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.

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!

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?

[Post removed.]

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

>> 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.

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?

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.

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

Sorry, I meant pole, not poll

/marc

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.

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.

> 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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
...

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.

@ 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.

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

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)

Correction to my previous comment:

ehtrust.org


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

> 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?

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.