By B.N. Frank
For many years, firefighter unions have been opposed to cell towers and antennas being installed at their stations due to health and safety risks (see 1, 2, 3). If some of America’s strongest and bravest are opposed to cell towers and 5G being installed in close proximity to where they spend long periods of time – it would seem logical that most people would be opposed to them being installed within close proximity to where they and their loved ones spend long periods of time, right?
Recently, firefighter opposition to cell towers and antennas was addressed again at a California council meeting.
From Environmental Health Trust:
Numerous testimonies against 5G were presented to the Malibu City Council at their Monday, August 24, 2020 Meeting.
Medical Writer Susan Foster sent EHT her testimony to the Malibu City Council to share. Foster was instrumental in working with firefighters on the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS Official Position Against Cell Towers on Fire Stations passed in 2004. She was also the organizer of a brain study of firefighters exposed to RF radiation from a cell tower adjacent to their fire station of over 5 years which found brain damage. Read her affidavit here.
Firefighter groups in the United States have long opposed cell towers on their stations. Not only that, but in California firefighters have lobbied for and sometimes achieved certain exemptions from forced placement of towers on their stations because of their strong opposition due to health concerns from the radiation. Firefighters have long contended they are willing to risk their lives for their fellow citizens; they are unwilling to risk deadly consequences as a result of living with cell towers on their stations in order to facilitate corporate profits.
What exemptions were California firefighters fought for that that stopped cell towers on their stations?
- AB57- Firefighters have gotten an exemption to have cell towers on or adjacent to their facilities. This was codified in California’s 2015 legislation AB57 . CA AB57 (2015) Legiscan Text of Bill. ” Section 65964.1. (f) Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities. “
- SB649- They also received an exemption in California’s SB649 (2018), a bill which was vetoed by GovernorBrown. SB 649 California (2017) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities – 65964.2. “(a) A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements: ….(3) The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.”
- Download a PDF of Letter.
August 25, 2020
Dear Mayor Pierson & Malibu City Councilmembers,
On Monday evening, August 24, 2020 I spoke to you regarding the firefighter study I organized in 2004. This was a study conducted by Gunnar Heuser, MD, PhD of six firefighters in the Santa Barbara area who had been exposed to a 2G cell tower in front of their station for 5 years. All six men were found to have brain abnormalities on SPECT brain scans. Beginning the day the tower was activated, firefighters began experiencing the following symptoms:
- Headache, including migraine
- Tinnitus
- Lethargy
- Cognitive impairment
- Sleep disturbances
- Inability to go to sleep
- Waking up as if they had been anesthetized
- Anxiety
- Depression
- Infertility
- Immunosuppression
All of these men were healthy prior to activation of the tower. They had all been told by the wireless carrier that there were no ill effects from the technology. When the firefighters complained to the carrier that they were ill and unable to function in their jobs at maximum capacity, they were told the tower was well within the FCC guidelines. On Monday evening I told you that the tower was measured at 1/1000th of what the FCC allows.
Rather than reassurance, this is deeply concerning because what it tells us is that the men who passed rigorous cognitive and physical exams before entering the fire service became ill when a tower was placed in front of their station at a fraction of what the government allows. When the strongest of the strong among us become ill at a fraction of what the government permits, what about children, what about pregnant women, what about women in general because their body mass is smaller than men, what about the elderly, the infirm, those fighting cancer, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and those with immunosuppression and autoimmune deficiencies.
I would like to address Councilmember Karen Farrer’s question of Telecom Law attorney Jonathan Kramer. The attorney was asked whether or not the firefighters had received an exemption and he said no. That is not the whole truth. There is a minor exemption for fire stations in AB 57 which did pass and was signed into law by Gov. Brown. The exemption referenced by earlier speakers in the evening is likely a reference to an exemption that was granted to the firefighters from 5G small cells in SB 649 which would have been California’s 5G law, had it been signed by Gov. Brown. This bill was vetoed by Gov. Brown in October 2017.
AB 57, which we did become law, exempts projects on fire department facilities from the “deemed approved process”, meaning an applicant cannot use the simple notice process to obtain a deemed approval; the applicant would have to go to court. “Health” is not the stated reason for the fire facilities exemption (as technically that would have been illegal), though that is the specific reason the firefighters went for exemptions on AB 57 and SB 649. The law explains the rationale for the exemption as being “[d]ue to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters”. See Gov. Code 65964.1(d).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65964.1
65964.1.
(f) Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.
(Added by Stats. 2015, Ch. 685, Sec. 1. (AB 57) Effective January 1, 2016.)
SB 649, California’s 5G bill, offered an exemption to fire stations with the following wording. Again, his bill was vetoed by Gov. Brown in October 2017 so the exemption to having small cells on fire department facilities did not become a reality.:
65964.2.
(a) A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1) The small cell is located in a public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
(2) The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
(3) The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
Attorney Jonathan Kramer may be unaware of the 300 foot setback from 5G towers for fire stations in San Diego County. That exemption for fire stations in San Diego County was passed by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on August 7, 2019 and was an addition to their Small Cell Ordinance. The wording is as follows:
San Diego County: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/zoning/z6000.pdf
- 3. In order to reduce clutter and maintain the aesthetic quality and community character of certain civic and community uses, SCWs in the right-of-way shall not be located within 300 feet of schools, child care centers, hospitals, religious facilities, fire stations, or sheriff stations unless the applicant demonstrates that compliance with this requirement would be technically infeasible. Distance, without regard to intervening structures, shall be a straight line measured from the closest property lines.
I am going to take exception to what Jonathan Kramer said in his response to Councilmember Ferrar’s question regarding the firefighter exemption. He said, in effect, firefighters/fire stations welcome the towers because the towers were placed where they needed to be. Frankly, this is what the telecommunications industry says. This is not what the firefighters say. Mr. Kramer used FirstNET as an example. This is simply not true.
FirstNET towers were targeted for fire stations and some sheriff stations, but they were not invited by the firefighters nor the fire departments. FirstNET was initially promoted as a First Responders emergency services network, a project promoted through FEMA. Fire stations were targeted for these 120 foot towers that were going to be used in part for a First Responders telecommunications network. In addition, FirstNET towers rent out space on the structures to commercial carriers as well provide space for Homeland Security.
In 2015, I received a call from Lew Currier, Head of Health and Safety for the IAFF Local 1014 in Los Angeles County. Lew Currier told me the firefighters were very concerned because of complaints from some stations with cell towers where the men were already sick, including some stations where non-presumptive cancers were present (i.e. cancers not typically related to firefighting risks).