Select LanguageArabicBulgarianCroatianCzechDanishDutchEnglishEsperantoEstonianFinnishFrenchGermanGreekItalianPortugueseRussianSlovenianSpanishSwedishUkrainian
BLOG | ELECTROHYPERSENSITIVITY | ENVIRONMENT | HEALTH | SMART METERS
EMF/RF/5G Massachusetts: Historic Sudbury and Lenox – On the Wrong Side of History?
May 16, 2023
By Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International, Image courtesy Floris Freshman
Some time may pass before the next chapter of the wireless zoning debacle unfolds in historic Sudbury, Massachusetts.
Unlike the board game ‘Clue,’ it wasn’t the butler in the panty with a candlestick; it was the town’s elected board, with a pro-industry consultant, at the annual town meeting.
Even though many residents may not yet be aware of what transpired, it could be a very rude awakening for trusting citizens, when the consequences of the town’s mis-informed vote become apparent.
Cell Tower on a School Property?
Wireless concerns could ignite in Sudbury if families return after summer vacation to learn that a cell tower has been approved on a school property, as has occurred in many communities, because the new zoning regulations adopted by the town do not include a setback from schools.
Recommendation given to Sudbury MA regarding placement of a cell tower – on a school property, for “safety”
“Small Cell” Antenna 20 feet from a Driveway?
Or, awareness of what unfolded during the May Sudbury town meeting might be drop-kicked into public awareness if a 5G “small cell” antenna is installed 21 feet from the wrong driveway, near someone who would rightfully question the ‘science’ informing the town’s policies.
Health Effects Studies on Cell Tower Radiation – Environmental Health Trust (ehtrust.org)
Injury?
Or, unfortunately, a neighborhood might become involved because someone (or a group) experiences a dramatic downturn in health following installation of wireless infrastructure near a home or business.
(See 4 studies co-authored by Dr. Lennart Hardell showing the development of microwave sickness in people after 4G or 5G small cell towers were installed in close proximity to their work or homes:
What Happened to Sudbury? The Voters Gave Away the Farm, Believing That They Were Being “Protected Against the FCC” By the Elected Board’s Use of a Pro-Industry Consultant
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/cistwn/twnidx.htm and https://cdn.sudbury.ma.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/358/2023/04/Sudbury-2023-Annual-Town-Meeting-Warrant.pdf?version=889162b2fca85834e34d033950e821d9
The official guide to MA town meetings states, “The purest form of democratic governing is practiced in a Town Meeting. In use for over 300 years and still today, it has proven to be a valuable means for many Massachusetts taxpayers to voice their opinions and directly effect change in their communities. Here in this ancient American assembly, you can make your voice heard as you and your neighbors decide the course of the government closest to you.”
Hidden in the 100 pages of the warrant for the Sudbury Town Meeting was a bylaw change approved by voters.
ARTICLE 40. GENERAL BYLAW FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC WAYS To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town of Sudbury General Bylaws by inserting a new article, [ ] for the placement of Small Wireless Facilities in the public ways
SWF is a small wireless facility. The ‘public way’ is the sidewalk or street. Historically, Sudbury has endeavored to hide wireless infrastructure in church steeples and other stealth locations, protecting the historical flavor and appearance of the town but not giving credence to health and environmental concerns.
Voters were told by the town’s administration that if they did not approve the bylaw change, “they would not have as much protection from the FCC’s small cell installations” implying that they were approving a protective bylaw.
Instead, they approved a bylaw that rolls out the red carpet for industry. For example, the recommendation of a 20-foot setback from an existing driveway contrasts dramatically with recommendations for a setback of 500 meters.
- The review paper entitled “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers” reviewed the “large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects.” The authors recommend restricting antennas near homes, and restricting antennas within 500 meters of schools and hospitals to protect companies from future liability (Pearce 2020).
- An analysis of 100 studies published in Environmental Reviews found approximately 80% showed biological effects near towers. “As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft” (Levitt 2010).)
- A review published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found people living less than 500 meters from base station antennas had increased adverse neuro-behavioral symptoms and cancer in eight of the ten epidemiological studies (Khurana 2011))
The residents of Sudbury, like those in Lenox, will be dealing with the consequences of decisions by public servants about which experts to consult.
EMF/RF/5G Massachusetts: Historic Sudbury and Lenox – On the Wrong Side of History?
You must be logged in to post a comment.