In 2024 September, the MA attorney general’s office certified our initiative petition to gather c. 100K signatures to put a law on the MA ballot to regulate technology. We petitioned in 2024 with some success, but need to grow. In 2025, we can resubmit and gather signatures in fall 2025 to put it on the state ballot. Secondly, we can submit it as a law to the 2025-6 state legislature, but legislators need to more persuasion, especially house leadership which decides which bills succeed. For the last reason, we also prepared a constitutional amendment to make the legislature fair, or more democratic and transparent – but we don’t know if it will be approved.
Our tech regulation bill is for radiation limits. Despite industry marketing, limits are needed because today’s exposures are causing harm, as detailed below. Limits are useful, such as through:
Engineering (e.g. see ICBE-EMF.org & their handout)
Best practices
Equivalent offline & wired function
Examples:
Wireless:
All antennas – transmit wirelessly only when needed
Smart appliances – work the same with wireless disabled
Cellphones – allow incoming calls with wireless disabled & full operation when hard wired
Computer software – work well with wireless disabled
Electric:
Powerlines – Limit field strength using distance and design
Digital utility meters – include missing surge protection
Note: because we can submit a new proposal, suggestions for improvements are welcome. Please also consider joining our email listserve for updates. using an initiative petition because the state legislature appears unable to act on this issue – see here for more info.
Because many people fail to understand and wrongly assume safety of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of wireless and wired electricity, below is a brief explanation. In addition, steps to limit wireless exposures at home are listed online here.
The most well-known effect of RFR has been cancer. Recently retired, former leaders of key, relevant research programs at the US National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, including Linda Birnbaum, Ronald Melnick, and Christopher Portier, have shared how radiofrequency radiation (RFR), which includes wireless and electrical radiation, promotes cancer. Cancer and tumors may take decades to develop, but youth are more vulnerable due to their biology and early exposures – symptoms may appear too late with glioblastoma. Studies often find a dose-response effect, where greater exposure causes more damage. However, in some cases a ‘window’ effect has been noted, with greater damage at a certain low dose.
Cancer has been greatly feared and thus more studied, but other harms can occur from random RFR and with more immediately noticeable effects. Extensive research shows harms include:
harm to wildlife, including plants, animals, and insects,
headaches, nausea, dizziness, muscle pain, fatigue, nose bleeds, skin reactivity – and noticeable sensitivity.
Research was sourced from the Bioinitiative.org website – this group includes reviews by independent scientists such as UWA Professor Emeritus Dr. Henry Lai – his biography on the online journal Microwave News is insightful.
Why hasn’t government acted? The FCC is an industry-influenced failure, ignoring 2019 and 2021 court rulings to address the real-world environmental & public health impacts of wireless connectivity; ignoring widespread health, environmental, and scientific opposition to 5G & satellites; and continuing to auction more 5G wireless frequencies than in 2G to 4G combined all while deregulating installations. The federal legislature in sync with federal agencies foolishly advance rules and bills advancing antenna siting. Industry continues to push bills through the federal legislature with the support of Congress. Why? Unlike highly regulated wires, antennas allow new markets, higher prices, and greater surveillance. Plus, industry workers, legislators & bureaucrats fail to understand the full health & environmental impact.
Of course, industry avoids limits by lying about safety, lying about the wireless vs. wired costs, lying about environmental costs, and using pricey marketing & pseudo ‘science’ to drown out real experts. Across the industry, people are also afraid to admit effects for fear of personal repercussions.
Yes, industry can reduce the amount of radiation from wireless antennas, as France proved when they banned the Apple iPhone12 until Apple issued a software update to reduce radiation emissions. Industry can do much more. Truthfully, reducing radiation may fail to satisfy, for science has not found a safe level of exposure. We know wires are safer, and we need to use wires. But due to ignorance support for wires is lacking, so instead small steps can be taken to limit wireless transmissions to the minimum for connectivity while also insuring that wired connections remain a possibility for anyone who chooses to use wires.
From European Parliament study ‘Health Impact of 5G’ July 2021
We must limit our radiation exposures, because our ability to fight lessens as our health declines from new technologies – in particular women and the elderly. Powerful cell tower antennas, called ‘small cells’, are being placed on utility poles near our homes on utility poles. These provide low quality, cheap telecommunications and IT service, in order for industry to avoid maintaining existing wires even as industry continues to pocket subsidies for wired maintenance. In Boston, street antennas were already installed in 2017, and 5G technologies have been or are being deployed such as in Fenway.
Numerous residents became ill after installation of a cell tower, so the case is now in court.
Radiation exposures at the lower end of the spectrum such as fields emitted by electricity – frequencies that are also emitted by cellphones – need limits, too.
The installation of large alternative energy projects and their high-voltage cables can result in unusually strong radiation – from 300 to 1000+ milligauss – when childhood cancers are associated with fields of 3 milligauss (0.3 microtesla or 0.3 uT) and when these risks rise as dose increases. Conventionally, home exposures average less than a milligauss, so any chronic exposure above 1 milligauss is high (see Table S-2). However, consultants from product defense companies like Exponent or Massachusetts-based Gradient often sign off on these excessive field exposures.
At one time, electricity commonly emitted just 1 frequency: 60 hertz (USA) or 50 hertz (other countries). Today, as a consequence of alternative energy, digital connections, ubiquitous inverters and ‘wall warts‘, etc., our electrical grid emits many other pulsing and transient frequencies (also termed poor power quality), all of which are more biologically disruptive than a single, smooth sine wave. By law, the electrical grid should only use 60 hertz, and it is feasible but it costs a money – in some cases a little money, in other cases more. When power quality is poor, digital and electrical equipment can be damaged in quality (e.g. audio), length of life, or with fire — human health is also harmed.
Epidemiologist Sam Milham and engineer Lloyd Morgan observed high rates of cancer related to poor power quality (e.g. frequencies emitted from the electrical line other than 60 hertz): A new electromagnetic exposure metric: high frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school (2008)
Radiation exposure from antennas is logarithmic, which means exponentially more powerful near the antenna. For this reason, our wireless devices and routers result in powerful exposure comparable to or stronger than near cell towers, even though living near cell towers, just like living near big power lines, has long been known to contribute to ill health. Children, the elderly, and women are especially vulnerable. Yes, you can take steps for personal protection.
Excerpt from Boston’s FCC filings docket 19-226, from section III. Comments from docket 13-84 with Boston and Philadelphia also discusses the suffering of electrosensitives from random wireless exposures.
Engineering RF for greater safety does have some meaning. Safer exposures are not just about reducing the density or ‘amount’ of radiation that has risen with auctions of new wireless frequencies such as for 5G. New technologies can cause more biological activity due to factors like resonance, polarization, frequency, and modulation. Scientists in the field are worried current guidelines fail to safely regulate and account for 5G signal characteristics, even failing to limit heating or microwave ‘cooking’. Experts in the field have made some recommendations to attempt to limit the worst of wireless, though the science is complicated and wires are always a safer choice.
Petition initiatives are tough and expensive – winning measures regularly cost a million or more which none of us can fund alone. We need you to join us. Please sign up to get a petition for your family and friends, please make a donation, and help us to make a difference.
All proposals can be amended by legislators. For this reason, we need to keep in touch FOR lobbying. Please join our email list here!
