Untapped malaise about 5G and its attendant infrastructure is gathering momentum around the country. Many people are taking action to rein in the proliferation of 5G wireless infrastructure set to add millions of small cells to our already radiation saturated environment. Turning a blind eye to public sentiment regarding health concerns and environmental impacts, and convinced that no one and nothing can stop them, the wireless industry continues to foist their deployment of wireless infrastructure on municipalities around the country. In response, communities are organizing to halt or slow 5G build-out and try to keep it away from residential neighborhoods.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act, removed the public’s right to oppose cell towers on the grounds of environmental impacts from radiation, Since then, judges have interpreted this to include health effects to humans as well. Therefore, much creativity is needed to find “workarounds” to slow or stop the infiltration of these unwanted towers and small cells in our communities.
More information, resources, videos, and commentary by Environmental Health Trust can be found at Cell Towers and Cell Antennae.
THE FOLLOWING MAY PROVE USEFUL TO OTHER COMMUNITIES OPPOSING UNHEALTHY AND UNWANTED CELL TOWERS, SMALL CELLS, AND DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEMS (DAS)
80 OHIO MUNICIPALITIES FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST STATE SENATE BILL WHICH PREVENTS REGULATION OF WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE – Video about 80 Ohio municipalities who have filed a lawsuit against State Senate Bill, SSB 331 which paves the way for 5G https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWE8EC-bqEI State Senate bill 331 prevents the city from regulating the commercial installation of wireless equipment in the public right of way. The complaint challenges the [state] constitutionality of SB 331 on 4 accounts.
SMALL CELLS & A WIRELESS WORLD, THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE – by Oona McOuat; An Electronic Document Submitted to the Salt Spring Local Island Trust, Mar. 12, 2017.
This is a wonderful presentation by Oona McOuat, on 5G and EMFs. It was written to the city of Salt Spring, BC, to assist them in making informed decisions around 5G build-out. It can be used as is, or modified as needed by other communities. Document can be found here:
“This document intends to guide you in making informed decisions about the installation of small cells .” Small cells are the forerunner to 5G, the Internet of Things, and the end of landlines. While telecommunication companies and government provide seemingly convincing reassurances of the safety of wireless technologies, if you take a closer look you’ll see that no actual proof of their safety exists.There are safe ways of sharing high speed data, however, but industry must be urged by consumers and regulators to develop them.”
FOR A CURRENT COMMUNITY ACTION ALERT YOU CAN SHARE WITH OTHERS , PLEASE CLICK HERE.
FOR A RECENT LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOSTON AND VERIZON WIRELESS REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE – CLICK HERE.
How to oppose SB-649 “Wireless telecommunications facilities” California.
The League of California Cities opposes SB-649. They describe it stating, “This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of “small cells.”
It is best to comment on, or before March 28, but comments will be accepted till April 3rd, the hearing is on April 4th.
1. Go to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
2. Scroll down and click on “Comments to Author”
3. If you have not registered you will need to do so.
4. After you register click the circle “oppose” and send your comments (2000 characters) to the author by March 28. If you are representing a group please sign as such. Before you click submit, copy your comments into a separate email.
5. Send the same comments to your State Senator which you can find here: Type in your address and city. http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/
Suggested comments: You can use any of this letter adapted from the California League of Cities, and add your own comments too.
Dear Senator Hueso,
The [name of your group or I] respectfully opposes your SB 649 and proposed amendments in RN 17 08941 (proposal) related to the permitting of wireless and small cell telecommunications facilities. This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of “small cells.”
This proposal would prohibit local discretionary review of “small cell” wireless antennas , including equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new “poles, structures, or non-pole structures,” including those within the public right-of-way and buildings. The proposal preempts adopted local land use plans by mandating that “small cells” be allowed in all zones as a use by-right, including all residential zones.
As such, the proposal provides a de facto exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the installation of such facilities and precludes consideration by the public of the aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities, all of which are of particular importance when the proposed location of facilities is within a residential zone.
SB 649’s use of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) definition of a “small cell” include other “small cell” equipment such as electric meters, concealment, telecom demarcation boxes, ground-based enclosures, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cables, or conduits. The proposal allows for an unlimited number of antennas of less than three cubic feet each or six cubic feet for all antennas, while placing no height restrictions on the pole. While proponents argue that an individual “small cell” has very little impact, the cumulative size specifications of all the small cells and associated equipment far exceed the perceived impacts from a single cell.
The proposal also unconstitutionally preempts local authority by requiring local governments to make available sites they own for the installation of a “small cell.” While the city may place “fair and reasonable terms and conditions” on the use of city property, the proposal does not provide the city with any discretion to deny a “small cell” to be located on city property except for fire department sites. In effect, this measure unconstitutionally gives control of public property to private telecommunications companies, while also precluding local governments from leasing or licensing publicly owned property.
This bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life of our residents, and to protect public property and the public right-of-way from relatively unconstrained access by small cells.
PLEASE CITE SPECIFIC CONCERNS (i.e. ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY, ISSUES WITH TELECOMMS) YOUR CITY HAS WITH THIS BILL HERE.
Local governments typically encourage new technology into their boundaries because of its potential to dramatically improve the quality of life for their residents. However, SB 649 goes too far by requiring local governments to approve “small cells” in all land use zones, including residential zones, through a ministerial permit, thereby shutting the public out of decisions that could affect the aesthetics of their community and the quality of their environment.
For these reasons, [name of your group or I] opposes your SB 649.
SELECTED STUDIES, DOCUMENTS, AND WEBSITES ON CELL TOWERS AND HEALTH: There are many studies you will find under the tab Actions/Links to Resources on the home page that may also be useful. Below are just a few selected studies specific to the effects of cell towers on health.
STUDIES, DOCUMENTS, AND WEBSITES ON CELL TOWERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT There are many studies you will find under the tab Actions/Links to Resources on the home page that may also be useful. Below are just a few studies that are specific to the effects of cell towers on the environment.
HISTORY OF CELL TOWERS EXCEEDING FCC LIMITS
To see how one community has successfully organized to stop 5G infrastructure please check out this video. (Things get quite animated after about 30 minutes in.)