by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a <br />criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today. This is primarily due to the lower <br />levels of radiation output from microwave-powered communication devices such as cellular <br />telephones and other sources of point-to-point communications; levels typically lower than from <br />microwave ovens. The problem, however, appears to focus on very low levels of non-ionizing <br />electromagnetic radiation. For example, in laboratory studies, T. Litovitz (personal communication) and <br />DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation <br />from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos- with some lethal results <br />(Manville 2009, 2013a). Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital <br />cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos subjected to hypoxic <br />conditions in the laboratory while controls subjected to hypoxia were unaffected (DiCarlo et al. 2002). To <br />date, no independent, third-party field studies have been conducted in North America on impacts of <br />tower electromagnetic radiation on migratory birds. With the European field and U.S. laboratory evidence <br />already available, independent, third-party peer-reviewed studies need to be conducted in the U.S. to <br />begin examining the effects from radiation on migratory birds and other trust species." <br />Radiation Impacts and Categorical Exclusions <br />"There is a growing level of anecdotal evidence linking effects of non-thermal, non- <br />ionizing electromagnetic radiation from communication towers on nesting and roosting wild birds <br />and other wildlife in the U.S. Independent, third-party studies have yet to be conducted in the U.S. <br />or Canada, although a peer-reviewed research protocol developed for the U.S. Forest Service by <br />the Service's Division of Migratory Bird Management is available to study both collision and radiation <br />impacts (Manville 2002). As previously mentioned, Balmori (2005) found strong negative correlations <br />between levels of tower-emitted microwave radiation and bird breeding, nesting, and roosting in the <br />vicinity of electromagnetic fields in Spain. He documented nest and site abandonment, <br />plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death in House Sparrows, <br />White Storks, Rock Doves, Magpies, Collared Doves, and other species. Though these species <br />had historically been documented to roost and nest in these areas, Balmori (2005) did not observe these <br />symptoms prior to construction and operation of the cellular phone towers. Balmori and Hallberg (2007) <br />and Everaert and Bauwens (2007) found similar strong negative correlations among male House <br />Sparrows. Under laboratory 'conditions, DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised troubling concerns about impacts of <br />low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on <br />domestic chicken embryos- with some lethal results (Manville 2009). Given the findings of the studies <br />mentioned above, field studies should be conducted in North America to validate potential <br />impacts of communication tower radiation both direct and indirect - to migratory birds and other <br />trust wildlife species." <br />The full text of the letter, the addendum and citations are available at: http://l.usa.2~ov/lin3CZg <br />4. 1 presume that the original church was given a variance from our R-1 neighborhood zoning code <br />because it was assumed that the church would offer spiritual, educational, and/or social services to the <br />community. Gaining private profit from having a microwave-spewing cell tower on church property violates <br />the zoning code of this residential neighborhood, and height restrictions. It also violates the spirit of church <br />contribution to the betterment of the community for which the code variance was originally granted. <br />I've listed violations of the City of Eugene residential zoning code, violations of the Eugene <br />Metropolitan Plan, and ethical violations regarding the spending of taxpayers' monies, in addition to the <br />known health dangers for wildlife and neighborhood residents living in proximity to a cell tower. All of these <br />are reasons why no cell tower should be allowed at 4060 West Amazon Drive. <br />Regards, <br />Jane Katra, Ph.D. 541-344-9663 <br />