junkies who would [be] at lost without their Androids & Iphones.

NOTE: Taking a cue from the Belgians, we have currently received grant funding to conduct cell phone experimentation & are currently developing the parameters of our study.


4 people like this
Posted by The Scientific Palo Altan
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 16, 2019 at 12:49 pm

> The use of primates (i.e. chimpanzees & orangutans etc.) might provide better test subjects as they are highly capable of acquiring many common human activities & outlets such as smoking, drinking, gluttony & promiscuity.

Can these advance primates also be used for substance abuse & abnormal behavior studies? It would seem so as there are countless humans who seem to be directly related.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Local Transit to the Rescue?
By Sherry Listgarten | 25 comments | 3,094 views

Morsey's Creamery brings buffalo-milk gelato to downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 1,937 views

"You Gotta Have Balls [to do counseling] . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,733 views

Eating Green on the Green – August 25
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 982 views

Why does it take so long to hire an auditor?
By Diana Diamond | 1 comment | 592 views

 

Register now!

​On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info