Beware of Some Groups that Purport to Oppose “5G”

It is good that many more people in the US are learning about the safety, privacy and property value hazards from excessive levels of pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures that Wireless Infrastructure Antennas force into residential neighborhoods. This infrastructure includes the many tall Macro Towers transmitting 2G/3G/4G frequencies/wavelengths and the incessantly overhyped Grid of Densified Wireless so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) — in the public rights-of-way — transmitting 4G + 5G frequencies/wavelengths..

If there is one true statement in this whole discussion, it is the following:

No One — and I Mean No One — Wants a Cell Tower of Any “G” Installed 10 to 100 feet from their Home.

. . . so this entire ill-advised push is an unreasonable, unjustified and unnecessary “taking” of property from a community’s residents (a taking of their property value, their rights to privacy, safety and to the quiet enjoyment of their streets, public spaces, private property and homes — for 24/7 surveillance, crowd-control and the illicit enrichment of the multi-billion-dollar private Wireless companies that are implementing this disastrous grid so it can be used by the US Federal Government — the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, Homeland Security and the CDC — to spy on each of us . . . contact tracing, anyone?

So, when it comes time to state your case to your elected officials (County Boards of Supervisors and City Council members) to defend your home and your rights, you have exactly one chance to make a good first impression.

Beware of Sophomoric Advice Being Peddled By Many Well-Meaning, but Less-Informed “No 5G” Advocacy Groups Out There . . .

. . . because these groups often unwittingly walk people down a path of easy and early dismissal by the very local government officials that community residents need to influence in order to save their homes and rights. How? By not understanding the primacy of your local politics and unwittingly repeating many of the marketing phrases coined by the Wireless industry that are designed to trip you up and get you to say some false and disadvantageous things in the public record.

What you say and what you submit to the public record as evidence is what matters, folks. That is how you get the leverage that can effect lasting, permanent change in your community. Don’t waste your time, spinning your wheels . . . you have to come down the learning curve quickly. You must be very careful to do this right — the first time.

There is no one-size-fits all approach. The correct course of action can only be defined by analyzing your local situation by a local team, assisted by some RF-EMR Policy Consultants who have intently studied the tricks of the Wireless Industry, have read the documents and have deep experience successfully lobbying at the federal, state and local levels — in multiple communities. A few qualifying questions to ask include the following:

  • How long have you been doing this work?
  • How many Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) have you stopped from being constructed?
  • Which Local Wireless Ordinances have you influenced and where can I read them?
  • Which State and Federal bills have you successfully lobbied for and against?

Since you will be living with the consequences of your community’s lobbying efforts for decades to come, the actual results that your RF-EMR Policy Consultants have already achieved should matter to you.

There is no advantage to digging yourself into a hole and then having to climb out of it in subsequent weeks. I know one person who really gets this. If you are fortunate enough to be coached by her, then your community has a fighting chance. I depend on her every week for my efforts and we are chalking up some victories.

Now, what makes many of us cringe from the inside-out are the well-meaning, but fatally-flawed efforts/campaigns launched by the Ready, Fire! . . . Aim Crowd — people who may have large followings, but who do not yet understand the nuanced way in which you have to proceed in order to win.

Let’s face it, folks: winning is what matters. Preserving local control over the installation of broadband is much more important than any feel-good, hand-holding or social support needs you might have. The big problems I see in communities that don’t win is that they spend way too much time talking to themselves and not enough time talking to the decision-makers who matter. In short, the communities that value empathy among the members much more highly than accountability in getting the myriad of necessary marketing/lobbying tasks done — generally do not win.

IMHO, you have to treat your advocacy efforts as a start up business that needs both labor and financial support. Anyone who joins your group must give either significant time or money. If they do neither, then they are dead-weight and are hurting your chances of winning. People need to treat this work seriously.

Everyone should be invited to help no matter what their race, gender, age, economic circumstances or their background (except identified trolls from government or the Wireless Industry; these may be hard to spot, but be careful of false accusations).

Groups that select members that only look and behave like themselves sentence themselves to operating in a “filter bubble”, perhaps emotionally supporting each other, but not chalking up many wins. Those groups that steadily complete the work (it’s a lot of work) often win; those that don’t do the work, mostly don’t win. It’s that simple. There are no guarantees.

Some tell-tale signs of less-effective “No 5G” groups

  1. Beware of so-called “5G experts/leaders” who are primarily focused on hosting conferences, writing books or simply funding their 501(c)(3) for more education — their economic or reputational interests often benefit more from prolonging the conversation than working for permanent solutions.
  2. Beware of so-called “5G experts/leaders” who misunderstand the real problem. We must stop the construction of the Close Proximity of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of Any G in residential areas, so focusing a group’s marketing efforts only on “Stopping 5G” is missing the point. Real solutions define some places where WTFs can be constructed, otherwise, the group may be inviting law suits by the Wireless Industry for prohibition of service, unnecessarily. In matters of lobbying, willing to be pragmatic beats being purely theoretical every day; compromises must be found in order to achieve permanent wins for your community.
  3. Beware of 5G groups that operate as exclusive clubs — those that say “only ‘some’ are welcome on our calls, i.e. only those that share our values” — are also missing the point. Successful groups realize that they have to link hands with as many local groups as possible to appear as large as possible to your local officials. This means that linking to your local Rotary Club is much more important than linking with another “No 5G” group in another town, state or country. It make no difference if you are part of a larger movement across the country or the world . . . your success will come from seeing this effort as hyper-local. GET BIG QUICKLY by finding as many local community groups as possible that want to preserve local control, the quiet enjoyment of streets and property values. Work with them and show up — linking arms with many local groups — whenever you appear in your County Board Hearings and City Council Meetings.
  4. Beware of 5G Groups that offer content behind a paywall — you have no idea of what ideas/prepared documents might work in your community. You should be able to read and apply this content to your solutions freely — and then donate as you are able and only if you found the content helpful in achieving a real solution.
  5. Beware of so-called “5G leaders” that choose to not return phone calls or emails for days or weeks at a time — if such so-called leaders can’t manage their own communications responsibly, imagine what they are (or are not) doing for your community.

Some GOOD things to do:

  • Your group’s success starts with disciplined, effective Public Testimonytransform it into evidence — not whining and complaining. Use precise language instead of just speaking from your heart. You want to win, not just get something off of your chest.
  • Lobbying is a marketing effort; it makes little sense to debate among yourselves for weeks about which strategies to deploy. Your reading of local politics will determine your choices. Pick one or two strategies that look good to you and GO! NOW! The feedback you receive from your county/city staffs and elected officials to whom you are pitching solutions will help shape your next choices. There are no “right answers” tailor-made for your community. It is as clear as mud out there. The tanks (sWTFs installed in the public rights-of-way) are rolling forward into your neighborhoods. Your goal is to turn those tanks into squirt guns.
  • This is more like waging a war than participating in a bowling league or a sewing club. You need a few generals and a lot of soldiers willing to do the grunt work. Communities that lose are often smart, accomplished people who feel that the grunt work is beneath them. Roll up your sleeves, defend your homes and go door-to-door, in order to recruit, recruit, recruit. You need teams larger than 5-6 people to spread the workload. Successful teams are 30 to 60 active participants. Don’t be discouraged that most that you recruit are initially unaware of the dangers of Densified 4G/5G Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) in front of homes. Tell them about V • H • P and ask them to attend your next Zoom or in-person planning meeting.
  • Agree to disagree. No one needs to win academic debates amongst yourselves. Be willing to work next to people who don’t share your political positions or with whom you wouldn’t choose to socialize. It is your common purpose that binds you — because you simply want to win. You want to point as many people as possible in the same direction. You never know what someone might contribute or who someone else might know. The more people, ideas and connections, the better. In short, choosing to exclude people is dumb.

Here is what NOT to do . . .

The following actually happened over the last four weeks. I have redacted all names and even many of the responses from the other “No 5G” group members. I am mainly quoting my side of the discourse. To set the stage, this week, we released two strong efforts that could help other communities, so I thought it would be helpful to explain this to a weekly call hosted by one “No 5G” Group, with which I have shared information in the past.

The efforts we intended to share are these:

The “No 5G” Group decided to exclude our participation in their “private” call . . . for reasons that I can only fathom are tied to the personal needs of the so-called “5G experts/leaders” who may be valuing their personal agendas over the benefits of sharing timely information that could help communities to win.

I think this may be an eye-opening and instructive exchange for you all, which is why I am sharing it here . . .

>>> On Apr 24, 2020 @ 10:06 pm, person-1 wrote to S4WT:

Our national freeconference call is available if you would like to hear it but again, this information NEEDS to be confidential.


>>> On Apr 25, 2020 @ 10:21 am S4WT wrote to person-1:

How can I access a recording of the Apr 23, 2020 call?


Note: no link to the call recording was sent by person-1.


>>> On Apr 26, 2020, person-1 wrote to S4WT:

Any update on this?

>>> On Thursday, February 6, 2020 person-1 wrote to S4WT :

Got your voicemail. Will do it tonight, to the group.

I do have a favor, could you let the cities you know to join [our group]? The bigger and stronger our coallition, the more of a voice/influence we will have with congressmen in our local districts.


>>> On Apr 29, 2020 @ 4:13 pm S4WT wrote to person-1:

That depends on the quality of the work you are producing and the advice you are dispensing.


>>> On Apr 29, 2020 @ 4:13 pm S4WT wrote to person-1:

Hi, [person-1].

I got your voicemail message and then left you voicemail messages on both of your numbers. Will you please call me this afternoon at ___________?

What did you learn and incorporate from

Last we spoke, you were going to read and learn from these pages and call me so we could discuss. I have been waiting to have a substantive call with you about this.

I hear a lot more about your efforts from others than from you directly.

Thank you.


>>> On Apr 29, 2020 @ 4:48 pm S4WT wrote to person-1:

So, call anyway and honor your promises. Things can get better, if you do so.


>>> On Apr 29, 2020 @ 5:00 pm S4WT wrote to person-1:

You did not follow through. That is frustrating. You set the expectations, so you have some responsibility here.

It is far preferable for us to work together, as we discussed last time. Our agreed-to step one was that you were going to listen to the radio clips at https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/#radio . . . and then call me back.

You remember that, right?

I have read through your packet. A funder of yours asked me to do so.

I think you should simply call me back to discuss this.


>>> On Apr 29, 2020 @ 5:54 pm S4WT wrote to person-1:

I am not sending you any updates by email until we talk.


>>>> On Apr 29, 2020 @ 6:14 pm S4WT wrote to person-1:

Hi, ______

I care deeply about the cause. That is evidenced by my long work on this issue.

Your packet needs a lot of work. You, of course, would have to be more open-minded then you are currently demonstrating, to go through a process that would truly help improve the packet and the cause.

I haven no interest in "grilling you over the coals". I have every interest in you dispensing the strongest advice possible so other cities can achieve close to what we were able to achieve in __________. Our city is not allowing so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in residential areas. We achieved something that many other residents would love to have. Such an outcome is achievable.

So, if you want to help the greatest number of people, I suggest that you take a deep breath, check your ego at the door and start a real conversation. That starts with preparation and a substantive call. I have been waiting.

I have talked to both _______ and _______ about your unwillingness to engage. Not engaging is not the best answer for anyone, [person-1].

Please call me at ________ and let’s work through this.

It never pays to hold grudges. That is what I see you are doing.


>>> On Apr 29, 2020 @ 7:18 pm S4WT wrote to person-1:

Hi, [person-1].

We are all busy, [person-1]. This is not about you. This is about all the people all over the US getting creamed by following not the strongest strategies and tactics.

I AM willing to HELP you. You have to meet me half-way, though. I have asked very directly and politely.

Engaging only by email is very inefficient and will not work for me.

You and I agreed that you would review the material here — https://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5g/#radio and then you would call me so we could exchange ideas. You agreed to do so and then did not follow through.

One of your funders asked me to look at your packet. Why do you think he did that? If you do not have the time/willingness to improve the packet, then that is a red flag to me.

Please stay focused on the main goal: preventing the construction of the densified 4G + 5G grid to the greatest extent possible.

That is what is truly the most important thing. How you feel on any particular day or how I feel on any particular day is minuscule in comparison to that.

So . . . what will you do, now? ACCEPT the help that I am offering or continue to dictate the terms and not get the help?

I have told you what is acceptable to me. My requests are reasonable.

I am pointing out to you that you made a commitment and then blew it off. Sure, we all have good reasons for things, but the outcome is the same.

I am still offering to help. I am willing to channel some of my energy into improving the packet, but only if you are willing. I am not fighting you, [person-1].

I am not going to waste my time typing a bunch of stuff that you just ignore in the end. I am trying to get through to you. You are reaching out to help many others. You could do that with the strongest strategies and tactics — or not. Those are your decisions. I will make my calls based on your decisions.

My energy is already channeled towards HELPING others.

Will you please pick up the phone and call when you are ready?


Note: I have received no return calls from person-1 in over four weeks.


>>> On Apr 30, 2020 @ 8:20 pm S4WT wrote to person-2:

I received no link for the weekly conference call.


>>> On May 3, 2020 @ 12:55 pm S4WT wrote to person-2:

[person-1’s] document is not ready for primetime. I am not sure person-1 has the expertise to make that call. Did you pass on the revised table of contents that I shared with you onto [person-1]?


Note: I received no answer to that question from person-2.


>>> On May 20, 2020 @ 12:55 pm S4WT wrote to person-1, person-2, and person-3:

Two weeks, two victories . . . and just today . . .

  1. We are getting a follow up meeting with San Francisco.

  2. We turned around Ada county Highway District (Idaho) today — the county includes 400,000 people, including Boise.

The ADHC Commissioners did not vote through the crappy wireless ordinance with "small" cells 20 feet from homes and they sided with the public!

If you guys want to hear the details on the weekly call, you will have to send us the link/access credentials to the call . . .

The question we all need to ask ourselves is what are the most important priorities?


>>> On May 21, 2020 @ 7:43 am , S4WT wrote to person-2

Hi, [person-2].

I understand the truth,[person-2], and I write clearly about it. I take actions and real risks daily to uphold the truth. I fight for what is right.

So, you are willing to continue to practice unjust discrimination, along with [person-1]? New days don’t deserve new beginnings? You ascribe to the camp of keeping scores and proudly??? take actions to exclude people.

In the past I have always been able to get the call link from [person-3]. This is what [person-3] said last week (of course you know this, because you have this response); this doesn’t sound like I was uninvited to me . . . unless [person-3] is lying.

>>> S4WT wrote to person-3 on 5/14/2020 @ 7:11 PM:
HI, [person-3].

Do you have the link to the call tonight? I have some news of our one-hour Go-To-Meeting call with the CIO of SF and her staffer.

We are making progress in powering down small cells in San Francisco.. Others could learn from our progress.

The call starts at 7:30 pm, right?

>>> person-3 wrote to S4WT on 5/14/2020 7:23 PM:

I’m trying to get on the call too, but it’s a new number through a new company and I can’t get in. person-1 says to go to the website to call in and it’s not there. I emailed her but she’s not responding since she’s hosting. I’m sorry and it’s good news about San Francisco. That’s important to share with others and maybe next week you can talk about it if person-1 agrees. I’ll talk to her about it and get back to you. Have a restful night!


Note: person-3 never got back to me, as she promised.


>>> S4WT wrote to person-3 on 5/14/2020 7:31 PM:

[person-3] . . . really?

>>> person-3 wrote to S4WT on 5/14/2020 @ 7:39 PM:
It’s not a call in, it’s done on an app that you have to download. I don’t have the app. Can you contact [person-4]? She has a hard wired computer and is having the same problem as I am with a phone. I’m sorry I can’t help more.

So, it is clear to me from your actions that you conspired to exclude me last week — the question is will you continue to act this way? What could you do differently?

You might recognize that exclusion is not a value that anyone should promote in the 4G/5G freedom movement and that others’ learning from successes is more important than perpetuating ill-informed, unjust personal gripes that lead to exclusion.

I have done nothing to deserve exclusion. What are my sins? I spoke openly and honestly about my assessments of specific strategies and what I thought would be most successful. I have not spoken out publicly against [person-1], . I told you that she has produced some documents that are not as strong as they could be. I shared my private thoughts that she has made some less-than-optimal choices in branding and how she has treated others in the 4G/5G freedom movement.

You made your choice last week, [person-2]. What choices do you want to make this week?

You label my asking you to make such choices as unfair. I have to disagree. These choices are the stuff of life; where the rubber meets the road. Choices that show whether you rise up to the task or shrink from it.

Once again, spin doesn’t matter. The actions are what count.

What will you do this week? Fix things or continue with the unjust, discriminatory status quo?

What do you actually stand for, [person-2]?


>>> On May 21, 2020 @ 8:48 am person-1, wrote to S4WT

Congratulations! Your hard work has finally paid off.


>>> On May 21, 2020 @ 10:18 am , S4WT wrote to person-1, person-2 and person-3

Not finally, [person-1]. We have been getting victories since Aug 2018.

So, [person-1] will you invite/send me the credentials to the call this evening?


>>> On May 21, 2020 @ 10:20 am , S4WT wrote to person-3

So, [person-3] will you invite/send me the credentials to the call this evening??


>>> S4WT wrote to person-3 on May 21,2020 @ 11:03 AM::

Hi, [person-3].

Is there no call tonight?

[person-3], how is that a so-called leader of a volunteer organization should be allowed to act in such a discriminatory manner? Why do you tolerate/sanction this? What do you stand for?

This is a real issue that needs be addressed and corrected.

Civil, polite discrimination is still discrimination, plain and simple. Discrimination is wrong. I will speak out against discrimination until it ends.

Now, how does one curb one’s fears and inability to accurately predict the future in order to allow all to participate?

  • Are you/[person-1]/others part of running an exclusive club?

  • Are you/[person-1]/others allowing hearsay to sanction discrimination?

  • Are you/[person-1]/others championing local rule and democracy in our local city councils, but then turn around and thumb your nose at those you don’t like or who are not like you?

Please, instead, welcome all. Democracy is messy.

Is any of this good? I can confidently say no and ask you to stop discriminating immediately.

The sooner you all stop voluntary discrimination, the better.

I have asked to be invited to the call tonight. [person-1] will not send me the access credentials. You will not send me the access credentials. [person-2] will not send me the access credentials. ____________, [person-1]’s funder, asked her to give me the access credentials and for [person-1] to call me.

No word from [person-1], yet . . .

This is discrimination, plain and simple. I am simply saying that what you/[person-1]/others are doing is wrong.

These are your choices. Spin doesn’t matter. Actions matter.

When will I hear from [person-1]? What will you all do?


>>> [person-3] wrote to S4WT on 5/21/2020 10:57 AM:

Hello,

Unfortunately, it’s not up to me, but up to [person-1]. I’d invite if I could. She’s leaving to go out of town tomorrow and I don’t know when she’s returning. I’m sorry I can’t help you more. I’d be working against her and not with her if I went against her direction.


>>> S4WT wrote to person-1 and person-2 on 5/21/2020 12:51 PM:

I have asked to be invited to the call tonight.

[person-1] will not send me the access credentials. [person-2] will not send me the access credentials. [person-3] will not send me the access credentials.

[person-1]’s funder asked her to give me the access credentials and for [person-1] to call me.

No word from [person-1], yet.

Yes, this is discrimination, plain and simple.

Of course you can see this, [person-2]. Anyone can see it.

You are somehow denying it and trying to call it some nicer word. What exactly of what I wrote was false? Comparing me to Donald Trump is an interesting choice . . . I am fine.

I am saying what you and [person-1] are doing is wrong. You just don’t like that you are an active participant in the discrimination.

That is your choice.

Again. Spin doesn’t matter. Actions matter. When will I hear from [person-1]? What will you all do?


>>> [person-3] wrote to S4WT on 5/21/2020 6:51 PM:

Hi! There’s a call tonight, but [person-1] wanted you to contact her to talk. I can’t go against her wishes since she’s the host. I’m sorry.


>>> S4WT wrote to [person-3] on 5/21/2020 7:12 PM:

What are you talking about, [person-3]?

I have invited [person-1] to call me for weeks. She knows my number. _________.

She returns no calls.


>>> S4WT wrote to [person-2] on 5/21/2020 7:17 PM:

I may choose to write about this as an example of how not to handle things and not assign any names to the behaviors.

It would serve as a written example for others of what not to do — alienate and disrespect those who can provide real expertise to help communities win.

In the past two weeks, that is what has happened here. I assume that was the intention, otherwise you all would not have done it.

You had every chance to do things differently. You chose to do what you did.

Discourse is the capacity of orderly thought or procedure : rationality

It seems you are saying that you didn’t participate in the discourse.

I guess that’s right.


>>> S4WT wrote to [person-2] on 5/22/2020 @ 9:54 am:

There are actually principles at stake here.

No one should practice discrimination. I am correct on that point.

I see very little of anything real coming from you — show me something substantive and I might be open to changing my mind.

Right now, I have only heard about a lot of intentions, but I see nothing getting done. I am Missouri, the show me state.

Today, I am writing the County Commissioners of Ada County Idaho to get their ordinance fixed. Please share what you are doing to stop the 4G/5G grid from being built.

Otherwise, I will have no more time to respond.


>>> S4WT wrote to [person-2] on 5/22/2020 @ 6:20 pm:

There it is . . . private club. Wrong idea. Have fun with the private club.

I am about helping many and including anybody in the process, whether they are like me or not. I don’t dictate how others’ choose to live their lives.

I just see dicrimination as disprespectful and wrong. I feel strongly about that.

I see others that justify bad choices for shallow reasons all day long and have no respect for that behavior.

If you can’t recognize the greater good that my mostly volunteer efforts have achieved over a number of years, then you are not observant.