2019-10-12 Many city ordinances re. 5G

1)  This link has a very important video with information showing that studies showed that microwave radiation was dangerous, and known to be dangerous, since the early 1970s.  This is 40 min. long; I watched only the first 20 and it is wonderful. He speaks to a newspaper article titled Radio Waves May Affect Mankind . Cover up? Corporate pressure?  How did Russia and China know and take precautionary measures and other countries like US and Canada haven’t yet?   Warning that overlapping frequencies (like the 5G microcells with multiple transmitters) are especially dangerous.

The title could be “What they are hiding from us”.

We know that the US Air Force had studies confirming harm thanks to Dr. Zory Glaser donating hundreds to Dr. Magda Havas. They can be found at www.magdahavas.com under “historical references” [https://magdahavas.com/category/from-zorys-archive/]. 

What They Never Bothered to Tell Us…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1320&v=A8-0JKFWJKE   (40 min. video)

2)  Someone in a US group is gathering ordinances to help protect communities against 5G.  This will be ongoing, but we could use these as great resources in presentations to our City Councils [http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/people].  If any of you do present, please share what you give to your Council.

I have been reviewing ordinances passed by other cities in preparation for our Sacramento group’s meeting with the city to discuss a protective ordinance for our city. The two best resources I have come across are:



I have not been taking population size into consideration at all in my analysis, so I do not know what cities fall into the category you are looking at.

I think Petaluma, CA is the gold standard. 


Amended their existing cell antennas code with 210 words defining small cells and outright restricting them in residential areas. If every city passed a similar code that would fix most of the problems with 5G in my opinion. 

The city of Elk Grove, CA recently adopted an ordinance that restricts placement of the antennas immediately adjacent or across the street from residential front yards. This sucks for people living at the end of streets as that is where all the cell antennas are going to go, but it is highly defensible as an aesthetic regulation. Can’t find the actual ordinance right now but here is an article discussing it.

(note from Sharon. No link was provided. Here is the link to the city staff with recommended amendments, see pg 11.)  http://www.keepcellantennasawayfromourelkgrovehomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/08-28-19_9.3.pdf

City of Calabasas, CA: No antennas in residential zones D.1.c (pg 7-8). All new WTFs set back at least 1,000 feet from schools, dwelling units and parks C.4.a (pg 3-4). Preferred Zones and Locations C.3 (pg 3).


City of Sonoma, CA: No wireless telecommunications facility shall be permitted in a residential district 5.30.040 A (pg 13).


City of Mason, Ohio: 100 foot setback from any residential property Table 1188 (page 384).


There are many other ordinances but these are the ones I have seen that most effectively keep the cell antennas away from homes. You can see that most of these are from California cities. There was a recent California supreme court decision that upheld our cities’ ability to regulate the placement of these antennas.


Not sure how much authority non-California cities will have over the antennas. “



Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“We can´t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”    ~ A. Einstein



Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation