Lemmings for Bad Bills

Lemmings for Bad Bills

By Kirstin Beatty on 10 May 2020

~ Updated 21 July 2021; Feb, July 2022; 14 September 2022

 

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

In the past I have noticed problem bills being promoted as solutions to non-ionizing radiation harms. I’m hoping the promotion of problem or lesser bills will stop, and have hopes but also fears.

I can only guess why problem bills are promoted. I review bills carefully and for testimony make very clear what the testimony supports in fairness to signatories and legislators.

To me, our demands should reflect the weight and reality of our concerns, and so reflect strong stands over fame, fortune, conventionalism, etc. We need to support the best and oppose the worst ideas together to be clear.

Please take a good look at the full legislative picture here at Last Tree Laws, since legislation is the focus here, including critical analysis – please lend your support to the efforts and focus on good non-ionizing radiation bills and other legislation.

I’ve been angry about some of these problem bills promoted, and I’ve had to take time away from my life to fight them. I’ve had to devote time to calming my anger. We are all on limited time to take care of an issue that presents a grave danger.

In the past, here are some of the bills I’ve found problematic or lesser:

H. 383, an ALEC bill for a ‘5G task force’, promoted in early 2019 without caveat although it was to set up a commission of industry leaders and legislators to advance 5G. The advocate finally pivoted to amending, after my own work on amendments as the bill advanced (2019-2020).

S. 129 for a commission to study the wireless issue gave the power of appointment to an administration that has favored industry, presenting danger of a white wash. The same issue exists in 2022 and I’ve proposed some amendments here as it, S. 186, may still get a vote before 31 July 2022.

H. 1874 encouraged wireless installation and study of ‘best practices‘ by compromised state education officials was promoted over my bill H. 587 to limit wireless exposures directly by establishing that as school policy (2019-2020). H. 1874 was reintroduced in 2022 under another name.

H. 1956 was to study danger of power lines, but some of the appointments were from organizations that had conflicts of interest (2019-2022) – this bill continues to be introduced with the same issues so the sponsor has not yet understood or heard criticism.

Notes on bills are below, from previous article.

H. 383 for a 5G Task Force > now H. 124 in 2021-2022

    • 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.

The Best Management Practices bill H. 1874 (2019-20)> 2022 H. 115

        • For 2021, a constituent and I contacted Representative Dykema and discussed all the issues below and she did not want to change the install wireless phrasing, and in fact nearly did not submit the bill as she did not have the interest. Yet, advocates pushed for this bill in previous sessions and in 2021-2022, advocating even for sponsors for this bill instead of other bills to hard wire. Dykema has several sponsors for this bill, but an actual bill to hard wire, H. 105, has only Rep. Patricia Duffy and I as sponsors. I find this a mistake on the part of advocates who apparently don’t understand that Rep. Patricia Duffy is willing to do more and deserves support.
        • This bill was marketed in 2019-2020 as a solution for harm from school wireless, but phrasing was to install wireless and use “best practices” – in 2021-2022, the bill was then marketed as an investigative commission.
          • In real life, asking individual teachers and students to turn wireless on and off is impractical, and being near a router to turn off the router is a higher exposure that needs to be avoided as well.
          • The education department under Governor Baker has been closely tied to technology interests and may not be the best for developing “best practices.” There is no telling who the next governor will be, and at this point no one has championed this issue despite most being informed.
          • This bill offers a small step of consideration but needs improvement to prevent promotion of wireless – in the 2019-2020 session, H. 587 did 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.

S. 129 Resolution for Radiofrequency Disclosure > revised version became S. 186 for 2021-22)

  • Note: For 2022, if this bill advances, I have suggested there be a detailed amendment to prevent conflicts of interest, but need a senator or representative willing to do put forward the amendment. I sought to speak with Senator Cyr but could not do so.
  • Suspicious minds: This bill was put forward by Senator Cyr but was in fact developed by someone hired by a committee who changed Senator Cyr’s original bill that was originally much better. So the senator then put forward an original bill and this bill revised by committee. I can’t blame Senator Cyr for not seeing that what was drafted was problematic, though.
  • This post discusses more issues with commissions, such as years of delay on action, and, if pushed forward, potential solutions and a tentative draft for an alternative bill (with a section on conflicts of interest).
    • This bill S. 129 was for a commission to study impact of wireless harm, but looked like planning for industry bailout – of 11 members:
      • Governor Baker, with a dark money rap, controlled all appointments.
      • 3 members depended on the wireless industry
      • 4 members were 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 locally-known industry hacks: the scientist and the “environmental” lawyer
      • The first item of business for the commission is to examine how the industry may be financially impacted if wireless is harmful!
      • In 2022, if S. 186 advances, who the governor will be to appoint is still an open question, as is the ability of the new governor make good appointments on this issue.

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.

The Commission to Study Power Frequencies bill H. 1956 (2019-22) > 2022 H. 2351

        • 2021 – As a sign that legislators do not read emails, this bill has been regularly submitted each legislative session without any changes to the criticisms below. Before this session, I asked a constituent who knew Representative Linsky to catch him and discuss these issues, as well as sponsor bills, but have the sense that never happened as there are not any changes or sponsorships. True, this session the time frame for sponsorships was odd due to Covid19 but it is disappointing.
        • Independence of the commission needs to be examined as the American Cancer Society is known to have serious conflicts of interest. The Environmental League of Massachusetts is also of concern due to working closely with a corporate council and other reasons (see the MA legislation page).

Better bills have been listed on the page for MA legislation. Some examples I prepared 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 – initial version submitted in 2015 as SD. 2256.
        • A bill to require release of a fact sheet on wireless and other electromagnetic radiation – that flew under the radar . . .
        • Etc. . . .

 

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.

Last Tree Laws Massachusetts