On the Planning Board's Agenda

In May and again in June, Verizon had pre-application meetings with the Planning Board about the plan to install antennas on Providence Hall, on the southwest corner of Columbia and Second streets. The application is on the agenda for this afternoon's Planning Board meeting.

The proposal is drawing fire from the Faulty Towers Response (FTR) group. Calling the proposal "the best kept secret in Hudson," FTR issued this press release last week:

Faster wireless connectivity is on the Planning Board agenda, but no one can confirm if it is safe 

Verizon has proposed to install wireless cell towers (antennas) and other telecommunications equipment on the rooftop of Providence Hall at 119 Columbia Street in Hudson, NY, in direct proximity to the black, Bangladeshi, and white populations at Bliss Towers, Schuyler Court apartments, and Warren Street in the downtown area below 2nd Street. This proposal is extremely disturbing, as the safety of 4G, 5G, and other radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF)-based telecommunication systems has not been established in humans, and the placement of such radiation-emitting equipment within the district may be dangerous. Also, approval of the antenna proposal would make Providence Hall a ‘bay station’, opening a Pandora’s box of additional, non-permitted installations by Verizon and other Telecom companies. 

There are now more than 2,000 published scientific papers and letters which indicate that the effects of nonionizing radiation include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damage, reproductive system effects, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. In contrast, no 5G safety studies have been performed by the telecommunications industry. For these reasons, more than 50 cities throughout the world have banned such antenna installations within their boundaries. And because of similar concerns about health and safety, in October 2019, New York became the next state to introduce a bill to establish a commission to study the health and environmental effects of 5G. Some important questions posed by the bill include: 

 Why has the insurance industry recognized wireless radiation as a significant risk and refused to insure wireless companies for financial loss due to health claims related to exposure to wireless radiation? 

 Why are manufacturers of wireless equipment required to warn users to keep such devices away from the body? 

 Why have more than 220 of the world's leading scientists signed an appeal to the World Health Organization and the United Nations to protect public health from wireless radiation and nothing has been done? 

 Why are the FCC's wireless radiation human exposure guidelines set for the United States less protective than those in Russia, China, Italy, Switzerland, and most of Eastern Europe?

What if the risk is actually smaller than the scientific studies suggest? 

This is a fair argument. Much of science is our best approximation of what is true—rarely an absolute truth. Most of what we know about 4G and 5G technology is relatively new and our learning is still evolving. Neither side of the conversation is spot-on or anywhere near complete versus what we will learn over time. 

One of the central precepts of modern public health regulation is the precautionary principle—that is, “the commonsense idea that without clear evidence that innovations are safe for the public, their use should be restricted, if not avoided altogether.” In other words, a commonsense approach to risk is neither to ignore it and bury our heads in the sand pretending it doesn’t exist, nor to embrace it and let whatever happens happen. 

For most hazards of daily living, a very small risk—say 5%—isn’t worrisome: for example, a 5% chance of a car slipping on the ice. By contrast, in public health, a 5% chance of radiation exposure could mean that people will suffer and perhaps even die. The point is not to get to zero risk, which is probably impossible, but to mitigate it in a sensible way. 

 Even if the risk is less than 1%, why would you expose the most densely populated part of Hudson, thereby massively increasing the number of people affected? 

 There can be no more than a handful of people with 5G capability on their phones in Hudson, since this is really new stuff. What is the rush if we can take the time to review other options for placing the antennas? 

 Is it totally an accident that antennas are being proposed for placement in one of the poorest sections of Hudson? Does Verizon think this population has many 5G devices and will be signing up for $1000 dollar cell phones? 

Let’s not rush to a decision and create another Flint Michigan 

Before adequate safety has been established, it is foolish to propose RF-EMF antenna installations in an area where so many people could be irradiated, when alternative, unpopulated rural sites are readily available in Columbia County. It seems unacceptable to expose the population to a harmful risk factor and just ‘hope for the best’. That mindset did not work in Flint Michigan, and it should not work here. Let’s take a breath and let Verizon come back with some alternative locations. 5G is new and exciting technology, but maybe nobody needs to get sick or be put at risk. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr is also speaking out against antennas 

Just last month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s Children’s Health Defense filed an ex parte letter to the FCC against 5G antennas on homes. According to this letter, the expansion of the OTARD (Over The Air Reception Devices) rule would violate the Constitution and upend long-standing common law personal and property rights. The FCC does not have the authority to override people’s rights to bodily autonomy and their property-based rights to “exclude” the wireless radiation emitted by third parties from their homes. 

The Faulty Towers Response (FTR) group is fighting to protect Hudson families 

FTR is a group of Hudson residents who are concerned about the risks of involuntary wireless radiation exposure and who have joined together to protect Hudson families. FTR believes that radiation-emitting RFD-EMF antennas do not belong in populated areas, and they should be excluded from the downtown locale of Hudson. If you agree that Verizon’s antennas should not be installed dangerously close to the population of downtown Hudson, FTR encourages you to: 1) sign their petition at Change.org, 2) write to City of Hudson officials, and 3) spread the word to reject Verizon’s antenna installation proposal.

The Planning Board meets at 4:30 today. It can be viewed on YouTube at Hudson City Zoom Meetings.