Adapted from a May 25, 2021 Public Comment in Santa Barbara, CA
Public Comment by Katie Mickey
By a 5 to 2 margin on November 23, 1999, the City Council of Santa Barbara voted in favor of a resolution that, “… disagrees with and rejects the State’s recommendation to fluoridate the city’s public water system.”
The resolution was fashioned by the City Council in response to a request for a protective ordinance from the local chapter of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water that involved appearances by more than 150 citizens before the Board of Water Commissioners for Santa Barbara.
City Attorney Dan Wallace replied that no matter which approach the Council took, should the State elect to force compliance the city would most likely invoke the “municipal affairs doctrine.” This doctrine applies to cities that have their own constitutional charter, which among other tests requires that any law of statewide concern be “narrowly tailored” so it does not intrude on the rights of cities to manage their own affairs.
Mayor Harriet Miller, referencing her background in chemistry, stated that adding a chemical to the water supply to medicate everyone was not the right approach and requested that the City’s staff draft a letter to the appropriate health agencies to look into other programs that are intended for children from birth to 5 years of age to devise a method of getting the appropriate care directly to the individuals who truly need it and when they need it.
Council Member Tom Roberts called into question whether the City’s mission in managing the water was to deliver the purest potable water or to mass medicate, and asked why adding Prozac (fluoxetene, another fluorine-based product) to counter depression wasn’t of equal rationale.
Council Member Marty Blum favored, “… a treatment plan to address the specific problem, not to medicate the whole city on the chance that the kids may drink the water.”
I attended the historic city council meeting in which we filled the council chamber and the council voted down fluoridation. Twenty one years later we face a similar insane mandate from the state and federal level of mass exposure to a harmful environmental pollutant – the electromagnetic frequencies being broadcast from small cell antennas installed in our neighborhoods within feet of where we sleep, work and play.
Our council members and mayor of yesteryear stood up to the dental lobbyists and all of our immune systems in Santa Barbara have benefited. Safe Technology for Santa Barbara has been asking you to do the same and stand up to the Telecoms.
Please include all of our revisions to the draft ordinance, including a limit to RF microwave radiation signal strength in any in any publicly-accessible area to no higher than -80 dBm (deciBel-milliwatt) for any frequency/channel band specified by an entity’s FCC radio transmission license because our local government must honor the following:
- The 1934 Communications Act (1934-CA), which says at Title 47 U.S.C. § 324″Use of minimum power: in all circumstances . . . all radio stations . . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired” and which has a stated primary purpose of “[promotiing] the safety of life and property” at 47 U.S.C. § 151.
- The 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA), which says at U.S.C Title 47 § 332 Mobile services:”(a) Factors which Commission must consider: promote the safety of life and property“.
- Title 47 U.S.C. §332 (c)(7)(A) and §332 (c)(7)(B) of the 1996-TCA and its Conference Report, H. R. Rep. No. 104-204, pt. 1, p. 94 (1995), which leaves the regulation of the operations of personal wireless facilities within the regulatory authority of local officials, while acknowledging the presence of the “environmental effects” of the radiofrequency microwave radiation signal strength.