Proposed 5G Ordinance in Ashland

[Kathleen]

Hey All - 

There is a very well organized group trying to get the Ashland City Council to pass an ordinance limiting the number and placement of 5G and other cell phone towers in the city of Ashland. They have hired a well known lawyer from New York, Andrew Campanelli, to write this ordinance. The group spouts cherry picked data and misinformation about the supposed harm that will be inflicted by 5G and EMF radiation on children and those who believe they are sensitive that type of radiation. There are recordings of some of the past meetings on YouTube if you want to review what these folks have been saying. https://youtu.be/rCtMFAK5Hcs 

https://youtu.be/FTODNtHFr1E 

The council meets on January 3, 2023 at 6 pm to make a decision on this ordinance. If you can, you might consider attending as there has been a vocal group of folks supporting this proposal. If you cannot attend, you might consider writing a letter to the city council member, or to the editor of the Medford Mail Tribune or the Ashland Sneak Preview. Here is a link to the City Council: https://www.ashland.or.us/sectionindex.asp?sectionid=7 

I myself am a member of a private group on NextDoor that is trying to counteract folks like these with peer reviewed science and expert opinion. If you would like an invite to that group, let me know. 

Thanks,

Kathleen King

[Priscilla Oppenheimer]

Thanks for the heads up, Kathleen.

I submitted a comment to the City Council using that link that you provided. 

-------------------------

Priscilla Oppenheimer

www.priscilla.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ashland Undesirables" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ashland-undesira...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/baae5b43-939e-47d1-91fe-d7044618bb6fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Kathleen King]

Thanks Priscilla! It’s important that people with knowledge and expertise in this area make themselves heard. Otherwise the passionate but misguided folks win. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 29, 2022, at 9:16 AM, Priscilla Oppenheimer <p...@priscilla.com> wrote:

Thanks for the heads up, Kathleen.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/835CAD84-9423-462F-AF00-353E26F8224F%40priscilla.com.

[Bill Saltzstein]

Thanks Priscilla!  I encourage you all to do the same and submit a letter.

FYI — I submitted the following:

To the Council:

I am strongly opposed to the ordinance proposed to limit 5G cellular placement and technology in Ashland.  There is no peer-reviewed, accurate, definitive proof that any health issues are associated with the RF radiation.  Many of the discussions I have seen and heard rely on opinions that have no basis in fact or science.

I am a degreed Electrical Engineer with over 40 years of experience designing and testing electronic Medical Devices ranging from implanted devices to life support devices.  I have concentrated my work the past 20+ years consulting for Medical Device companies specifically in the use of wireless RF connectivity.  While I specialize in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi technologies, I am proficient in cellular technologies including 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G.

Many of the next generation of wearable and implantable devices such as those involved with diabetes management and cardiac support are already incorporating 5G into these life-changing devices.  They have been submitted for review and approval by the US FDA along with the required detailed risk/hazard analysis and several have already received clearance and approval for use and sale.  The FDA has required the companies involved to provide evidence that the risk is insignificant, and reviewed and accepted that proof.

We relocated to Ashland in part due to its concentration of its fact and science supporting community, based on education and knowledge.  The city's support of infrastructure such as advanced optical fiber allows its citizens to enjoy a small town quality of life with superior connectivity.   As remote healthcare proliferates, 5G technology will help make our city accessible to, and support those with chronic conditions and provide mobility to improve the quality of life for us all as we age. 

5G cellular is the next step in connectivity technology; limiting that technology will stall Ashland in the dark ages of mobile technologies.  The opponents of 5G are using psuedoscience falsehoods as opposition, unsupported in science and the technologies involved.  

Please vote against this proposed ordinance. 

On Dec 29, 2022, at 9:16 AM, Priscilla Oppenheimer <p...@priscilla.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/835CAD84-9423-462F-AF00-353E26F8224F%40priscilla.com.

[Priscilla Oppenheimer]

Hear, hear! I like the focus on the health benefits of having 5G. 

I hope all of us submit something. I'll bcc Alan. Maybe he can submit something too. 

Thanks. 

-------------------------

Priscilla Oppenheimer

www.priscilla.com

[Bill Saltzstein]

Thanks Priscilla, and especially for the reminder to get involved.  This is no longer a social media ‘discussion’ here in ashland.

As we’ve all experienced with Covid, life is a continual risk/benefit analysis.

The opponents are not using any of that kind of logic.  We’ll see how our council approaches this, and hopefully you all will provide your insights.

Bill

--

Bill Saltzstein

425-442-5854

On Dec 29, 2022, at 10:35 AM, Priscilla Oppenheimer <p...@priscilla.com> wrote:

Hear, hear! I like the focus on the health benefits of having 5G. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/D0E0C259-09F3-420E-AED0-D676C8BF2C73%40priscilla.com.

[Priscilla Oppenheimer]

The credit for the reminder to get involved goes to Kathleen Marrs King. She’s in our group. She has an MS in CS from SOU and was a software tester for many years. She’s in our group. She joined us for lunch a few times. Hi, Kathleen :-) 

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 29, 2022, at 10:56 AM, Bill Saltzstein <bills...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Priscilla, and especially for the reminder to get involved.  This is no longer a social media ‘discussion’ here in ashland.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/601889A9-EA41-4BC1-9390-E75A6E9B66E5%40gmail.com.

[Kathleen King]

Thanks Priscilla - 

I'm just trying to keep the city council accountable and looking to peer reviewed science to make their decisions, and not a misguided belief system!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/777D2DD0-91AE-44F0-B294-FC3696CFD015%40priscilla.com.

[Kathleen King]

Priscilla - 

Is there any way you could let the higher ups at SOU know about this? I'm sure with the new President of the University promising a new direction, that he might be very interested in this situation. The University would be impacted by this decision in many ways. Would enrollment be affected if students knew that 5G wasn't available in Ashland? Just a thought.

Kathleen

[Paul Collins]

Is the proposed ordinance available anywhere? I can't find even a mention of it in the agendas or council meetin notes.

--Paul

[Bill Saltzstein]

It has not yet been submitted, at least as of this article: https://ashland.news/ashland-pursuing-5g-ordinance-as-county-reviews-new-cell-tower-application/

--

Bill Saltzstein

425-442-5854

On Dec 30, 2022, at 10:09 AM, 'Paul Collins' via Ashland Undesirables <ashland-un...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Is the proposed ordinance available anywhere? I can't find even a mention of it in the agendas or council meetin notes.

--Paul

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ashland Undesirables" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ashland-undesira...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/34D7902B-1ED7-4381-A350-A89BC3681387%40me.com.

[Kathleen King]

Here is a letter from the city attorney. It was sent to a member of the pro-science Nextdoor group I belong to in response to his inquiry about the ordinance:

Thank you for your message. I am afraid that my attempts to reassure the Council have failed and they are set on having Mr. Campanelli provide an ordinance that they can trust will provide maximum protection for citizens from the effects they have come to believe originate from cell towers and emitters casting radio frequency emissions. I can not spend more time to try to convince them of my proposed ordinance and instead my best efforts will be toward ensuring that Mr. Campanelli’s offering is lawful and does not conflict with the city’s present land use laws. I take no position on the science, but if you feel the city council and mayor’s direction is misguided or out of ignorance, then I would encourage you to be involved by corresponding with your elected officials and be there at these hearings. You can organize your own interest group to provide a counter to those that have been consistently showing up and who have persuaded the council that this technology is dangerous as well as make claim they are affected by this type radiation at whatever level they claim exists here or elsewhere. Douglas M McGeary

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/AD35953E-5B78-4703-AE2F-E3F3166AE7BF%40gmail.com.

[Paul Collins]

Great, thanks for the info. I don't see anything on the Jan 3 agenda, if that means anything. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/CAHxriXLR7JHKQdjTkc4pfKbOucWko0OVsd%3DM0wNpPu6_zfVEVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kathleen King]

This is probably still a multiple meeting agenda item, thank goodness. But the group that is vocally opposed to cell phone towers has been engaging with the city council for many months. Hopefully we can still muster a group of folks to counteract all the disinformation being promoted by this group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ashland-undesirables/59399623-2822-4B5F-9A95-B2B8A48722BB%40me.com.

[Steve Weyer]

I contacted Tom Anderson who taught an OLLI course about 5G

I included Kathleen's initial msg, a link to Ashland.news article, and the letter from the city attorney.

 I’m including his response to me & the council below:

Steve

(I assume he’s a “principal” technologist — though it’s always good to be principled ;-))

=====

I could likely attend the Council meeting.

 

From: Tom Anderson <tand...@atis.org>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 4:23 PM
To: cou...@ashland.or.us
Subject: 5G Concerns

 

My name is Thomas Anderson and I reside at 485 Fairview St in Ashland, OR.   I am currently a Principle Technologist with ATIS (https://www.atis.org/) – a non-for-profit North American Standards organization that writes standards for the telecommunications industry.  ATIS provides the technical standards for 5G (as well as 4G and 3G) as well as other standards that (for example) provide a framework to limit robo calls. 

 

As a technical standards expert on 5G, I can assure that the 5G is the safest mobile standard technology to date.  I have taught an OLLI course on the technical aspects of 5G and would be glad to share this information with the council.

 

As a summary, it is important to understand that:

• 5G is an optimization of 4G using the same over-the-air coding scheme (OFDMA) but is roughly 15-30% more efficient than LTE/4G (other things being equal).  As such, 5G radiates less than 4G for a given amount of data transmitted and therefore ... IF YOU REALLY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT EMF ... you would advocate for 5G deployment.
• In addition, in the OLLI class I show (mathematically) that once you are 25 feet or so from a cell tower antenna (at the top of the tower), the amount of radiation you might get from that cell tower IS LESS THAN the maximum radiation from a cell phone itself.  And since these towers are typically 50 - 150 feet high and there are no human habitable structures typically within 25 of feet of the antennas on the tower - clearly the tower is never the problem (FCC has power emission rules to make sure this is true).  So ... IF YOU REALLY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT EMF ... you would not really care about cell towers.
• We also learned in the 5G class that cell phones only transmit at a minimum level required to make sure the cell tower can "hear" the cell phone. This minimizes interference and maximizes battery life – both critical concerns enabling higher / faster data speeds.  This technology was first introduced in 3G so is nothing new. Power levels of cell phones are then typically 100s-1000s of times less than the allowed maximum (the advertised SAR levels for phones are based on the worst case transmit power of the phone). As such, if you have a strong signal path (say 4-5 bars) the phone is transmitting at 100's – 1000's times LESS than the SAR value).  Minimum cell phone power occurs when you are "close" (say 5 bars on your phone) to a tower.  IF YOU REALLY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT EMF ... you would then want more cell towers and/or many small cells in the community so that you could get 5 bars on your phone everywhere and thus the cell phone would be transmitting at very low levels of EMF compared to the legal maximum.
• Additionally, the FCC notes that there are "no established negative health effects from radio waves emitted from mobile phones and base stations complying with international limits".   If you look closely at the research that EMF advocates point to regarding EMF harm … the actual research does not support the claim of EMF harm.  This is of course reflected in the FCC statement above.

 

I understand that there is some discussion in Ashland relative to a proposed 5G cell tower.  I would like to emphasize that the deployment of any cell tower will  lower EMF levels for cell phone users and as such, if EMF is of concern, it would be prudent to encourage more deployment of cell towers.

 

I am happy to discuss the science, technology and mathematics (already outlined in the OLLI material) as needed.

 

               Tom Anderson

               ATIS Principle Technologist

               https://www.atis.org/about/staff/

On Dec 29, 2022, at 12:02 PM, Kathleen King <kat...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Priscilla - 

I'm just trying to keep the city council accountable and looking to peer reviewed science to make their decisions, and not a misguided belief system!

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 11:53 AM Priscilla Oppenheimer <p...@priscilla.com> wrote:

The credit for the reminder to get involved goes to Kathleen Marrs King. She’s in our group. She has an MS in CS from SOU and was a software tester for many years. She’s in our group. She joined us for lunch a few times. Hi, Kathleen :-) 

Sent from my iPad

[Kathleen King]

So folks on the Nextdoor group think that someone on the city council will bring up this issue during Tuesday's meeting, even though it doesn't appear on the agenda. If anyone can come and provide expert testimony, that would be very helpful. Writing and approving the new ordinance will take some time, but the anti-5G group has been attending city council meetings for months and have managed to convince at least a few on the council that 5G and nonionizing radiation are dangerous.