“I have recently received several questions from constituents concerning my 5G stance. It would of course be easiest if I just said ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ but I'm a scientist, and I cannot in good conscience give a sound bite here. I will note though that just because I am a scientist doesn't mean that I think all scientists are inherently right or that all science is good science. Having been in academics for many years I've seen some of the best and some of the worst. Just like there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. Good doctors and bad doctors. some scientists start with a belief and spend their lives cherry-picking research to fit their narrative. I will never be that kind of scientist. So let me share a few thoughts that I have after my own research. 

“What I am seeing is the science of physics being siloed from the science of biology. I've studied the latter extensively and the former only a little. The things that stand out to me are that there is a difference between the way the body responds to radiowaves of different frequencies. The higher the frequency the less permeation into biological matter in the same way or intensity as lower frequencies, like radio waves or the visible light spectrum. Cell phones fall right above radio waves and 5G mostly falls at a higher frequency. At the top of currently accessible frequencies, there are actual pilot studies of technologies using these frequencies for therapeutic purposes. I am not seeing reputable research that these higher frequencies cause cancer, coronavirus, or other ailments at this time. There are ongoing studies by the WHO of high prolonged exposure of lower frequency cell phones, though, that I am following – and we all should be, I think. So I am not saying that evidence of no harm is conclusive and the story is over but I am saying that I do not believe evidence of harm has been proven as some are suggesting. 

“I will also add that I am very concerned about the virulence of the messaging coming from RT America. What if technology transitioning to higher frequencies were actually safer but we spend decades fighting ourselves while we linger with lower frequency technology?  Just a thought.

“I will say, and I am happy to share it publicly, I think that, for any municipality that wants to sign a contract for 5G, there needs to be a much better job of communication with the public than I am seeing. Municipalities need to do a better job of outlining why they feel it is safe before they role it out. 

“Lastly, I believe there is a human rights issue here not being addressed. There are large swaths of the district that have no internet at all!  We are trying to get better speeds for the folks who are already privileged enough to be connected, only widening the gap between the “haves” and “haves nots.” We should be focusing our policies and money on making sure that we have universal broadband, use our power as government to leverage the interest by companies like Verizon and Spectrum to expand 5G to run fiberoptic cable to the places that need it, for example. That brings up the point, too, that fiberoptic cable is a alternative that isn't being discussed enough as an option.

So that is long and nuanced and not black or white, but I am not going to say that I am against it based on the science being discussed because I do not feel it is conclusive and much of it is science I find suspect. I do want to see research on it continue including the therapeutic use of high frequency waves. And I want us to focus more on universal broadband and not helping only the privileged few.”

– Anna Kelles, via Facebook