{"id":19074,"date":"2023-04-16T13:49:28","date_gmt":"2023-04-16T20:49:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=19074"},"modified":"2023-04-16T13:50:43","modified_gmt":"2023-04-16T20:50:43","slug":"how-one-california-couple-beat-the-future-at-their-doorstep-a-5g-cell-site","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=19074","title":{"rendered":"How one California couple beat the future at their doorstep: a 5G cell site"},"content":{"rendered":"

A sudden shift of momentum in a long conflict between industry and activists.<\/strong><\/p>\n

By Grant Hill – March 31, 2023<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss live in Long Beach, California, just near a streetlight that had been previously proposed for a 5G cell site. (Courtesy of Moira Hahn)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This story is from The Pulse<\/a>, a weekly health and science podcast.<\/em><\/p>\n

Find it on Apple Podcasts<\/a>,\u00a0Spotify<\/a>,\u00a0or\u00a0wherever you get your<\/a><\/em> podcasts<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss live in a small grayish ranch house in Long Beach, California.<\/p>\n

It could easily be mistaken for others in the neighborhood if it weren\u2019t for the front yard. It\u2019s unusually lush; filled with bushes, palms, and a giant Australian pine tree.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also this big metal pole \u2014 a street light more than 30 feet tall \u2014 right between the sidewalk and the street. It\u2019s been there since Mark and Moira moved in over 20 years ago. They never thought about it much.<\/p>\n

Then, in 2021, they received a letter from a company they had never heard of. It looked like junk mail, so it sat on the kitchen table for a couple of days unopened.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen Mark opened it, he goes, \u2018Why didn\u2019t you open it?\u2019\u201d Hahn said. \u201c\u2018You should read it.\u2019 So, I read it. It\u2019s like, holy mackerel, really?\u201d<\/p>\n

It was a notice informing them that the pole would soon be equipped with a wireless transmission facility<\/a> \u2013\u00a0 a WTF for short. All part of AT&T\u2019s big 5G rollout in Long Beach.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd it said, \u2018Oh, by the way, there\u2019s a sign on the lamp post,\u2019\u201d Hahn said.<\/p>\n

She went outside to check and there it was. A simple flyer facing outward toward the street.<\/p>\n

\"Moira
Moira Hahn lives in front of a streetlight in Long Beach, California that had previously been proposed for a 5G cell site. (Courtesy of Moira Hahn)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Since the 5G network was introduced nearly four years ago, countless others have received similar notices. More than 30 states have enacted legislation that makes it easier to install 5G cell sites<\/a> like the one proposed for the pole in front of the Long Beach couple\u2019s home.<\/p>\n

Mobile markets research analyst Jason Leigh says the push boils down to three words: Internet of Things.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019re going to be able to connect more devices, more sensors, upwards of a million connections in a square mile \u2014 far and away what you can currently,\u201d Leigh said.<\/p>\n

According to Leigh, the 5G network is about much more than your cell phone connection. It\u2019s about the connection of almost everything else: your car, your sprinklers<\/a>, your toaster<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This newest generation of cellular technology is remarkably powerful and allows exponentially more gadgets to be connected, accessed, and controlled from almost anywhere.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe networks themselves are the first foundational piece. And really what everybody\u2019s trying to figure out is now what do we do with this?\u201d Leigh said.<\/p>\n

Just take Long Beach for example: The city is home to the second largest container port in North America<\/a> and a crucial node in the global supply chain.<\/p>\n

More than 2000 ships load and unload $200 billion worth of cargo there a year. Many of those vessels have sensors onboard that capture highly detailed, real-time information about weather conditions and traffic at sea.<\/a> The data allows these ships to find faster routes and become more efficient.<\/p>\n

With the help of 5G, the hope is to one day use that information to control entire fleets of unmanned ships from the shore. But the capabilities don\u2019t stop there.<\/p>\n

Imagine longshoremen wearing special shoes that track their gait <\/a>as they work. The information collected could be beamed almost instantaneously to supervisors who can use it to help prevent injuries, or sold to third parties.<\/p>\n

This is the promise, and potential peril, of 5G. A lot of money \u2013 and entire future business models \u2013\u00a0depend on a large, robust next-generation network.<\/p>\n

But not everybody wants in. Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss had 10 days to file an appeal against the permit for AT&T\u2019s proposed 5G cell site on the pole in front of their home. The clock was ticking.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen we got the notice, it didn\u2019t bother me any,\u201d Hotchkiss said. He is an electrical engineer who once hardwired their entire house for internet access before making the switch to Wi-Fi. So at first, he didn\u2019t mind this technical upgrade right outside.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut Moira was worried about what are the health effects of this,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Hahn had long suffered from serious migraines that forced her into retirement after years of teaching art at a nearby college.<\/p>\n

In the days after they received the notice in the mail, she decided to consult her doctor about her migraines again. It was during that consultation that he suggested her migraines could be related to something called electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or EHS.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy doctor started to say, \u2018What about t Wi-Fi? You know, that could cause it. Try to get rid of all your cellular stuff, get rid of the walk around phones.\u2019\u201d Hahn said.<\/p>\n

EHS is a little known, under-researched, and controversial health condition<\/a> where people experience reactions to certain types of electromagnetic radiation, especially the kind that\u2019s emitted by cell phone towers, or Wi-Fi.<\/p>\n

Hahn looked it up online.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere were quite a number of articles that said it\u2019s not real or it\u2019s psychological,\u201d said Hahn.\u00a0 \u201dPeople experience symptoms, but it could be from something else.\u201d<\/p>\n

So the couple decided to run a test of their own. They returned to the old hard-wired system in the house and went back to using a corded phone. No more wireless internet or devices either.<\/p>\n

Within a matter of hours, Hahn said her symptoms nearly disappeared. The migraines completely vanished after the electric company switched out the smart meter for an older model, she said.<\/p>\n

But now, this proposed 5G cell site, just about 25 feet from the window where she painted, seemed to threaten her future wellbeing.<\/p>\n

\"AT&T's
AT&T\u2019s proposed plan for a 5G cell site outside the Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss\u2019 home. (Courtesy of Moira Hahn)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So the two rushed to file an appeal, and included a letter from Hahn\u2019s doctor that explained her sensitivity to cell phone radiation.<\/p>\n

She knew how it looked; the convenient timing of her diagnosis. But it didn\u2019t matter to her.<\/p>\n

\u201cI didn\u2019t care what people thought. I knew what I had experienced,\u201d Hahn said. They found an attorney who could help them pro bono and soon their appeal was ready to file.<\/p>\n

\u201cI remember Mark and I rushing over to City Hall about 4 o\u2019clock on a Friday to get it in by the deadline. And it was all locked up and [we were] banging on the glass until a security guard came and then being allowed in and getting a stamped receipt for it,\u201d said Hahn. \u201cAnd that\u2019s when it all started.\u201d<\/p>\n

A city employee told Hahn not to get her hopes up. The way the city code was written, almost no one beats these things.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe says, \u2018I think only one person had ever beaten one of these, and she proved that she was in the historic district. And the code said that if it\u2019s in a historic district, it can\u2019t be erected. So she won,\u2019\u201d Hahn said.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more, a prominent city council member also happened to be a registered lobbyist for one the largest communications infrastructure companies in the country<\/a> \u2013\u00a0builders of cell sites just like the one proposed for their street light out front.<\/p>\n

The couple was undeterred. As Hahn prepped for her appeal hearing, she kept researching.<\/p>\n

\u201cTracking down experts, asking questions, seeing who we could get on as an expert witness, doing research, finding out what\u2019s happening in other communities, what strategies did they use?\u201d Hahn said.<\/p>\n

She quickly discovered that the politics of cell phones, towers, and street poles extended way beyond city limits<\/a>, and decades into the past.<\/p>\n

Re-evaluating exposure limits<\/h2>\n

For many, the controversy kicked off with the passing of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, when Congress sought to create a \u201cseamless network of cellular communications\u201d from sea to shining sea. That meant that while cities and towns could have a say in cell tower construction, they couldn\u2019t flat out refuse to build them.<\/p>\n

Many communities across the country were less than thrilled. By the end of the 1990s, more than 600 towns had placed moratoriums on building new towers, often citing fear of the unknown potential for long-term health effects of living near such cell sites. The New York Times described these efforts as \u201cguerilla war.\u201d<\/a>A losing one.<\/p>\n

As wireless communication exploded, the demand for high-speed internet became insatiable, and the number of towers in the U.S. ballooned. There are now more than four times as many as there were in 2000.<\/p>\n

While activists continued the fight, arguing that uncertainty remains regarding potential health risks, industry has consistently reassured the public that federal guidelines \u2013\u00a0limits on exposure to radiofrequency radiation coming from these towers \u2013 protected people from harm.<\/p>\n

Theodora Scarato disagrees.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere [are] studies indicating harmful effects at levels below FCC limits,\u201d Scarato said. \u201cIn other words, perfectly legal levels of exposure that are associated with harmful effects in research studies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Scarato is executive director of Environmental Health Trust<\/a>,\u00a0a non-profit think tank that\u2019s been fighting the Federal Communications Commission over these health concerns for years. The FCC is not a health agency, but it is in charge of promulgating guidelines for safe cell phone radiation exposure \u2013\u00a0a determined threshold that\u2019s currently based on studies done by the Navy in the 1980s<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd the studies that \u2026 underpin how they came up with the level of what is safe, and what is not, are these small animal studies,\u201d Scarato said.<\/p>\n

Five monkeys and eight rats, to be exact. Researchers saw behavioral changes when the animals were exposed to high levels of radiofrequency radiation intense enough to heat their tissue \u2014\u00a0much like a microwave heats food.<\/p>\n

So in 1996, when the FCC created the current guidelines for cell phone radiation exposure, the agency focused almost singularly on preventing these \u201cthermal effects\u201d in people, working under the assumption that exposure under those levels is otherwise benign.<\/p>\n

But this was before cell phones had become ubiquitous. In 2013, the FCC opened a notice of inquiry inviting public comment to ultimately re-evaluate its guidelines based on new research.<\/p>\n

\u201cMeaning they asked these questions and invited comments from federal agencies as well as from the public and from experts and so forth. And they asked, should we change these limits? Are these limits adequate?\u201d Scarato said.<\/p>\n

This process went on for years as researchers and groups like Environmental Health Trust submitted new evidence that seemed to show cell phone radiation within the current limits could be related to all kinds of health issues.<\/p>\n

\u201cHeadaches and cancer and oxidative stress \u2026 impacts to sperm and so forth,\u201d Scarato said.<\/p>\n

Among the work submitted was a 2018 study on cell phone radiation and cancer.<\/p>\n

Researchers with the National Toxicology Program were tasked by the FDA to create the largest animal study on radiofrequency radiation ever using 90 rats and mice per exposure dose. It took 10 years and cost $30 million.<\/p>\n

When it was done, the researchers concluded there was \u201cclear evidence\u201d of an association between cell phone radiation and heart cancer in male rats. They also found some evidence of links to brain cancer and changes to DNA.<\/a><\/p>\n

But Scarato, and researchers involved in the study<\/a>, said federal health agencies dismissed the findings.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe expectation was that since the FDA requested the information that they would get the information and they would run a risk assessment on this to determine what is an acceptable level of risk,\u201d said Ron Melnick, a retired National Toxicology Program researcher who helped design the study. \u201cHowever, they dismissed the NTP study even though they requested it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the FCC guidelines remained untouched.<\/p>\n

For years, activists and researchers<\/a> had accused the FCC of being \u201ccaptured\u201d by industry; a revolving door for telecom lobbyists at the federal level.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey just ignored so much of what we had put on the record, and it seemed pretty clear that we could sue at that point related to their lack of adequate review of the record. So, we did,\u201d Scarato said.<\/p>\n

In 2019, Environmental Health Trust and others sued the FCC, seeking to force the agency to explain why they didn\u2019t make a change to the guidelines. And remarkably, the group succeeded<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, determined that the FCC had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in their decision to maintain the limits,\u201d Scarato said.<\/p>\n

While a panel of judges found some of the agency\u2019s reasoning satisfactory, like its response to research on cell phone radiation and cancer, the court mandated the FCC to go back and re-evaluate its guidelines based on research the agency had not adequately addressed.<\/p>\n

The decision didn\u2019t promise a change to the guidelines, only that the public would get a better explanation of the FCC\u2019s final determination. The agency did not respond to recent questions about the status of that process.<\/p>\n

Plenty of people and researchers maintain that the current guidelines are safe.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s no reason to limit the use of whatever frequency in radio frequency spectrum as long as you keep exposure below the active guidelines. If you do that, then on the basis of what we know now \u2014 it\u2019s safe.\u201d said Eric van Rongen, Vice President of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, an independent non-profit organization that advises governments on radiofrequency radiation exposure limits.<\/p>\n

Rongen contends that recent research showing health effects below the current FCC exposure limits often cherry-pick data and seek results that confirm pre-concieved hypotheses. While he admires the 2018 National Toxicolgy Program study, he disagrees with its conclusion.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s very likely that they have been heated up by the exposure and that in some way the metabolism of the animals must change in order to get to maintain a proper temperature balance in the body,\u201d said Rongen. \u201cAnd the change in metabolism may have led to an increase in tumor for whatever reason.\u201d<\/p>\n

While Theodora Scarato and Environmental Health Trust question ICNIRP\u2019s independence<\/a>, U.S. health agencies also maintain that current exposure limits are safe<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Still, Environmental Health Trust\u2019s big win against the FCC has provided new ammunition for those fighting towers and cell sites locally.<\/p>\n

People like Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss. By March of 2022, their neighbors in Long Beach had rallied around the cause \u2014 flooding the city with comments against the cell site proposed by AT&T. Nearly 50 people tuned into a virtual hearing for their appeal, including Theodora Scarato.<\/p>\n

\"The
The front porch of Moria Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss\u2019 home displaying Hahn\u2019s art alongside anti-5G cell tower banners. (Courtesy of Moria Hahn)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

She wanted to speak in support of Hahn\u2019s health concerns and discuss how her group\u2019s win lended weight to those concerns.<\/p>\n

The city\u2019s outside counsel, Jeff Melching, called it legally irrelevant.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe just follow the FCC\u2019s rules. We understand what D.C. circuit\u2019s decision meant for the need to change those rules going forward, but they haven\u2019t changed yet,\u201d said Melching. \u201cI don\u2019t want anyone on this call to think we are skeptics about the effect of [radiofrequency radiation] emissions, it\u2019s just irrelevant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Eventually, there was a motion to vote on whether to deny the appeal. It was tie: 4-4.<\/p>\n

The former infrastructure lobbyist on the city counsel recused himself. He\u2019s since been elected mayor.<\/p>\n

The potential cell site hung in legal limbo, with both sides unsure how to proceed.<\/p>\n

But Doug Carstens, the lawyer who represented Hahn and Hotchkiss, was confident AT&T wouldn\u2019t go down without a fight. He thought this was about something much bigger than this one 5G cell site on a lamp post; it was a matter of ceding ground.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey don\u2019t want to set the precedent of moving it to accommodate one person, because now they\u2019re going to have to, they think, move it to accommodate everybody else or, you know, move it from here to over there and then move it again,\u201d Carstens said.<\/p>\n

Since the hearing, others in Long Beach have come forward against cell sites near their homes. Carstens believed the company feared a domino effect.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, both parties agreed to a temporary hold on a final decision, as the couple prepared for the worst. Hahn was so worried about the potential health effects, her migraines coming back, that they were getting ready to move.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe put a lot of time and money into [getting ready to sell]. We ripped apart our house and had old heating removed and floors,\u201d Hahn said.<\/p>\n

The date the hold expired \u2013\u00a0March 1, 2023 \u2013\u00a0came with no word on a final decision. Another week passed. Still nothing.<\/p>\n

Eventually, a representative at AT&T gave me the news: \u201cDue to various reasons, we are no longer planning to build a small cell site at that location.\u201d<\/p>\n

The couple\u2019s tactics seemed to have worked.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re taking it with a grain of salt, knowing that it was a PR person talking to a reporter from where we heard it. So nothing\u2019s official,\u201d Hotchkiss told me.<\/p>\n

A few days later, the city confirmed it: the battle was over. The big metal pole in front of their home would remain just a big metal pole. A street light.<\/p>\n

And the all but inevitable future trespassing at their doorstep? Successfully shooed from the yard.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n

How one California couple beat the future at their doorstep: a 5G cell site <\/a><\/h3>\n

17:23<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

source : https:\/\/whyy.org\/segments\/california-couple-beat-future-at-their-doorstep-5g-cell-tower\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/article>\n

https:\/\/whyy.org\/segments\/california-couple-beat-future-at-their-doorstep-5g-cell-tower\/<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A sudden shift of momentum in a long conflict between industry and activists. By Grant Hill – March 31, 2023   Moira Hahn and Mark Hotchkiss live in Long Beach, California, just near a streetlight that had been previously proposed for a 5G cell site. (Courtesy of Moira Hahn)   This story is from The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[346,291,877,326,348],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-5g","category-california-usa-2","category-long-beach","category-small-cells","category-street-lights"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19074"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19074\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19076,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19074\/revisions\/19076"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}