In some states, like California, there has been a relentless push over the last several years to blanket 5G cell towers over broad and beautiful landscapes. Telecom’s promise of connecting everyone to their toasters, webcams, and self-driving cars anywhere at any time, as well as a promise to close the digital divide, appears to have allured and aligned California legislators into passing laws that promote the Telecom agenda. The self-described goal is a “light regulatory framework” for industry to remove “regulatory barriers”.  Technology is surely useful and convenient, however, long term sustainability factors need to be placed into the equation with the massive and intrusive buildout of cell towers on land and in space. While some laws are wise and promote safer, faster, locally controlled wired fiber, some bills are considered a pure and reckless give away to the affluent lobbyist heavy wireless industry.  

Other states have taken a sharper look at what 5G wireless really means for solving the digital divide, public health, environmental health, privacy and security, with the continuous steam of profitable data collection in our thriving surveillance society.  Let’s look at current telecom bills from California and the rest of the U.S to compare wireless proliferation bills versus public protection bills and which states opt for open access fiberoptic.  We will also examine what other countries have discovered about 5G deployment.

2023 California Telecom Bills AB 965 and AB 1065

This year there are 2 telecom industry friendly bills currently rolling their way through the California legislature, AB 965 and a sister bill AB 1065. After the tsunami of bills passed in recent years to “streamline” 5G cell towers on every street corner it is hard to imagine any more weakening of local government power but here we have it.  More “streamlining”, less local power, less public input and more telecom power, all in the name of public safety, which has yet to be meaningfully investigated.  It appears to be a step by step, bill by bill deregulation of the telecom industry. As the Sierra Club letter opposing SB 649 (2017) put it, “These small cell boxes could pop up anywhere: grocery stores, outside school, playgrounds, communal places, with no requirement to mitigate effects or understand potential environmental and health hazards.”   Perhaps a deeper examination of broadband expansion is needed with a focus on local and global public health protection, the environment and how to meaningfully close the digital divide with more open access fiber networks.

AB 965 “streamlines” the city permitting of over 50 cell towers at a time (batching), requiring a shot clock or they are deemed approved. AB 1065 will allow large grants previously destined for “future proof” fiberoptic (SB 156 -2021) to go to wireless companies so they may further transform the land into a buzzing, energy guzzling, Orwellian wireless network with known hazards, rather than continue with safer, longer lasting, less hackable, energy wise fiber, which will truly solve the digital divide, keeping people and businesses reliably connected.  

AB 965 (Carrillo) Local government: broadband permit applications (Feb 2023). https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB965/id/2796135

AB 1065 (Patterson) Communications: California Advanced Services Fund (Feb 2023)https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1065/2023

The Basics of the Bills

AB 965

AB 965 (Carrillo) Local government: broadband permit applications (Feb 2023) allows unlimited batched permits for cell tower placement to be approved within 90 days or they will be deemed approved.  The bill notes that if the population of a city is fewer than 50,000 or a county is fewer than 150,000 then 25 or more “project sites” can be requested. For larger populations 50 or more “project sites” is considered a “reasonable limit”.

Reasons to Oppose AB 965

  • Batched permits for 25 to 50 or more cell towers (or “project sites”) are far too many to be approved at one time with a very short shot clock considering complex nature of land use, historic preservation, sensitive habitat, environmental review and noise.
  • Deemed approved constrains local governments and could incentivize telecom companies to pursue litigation if the shot clock runs out before a determination is made, despite amendments to the bill.
  • Further removes local government authority not intended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996
  • Pushes wireless 5G over faster, safer and more reliable fiberoptic to the premises
  • 5G requires massive infrastructure both on land and in space with tens of thousands of satellites planned by Starlink, Amazon, Astra, Boeing, Inmarsat, Intelsat, Hughes Network, OneWeb, SpinLaunch, and Telesat
  • Will rapidly increase energy demands several-fold, thus in the opposite direction of California climate mitigation goals.
  • Fiberoptic uses at least 3 times LESS energy than wireless, not even considering space expansion
  • Fiberoptic is much faster than wireless transmission with cell towers (Wireless  12-25 Megabits per second (Mbps) vs  5G  20-200 Mbps vs Fiberoptic 1 Gigabit to 1000 Mbps)
  • Fiberoptic lasts 50 years or more in the right conditions and is cheaper to replace
  • Fiberoptic offers a more stable and more reliable and is not affected by weather, distance or line of sight issues.
  • Fiberoptic can be open access thus available to more homes and businesses
  • Fiberoptic is already the backbone of businesses across the nation and oceans
  • Wireless is much more vulnerable to security breaches and interference
  • All cell towers are electrical devices and do catch fire. With more cell towers translates into more fire risk. In fire prone California academics have put an economic cost in California at $102.6 billion in 2018, not to mention the psychologic trauma and lives lost
  • Proliferation of towers will also produce vast amounts of E Waste that is unsolvable to date, as companies do not manufacture with the intent to recycle precious or other metals. Another problem amplified.
  • Cell towers are more costly due to frequent updates
  • Proliferation of this technology, which requires precious metals, causes land degradation, mining risks, pollution and labor concerns in disadvantaged countries with long term environmental destruction and health impacts at home and abroad.
  • Health and environmental regulation of cell towers by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is outdated, not backed by science and needs updating before this massive increase in infrastructure
  • The DC courts in 2021 stated in a lawsuit, aimed to ignite reevaluation of the FCC’s safety guidelines to look at biological effects rather than just heat, that the FCC was “arbitrary and capricious” to NOT take into consideration environmental, reproductive, neurologic or other non-cancer biological effects of wireless radiation. The FCC has so far ignored this decision and no re-evaluation of these obsolete standards has been done.  

Letters Opposing AB 965

League of CA Cities 

Physicians for Safe Technology  Letter AB 965 June 18, 2023

23 Group Sign on Letter Opposing AB 965- Including Environmental Health Trust, Center for Environmental Health, California Nurses for Environmental Justice, Mom’s Across America , The Ecological Options Network…AB 965 Sign On Senate Energy Utilities Communications CST

AB 965 Letter Towards and Internet of Living Beings

AB 1065

AB 1065 (Patterson) Communications: California Advanced Services Fund allows public taxpayer funds dedicated by the CPUC for faster, safer and more reliable wired broadband, needed to close the digital divide, to be granted to wireless companies.

AB 1065 states, “This bill expressly authorizes a wireless broadband service provider that is otherwise eligible for grants from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) program to apply for and receive funding from both the CASF Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account and the CASF Federal Funding Account.”  

CPUC Promotes Fiberoptic over Wireless Communications

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has excluded wireless projects from the FFA grants. The CPUC’s rationale is that “most funding should be reserved for superior technologies, such as projects using fiber optic cables, which reliably provide greater speed capabilities and are much more likely to meet a user’s technological needs in the long run. i.e. fiberoptic is “future proof”.” n the other hand, wireless technologies are the quickest projects to complete and cheaper thus more desired by the wireless industry.

Background- The California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) program has 2 separate subaccounts and different funding to provide grants to “telephone corporations” as defined under P.U. Code § 234 to bridge the “digital divide” in unserved and underserved areas in the state (adopted 2007).

1) Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account (IGA)  is collected by the CPUC by California telephone bills which amounts to about $25 Million in 2022. The IGA is to provide funding for broadband access to 98 % of households by December 31, 2032. Wireless projects are eligible to obtain grant money

2) Federal Funding Account (FFA) The FFA was established in 2021 to fund grants for last-mile broadband infrastructure projects The CASF- FFA has been appropriated two billion ($2,000,000,000), but requires that the funds be encumbered by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. Under the FFA rules wireless projects are categorically ineligible to be considered for funding, regardless if that projects otherwise meets the performance criteria adopted in the rule .  Notably, SB 156 set a state requirement to encumber the funds by June 30, 2023 to ensure the funds are used by the final federal deadline.

Reasons to Oppose AB 1065

  • Takes funds that are intended to stimulate future proof but more expensive fiberoptic installations and allow them to be used by the wireless industry for 5G expansion
  • It is a giveaway to the wireless industry and a take away from the fiberoptic industry, a more sustainable and equitable solution to the digital divide, as the state of Virginia has done.
  • Pushes wireless 5G over faster, safer and more reliable fiberoptic to the premisses
  • Will rapidly increase energy demands several-fold, thus in the opposite direction of California climate mitigation goals.
  • Fiberoptic uses at least 3 times LESS energy than wireless.
  • Fiberoptic is much faster than wireless transmission with cell towers ( Cell towers  12-25 Megabits per second -Mbps vs fiberoptic 1 Gigbit to 1000Mbps)
  • Fiberoptic lasts 50 years or more in the right conditions and is cheaper to replace
  • Fiberoptic offers a more stable and more reliable means of communication as it is not affected by weather, distance or line of sight issues.
  • Fiberoptic can be open access thus available to more homes and businesses
  • Fiberoptic is already the backbone of businesses across the nation and oceans
  • Wireless is much more vulnerable to security breaches and interference
MORE INFO HERE  New paper on CFS symptoms and the role of power frequency and radio frequency exposures

Letters Opposing AB 1065

Physicians for Safe Technology

The Industry Push for 5G Deployment

A European Parliament report 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia notes, “In dense urban settings, 5G broadband possibly could reinvigorate their [telecom] fortunes, via increased smartphone traffic mostly feeding Internet platforms’ online services (social networking, entertainment video streaming, gaming, etc). It might also enable the MNOs to build new revenue streams in IoT applications for industrial users.”

“Given the scale of the investment needed, the mobile industry needs to convince governments of the economic and social benefits that 5G might bring and, consequently, marketing hype is widespread. For example, it suits the industry if policy makers believe that there is a race between nations to be the first to launch 5G services – and that Europe is lagging behind. The telecommunications industry and mainstream media report daily on the latest development and who is ahead in this race while, more fundamentally, there are unanswered questions over what 5G actually is, what it is for, whether it is safe, whether it offers good value for money or whether anyone will be prepared to pay for it.”   5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia

What Other States are Doing to Promote Safety and Slow Down the 5G Bullet Train

New Hampshire: First to Consider 5G Health and Environmental Impacts

New Hampshire had foresight in 2019 when the state passed HB 522 to set up a formal commission to study the health and environmental effects of 5G technology. The legislation titled, “AN ACT establishing a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G Technology”. noted that, “Fifth generation, or 5G, wireless technology is intended to greatly increase device capability and connectivity but also may pose significant risks to humans, animals, and the environment due to increased radiofrequency radiation exposure.  The purpose of the study is to examine the advantages and risks associated with 5G technology, with a focus on its environmental impact and potential health effects, particularly on children, fetuses, the elderly, and those with existing health compromises.”

The New Hampshire 5G Commission Report

An independent non-partisan Commission was formed and met 13 times over the course of a year.  Their report noted that FCC standards have not been updated to include new research on wireless effects on biological systems. The final comprehensive New Hampshire 5G Commission Report  published  Nov 1, 2020 had 15 recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION 1- Propose a resolution of the House to the US Congress and Executive Branch to require the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to commission an independent review of the current radiofrequency (RF) standards of the electromagnetic radiation in the 300MHz to 300GHz microwave spectrum as well as a health study to assess and recommend mitigation for the health risks associated with the use of cellular communications and data transmittal.

RECOMMENDATION 2- Require that the most appropriate agency (agencies) of the State of New Hampshire include links on its (their) website(s) that contain information and warnings about RF-radiation from all sources, but specifically from 5G small cells deployed on public rights-of-way as well as showing the proper use of cell phones to minimize exposure to RF-radiation, with adequate funding granted by the Legislature. In addition, public service announcements on radio, television, print media, and internet should periodically appear, warning of the health risks associated with radiation exposure. Of significant importance are warnings concerning the newborn and young as well as pregnant women.

RECOMMENDATION 3- Require every pole or other structure in the public rights- of-way that holds a 5G antenna be labeled indicating RF-radiation being emitted above. This label should be at eye level and legible from nine feet away.

RECOMMENDATION 4- Schools and public libraries should migrate from RF wireless connections for computers, laptops, pads, and other devices, to hard- wired or optical connections within a five-year period starting when funding becomes available.

RECOMMENDATION 5- Signal strength measurements must be collected at all wireless facilities as part of the commissioning process and as mandated by state or municipal ordinances. Measurements are also to be collected when changes are made to the system that might affect its radiation, such as changes in the software controlling it. Signal strength is to be assessed under worst-case conditions in regions surrounding the tower that either are occupied or are accessible to the public, and the results of the data collection effort is to be made available to the public via a website. In the event that the measured power for a wireless facility exceeds radiation thresholds, the municipality is empowered to immediately have the facility taken offline. The measurements are to be carried out by an independent contractor and the cost of the measurements will be borne by the site installer.

RECOMMENDATION 6- Establish new protocols for performing signal strength measurements in areas around wireless facilities to better evaluate signal characteristics known to be deleterious to human health as has been documented through peer-reviewed research efforts. Those new protocols are to  take into account the impulsive nature of high-data-rate radiation that a growing body of evidence shows as having a significantly greater negative impact on human health than does continuous radiation. The protocols will also enable the summative effects of multiple radiation sources to be measured.

 RECOMMENDATION 7- Require that any new wireless antennae located on a state or municipal right-of-way or on private property be set back from residences, businesses, and schools. This should be enforceable by the municipality during the permitting process unless the owners of residences, businesses, or school districts waive this restriction.

RECOMMENDATION 8- Upgrade the educational offerings by the NH Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) for home inspectors to include RF intensity measurements.

RECOMMENDATION 9- The State of New Hampshire should begin an effort to measure RF intensities within frequency ranges throughout the state, with the aim of developing and refining a continually updated map of RF exposure levels across the state using data submitted by state-trained home inspectors.

RECOMMENDATION 10- Strongly recommend all new cell phones and all other wireless devices sold come equipped with updated software that can stop the phone from radiating when positioned against the body.

RECOMMENDATION 11- Promote and adopt a statewide position that would strongly encourage moving forward with the deployment of fiber optic cable connectivity, internal wired connections, and optical wireless to serve all commercial and public properties statewide.

RECOMMENDATION 12- Further basic science studies are needed in conjunction with the medical community outlining the characteristics of expressed clinical symptoms related to radio frequency radiation exposure.

RECOMMENDATION 13- Recommend the use of exposure warning signs to be posted in commercial and public buildings. In addition, encourage commercial and public buildings, especially healthcare facilities, to establish RF-radiation free zones where employees and visitors can seek refuge from the effects of wireless RF emissions.

RECOMMENDATION 14- The State of New Hampshire should engage agencies with appropriate scientific expertise, including ecological knowledge, to develop RF-radiation safety limits that will protect the trees, plants, birds, insects, and pollinators.

RECOMMENDATION 15- The State of New Hampshire should engage our Federal Delegation to legislate that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the FCC do an environmental impact statement as to the effect on New Hampshire and the country as a whole from the expansion of RF wireless technologies

Take-Aways From the New Hampshire Commission Report

Kent Chamberline, Ph.D. Produced a slide presentation Take-Aways from the New Hampshire HB522 Commission on 5G Final Report. Slide presentation. .Pittsfield- Dr. Kent Chamberlins Slides Pittsfield Massachusetts Cell Tower July 2021

The first Legislative Bill from the New Hampshire Commission: HB 1644: AN ACT relative to the placement of telecommunication antennas

The first bill the commission worked on was HB 1644 (2022): AN ACT relative to the placement of telecommunication antennas and establishing a registry for residents who are experiencing biological symptoms from wireless radiation exposure. Sponsored by Rep. Abrami, Woods, Rock, Mer, Ricciardi.  The bill “Requires telecommunication antennas be placed at least 1,640 feet from residentially zoned areas, parks, playgrounds, hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers, and schools. This bill also creates a registry for anyone experiencing symptoms of wireless radiation exposure.”  The bill eventually died in committee but others such as Michigan have taken up the baton.

MORE INFO HERE  Cell Tower and Children’s Health and Safety

Other States Wireless Safety Bills and Policies

Summary of current bills below. Thanks to Massachusetts for Safe Technology for their information

EMF Bills in Massachusetts

https://sites.google.com/site/understandingemfs/massachusetts-emf-bills-2023-24?authuser=0

EMF Bills in Other States

https://sites.google.com/site/understandingemfs/bills-in-other-states?authuser=0

Connecticut

Easton, Connecticut:  5G Cease and Desist Provision. The town of Easton became the first in the nation to pass a cease and desist order on 5G small cells until they are tested and proven biologically safe.

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

  • S. 2152 (2023)  Senator Moore. An Act relative to smart meters. Requires a No Fee opt out for smart meters.  (1) a choice of the type of utility meters to be installed and operated on their places of residence, property or business; among the choices offered shall be the installation and ongoing operation of an “electromechanical analog meter”; and (2) the ability to retain and operate an “electromechanical analog meter” on an ongoing basis at no cost; and (3) the right to replacement of a wireless meter with a non-transmitting electromechanical meter at no cost. c) The utility companies shall be required to obtain the ratepayer’s written consent. https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S2152
  • S.156 (2023)   Sen Cyr. An Act relative to the safe use of electronic devices by children. “All mobile telephones sold or leased at a point of sale or retail establishment in the commonwealth shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, on product packaging, the following notice to consumers:- To assure safety, …” https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S156/Bills
  • S. 316 (2023) Senator Mark. An Act relative to best management practices for wireless in schools and public institutions of higher education. “The department of elementary and secondary education shall develop best practices and guidance for the purchase and installation of wireless internet service in schools. In developing these guidelines, the department shall consider and prioritize practices that protect the health and safety of public school students and staff.” https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S316
  • S.1044 (2023) . Senator Mark. An Act prohibiting injurious operations or offering services or products that discriminate against or injure protected classes. “All persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges and the right to not be physically injured by the operations, products or services of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement whether or not the aggrieved protected party seeks access to the patronage, products or services offered by the place of accommodation, resort or amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons. This right is recognized and declared to be a civil right.”  https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S1044
  • H. 2158  Rep Farley-Bouvier. An Act recognizing EMS as a disease dangerous to the public health, requiring inclusion in MAVEN, establishing the Massachusetts EMS registry and requiring biennial reporting as part of population health trends. “1) The department shall add Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) to the list of diseases dangerous to the public health in 105 CMR 300.000 and 300.100 in order to facilitate reporting and surveillance requirements within the Disease Surveillance and Case Management System (MAVEN) implemented in 105 CMR 300.050 and identification of incidences that are part of a cluster or outbreak for purposes of 105 CMR 300.134. 2) The department shall include EMS to the list of diseases possibly linked to environmental exposures in 105 CMR 300.192.” https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H2158
  • Resolve S. 155 (2023) Sen J Cyr. Resolve relative to disclosure of radio frequency notifications. Resolved, there shall be a special commission to research the impact of electromagnetic (EMR) and radiofrequency (RFR) radiation on consumer protection, public health, and technology in the Commonwealth. https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S155/Bills

Michigan

  • House Bill 4499 (2023-2024) Rep James De Sana (Rep). AN ACT relative to -Construction: public buildings; placement of certain antennas on public school buildings, rooftops, and adjacent structures; prohibit. Amends 1937 PA 306 (MCL 388.851 – 388.855a) by adding sec. 1e.The bill introduction reads, A bill to amend 1937 PA 306, entitled “An act to promote the safety, welfare, and educational interests of the people of this state by regulating the construction, reconstruction, and remodeling of, and the installation of certain security devices at, certain public or private school buildings or additions to those buildings … ” (1) All of the following shall not be installed in a new school building, including on the rooftop or an adjacent structure to the school building, or placed within 1,500 feet of a school building: (a) A 4G or 5G main transmission antenna. (b) Equipment that is 6 cubic feet or more in size and is used to support 4G or 5G transmission. (c) An antenna used to support 4G or 5G transmission. 

New Hampshire

New York

Vermont

Virginia

5G Deployment: European Parliament Considerations

“Questions remain unanswered as to what 5G actually is, what it is for, whether it has impacts on human health and environment, whether it is secure, whether it offers good value for money or whether anyone will be prepared to pay for it.5 As an alternative, according to some experts, fibre optics would be more secure, safe and offer higher speed than 5G. However, fibre optics are not wireless.”  Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing. 2020.

European Commission 2018. European Commission Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) 2018. SCHEER regularly updates emerging risks to public and environmental health. They have specific methods to identify hazards. In their 2018 European Commission Statement on Emerging Health and Environmental Issues lists e cigarettes, perflourinated compounds, plastics, nanoparticles and also includes virtual reality and electromagnetic radiation, especially 5G technologies.   They state, “The lack of clear evidence to inform the development of exposure guidelines to 5G technology leaves open the possibility of unintended biological consequences.”

European Parliament 2019 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia

  • Lightweight regulatory Framework: “Developing a lightweight regulatory framework for deployment of small area wireless access points (SAWAPs),[is] key to the densified 5G networks envisaged, [and]is essential for their easy rollout at the very large scale of base stations necessary.”
  • Marketing Hype: “Given the scale of the investment needed, the mobile industry needs to convince governments of the economic and social benefits that 5G might bring and, consequently, marketing hype is widespread. For example, it suits the industry if policy makers believe that there is a race between nations to be the first to launch 5G services – and that Europe is lagging behind. The telecommunications industry and mainstream media report daily on the latest development and who is ahead in this race while, more fundamentally, there are unanswered questions over what 5G actually is, what it is for, whether it is safe, whether it offers good value for money or whether anyone will be prepared to pay for it. “
  • Lobbying Governments and Consumers: “A third factor concerns the scale and who is the driving force behind the 5G campaign. The level of marketing activity is key, with intense lobbying of governments by equipment suppliers and operators – and also of the public by governments. A fourth factor is the size of the home market. It needs to be of a critical size to support the first versions of local 5G products, and also for national market testing to improve them, before global promotional launches. For instance, 50% of Huawei’s sales in 2017 were in its home market, giving its leading global position (Fildes, 2019a)”.
  • Reinforced by Long Tail Supply Chain: “Since the 5G endeavour is being driven primarily by the equipment suppliers, it is not surprising that there is a significant marketing campaign underway. This industry effort is reinforced by its long tail supply chain – semiconductor components, software, managed operations and equipment suppliers – that together serve the major operators.”

European Parliament  2020 Briefing- Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. “Questions remain unanswered as to what 5G actually is, what it is for, whether it has impacts on human health and environment, whether it is secure, whether it offers good value for money or whether anyone will be prepared to pay for it.5 As an alternative, according to some experts, fibre optics would be more secure, safe and offer higher speed than 5G. However, fibre optics are not wireless. “

European Parliament  2020 Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. “This raises the question as to whether there is a negative impact on human health and environment from higher frequencies and billions of additional connections, which, according to research, will mean constant exposure for the whole population, including children. Whereas researchers generally consider such radio waves not to constitute a threat to the population, research to date has not addressed the constant exposure that 5G would introduce.”  5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia

European Parliament 2021 Health impact of 5G.  European Parliamentary Research Service. Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) Report Conclusions:

  • Cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies;
  • Reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.
MORE INFO HERE  The Science of Self-Healing Hosted by Dr. Sharon Stills With Special Guest Theodora Scarato 5G – The Invisible Enemy

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 

The IEEE is the world’s largest technical professional organization, and the” professional home for the engineering and technology community worldwide.”  The IEEE performs its own research and is involved in computer and wireless technology product development. Some of their research is included in this section. Even in their 2015 report on 5G “Safe for Generations to Come” the authors state,  

At this time, more reports of beneficial effects than detrimental effects from low-level exposure to mmWave radiation appear to exist in the literature, but this area needs to be better understood, and the specific effects need to be demonstrated reproducibly by independent investigators before any potential non-thermal effects are to be considered in determining the regulatory limits on this regime of non ionizing radiation.”  So far science is not sufficient to support the safety of this technology.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Safety Guidelines for Wireless Radiation Have Not Been Updated in Over 24 years… but a DC Court Ruled in 2021They Should

On August 13, 2021 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC regarding their failure to reevaluate the safety standards for wireless electromagnetic radiation with regards to health and environmental impacts other than cancer. The lawsuit was filed in response to the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation. 11,000 pages of of scientific studies and evidence were submitted to the court indicating harm from wireless radiation. The judge called the FCC decision not to reevaluate their safety guidelines “arbitrary and capricious.”  

The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update safety limits. The court noted that the FCC failed to address *Impacts of long-term wireless exposure, impacts to children, the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation, impacts to wildlife and the environment, impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.

Privacy Concerns Added

 “What’s wrong with this? Corporate America will be collecting data on us, using it to manipulate us, and selling it to the highest bidders, often without our permission. The amount of data that they will be collecting on us with 5G is astronomical. Privacy is a huge 5G issue as far as I’m concerned. Besides that, I don’t see any need in my life for the Internet of things. I think the Internet of things is a hackers dream.”  Arizona State Representative Pamela Powers Hannley. 2020 , Is 5G Risky Business?

References

California Broadband

Broadband Implementation for California. CPUC. 2021. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internet-and-phone/broadband-implementation-for-california

California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internet-and-phone/california-advanced-services-fund

CASF Background and History. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internet-and-phone/california-advanced-services-fund/casf-background-and-history

5G Deployment European Parliament

Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. 2011.  Resolution 1815. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. 2011. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994

European Commission Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) 2018. https://mdsafetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/scheer-report-emerging-concerns-2018-russell-mentioned.pdf

European Parliament 2019. 5G Deployment: State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia. Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies. April 2019. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/631060/IPOL_IDA(2019)631060_EN.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2qjkIH4I-kS-gZ6elTDCBSDQHiull298iFkNKCQw6-F9Ns5uyemkLA0bo

European Parliament  2020. Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing. March 2020. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3cD0TDOqGHpOmCWPnANN-Y6RBaa0eoQ4ZN0nuUwpVaLL8MIDtt6aKtiYM

European Parliament 2021– Health impact of 5. Current state of knowledge of 5G-related carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards as they emerge from epidemiological studies and in vivo experimental studies . 2021. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf Video- Video of the entire 2021 session. https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/event_20210531-1000-SPECIAL-STOA_vd?start=20210531080934&end=20210531095852

European Parliament Workshops on 5G. 2021. https://www.saferemr.com/2020/12/european-parliament-workshop-on-5g.html

The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies. Nyberg NR et al. Sept 22, 2022.  https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022-0106/html?lang=en

EU 5G Appeal. http://www.5gappeal.eu

Fiberoptic vs Wireless

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIBER VS. DSL VS. WIFI?.  Central Texas Telecommunications. https://www.centex.net/whats-the-difference-between-fiber-vs-dsl-vs-wifi/

Fiber vs. Cable vs. Wireless https://nwcitizen.com/entry/fiber-vs-cable-vs-wireless

Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks.  Timothy Schoechle, PhD. 2015 https://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ReInventing-Wires-1-25-18.pdf

“Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution — and Why America Might Miss It” . Susan Crawford. 2019.https://hls.harvard.edu/bibliography/fiber-the-coming-tech-revolution-and-why-america-might-miss-it/

“Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution — and Why America Might Miss It” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330223314_Fiber_The_Coming_Tech_Revolution-and_Why_America_Might_Miss_It

Fires

Firefighters Fighting Fires… and Now Cell Towers. PST. Sept 28, 2019. https://mdsafetech.org/2019/09/28/firefighters-fighting-fires-and-now-cell-towers/

CELL TOWER SAFETY RISKS FIRES AND COLLAPSE. EHTrust. https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-safety-risks-fires-and-collapse/

Catastrophic costs of California wildfires. The Ecologist. December 2020. https://theecologist.org/2020/dec/07/catastrophic-costs-california-wildfires

The true cost of wildfire: It is more than simply dollars spent to knock down the flames.  Wildfire Today. Oct 8, 2020. https://wildfiretoday.com/2020/10/08/the-true-cost-of-wildfire-2/

Five Alarms: Assessing the Vulnerability of US Cellular Communication Infrastructure to Wildfires. Anderson et al. ICM ’20: Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference. October 2020. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3419394.3423663

Cellular networks vulnerable to wildfires across U.S. University of Wisconsin News. Oct 27, 2020.  https://news.wisc.edu/cellular-networks-vulnerable-to-wildfires-across-u-s/

Health

BioInitiative. https://bioinitiative.org

Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: from radiofrequency sickness to cancer.Alfonso Balmori. Environmental Research. 2022 Nov;214(Pt 2):113851.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35843283/

Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation. Hardell L and Nilsson M. Annals of Case Reports. 8: 1112. 10 January 2023. https://www.gavinpublishers.com/assets/articles_pdf/Case-Report-The-Microwave-Syndrome-after–Installation-of-5G-Emphasizes-the-Need-for–Protection-from-Radiofrequency-Radiation.pdf

On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Non-Ionizing Radio Frequency Radiation: The Case of Digital Technologies in the Home, Classroom and Society. Professor Tom Butler. University of Cork, Ireland. May 2020. https://www.radiationresearch.org/articles/on-the-clear-evidence-of-the-risks-to-children-from-non-ionizing-radio-frequency-radiation-the-case-of-digital-technologies-in-the-home-classroom-and-society/    or  5G Professor Tom Butler On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Non-Ionizing Radio Frequency Radiation or here

Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? Di Ciaula A.,International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, Volume 221, Issue 3, pp. 367-375, April 2018.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463917308143?via%3Dihub

5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Russell C.,Environmental Research, Volume 165, pp. 484-495, 2018.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300161

5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects – A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz. Simko M. and Mattsson M.-O. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18), September 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/

Effects of 5G wireless communication on human health. European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing. March 2020. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3cD0TDOqGHpOmCWPnANN-Y6RBaa0eoQ4ZN0nuUwpVaLL8MIDtt6aKtiYM

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe.The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks. (2019) Scientific American.  Joel M. Moskowitz. Oct 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

500 Meter buffer recommended around schools, hospitals and homes. “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers.” (2019)  Pearce M.  Environmental Research, Nov 2019; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935119306425

Planetary electromagnetic pollution: It is time to assess its impact.(2018) Bandara P and Carpenter D. The Lancet. Planetary Health. Vol 2. Issue 12. Dec 1, 2018. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health? Nov 10, 2020.EMR Safety. Joel Moskowitz, PhD. https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5g-wireless-technology-is-5g-harmful-to.html

A 5G Wireless Future: Will it Give us a Smart Nation or Contribute to an Unhealthy One? SCCMA Bulletin Jan/Feb 2017. Cindy Russell, MD.  https://mdsafetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/5gwireless-future-sccma-bulletin-6_4_17-new.pdf

Wireless Silent Spring. SCCMA Bulletin Oct 2018. Cindy Russell, MD. https://mdsafetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/wireless-silentspring_-sccma-oct-2-2018.pdf

New Hampshire Commission on 5G

New Hampshire-Final Report on Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20final%20report.pdf

New Hampshire- HB 522 2019 : AN ACT establishing a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G Technologyhttps://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB522/id/1850440

Satellites

AT&T tries to block Starlink/T-Mobile plan for satellite-to-phone service

AT&T and rural telcos say Starlink-fueled phone service would cause interference 5/19/23. .https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/att-tries-to-block-starlink-t-mobile-plan-for-satellite-to-phone-service/

FCC grants partial approval for Starlink second-generation constellation. Dec 2, 2022. Space News. https://spacenews.com/fcc-grants-partial-approval-for-starlink-second-generation-constellation/

In race to provide internet from space, companies ask FCC for about 38,000 new broadband satellites. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/space-companies-ask-fcc-to-approve-38000-broadband-satellites.html

EH Trust vs FCC

Opening Brief of Petitioners EH Trust et al vs FCC . https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/PACER-Petitioners-Final-Joint-Opening-Brief.pdf

Petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence in the case EH Trust et al vs FCC. https://ehtrust.org/environmental-health-trust-et-al-v-fcc-key-documents/

EHT WINS IN HISTORIC DECISION, FEDERAL COURT ORDERS FCC TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IGNORED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWING HARM FROM WIRELESS RADIATION. Aug 16, 2021. EHTrust  

Landmark Lawsuit Successful Against FCC for Failing to Reevaluate 5G and Wireless Safety. Sept 2020. PST. https://mdsafetech.org/2020/09/23/landmark-lawsuit-filed-against-fcc-for-failing-to-reevaluate-5g-and-wireless-safety/

Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates. Harvard Ethics Fellow Norm Alster. 2015. https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

— 

Physicians for Safe Technology