Lemmings for Bad Bills

Lemmings for Bad Bill

By Kirstin Beatty on 10 May 2020 ~ Updated 23 August

 

Please be careful and pay attention to what you support or sign. Don’t be a lemming!

These two bills are still in play and still terrible:

  • H. 383 for a 5G Task Force
    • This bill is to create ‘equity’ in 5G development – this is a misleading objective, equity, because:
      • 5G is an injustice to our health
      • Big business would have a big seat at the table
      • Municipalities & residents are fighting to stop 5G and failing because the industry, supported by the FCC, has too much weight.
  • S. 129 for a Resolution for Radiofrequency Disclosure
    • This bill is for a commission to study impact of wireless harm, but looks like planning for industry bailout – of 11 members:
      • Governor Baker, with a dark money rap, controls all appointments.
      • 3 members depend on the wireless industry
      • 4 members are directly beholden to Baker, of which:
        • 2 work closely with IT and telecommunications
        • 1 works closely with business
        • 1 denied release of a fact sheet on reducing exposures created with the Massachusetts public health department
      • Of the remaining 4, nothing prevents conflicts of interest and every position could be filled by industry hacks
        • 2 positions as written could be filled by local industry hacks: the scientist and “environmental” lawyer
      • The first item of business for the commission is to examine how the industry may be financially impacted if wireless is harmful!

Update: Some advocates are now recommending the New Hampshire bill as a replacement text despite our proposed amendment listed the MA Legislation page, but the New Hampshire bill has similar problems that fail to address the politics of Massachusetts.

Some of the bills submitted to the Massachusetts legislature on wireless may look good on the surface, but the devil is in the details as noted. The same can be true for requests for testimony – you must be sure to know what the bill actually represents before signing.

Advocates are going to support the bills most close to heart, but I find sometimes that advocates support problematic legislation without caveat.

In addition to the above bills, here are examples of  2019-2020 Massachusetts bills that need a little work to meet public needs:

      • The Best Management Practices bill H. 1874
        • Marketed as a solution for harm from school wireless, but phrasing was to install wireless and use “best practices.”
          • In real life, asking individual teachers and students to turn wireless on and off is impractical.
          • The education department under Governor Baker has been closely tied to technology interests and may not be the best for developing “best practices.”
          • This bill offers a small step but needs improvement – in the 2019-2020 session, H. 587 does better at effecting changes – but with tweaks, both might work well together.
          • In the previous  2017-18 session, Dr. Devra Davis offered support for the best management bill and my bill criminalizing wireless.
      • The Commission to Study Power Frequencies bill 1956
        • Independence of the commission needs to be examined as the American Cancer Society is known to have serious conflicts of interest.

Legislators barely have time to examine or alter bills, and to support these bills or support them without caveat is a disaster. H. 383 is in fact to directly promote 5G – how can this help without a miracle?

I’ve heard advocacy for the above problem bills without any discrimination, despite my critiques or warnings. Looking at the templates offered by advocates in support of some of these bills, criticism and details about bills are absent. When I prepare testimony for others to sign, I make very clear what the testimony supports in fairness to signatories and legislators.

I believe critical analysis posted here at Last Tree Laws is helpful, as well as the original legislation we’ve put forward. Some examples submitted in MA for 2019-2020 include:

        • S. 294  An Act Limiting School Screen Time – to allow schools to opt out of mandated technology use in every classroom;
        • S. 295 and H. 588 – bills which protect student and staff privacy and support a more thorough education about technology risks.
        • S. 1271 – Educating patients on environmental health risks – initially conceived in 2015 and submitted then as SD. 2256.
        • In fact, I did put forward a bill to require release of a fact sheet on wireless and other electromagnetic radiation – that flew under the radar . . .
        • Etc. . . .

If you haven’t, please consider subscribing, signing our testimony (when relevant), and helping so as to magnify our efforts. Our organization operates on the backs of a few with limited time and funds.

We don’t receive grants, funding is nightmare, technology needs are great, and we don’t have time or expertise for marketing although we’d love an ice-cream social benefit. Lobbying requires numbers – other groups are not necessarily going to support our efforts.

Your subscription and any help matters.

Note: To read about the specific problems with the bills listed, please visit the MA Legislation page.  ~ One more problem with bad bills proceeding: making corrections is a worrisome, time-consuming process.

2 Replies to “Lemmings for Bad Bills”

  1. Well said, Kirstin! Very important what you wrote here! People, especially our legislators,need to pay attention to what you are saying here.

Comments are closed.