THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 10 MECHANIC STREET, SUITE 01 WORCESTER, MA 01608

November 8, 2023
(508) 792-7600 (508) 795-1991 fax www.mass.gov/ago

Jennifer L. Messina, Town Clerk Town of Great Barrington 334 Main Street Great Barrington, MA 01230

Re:      Great Barrington Annual Town Meeting of May 1, 2023 – Case# 10937 Warrant Articles# 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 38 (Zoning)

Warrant Articles# 24, 29, and 39 (General) 1

Dear Ms. Messina:

Article 38 – Under Article 38, a citizen’s petition article, the Town voted to add to the Town’s “Wireless Telecommunications Overlay District” a new Section 9.3.16.5 that declares all wireless telecommunications facilities (WTF) applications to be incomplete until the FCC completes an environmental review of existing WTF and updates its regulations based on the result of its review. As explained in more detail below, we disapprove Article 38 because it is a prohibition on wireless communications facilities in violation of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7) (TCA). See Town of Amherst, N.H. v. Omnipoint Communications Enters, Inc., 173 F.3d 9, 16 (1st Cir. 1999) (state and local laws are preempted, under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution if they are read and applied so as effectively to preclude personal wireless service).

We emphasize that our decision in no way implies any agreement or disagreement with the policy views that may have led to the passage of the by-law amendments. The Attorney General’s limited standard of review requires her to approve or disapprove by-laws based solely on their consistency with state law, not on any policy views she may have on the subject matter or wisdom of the by-law. Id. at 795-96, 798-99. During our review of Article 38, we received correspondence urging us to approve the by-law asserting that it protects the public from health and safety issues associated with WTF. We appreciate these communications as they have aided our review. However, we must disapprove Article 38 for the reasons explained below.

¹ In a decision issued to the Town on August 1, 2023, we approved Articles 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 39; took no action on Article 24 because it was not a by-law amendment, and by agreement with Town Counsel under G.L. c. 40, § 32, we extended our deadline for a decision on Article 38 for an additional ninety days until November 8, 2023.

In this decision we describe the by-law amendments; discuss the Attorney General’s limited standard ofreview of town by-laws under G.L. c. 40, § 32; and then explain why, governed as we are by that standard, we disapprove Article 38.

I.      Summary of Article 38

Under Article 38 the Town amended Section 9.3.16 to add a new paragraph 5 that deems all WTF applications incomplete until the FCC completes its review of WTF and updates its regulations to include measures that comply with the results of the FCC’s review as follows:

WTF applications, will be considered incomplete until the FCC completes the DC Circuit Court- mandated Environmental Review of the entire 800,000 to I million WTF roll out to the conditions as stated in the NEPA policy Act 169¹ I including studies from scientists independent from industry, who have fully investigated millimeter wave 5G small cell technology safety; and that the FCC regulations have been updated to include measures that comply with the results of this review; and, that the Town of Great Barrington shall consider reasonable alternatives such as fiber optic.

1 The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, among other things, to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment. On August 9, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its Ruling in Case 18-1129, vacated FCC Order l 8-30’s deregulation of small-cell Wireless Transmission Facilities(s) [sWTFs} and remanded this to the FCC. In Case 18-1 129, the judges stated that “the FCC failed to justify its determination that it is not in the public interest to require review of [sWTF] deployments” and ruled that “the Order’s deregulation of [sWTFs] is arbitrary and capricious.” The FCC was mandated to do this review in two court rulings which are submitted into the record: one in 2019 in Case 18-1129, Keetoowah et al. v FCC; and another in 2021 in Case 20-1025, EHT/CHD v. FCC. To date the FCC has not complied.

https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2019/08/federal-court-overturns-fee-overturns-    fee-order- bypassingenvironmental-r https://www.fee.govIdocument/dc­ circuit-decision-environmental-helath- trust-v-fec

Definition: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities means the plant, equipment and property including, but not limited to, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, electronics, and other appurtenances used or to be used to transmit, receive, distribute, provide or offer wireless telecommunications service. October I, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Case No, 18-1051, Mozilla et al. v. FCC, confirmed internet “Services” to be reclassified by the FCC as Title I, unregulated “Information Services”. At present, only wireline and wireless telephone and text transmissions are classified as Title II, regulated “Telecommunications Services”. Title I and Title II applications, therefor, need to be regulated differentially by local planning boards and commissions. Every new [wireless telecommunications

facility (“WTF”)] must undergo NEPA review, and that WTF applications cannot be batched for such purpose.

1. Attorney General’s Standard of Review of Zoning By-laws

Our review of Article 38 is governed by G.L. c. 40, § 32. Under G.L. c. 40, § 32, the Attorney General has a “limited power of disapproval,” and “[i]t is fundamental that every presumption is to be made in favor of the validity of municipal by-laws.” Amherst, 398 Mass. at 795-96. The Attorney General does not review the policy arguments for or against the enactment. Id. at 798-99 (“Neither we nor the Attorney General may comment on the wisdom of the town’s by-law.”) “As a general proposition the cases dealing with the repugnancy or inconsistency of local regulations with State statutes have given considerable latitude to municipalities, requiring a sharp conflict between the local and State provisions before the local regulation has been held invalid.” Bloom v. Worcester, 363 Mass. 136, 154 (1973).”

Article 38, as an amendment to the Town’s zoning by-laws, must be accorded deference.

W.R. Grace & Co. v. Cambridge City Council, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 559, 566 (2002) (“With respect to the exercise of their powers under the Zoning Act, we accord municipalities deference as to their legislative choices and their exercise of discretion regarding zoning orders.”). When reviewing zoning by-laws for consistency with the Constitution or laws of the Commonwealth, the Attorney General’s standard of review is equivalent to that of a court. “[T]he proper focus of review of a zoning enactment is whether it violates State law or constitutional provisions, is arbitrary or unreasonable, or is substantially unrelated to the public health, safety or general welfare.” Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC, 440 Mass. 45, 57 (2003). However, a municipality has no power to adopt a zoning by-law that is “inconsistent with the constitution or laws enacted by the [Legislature].” Home Rule Amendment, Mass. Const. amend. art. 2, § 6.

1. Article 38 Conflicts with the TCA’ Prohibition on Local Laws that Prohibit or Have the Effect of Prohibiting the Siting of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities

The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7) (TCA) preserves state and municipal zoning authority to regulate personal wireless service facilities. However, the TCA imposes limitations on that authority as follows:

1. Zoning regulations “shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services.” 47 U.S.C. §332 (c) (7) (B) (i) (I)

• Zoning regulations “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provisions of personal wireless services.” 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7) (B) (i) (II).
  • The Zoning Authority “shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time.” 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7) (B) (ii).

• Any decision “to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7) (B) (iii).

• “No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission’s regulations concerning emissions.” 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7) (B) (iv).

While the TCA does not define what constitutes a “prohibition” or an “effective prohibition” of WTF, the Federal courts have construed the limitations listed under 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7) as follows. First, even a facially neutral by-law may have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless coverage if its application suggests that no service provider is likely to obtain approval. “If the criteria or their administration effectively preclude towers no matter what the carrier does, they may amount to a ban ‘in effect’….”Town of Amherst, N.H. v. Omnipoint Communications Enters, Inc., 173 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1999).

Second, local zoning decisions and by-laws that prevent the closing of significant gaps in wireless coverage have been found to effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(7). See, e.g., Nat’l Tower, LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2002) (“local zoning decisions and ordinances that prevent the closing of significant gaps in the availability of wireless services violate the statute”); Omnipoint Communications MB Operations, LLC v. Town of Lincoln, 107 F. Supp. 2d 108, 117 (D. Mass. 2000) (by-law resulting in significant gaps in coverage within town had effect of prohibiting wireless services).

Third, whether the denial of a permit has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services depends in part upon the availability of reasonable alternatives. See 360 Degrees Communications Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 211 F.3d 79, 85 (4th Cir. 2000). Zoning regulations must allow cellular towers to exist somewhere. Towns may not effectively ban towers throughout the municipality, even under the application of objective criteria. See Virginia Metronet, Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 984 F. Supp. 966,971 (E.D. Va. 1998).

In addition, 47 U.S.C. § 253, “Removals of Barriers to Entry” provides that “[n]o State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.” Section 253 (a); see ExteNet Systems, Inc. v. City of Cambridge, Ma, 481 F.Supp 3d 41, 58 (D. Mass. 2020) (“Because the [city’s] Small Call Wireless Policy is not an outright ban on the provision of personal wireless service, the validity of the Policy hinges on ‘whether the [Policy] effectively prohibits the provision of wireless services”‘).

Further, Section 6409 of the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 requires that “[A] state or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” (emphasis added). The Act defines “eligible facilities request” as any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves: (1) collocation of new transmission equipment; (2) removal of transmission equipment; or (3) replacement of transmission equipment. The Act applies “[n]otwithstanding

section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.” The Act’s requirement that a local government “may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request” means that a request for modification to an existing facility that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station must be approved.

In addition, on September 26, 2018, the FCC adopted FCC 18-133 (“Ruling and Order”), regarding the authority of municipalities to regulate small wireless facilities. Among other things, the Ruling and Order: (1) clarifies when a local requirement constitutes an effective prohibition on small wireless facilities; [Section III.A]; (2) establishes the standards and limits for fees and charges applicable to small wireless facilities; [Section 111.B]; and (3) establishes the timeframes within which a municipality must act upon small wireless facility provider’s applications [Section IV.A].

In City of Portland et al vs. United States of America, 969 F. 3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020), the court upheld most of the FCC’s Ruling and Order. The court upheld the FCC’s fee limitations, the time periods in which local governments must act on applications, and the FCC’s authority under the Telecommunications Acts of 1996 to remove barriers that would have prevented a wireless service provider from accessing existing utility poles. Id. at 1039, 1043-1046. In addition, the court upheld the requirement that aesthetic regulations be reasonable but overturned the FCC’s requirements that aesthetic regulations be objective and no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure. Id. at 1042-1043.

The new Section 9.3.16.5 deems an application incomplete until the FCC engages in a review of WTF and amends its regulations based on the information obtained during its review. Because all applications for a WTF in Great Barrington are deemed “incomplete” until the FCC conducts this review, the permit granting authority cannot issue a permit for a WTF in the Town. Put simply, an applicant could fully comply with the Town’s by-laws but will still be denied a permit because the FCC has not reviewed WTFs and amended its regulations. Section 9.3.16.5 thus establishes a condition that no WTF applicant can satisfy. This condition results in a prohibition on WTF in violation of the TCA. See Town of Amherst, N.H. v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc., 173 F.3d 9, 14 (1^st Cir. 1999) (where town’s criteria for granting WTF permit effectively precludes WTF no matter what applicant does there is an effective ban on WTF in violation ofTCA); National Tower, LLC, v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14, 23 (1^st Cir 2002) (“Setting out criteria under the zoning law that no one could ever meet is an example of an effective prohibition… The Telecommunications Act preempts such by-law strictures.”). For this reason, the new Section 9.3.16.5 runs afoul of the TCA’s provisions against local laws that prohibit WTF, and we disapprove it. ²

2 The petitioners cite to two case to attempt to support the legality of Article 38: United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma v. Federal Communications Commission, 933 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2019) and Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021). However, the petitioners misconstrue these cases because neither case authorizes a town to withhold or deny a WTF while the FCC engages in a study and updates its regulations based on a future study.

IV.                 Conclusion

Because Article 38 results in a complete prohibition of WTF in the Town, it conflicts with the TCA and must be disapproved.

Note: Pursuant to G.L. c. 40, § 32, neither general nor zoning by-laws take effect unless the Town has first satisfied the posting/publishing requirements of that statute. Once this statutory duty is fulfilled, (1) general by-laws and amendments take effect on the date these posting and publishing requirements are satisfied unless a later effective date is prescribed in the by-law, and (2) zoning by-laws and amendments are deemed to have taken effect from the date they were approved by the Town Meeting, unless a later effective date is prescribed in the by-law.

Very truly yours,

ANDREA JOY CAMPBELL ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: Kelli E. Gunagan Assistant Attorney General Municipal Law Unit

10 Mechanic Street, Suite 301 Worcester, MA 01608 (508) 792-7600

cc: Town Counsel David J. Doneski

AG reply to Sheffield/Gt. Barrington 5G bylaw

Symptoms after Exposure to Smart Meter Radiation

read the full article

Click to access symptoms-after-exposure-to-smart-meter-radiation.pdf

People from coast to coast in the USA, and from one side of the world to the other, are becoming ill after exposure to the radiofrequency radiation emitted by Wireless Smart Meters. Attached are the results of two surveys of the symptoms being reported.

The first survey comes from the United States and includes 318 adults, from 28 states from California to New York, and addresses wireless utility meters that are principally Wireless Smart Meters. The second survey comes from the other side of the world, Victoria, Australia, and includes 92 adults and children, and addresses Wireless Smart Meters exclusively. Altogether, 410 adults and children are included. Both surveys report new or worsened symptoms after the installation of wireless utility meters in a given individual’s environment. The attached two graphs show the percentage of individuals in each survey who experienced each symptom. The two surveys group the symptoms into somewhat different clusters, but these clusters are similar enough to enable comparison between the surveys. Of the top seven clusters of symptoms in both surveys, six clusters are similar in both description and order of occurrence: (1) sleep disruption; (2) headaches; (3) ringing or buzzing in the ears; (4) fatigue; (5) loss of concentration, memory, and learning ability; and (6) disorientation, dizziness, and loss of balance. Most individuals in the surveys developed multiple symptoms. The surveys do not tell us how likely a given individual is to become symptomatic after exposure to the radiation from Wireless Smart Meters. But the surveys do tell us which
symptoms a person who does become symptomatic is most likely to experience. The many symptoms found reflect the many body systems that are disrupted by such radiation. A symptom, of course, is something that can be sensed by an individual, and thus can serve as a warning. Unfortunately, many health effects caused by radiofrequency radiation have no early symptoms and thus give no warning. These health effects become evident only after significant harm has been done. Examples are DNA damage, cancer, and reproduction effects.

Farms in jeopardy… read this and if you want to help call the gov’t 202-225-3121 and leave the message we do not want to support HR 1339, HR 4351, HR 5082, HR 61421/s, HR 2542, HR 197/s.734 These are all bills that if passed will have negative effects on our farmers!!

Tom Valovic | Author | Common Dreams

Tom Valovic is a journalist and the author of Digital Mythologies (Rutgers University Press), a series of essays that explored emerging social and political issues raised by the advent of the Internet. He has served as a consultant to the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Tom has written about the effects of technology on society for a variety of publications including Columbia University’s Media Studies Journal, the Boston Globe, and the San Francisco Examiner, among others.

Opinion | Big Tech Companies Are Becoming More Powerful Than Nation-States | Common Dreams

‘Star Power’ Helps Malibu Residents in Battle Over 5G Small Cell Transmitters • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org) Click link to read the story.

A group of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, residents said they feel “vindicated” after a superior court judge earlier this month ruled their lawsuit alleging a Verizon cell tower made them sick can move forward

Lawsuit Over Verizon Cell Tower Can Proceed, Judge Rules • Children’s Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891061822000989

The use of 5 G with other currently used generations of technology standards with different frequencies will lead to accumulative effects (Tan et al., 2017). Cumulative biological effects are strongly related to the intensity and duration of radiofrequency exposure. The current exposure limits are based on adverse health outcomes due to temperature rise (tissue warming and inducible tissue stimulation from short-term or acute exposures) (Belpomme et al., 2018). The present study was designed to determine the effects of exposure to 3.5 GHz RFR (GSM, 217 Hz modulation frequency, pulse width 577 μs) emitted from 5 G technologies on total antioxidant (TAS), total oxidant (TOS), hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), nesfatin, ghrelin, and irisin levels in the brains of healthy and diabetic rats and possible histological changes.

click link to read the entire study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891061822000989

City’s Proposed 5G Towers Will Have to Undergo Additional Historic Review

We have recently been notified that the city’s proposed three-story 5G transmission towers will have to undergo Section 106 review, a federal-level review designed to prevent negative impacts upon historic resources. This is good news for our neighborhoods as we work to prevent these oversized and in many cases unnecessary towers from being located in our midst — read the letter from the Federal Communications Commission to CityBridge, the firm installing the towers. Installation is not supposed to proceed until that review process has been completed. This action comes after inquiries from Congressman Jerrold Nadler. Thanks also go to our friends at Save Gansevoort and the Carnegie Hill Neighbors for their work on this. Any tower proposed for a historic district or landmarked site will still have to go through the city’s public review process via the Landmarks Preservation Commission. However, we don’t yet know what that process will look like or how the appropriateness of the proposed siting will be evaluated. The city’s rollout of this program has been haphazard and inconsistent, and involves contradictory statements about where towers would go and why. We continue to push back on the need for and appropriateness of many of the proposed installations.

Helicopter Industry Group Urges FAA To Use Caution With 5G NPRM

Biden administration’s April 12 launch of a $1.5 billion telecommunications “innovation fund” to “help to ensure that the future of 5G and next-gen wireless technology is built by the U.S. and its global allies and partners.” We need to continue to expose 5G hazards and contact our legislators to question this policy.

How do EMF’s affect dental health, and should we be concerned?  In my experience the answer is yes.  If you have titanium dental implants, cell phones placed up to your ear on the side of the implant has been shown to raise the temperature of the implant.  Even a couple of degrees can make a difference, as anyone who’s ever had a fever can attest to.  What happens with a temperature increase is that cytokine proteins signal immune cells to the area, causing inflammation.  Inflammation begins a cascade of events that could lead to gum disease around a metal implant, also known as peri-implantitis.  Zirconia implants don’t have this issue as they don’t conduct heat nearly as much.

The second reason you should be concerned is if you have bleeding gums or gum disease.  Bacteria have been shown to reproduce up to 6 times faster when exposed to electrical fields.  This can accelerate the advancement of gum disease, in my opinion.  In cases where I have seen extreme bacterial activity, I ask the patient if they use cell phones often, and whether they use the phone right next to their head. The answer to both questions is usually ‘Yes’.

https://myholisticdentist.com/2019/08/20/emfs-and-dental-health-should-i-be-concerned/

Smart Meter Opt-Out Policies (ncsl.org)

Another month, another Berkshire community facing debate about the siting and safety of cell towers.

Now that the controversy has been transmitted to Great Barrington, our reaction is the same as when similar conflicts cropped up in Pittsfield, Lenox and Sheffield: We need better data and an updated regulatory structure for municipal officials to lean on when confronting these debates about wireless communications facilities.

With the Great Barrington town clerk’s certification of a residential petition, it looks like annual town meeting voters will decide whether to ban fifth-generation (or “5G”) cellular telephone technology until the government reviews radiofrequency emissions safety standards. Unfortunately, Great Barrington can expect a similarly heated run-up to that May 1 meeting as we saw in Lenox ahead of that town’s vote on a wireless facilities bylaw.

That proposed bylaw fell amid a vociferous campaign opposing new cell towers based on claims that the structures pose imminent health threats to surrounding populations. This underscores the bind local officials find themselves in while navigating a pressing infrastructure issue. Municipal officials, from the Pittsfield Board of Health to the Lenox Planning Board, are pressed by a vocal contingency of constituents who claim 5G technology and other wireless communication facilities pose myriad health threats, from headaches and tinnitus to nausea and cancer.

Even if local officials are completely convinced of these claims, they are between a rock and a hard place as wireless demand increases. Residents and businesses want better service; schoolchildren and homebound folks need high-speed connections need better wireless; first responders worry about the ability to field emergency calls even from some busy areas like downtown Lenox. Meanwhile, municipal officials don’t have much procedural wiggle room anyway, as local governments seeking to restrict the number or placement of cell towers are limited by federal telecommunications law.

We are skeptical of the more far-reaching health claims from the most strident cell tower opponents. The most-vocal minority often exaggerates the conclusions and certainty of clinical research on radiofrequency emissions while downplaying other biases nearby homeowners often hold against cell towers like impact on their property’s view or valuation.

Still, as we’ve noted, some cell tower opponents have a point: As wireless technologies’ capabilities and presence have expanded, the regulatory framework around them has not. Agencies like the Federal Communications Commission and telecom giants like Verizon point to operational rules developed in the previous millennium before mobile devices and wireless infrastructure were as ubiquitous and advanced as they now are.

That must change, and our state and federal leaders should see the need for that update as their municipal counterparts continue to trip over these wires.

Legislation previously filed on Beacon Hill could kickstart this necessary exploratory mission. In the last two sessions, bills that would establish a state 5G technology task force have languished, but they’re just what the situation demands. The most recent version of the bill would create a blue-ribbon committee bringing together lawmakers, regulators, state tech officials and business representatives to review the current state of wireless communications regulation and recommend relevant updates for the 5G era.

While the last two bills were sent to die in a study order, we hope state lawmakers — especially Berkshire delegates seeing more of their communities entrenched in these debates — see the benefit of pursuing such legislation in this new session. In addition to lawmakers, business figures and tech experts, it should involve health experts as well, since medical concerns fuel the tower tiffs for many towns.

Forming a state committee might not be the bold action some seek. But our communities require hard data — not just the talking points of the telecom industry and anti-tower advocates — that civilians and officials alike can turn to as these debates inevitably intensify. We have to start somewhere, and a meaningful state effort could build momentum for a more robust look at the federal level as well. Whatever information gleaned will be unlikely to move those dug in deep on either side, but we desperately need some broader and better-informed concensus on a topic where we have little to none.

This matter is complex as it is pressing. We aren’t experts on the intersection of public health and wireless technology. Neither are most town meeting voters in Lenox or Great Barrington. We have lawmakers and regulators for good reason, part of which is to avoid crafting policy on complex technological and infrastructure matters via simple referendum with no weight given to expertise. Now, though, the government must do the job it’s uniquely equipped to perform and objectively seek answers to public health questions popping up in town halls and public meetings across the region. Only then will we be well-positioned for a long overdue software update to the rules and regulations around cell towers. They are all that municipal officials have to rely on, and the multiplying local debates over 5G show they’re outdated and insufficient.

Beacon Hill won’t have time to diffuse that debate before it pressurizes Great Barrington’s town meeting warrant in May, but legislators should act swiftly to address the safety concerns and procedural headaches spreading through Massachusetts communities.

47 voters signed the petition in Sheffield MA to set application requirements for 5G installations. It was accepted and now is a warrant for a vote at the annual town meeting in May.

Petition:

(Citizen’s Petition) For the reasons set forth above and notwithstanding any other provision of the Town of Sheffield General By-Laws to the contrary, To see if the Town will vote under the General Bylaws Chapter 216: Wireless Regulations, to adopt a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) application requirement for completeness: WTF applications, will be considered incomplete until the FCC completes the DC Circuit court-mandated Environmental Review of the entire 800,000 to 1 million WTF roll out to the conditions as stated in the NEPA Policy Act 1969¹ including studies from scientists independent from industry, who have fully investigated millimeter wave 5G small cell technology safety; and that the FCC regulations have been updated to include measures that comply with the results of this review; and, that the Town of Sheffield shall consider reasonable alternatives such as fiber optic.

¹ The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, among other things, to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment. On August 9, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its Ruling in Case 18-1129, vacated FCC Order 18-30‘s deregulation of small-cell Wireless Transmission Facilitie(s) [sWTFs] and remanded this to the FCC. In Case 18-1129, the judges stated that “the FCC failed to justify its determination that it is not in the public interest to require review of [sWTF] deployments” and ruled that “the Order’s deregulation of [sWTFs] is arbitrary and capricious.” The FCC was mandated to do this review in two court rulings which are submitted into the record: one in 2019 in Case 18-1129, Keetoowah et al. v FCC; and another in 2021 in Case 20-1025, EHT/CHD v FCC. To date the FCC has not complied.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/dc-circuit-decision-environmental-health-trust-v-fcc

Definition: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities means the plant, equipment and property including, but not limited to, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, electronics, and other appurtenances used or to be used to transmit, receive, distribute, provide or offer wireless telecommunications service. October 1, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Case No, 18-1051, Mozilla et al. v. FCC, confirmed internet “Services” to be reclassified by the FCC as Title I, unregulated “Information Services”. At present, only wireline and wireless telephone and text transmissions are classified as Title II, regulated “Telecommunications Services”.  Title I and Title II applications, therefore, need to be regulated differentially by local planning boards and commissions. Every new [wireless telecommunications facility (“WTF”)] must undergo NEPA review, and that WTF applications cannot be batched for such purpose. 

Gratitude from Safiyya and Bill
in Canton, MA

WE WON, 2-1! The Canton Zoning Board of Appeals denied the request for a Variance and Special Permit to construct a 125 foot monopole in our neighborhood, 400 feet from our homes. We now wait to see if Vertex Towers Assets, LLC chooses to litigate further and then it’s in the hands of the courts.

Sheffield wants to ban 5G wireless until health questions are resolved. Will the town be able to stop it? READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Sheffield residents and activists have filed a petition with the town for a moratorium on 5G wireless installations until the higher radio frequencies they emit are proven safe. But outsmarting federal telecommunications law could prove difficult. It wrests control from local governments where matters of health and the environment are concerned.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Dear All, 

My deepest gratitude to everyone who worked so tirelessly on educating those in Lenox about the unprotective, incomplete and full of holes bylaw that was not in the best interest of the town or the residents. Thank you to all who worked on and participated in the Safer Siting forum, who wrote letters for the record to the town, and who shared much better versions of  the bylaw which allowed necessary facilities to be placed where they belonged.  In this last busy holiday month, everyone has been amazing and efforts in this last week and last night were phenonenomal. 

Sadly, the town choose to use an industry consultant who dished out medical, scientific, engineering and legal advice despite not being a doctor, scientist, engineer,  or  lawyer.  While the town didn’t listen to our suggestions to hire- or simply talk to an non industry attorney who does this work- THE PEOPLE DID.   Our voices, even though most of us were silenced when they cut open comments off early to “call the question” have been heard loud and clear. 

Thank you to each of you for your unbelievable support, incredible efforts and strength in ensuring new towers are sited appropriately and not 30 feet from bedroom windows and 150 feet from front doors.  We will continue to try to work with town leaders to get a new, appropriate ordinance passed. 

The people have voted. They voted for health and safety. 

Eagle Article below- 

With gratitude, 

Courtney

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/central_berkshires/lenox-wireless-bylaw-fails-town-meeting/article_7179d304-7763-11ed-8f98-0f5162bc9091.html

LENOX — Cheers erupted in Lenox Thursday night, as if the Red Sox won the World Series.

But it was opponents of the Planning Board’s proposed wireless telecommunications bylaw, victorious in their effort to defeat the plan.

The high-stakes special town meeting adjourned far earlier than expected. Resident Judy Moss called the question on the bylaw, asking voters to cut off debate after less than 30 minutes of discussion on the hotly contested wireless plan crafted by town planners over nearly two years and over 150 hours of Town Hall meetings.

CENTRAL BERKSHIRES

A proposed bylaw regulating wireless facilities in Lenox has prompted vigorous opposition. Will these concessions win enough votes?

Residents voted 68 percent in favor of proceeding directly to a vote on the towers bylaw warrant article, more than the two-thirds majority needed to end discussion, after eight residents voiced support and opposition for the plan, designed to clear the way for improvement in the town’s spotty cellphone service, especially affecting Verizon customers.

But the vote on the wireless bylaw itself narrowly missed the needed two-thirds supermajority. Residents voted 251-147 for the bylaw, a 63 percent majority. In order to pass, 266 “yes” votes would have been needed.

Views on wireless bylaw

During the abbreviated debate on the wireless bylaw, former Selectman Channing Gibson argued that cell phones are a vital link in today’s world, since fewer people have land lines. Without service, medical emergencies and other vital communications are impossible. He added that social justice issues are at stake.

“An unwillingness to trust existing health and scientific guidelines is not a valid excuse to deny members of our community help for their very real safety concerns,” Gibson said.

Amy Judd said the bylaw lacked necessary details and specific requirements for potential wireless facility applicants.

CENTRAL BERKSHIRES

A wireless bylaw to improve cell reception? Debate intensifies in Lenox as opponents urge caution

Sue Merritt, owner of Lenox Fit on Pittsfield Road, where the town’s major cell tower is located, spoke in support of the bylaw. “So far, I’m not glowing and I’m still here to talk about it. A lot of misinformation has been spread through the community.”

But Amelia Gilardi, teenage daughter of bylaw opponent Courtney Gilardi, described how she was “forced out” of her family home in southeast Pittsfield because of illness from a new Verizon Wireless cell tower, the subject of prolonged litigation by aggrieved residents.

She came to Lenox as a “safe haven” and stated that she didn’t vomit, get dizzy or miss school because of headaches, as she did in Pittsfield, but still suffers health impacts. “I lost the last three years of my childhood to this,” she told residents, asking for a “no” vote on the bylaw.

—————-

Courtney Gilardi

413 418 6925

Scientific American blog:

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe – Scientific American Blog Network

The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.  

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

ADVERTISEMENT

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

This reprint offered by The Scientific Alliance for Education  www.safehelpsyou.org

Petition for a moratorium of small cell installations in the Town of Sheffield, MA

We the undersigned, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation 5G in the Town of Sheffield, MA, until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.

Our concerns regarding small cell installations:

•Small cell wave antennae, although they can be more discreet visually, are biologically harmful. The FCC which regulates safety levels, has not tested these frequency levels thoroughly. Their safety limits only pertain to what was tested in 1996 and has not been updated since.

•International scientists ² and recent research speak of harm from millimeter waves (5G). Thus, Sheffield will benefit if the Town By-laws preclude any implementation until the FCC properly updates their safety regulations to include millimeter waves.

>5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans, the environment and pollinators.³

•In 47 USC § 324 ⁽¹⁾ states that all radio stations (of which wireless towers are) shall use the “minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired”. The MINIMUM frequency and no more is all that is needed for proper wireless communication. Higher levels have always been considered more dangerous and facilities need to be tested periodically to be sure the FCC levels are maintained.

•The 1996 Telecom Act  § 107 does not preclude Sheffield from regulating the ordinance relating to telecom ⁴, be they health, environment or otherwise. For now, we the undersigned wish to keep Sheffield Safe by having a moratorium on the rollout of 5G in Sheffield.

¹ In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired. (June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, § 324, 48 Stat. 1091.)

² EU Appeal to Halt 5G Implementation 5G Appeal – 5G Appeal Scientist 5G appeal call for 5G roll out moratorium

³ Rev Environ Health 2022; 37(2): 247–258; Martin L. Pall* Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics

⁴ The operations of Wireless Telecom facilities was never preempted from local zoning authority – by virtue of the fact that final version of Telecommunications Act of 1996 § 107, the words ‘operate’ and ‘operations’ were removed…meaning local municipalities DO have a say on issues such operations in general and those that affect health!

SNAPSHOT OF THE PROBLEM

5G AFFECTS POLLINATORS NEGATIVELY

5G STUNTS TREES

5G IS BIOLOGICALLY TOXIC TO HUMANS

5G STUNTS CROPS

5G IMPAIRS BIRDS NAVIGATION CAPABILITY

5G VISUALLY IMPACTS SCENIC TOWNS

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.”–As of September 9 2022, 424 scientists and medical doctors have signed the 5G Appeal and are urgently calling for the EU to halt the roll out of 5G due to serious potential health effects from this new technology. 

“There are no studies that show that this technology and the increasing and common exposure to 5G and 4G base stations at levels allowed by the government is safe. On the contrary, studies have repeatedly and convincingly showed increased risk of the microwave syndrome and cancer, at levels that are far below the levels that the government and the telecom companies falsely claim are safe.” -Mona Nilsson, managing director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation

August, 2021: The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit court: the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

Over 600 cities in Italy have passed resolutions to halt 5G, as have cities throughout Europe, such as Trafford, United Kingdom, Lille, France, Ormidia, Cyprus, Balchik, Bulgaria. Hawaii County, Easton Connecticut, Keene New Hampshire and Farragut Tennessee have passed resolutions to halt 5G in the US with many more passing legislation to restrict 5G rollout. Other communities that have passed ordinances to restrict cell antennas near homes and schools include numerous cities in California such as Petaluma, Mill Valley, Malibu, Santa Barbara, Encinitas, Fairfax, Palo Alto, Walnut City and San Diego County as well as  Bedford New Hampshire, Mason Ohio and more. Locally Lenox and Pittsfield, MA are addressing radiation concerns from RF towers.

According to Verizon, 5G Ultra Wideband network’s signal can reach up to 1,500 feet without obstructions. This means a pole every 1500’ if no buildings or trees are in between. If obstructions limit the signal more poles closer together will be erected affecting the beauty of the landscape, its draw for tourism and more toxic radiation frequency coverage.