While Densified 4G/5G deployment continues across the U.S., a growing coalition of groups and leaders are putting the brakes on the densified 4G/5G infrastructure rollout, because it is unnecessary for wireless telecommunications service, which has largely been achieved in the United States — for about 98% of the US population:
Roger Entner at Mar 2, 2017 Senate Hearing on Wireless Technology and Spectrum Policy
"My name is Roger Entner and I am the founder or Recon Analytics, a Telecom research consulting firm with a focus on wireless. Today, I am here to discuss research into the effect that the US Mobile Wireless industry has on the U.S. economy . . .
97.9 percent of Americans can choose from three network base operators and 93.4 percent can choose from four operators plus more than a dozen virtual operators — the mobile industry’s equivalent of over the top competitors."
It is exceedingly unlikely that the US Congress in 1996 intended for the US population to sicken and die in order to allow the Wireless Industry to maximize its profits. The legislative intent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA) was to establish a nationwide wireless network for making wireless phone calls. In 2020, the US can declare Mission Accomplished.
Therefore, there is no longer any basis for preemption of local authority over the placement, construction and modification of any additional personal wireless service facilities — in any areas already adequately served for making outdoor, wireless phone calls (which requires just -115 to -85 dBm or 0.000002 to 0.002 µW/m² for up to "5-bars" of telecommuncation service).
Retrieved from Flickr user Kim Seng on November 13, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic and Densified 4G/5G technology found themselves unlikely bedfellows earlier this year, as more than 70 cell phone towers in the United Kingdom and Europe were burned by those who blamed network rollout for the spread of infection.
The arson attacks brought a rebuke from Mobile UK, the trade association that represents UK Telecom providers. In a statement, the group called the attacks "senseless," and said that links between COVID-19 and 5G are "false and have been continuously rebuffed by [some] scientists."
But not all scientists agree. Read this paper. Study of the correlation between cases of coronavirus and the presence of 5G networks by Bartomeu Payeras i Cifre.
A study demonstrating a relationship between “SARS CoVi-2” outbreaks and the presence of 5G networks has emerged from Spain and is by Bartomeu Payeras i Cifre. Bartomeu is a biologist specializing in microbiology and is working at the University of Barcelona. His original source study can be sourced here, and is has been translated into English by Claire Edwards (on State of the Nation).
Translated — Results and Discussion
"To know whether or not the result obtained is that of a random phenomenon, a statistical analysis of the results of an experiment must be carried to calculate the probability of the event occurring. The probability calculation is obtained by dividing the number of favorable cases by the number of possible cases. If the result shows that it is not a random phenomenon, it shows sufficient causal reason to analyze the causes.
To eliminate any upward errors we will always opt for the most conservative numerical option.
Let us therefore calculate the probability of three of the examples analyzed above.
(a) Probability that the 9 most contagious countries on the planet are countries with 5G networks. There are 194 countries on the planet. As of 6 March 2020, according to GSMA, there are 24 countries with 5G technology.
Pr = 24/194 x 23/193 x 22/192 (nine times in total) = 0.1237 x 0.1191 x 0.1145 x 0.1099 x 0.1052 x 0.1005 x 0.0957 x 0.0909 x 0.0860 = = 1.47 x 10 (high -9 ).
The probability is 1 in 680,000,000.
If we include Japan, which also has 5G and rates of infection similar to those of South Korea …the probability is 1 in 8,500,000,000.
(b) Probability that the 5 most contagious countries in Europe have 5G networks.
There are 49 countries in Europe, among which it is currently difficult to know if they currently deploy 5G, as there are 5 that have declared a moratorium, and many others do not have operational networks although companies publish as if they were already operational when they have signed agreements. We will calculate it downwards, as a conservative option, we will assume that about 15 countries have operational 5G systems.
Pr = 15/49 x 14/48 x 13/47 x 12/46 x 11/45 = 0.00157.
The probability is 1 in 637.
(c) The case of San Marino is highly significant. It is located within the Italian territory, with a similar culture, economy, and social level, but presents much higher rates of infection. The only difference is the time of exposure of its citizens to 5G radiation, because it was the first state in the world to implement such technology on 4 September 2018, while in Italy it was 5 June 2019. This opens the door to debate about the likely influence of 5G on the increase in the rates of infection.
Pr = 1/194 x 1/194.
The probability is 1 in 37,636.
These figures are eloquent enough to make calculating the other cases unnecessary.
The results for the city of Barcelona (pp. 7-8) indicate that sociological factors do not have a significant influence on the rates of infection, but if we see a clear relationship with the 5G coverage map, which added to the 4G coverage, gives us a correlation between mobile coverage and the proportion of cases of SARS CoVi-2. If more data were available, this study should be extended to other cities.
Mobile UK spokesperson Gareth Elliott said in an email that there have been 130 arson attacks and over 200 instances of "abuse to staff." as a direct result of abuse to the public. Elliott did not have a cost estimate for the tower repairs. The attacks were the result of reports on social media and other internet outlets that linked the technology with the global health crisis.
It has been scientifically established that exposure to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) suppresses the immune systems of people living within 1,500 feet of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). More evidence here and here.
And while the United States has not seen any reported copycat attacks of tower arsons, the Department of Homeland Security and NATE — The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association — have both warned of such activity, particularly during the 5G Global Protest Day on June 6 this year, which was, by all accounts a peaceful protest of well-informed participants.
Some local U.S. leaders have passed resolutions urging sufficient regulations of densified 4G/5G so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in order to protect communities and their local values including the quiet enjoyment of streets.
In New Hampshire, a state commission released a report urging more restriction on the densified 4G/5G infrastructure roll out until the impacts on the communities are better understood and more protective local laws can be passed. Meanwhile, the public reaction to densified 4G/5G, particularly in residential zones has been demonstrably negative, since such infrastructure is not even consistent with the original intent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act:
A. The stated purpose of the 1996-Act us "to promote the safety of life and property".
U.S. Code Title 47 § 151 Purposes of Federal Communications Commission.
- For the purpose of regulating
- interstate commerce and
- foreign commerce
. . . in communication by wire and radio
. . . so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges,
- for the purpose of the national defense,
- for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property
. . . through the use of wire and radio communications.
U.S. Code Title 47 § 332 Mobile services.
(a) Factors which Commission must consider
(1) promote the safety of life and property;
B. The Legislative Intent of the 1996-Act is stated in the 1996 TCA-Conference Report
"The conferees also intend that the phrase ‘‘unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services’’ will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services. For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district ."
As Wireless Cos. push more 4G/5G sWTFs into cities, they are facing greater and greater resistance from the well-informed members of the public who do not want Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any "G" any closer than 2,500 from their homes and schools.
Dan Hays, principal at Price, Waterhouse, Coopers (PWC), said:
"There is generally distrust in companies in the mobile industry. I think that’s where government becomes particularly important in educating, especially when it comes to health effects . . . we’re also in an era where there’s growing distrust of governments around health information."
Scientifically-Established Health Hazards Spark Public Opposition
The downsides of the densified 4G/5G roll out appears to stem from knowledge of tens of thousands of scientific studies — studies not funded by the Wireless industry — that establish immediate, medium-term and long-term negative health consequences from 24/7 RF-EMR exposures at levels that currently reach 25 million times higher in homes than needed for 5-bars telecommunications service (which is -85 dBm or 0.002 µW/m²).
The main criticism of the technology focuses on the effects of exposure to pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) from the 4G/5G infrastructure antennas, which has been linked to various maladies such as immediate neurological harms, sleep disturbances, immune suppression and, eventually, significantly higher incidence of brain and heart cancer and most importantly, DNA damage. RF-EMR exposures has also been linked to various environmental effects: fatal to trees, birds, insects and many pollinators.
An oft-cited 2018 study by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences within the National Institutes of Health, found "clear evidence" that RF-EMR at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz cause a higher incidence of cancer in experimental rodents. This study was replicated in 2019 by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy.
Yet, in an obviously conflicted statement by Jeffrey Shuren, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health, he said the findings "should not be applied to human cell phone usage," despite that virtually all FDA drug studies have used animal studies to secure FDA-approval of drug therapies for decades. Shuren’s statement is simply nonsense.
Several groups have amplified those health hazards, including the Environmental Health Trust (EHT), which has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) challenging its RF standards and rule-making process. Theodora Scarato, EHT’s executive director, criticized Shuren’s conclusion.
With the unnecessary increase of wireless infrastructure proposed to extend 4G/5G coverage, Scarato said RF-EMR harms could grow exponentially. The Wireless industry, IEEE, ANSI, the NCRP and ICNIRP are stuck in the 1980’s when they insist on only looking at the heating of tissue when assessing adverse biological effects of RF-EMR. This is clearly wrong and inadequate. A large variety of biological damage occurs well before there is a measurable core temperature increase in animal tissue.
We all have to face that "Compliance with the FCC RF-EMR MPE Guideline does not equal public safety."
- https://mystreetmychoice.com/thisworks/#/24 et seq. (29)
"We’re going to have more wireless antennas, we’re going to have more wireless things in the internet of things (IoT). There’s going to be a dangerous elevation in the overall ambient level of RF-EMR."
Americans for Responsible Technology (ART) has raised similar evidence. Its founder and director Doug Wood said it is possible exposure to RF-EMR will be high as infrastructure to support Densified 4G/5G is quickly developed under an FCC order that attempts to streamline that process.
"Although we can’t draw a straight line yet between a particular exposure and a health outcome, we have plenty of science that shows wireless radiation, at levels many orders of magnitude below the FCC RF-EMR Maximum Public Exposure guidelines is capable of causing biological damage."
FCC spokesperson Will Wiquist said in an email:
"5G is just as safe as prior generations of wireless technology. The Commission reiterated that existing RF standards fully protect the public’s health. The reality is that 5G is operating on largely the same frequency bands that cellular networks have operated on for many years, or frequency bands that have been used in historically for other technology."
Note that Mr. Wilquist did NOT say that prior generations of wireless service are safe.
Dan Hays Principal, Price, Waterhouse Cooper, noted that the health hazards associated with Densified 4G/5G are no different from other generations of wireless technology, as one builds on another rather than replaces it outright.
"The reality is that 5G is operating on largely the same frequency bands that cellular networks have operated on for many years, or frequency bands that have been used in historically for other technology,"
What medical or scientific research expertise does Mr. Hays have? None.
Hays, therefore, has no expertise allowing him to make any statements that operating these wireless antennas at current power levels, modulation and pulsation — via new Multiple Input Multiple Output, Beam-forming antenna arrays that attempt to "steer" the main beam of radiation — can imply safety.
At the local and state level, evidence of health hazards and distrust of the unnecessary Densified 4G/5G roll out have prompted some elected officials to act to halt the deployment of Densified 4G/5G sWTfs until more research and due diligence can be completed.
Easton, CT is one municipality that passed such a resolution in May. Effective until Dec. 31, 2020, the resolution calls for telecom companies and utilities to stop build-out "until such technologies have been proven safe to human health and the environment through independent research and testing."
During the Easton Board of Selectmen meeting in which the resolution was unanimously approved, Selectman Robert Lessler said the pause would give local officials a chance to "put the brakes on" and "do some more due diligence" on the 4G/5G infrastructure roll out.
Though the resolution is set to expire at year’s end, its expiration means the issue will be revisited, First Selectman David Bindelglass said. Bindelglass did not respond to requests for comment on the future status of the resolution.
Selectman David Bindelglass said at the time:
"I, personally, have some questions about the validity of the argument that 5G is unsafe. Having said that, I do have to admit that there are people who are both influential and intelligent who have more evidence than I have, and I respect that. I don’t think we lose anything by doing this. Let me say this: There has been no study to date that shows the 5G RF-EMR is safe."
The Hawaii County Council passed an identical resolution in July, taking what Council member Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder described as a "precautionary approach."
Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Hawaii County Council member said, according to a transcript of the meeting:
"Let me say this: There has been no study to date that shows the technology is safe,"
That resolution was supported by ART through its 5G Crisis project. Wood said those efforts are a bid to shape public opinion.
"In my opinion, we’re not going to win in Washington, we’re not going to get congressional hearings, we’re not going to get Congress to do much, we’re not going to get the FCC to do much. [The] purpose of the resolution is to make it clear not everybody thinks this densified 4G/5G thing is a great idea."
One state has tried to take action on those scientifically-established health hazards. New Hampshire established its Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology last year, and the commission issued a report last month saying "there is much research showing . . . health harms," and "much more research is required."
The commission made a series of recommendations, including for more public education on the risks of RF-EMR and a review of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which it said has inadequate RF-EMR exposure standards.
Kent Chamberlin, chair of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of New Hampshire and a member of the commission, said no members want "to stop 5G, or to get rid of 5G," but instead want to better understand the best way to locally regulate the roll out.
"A comparison I like to make is the cars we drive. We lose a substantial number of people on the highway in our cars, and a lot of other people are injured in driving. Yet we consider that to be a price worth paying for the benefits we receive from being able to drive cars. In the commission we had a similar feeling. Yes, there are some downsides, some established adverse health effects."
A minority on the commission also disagreed with the report’s recommendations. It wrote that the "consensus of the U.S. and international scientific community is that there are no known adverse health risks from the levels of RF energy emitted at the frequencies used by wireless devices (including cellphones) and facilities (including small cells)."
Of course, this statement by the minority report is provably false.
The CTIA, the trade association that represents U.S. telecom companies, has sent letters to local governments that pass a non-binding resolution opposing 5G rollout on health grounds. The association notes in its letters that resolutions conflict with federal law as the FCC has said that moratoria on infrastructure deployment are "clearly unlawful."
Of course, this preceding statement by CTIA is also provably false.
FCC Order 18-111: ¶ 157.
"in the case of a natural disaster or other comparable emergency* an express or de facto moratoria that violates section 253(a) may nonetheless be “necessary” to “protect the public safety and welfare”. . . emergency moratoria are legally permissible under 47 USC § 253."
* COVID-19 is such an emergency.
The CTIA also said health hazards of RF-EMR, which are used to justify the resolutions, are "based on inaccurate scientific claims," and "the weight of scientific evidence shows no known adverse health effects to humans from exposure to wireless antennas or devices."
Of course, this statement by CTIA is, once again, provably false.
What the Federal Govt. Tells Cities via the 1996-TCA:
47 U.S. Code § 324 – “In all circumstances . . . all [licensed] radio . . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.”
Scarato and Wood both say that Telecom companies have emphasized the arson attacks in a bid to discredit the science-based concerns around densified 4G/5G.
Industry representatives did not directly respond to the allegations but urged calmer heads to prevail.
Burned telecoms equipment in Annecy-le-Vieux, France
Retrieved from Flickr user Guilhem Vellut on November 13, 2020
Public unease around these unnecessary 4G/5G infrastructure antennas persists, according to a recent Deloitte study. The survey, carried out in May to assess the digital attitudes of 4,150 respondents between the ages of 16 and 75, found 43% of UK consumers are "confident" that RF-EMR from 4G/5G infrastructure antennas does not pose health hazards, while 14% believe there are health hazards associated with RF-EMR from 4G/5G infrastructure antennas. This poll is just a statement of the level of education among the public, not a statement of the existence of non-existence of health hazards.
Lack of Confidence in the Official Narrative re: densified 4G/5G
If there is to be more public confidence in the need for densified 4G/5G roll out, Lee said governments may need to look to public information campaigns and other outreach to "convince" the public that the additional convenience of more RF-EMR is worth enduring the scientifically-established health hazards.
The BBC formerly hosted a television program called "Tomorrow’s World," which looked to explain futuristic technologies and new innovations. With mass market appeal, something similar could be a good vehicle for public education, Lee said, noting there could also be a way to craft 30-second educational commercials. Can you say propaganda?
Robert Lessler, Selectman, Easton, CT
"I think that consumers can absolutely go out and look for authoritative sources on how to better understand the [effects of RF-EMR from densified 4G/5G], and the associated risks and benefits,"
"[Quite] frankly, the recent launches of more mainstream 5G mobile devices is almost going to force the question of how well the public accepts densified 4G/5G. We expect that it won’t happen overnight, but over the next year or two, the public knowledge of densified 4G/5G should really start to rise."
Elected officials, of course, are elected to represent their constituents and to provide actual public safety, despite FCC guideline or any Wireless industry profit motives.