×

5G Calls For Big-Time ‘Due Diligence’

It is heartening to see the Jamestown Planning Commission has not yet approved an ordinance on 5G infrastructure, and is determined to make an effort to “protect the public health, safety and welfare.”

Commission Chairman Greg Rabb laments that there is “no statewide legislation to guide local municipalities” on the implementation of 5G. One reason that NY State would leave 5G decisions up to “home rule” is that only larger jurisdictions have the resources to seriously study 5G. Case in point: on Nov. 1, 2020, the State of New Hampshire issued its report after a year-long study: “Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology”. The study notes that the FCC Act of 1996 says that the siting of any antenna “cannot be denied due to health effects” but the Act did not contemplate 5G towers on the public right of way and near people’s homes. The FCC refused to testify before New Hampshire’s inquiry, confirming the State’s view that the FCC is a “captured agency” whose commission members come from the industry they purportedly oversee.

Here are some questions the Legislature asked: 1) Why does the insurance industry recognize wireless radiation as a leading risk and has placed exclusions in their policies not covering damages by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation? 2) Why do cell phone manufacturers have in the legal section within the device saying keep the phone at least 5mm from the body? 3) Why have 1000s of peer-reviewed studies, including the recently published U.S Toxicology Program 16-year $30 million study, that are showing a wide range of statistically significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and so many other ailments, been ignored by the FCC? Why are the FCC-sanctioned guidelines for public exposure to wireless radiation based only on the thermal effect on the temperature of the skin and do not account for the non-thermal, non-ionizing, biological effects of wireless radiation? 5) Why are the FCC radio frequency exposure limits set for the United States 100 times higher than countries like Russia, China, Italy, Switzerland, and most of Eastern Europe 6) Why did the World Health Organization signify that wireless radiation is a Group B Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans category, a group that includes lead, thalidomide, and others, and why are some experts who sat on the WHO committee in 2011 now calling for it to be placed in the Group 1, which are known carcinogens, and why is such information being ignored by the FCC? 7) Why have more than 220 of the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to the WHO and the United Nations to protect public health from wireless radiation and nothing has been done? 8) Why have the cumulative biological damaging effects of ever-growing numbers of pulse signals…not been explored, especially as the world embraces the Internet of Things, meaning all devices being connected by electromagnetic waves?”

The commission’s answers to the Legislators is on line. 5G in New Hampshire is on hold. Their 13-month long is worth looking at by interested parties.

Roy Harvey is a Mayville resident.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

COMMENTS

Starting at $4.60/week.

Subscribe Today