Anyone NOT want cell towers in yards for any reason? 90+ Ohio lawsuits against bill that allows this.

13 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Hi All – I’ve posted links about this already in other parts of this website and on the Concerned Residents of Greenhills Facebook page. 

90+ Ohio municipal governments have filed lawsuits against a clause added to Senate Bill 331 because it eliminated local authority in preventing 5G small cell tower infrastructure from being installed pretty much everywhere including residential yards.  This has been extensively covered by the press outside of the Cincinnati area.

Before posting information about this online, I talked to many residents in person about it.  So far I haven’t met anyone who wants cell towers in their yards or neighborhoods.  Many also said they were concerned about potential health issues.  This was before I mentioned scientific research that validated their concerns.

When I decided to post this information online, I included research links because of these conversations.  So far the only response I’ve received on Junedale.com was that this research was “paranoid”. 

We all have a right to our opinions.  But my guess is that he wouldn’t say that to any firefighters and apparently they are also concerned about health issues from cell towers and antennas. http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp

In California, firefighters even fought for an ordinance to ban them from their properties:  http://fearlessparent.org/cell-tower-hypocrisy-rescuing-firefighters-not-kids/

Greenhills is a beautiful community and everyone I’ve talked with wants to keep it that way.  They also don’t want reduced property value. 

Cell towers and other wireless infrastructure reduce property value.  Even if they are small or hidden, this is the case according to information available at these websites and many more.  http://anticelltowerlawyers.com/anti_cell_lawyer_1_018.htm; https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/may/25/houseprices.uknews

There are even websites online where those who are concerned may locate where cell towers and antennas are installed.  One is www.antennasearch.com

Americans everywhere must be concerned otherwise The Wall Street Journal wouldn’t have published an article in November 2014 about one in 10 of cell tower infrastructures violating RF standards.  www.rfsafe.com/wsj-one-10-cell-phone-towers-violate-rf-radiation-safety-rule

For those who think these small cell towers will guarantee better service – not necessarily.  They may actually cause interference or “popping” for some users.  This and more was discussed by the mayors and law directors of Cleveland and Independence, Ohio during their March 20, 2017 press conference.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWE8EC-bqEI

There are a lot of ticked off people in Ohio and everywhere else about small cell towers being installed everywhere.   An online search yields many results or I can provide more links upon request. 

Where people are standing together and putting their political differences aside, progress is being made.  That could be said for many issues facing our country right now.

There are local reporters are interested in doing a story about this but they’d like to talk to more concerned citizens.  Feel free to call your favorite news station.  Otherwise Brant Schulz at WLWT seems particularly interested.  513-412-5000.

Thanks for your consideration.  Have a blessed day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Hi All – I thought I’d post some links from Ohio in regard to this bill and opposition to it in case anyone is interested.  Also added some other links that seem relevant:

Senate Bill 331:  https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-SB-331

https://insidetowers.com/cell-tower-news-ohio-enacts-small-cell-deployment-law-limits-local-governments/

Links from around Ohio and in regard to Ohio's opposition:

ACLU of Ohio Director Christine Link said of this bill: “The total ignoring of the one-subject rule is rampant,” said. “Government done in the dark isn’t government, it’s oppression.”  http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/from-guns-abortion-ohio-lawmakers-passed-more-than-bills-days/IBBOqbRGq6iUKlApPVpZrO/

Bexley:  http://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20170220/sb-331-bexleys-opposition-becomes-official

 

Cleveland: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/12/sb_331_is_the_king_of_logrolle.html

Cleveland (2):  http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/12/ohio_house_panel_adds_bestiali.html

Cleveland (3)“The lawsuit, being filed by the city of Cleveland against Ohio, is one of 80 separate suits being filed by municipalities across Ohio challenging the bill.”http://www.cleveland19.com/story/34952903/mayor-jackson-to-address-lawsuit-against-wireless-equipment-bill

Cleveland (4) This is a press conference in Cleveland with the mayors of Cleveland and Independence, a law director, and a lawyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWE8EC-bqEI

Columbus: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/12/06/lawmakers-set-to-ban-ohio-cities-from-increasing-minimum-wage.html

Delaware (3/28):  http://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20170330/delaware-enters-fight-against-flawed-sb-331

http://delgazette.com/news/53947/city-joins-litigation-against-state-law

Hillard: http://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20170213/opponents-say-senate-bill-331-is-threat-to-home-rule

Hudson (3/27)- http://www.hudsonhubtimes.com/news%20local/2017/03/27/city-opposes-senate-bill-331-may-affect-historic-district

Lancaster:  http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/story/news/state/2017/03/21/ohio-cities-challenge-law-allowing-wireless-antennas/99443554/

Lima(3/29):  http://www.hometownstations.com/story/35027972/lima-joins-lawsuit-against-state-of-ohio

Marietta - http://www.mariettatimes.com/news/2017/01/bill-raises-concerns-about-right-of-ways/

Mason: http://www.imaginemason.org/city-government/PLGA.cfm

Mason Facebook post on March 12, 2017:  https://www.facebook.com/City-of-Mason-Ohio-Government-274998889376033/

Maumee - http://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2017/over-70-communities-have-filed-suit-over-ohio-siting-bill-enforcement/

“…effective March 21, 2017, the maximum amount that can be charged must be the lesser of $200 annually per attachment or the actual, direct, and reasonable costs related to the use of the wireless support structure in the rights of way for all of Ohio’s 938 communities.”

“In its FCC petition, Mobilitie had cited an instance in Texas where a community wanted an annual $20,000 fee for a new pole in a right of way, and $2,000 annually for each pole, even where the attachment would require no disturbance of the underlying right of way.

And although all four major carriers serving Ohio, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, are most likely thrilled with the passage of Senator Bob Peterson’s “Petland Bill,” SB 331, Mobilitie might be ruing the idiom, be careful what you ask for.”

New Albany: http://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20170227/new-albany-could-join-sb-331-lawsuit

Norfolk: http://www.norwalkreflector.com/Government/2016/12/06/Lawmakers-to-use-Petland-bill-to-ban-Ohio-cities-from-upping-minimum-wage

North Royalton: http://www.cleveland.com/north-royalton/index.ssf/2017/01/north_royalton_extends_morator.html

Oxford: https://insidetowers.com/cell-tower-news-christmas-tree-bill-sparks-ire-ohio-city-council/

Strongsville: https://insidetowers.com/cell-tower-news-ohio-municipalities-fight-back-state-carriers-zoning-rules/

Violet Township - http://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20170228/senate-bill-331-officials-worried-about-new-cell-tower-law

From lawyer, William Hanna: https://www.walterhav.com/News-Events/post/coming-changes-to-orc-will-significantly-undermine-municipal-authority-over-small-cell-wireless-facilities-in-the-row

Industry article on potential for Home Rule Lawsuit: http://www.4-traders.com/AT-T-INC-14324/news/AT-T-SB-331-could-be-subject-to-home-rule-lawsuit-23933242/

Ohio municipalities who have been identified as potentially problematic: http://www.wirelessestimator.com/publicdocs/PCIAComplaints.pdf

WCPO Cincinnati story on SSB 331 only discusses animal related information.  This was posted one day after 80 Ohio municipalities filed lawsuits against this bill because of wireless clause: http://www.wcpo.com/news/national/it-is-now-illegal-in-ohio-for-humans-to-have-sex-with-animals

June 12, 2017- Wooster, Ohio – according this this now over 90 Ohio municipalities have filed lawsuits:  http://www.the-daily-record.com/local%20news/2017/06/12/wooster-law-director-informs-council-about-franklin-county-cell-tower-decision

Franklin County:  https://www.gongwer-oh.com/public/130/SB331opinion.pdf

Summit County wins:  http://www.the-daily-record.com/local%20news/2017/06/12/wooster-law-director-informs-council-about-franklin-county-cell-tower-decision

Then Summit County loses:  http://www.the-daily-record.com/local%20news/2017/07/24/wooster-other-cities-dealt-a-blow-in-sb-331-fight

Other wireless legislation:  Sponsor Robert Latta, Representative for Ohio's 5th congressional district, Republican. H.Res. 53: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that in order to continue aggressive growth in the Nation’s telecommunications and technology industries, the United States Government should “Get Out of the Way and Stay Out of the Way”.   https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres53

Past cell tower concerns reported by Tri-State media:

WCPO:  http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/butler-county/liberty-township/cincinnati-bell-re-evaluating-cell-towers-in-liberty-twp-yards

Fox19:  http://www.fox19.com/story/26462487/phony-cell-tower-discovered-in-tri-state

Local 12:  http://local12.com/news/local/liberty-township-neighbors-fight-cell-tower-construction

Cincinnati.com:  http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/hyde-park/2015/07/16/council-mixed-cell-tower-plan/30252279/

Cincinnati.com:  http://www.andersonparks.com/uploads/NewsReleases/Creatingcontextforcelltowercontroversy.pdf

Journal News: 

Edited by Monique

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

These are excerpts and links from the website of Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director of The Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health, University of CA, Berkeley. He is one of many health experts with websites like this. Our local media has reported cell tower concerns before when more than one or two residents have contacted them. Change happens when people stand together. NOPECincy.org is one example: http://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html
"Federal regulations protect the public only from the thermal (i.e., heating) risk due to short-term exposure to high intensity, cell tower radiation. The Federal regulations ignore the *hundreds* of studies that find harmful bio-effects from long-term exposure to non-thermal levels of cell phone radiation.
 
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow communities to stop the siting of cell towers for health reasons. Nevertheless, *landlords may be liable* for any harm caused by cell phone radiation emitted by towers situated on their property.
 
Localities need to organize and change the Federal law to protect public health and wildlife from exposure to microwave radiation emitted by mobile phone base stations."
 
Wireless Radiation TV News:
"TV stations were most likely to report news stories about cell phone radiation health risks including stories that focused on risks to children. The next most common stories discussed radiation risks from cell antennas/towers. Other wireless technologies of concern included smart meters and devices that emit Wi-Fi radiation. The above statistics are based upon Google searches for TV news stories about wireless radiation health risks where the video was posted online; thus, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF NEWS COVERAGE IS UNDERESTIMATED."
 
"5G Wireless Technology: Major newspaper editorials oppose "small cell" antenna bills"
 
"5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?"
July 27, 2017 (updated Sept 1, 2017)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I really have no issue with cell towers being placed on people's residences. I have three of them on mine and have found that it opened up new avenues of monies.

For instance, the first tower was erected at the height of 350'-0". I quickly ascertained that at this height I was able to allow the flock of peregrine falcons I teach to perch and nest, thus providing me more space on the ground for my radish garden.

The second tower was erected several years after that. I had planned to grow grapes around the first one. But, after getting the soil tested in my yard it was found to be too acidic and not good soil for growing grapes. Therefore, because of the way the two towers were situated I was able to create a "hammock village". By tying off on tower supports and fashioning tarps across the structures I was able to create a spacial dimension of nearly 1000 square feet for the "hammock village". People now come to relax, watch the birds, and enjoy nature.

The last tower was erected just two years ago. This tower, perhaps the most elegant of the three, rises 400'-0" above the ground. My hammock village has now grown into a covered area where I now host weddings, large get-togethers, and other outdoor oddities such as carnivalesque performances. For instance, last year I had the bearded man, and the two-breasted woman. Show stoppers they were.

I would entertain more towers on my property. The cash flow has paid off for me, personally. Others entertaining towers on their property may not have the same financial prowess as myself and that is understood. Just don't knock the idea until you've checked it out first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Blight Reporter - Glad it's working out well for you but it seems you may have a different situation (and more property) than many home owners. 

The Ohio bill (and the federal bills still being discussed) provide no income for residential home owners when small cell tower infrastructure is placed in front of their homes.  Municipal governments aren't getting much income out of it either.  The March 20, 2017 Cleveland press conference (with the mayors and law directors of Cleveland and Independence) provides details of why so many municipal governments filed lawsuits against this.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWE8EC-bqEI

I've provided many other links from different Ohio municipal governments also in previous posts which also identify issues and concerns.  There are at least 90 who have filed lawsuits. 

This being said - I've already checked it out thoroughly.  If firefighters don't want it on their properties, I certainly don't want it on mine or anywhere nearby. http://fearlessparent.org/cell-tower-hypocrisy-rescuing-firefighters-not-kids/

I've also talked to many of my neighbors and there are no complaints about our cell phone service here. 

A few weeks ago Judge Ethna Cooper of Hamilton County ruled that the wireless clause in the Ohio Bill 331 violated the state constitution.  As far as I know, this hasn't been covered by our local press.  In other parts of Ohio, judges have also ruled that the clause is unconstitutional but unfortunately the judgment was then overturned.  I provided links for this happening in Summit County on previous posts.

Since you have rented space to cell towers on your property, it would be great if you'd provide details on how often the Federal Communications Commission comes and measures the towers to make sure they are not violating federal RF regulations.  I already asked this of someone else on this list who rents to cell towers and he has yet to provide answers.

According to a 2014 Wall Street Journal - 1 in 10 cell towers violates federal regulations and there aren't enough employees to make sure this is corrected in many instances.  www.rfsafe.com/wsj-one-10-cell-phone-towers-violate-rf-radiation-safety-rule

Again - I stand with firefighters and the 90 Ohio municipal governments who don't want this.   Thanks for your interest and your contribution to this post.  I hope you will provide more.

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Monique
links disappear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Ms. Monique,

This is a very enlightening thread and let me answer some of your concerns.

Having lived with three of these cell towers literally feet away form my front porch, back porch, and garage I can tell you, and others on this site will attest, that I'm very normal.

My rent from these companies supports the fiduciary responsibilities I have with my hammock yoga, wedding ceremonies, and other falconry classes.

The FCC has come on to my property several times to measure the towers. However, it is very hard at the height of these structures to get a good reading. The tapes dangle in the wind.

 

Blight Reporter - Glad it's working out well for you but it seems you may have a different situation (and more property) than many home owners. 

I've also talked to many of my neighbors and there are no complaints about our cell phone service here. 

Since you have rented space to cell towers on your property, it would be great if you'd provide details on how often the Federal Communications Commission comes and measures the towers to make sure they are not violating federal RF regulations.  I already asked this of someone else on this list who rents to cell towers and he has yet to provide answers.

Again - I stand with firefighters and the 90 Ohio municipal governments who don't want this.   Thanks for your interest and your contribution to this post.  I hope you will provide more

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Blight Reporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Dear Mr. Blight –

You seem to be creative and intelligent person.  Given the times and current state of the world, it’s good to hear that others on this site consider you to be normal and seem to be benefiting from your gifts, etc. 

Our friendly exchange gives me the opportunity to provide more links to those who may be considering cell tower and/or antenna placement on his/her property.

In regard to wildlife, these are links to research provided by U.S. government employees:

  1. US Dept of Interior Letter warning regarding migratory birds and cell towers:   http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

  2. US Fish & Wildlife Study warning Non Ionizing Radiation http://ehtrust.org/memorandum-bird-wildlife-impacts-non-ionizing-radiation-albert-m-manville-ph-d-former-u-s-fish-wildlife-service-senior-biologist/

This New York Times article provides more U.S. government research and also reports all kinds of internal drama within the CDC in regard to this research:  At CDC, a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk.”  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/technology/at-cdc-a-debate-behind-recommendations-on-cellphone-risk.html?_r=0

In a nutshell – just weeks prior to the article being released, The CDC recanted the “bold” position it made against the dangers of cell phone radiation.  At the same time, the former director of CDC division, The National Center for Environmental Health, Dr. Christopher J. Portier would not recant his position.

Dr. Portier also served on the International Agency for Research of Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that in May 2011 called low-frequency radiation from cellphones and other devices a possible carcinogen.   He said the I.A.R.C. declaration led him to seek a review of the CDC guidelines.  http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/

Drama indeed.

Also in regard to the The New York Time’s article…“An investigative report published by the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) digs deeper into the circumstances surrounding the CDC's retraction of their guidelines on cell phone radiation exposure.  The report, based on 500 pages of internal CDC documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), illuminates key information left of out the New York Times article… that immediately after publishing the new guidelines in June 2014 the CDC hired Kenneth Foster … who has an established record of conducting research funded by the private wireless industry and has authored a number of studies with results that contradict the notion that children are more susceptible to cell phone radiation than adults.” http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986953/radiating_corruption_the_frightening_science_and_politics_of_cell_phone_safety.html

Other unfortunate research revealed in The Ecologist’s article:

Cell phone use linked with erectile dysfunction.

L

All this being said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for my husband and me to not want cell tower infrastructure in front of our home or anywhere near us.  There also seems to be no issue with cell phone reception in our neighborhood and wireless infrastructure has been proven to lower property value. 

On a side note - my husband and I moved to Greenhills about a year ago.  We’ve been very surprised to see so many large branches falling from trees all over our neighborhood.  At least one tree had to be cut down because it was dying.  I asked a neighbor if this was normal or if this was a new issue.  He has lived here a long time and said it was a new issue.  Sad.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread and also sharing information about FCC measurement procedures.  It’s a shame that FCC employees are having difficulty getting good readings on your property.  Then again I've never heard of them using actual tape measures.  Perhaps you should look into that.

Have a blessed day.

 

Edited by Monique

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ms. Monique, it appears that you are very astute when it comes to fact-finding. Many of the documents you have shared with the community at large are very well thought out and provide just that hint of educational awareness that we all need to take into account without going through an entire dissertation leaving others, like Edge or Lord Voldermort (two other personalities on this site) completely lost.

I would go so far as to tell you that your inclusion on this site is very welcomed. Others on this site, like Lovin' Ligorio, like to joke around and poke fun of others and, personally, I find it to harbor bad relations amongst our community.

I would suggest that you take the much information gained from your research and request to make this a topic of discussion in front of your Greenhills Council members. As you may or may not be aware, there is a cell tower located on Sharon Rd. near the corner of Winton Rd. that backs up to many homes (where children play and reside). Risk to children you say? I say, to kids in YOUR (new) community. This tower could harbor, from the information you've been able to bring forth to the discussion could be a risk to those children and families.

The more I think about it, because of your background and research in this topic, I'm beginning to believe that it is your civic duty/responsibility to inform the Greenhills Council to insure that NO cell towers remain around the village. Perhaps, the long-lasting effects and damages to people surrounding these towers is far more an important issue than anyone else has considered.

Your data is beginning to sway me as to what M own personal safety could be. I'm going to grab a copy of my agreements and take a look to see what can be done.

Thanks for all of your hard work and due diligence in this topic. There is much work to be done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dear Mr. Blight - thank you for your response and your interest.  I already spoke at a Greenhills Village Council meeting last November along with a UC College of Medicine Environmental Health professor regarding all of the information I presented here and more.  I included research, etc. in regard to other EMF/EMF/RF/MW sources other than cell towers, WiFi Hotspots, and routers.   

I received word back in January that they did not plan to do anything because of existing laws. 

Since speaking at the meeting, I have been contacting the city manager every week or so to ask if any wireless infrastructure applications have been submitted within the village.  So far none have been submitted.  However more of them have been installed outside the village so it's only a matter of time before it could happen here.  www.antennasearch.com is a good resource.  At the same time, Antennasearch.com doesn't seem to always post everything that gets installed b/c many don't seem to get registered.  Locations for WiFi stations or "hotspots" can be found on other websites.  

I have been sending The Law Committee updated information since November regarding new and proposed legislation, research, etc.  It is my understanding that they review it but other than that I cannot speak for them as to what they plan to do.  As far as I know, they did not file a lawsuit against the against the wireless clause in Senate Bill 331 along with the other 90 Ohio municipal governments - though I did provide information on how they could file with a Columbus law firm at a sliding scale ($2000).

I also stopped in for about 10 minutes at The Law Committee meeting in August and presented some information in person.  I cannot speak on behalf of them as to what they plan to do with it.

Before I started posting on this board, I posted for a few months on the Facebook page, "Concerned Citizens of Greenhills".   Although I received no hostile remarks, so far it seems that no one is still ready to act on it.  My Facebook name is "Mo Songs" because I am a songwriter.

I have used examples of activism in re cell towers, etc. in Greenbelt, MD (another Greenbelt community) and many other communities on this board and on Facebook.  When people stand together, change happens.  I have been doing the best that I can by myself but without more people involved, it is unlikely that anything here will change.  I am more than happy to be a resource as well as stand with a group on this.

I am aware of the tower on Sharon Road.  When my husband and I decided to move here, we made sure that we chose a home down the hill from it because of our concerns.  Because of existing laws I don't know that it can be removed.  However if residents in that neighborhood are concerned, they may want to address council about FCC procedures to make sure that it is within the current federal safety guidelines.  If it is not, then they need to make sure that is corrected. 

I am really hoping that there will be no installation of any wireless infrastructure at the school buildings within the village.  That is also something that I discussed at the council meeting.  My husband and I do not have children but I have dropped off literature at the school down the street and talked to a few staff members about why I was leaving it with them.  I cannot say what they plan to do with this information.  I have also spoken to pretty much everyone I know locally (meaning outside of Greenhills) about what I have posted here and provided them with information for almost 2 years now.  No one so far seems to be willing to act on this. 

There are a few other concerned citizens within the Greater Cincinnati.  They've also been trying to raise awareness and get others involved.  What can I say other than we need more than a few concerned citizens to affect change.

Every media outlet in town has been provided with this information presented here and more.  They seem to be waiting for more people to call and complain before they will do a story.

If you find some folks willing to act on any of this, please let me know.  Thanks again. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

cell-tower-health-chart.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Dear Mr. Blight - thanks for posting this.  There are many resources online with similar information. 

There are also many groups outside of Cincinnati also that have pre-written speeches available for free online - especially in regard to fighting cell towers on school properties and replacing WiFi with wired internet.  Some include: Citizens for Safe Technology, Parents for Safer Technology, Safe Tech for Schools Maryland, and National Association for Children and Safe Technology.

Change happens where people are fighting for their communities:   In 2014, Greenbelt, MD council votes unanimously to alert citizens to the health risks of cell phone/wireless radiation and to oppose cell towers on school grounds.  http://ehtrust.org/maryland-city-votes-unanimously-alert-citizens-health-risks-cell-phonewireless-radiation-oppose-cell-towers-school-grounds/

NopeCincy.org is a great local example of people fighting for their community and affecting change. 

The UC professor I spoke with last year at the council meeting told me that usually the most accurate research is independently funded and peer reviewed.  Government research is good too.    

For those who prefer video presentations, there are documentaries available online as well in re EMF/EMF/MW/RF emitting sources.  They feature interviews with doctors, scientists, and more: “Generation Zapped", “Wi-Fried”, "Mobilize", and "Take Back Your Power” 

You are a great writer.  Most of this information has already been provided to local media by me as well as others.  If you are concerned, I hope you will consider submitting something as well.  There is strength in numbers.

Have a Blessed Day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

Big Congratulations to California residents: Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed their small cell bill which would have eliminated local authority in regard to cell tower/wireless infrastructure placement.

In Ohio, our small cell tower bill passed last December when a wireless clause was added at the last minute to SB 331 “The Petland Bill”.  At least 90 Ohio municipal governments have filed lawsuits against it including Cincinnati, Mason, and Sharonville. As far as I know, there has been no local news coverage of this.  

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/16/california-gov-jerry-brown-vetoes-bill-easing-permits-on-cell-phone-towers/

 

 

 

 

Edited by Monique
links disappear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Long Islanders Sue Over Health Concerns About New Cellphone Towers:
“Long Island residents are raising health concerns as cellphone transmission equipment continues to be installedin many areas.
 
As they joined hands in front of the courthouse, worried homeowners said the law must be changed to stop the new towers from being allowed.
 
“This is an issue that is critical — not just to all of Long Island, but all of the United States,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Andrew Campanelli, “because across the United States, no wireless facilities are being tested.”
 
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/10/19/long-island-cellphone-towers-lawsuit/
 
http://longisland.news12.com/story/36637952/homeowners-file-lawsuit-over-potential-wireless-transmitter-health-risks
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3VqliGwJsI&list=PLQ01KlFuvNZZfIz75U47EyqSM0es6BRNu
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now