![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/5ga1-e1702840564405.jpg\")
<\/p>\nThe Board of Representatives in Stamford, Connecticut, voted to reject a model agreement that would have allowed AT&T and Verizon to install 5G equipment on city-owned utility poles.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In a bid to get 5G swiftly installed in his state, Gov. Ned Lamont\u2019s office created a template contract between the nation\u2019s top two telecommunication carriers and the state\u2019s five major cities.<\/p>\n
Stamford, the state\u2019s second-largest city, is the only city so far to have voted against using the contract. Twenty-one representatives voted against the pact. Five were in favor and eight abstained.<\/p>\n
Commenting on the city\u2019s decision, W. Scott McCollough, chief litigator for Children Health Defense\u2019s (CHD) electromagnetic radiation (EMR) cases, told \u201cI applaud Stamford\u2019s principled stand<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Advocates for the contract said Stamford\u2019s rejection might bring a lawsuit against the city, but McCollough disagreed.<\/p>\n \u201cThe wireless companies do not have a case yet. It is too early<\/em>,\u201d he said. \u201cThis was merely a decision to reject a model agreement. Federal and state law allow the city to instead negotiate individual terms, and that is what Stamford has chosen to do<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n The 21 representatives were largely persuaded by presentations by six independent experts on the scientific evidence of harm from radiofrequency (RF) radiation, including 5G, according to a local media report.<\/p>\n The experts, including toxicologist and epidemiologist Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, said there were many documented health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including brain damage, memory loss, decline in reproductive function, DNA damage and harm to insects.<\/p>\n The board\u2019s land use committee voted to recommend rejecting the pact after hearing from the experts.<\/p>\n Davis, founder and president of Environmental Health Trust (EHT), told: \u201cConfronted with overwhelming, independent scientific information about the real and present dangers of bringing electromagnetic fields closer to humans than ever before, Stamford voted to protect people and their environment<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n She added, \u201cWe should stop debating whether we have proof of human harm, and take steps now to prevent that harm from spreading<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018The city has an obligation to protect citizens\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n Some representatives, like City Rep. Don Mays, worried that rejecting the pact would mean AT&T and Verizon would sue the city. He said at the Oct. 18 meeting, \u201cUntil that technology [that emits wireless radiation] changes in the marketplace, we are essentially going to have to accept it<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n A 2018 ruling by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) blocks states and municipalities from taking actions that would impede or delay the rollout of 5G technology.<\/p>\n Mays added, \u201cIf cities try to go against the FCC rules, the carriers will sue the cities. And I don\u2019t think we want to subject this city to that<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n However, City Rep. James Grunberger disagreed, saying, \u201cI don\u2019t think we should back away from this because of the threat of a lawsuit. If we have to be a test case on this, we should be a test case.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n During a November meeting, Grunberger affirmed his position. \u201cThe federal government does not have guidelines for long-term exposure, so we need to protect our city ourselves, and not succumb to legal threats<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Similarly, Rep. Sean Boeger said, \u201cI\u2019m just not willing to take a gamble with my four kids living in this city and my constituents\u2019 children living in this city without some type of concrete consensus<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Neil Sherman, a Stamford resident, said the contract would allow 5G equipment to go up \u201cclose to homes and schools without limitation to the number of antennas. They operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe city has an obligation to protect citizens from potentially dangerous modalities<\/em>,\u201d Sherman said.<\/p>\n Do cities and states have to accept the 5G rollout?<\/strong><\/p>\n McCollough said challenges to the 2018 FCC ruling are still being worked out in the court system.<\/p>\n \u201cSometimes you have to stand your ground and here\u2019s hoping Stamford does that. They do have some arguments and those need to be raised and evaluated by a court in Connecticut<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n McCollough pointed out that Stamford didn\u2019t issue an \u201cordinance<\/em>\u201d or \u201ceven a regulation<\/em>\u201d that blocks telecom providers, so the telecom providers \u201cwould be fools to sue now claiming an effective prohibition<\/em>.\u201d He said:<\/p>\n \u201cThe board\u2019s decision was simply to reject a model contract \u2014 or right-of-way agreement \u2014 that spelled out the terms of access that telecom companies could use for putting their 5G equipment on city infrastructure.<\/em><\/p>\n All that it means is the city will now proceed to negotiate the terms and conditions for access, rather than using this model contract that the Governor\u2019s office suggested cities use.<\/em><\/p>\n The telecoms don\u2019t have a cause of action until those negotiations break down or they submit a permit application that involves a site in right-of-way and it is denied.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n Four takeaways from experts\u2019 presentation on wireless radiation risks<\/strong><\/p>\n In addition to Davis, the experts who presented to the board\u2019s land use committee included Dr. Rob Brown, an orthopedic radiology specialist, B. Blake Levitt, a science journalist, Theodora Scarato, EHT\u2019s executive director, Kent Chamberlin, Ph.D., past chair and professor emeritus in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of New Hampshire, and Joseph Sandri, a telecom regulatory attorney and CEO of the tech lab Thought Delivery Systems Inc.<\/p>\n Here are four key points they made to Stamford\u2019s city representatives:<\/p>\n 1. Wireless radiation can cause cellular stress and DNA damage leading to disease.<\/strong><\/p>\n Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that exposure to RF radiation can cause individual cells in the body to become stressed, leading to DNA damage and disease, according to Brown.<\/p>\n \u201cThe longer a cell is stressed<\/em>,\u201d he said, \u201cthe greater the likelihood it may malfunction<\/em>.\u201d Brown said: \u201cYou might think that the term stress implies a manageable state and that it\u2019s not a big deal, but let me clarify. Stress weakens the body\u2019s tissues just as stress can cause a bridge to collapse, stress can cause a bone to fracture and also to develop or an organ system to fail.<\/em><\/p>\n When cells undergo stress, unfortunate events can occur. Membranes \u2014 which protect the cell and control the cell\u2019s internal environment \u2014 can become damaged, causing the cell to lose its ability to function and put[ting] the cell\u2019s life at risk<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Proteins in the stressed cell can become damaged, he said, adding that Alzheimer\u2019s disease, Lewy body dementia and amyloidosis are all associated with protein denaturation.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd importantly<\/em>,\u201d he said, \u201cwhen the cell is stressed, its DNA can become damaged, which can lead to mutations and possibly cancer<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Chamberlin, who served on a year-long Land-Use Commission tasked by the state of New Hampshire to investigate the health risks of wireless radiation, pointed this out as well.<\/p>\n Chamberlin said that prior to joining the commission he, a wireless engineer, did not believe that low-level radiation was particularly harmful. \u201cThat was the conventional \u2014 and is the conventional \u2014 wisdom for people working in my field. And it\u2019s a viewpoint that\u2019s routinely reinforced by [the telecom] industry<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHowever<\/em>,\u201d Chamberlin said, \u201cmy beliefs about the safety of wireless radiation soon changed<\/em>\u201d as the commission identified \u201chundreds of top-tier publications that showed harm from low-level wireless radiation exposure<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n He said: \u201cThe primary mechanism by which exposure causes harm are oxidative changes, which can lead to an increase in free radicals. Those free radicals can lead to chronic inflammation and a host of adverse outcomes including:<\/em><\/p>\n Brown also said that some have claimed 5G won\u2019t have harmful health impacts because it only penetrates a few millimeters into the skin \u2014 but \u201cradiation doesn\u2019t need to go deep to cause damage<\/em>,\u201d he said, adding: \u201cThe thyroid gland is often only a few millimeters deep to the skin surface and so are the testicles. Interfering with the function of these glands can cause systemic endocrine dysfunction.<\/em><\/p>\n In addition, many important cells including red blood cells and immune cells are just below the skin surface<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n 2. FCC guidelines are a \u2018complete failure\u2019 for protecting kids.<\/strong><\/p>\n Davis pointed out research showing children are especially vulnerable to RF radiation.<\/p>\n Children\u2019s unique physiology, including smaller heads and more fluid in their brains, results in proportionately greater absorption of RF radiation than adults.<\/p>\n Research shows children can absorb up to 30 times more the amount of RF radiation in their hippocampus and 10 times more in the bone marrow of their skull.<\/p>\n The FCC has refused to take this research into consideration when setting its wireless radiation exposure guidelines, she said.<\/p>\n EHT and other organizations, including CHD, successfully sued the FCC by arguing that the agency\u2019s guidelines \u2014 which have not been updated since 1996 \u2014 were inadequate to protect human health and did not take recent science into account. Davis said:<\/p>\n \u201cThe U.S. Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia, determined that we were correct and ruled that the FCC\u2019s policies on standards for testing phones and other devices were arbitrary and capricious and that the testing procedures, particularly as they relate to children and long-term exposures, were a complete failure.<\/em><\/p>\n The court found the FCC had failed to provide evidence of properly examining long-term exposure, children\u2019s vulnerability, the testimony of people injured by radiation sickness and impacts to the developing brain and reproductive system<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n The FCC still has not complied with the court\u2019s mandate to review recent science and give a better explanation for how its current standards are adequate for protecting health.<\/p>\n 3. Other countries have more stringent wireless radiation standards.<\/strong><\/p>\n Scarato said that while the FCC\u2019s standards have yet to reflect current science, other countries have taken action to set lower wireless exposure limits.<\/p>\n India, China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland all have limits that are a mere fraction of the FCC\u2019s exposure limit, she said. \u201cAnd in some of those countries, there are scientists that are studying this issue ongoing<\/em>,\u201d she said. \u201cHowever, in the United States, we don\u2019t have that<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n No U.S. regulatory agency with health expertise has reviewed the scientific evidence of biological effects from RF radiation, she said.<\/p>\n \u201cNot the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency], not the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], not the National Cancer Institute, the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration or] the Department of Labor<\/em>,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n 4. Pollinators may be impacted by 5G.<\/strong><\/p>\n Levitt, who has researched the biological effects of RF radiation since the late 1970s, shared research on RF radiation\u2019s destructive impact on the environment and non-human species.<\/p>\n She said neither the FCC nor the state of Connecticut had ever conducted a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review for 5G.<\/p>\n Under NEPA law, federal agencies need to assess whether projects they have authorized will cause harm.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, research indicates that rolling out 5G may especially hurt insects as they are \u201cvery inefficient thermo regulators<\/em>\u201d and \u201cparticularly vulnerable to temperature changes<\/em>,\u201d Levitt said, adding that \u201cWhat impacts insects impacts us all.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n Many frequencies of wireless radiation, including the ranges used by 5G, cause an organism\u2019s tissues to heat up which, in turn, can impact the organism\u2019s functioning.<\/p>\n Research shows that 5G may be lethal to honeybees, she said. Levitt pointed out that this would impact the human food supply. She warned, \u201cWe are flirting with catastrophic impacts from insect deaths alone, capable of punching holes in the entire food web. [The] Human food supply is endangered<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n yogaesoteric <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Board of Representatives in Stamford, Connecticut, voted to reject a model agreement that would have allowed AT&T and Verizon to install 5G equipment on city-owned utility poles. In a bid to get 5G swiftly installed in his state, Gov. Ned Lamont\u2019s office created a template contract between the nation\u2019s top two telecommunication carriers and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1370],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-disclosures-about-5g-technology-3480-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142549","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142549"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142549\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":142569,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142549\/revisions\/142569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/5g2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/5g3-e1702840622922.png\")
<\/p>\n
\nDecember 17, 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n