Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Big 5G decision at Jan 28 City Council meeting

5GHello Davisites,

After months of discussion, the Davis City Council will decide whether to oppose or at least slow the arrival of 5G in Davis on Tuesday, January 28, at 7:00 pm.

You probably haven’t heard about these deliberations because, as the Davis Enterprise editor told me, worries about 5G are “fake news” and “conspiracy theories” that he won’t publish.

The hazards of wireless, and 5G in particular, are little known— which is no surprise when you consider that media alerts the public about tech risks but media is also the biggest beneficiary of 5G. The conflict of interest is obvious.


A small group of volunteers have been educating the City Council and the Planning Commission about 5G hazards. Some of these volunteers were awakened to this little-known issue because they developed electronic sensitivity, meaning they get sick when exposed even briefly to wireless technology (wifi, smart meters, cell phones, etc.). We have given calm, well-referenced testimony on 5G before and after it was on the agenda,  at the Council and also at the Planning Commission, but none of this has made it into the Enterprise.

Telecom companies have been threatening cities and counties around the nation with lawsuits if they slow down the 5G rollout, but 90+ municipalities have responded with counter suits, and many cite the Precautionary Principle as the basis to deny telecom demands.

Despite (1) the mounting evidence, (2) the recent Keetowah vs. FCC decision, and (3) the Precautionary Principle gaining wide acceptance, when the Council passed this hot potato to the Planning Commission in November, the appointed commissioners tossed it back. Attorney Inder Kalsah is the legal consultant for Davis, and her advice boils down to ‘our hands are tied, this is a decision only the FCC may make.’

The Precautionary Principle in 10 words: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Harvard’s Safra Center for Ethics researched the FCC, which they classify as a “captured agency.” (See excerpts of their report in “Better Safe than Sorry,” a document we prepared for City Council members, which I’ll email to you upon request). Or see the 62-page report at http://www.stayonthetruth.com/resources/Norm_Alster/capturedagency_alster.pdf

Please join us at the meeting. UC Davis is supported by our tax dollars and they have a strong influence in the state, so if the university’s hometown opposes 5G that will reverberate around California and the nation. Invite friends, the more the merrier. This could be a turning point.

Lauren Ayers, 5G.Safety.Yolo@gmail.com

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

12 responses to “Big 5G decision at Jan 28 City Council meeting”

  1. Colin Walsh

    Whether there is evidence 5G is dangerous or not I find it very troubling that the Davis Enterprise would refuse to run information on a topic that is before the City Council. Doubly so since it also appears the City is facing legal action on the topic. https://www.davisite.org/2020/01/city-receives-5g-cease-and-desist-letter.html

    Reply
  2. Robert Canning

    Colin,
    I don’t think it’s required that the Enterprise (or any other publication) provide column inches simply because it is a “topic that is before City Council.” I think the Enterprise is probably exercising what could be called “editorial discretion.”
    As you may know from my comments in December 2019 about the pseudo-controversy surrounding the health effects of wireless, I am skeptical of the scientific merit of the opposition. I am also disappointed that the Davisite would participate in spreading, what I believe, is pseudo-scientific discussion.
    Maybe I’ll get an attorney to send a cease-and-desist letter to the Davisite about this stuff.

    Reply
  3. Roberta L. Millstein

    Robert, I assume that you’re joking about the last bit. I don’t think you can do a cease-and-desist for people expressing their opinions.
    As for the Enterprise, they have printed quite a number of climate-change skeptic letters, including a lot of back-and-forths between two people. I’m not sure why they see this as different, but the climate denier stuff bothers me more than this.
    Speaking personally, I was pretty skeptical of the 5G concerns. I still don’t know what to think, to be honest. But this article did make me think twice: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/?fbclid=IwAR0WOopMSJUkQ2HE37UNlz4WyHbUrj0EhSh0v3MDUCzDUNhJhZfzGdp_aGU
    I’d characterize my current position on the subject as “withholding judgement.”
    As for the Davisite, we are a community blog. We aim to post things from and about the community. There are a number of people concerned about 5G. Seems that it is our purview to let them share their ideas, and others can decide. No endorsement implied. Then again, there never is.

    Reply
  4. Colin Walsh

    Hi Robert,
    I invite you to send an attorney letter to the Davisite. It would make a great headline, “Davis Vanguard Board Member and Treasurer Threaten Legal Action Against Davisite Community Blog.”
    Considering the Vanguard is now openly censoring its commenters I am not the least bit surprised you approve of censorship. To paraphrase the email I received from another Vanguard board member, the Davis Vanguard reserves the right to delete and edit any comment at any time for any reason. And the Vanguard does. Worse, it seems to focus its censorship on opinions and well sourced facts that are counter to the intellectually dishonest stories written by David Greenwald.
    Robert, had your comment been posted on your Vanguard addressing Greenwald, it would have already been deleted. We on the other hand will leave your comment up.

    Reply
  5. Robert Canning

    Roberta, my surface perusal of the literature on the effects on human health of radiofrequency radiation suggest to me that we do not have much to worry about. Most of the research has been in animal models (drosophila and rats for example) that may not have relevance to human disease. Also, the rates of brain cancer as reported by the National Cancer Institute have been declining by about 0.2% per year between 2008 and 2018 (see e.g. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html) suggesting that, at least as far as brain cancers go, the increase in cellular usage is not positively correlated with an increased incidence of brain cancer. But, of course, this is just one piece of evidence.
    And yes, I was joking. I don’t know any attorneys.

    Reply
  6. Robert Canning

    Colin,
    The Vanguard has a posting/commenting policy and applies it to ALL posters. One person’s editorial discretion is another’s censorship. I invite you to submit an article for publication in the Vanguard discussing the issues you are concerned about.

    Reply
  7. Robert Canning

    Roberta stated: “As for the Davisite, we are a community blog. We aim to post things from and about the community. There are a number of people concerned about 5G. Seems that it is our purview to let them share their ideas, and others can decide. No endorsement implied. Then again, there never is.”
    In the spirit of spirited debate and given the current atmosphere of concern about facts and biases and “fake news” (I really hate that term!) how is your statement different from this from the Guardian on 12/2/19: “Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has defended the company’s decision to not take down political advertising that contains false information – and compared the alternative to censorship….Challenged on CBS over the policy, which has raised concerns over misinformation campaigns that could distort elections, Zuckerberg refused to commit to any changes….“What I believe is that in a democracy, it’s really important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying, so they can make their own judgments,” he said.” (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/02/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-policy-fake-ads)

    Reply
  8. Roberta L. Millstein

    Robert, what I think is that there are things that are known to be false, and things that are uncertain, or have a degree of uncertainty about them.
    For example, Trump recently claimed that he is the reason that people don’t have to worry about insurance rejecting them for pre-existing conditions. That is blatantly and objectively false. Any media that repeats that claim should note its falsity, in my opinion.
    It is also my opinion that the 5G issue is not nearly as clearcut. I don’t believe that a sufficient amount of evidence has been gathered. Again, I am not saying that it is dangerous. I don’t think we have enough evidence to say that either.

    Reply
  9. Roberta L. Millstein

    It’s also worth noting another important difference: Facebook is being paid to deliver fake news, using sophisticated targeting.
    Davisite monetary intake? $0
    Davisite targeting? None
    Community blog, reflecting the community.

    Reply
  10. Colin Walsh

    Robert,
    I find it interesting that as a Vanguard board member that you want to debate Vanguard policies here on the Davisite. It is expressly forbidden on your own Vanguard website.
    You claim “The Vanguard has a posting/commenting policy,” but what is posted on the Vanguard website is not the policy being followed. For example, the Vanguard deletes many comments that fully comply with the posted policy, but have information counter to Greenwald’s writing. For another example any link to the Davisite is systematically deleted. Further, a different board member just cited the Vanguard’s right to delete any comment at any time for any reason to me with in the last week.
    You claim the Vanguard policy applies “to ALL posters.” but just a few days ago nearly identical content was deleted from one commenter, but left up when posted by a former Vanguard board member. So not only does the Vanguard not follow it’s posted policy, it does so with prejudice to some and favoritism to others.
    You further claim that “One person’s editorial discretion is another’s censorship.” I would direct you to the several outright false portions of articles on the vanguard since the first of the year, but the Vanguard has deleted the well sourced comments that make it easy to find. Is that what you mean by editorial “discretion”? The Vanguards “discretion” to promote false information and delete challenges to it?
    You invite me to write an article for the Vanguard. Base on past experiences, I have every reason to expect poor treatment by the Vanguard. I have been maligned, lied about and generally misrepresented by the “the founder, editor, and executive director” repeatedly and I see commenters have their posts removed for what appear to be ideological reasons.
    So Robert, rather than trying to censor another blog, why don’t you go engage with your own blog and fix its many problems? Or do you endorse the Vanguard’s loathsome behavior?

    Reply
  11. Colin Walsh

    Robert, Just to make sure it is clear. You are of course welcome to post and participate on the Davisite. Your comments are generally thoughtful. Whether I personally agree with them or not is not at all the point. The Davisite is a community blog.
    Please submit an article if you are so moved.

    Reply
  12. Nancy Price

    I have a number of colleagues who have been educating their local communities, city commissions and city councils on 5G. As Roberta mentioned in a recent post above, I would think that evidence of the decrease in brain cancer is not evidence that 5G is not harmful as it has not been “rolled out” as yet. Furthermore, 5G, as the article shows can be employed in a wide range of intensity.
    Here’s a link to a good article.
    https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2020/01/04/18829432.php

    Reply

Leave a reply to Nancy Price Cancel reply