HomeGuest ColumnWhat municipal managers should know about 5G


What municipal managers should know about 5G — 4 Comments

  1. Wireless radiation is already a terrible problem. You say that cell phone users can wear a headset, but everyone will be subjected to 5G. Don’t you realize: everyone is subjected to 2G, 3G, 4G, wifi, etc? What about cell towers? Do you think they are not a problem? In my neighborhood, once a cell tower was installed, way back in the fall of 1999, the insect population was 2/3 lower the next year. I didn’t even know a cell tower had been installed, and wondered why this had happened. Things didn’t change that year, or any year thereafter. Starting in late 1999, my sleep became terrible.Didn’t know why. Cell tower is hidden by trees. Then, in May 2012, smart electric meters are installed. That year, the insect population declined even further–dragonflies were basically gone, and have been every year since, along with praying mantises and more. In fact, the only thing that seems to have survived (and in much fewer numbers) are no-see-ums and box elder bugs. And my sleep–incredible insomnia.

  2. Setbacks should be 3000 ft. 5G can travel 3000 feet and go around trees. Town ordinances should restrict 5G towers to commercial and industrial zones and establish a 3000 ft setback from any residences.

  3. Great job with this article! We all need to create groups in our communities to fight this infiltration of these “small cell antennas” or a better name for them is CLOSE PROXIMITY MICROWAVE RADIATION ANTENNAS. I have one outside my home, and it is not even 5G yet, it is 4G, and the radiation level in my children’s beds is the same as the radiation level when I stand 3 feet from my microwave oven on high power. I measured it with an Acoustimeter. This is a violation, we loved our home. No more. FORCED RADIATION INTO MY KIDS BEDS!!! We need to get angry and then channel that anger into activism.

  4. The owner of a property has the right to deny a telecom the right to put a cell tower or transmitter on his property. And one reason the owner would say “no” is that he alone would be responsible in the event someone becomes ill as a result of the exposure to RF emissions from the transmitter. Insurers began to include statements in their general policies stating that they will not insure any health claim related to electromagnetic emissions. And since the telecoms cannot be sued, that leaves the owner.
    Question. Who owns the land on the public right of way? I believe the municipality does. Might it be possible for the municipality to refuse such an application because it does not wish to accept the financial risk of being sued?

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service

Proud Members of: