THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, April 29, 2022 ~ Letter-to-the-Editor ~ Page 11 Resident wants 5G antenna removed for safety reasons Dear Editor, I am writing to you today to kindly ask for your support in helping to remove the 5G antenna on Utility Pole 2452 adjacent to my home at 37-39 Willard Street. The antenna is extremely close to the front of my house and facing directly into my 5-year old daughter’s bedroom. I do not feel comfortable continuing to live in my house if this antenna becomes active, as there is not enough long term research on 5G antennas or their associated risks being this close to young children. As a father, it is my duty to protect my child. In five or ten years, if my child develops cancer, how will I ever forgive myself?Would you want your child or loved one sleeping this close to a 5G antenna given the risks involved? There are plenty of other poles nearby where the antenna would be much further away than a stone’s throw from a child’s head. Unfortunately, there was not enough due diligence done in the selection of the 5G antenna in front of my house. In fact, no one even visited the pole prior to installation! Clearly, the ordinances written by the committee had some flaws, and need to be corrected. The sign on the pole itself, which is just below the antenna, says “Transmitting antenna, radio frequency fields beyond this point may exceed the FCC occupational exposure limit.” That distance is the same distance as the antenna to the front of my house. Verizon confirms the health hazard on the pole itself that the antenna poses a danger to human proximity! My neighbors and I expressed our concerns about this 5G antenna since we learned of it possibly being installed early last year. However, after review, the Public Property Committee, led by Steve Winslow, ignored our concerns and decided to still keep this antenna in its current location. After I saw it being physically installed on the pole in late 2021, I expressed my concerns again to several members of the council. It is also important to note that I never once received proper notification of the antenna going up, because of the “glitch” in the town’s electronic mailing system, whereby only the abutters got notice, not the actual address where the antenna was being installed. The city council has admitted this was a mistake and now my family is in an unfortunate position because we did not have the opportunity to speak up again after our location was added back to the original list. On at least two occasions, other homeowners voiced their concerns to some of the members of the council regarding these antennas and the antennas were subsequently moved. For example, on one of those occasions, from the meeting minutes on Sept 2, 2021, several councilors voted to remove the antenna at 71 Plainfield Ave because it was too close to a small tree. And I quote from the meeting minutes, Councilor Winslow stated “it is fair for the city to ask them to look at another location because trees grow and they are important to the environment and the community and we need to protect them” On another occasion an antenna was moved because a friend of one of the councilors was recovering from cancer, and the resident requested the antenna be moved out of fears of cancer, and the antenna was approved to be moved. So clearly there is precedence to the council voting to move these antennas for a variety of reasons. And in the second case, there was no demand for case studies or any peer reviews to take place regarding radiation. However, at a public hearing a few weeks ago, Councilor Steve Winslow suggested peer review studies ANTENNA | SEE PAGE 21
12 Publizr Home