South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

5G

5G SF City Council Sioux Falls

UPDATE II: How can the Sioux Falls City Council approve 5G contract when the FCC is closed?

l3wis 8Comments

So I get an interesting call today from a guy in Florida who informed me that the new city contract for 5G cannot move forward (or at least it shouldn’t).

DOC: Verizon–Sioux Falls SD — Small Cell Master License (Execution Version).PDF

Besides his concerns about health to children, he brought up a bigger point. The FCC has been asked by two prominent congressional members to do a intensive study of the health affects of 5G. Why? Because nothing really currently exists. As I have pointed out in the past, I’m NOT sure if 5G is harmful, because the FCC hasn’t done research on long term affects;

Connecticut Senator Blumenthal and California Assemblywoman Eshoo have formally asked the FCC to provide scientific documentation about the safety of 5th Generation Internet connectivity, as the roll out of this new technology begins.  Their December 3, 2018 letter  refers to a Senate Commerce Committee field hearing, held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, titled “Race to 5G, A View from the Field” on October 12, 2018.

It gets more interesting because this is a ‘Standing Request’ since the FCC is currently closed due to the shutdown;

Congress Members Ask for Proof of 5G Safety

Congress members Blumenthal and Eshoo then wrote a pointed letter to FCC Commissioner Carr asking for proof of safety, noting that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices” and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.” 5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.” A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018.

Besides the health concerns, what I find even more interesting is that there was NO testimony from the FCC before the contract was approved, well, because they are closed. The contract should have been deferred until the Feds reopen government and the FCC could have testified on the health concerns of 5G. There was NO testimony. Not from the FCC or Verizon.

A rate study is NOT allowed until after the first contract is expired, which is backwards. A rate study should have been done before we just implemented a $175 a year blind lease agreement. It would be similar to walking up to a rummage sale and asking the person running it, “What do you want for the microwave?” After a pause, he asks, “5 Bucks?”

The city council was told ‘they have NO choice’ but to approve the contract. Hogwash. There are many constitutional arguments that could be made that a city councilor DID NOT have to approve this contract AND the Federal Government CANNOT tell a municipality elected official HOW TO VOTE. The city attorney’s advice on this was ‘shady’ at best.

The federal government did not make the contract and cannot enforce it.  It is illegal for a private corporation to use public utility poles without a period of public comment.

I was very disappointed in the SF City Council last night for NOT challenging the rate study, NOT challenging the health concerns (should have had testimony from FCC) and NOT challenging the ratification of this contract since the FCC is currently closed.

The good news is there has to be a 50 (20 from city, 30 from FCC) day waiting period. Hopefully within that time the government shutdown will end, and we will get an explanation from the FCC.

It was a sad day in city government watching our local officials roll over like dogs, for an agency that is on an extended vacation. Unbelievable.

Dr. Davis runs this website about the health affects of 5G, ehtrust.org

5G Mayor TenHaken SF City Council Sioux Falls

Open Letter to City Council & Mayor about 5G

l3wis 7Comments

I sent this email to Mayor Paul TenHaken and the Sioux Falls City Council tonight. Hopefully I will get an answer to my question about planning and transparency;

Dear Councilors & Mayor,

I have some concerns with how fast we are pushing the new 5G rules and regulations for Sioux Falls.

First, to the health concerns. I have done some of my own research on this and it seems the ‘jury is out’. While there doesn’t seem to be any short term harmful effects to humans because of the powerful microwaves emitted from 5G antennas, there simply hasn’t been enough long term studies done on it. Now, I’m not saying they are unsafe, but would like to see our local government be very cautious on how close they are placed to dense office, schools, parks and residential areas.

Besides the health impact to the community, there is also a visual impact of these devices. Will they be hidden enough to just blend into their environment or will they stick out like a sore thumb?

I guess my biggest concern is that it seems all these sudden rules, regulations and permitting fees and licensing have been decided behind closed doors with the help of some very powerful people in Washington. I hope this is NOT the case.

I’m wondering if any public meetings were held to get feedback from the community? I am wondering if the public will have a chance to weigh in? I’m also wondering how much my city council and even school board and county commissions got to weigh in on these new rules?

We were promised transparency by the new council, the current sitting council and mayor during the election, I’m hoping moving forward with 5G we will have full openness and transparency, I don’t want to see Sioux Falls residents turned into lab rats for powerful Washington lobbyists and industry. I think 5G is an amazing opportunity for Sioux Falls, if done right.

Please assure me that I’m not being treated like a rat.

Scott L. Ehrisman

southdacola.com

Sioux Falls, SD

5G Sioux Falls

Is 5G dangerous?

l3wis 4Comments

So there has been this guy showing up to Sioux Falls city council meeting protesting the 5G network proposed in Sioux Falls because as he claims the microwaves coming from the units would be like sticking your head in a microwave.

So I decided to go down that rabbit hole and research 5G online Tuesday night. Once I sorted through all the conspiracy sites I did find several ‘legitimate’ stories about the equipment. The LA Times had an article from 2016 which pretty much determined that high levels of exposure to adult male rats caused tumors, but it seems the jury is still out because no one knows the long term affects on humans.

One thing that none of the stories deny is that the equipment is powerful and a lot lower to the ground than normal cell phone tower antennas. Could this affect one’s health? The possibility is certainly there.

The city is moving fast and furious on new regulations for the new 5G antennas (I guess public meetings on this were not considered or noticed very well);

More than 20 locations on public land across Sioux Falls are being targeted by wireless providers as future 5G cell tower sites, according to City Hall.

That has city officials working to establish a licensing process that would allow Verizon Wireless and other telecommunication companies to begin installing fifth generation micro-towers on city light poles, water towers and buildings as early as next year.

“Once the master license agreement is approved by the City Council via ordinance, this would allow staff to administratively approve those applications,” Parks Director Don Kearney said while addressing the Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation Board, which got a peak at the proposal Tuesday due to the expectation that light poles in parks will be candidates to house 5G towers.

Under the proposed licensing system, unveiled this week by the Sioux Falls Power and Light Division, companies seeking to equip cell towers onto light poles or other publicly owned facilities would be required to pay a $500 application fee. At that time, staff would have 60 days to determine whether the targeted site is a suitable location. If approved, the applicant would pay an additional $25 for a permit, and then a yearly renewal fee of $175.

“We can either approve the application, deny the application or approve the application with conditions,” Kearney said.

After doing my own research, I am certainly NOT opposed to putting ‘some’ antennas up in the city, but I would be extremely cautious about putting them very close to residential or dense office building areas. I also think that licensing fees should be a lot higher, especially to start with, to see how they work and if there is any long term health affects.

But it seems like most everything in Sioux Falls and South Dakota, big business gets what they want while the peasants have to scrape and scratch to stop it.

 

« Previous Page

You Missed

Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls

Drinking Liberally Update (11/15/2024)

Curt Soehl SF City Council

Sioux Falls City Councilor Curt Soehl for mayor?

Affordable Housing Sioux Falls

Why is Tzadik hiring this person?

Donita Trump Noem racism Trump

Is Trump a Racist?