STAMFORD – The House of Representatives rejected an agreement brokered by the governor’s office that would set conditions for allowing telecommunications carriers to install 5G equipment on city-owned utility poles.
Representatives from 21 cities on Wednesday decided not to accept the state’s template for applications by carriers seeking to install antennas and other equipment on utility poles in public rights-of-way.
Representatives announced at an October meeting of the board’s Land Use Committee that 5G technology could cause brain damage, headaches, memory loss, damage to the reproductive organs and nervous system, genetic damage, and even genetic damage. He said he was persuaded by research findings that suggest it can cause cancer. It harms trees, birds, insects and wildlife.
Gov. Ned Lamont’s arbitration panel and city attorneys rejected the state’s application template, despite advice that telecommunications companies would lose in court if they sued to prevent them from using utility poles. Lawyers say federal law prohibits local governments from legislating about suspected health risks from radiofrequency radiation from 5G antennas.
City Councilman Sean Borger said the possibility of losing in court should not be a factor in the legislative body’s deliberations.
“When potential health concerns are involved, the threat of being sued is not a winning argument,” Borger said. “You can’t make decisions based on that.”
Five lawmakers voted to accept the state’s application template. The application requires carriers to tell city officials where the antennas will be installed so officials can determine the size and appearance of the equipment on the poles.
City Councilman Don Mayes, an engineer and former safety director for a telecommunications company, said he doubts the findings of the panelists who spoke to the board last month. Mays said 5G has a short range and the radiation decreases as you move away.
“The worst offenders are not the small cell towers (on utility poles) and they are not 5G,” Mays said. “Most of our radiation exposure comes from cell phones. That’s the way to eliminate radiation exposure, but how many people will give up their cell phones? We’ve become dependent on them. Even when we’re not talking, they cause radiation. We’re exposed from inside our homes.”
Eight representatives abstained from voting, with some saying they did not have enough information to make a decision.
“We have to have both sides,” said City Councilman Jonathan Jacobson. “I lost my way.”
City Councilman Eric Mawson said he would like to hear the conclusions of further studies as they weigh the health and safety risks.
Mr Mawson said an increasing number of people do not have a landline or fiber optic connection and “they are completely reliant on mobile phone service”. … The need for mobile phone service is increasing as it is the only option for more people. Perhaps the bigger risk is not being able to communicate from home. ”
So far, Stamford is the only city among five cities targeted in a mediation initiated by Lamont’s office to promote faster, more widespread mobile technology for Connecticut residents and businesses. Rejected.
Mursa Kalina’s attorney Al Smith, who represented both cities in the state arbitration, said Thursday that Bridgeport and Hartford officials have approved the template, but New Haven and Waterbury have yet to act. He said that he did not cause any problems.
In Stamford, three residents called Wednesday to urge city representatives to reject the agreement during the public comment portion of the board’s virtual meeting.
“The city has a duty to protect its citizens from potentially dangerous tactics,” resident Neil Sherman said.
Sherman said city officials shouldn’t transfer rights to publicly owned utility poles to contractors who can install equipment “close to homes and schools with any number of antennas.” “They operate him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
The fourth whistleblower was attorney Joseph Sandri, a former Stanford resident and one of the panelists who spoke at last month’s board committee meeting.
Mr. Sandri was one of the attorneys in the 2021 case Environmental Health Trust v. Federal Communications Commission. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that federal agencies failed to explain how their regulations protect the public from harmful practices. Effects of radio radiation.
The lawsuit is based on the FCC’s 2019 decision to leave in place regulations dating back to 1996 that determine how safe exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, and wireless networks is. objected to. The premise of the lawsuit is that the old guidelines did not take into account the potential harms of low-level radio frequency radiation or the effects of the proliferation of wireless devices that exist 27 years later.
“The FCC rules are currently back in federal court, and the FCC has yet to explain why the rules will not be updated,” Sandri told the board. “The city has the right to independently monitor wireless networks for compliance with the FCC’s long-standing exposure rules, so we have no objection to a telecommunications application to install 5G antennas on publicly-owned utility poles.” They should be given the opportunity to do so.”
City Representative James Grunberger cited the FCC’s defeat in federal court in making his case for rejecting the state’s recommendation on the telecommunications application.
“With no federal guidelines for long-term exposure, we must protect our cities ourselves and not succumb to legal threats,” Grunberger said. “The small cells on these utility poles each contain up to 100 antennas, and they are located near people’s windows. We need to assert our ability to deny these antennas. We must remain vigilant.”
Mays said there should be a strong push to improve cell phone coverage given Stamford’s high number of dead spots.
“It’s not just an inconvenience. It hurts business. You may not be able to call 911 from your home, your car, or while walking,” Mays said. “Deploying 5G technology and expanding communications networks is extremely important. I believe this is a priority over the much-discussed health and safety-related risks and environmental impacts. We believe the risk is very small.”
Asked Thursday whether Stanford University could create its own application template for telecommunications carriers seeking space on utility poles in the city, Julia Bergman, Lamont University’s associate director of communications, said Stanford University He said it depends.
“The contract is between the carrier and the city. We played a role in mediation, but if Stanford wants to change the terms, it will have to negotiate directly with the carrier,” Bergman said. Ta. “We are not a party to the contract.”
Under the agreement brokered by Lamont’s office, AT&T and Verizon must notify city officials in advance of where they plan to install the equipment. Set deadlines for cities to respond to communication requests. Establishes the fees that telecommunications carriers must pay for installing equipment on City property. Cities also get to decide on the size and appearance of equipment, construction requirements to ensure safe installation, and how utility poles are maintained.
The number of antennas to be installed is not specified.
