Is Jonathan Kramer the best attorney to protect the ambience of Malibu, the vista, the skyline, the character and the property values? Given the inherent fire risks with cell towers and the exponential increase in fire risks given the densification of 5G small cells, is Kramer the best attorney to create a protective ordinance that will apply appropriate rigor to engineering principles and thus guard against future fires?....The Telecom Law Template (for small cell ordinances) did not have a fire safety section. We added that protection. The FCC openly states safety is an issue we can discuss and legislate. For Malibu, as with every city in the West, fire safety should be a top priority. "I already fear that with all the applications Malibu has before it, if you do not pass a protective ordinance within a matter of weeks, residents, property values and the unique vistas of Malibu will be at risk. The inherent fire risks brought about by densification of cell towers must not be allowed to repeat the tragedy of 2007 in the city of Malibu. I would urge the City Council not to renew its contract with Telecom Law.
The Malibu City Council listened to the urging of Susan Foster and the community, and have terminated Jonathan Kramer's contract.
The most persuasive document of all regarding Jonathan Kramer's distorted interpretation of the law is a letter by attorney Scott McCullough to the Malibu city council, dated Aug. 24 2020. It includes ten pages of examples of how Kramer misrepresents the law for the benefit of the telecom industry and the extreme detriment to the community.
Here is an excerpt from McCullough's letter:
"The Kramer Memo is flatly incorrect when it claims that 'any opinion regarding whether 5G (or any other 'G') is safe is outside the bounds for a local government.' We urge you to compare the actual statutory language with the Kramer Memo characterizations of that language. Malibu cannot deny a permit based solely on health or environmental concerns when the project will comply with FCC regulations, but nothing in the statute prevents the Council from being aware of significant health or environmental concerns or articulating those concerns outside the context of an individual permit decision. The statute rules out a basis for individual permit denial but it is not a wide-ranging gag order....
Equally important, the statute does not purport to extend any restriction or prohibition on ordinary citizens that have legitimate concerns about the safety of this technology.Those concerns are warranted and legitimate. There is an extraordinary amount of peer-reviewed scientific evidence, including US government studies, indicating adverse health effects from levels of radiation well below the FCC Radiofrequency ("RF") emissions guidelines."
Kramer repeatedly pooh-poohs the existence of any adverse health impacts from wireless radiation, for example on his blog referring to an EMF-sensitive lobbyist as a "tin foil hat" because he posted a video of a scientist discussing radiation health impacts. Kramer also makes fun on his blog of the firefighters who have fought tirelessly to keep cell towers away from their stations. (California law now does exempt fire stations from the cell tower "deemed approval process", as a result of AB 57. Fire stations were also exempted from 4G/5G small cells in the law to greenlight the 5G rollout, SB 649, which was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown.)
Kramer even goes so far as to publish an article on his website promoting cell tower placement on schools. Click Here
Recently the Ripon School was forced to remove a cell tower after a number of teachers and students developed rare forms of cancer. Click Here
Kramer continues to cling to his non-scientific beliefs, despite the hundreds of studies showing a wide range of increased incidence of disease near cell towers, such as strokes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and cancer. Many studies indicate cancer clusters in areas where people were living or working near cell towers. This compilation covers a wide range of detrimental health impacts from wireless radiation; the section on cancer clusters begins on p.9. Click Here. Many more scientific studies showing disastrous health of wireless radiation can be found here: Click Here
Studies specifically related to health impacts of proximity to cell towers can be found here: Click Here and Click HereIn the following video, Jonathan Kramer is again blatantly misrepresenting the law, this time to the Thousand Oaks City Council (Jan. 12, 2020). He is telling them that the DC Court of Appeals decision (Keetoowah Tribes vs FCC) which required NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) checklist reviews for 5G small cell installations--applies only to some small cells, primarily "those that are federally funded or on federal lands, and these are neither." Click Here
It is very obvious from reading the Keetoowah decision that it applies to all small cells (it talks about the 850,000 that are planned for cities nationwide), and this has been confirmed by the attorneys who were intervenors in the Keetoowah case (NRDC and Ed Myers). It was also confirmed in the email that the FCC Senior Attorney Paul D'Ari sent Phoebe Sorgen, a Berkeley EMF-awareness organizer, re the small cell application process. In it, he describes the necessity for all telecom applicants in Berkeley to go through the NEPA checklist review--which includes investigating various types of environmental conditions and impacts, such as impacts on endangered species. (The email exchange between the FCC Senior Attorney and Phoebe Sorgen is posted below in the comments).
Kramer and May's extreme financial and moral conflict of interest would explain all the numerous ways that the ordinance and guidelines the City of Berkeley passed last July will undermine the safety of the community. Every time the documents appear to agree to a community demand, such as undergrounding the ancillary equipment in the next sentence (or second half of the first sentence) they eliminate any strong protections--by allowing various exceptions, such as, the Public Works Director doesn't think having the equipment above ground would adversely affect anything (slightly paraphrased).
At one point, we recall that City Council members had agreed to using much-safer analog meters on the 4G/5G installations, but this has now been changed throughout the law to wireless "smart" meters. Smart meters have a well-documented record of causing fires Click Here) and their addition to all the 4G/5G installations will add exponentially to the radiation soup that will be bathing Berkeley residents.
Some extremely un-informed person at the Public Works Dept. told a community member that the smart meters "would be measuring RF radiation." Aside from the fact that smart meters are not designed to measure RF, the city has not been doing any testing to see how much radiation the existing cell towers are putting out, and there is nothing in the new ordinance and guidelines that requires the city to test. All the telecom applicant has to do is promise that they've done computer modeling that shows the radiation from their planned installation will be within the FCC's safety limits. (Of course the FCC's safety limits are ridiculously inadequate to begin with, and are the subject of two major lawsuits to get them to reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.)
What do Berkeley's new laws say in the event that a small cell's computer modeling does not show that the radiation complies with the FCC's ridiculously inadequate limits? As expected, the operator is asked to correct the excess emissions. However, one section of the new law says if the radiation is too high, the operator can notate in their RF Compliance Report any locations where the emissions exceed safety limits. (Section 4, number 7 in Berkeley's Guidelines). They have to comply with safety standards but they can indicate in their safety report where they're not complying??
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
