California Governor Vetoes Statewide 5G Antenna Standards

More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523102

I agree with you. I think part of the problem is that the public perpetually feels like major corporations do things that prioritize profits over general consumer best interests. This leads to a knee-jerk opposition to anything not fully understood.

What lack of understanding is there though? We already know that doctors are unable to preform reproducible science, so we cannot trust them to prove that cell-phones are safe. Physics tells us that cell-phone radiation enters the body and interacts with cells. Of course, the panic that often accompanies such uncertainty is irrational and unscientific, but the steadfast belief that the radiation can do no harm is equally so.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph250/lu1/

> When is this going to stop? It feels like we're going backwards in terms of people understanding science.

Who is there that is telling the public what the science says and that the public can trust?

Government agencies and their scientists?

They often have a tendency to make recommendations based on weak science, and if they are regulating an industry with a lot of political influence they may even make recommendations that go against what the science says.

For an example take a look at dietary recommendations in the US. Almost everything that has gone into them has not held up. The public followed them, reduced fats, eggs, and protein, and loaded up on carbs...and became fat and diabetic.

How about non-government advocacy groups?

They botch it too. Continuing with the dietary recommendations example, the American Heart Association, for example, jumped on the unscientific "fat and cholesterol bad" bandwagon, and spent decades giving people harmful advice.

Industry scientists?

Their employers often get to decide what they publish, which means that although the industry scientists might not outright lie about results, they may remain silent about results that would go against their employer's interests.

Academic scientists?

This is probably your best bet. The problem here is that academic research is often not directly on point for the particular issue that regulators or legislators are addressing. Academic researchers are more likely to be doing the basic research that industry, government, and NGO researchers should be building upon.

You and I understand enough about electromagnetism and biology to understand that those concerns are probably unfounded.

Other people don’t have the time or the inclination or intelligence to learn and so they have to rely on the word of authorities.

And to be honest, people have been lied to repeatedly by authorities and have died or become sick because of it.

It might be the case that being cautious in rolling out new technologies is a prudent political decision, even if it’s not necessarily sound scientifically.

For the same reason that people claim to have wifi allergies probably.

More probably and less cynically, 5g is a different wavelength and therefore the transceiver requires FCC assessment and approval.

Senate Bill 649, which passed the California Legislature last month, would have restricted local governments' abilities to block antenna placement and would cap the rates that they could charge telecom companies for installations on public property, such as street lamps or traffic lights.

It feels like it’s more about telecom companies trying to restrict the rent local governments can charge that is a bigger deal here.

You misunderstood the nature of the bill that was vetoed. The bill didn't have much to do with 5G at all. It mandated a uniform state-wide permitting process for any company installing wireless equipment. It also set a maximum price that cities could charge companies who want to use city property (poles and whatnot) to mount their equipment. Every local jurisdiction in the United States has their own rules for getting permits. If you just want to add on to your house that's not a big deal, but if you want to build a lot of things in a lot of places then the extra cost adds up quickly.

For earlier generations, they put large towers, spread relatively far apart. For 5G, they'll need smaller antennas, spaced closer together, which means more cellular stations, over-all. In previous cases, I think that a lot of "next-gen" cell towers just upgraded the previous generation of tower, but stayed in the same place.

Argument for the bill: It streamlines the process for getting permits to put up new cellular antennas, and makes permit requests cheaper by putting a limit to the fees that a local government can charge. The process and costs should be limited to reasonable amounts, and standardized throughout the state.

Argument against the bill: Local governments should be able to manage local affairs; things that make sense in one city might not make sense in another, or might need to be done differently.

U.S. law is layered. Federal law specifies some things, and leaves everything else to the states. Then state law specifies some things, and leaves the rest to cities and counties, etc.

Cancer isn't increasing at an alarming rate, or even at all. Especially brain cancer, which would be a likely candidate if cell phones were really a problem. You know what has skyrocketed? Cell phone use. That brain cancer rates have not gone up is the best evidence that cell phones aren't causing cancer.

https://brain-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/fi...

> 5G has proven to cause a increase in tumor rates in male rats during testing.

Claims like that would really benefit from a link to the specific study you're talking about.