Is California Setting Up Precedent For The 5G Wireless Takeover?
By Catherine J. Frompovich
Many people are concerned—seriously, too—about a bill introduced into the California State Legislature dealing with the placement of 5G Wireless towers on poles every so many feet.
“SB 649 is a bill that would eliminate local governments’ planning authority over wireless facilities on publicly-owned streets and properties, allowing the wireless industry to install 5G cell towers on every other power pole on your street,” according to Josh Hart at Stop Smart Meters.org.
Folks, we have a real problem when 5 or 6G (gigahertz) cell towers (possible ‘thumb’ towers) will sit outside your house constantly emitting EMFs/RFs 24/7/365.
Southern California resident John Knox (pictured here) shared this *video about the 5G network to a TLB FB group today. ~TLB ed.
The San Francisco Chronicle published an editorial opposing industry cell antenna bills in California and other states. They called it “A brazen cell phone power grab” that
The telecoms are selling the measure as a way to streamline approvals and improve coverage, an appealing idea to anyone who’s had a call dropped or Facebook session cut off. But these companies also want to curb the fees that local communities can charge to only a few hundred dollars per device.
In San Francisco’s experience, nearly all of the mini-cell towers are approved, making the argument about timeliness suspect. The existing rules give telecoms ready access to phone poles and utility posts as a way to fill in broader cell phone service that can be disrupted by tall buildings, thick walls or rolling landscape. Also, as wireless needs grow, more bandwidth to handle the traffic is needed. Cities have responded with lease agreements and worked out arrangements to put the wireless boxes in the right spots.
This bill would shred that process. The measure, which is showing up in nearly identical shape in other states, is about cutting expenses and avoiding local oversight. Health concerns about cell phone towers are not an issue in this dispute since that topic is governed by federal rules. 
EMF Scientist Appeal Advisors Call for Moratorium on Policies for 5G “Small Cell” Antennas
The advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in opposition to a proposed change in FCC rules that would allow rapid deployment of 5th generation (5G) wireless infrastructure throughout the nation. A copy of the Appeal was appended to the letter.
5G involves transmission of millimeter waves which operate at much higher frequencies than currently used for cellular transmission (30 to 300 gigahertz). Because the range of these signals is limited (i.e., less than a football field), hundreds of thousands of new “small cell” antennas will be required in the U.S. The wireless industry wants to install these not-so-small cellular antennas on existing public utility poles.
The FCC intends to streamline the approval of these antennas which would further undermine the regulatory authority of cities and states over cell towers.
Meanwhile the wireless industry is lobbying for legislation in many states across the country that would limit local authority over cell antenna deployment.
Due to the concern that the FCC’s new rules will result in increased exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), the Appeal’s advisors oppose the new rules and call for a “public health review of the growing body of scientific evidence that includes reports of increasing rates of cancer and neurological diseases that may be caused by exposure to EMF from wireless sources.”
The Appeal reflects the concerns of 225 EMF experts from 41 nations about the impact of EMF exposure on public health. All of the experts who signed this appeal have published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals about the biologic or health effects of EMF.
According to the Appeal’s signatories, current national and international EMF exposure guidelines are obsolete and inadequate to protect human health and the environment. The FCC’s radio frequency guidelines were adopted in 1996. [CJF emphasis added]
The letter (dated June 9, 2017) is signed by the five advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal: Drs. Martin Blank, Magda Havas, Henry Lai, and Joel Moskowitz, and Elizabeth Kelley. 
Is 5G safe?
Well, 5G probably will be declared safe by the U.S. FCC, if the tail wagging the dog ‘science’ applies. 5G will use much higher frequency microwaves, known asmillimeter waves, used by the current cell phone technology ranges: 2G, 3G and 4G. However, millimeter waves can have an adverse effect on the eyes and penetrate your skin. Yikes! Does that mean our skin will have a “pins and needles” stinging effect 24/7/365? All so we can watch movies on our cell phones. Gimme a break!
However, I’d like to point out a study published on PubMed, which points to something we really don’t need more of, i.e., “antibiotic resistance in disease”:
Novel data on MMW [millimeter waves] effects on bacteria and their sensitivity to different antibiotics are presented and discussed; the combined action of MMW and antibiotics resulted with more strong effects. These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish role of bacteria in environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. 
I offer, perhaps, it’s now time to step back and assess all the problems modern technologies have contributed to making life thoroughly miserable for many people, especially those with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), vaccine damages, e.g., Autism, SV-40 cancers from the early polio vaccine, and the inability to live as free, fully-informed citizens, not Jack-booted around by pseudoscientific consensus ‘facts’, which haven’t been updated since World War II—at least for the microwave industry safety values, especially, non-thermal radiation waves. Ask ICNIRP  for their stand on microwave non-thermal radiation waves.
The ICNIRP Game:
ICNIRP is playing its own game and setting its own rules. It is the game that is played by national authorities which, as a team, they feel very comfortable with it. The name of the team is “The Consensus of Science”. However, it involves quite a small and very select team that includes national experts who come from national authorities who subscribe to the rules of the ICNIRP game.
In the ICNIRP game the first rule is that there is only a tissue heating effect from RF/MW exposure. You must agree with this rule to play the ICNIRP game. As a consequence of this rule, in the ICNIRP game, all other biological effects are not real and any epidemiological study that shows an effect with non-thermal exposure, must be faulty and will be rejected. In other words, if you break this rule you are out of the game. In this game it is fine to change the rules about acceptable significant, what is evidence, and criteria for how a biological effect is established. In this game a study does not provide evidence until it has been exactly replicated.” [CJF emphasis]
Source: Neil Cherry
AVAATE (2015): Report on conflict of interest existing at the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP).
The fact that the members of the organization engage in various conflicts of interest, being related to companies interested in the development of telecommunications and new technologies, undermines the impartiality that should govern the regulation of limits on non-ionizing radiation people.
It is incomprehensible that an international organization such as WHO, which has numerous and qualified public resources to establish adequately these limits, has delegated to a private organization issues affecting public health of all humanity.
Let’s make our voices heard regarding the 5G wireless takeover legislation in every state!
Fried brains, anyone?
TLB published this article by Catherine J Frompovich from Natural Blaze.com
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.