We oppose local implementation of 5G
for many reasons.
1. decreased reliability of the communications system as a whole
2. loss of our city's resilience when disaster strikes (if our reliable communication network is replaced with one that fails during emergencies)
3. related fires and potential electrocutions
4. privacy and security breaches
5. increased energy use
6. unsightly and hazardous industrial clutter in our neighborhoods, which defaces the character and beauty of local towns
7. property devaluation due to landowners' concerns re: health, environment, and aesthetics (see footnote for a realtor’s concerns)
8. harmful health impacts & violation of body autonomy
9. violation of disability rights under the ADA (see below)
10. danger to workers (Scroll down in the hyper-link to the section on worker deaths & accidents)
11. economic downfall as a result of these reasons
12. less equality in internet access than wired systems can provide
13. slower internet speeds than wireline cable or fiberoptic (See also the book Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines & Networks.)
14. loss of local sovereignty and the right to defend constituents from Big Telecom greed (Partial remedy proposed by Anna Eshoo HR 530.)
15. 5G expansion is intended by industry to increase wireless tech addiction, for purposes of increased profit--This is quite harmful for individuals as well as for society (see statistics in the books Irresistible by Adam Alter and Glow Kids by Dr. Nicholas Kardaras).
16. our public commons is being used not for the public interest but for private corporate profit--At a time when activists and academics demand decolonization, we resist transnational telecommunication corporations' attempts to impose their will over local communities across the entire planet. With the deployment of 5G wireless transmitters from space, every part of the planet will be subjected to the will of an elite few.
17. lack of consent -- In an age of increased awareness of the importance of autonomy and consent, how is it that telecommunications corporations can force their will onto the public without our fully-informed consent?
Berkeley needs bold restrictions on 5G.
Additional Thoughts
Over-reliance on wireless technology presents dire risks. For example, the Camp Fire and other recent catastrophic wildfires revealed the weakness and fallibility of cellular systems in emergencies. People died because they did not receive timely warnings from a wireless communications network that was already compromised by fire when it was needed most.
5G poses extreme fire hazards. "Small" cells weighing up to 300 lbs (located on utility poles, street lights, people’s front yards, etc.) would be powered by diesel-fueled backup generators the size of mini refrigerators. The catastrophic Malibu fire of 2007 was caused by overloading utility poles. That overloading was modest compared to what 5G promises. Many poles in Berkeley already lean precariously. The greatest harm, however, will come from explosions when the diesel fuel-containing generators go up in flames. A car crash could ignite a neighborhood. In the event of a major earthquake, multiple neighborhoods could ignite. 50,000 time bombs!
Firefighters were granted a SB 649 exemption. They've fought cell towers on their stations for almost 20 years due to resulting extreme neurological disabilities, so there is a moratorium on the placement of cell towers on fire stations throughout the US. Children and elders are more vulnerable than firefighters!
Berkeley engineer Toni Stein wrote of 5G, "There are shock, fire and electrocution hazards from the cellular electrical power supplies (35 cubic feet) placed in the right of way, that is, in close proximity to where children and unknowing individuals may play or touch, without any existing required markings."
The proposed 5G infrastructure is unsightly, and vulnerable to hacking and data-mining. (Some suspect profits from the latter may be the ulterior point of 5G.) Even the last FCC chair wrote that 5G wireless is very vulnerable to cyberattacks.
5G would be far more energy-intensive. The IT industry is predicted to account for 14% of total carbon emissions by 2040, with the Internet of Things adding greatly to that number. We appreciate Berkeley measures to reduce Anthropogenic Climate Disruption.
With more than 180 scientists and doctors, the Director of the Public Health School at UC Berkeley signed a declaration calling for a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. “We are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm."
5G compromises public health. Microwave radiation emitted by wireless networks is increasingly recognized as an agent of disease. State senator Patrick Colbeck (R-MI) testified about the serious risks of 5G wireless microwave radiation and co-wrote, along with Dr. Angie Colbeck, MD, a policy statement on 5G. Many people are on the record that radiofrequency radiation associated with the operation of wireless telecommunications equipment “substantially limits one or more of their major life activities.”
We are proud of Berkeley's trailblazing role in disability rights. Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a disability recognized by the Federal Access Board since 2002. Under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, which predates the 1996 Telecommunications Act by six years, people who suffer from exposure to EM Fields are part of a protected disabled class. (42 U.S. Code § 12102(2)) Americans with EMS would be barred from accessing public spaces due to 5G and could be forced to move from their homes. City (and County) facilities should “go wired” in order to maximize accessibility, reduce the risk of serious disease, and avoid ADA violations.
Unions have reported that workers were injured, unaware they were working near transmitting cell antennas. 5G will increase risk to utility workers, HVAC workers, window washers, and tree cutters.
Facilitating communication between one's smart phone and refrigerator is unnecessary and not worth the increased energy gluttony or the risk to privacy, etc. With few, if any, benefits to residents, it is a huge industry heist.
We already have a high-quality, robust communications network based on our critical copper lines used for landline telephones and able to carry high speed internet. When fiber-optic lines melt and cell towers burn, copper can survive. In earthquakes, when the utility grid goes down, cell phones often fail, while wired landline networks have robust battery backups that continue to make reliable communications available even in extended power outages. Power lines and telephone lines were run to practically every home in the early 1900s. We can do the same for high-speed internet now. Excuses from telecom companies about cost have more to do with limited scale, and a profitability analysis that typically excludes low-income communities.
We need Berkeley policy clearly supporting our wired landline network and opposing the 5G roll out.
This isn’t a partisan or geographical issue. 5G opponents are all over the political map. Local governments as diverse as Booneville, Arkansas and Mason, Ohio have passed ordinances prohibiting cell towers (including 5G small cells) from residential areas, and requiring setbacks from sensitive locations. Within California, the cities of Sebastopol, Mill Valley, Ross, and San Anselmo have banned 5G, at least in residential areas. Petaluma, Monterey, Fairfax, and Santa Rosa have taken action. Berkeley is behind. We need an urgency ordinance to defend us against telecom industry excesses and to put the public interest before the corporate quest for unnecessary expanded communications and data access. We need wired telecommunications that will function in emergencies. Instead of drastically increasing energy use, we need to curtail it. Hard-wired copper landlines and fiber optic broadband are a far superior alternative to wireless 5G.
The book Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines & Networks, published by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy, explains thirteen reasons why fiber to the premises (not fiber to support wireless) is "unquestionably the very best technological option to support our economy and society," which will provide greater internet access speed than wireless, achieves superior voice quality, is a better value for the cost than 5G, is more reliable with more equality in internet access, and--unlike 5G--will not negatively impact the integrity of the communications system as a whole. Business Wire published a review, "Wireless Networks are Not as Fast, Secure, Reliable or Energy-Efficient as Wired Systems," stating that antenna-densification plans "do not serve the public's best interest" and that the internet and broadband networks "must be steered towards the fastest, most reliable and future-proof, and secure infrastructure available" which "would be wired."
How did the 5G boondoggle get so far? Follow the corporate profit because, as the Business Wire review explains, "the 'tri-opoly' of Verizon, ATT, & Comcast that dominates our access to the internet imposes artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, and high prices," and they "obscure the fact that advanced copper and optical fiber are far superior to wireless in both cost and performance." 5G supporters are uninformed about downsides, or misinformed by industry allies, or profit-motivated if in the industry. We appreciate Berkeley's trendsetting history of defending constituents from corporatocracy’s greed and disinformation.
..............................................................................................................................
Footnote: Cell Towers Impact Property Values
A Bay Area realtor recently submitted the following letter to Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arrequín and the Berkeley City Council.
From REALTOR: [name omitted], 11/4/2019
Dear Mayor Arrequin and Berkeley City Council Members,
I have been a Realtor/Broker in the East Bay for 30 years. I am well aware that for many years even the perception of harm from a transformer or cell tower kept people from purchasing a home near them. More recently many Buyers have become aware of the correlation between wireless radiation and negative health effects and do not want to buy a home near a cell tower or the new so-called "small cell" antennas. Clients in the East Bay of San Francisco are well educated and even though they may want good reception in their homes they certainly do not want a known possible carcinogen emitted into their children's bedrooms 24/7. They are also concerned about the aesthetics of this deployment. 94% of home buyers and renters surveyed by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna. Of the 1,000 that were surveyed, 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas, and almost 90 percent said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood. See “The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods," which was published in The Appraisal Journal in 2006, found that buyers would pay as much as 20 % less for a property near a cell tower or antenna. Some homes would be deemed unmarketable. Please take this into consideration and keep small cells and cell towers out of residential neighborhoods or at least 2000 feet from homes.
Respectfully submitted, [name omitted]
Source: “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (June 2014), Realtor Magazine
2. loss of our city's resilience when disaster strikes (if our reliable communication network is replaced with one that fails during emergencies)
3. related fires and potential electrocutions
4. privacy and security breaches
5. increased energy use
6. unsightly and hazardous industrial clutter in our neighborhoods, which defaces the character and beauty of local towns
7. property devaluation due to landowners' concerns re: health, environment, and aesthetics (see footnote for a realtor’s concerns)
8. harmful health impacts & violation of body autonomy
9. violation of disability rights under the ADA (see below)
10. danger to workers (Scroll down in the hyper-link to the section on worker deaths & accidents)
11. economic downfall as a result of these reasons
12. less equality in internet access than wired systems can provide
13. slower internet speeds than wireline cable or fiberoptic (See also the book Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines & Networks.)
14. loss of local sovereignty and the right to defend constituents from Big Telecom greed (Partial remedy proposed by Anna Eshoo HR 530.)
15. 5G expansion is intended by industry to increase wireless tech addiction, for purposes of increased profit--This is quite harmful for individuals as well as for society (see statistics in the books Irresistible by Adam Alter and Glow Kids by Dr. Nicholas Kardaras).
16. our public commons is being used not for the public interest but for private corporate profit--At a time when activists and academics demand decolonization, we resist transnational telecommunication corporations' attempts to impose their will over local communities across the entire planet. With the deployment of 5G wireless transmitters from space, every part of the planet will be subjected to the will of an elite few.
17. lack of consent -- In an age of increased awareness of the importance of autonomy and consent, how is it that telecommunications corporations can force their will onto the public without our fully-informed consent?
Berkeley needs bold restrictions on 5G.
Additional Thoughts
Over-reliance on wireless technology presents dire risks. For example, the Camp Fire and other recent catastrophic wildfires revealed the weakness and fallibility of cellular systems in emergencies. People died because they did not receive timely warnings from a wireless communications network that was already compromised by fire when it was needed most.
5G poses extreme fire hazards. "Small" cells weighing up to 300 lbs (located on utility poles, street lights, people’s front yards, etc.) would be powered by diesel-fueled backup generators the size of mini refrigerators. The catastrophic Malibu fire of 2007 was caused by overloading utility poles. That overloading was modest compared to what 5G promises. Many poles in Berkeley already lean precariously. The greatest harm, however, will come from explosions when the diesel fuel-containing generators go up in flames. A car crash could ignite a neighborhood. In the event of a major earthquake, multiple neighborhoods could ignite. 50,000 time bombs!
Firefighters were granted a SB 649 exemption. They've fought cell towers on their stations for almost 20 years due to resulting extreme neurological disabilities, so there is a moratorium on the placement of cell towers on fire stations throughout the US. Children and elders are more vulnerable than firefighters!
Berkeley engineer Toni Stein wrote of 5G, "There are shock, fire and electrocution hazards from the cellular electrical power supplies (35 cubic feet) placed in the right of way, that is, in close proximity to where children and unknowing individuals may play or touch, without any existing required markings."
The proposed 5G infrastructure is unsightly, and vulnerable to hacking and data-mining. (Some suspect profits from the latter may be the ulterior point of 5G.) Even the last FCC chair wrote that 5G wireless is very vulnerable to cyberattacks.
5G would be far more energy-intensive. The IT industry is predicted to account for 14% of total carbon emissions by 2040, with the Internet of Things adding greatly to that number. We appreciate Berkeley measures to reduce Anthropogenic Climate Disruption.
With more than 180 scientists and doctors, the Director of the Public Health School at UC Berkeley signed a declaration calling for a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 5G expansion. “We are very concerned that the added exposure to 5G radiation could result in tragic, irreversible harm."
5G compromises public health. Microwave radiation emitted by wireless networks is increasingly recognized as an agent of disease. State senator Patrick Colbeck (R-MI) testified about the serious risks of 5G wireless microwave radiation and co-wrote, along with Dr. Angie Colbeck, MD, a policy statement on 5G. Many people are on the record that radiofrequency radiation associated with the operation of wireless telecommunications equipment “substantially limits one or more of their major life activities.”
We are proud of Berkeley's trailblazing role in disability rights. Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a disability recognized by the Federal Access Board since 2002. Under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, which predates the 1996 Telecommunications Act by six years, people who suffer from exposure to EM Fields are part of a protected disabled class. (42 U.S. Code § 12102(2)) Americans with EMS would be barred from accessing public spaces due to 5G and could be forced to move from their homes. City (and County) facilities should “go wired” in order to maximize accessibility, reduce the risk of serious disease, and avoid ADA violations.
Unions have reported that workers were injured, unaware they were working near transmitting cell antennas. 5G will increase risk to utility workers, HVAC workers, window washers, and tree cutters.
Facilitating communication between one's smart phone and refrigerator is unnecessary and not worth the increased energy gluttony or the risk to privacy, etc. With few, if any, benefits to residents, it is a huge industry heist.
We already have a high-quality, robust communications network based on our critical copper lines used for landline telephones and able to carry high speed internet. When fiber-optic lines melt and cell towers burn, copper can survive. In earthquakes, when the utility grid goes down, cell phones often fail, while wired landline networks have robust battery backups that continue to make reliable communications available even in extended power outages. Power lines and telephone lines were run to practically every home in the early 1900s. We can do the same for high-speed internet now. Excuses from telecom companies about cost have more to do with limited scale, and a profitability analysis that typically excludes low-income communities.
We need Berkeley policy clearly supporting our wired landline network and opposing the 5G roll out.
This isn’t a partisan or geographical issue. 5G opponents are all over the political map. Local governments as diverse as Booneville, Arkansas and Mason, Ohio have passed ordinances prohibiting cell towers (including 5G small cells) from residential areas, and requiring setbacks from sensitive locations. Within California, the cities of Sebastopol, Mill Valley, Ross, and San Anselmo have banned 5G, at least in residential areas. Petaluma, Monterey, Fairfax, and Santa Rosa have taken action. Berkeley is behind. We need an urgency ordinance to defend us against telecom industry excesses and to put the public interest before the corporate quest for unnecessary expanded communications and data access. We need wired telecommunications that will function in emergencies. Instead of drastically increasing energy use, we need to curtail it. Hard-wired copper landlines and fiber optic broadband are a far superior alternative to wireless 5G.
The book Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines & Networks, published by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy, explains thirteen reasons why fiber to the premises (not fiber to support wireless) is "unquestionably the very best technological option to support our economy and society," which will provide greater internet access speed than wireless, achieves superior voice quality, is a better value for the cost than 5G, is more reliable with more equality in internet access, and--unlike 5G--will not negatively impact the integrity of the communications system as a whole. Business Wire published a review, "Wireless Networks are Not as Fast, Secure, Reliable or Energy-Efficient as Wired Systems," stating that antenna-densification plans "do not serve the public's best interest" and that the internet and broadband networks "must be steered towards the fastest, most reliable and future-proof, and secure infrastructure available" which "would be wired."
How did the 5G boondoggle get so far? Follow the corporate profit because, as the Business Wire review explains, "the 'tri-opoly' of Verizon, ATT, & Comcast that dominates our access to the internet imposes artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, and high prices," and they "obscure the fact that advanced copper and optical fiber are far superior to wireless in both cost and performance." 5G supporters are uninformed about downsides, or misinformed by industry allies, or profit-motivated if in the industry. We appreciate Berkeley's trendsetting history of defending constituents from corporatocracy’s greed and disinformation.
..............................................................................................................................
Footnote: Cell Towers Impact Property Values
A Bay Area realtor recently submitted the following letter to Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arrequín and the Berkeley City Council.
From REALTOR: [name omitted], 11/4/2019
Dear Mayor Arrequin and Berkeley City Council Members,
I have been a Realtor/Broker in the East Bay for 30 years. I am well aware that for many years even the perception of harm from a transformer or cell tower kept people from purchasing a home near them. More recently many Buyers have become aware of the correlation between wireless radiation and negative health effects and do not want to buy a home near a cell tower or the new so-called "small cell" antennas. Clients in the East Bay of San Francisco are well educated and even though they may want good reception in their homes they certainly do not want a known possible carcinogen emitted into their children's bedrooms 24/7. They are also concerned about the aesthetics of this deployment. 94% of home buyers and renters surveyed by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna. Of the 1,000 that were surveyed, 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas, and almost 90 percent said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in their residential neighborhood. See “The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods," which was published in The Appraisal Journal in 2006, found that buyers would pay as much as 20 % less for a property near a cell tower or antenna. Some homes would be deemed unmarketable. Please take this into consideration and keep small cells and cell towers out of residential neighborhoods or at least 2000 feet from homes.
Respectfully submitted, [name omitted]
Source: “Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?” National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy (June 2014), Realtor Magazine