[1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures

[Jeff]

Unless you are Iron Man without the getup and can hover for long and sustained periods, it’s a pointless discussion.  Unless, of course, you enjoy rooftop camping and setup your tent next to an AT&T site.  One could argue that you are more likely at risk inside your home.

From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces+jeff=mountainconnect.org at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of Christopher Mitchell <christopher at ilsr.org>
Date: Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 3:36 PM
To: Edward Angel <angel at cs.unm.edu>
Cc: Richard Lowenberg <rl at 1st-mile.org>, 1st-mile Nm <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>
Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures

It would be helpful to settle this among reasonable people if only we tracked the rate of new cancer diagnoses. Oh wait, we do!  Men are seeing less risk of cancer and women are about stable. In the meantime, I guess 38% of us will eventually get cancer of some kind - but that is because we have tamed damn near everything else that would have killed us otherwise. Of course the anti-vaccers want to take care of that - I guess more people dying of easily-prevented diseases could game the stats to make it look like there is less cancer because people will die long before they have a chance to get cancer.

I might be concerned about some of these claims about wireless except that we have been using these devices, bathed in this spectrum for what, 15 years? If there is a health exposure risk, it is quite small and should certainly be studied.

In the meantime, we have no shortage of tin foil.

Christopher Mitchell
Director, Community Broadband Networks
Institute for Local Self-Reliance

MuniNetworks.org<http://www.muninetworks.org/>
@communitynets
612-545-5185

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Edward Angel <angel at cs.unm.edu<mailto:angel at cs.unm.edu>> wrote:
Not much as changed in the past 15 years. When many of us argued against the flawed telcom ordinance, the same people did the same thing. The major reason it was passed in its flawed form was that the mayor refused to have any more public meetings about it, all of which got out of control and ended with one in which the mayor was accused of being a Nazi. At the city council meeting where the ordinance passed on a tie vote, 75 of them lined up behind us to speak against the ordinance, some of us spoke first and talked about the importance of developing a fiber infrastructure. That calmed down most of the 75 who then said they supported fiber. It took them about a week for them to realize the fiber was used to connect cell towers and they switched to opposing fiber too.

Ed
_______________________

Ed Angel
Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico

1017 Sierra Pinon
Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-984-0136 (home)   angel at cs.unm.edu<mailto:angel at cs.unm.edu>
505-453-4944 (cell)  http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel


On May 10, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Richard Lowenberg <rl at 1st-mile.org<mailto:rl at 1st-mile.org>> wrote:

Note, I did not attend last night's City Council meeting, but
anticipated the process and outcomes reported below.    I had
and still have deep concerns about the poorly understood economic
and community inclusion aspects of this decision making, rather
than the health effects of wireless radiation.   Behind the scenes
conversations, however, led me to understand that City staff and
consultants are also still considering a number of critical issues.
The five franchises, I'm told, are therefore short term, only
through September.   City Councilors are legally being pressed by
recent State mandates, with which they need to comply (Senate Bill 14,
passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor).   The City
is pursuing preparation of a strategic plan that will more
comprehensively addresses our telecom. near future.  All or some of
the five newly franchised companies may or may not deploy fiber or
wireless infrastructure in the near term.  This matter is ongoing,
and deserves some focused attention, analysis and clear-headedness.

The health effects of various wireless radiating systems is
contentious, with lots of good science being countered with lots of
bad or inadequate science.  It is a long term issue to be better
understood and acted upon, as blinding consumerism drives tech.
adoption.   To the extent possible, we ought to practice the
Precautionary Principle.   Young children and the elderly may be
most susceptible to (non-ionizing) EM radiation.   Might schools
limit wireless networking, in favor of extended fiber nets?
Should the City establish wireless 'quiet zones'?  How will
neighborhoods and the City benefit from our tele-networking
developments, and who benefits; how and when?
Lots of questions remain.

RL

------

Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures

By Tripp Stelnicki | tstelnicki at sfnewmexican.com<mailto:tstelnicki at sfnewmexican.com>  May 9, 2018

The dozens of Santa Fe residents who claim they are endangered by the radio frequencies emitted by telecommunication facilities protested five proposed telecom franchise agreements at length Wednesday night before the City Council.

Amid the interruptions of the frequently disorderly crowd, councilors approved the agreements, which are expected to pave the way to enhanced wireless and cellular connectivity. The decision places the city in accordance with a new state law that will establish access and regulation rules for small cellular facilities on public infrastructure.

The five ordinances establish new access rights to public rights of way for telephone and internet service providers, whether with cables or antennas.

Subsequent network expansions could eventually provide Santa Feans with faster speeds, broader coverage and additional retail competition, according to city fiscal analyses.

Each of the council votes was 7-2 in favor; councilors Chris Rivera and Renee Villarreal were against.

“I can’t imagine what it would be like to live like some of these people do with the issues they might have,” Rivera said, referring to the health concerns expressed by some who came to the meeting. “Thirty years from now, we may be looking at this the way we do look at cigarettes.”

The well-attended, two-hour hearing began with fireworks. A leader in the local advocacy against electromagnetic radiation, Arthur Firstenberg, launched into a lengthy and emotional tirade about what he alleged are the mortal risks posed by the telecom facilities — ignoring repeated requests to relinquish the podium after his allotted time had expired. He alternated between reading his prepared remarks and shouting at Mayor Alan Webber as the mayor sought to restore order in the boisterous council chamber.

“Don’t tell me to shut up!” Firstenberg yelled.

Webber, showing exasperation but not anger, sternly and repeatedly asked — and then instructed — Firstenberg to stop and admonished the crowd for their applause when he had finished.

It would not be the last time Webber asked the crowd for quiet.

Nodding toward the long line of residents waiting to speak behind Firstenberg, Webber said, “To hold the podium for that amount of time is simply disrespectful of everybody else.”

The residents who spoke for roughly an hour afterward echoed Firstenberg’s concerns at a lower volume, variously saying they were victims of encroaching wireless “toxins” and that the city must protect their health.

Many attributed the franchise applications to the telecom industry’s coming wave of improved wireless technologies known as 5G.

But a city land-use senior planner, Dan Esquibel, said that no matter when that next generation of wireless arrives elsewhere, it was not imminent in Santa Fe, which he said does not yet have the necessary fiber-optic infrastructure.

“I don’t think we’re going to be seeing 5G for quite some time,” Esquibel said.

Assistant City Attorney Marcos Martinez reminded councilors that federal law prohibits them from considering “environmental effects” and “health effects that may flow from the environmental effects” of radio frequency emissions.

Webber said the approvals represented the city taking control of its own infrastructural investments. Still, he said, he took the testimony “very seriously.”

“I think it’s completely legitimate to be very vigilant and to recognize not all technology is progress,” Webber said.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director
1st-Mile Institute     505-603-5200
Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504,
rl at 1st-mile.org<mailto:rl at 1st-mile.org>     www.1st-mile.org<http://www.1st-mile.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
1st-mile-nm mailing list
1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org<mailto:1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm


_______________________________________________
1st-mile-nm mailing list
1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org<mailto:1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/1st-mile-nm/attachments/20180510/a4d4dfc4/attachment.html>