Newsom should veto Dodd’s 5G bill

In his recently published California Voice commentary, state Sen. Bill Dodd asserts that we need State Bill 556 to accelerate the rollout of 5G wireless services and close the digital divide in rural and low-income communities (“Needed wireless broadband infrastructure improves access, safety,” Aug. 30).

Dodd faults town policies for hampering rollouts. But telecoms have been ignoring these towns for many years because the profits they yield don’t justify the cost of providing service. SB 556 will not change that calculus.

Towns are not flouting the law as Dodd claims. Telecommunications lawyers ensured that town ordinances complied with the latest Federal Communications Commission rules.

SB 556 would override these ordinances. It would prohibit a local government “from unreasonably denying the leasing or licensing of its street light poles or traffic signal poles to communications service providers.” This clause alone prevents our elected officials from determining what is reasonable.

Dodd also insults those who suffer from electromagnetic sensitivities and related ailments. They are real. The U.S. Access Board of the Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes these sensitivities as a disability.

They have an official diseasecode classification for radiofrequency radiation exposure. These sensitivities are accepted by Medicare. Unlike Dodd, the medical establishment does not view the claims of sufferers as “baseless,” “unscientific” or “debunked.”

The FCC’s 25-year-old safety standards do not provide “wide safety margins,” as Dodd asserts. The Circuit Court of Appeals just found the standards’ unmodified renewal “arbitrary and capricious.” The FCC must now explain this renewal and address the impacts of radiofrequency radiation on children, the health implications of longterm exposure to ubiquitous wireless devices and the impacts on the environment.

SB 556 reduces local control and ignores health effects while doing nothing to close the digital divide. Gov. Gavin Newsom should veto it.

— Roberta Anthes, Fairfax