The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0110.208 2024-2026P cOUT1,i Dill 24 Aloha Hawaii County Council, iM. 110 Please Support Bill 24 with at least a 1,200 ft setback, preferably 1,640. If 1,200 ft setback is not possible because of a procedural rule, I recommend 1,190 ft instead. Small cells should be also in the setback requirement also. would like to thank the County Council members that passed resolution No. 678 20. No. 678, "to cease the buildout of 5G wireless infrastructure until such technologies have been through independent research and testing to be safe to human health and the environment. The bad news is 5G is NOT SAFE, but the good news is you can make it SAFER with a setback. The New Hampshire (NH) Commission 5G had an independent majority and an industry connected minority. The independent part did the majority report. The industry -connected part did the minority report. The independent NH commission had a team of experts that did through research and found' that cell towers and recommended a 1,640 ft setback. Q C' The NH recommended cell towers with a 1,640 ft setback: e �C� CZ- • Are SAFER but NOT SAFE " �� • A reasonable compromise between public safety & wireless connectivity • Feasible for cell phones o Requires more expensive and taller towers • Taller towers provide more uniform coverage By Dr. Kent Chamberlain, Professor of electrical engineering and chair emeritus, New Hampshire Commission member did a presentation for the 1,640 ft setback • Video (21 min): "NH Commission Setback Justification" o "This video describes the rationale behind one of the key recommendations of the New Hampshire Commission to Study The Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. That recommendation is that cell towers be placed no nearer than 1,640 feet from places where people live, work or recreate." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWK74ie7krc&list=PPSV o Slides for this presentation: Comm. 1 Ref. To: Ref. Date VJI 2025. The following has most of the information from the New Hampshire 5G commission and one of its sources. Figure 1 shows the cancers deaths from the cell towers starting to level out around 500 m or 1,640 ft. The New Hampshire 5G Commission chose 1,640 ft as a compromise between health & cell phone connectivity. I used a straight-line interpolation to get the values at 600, 1,200, & 1,640 ft. There is quite a bit of difference between 600 ft & 1,200 ft. .6 Although the difference between 1,200 ft & 1,640 ft looks small, it is significant. Figure 1 — Rate of Mortality and Cell Tower Distance 0 50 Line Between Mortality rate point C in each 100 m incrementedarea 0 39.20 at�182.88 m (600) ft 45 O' 35.64 at 365. m (1,200) ft A ' 40 34.30 at 500 m (1.640) ft O 35 No Cell Towers O d W x 30 100 m 200 m 300 m 400 m 500 m 600 m 700 m 800 m 900 m 1000 m (328 ft) (656 ft) (984 ft) (1312 ft) (1640 ft) ) (1968 ft) (2296 ft) (2624 ft) (2952 ft) (3281 ft) Distance from Cell Tower Rate of mortality by cancer, according to the distance from the cell towers in Belo Horizonte municipality (Brazil), from 1996 to 2006, and the null hypothesis (no towers.) Source: Dode AC, et al, Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil, SciTotal Environ (2011), doi:10.1016/j.scftotenv.2011.05.051 See next page 0) Figure 2 is the data presented in a different way. Once again, I used a straight-line interpolation to get the values at 600, 1,200, & 1,640 ft. ... Figure. 2. -: Relativ.e..Rate . of. Mortality:.and .Cell..To.W.er. Distance. y� 1.4-0 0 1.50 y— 1.2:5 d 1.2.0 Z 1.1:0 +r 1.0.5 1.00 Line- etweer) Mortality rate pant • t I t �• 1 1 � 1 in each 100 r i*ncrerriented area , - '- . ... .................................... ...... 1-...... t .�.....t..�.... ...... 1:21 at 1, Z88 m;(.600) ft ....:..�.... � ......�:.......; '•1:105at:365�m.�1�20Q�.ft...�;....... ;" ...... • • 1 .I � I � 1 I 1 t 1 1.665 at 500 m (1:640) ft ...........................:.. ...... ...... ......... ... ....... .�:... ...... ..... ... 1.. ... .......... 1 100 m 200 m 300 m 400 m- 500 m ' 600 m 700 m 800-m 900 m 1000 m (328 M (656 ft) (984 (1312 D (1640 ) (1968 ft) (2296 ft) (2624 ft) (2952 fjt (3281 ft) .......................................:.........:........................................:......... Distance froni Cell Tower The relative Rate of mortality by cancer, according to the distanc6 from the cell towers in Belo Horizonte rnunicipaliy (Brazil);rom 196 to 2006o no cell tov�rers.) ................... Bata source: Bode AC: et al, Mortality by neoplasia and cellular•telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipalfty, Minas GeM dais state, Brazil, S�ci Total fnviron (2011), doi:10.1016C.sedotenv2011.05.051 Table 1 — Mortality rates by Cancer in the Belo Horizonte municipality, according to distance from the Cell Tower Cell Tower Distance of Incremented Areas 100 m (328 ft) wide Mortality Mortality Distance Deaths Population rate per Relative (meters) Distance (ft) total total 10,000 risk 0 to 100 0 to 328 3,569 821,890 43.42 1.350 100 to 200 328 to 656 4,977 1,237,368 40.22 1.25 200 to 300 656 to 984 5,950 1,602,869 37.12 1.15 300 to 400 984 to 1312 6,432 1,796,604 35.80 1.11 400 to 500 1312 to 1640 6,724 1,934,032 34.76 1.08 500 to 600 1640 to 1968 6,869 2,030,093 33.83 1.05 600 to 700 1968 to 2296 6,947 2,055,325 33.80 1.05 700 to 800 2296 to 2624 6,989 2,086,712 33.49 1.04 800 to 900 2624 to 2952 7,000 2,107,277 33.21 1.03 900 to 1000 2952 to 3280 7,044 2,148,327 32.78 1.00 Null hypothesis 7,191 2,238,332 32.12 1.00 No Towers Table 2 — Mortality rates by Cancer Using straight-line interpolation in the Belo Horizonte municipality, according to distance from the Cell Tower Straight-line Interpolated Values Cell Tower Mortality Distance rate per; Relative (ft) 10,000 risk 600 39.20; 1.217 1200 35.64 1.105 1640 34.30 1.065 The previous 2 tables and 2 figures information were sourced from the Study: "Mortality by neoplasia (cancer) and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil' By Dode, et al https:Hdoi.org/l 0.1016/i.scitotenv.2011.05.051 4 The relative risk of dying comparing no towers to the cell tower in the study is as follows • 22% greater at 600 ft • 10.5% at 1,200 ft • 6.5% at 1,640 ft. This is very likely understated for US 5G for 2 reasons: 1 st is signal strength, • The study covered 1996-2006 when data speeds were much slower, and the signal less powerful and less dangerous. • "The largest power density measured during the study was 40.78pW/cm2 (407.8mW/m2)" 0 10 times less than the US allowable radiation of 450 microwatts/cm2 0 4 times the amount 10 microwatts/cm2 allowed by Russia, Italy, Bulgaria, Poland, Lichtenstein, Switzerland o See Appendix F in the New Hampshire Report. 2"d is the study duration • The study interval of 10 years. o The study started at zero towers and ended up with 856 cell towers • Even if all the towers went up in the beginning, some people will get more than 10 years of exposure. • If cell towers went up at a constant rate the average exposure would be 5 years • The carcinogenic effect of EMF radiation is like cigarettes o Longer exposures, increase cancer rates o Next study by Eger shows this and a significant change after 5 years of exposure. a 5 Study: "The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer" by Eger and others, 2004 The study compared people inside 400 meters (1,312 feet) from the tower, to people outside 400 meters to an average of 1,026 meters (3,366 feet). • In the first 5 years there wasn't a significant difference in risk of cancer • 3 times the risk of cancer after 5 years for the next 5 years o Average age of cancer was 8 years earlier o Increase in cancer risk is different than overall mortality in the previous study but are correlated • 100 times more radiation, both measured and calculated The study lasted 10 years Because of the cumulative effect it is very likely things would have gotten worse have the study lasted longer New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology Video (21 min): "NH Commission Setback Justification" • See Above Video (20 min): "Overview of the New Hampshire Commission on 5G" By Dr. Kent Chamberlain, Professor of electrical engineering and chair emeritus, New Hampshire Commission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciT9g5Mm3iSo Bio of Dr. Kent Chamberlain https://www.unh.edu/unhtoday/expert/chamberlin-kent Book Review: "Harvard Press Book on Telecom Industry Influence To The US FCC — Captured Agency by Norm Alster" https:/fehtrust.org/harvard-press-book-telecom-ind u stry-infl uence-us-fcc-captured-agency/ New Hampshire Final Report of the Commission to Study The Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology https://Qc.nh.gov/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report.pdf The New Hampshire Final Report has 390 pages. It was too long for me to print. There are 2 pages from the appendixes. The other appendixes are a wealth of information. 2