Weirdness and Wackiness in Milton’s Politics . . . Candidate Tucker’s Opposition to 5G

As trust in government wanes and politics becomes increasingly contentious, more and more average citizens are withdrawing from politics.  This is understandable.  From my personal experience, I know that a concerned citizen puts a huge target on his/her back when he/she wades into Milton’s political quagmire and challenges Milton’s power structure.  Local politics is not for sissies; that’s for sure.  Unfortunately, the exit of smart, honest, and reasonable citizens leaves the political playing field to the corrupt, clueless . . . and sometimes the crazy . . . serious tin-foil-hat sorts of people.  And social media often accelerates and amplifies today’s political lunacy.  Political apathy also means Special Interests are essentially granted free reign . . . in Milton, this means developers buy elections and are showered with favors from compliant council members. And it is these trends that motivated me to start my blog . . . to elevate the political discussion, to motivate citizens to engage, and to speak truth to power.

Today, I want to talk about wackiness in politics in the context of the run-off for District 1, Post 1 pitting Jami Tucker against Andrea Verhoff.  (I will leave discussion of the influence of Special Interests to another day.)  Much of the current discussion among citizens is focused on Ms. Tucker.  According to my sources, Ms. Tucker has history of activism on social media—much of which seems to have been scrubbed from the Internet.  However, I have been provided with a number of screen shots supposedly posted by Ms. Tucker (or asserted to have been posted by Ms. Tucker).  And frankly, many of these posts are indeed troubling.  Unfortunately, the posts lack context, sometimes involve partisan politics, or sometimes pertain to state and national issues . . . so these posts don’t clear my threshold for inclusion in my blog.  However, one issue, Ms. Tucker’s stance on 5G wireless networks, did capture my attention.  5G is an important local issue, and Ms. Tucker’s 5G perspectives are likely indicative of Ms. Tucker’s broader approach to politics and government.  Ms. Tucker is dead wrong on 5G. The facts simply do not support Ms. Tucker’s position that 5G is “not safe to be deployed near people.” And frankly, Ms. Tucker’s stance is just plain wacky.

In California, Ms. Tucker led efforts against deployment of 5G.  And Ms. Tucker left a trail of evidence supporting her positions on this issue. 

Following are some links to Ms. Tucker’s advocacy against deployment of 5G.  Read and listen for yourself . . .

Tucker 5G LinkedIn Article

Jami Tucker Warns Us About 5G

Jami Tucker’s Go Fund Me campaign against 5G

To be blunt, this sort of tin-foil-hat thinking falls in the same constellation of conspiracy theories as Bigfoot (and Elvis) sightings, alligators living in NYC’s sewers, abductions by aliens, and other pseudo-scientific baloney that often finds expression in the likes of the National Enquirer.  I say this as a former nuclear-trained Navy submarine officer and thus knowledgeable about radiation—both ionizing and non-ionizing, which is a key distinction.   Also, as a consultant, I worked with wireless technologies (for reading meters and other uses) for 10+ years. 

Based on both my Navy and consulting experience, I published or contributed to a number of papers/articles on wireless (and wired) technologies.  Attached below is a published paper (that I helped write) for the Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative that debunks myths about wireless technologies.  (I am also including a paper that I wrote that was input to the SGCC paper.)  Although written in the context of lower frequency, less usage-intensive meter reading, the same general principles apply to 5G technologies.  Many of the claims about the dangers of 5G (and wireless technologies more generally) are wildly exaggerated or just plain false.  While I do believe municipalities should have some control over 5G deployment (for example, the aesthetics and location of transceivers), I find Ms. Tucker’s extreme views on 5G deeply troubling.  Milton needs council members who can think clearly and logically and who deal in facts not fakery.  There should be no place in Milton for political wackiness and fringe ideologies.

Advocating For Rationality and Facts in Local Politics,


Note:  Sadly, it is often the case in Milton that scientific facts and clear logic are cavalierly brushed aside in Milton’s policy-making.  The approval of the music venue at Birmingham Crossroads involved willful ignorance of basic scientific principles of sound and acoustics.  City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council all turned a blind eye—and deaf ear—to the scientific facts and legitimate citizen concerns.  For example, both staff and the Planning Commission (Council Member Paul Moore was the chairman) recommended a maximum sound level of 85 DB (at the property line) for the AG-1 zoned music venue.  This is equivalent to the loudness of a freight train at 100 yards and it is the sound level at which OSHA requires companies to institute hearing protection programs!  And it is because of such willful ignorance that Crossroads residents have to endure loud music 30+ Saturday nights per year–a blatant infringement on citizens’ rights to enjoy their property and a total disregard for basic community protections inherent in Milton’s zoning laws.