Author: Just Good

Posted on

Why we must count the 2023 Radiation Limits Petition

Written by Kirstin Beatty

We must count the 2023 radiation limits petition because that was the condition of an injunction necessary to get approval for gathering signatures.

Our proposal for a petition initiative was substantially approved in 2022, but we had a few errors and so in speaking with the Office of the Attorney General under then AG Maura Healey, we agreed not to proceed and the petition was not certified on the basis of including not only radiation limits but the gathering of health statistics, including statistics that didn’t relate to radiation. The law requires petitions are single subject, but this didn’t seem like a good reason for decertification though there wasn’t a reason to go forward with the errors.

When we resubmitted, we submitted a similar petition with and without the health statistics section as modified in a way we thought could work, based on an existing proposed law submitted by MA Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier.

Other changes included that we added a section to limit wireless exposures from utility equipment, based on a proposed law submitted by MA Senator Michael Moore. Finally, the Massachusetts Broadband Institute was also charged with providing support for hard-wired infrastructure.

The office under the new attorney general Andrea Campbell refused to certify the petition with or without the health statistics. To get the petitions printed and a PDF anyway, a request for an injunction was filed and an agreement was made with the attorney general’s office.

PROBLEMS WITH THE AGREEMENT & OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND

We didn’t realize that the agreement meant that town clerks wouldn’t be able to verify at all, even if they wanted to. So, we haven’t been carefully tracking as we should have, or given out the right directions.

The agreement says that the petition signatures will only be counted if enough signatures are submitted, about 75 thousand, and an affidavit submitted on 22 November. This is terrible because town clerks can keep petitions till 4 December for verification, and if they start counting that many petitions on 22 November the petitions will likely not be done till then. Then, as a ballot committee we have to get all those petitions delivered by 6 December to the Secretary of State in Boston.

So, town clerks are taking the petitions, time-stamping it, and holding onto the petitions. We need to make sure we get them, but we may not be able to deliver them even if we have enough.

GOING FORWARD

I was originally thinking of paying for ads to get signatures and for outreach, but I kind of had a kick in the stomach about the above delay and don’t think I can make the time crunch now or put together an effective ad in this time frame.

We also don’t have the funds – we’ve never had them – for ads or to deliver all of these petitions. If we count on doing this again next year, then there is the benefit of having been much learning from experience what we need to be successful. Of course we still need to reach out to others. I will be collecting signatures through 22 November to make connections.

The reasons for denial of certification remain an issue. When there is a disagreement, it can be worth asking in court, but in order to get to court normally one has to get 75K signatures for the court to hear a case. Even if unable to get in court, there is nearly a year to parse out and discuss what might work. I would love to hear opinions from everyone.

ABOUT THE DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION

It is not clear why Andrea Campbell’s office denied for it seems nearly everything while Maura Healey’s office did not. We accidentally left out a previous section on hard-wiring buildings and providing education on reducing exposures, a section that AG Maura Healey’s office said we could include, but we included something similar to hard-wire and provide education. However, these were changes so these should be considered.

A primary criticism of Campbell’s office is that we covered too many policy areas, and seems to suggest that everything must be excluded except one single item of change. This is very different from the criticism in 2022 from Healey’s office.

From the criticism it is not clear what the office believes would be acceptable, and it suggests that education, not only statistics, is outside the realm of reducing radiation, as well as including public commissions to study the impacts of modern exposures and how to mitigate as needed. This seems to go along with industry, which was upset about this, too, and believed too many policy areas were included, mentioning also the health statistics and education of medical experts, patients, and students.

In the more notable changes, instead of simply setting the stage to hard-wire public buildings as previously, we included that the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI), which is a group that is supposed to give out public funds to build out the ‘last mile’ of IT infrastructure, would be required to invest in public wired infrastructure for both IT and telecommunications. This seemed appropriate for reducing exposures.

Public wired telecommunications infrastructure is used by all telecommunications and IT companies, but it is crumbling due to lack of investment (except fiberoptic) and instead private antennas are going up which are not shared and which are duplicitous and thus add to exposures. Similarly, public IT infrastructure helps reduce wireless antennas. Another aspect that was required of the MBI was to start helping to hard-wire public buildings.

However, this requirement to invest in public infrastructure is likely a huge point of contention because, even though the infrastructure is crumbling, the industry has benefited from public grants to set up shop in towns, such as Comcast cable or use of library wireless hubspots. Comcast cable is and a monopoly because the cable is privately owned, and if it is in town then other companies can’t use those cables and must set up wireless antennas or invest in public infrastructure to be a competitor with Comcast.

One other specific criticism was that the proposed law removed the chair of the governing board of the John Adams Innovation Institute or his designee from the board of the MBI. This criticism seems fair on the face, but it can be understood as simply concern that the chair may have conflicts of interest with hard-wiring due to the mandate for and the relationships built through this position – one would want a leader who actively promotes safer connectivity instead of someone who slows down action due to competing interests.

Basically, the John Adams Innovation Institute has as a mission to promote ‘technology-intensive’ and ‘innovation-driven’ organizations related to business. The institute works with businesses as stakeholders – 350, it says on their site – and many wealthy corporations have interest in 5G applications.

The John Adams Institute has a governing board that in a 2005 publication (it is hard to find the governing board listed online as it has gone, suspiciously dark) included Advanced Technology Ventures (a technology investment group), National Grid (uses wireless instead of wires); Monitor Group LP (a consulting group with a secret client list, now bankrupt); and a strategy group with representatives such as Genzyme Corporation (now owned by Sanofi, which has embraced wireless ‘health’ partnerships) and Lau Technologies (listed online as specialized in defense technology, facial recognition, and tech investments). A 2012 publication also includes tech venture capital and investment firms. Shortly after, the composition of the board stopped being listed.

The institute also includes the MA Technology Collaborative which used used to list industry partners including: Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council (MassTLC), Massachusetts Innovation & Technology Exchange (MITX), New England Venture Capital Association, The New England Council, Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM), Massachusetts Business Roundtable, Massachusetts Competitive Partnership. MassTLC sponsors and/or members have included AT&T, IBM, Google, Cisco, and Microsoft.

Over the years it has been apparent that MBI has preferentially chosen big industry to provide IT contracts for towns instead of municipally-owned broadband. Because this has been criticized as suspect by public officials or advocates, this provides some additional reason for being concerned that industry interests may be favored.

Despite all these connections, if the mandate is to hard wire then the chair may have to do so regardless, and the chair may actually be helpful in getting these other industries on board – so this specific item isn’t the most urgent component of the proposed law.

GOING FORWARD

Posted on

Towns with Coordinator

WE NEED COORDINATORS FOR FALL 2024! We need to provide information on whether a town has someone to pick up all the initiative petitions from that town and ideally report on how many petitions are in that town. Please contact us and volunteer!.

  • THIS COULD BE YOUR TOWN!
Posted on

Returning Petitions

Printable version

We would like to first collect all petitions in Holyoke and then send them ourselves to Boston. This is so we can prove we have enough petitions!

However, before 5 p.m. Wednesday, December 6, petitions certified by town clerks (with the signatures of 3 voter registrars) must arrive at this address: Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, 1 Ashburton Place, Room 1705, Boston, MA 02108

How to Return Petitions

  1. Check our current list of towns for drop off to see if there is a coordinator, or a coordinator who needs help that can collect petitions: https://lasttreelaws.com/2023/11/towns-with-coordinator/
  2. If not, you can help! Volunteer to coordinate collection from a certain town using:
  1. Join a conference call to ask – calls are listed at the calendar which also has sign up instructions. We use freeconferencecalling.com, which also has a desktop app.
  2. You can send the petitions individually. Here are the very last minute due dates and mailing addresses for petitions that have voter signatures verified by 3 voter registrars, as required:
  • BEST: Arrival 5 December 2023 or better EARLIER for proof and for count: Petition, c/o Kirstin Beatty, 149 Central Pk Dr, Holyoke, MA 01040
    • Drive and drop off or meet to drop off
    • Mail 30 November regular mail (USPS)
    • Mail 2 December priority mail (USPS) – calculate a price
    • Mail 3 December with 2-day shipping:
      • with FedEx – calculate price
      • with Priority Mail Express (USPS) – calculate price
  • SECOND BEST: Arrive before 5 p.m. on 6 December 2023: Elections Division, Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, 1 Ashburton Place, Room 1705, Boston, MA 02108
    • The dates for mailing are the same as above.
Posted on

Petition PDFs

To be counted as valid, petitions must be printed the same way as the state prints petitions. Petitions must be printed:

  • on regular 8″x11″ printer paper;
  • on plain white paper;
  • NO other markings, stains, or highlighting
    • remember, any markings, cross-outs, or stains invalidate a petition;
  • legibly; and probably
  • with both sides the same way up (see image) – just like a book:

Here is our radiation limits petition for signatures – remember to follow the strict state rules on how to sign without marking anywhere else on petitions:

Petition S (petition for radiation limits)

For printable instructions and flyers, click here. Note deadlines (5 p.m. 22 Nov. Wed. is the first deadline, town clerks may keep petitions till 4 Dec. and then these are due 6 Dec. before 5 p.m. Wed. at the Sec. of State in Boston as listed on the petition) & coordinate with us for delivery.

We also have online pages with instructions, such as for signing and returning.

Petition I (petition for a fair legislature)

This petition we are not pushing because everyone that has contacted us has done so for the radiation limits petition, and not this one. However, you can still download and consider it or getting signatures. We need to raise awareness on this issue.

Posted on

Petition Printables

Note that we are pivoting to do this in 2024, as explained here. We will be working on revisions of the printables on this page, including printables for outreach!

General Petition Printables (8″x 11″)

  • New Full Signing Instructions: Signing & Returning (2-sided) – this web page also has related links
  • New Signature Gathering Instructions: Where to Collect & Tips (2-sided)
  • Sign for Table – Includes signing instructions
  • Tent Sign for Table – Same as above, but foldable
  • Short Signing Instructions to Share: Cut in 4
  • Clipboard Cover – helps give instructions & info

Radiation Limits Petition Printables (8″x 11″)

  • Clipboard Cover Sheet – helps give instructions & info
  • Poster – also helps as visual when collecting signatures standing or at table
  • Poster – with space for notes (e.g. contact info)
  • Campaign Flyer – Summary & Signing and Returning Instructions (2-sided sheet)
  • Short Signing Instructiosn & Summary – Instructions (2-sided, cut in 4)
  • Short Summary & Invite – Drop-off Invitation to Sign/ Order Petition (2-sided, cut in 4)

Additional educational resources can be found by scrolling down to the footer (on every page) and clicking on resources, then clicking the tab on limiting radiation.

Petition Initiative Social Media

  • Blog Post: MA Voters Get Your Petition on Radiation Limits
  • Blog Post: Limit Radiation at Home
  • Facebook
  • Twitter – we don’t have an account, but you can check Kirstin’s page.
  • Image to share:
Posted on

Why a Fair Legislature?

We proposed two related petition initiatives in 2023 at the last minute, so imperfectly, to see if it is possible to fix issues around the legislature, including conflicts of interest. We welcome feedback for constructive improvement here. We submitted this petition out of frustration and impatience with the legislature’s inability to pass legislation that industry opposes even when beneficial to and popular among everyone else.

The legislature has many issues, such as problems of transparency, conflicts of interest, and rules and campaigns that fail to support democratic functioning. ActonMass (.org) has built a campaign for transparency and more democratic legislative rules and, in 2021, submitted several amendments proposing to increase transparency on bills. Given the attention they’ve given these two issues, by rights they should bring forward an initiative and, if so, we will be glad to support them. FYI, these are not the only issues, but let’s start there.

Even though legislators earn about $70,000 in salary, the Speaker of the House decides the bonus pay of nearly 160 representatives. Bonus pay currently ranges from zero to $90,000 extra. With the ability to give or take away $90,000 in bonus pay, the speaker has great influence over most of the legislature.

The Senate President controls pay for nearly 40 senators, but the Speaker decides bonus pay of 160 legislators and so has greater influence.

This kind of control could be dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. Although control also depends on what the market, or the legislature, is willing to bear, the fact is that bullies often manage to con, bribe, and create the kind of toxic culture that disables opposition – hence the rise of Stalin, Hitler, etc. Speaker of the House Ron Mariano may be the nicest person, but this doesn’t matter – allowing bonus pay to be decided this way is wrong.

Leadership is also able to handpick a few people for ‘conference’ committees to rewrite bills entirely, ignoring the proposals of the committees that held public hearings (public hearings in theory, disregarding numerous absent legislators).

House leadership also calls a vote. The speaker can block or push bills at will, as well as bring bills to vote without transparency, so that legislators may be voting on bills that have never been seen except by 3 or 4 people. At the end of the year, bills are often bundled together for votes, making it difficult for any legislator to say yes or no to any one bill since the good may be bundled with the bad.

The reasoning behind bundling is that there are apparently so many bills to pass. This is a ridiculous argument because the bills are usually held for a vote until the very last minute partly to extend control over other legislators. By not allowing some bills to come to vote, for example, leadership insures that legislators are extremely nice to them and almost never complain.

We can’t let one person or a few bundle and decide on the passage of bills, nor delay passage of bills for so long. If, for some reason, some legislators just quit working after passage of their favorite bills, then their pay should be docked or they should be otherwise called on the carpet – never should the control measure or punishment be something that involves delaying legislation for the people as a whole.

The power of the speaker of the house naturally encourages corruption. State speakers of the house indicted include Speaker Salvatore DiMasi (D) in 2011 for kickbacks; Speaker Thomas Finneran in 2004 for lying about redistricting to his benefit; and Speaker Charles Flaherty (D) in 1996 for lying about taxes and lobbyist gifts.

The power of the speaker naturally means that industry simply has to persuade one person, the speaker, to listen. If you fear the concentrated power of the U.S. president in the ‘wrong’ hands, why allow the speaker, state legislative leadership or anyone so much power?

Our state legislature has two branches – House and Senate. Sending bills through committees for both the house and senate slows down legislation when, in Massachusetts, we can’t even get our budget passed on time. Would we want two branches of the town or city council as Davis Bernstein, in an article linked below, asks?

While some may say slow and steady, the legislature is stagnant on certain bills. Bills to require more recess have been in the legislature for years without action. Privacy bills might as well just never be submitted. The bills that easily move forward are, in contrast, usually bills that have some kind of financial interests as backers and lack industry opposition. The only ‘green’ bills that seem to move involve solar, wind, etc. industries, in contrast to limits on chemicals. Thankfully, our legislators still try to support local constituents, such as local farmers, to the public’s benefit.

The public, legislators, and experts can also be deceived, as Monsanto famously demonstrated by purchasing lying, unscrupulous ‘experts’ to sign onto scientific articles promoting their Roundup weedkiller as safe. Even our news media is swamped by sponsored ‘content’, ‘nonprofits’, and ‘experts’ designed to make everything look ‘green’ and good even when the opposite is true.

This problem points to how much we need independent science to advise and present to legislators and the public, instead of a public university system that often seems to cater to industry research and funds.

The only benefit of slow action is that it seems that industry has more time, money, and energy to influence legislators – industry easily pays their lawyers to write, and sometimes threaten, public agencies and legislators. Attending public hearings or reading dockets, you see the polish of presentations from paid industry lawyers. Most people, including academics and other experts, don’t have time to dedicate to public hearings and dockets.

Despite this, there are times when the public floods the legislature to speak on some bills. Public hearings are very important for they allow the public to share persona experience. There are times when bills industry loves are halted because of public opposition.

Finally, the legislature also has issues with campaign donations, elections, and with general conflicts of interest, such as having set up disclosure laws and public access in way that amounts to very little disclosure. Campaign laws in Massachusetts are unfairly set up to benefit incumbents, so much so that incumbents don’t need to gather as many signatures to run.

The above is based in part on a number of articles that have criticized the state legislature over the years, such as the following:

  • Let’s Dismantle the MA House of Representatives, by David Bernstein in Boston Magazine, 3/26/2017 – details the leadership conference committee rewriting bills, as well as how bills get choked up by too many committees.
  • Disappointing Tradition in House (1/3/2019) – Eagle Tribune criticizes non-secret vote for House speaker.
  • Ex-Lobbyist Reveals How House Really Works (12/19/2018) – by Phillip Sego in Commonwealth Magazine
  • MA House Plays Follow the Leader (2/11/2019) – by Bob Katzen in Sentinel & Enterprise, discusses how house legislators all cast same vote as house speaker’s vote, as called in, and then immediately switched their vote when the house speaker called in to switch his vote.
  • Massachusetts Path from Transparency to Secrecy (10/3/2023) Bridget Beleno in Massachusetts Collegian
  • It’s Time to Bring Transparency to the Legislature (2/24/2021) Jonathan Cohn in the Commonwealth Magazine
  • Conflicts of interest in state government and the need for community media
  • Monsanto papers at US Right to Know [anti-genetic engineering (GMO) research/news group]: https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/
Posted on

Summary – Petition S (Radiation Limits 2023)

Besides our simple summaries on our handouts, the Massachusetts attorney general’s office is required to create summaries for initiative petitions that are concise and accurate, though not necessarily detailed.

The following is the attorney general’s summary of petition S, which is online in full form here, for which we are gathering signatures – emphasis has been added in bold along with the sections in brackets []:

SUMMARY OF PETITION S (Topic: Radiation Limits)

This proposed law would establish new requirements for private corporations and governmental agencies to reduce and mitigate the effects of certain electromagnetic radiation.

The proposed law would require technology companies, including internet and personal wireless services providers and electronic product manufacturers, to limit electromagnetic field exposures to the minimum required for access to their services and operation of their devices. This limit would apply to new products, services, and installations and, where compatible, to service and product upgrades and software updates. The proposed law directs the Attorney General to enforce compliance. These limits must be implemented by two months, one year, or one year and three months, as further specified in the proposed law. [See section 1, page 1, here]

The proposed law would require carriers, personal wireless services, wireless facilities, and any corporation offering internet and telecommunications access to limit electromagnetic field exposures to the minimum required for operation of services. The proposed law directs the Attorney General to enforce compliance. [See section 8 on page 20]

The proposed law would require the Department of Telecommunications and Cable (DTC) to monitor and collect data on electromagnetic radiation emitted from wireless facilities [see section 2, page 4], expand the DTC’s policy development authority to include transmission media and technology that best reduces electromagnetic radiation exposures [see section 4, page 5, here], and create a new Division of Communication and Electronic Radiation Monitoring that would collect and share data on electromagnetic radiation from wireless facilities and other technologies [see section 5, page 5]. This would take effect one year from the effective date of the proposed law.

The Department of Public Utilities and utility companies would be required to offer ratepayers non-wireless equipment [see section 14, page 38 – this is modified slightly from Senator Moore’s current bill S.2152 – please tell your legislator to support his bill which has not moved forward since submitted in 2013 or 4 legislative sessions even though considered quite problematic].

The proposed law would establish new requirements for wireless facility operators, including annual radiation testing, certification, and reporting; minimum cash or conventional and environmental pollution insurance coverage; and a ban on the installation of wireless facilities on public higher education and public school campuses, state parks, and state forests, except for basic emergency services at state parks and state forests. Violations of these new requirements would incur civil and criminal penalties. [See section 6 on page 11]

The proposed law would update the mission and board composition of the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) to prioritize MBI’s pursuit of hard-wired connectivity and expertise in Building Biology and reducing exposure. [See section 14 on page 37 – specifically, the text redirects the MBI to maintain & develop wired infrastructure used for telecommunications and IT; divest from wireless except for emergency services; and to support hard-wired connectivity in public spaces.]

The proposed law would update the Code of Massachusetts Regulations to include Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) as a disease subject to Department of Public Health (DPH) surveillance. DPH would educate health care providers and the public on EMS, including through an EMS disease registry advisory committee within DPH. [See section 6 on page 17 – this section is based on Representative Farley-Bouvier‘s state bill H.2158 – please encourage your legislator to support this bill]

The proposed law would require the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), public schools, public school districts, the Board of Higher Education (BHE), and public or independent institutions of higher education to reduce or eliminate man-made non-ionizing radiation emissions that are known, likely, potentially, unintentionally, or unknown to be harmful. DESE and BHE would develop guidelines and recommendations to reduce or eliminate harmful radiation for their respective stakeholders. [For example see section 11 on page 27, which requires public schools to set objectives within their means to reduce exposures, and see section 13 on page 33, which requires the DESE and BHE to develop recommendations.]

The proposed law would establish a commission to investigate the health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation and prohibit further installation of small cells and wireless facilities during the investigation. [See section 10 on page 22]

The proposed law would establish a commission to determine how to minimize non-ionizing radiation exposure for first responders who use wireless technology. [See section 11 on page 25]

Posted on

FED BILLS to increase wireless radiation – and action

90 industry bills to promote wireless & antennas are moving quickly through the House and Senate, and some are set for a vote any day now. Depending on the bill, changes are:

  • cell towers anywhere, such as your front lawn, removing all local control;
  • deploy in national parks and forests;
  • environmental review elimination;
  • eliminate 5G security requirements;
  • wireless in agriculture promotion (favoring Big Ag and harming pollinators);
  • speed satellite deployment (harmful to the atmosphere, etc.);
  • etc.

The audacity these bills has led to, as seems usual now, opposition from local government and related associations: U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, Alliance for Community Media.

The easiest thing to do is to sign a petition for legislators at Children’s Health Defense or Environmental Health Trust – the CHD form is here for one of the worst bills and the EHT form for 50 bills is here.

If you can, reach out and call your federal legislators and educate them, too. There is a wealth of resources on these bills, such as follows – also included is a the list of some Massachusetts legislators:

More petitions, bill details, suggested amendments, and resources: https://thenationalcall.org/advocacy-and-action/

Overview, Factsheet, Spreadsheet of 50 bills: https://ehtrust.org/congress/

MA SENATORS ON KEY COMMITTEES:

Senator Elizabeth Warren contact OR office locations: https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact/shareyouropinion OR https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact/office-locations OR Washington phone number: (202) 224-4543

Senator Ed Markey contact: https://www.markey.senate.gov/contact/share-your-opinion OR phone for time-sensitive matters: 617-565-8519

MA REPRESENTATIVES ON KEY COMMITTEES:

Representative Jim McGovern: https://mcgovern.house.gov/contact/officeinformation.htm OR https://mcgovern.house.gov/contact/

Representative Seth Moulton: Offices at https://moulton.house.gov/contact/my-office – Phone: (978) 531-1669 (Salem) or (202) 225-8020 (D.C.)

Representative Lori Trahan: Lowell Office, 126 John Street, Suite 12, Lowell, MA 01852 – Phone: (978) 459-0101 | Hours: Monday – Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:30 PM | Contact page: https://trahan.house.gov/contact/ Washington D.C. Phone: (202) 225-3411 (D.C.)

Other MA representatives can also influence the course of legislation – find their contact information here and call them too: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/MA#representatives

Posted on

Checks and Cash for a Ballot Question Committee

Please note that online donations are much easier for us to process – online fees, approximately 5% plus $0.30 per transaction, are often less than paying someone or taking time to input the donation as required for state reporting.

REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR DONATIONS – State and federal law require certain information listed below from donors before donations can be accepted and used. To be absolutely correct, the address and occupation is not required for donations less than $50 in a single calendar year, which includes the value of in-kind donations such as rental space, software, etc.

One of these statements:

  • I am the sole source of these funds.
  • The source of these funds is ____ (name source of funds, such as follows:)
    • union or association
    • corporation (note that a corporation must also file a Form CPF 22 which is available online with the OCPF.us)
    • name of partnership or unincorporated business
  • Occupation and name of your employer (or that your are not employed), if an individual.
  • Residential address or, if not an individual, the entity’s address as follows:
    • union or association address
    • address of the individual partner or owner D/B/A of a partnership or unincorporated business
    • corporate address

CASH – First, cash cannot be accepted above $50 from any one person in a single calendar year. $50 and below can be collected in person. Include required information listed above.

CHECKS – If you would like to write a check instead of using the online program to support a ballot committee, then the following information is for you:

  • Include all required information (listed above) so the donation can be used.
  • A check may be written to ONE of the following ballot question committees that have petitions this year:
    • RadLimits at Last Tree Laws
    • Fair Legislature at LastTreeLaws.com

MAIL – Mail checks to K. Beatty, 149 Central Park Drive, Holyoke, MA 01040

Posted on

RadLimits Review

LIMITS ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION ARE GOOD:

    • In Massachusetts, limits exist to prevent electric shock;
    • In other states, limits exist on magnetic and electric fields from high-voltage power lines;
    • In the US, limits on cell tower transmissions are meant to prevent heating;
    • In India, cell tower transmissions are much lower than in the US to reduce harmful biological effects;
    • In Chile, limits exist on cell towers near hospitals or schools;
    • In Cyprus, WiFi is prohibited in pediatric wards and elementary schools;
    • French regulators ordered a pause on sales of the Apple iPhone 12 since the radiation exceeded their limits – Apple promised to reduce radiation with a software update.

A SAMPLE OF SOME SMART SCIENTIST CONCERNS:

– Dr. Chris Portier, recently retired from the US NIEHS, chaired the committee at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that in 2015 stated wireless and radiofrequencies were a 2b ‘possible’ carcinogen. Many original members of the committee have since stated wireless is carcinogenic and the classification must be strengthened. In 2022 for a brain cancer lawsuit, Portier wrote 176 pages of testimony with scientific references to prove cellphones cause brain cancer.

– Dr. Robert Becker, MD (1923 – 2008), became famous for bringing media and a generation’s attention to the dangers of high-voltage power lines. Despite his hitherto successful career, he lost his research contracts and retired early because he spoke out against non-ionizing radiation. He wrote the cult classic The Body Electric and was nominated twice for Nobel Prize because he discovered electricity could heal bone.

– Dr. Henry Lai, PhD, and Dr. Narinda Singh, PhD, in 1995 published that wireless signals broke DNA strands, and then dealt with industry attempts to discredit their work. Dr. Singh is best known for developing the comet assay, a technique used around the world to detect DNA breaks. Dr. Lai, who became a research professor at the University of Washington, has published evidence of harm documented in peer-reviewed science for the public on the Bioinitiative.org.

 – Dr. Olle Johansson, PhD, discovered that computers even without wireless could change the skin biome, with markers such as mast cells increasing. Dr. Johansson is now retired from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, but continues with research and advocacy for limits.

– Dr. Neil Cherry, PhD (1946-2003), who published on how modulation of small amounts of non-ionizing radiation, including solar and geomagnetic activity (such as thunderstorms) can have harmful effects and advocated for making technology as safe as possible. Cherry also examined cancer clusters, such as on high rates of cancer in the line of transmissions from the Sutro Tower in San Francisco. In 2002 Dr. Cherry was appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, for services to science, education and the community.

– Dr. Sam Milham, PhD, used his access to a WA state database to find workers exposed to more non-ionizing radiation, such as electricians,  contracted leukemia more than would be expected, sparking other researchers to look and find similar patterns. After retirement, he did further research and discovered that where electricity was newly introduced, ‘diseases of civilization’ like heart disease arose, about which he wrote the easy read Dirty Electricity. Milham believes the problem is linked to pulsing or surges and harmonics on ‘dirty’ electrical lines.

REFERENCES:

  • Scientific appeal on wireless & electricity with summary: EMFscientist.org
  • Scientists and doctors appeal for 5G moratorium: 5GAppeal.EU
  • Dr. Henry Lai: https://seattlemag.com/news/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry/
  • Dr. Narendra P. Singh: https://microwavenews.com/news-center/singh-comet-assay-radiation-research
  • Dr. Robert Becker: https://robertobecker.net/
  • Dr. Olle Johansson’s donation page with information: https://research.radiation.dk/
  • Dr. Portier’s 176 page report tying wireless to tumors: https://microwavenews.com/papers/chris-portier-rf-evaluation
  • Dr. Portier’s resume at IARC where he represented the CDC: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PORTIER_Bio.pdf
  • Dr. Sam Milham: https://microwavenews.com/milham.html
  • Dr. Neil Cherry (Archived Website): https://web.archive.org/web/20190628014620/http://www.neilcherry.nz/bio.html
  • US states with exposure limits relevant to electricity or policies of prudent avoidance: https://www.emfs.info/limits/limits-usa/
  • France and Apple iPhone 12: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/15/tech/apple-iphone12-france-update-radiation-levels/index.html
  • For international policies please see the Environmental Health Trust
Posted on

What’s in a name? What are Last Tree Laws?

What’s in a name? What are Last Tree Laws?

Last Tree Laws reflects the importance of saving the trees, entire environment and humanity before the last tree falls by working to change laws and develop legislation. A lack of democracy, corruption, and poverty is, after all, a cause of environmental degradation and clear cutting: trees need healthy democracies.

The Lorax is a children’s book written by Dr. Seuss which neatly explains the significance of the last tree to humanity. In the story, the Lorax is a little creature that speaks on behalf of trees, even as the Once-ler ignores him and continues to cut down the trees for profits until not a tree is left but for a seed.

Continue reading “What’s in a name? What are Last Tree Laws?”
Posted on

Safer Utilities Amendment

Safer Utilities Amendment 2022

Scroll down for sample amendments to limit the smart grid.

Why? As far back as 2014, warnings were filed with the DPU that people were getting very sick from the ‘smart’ grid – such as Dr. Robert Pontius Gilmore who was one of four members appointed by Clark University to examine the technologies; Dr. William Rea, MD; physicist Dr. William Bruno; BLEC; MACI — alongside sad stories from residents. But the DPU has refused to bend, mandating the grid. Current bill H. 3309 includes a provision to mandate the ‘smart’ grid across the state and require ratepayers cover all costs. Continue reading “Safer Utilities Amendment”

Posted on

Wired Broadband – Amendments

AMENDMENTS TO HARD-WIRE FOR SAFETY

 

Even if you set aside thousands of studies showing wireless harms wildlife, wireless is a known security risk.

We need legislators, in the very brief time available now before the session for major bills ends on 31 July 2022, to propose the below amendments to wire broadband and telecommunications in nursing homes, soldier’s homes, schools, colleges, etc. If not, to give support for these changes next year. Continue reading “Wired Broadband – Amendments”

Posted on

Halt or Amend S.186 (Investigation of Electromagnetic Impacts) 2022

HALT OR AMEND 2022 WIRELESS INVESTIGATION BILL

Massachusetts bill S.186 to investigate electromagnetic exposures from technology could be redesigned to promote transparency & better representation, as suggested below. If not amended, a whitewash is likely, while with amendments this is still possible but less so.

The following are 6 proposed S.186 amendments, for which feedback is welcome (esp. #V, VI). These could be submitted as one amendment with a complete text or in parts as presented below: Continue reading “Halt or Amend S.186 (Investigation of Electromagnetic Impacts) 2022”

Posted on

End Water Fluoridation

END WATER FLUORIDATION

The following letter was testimony for a 2021-22 bill that was killed.

Many residents have sought to remove fluoride from municipal water supplies after examining the research.

In Wilmington, the Director of Public Health in 2000 recommended ending fluoridation after researching the subject. In Natick, a study committee of individuals defined as “qualified” “unbiased” and “scientifically trained” recommended the same. Cities and towns such as Topsfield, Gloucester, Rockport, Newburyport, Cambridge, Concord, Amesbury, Methuen, Worcester, Greenfield and others have also attempted to end water fluoridation. Continue reading “End Water Fluoridation”

Posted on

Safe MA Broadband & Electric

SAFE MA BROADBAND AND ELECTRIC

The following written testimony was provided, additional to spoken testimony, in 2021 for bills that were killed.

Massachusetts needs to insure modern electricity and communications are safe.

RECORD SHOWS SUBSTANTIAL HARM

Substantial evidence exists in the research record that radiofrequency emissions from electricity and wireless communications cause biological changes such as increased oxidation (ROS) leading to downstream effects including calcium release, mitochondrial, DNA, and neuronal damage.

Effects are found from exposures from wireless and near electricity. The FCC even recognized in [Order 19-126], which denied biological effects and was just overturned by court order, that electric fields can cause instant “neural stimulation effects” unrelated to heating and that current guidelines fail to provide protection (328). Continue reading “Safe MA Broadband & Electric”

Posted on

SIGN to End MA School Screen Time Mandate

The following was provided to MA legislators in a 2021 hearing, yet the bill was killed.

Through grade 12, our state standards require public school students utilize technology in nearly every subject in addition to media and computer science digital requirements.

Massachusetts has a Pre-K educational writing standard requiring pre-kindergarteners use digital tools to convey messages. Why demand technology use in Pre-K when students can barely spell? Continue reading “SIGN to End MA School Screen Time Mandate”

Posted on

Electric Vehicle (EV) Critique

ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CRITIQUE

Critical testimony jointly submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities dockets 21-90, 21-91, and 21-92 on utility EV proposals on 14 September 2021  — available at MA DPU, but link may change after corrected copy is provided. Ken Gartner also provided a separate letter including more technical criticism.

Dear Secretary Marini:

All of the proposals from the above-captioned utility plans sound wonderful if one believes electric vehicles (EV) are the route to preventing climate disaster. However, sound environmental and public health reasons exist to stall these proposals for modification or elimination, in addition for privacy and property protection. Continue reading “Electric Vehicle (EV) Critique”

Posted on

What’s with Agenda 21? UPDATED

What’s with Agenda 21?

by Kirstin Beatty – Updated 27 August 2021

I was curious what is with Agenda 21, tossed about as an evil by some, and examined complaints to find some good and bad. I learned that the United Nations has some serious problems now for one reason.

In 2019, the United Nations made an accord with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to circumvent votes from each nation in favor of including business stakeholders in formulating decisions, as discussed in an article by Harris Gleckman on OpenDemocracy.net. This is part of a push for ‘stakeholder capitalism’ which replaces democratic processes with business leaders in charge, with other examples including the WHO and Common Core.

The UN Agenda 21, now Agenda 30, is not mandatory or enforceable. However, Agenda 30 includes many laudable goals, such as recommendations to protect the rights of women and support environmental health for all.

Continuing with the positive, Agenda 30 seems to make some attempt to prevent big business from winning all contracts and owning everyone and everything. Small farmers, which have been decimated by the false promise of a green revolution and industrial agriculture, are to be protected from big business. Of course, protection may not exist in practice.

Secondly, the United Nations is an organization intended to share the thoughts of nations, or governments, rather than businesses. A one nation, one vote policy was intended to give even small, poor countries a say.

Isn’t discussion among nations helpful to preventing war? So, check, another positive.

Yet, in 2019, the United Nations made an accord with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to circumvent votes from each nation in favor of including business stakeholders in formulating decisions, as discussed in an article by Harris Gleckman on OpenDemocracy.net.

Ivan Wecke, in an article also posted at OpenDemocracy.net, discusses how the WEF chairman Klaus Schwab has promoted ‘stakeholder’ capitalism, intended to give corporations more power by setting aside democratic precepts of government so that corporations make decisions.

As with treaties and trade agreements, transnational corporations were welcomed to help craft the Agenda 30 vision, and Agenda 30 states that nations and ‘stakeholders’ (i.e. businesses) are to take apart in achieving the goals.

In other words, transnational businesses will have access to the U.N. plans most lack, and the time and wealth to ‘fix’ decisions with details against cheap solutions in favor of saleable investments. While U.N. plans are unenforceable, the plans are meant to guide countries and are influential.

To welcome transnational corporations into these discussions undermines the one nation vote policy and is a fundamental problem existing not only within the United Nations, but within U.S. local, state, and federal representative government, where businesses are often invited as ‘stakeholders’ into crafting laws and policies.

Even without being invited to help craft plans, transnational corporations can monopolize business opportunities and undermine competition. A more recent problem is that transnational corporations can frame the conversation and public attitudes towards these plans with technological propaganda and wealth. Advance notice of United Nation plans helps transnational companies revise, undermine, and outright oppose ideas shared by nation representatives.

With illusions created by wealth, transnational companies can sidestep real solutions and cause indirect harm, such was seen in the opioid crisis.

I haven’t read the entire document, but Agenda 30 emphasizes innovation, such as modern energy investments. Yet better, cheaper options may exist with older technology or with none at all. Even though businesses may want smart cities, many regular people want to do without all of the technology for reasons of privacy, public health, and environment. Yet, businesses are likely to argue otherwise due to conflicts of interest.

I’ve criticized the smart grid as costly and harmful for several years, but my criticisms have fallen on deaf ears in both business and government.

There is a positive statement advancing the concept of medicine for all, or of affordable medicine, which remains a dream in many countries, but nowhere does Agenda 30 address accountability for pharmaceutical companies regarding honest marketing and safer pharmaceuticals.

Covid-19 is a perfect example of how admirable goals can be circumvented. Vitamin C, D, antivirals, and any cheap treatment are not part of the conventional standard of care or of much consideration. Vaccines for all are being offered only at hefty prices and, with emergency authorization liability protections for indemnification through the U.S. PREP Act. Abroad, companies have refused to provide vaccines unless profits and indemnity are assured. In the USA, no payouts for any related adverse reactions have been made at all, despite 1,693 claims as of 2 August 2021. Any risk taken is a risk borne, apparently, only by the private consumer. People say that vaccine court exists to protect the ‘outliers’ but it is quite dangerous when impunity exists and there are not any payouts either from government or from pharmaceutical companies. As a nation, we need to protect people just as the Statue of Liberty suggests, rather than lambast people who suffer.

However, I can’t blame the United Nations alone, or transnational companies, for failing to consider pharmaceutical accountability. The United States has done little to halt conflicts of interests of government officers or to insure pharmaceutical accountability. The answer is to first set up laws in our own country to at least prevent conflicts of interests, such as the ballot measure proposed for a more egalitarian legislature.

As far as private property dispersal there is a vague statement that all should have equal access to ownership of property. Agenda 30 uses the words “access” to ownership, which suggests that the meaning is about preventing discrimination in ownership, such as the historic denial of home ownership to African Americans or in some countries to women and ethnic minorities. It could also refer to preventing homelessness. I’m sure corporations selling rental property can manipulate this idea to find a different meaning, but I don’t think it was intended otherwise when written.

Equal rights to economic resources is also discussed, which may involve rights to water as countries struggle over drought or rights to agricultural land for farmers. While a nice idea, this goal is likely to go ignored, especially since the United Nations cannot enforce any of  its recommendations. Israel and Palestine battle over land in a way that shows just how useful recommendations for sharing are heard.

The arguments against Agenda 30 based on giving away private property are specious.  If ‘property’ is ever shared freely by the wealthy, then it will be a cover for transferring liability or creating ‘sharecroppers’ of some kind. There has always been the risk that government takes property by eminent domain, but the idea that this would happen to everyone seems like a recipe for revolution. To take property away from the middle class, it would seem easiest simply to bankrupt the middle class such as with runaway inflation instead.

As far as sharing wealth otherwise, Agenda 30 advocates for social protection measures and these, if business interests reign, may not necessarily equal high quality work, education, or housing. The idea is noble, but is for ‘coverage’ which may come with conditions.

Presently, businesses are mandating medical treatment for Covid-19 — this sets a precedent to allow businesses to mandate any medical care for ‘societal good’ even if the concept of societal good can be manipulated and abused. At one time women were thrust tossed into mental hospitals on questionable psychological assessments, in order to limit their opinions or to acquire their property. Many are today depressed, and depression can still be used as an excuse to mandate unwanted treatment.

I also see a statement that private property cannot be an excuse to harm others through environmental devastation, with which I’m sure we can all agree. Do you want your neighbor or any business to be excused on the basis of personal property to place, on their property, a hazardous chemical dump next to your home?

In sum, the criticism of Agenda 30 across social media is largely about redistribution of private property, which I can’t find in the text.

Is the criticism that Agenda 30 will mean loss of private property fabricated by corporate interests to divert attention from the positive goals of Agenda 30, including limits on corporate power, or to divert attention from the detrimental influence of business interests? The American Policy Center, at the forefront of Agenda 21 and UN criticism, has long campaigned against corporate regulation, including pharmaceuticals, and environmentalism under the guise of private property rights.

Criticism of Agenda 30 is also part of a campaign against the United Nations. Check the news, and you’ll see that there is a campaign against the United Nations as well – why, I’ve no idea. I may be against transnational companies participating, but not against the concept of the United Nations.

I see the criticism of Agenda 30 is often laced with the words communism and socialism. This seems like a trick to get people to automatically react badly to the words communism and socialism, when people should be able to discuss economic ideas calmly.

Socialism has been successful in cooperatively-owned businesses. In socialism, the means of producing or distributing goods is owned collectively, such as work cooperatives like Real Pickles. Socialism can also mean when the government owns the means of producing and distributing goods as exemplified in part by Medicare and Social Security. The U.S. military has been held up as a partly socialist system.

Socialism does not appear to be discussed in Agenda 30, and cooperatives are mentioned only as a business entity like any other — not with any preference.

There isn’t a country that is fully socialist, but several have adopted some socialist programs or policies. Denmark and Costa Rica seem to have done well with high taxes and universal health care as the National Geographic ran an article some years ago on how Denmark and Costa Rica have among the happiest people in the world.

There is not mention in Agenda 30 of providing universal health care, although universal coverage appears mentioned as part of ‘social protection’ — coverage comes with many more conditions than anything universally applied. Restructuring taxation is not mentioned either, except to restructure energy subsidies away from fossil fuels.

In contrast to socialism, communism has failed in many countries. Communism occurs when the community provides funds to the government for equal redistribution, but in practice governments have pocketed the money. Some have observed that communism could work on a small scale, such as within a tribal community.

The ideal of communism is nice, and deserves less hate.

Communism is often used as an insult because of its association with authoritarian governments but also, probably, since communism frightens the wealthy. At one time just being accused of being a communist destroyed careers of people who were not even communist as part of the ‘Red Scare’ propaganda. To weaponize the word communist or any other academic idea is dangerous as it supports aggression, censorship and undermines free discussion.

Associating Agenda 21 or 30 with communism is pushing it. The United Nations, full of capitalistic and some wealthy nations, is not going to become communist or, if so, not easily.

The use of communism and socialism as marketing campaign insult to Agenda 30 may be a marketing trick to create division and shut down discourse. Agenda 30 doesn’t, so far as I can see, have anything at all to do with socialism or communism. The criticism, if it is even a criticism, is way off base. I would say that is a marketing trick. If only criticisms exist of Agenda 30 as communism or socialism, which does not exist in the proposal so far as I can see, then critics must be dismissed and Agenda 30 must be a good thing. I would say the public is being misused to attack Agenda 30 on the wrong and imaginary basis, rather than on any real basis, and I wonder if leading critics are paid for by some party intent on sowing division and prejudices in the United States.

Or, I wonder if the criticism is simply to divert attention from more important avenues for change.

Last Tree Laws Massachusetts