Will Vermont leaders find a way to put health and safety before Telecom hype?

 
States such as California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Oregon are leading the way in blocking 5G, and world wide, Brussels, Israel, The Netherlands, and Rome are calling for a moratorium on 5G.

While the telecom industry pushes 5G amidst projections of $12.3 Trillion in goods and services by 2035, citizens are saying “Hell no!” to the loss of public due process and the extreme cellular build out needed for 5G to be effective. 

April 18, Vermonters are gathering with Legislators at the Vermont Statehouse in Montpelier to share the facts and concerns about Bill H.513 and loss of protections from this Telecom industry power grab. The meeting will be held from 1-3 in Room 10, spearheaded by the Brattleboro group, EMF Safety for Vermont. Vermonters are encouraged to attend and to call their Representatives and Senators to ask them to attend the meeting. 

Vermont is one of 27 remaining states to create Telecom-lobbied legislation. Leaders such as Senators Blumenthal (CT) and Colbeck (MI) are working hard to protect their citizenry. Some cities are banning 5G in residential zones and some are requiring radiation measurements. We stand, however, at the brink with VT Bill H.513 in play. 

Who will be Vermont’s champions? So far, we do not have a single legislator taking a stand to look out for the health and safety of his or her constituents around the issue of 5G. 

Where’s the evidence of harm?

5G’s Massive MIMO beamforming antenna arrays must be placed on more poles, closer together and near homes, schools, and in other public right-of-ways than our current cellular antennas, and require cutting down trees. 

Current 16-antenna arrays become accompanied by 128-antenna arrays for 5G to work. 5G relies on “a large excess of service antennas” that concentrate energy as beams into ever focused regions of space penetrating biological cellular systems and disrupting the navigation systems of insects and birds. 

Symptoms of overexposure to RF radiation include such suffering as depression, cancer, anxiety, headaches, attention deficits, infertility, loss of bone density, arthritis, insomnia, and autism. As it turns out, there is cause to derail 5G. 

Advocates of public safety point to the World Health Organization’s 2011 classification of RF radiation as a Group 2B Carcinogen and over 3,000 evidence-based studies establishing harmful bioeffects by RF radiation to our endocrine, cardiovascular, and nervous systems in such peer reviewed compilations as the BioInitiative Report. 

Two hundred forty seven EMF scientists from 42 nations have signed an appeal urgently calling upon the United Nations and its sub-organizations, the WHO, UNEP, and all U.N. Member States, for greater health protection on wireless radiation exposure. 

Meanwhile, Vermont is heading in the opposite direction with a proposal to streamline the use of 5G frequencies – higher up on the spectrum and closer to homes and the body – than those shown to cause cancer in a $25 million 2018 U.S. National Toxicology Program Study. The time is now to bring the facts to Vermonters. 

Does the public have a say in where cell towers and antennas are placed?

In Vermont, the rollout of 4G and 5G, each of which increases our RF radiation exposure, is already underway without public notice or participation. Senate Finance Committee testimony by Verizon, AT&T, and VTel on February 14 revealed that AT&T and VTel intend to begin implementing 5G in 2020 and have already been developing their infrastructure.

A downtown Brattleboro neighborhood was burdened more by RF radiation as a permit was granted in February to add more powerful antennas to an existing tower looming over gardens and swing sets. There was no public notice to neighbors or assessment of impacts on radiation exposure. Notice however was given to the property owner, the Vermont Department of Public Service, and the Brattleboro Town office. Do the Tower’s neighbors know about the increase in RF emissions coming from the tower just outside their doors?

This rollout without public hearing is supported in part by the September 21 amendment to criteria for the 248 Certificate of Public Good and would be further supported by Bill H.513 – which would open up Commission Rule 3.700 for revision – and the Vermont Telecommunications Plan. 

Outside of Vermont, dozens of local governments are suing their States, citizens are suing their towns and states, and states are suing the Federal government and the FCC. America is steeped in a massive array of battles for civil liberties regarding 5G. 

Vermonters might not know that cell antennas are being placed in their front yards, and, even if they did, they have no recourse. When they ask, citizens are being told that they can not know the purpose of equipment being added to their poles.

A Bethel resident has already reported that large areas of trees are being cut down throughout the town without explanation. Given that trees interfere with 5G and no explanation is being given for the tree removal, it appears the 5G rollout is potentially already taking place in Bethel, Vermont. 

But, the FCC says 5G is safe. Isn’t it?

It is easy to assume that FCC approval means a technology is safe for fetuses, children, adults, and those with existing health challenges. Connecticut 20-year Attorney General and current Senator Richard Blumenthal, during Senate hearings in February, asked the industry for studies showing 5G is safe. They do not have any.

FCC’s 1996 guidelines are not evidence-based public health standards. Cumulative exposure, non-thermal radiation, peak levels, body-size differences, and differences in body tissue are not accounted for, nor are modern times, in the 1996 FCC guidelines. 

The “research” was conducted by engineers, not biologists, and the basis of FCC “safety” levels is a study of the heating of a mannequin’s head, not living tissue, and ignores the non-thermal effects on our bioelectric cells. The FCC guidelines are also set at 30 minutes of exposure, which is a gross misrepresentation of actual conditions. 

We are not mannequins, yet for 23 years, Telecom has blurred the line between the human and technology, co-opting words that in the past described living beings. “Generation” (That is what the “G” stands for); “Cellular”; “Connection”; and words once only used by the military, like “Deploy.” Now, Telecom tells us we want to live in the Internet of Things no matter the risk to life; do we? 

All are encouraged to attend the April 18 special meeting with legislators at the Statehouse in Montpelier, Room 10, from 1-3 p.m. 

Iishana Artra, PhD, CPC, writes from Brattleboro.