In the case of wired connections, there are no hazardous antennas to be concerned about. In the case of wireless infrastructure, there are no antennas installed underground. If you're going to contact legislators, it's essential to make sure that your arguments relate to the particular bill that you're contacting them about. Do not use a generic "5G is terrible" message.
One of the main arguments against SB 378 is how dangerous this kind of extremely shallow trenching for fiber is. You would probably only know about that if you read the legislative committee analyses. And--like all the rest of these telecom "streamlining" bills--the bill plans to remove the involvement of local cities and towns as much as possible over the permitting process.
Telecoms have full-time lobbyists that will be sure to point out any factual errors in anti-streamlining arguments. Legislative aides and committee staff will also note errors. No point in your trying to give them information that can't be factually backed up-- aside from the fact that some readers of this kind of messaging will just have an intuitive sense that there's something off about your argument.
Activists may have read somewhere that they should be certain to avoid mentioning health impacts, or even ANY harmful impacts caused by close-proximity cell towers, when talking to legislators. There is a huge amount of scientific evidence showing extremely harmful health impacts of living near a cell tower and or being exposed to wireless radiation--cancer clusters, strokes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. That is one of most effective arguments you can use, since small cells will increase the level of radiation exponentially.
Because this dictum has gone out so widely to anti 5G activists, that any mention of health should be strenuously avoided, I reached out to several of the top anti-5G attorneys regarding this issue. They all said there is no reason for activists to censor themselves about detrimental heath impacts of cell towers when contacting state legislators.
As one of these attorneys explained it, according to federal law, the only time you cannot talk publicly about health and environmental impacts is before a local governing body that is deciding whether or not a particular cell tower is going to be placed. (You can feel free to say whatever you want when speaking to city council members privately.) If the telecom applicant can show in court that the denial of their permit was based on health concerns, the telecom wins the right to put in their tower.
Please don't confuse that nuanced issue of local zoning procedure with what kind of issues you can and should bring up when lobbying state legislators.
Aside from the federal law which restricts local siting decisions based on health, there are other federal laws and court decisions that require governments to ensure the safety of communities from harmful effects of cell tower radiation, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act, which do not allow laws or regulations that deny access by EMF-disabled people to their own homes or services in their community. There is a DC Court of Appeals decision (Keetoowah Tribes vs FCC) that said national environmental laws also must be considered in the siting of all small cells.
Even the California Supreme Court issued an opinion (T Mobile West vs. City and County of SF) that cities cannot evade their responsibility to protect public safety regarding cell tower placement. Here's a relevant quote from that opinion:
Under the California Constitution, cities and counties "may make and enforce within [their] limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.... local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within a local jurisdiction's borders."
As a people's lobbyist, you are not required to be able to debate the finer points of all these laws, regulations, and court decisions.Even though all the attorneys consulted agreed that none of these laws or court opinions represent a gag order for lobbyists, for strategic reasons, it's always a good idea to bring up other issues, in addition to health and environmental impacts, when opposing 5G legislation. There are many other crucially important reasons to oppose this uncontrolled rollout, some of which I've described in my article which I linked to previously. More can be found here https://www.electronicsilentspring.com/
You will be on very strong ground legally and ethically if you base your discussion of health impacts on how these bills violate the ADA, that is, the rights of people who have electro-sensitivity (sometimes abbreviated to ES). However I believe it's a mistake to make the whole issue of health impacts solely related to people who are already disabled by this condition. Many legislators probably don't believe that such a thing exists, and even if they believe it does, that is a very small segment of the population, compared to the huge number who are being deprived of adequate high-speed internet access--the problem these bills claim to fix.
It's excellent to bring up the ADA, but cell tower health impacts affect everyone, not just this small group who are already experiencing ES. As the former President of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg, explains it, "Everyone can develop ES. People are not born with ES but develop it as a result of exposure to radiation from wireless sources.... As with other conditions, a person may have a disposition towards a certain condition and therefore may develop it sooner than another person with the same exposure. The increasingly high prevalence of ES makes it clear that the attempts to suggest that those who suffer from the condition are a small fraction of the population that is "sensitive" or that their response to radiation deviates from that of the general population, are false." (Frank Clegg is now devoting much of his time to countering telecoms lies about the safety of 5G as you can see here. Click Here)
Even the former Prime Minister of Denmark, who is also the former Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, developed very strong sensitivity to EMFs.
The health impacts are not just the numerous discomforts experienced by those who are EMF sensitive--such as severe head pain and pressure, heart pain and palpitations, sleep disturbances, dizziness, ear pressure or ringing, brain fog, burning skin, constant nose bleeds, etc. The health impacts the legislators need to know about, in addition to the symptoms of EMF sensitivity, are the ones documented in peer-reviewed journals, showing serious diseases like cancer resulting from wireless radiation.
You may be thinking, I don't have time to track down all these scientific articles about the health impacts of wireless radiation. Luckily, Environmental Health Trust has done an exhaustive job of collecting all the documentation about health impacts, and many other issues related to stopping 5G, which you can find here. Click Here
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
