Boise,ID Aug-2021 sWTF Appeal

Boise, ID Appeal Re: So-Called “Small” Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) in Residential Zone

Video Highlights

Written Appeal Submitted:

Job 1 for this City Council is to protect public safety. That is your duty. As residents we have the right to the quiet enjoyment of our streets and homes. This means preserving our public safety, our privacy and our property values.

You will hear tonight testimony from residents who have been severely injured by RF microwave radiation after Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of various sizes and “G’s” have been powered on in their neighborhoods. These cell towers output power far in excess of the power needed for wireless telecommunications service which violates U.S. Code Title 47 Section 324: “In all circumstances . . . all radio . . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.”

Denying this WTF application should be an easy decision for you, tonight. By citing your local code, you can deny the application because the applicant has provided no probative or substantial evidence of a significant gap in carrier-specific telecommunications service, as the applicant must do, per the 2005 Ninth Circuit Ruling in Metro PCS v San Francisco. This US Federal Court of Appeals ruling requires the applicant to measure the existing carrier-specific signal strength levels and to prove that that signal level is not sufficient for outdoor telecommunications service in order to establish the need for any additional WTF. The applicant has simply not done so.

The propagation map the applicant provided is merely a colored drawing akin to a comic strip. The analysis lacks any substantial evidence to prove a significant gap in coverage or even the power inputs and outputs to make any such determination. In short, the applicant mailed it in; the applicant left the test incomplete. That earns an “F”.

The council tonight can simply cite this lack of substantial evidence as the basis of your decision to deny the application and easily win any potential future court challenge. In addition, your staff does not know what a propagation study really is as they have admitted in testimony. That, however, does not remove your obligation to understand what constitutes substantial written evidence, which the applicant’s map does not.

Yet the failures in this application continue . . . including that the engineer for the application failed to sign or stamp the plans. Please explain how in the year since we first met, that the City has failed to equip the department with a neutral RF professional to evaluate such applications. Failure to do so has resulted in the applicants controlling the entire process to the detriment of residents’ public safety, privacy and property values.

When it comes to approving applications for buildings, the City has electrical, plumbing, inspectors, structural engineers . . . but RF microwave radiation professionals are nowhere to be found on the city staff or list of contractors.

Finally, by far and away, the strongest reason to reject this application is the August 13, 2021 ruling in the U.S. States Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. The ruling in Case 20-1025, Environmental Health Trust, Children’s Health Defense et al. v FCC (“the Commission”) changed the wireless industry landscape significantly. Case 20-1025 was about the FCC’s attempt to avoid court-mandated environmental review to establish the adequacy of the existing FCC RF Microwave radiation guideline. The FCC got caught, again. In the ruling, the judges wrote the following:

“We grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission. The Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radio-frequency radiation . . .”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition defines remand as: “To send a case or claim back to the court or tribunal from which it came for some further action.”

The FCC had ignored the August 2019 court ruling in Case 18-1129 Keetoowah et al. v FCC. That ruling mandated that the FCC complete proper environmental review to establish a new class of Wireless Facilities, such as Small Wireless Facilities. The DC Circuit found that the March 2018 FCC Order 18-30 was arbitrary, capricious and, therefore, unlawful.

The DC Circuit judges essentially sent a very similar message to the FCC about their December 2019 FCC Order 19-126: the FCC’s attempt to end-run the Aug 2019 mandate by simply declaring, without sufficient analysis, that the 1996 RF Microwave radiation exposure guideline could be extended from frequencies up to 6,000 MHz to frequencies up to 100,000 MHz and that Wireless Cos. could increase the peak to average ratio of power output 20-fold.

By reading, once again, U.S. Code Title 47 Section 324 which states “In all circumstances . . . all radio . . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.” . . . one can understand why the judges remanded FCC Order 19-126 back to the FCC.

With all of these shenanigans that have been serially perpetrated by the FCC on behalf of the Wireless industry, it is no surprise that Re-Insurance industry, including Lloyd’s of London, Swiss Re and AM Best – over a decade ago – evaluated the independent science and specifically excluded all claims of injury, illness or death from RF Microwave radiation exposures from any General Liability insurance policies. They cannot afford another asbestos debacle, so they acted.

In response to the substance, fact and law that I am entering into the public record tonight, I am requesting that you to please do the following:

  1. Deny this application
  2. Establish an emergency moratorium on all new applications for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G” until the FCC completes its court-mandated environmental ruled (mandated in both Aug 2019 and Aug 2021 by the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit).
  3. Power off any antennas in your jurisdiction that are outputting RF microwave radiation at frequencies above 6,000 MHz, until the FCC completes its environmental review.

Thank you.