Publisher’s Note: Astonishing.

Vermonters for a Clean Environment’s Annette Smith on the state of 5G in the Vermont legislature:

Dear Senate Finance Committee members,
I’m not sure how we got from “5G isn’t coming to Vermont” in January to learning that very high frequency antennas are already erected in Burlington — confirmed yesterday with the attached photos — but this topic has gone into the surreal realm with this piece in yesterday’s New York Times (if you read it be sure to read the comments)  which blames all concerns about 5G on a Russian conspiracy while admitting that the NY Times has entered into a financial deal with Verizon.  I looked up the author and found a post noting his loss of credibility over a piece he wrote about yoga.

So, back to Vermont and the real world, some people think we are losing our democracy, or that it is already lost.  I realize it is end of session and there are federal preemptions.  I hope we can figure out a way to assure that people have a say in what goes on in their communities.  Three of the fifteen locations already permitted for high frequency utility pole antennas in Chittenden County are shown below, with their locations on a map (from the PUC files) and what they look like as of yesterday.  A man was outside his home on Fern St. when the photographer arrived to take the photos.  He said it went up last fall, he wasn’t notified, he did contact the city to get the spec sheet but had no idea what it was.  

I have gone through all 15 of those recently-approved AT&T utility pole attachment cases that all mention they are preparing for the implementation of 5G in the project narrative, which all use the same type of antenna, up to 5950 mhz.  A few of them have notice to neighbors (where there aren’t any residential neighbors) through Section 248(a)(e) but most went through Section 248(a)(k) which requires no notice to neighbors.  I also reviewed a similar number of recent approvals for removal of older antennas and replacement of them with new antennas on towers 72 to 300 feet tall, and the maximum frequency for those more distant antennas is 2690 mhz.  The relevant portions of the Spec sheets for both types of antennas are below.  Verizon is also receiving approvals from the PUC for utility pole attachment antennas that go up to 5925 mhz, one is approved for St. Johnsbury next to a car dealership.

How did we get to this point where ugly, higher frequency equipment is being placed next to homes with zero public process, with lots more on the way?  Is there anything that the legislature can do about it at this time?  Because what is going on just doesn’t seem right on so many levels.  The final image in this email was sent to me this morning by a stone carver and past president of VCE’s board of directors.

Thank you for taking as much time as you have to delve into these challenging issues.  I am grateful for whatever you can do to assure that we still live in a democracy.  Vermont urgently needs to put in place a public process around utility pole antenna attachments.

Annette

And this letter from Judith Anne Persin, RN in Bethel, Vermont

Dear  Senator McCormack:

Even your comments below prove that the greatest element that is lacking here is sufficient time and study on such an important issue, because it clearly shows your “obvious inability” to make a proper educated decision about the effects of 5G and what it will mean to the population of Vermont. At this time, you appear to have no idea and so therefore should not be voting at all right now nor making life changing decisions for the rest of us.

We have a young couple down over the hill who are our neighbors and I doubt that they even know about 5G because of the general secrecy and hush, hush surrounding it. If they knew the real facts, they would be alarmed, and rightfully so, as to what it has the capacity to do to their little 3 year old daughter and their baby boy born last October. Yes, Senator,there arereal genuine facts concerning 5Gand they are out there for you to read and study! Many have been sent to you, but apparently you have not cared to look, but rather to turn your head the other way. 
 

To be fair and just toallyour constituents, you should be admitting that you are not qualified to make those very grave decisions which could permanently effect their health and welfare negatively, as well as the health of their children. I repeat, much quality information has been placed in your hands and it does not have seemed to help you decide at all. You are without excuse! It is very careless to be making such decisions unprepared, which concerns the health, freedom, and the integrity of the whole environment and brings with it many consequences.
 It is ludicrous to make a decision which hundreds of worldwide scientists know is extremely destructive to human health, wildlife, birds, bees, and the whole environment with no better explanation than that.

If you are not confident in anti-5G science, that means that you have not studied enough to make decisions for 600,000 Vermonters, many of whom are children and you should not be making a decision that can sicken and harm many other people and whole families.

You have most likely spent lots of time listening to the lies of the lobbyists with their vested monetary interests, yet you could not spend time for the people, for the children of Vermont, for the wildlife and no not even for the sake of democracy and freedom? For democracy and freedom? Yes! Implementing 5G without considering the voice of the people essentially is saying to them, “ you have no right to decide that you do not wish to be irradiated in your home 24/7 every day of your life, just because there are some out there who wish to not have to wait a few minutes to download their movies!” If we do not have our health and our freedom then everything else about our lives has been destroyed.

When a legislator places the value of human life secondary to a communication upgrade, no excuse given from him or her makes any sense at all. As you stated below, you should not be troubled about disappointing folks;rather you should be extremely troubled because this decision you have planned without properly educating yourself and studying the issue, while most certainly realizing that you are voting without being fully prepared to vote wisely, is complete insanity! 
As to total disregard for health: 5G at 60 GHz interferes with oxygen exchange within the cells and lungs of the human body! 5G at 95 GHz is considered weaponry. These things are documented.Do not forget:this 5G network would be consistent and around the clock with no turn-off and nowhere to hide. And no one can opt out! Surely you know this!

As far as the Russian New York Times article to which you refer, it should not even be acknowledged at all, without you also acknowledging the previous article in the New York Times just days before concerning the Chinese. Actually I believe the first article has way more credibility. China was offended and had to make a come-back case so then came the second article! See the links below. These unvalidated political cat fights should not be the basis of making major decisions for the lives of Vermonters.

And what article preceded this one in the New York Times? 

Please, Senator, be informed and rethink what a vote for H 513 means. It is deceptive, not even mentioning that the extremely dangerous 5G is involved. It is deceptive in that it does not give RF microwave range limitations to what can be used. It is deceptive in that it hides that this will allow intense harmful radiation to every single person continually day and night. Do you really want to be a part of that deception? I think not!

Sincerely,

Judith Anne Persin, RN

Bethel, Vermont

RELEVANT LINKS:

New York Times’ PAGE 1 story here.

RT’s response here, implicating the deep conflict of interest and New York Times / Telecom industry coziness:

European scientists research-based concerns about 5G here.

DHS TSA employees’ testimony re: public health effects of 5G tech airport scanners here.

Cities with 5G moratoriums here.

Our VI 5G links of interest pages here, here and here.