RadLimits Petition Initiative Planning

 

Please join our action alert list and support action now! 

RadLimits Donation

Press Release 14 October 2022

Radiation Limits Ballot Initiative Planning

 

Cell tower opposition remains strong in many local communities, such as in Pittsfield where the Board of Health issued a cease and desist order early this year because locals persuasively reported a cluster of illness soon after a Verizon cell tower turned on in 2020, reporting headaches, ringing in the ears, dizziness, heart palpitations, nausea, and skin rashes. The board, however, reversed course and the city and Verizon are now being challenged in court by residents, who claim pressure from and conflicts of interest of the town mayor and city solicitor.

While the Pittsfield case may advance promptly and with good results, such challenges can be time consuming and expensive – Murray v. Motorola, case no. 2001 CA 008479 B, finally held hearings on brain tumors associated with cellphones at the federal D.C. Superior Court this September, after 21 years. If industry loses on this or in similar cases, legislation may then suddenly play an enormous role, determining industry accountability and acceptable exposures.

Ballot question committee RadLimits at Last Tree Laws is pursuing a 2023 ballot initiative, which would be an enormous signature drive of registered voters. If about 100,000 certified signatures are gathered, then voters can decide whether to enact a relevant law in 2024 that would limit exposures from wireless and electricity. The committee is seeking planning committee members, funding, and other assistance as well as town contacts or organizers across the state.

Last Tree Laws director Kirstin Beatty explains the reasoning for pursuing a ballot question, “I can’t help but notice that despite ongoing education about serious damage from non-ionizing radiation since 2013, the proposals that advanced furthest simply asked industry to sit at the table with legislators to discuss what might be done. If ever passed, this would mean a delay of 2 years for discussion while we all suffer physical and mental consequences, plus opportunity for industry influence. If there must be feet dragging, I’d rather at least have a bill that takes a few concrete steps.”

In August, a draft proposed law to limit non-ionizing radiation was submitted to the attorney general’s office for review and found generally acceptable if an expanded disease registry were revised or omitted. The committee would like to improve this draft and, if legislative sponsorship and time enough exists, submit a version as state legislation in January.

Currently, the draft limits non-ionizing radiation emitted from wireless antennas and electricity, while still allowing for functionality. Software, equipment, infrastructure, and institutions are required to minimize emissions, including by moving towards hard-wired functionality. Such limits already exist in countries like France, where reduced electrical and wireless exposures are required in all schools and WiFi is banned entirely in elementary.

Informal interviews are currently being held for committee leadership and assistance. Information on applying, joining or donating can be found at Last Tree Laws (https://lasttreelaws.com) or at Donorbox.org/RadLimits (https://donorbox.org/RadLimits).

REFERENCES

Background:

Ballot Initiative:

Pittsfield Cell Tower Opposition:

  • Local opposition: https://stoptower.com/faq/
  •  Board of Health order: https://www.iberkshires.com/story/67151/Pittsfield-Health-Board-Ordering-Verizon-to-Remove-Cell-Tower.html
  • Local residents sue, claiming conflicts of interest: https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/central_berkshires/legal-action-pittsfield-cell-tower-mayor-linda-tyer/article_91aa3d2e-0f4b-11ed-a2fb-0bd279394765.html

International laws discussed at the Environmental Health Trust:

  • 2015 French Wireless Legislation – “Law on sobriety, transparency, information and consultation for exposure to electromagnetic waves.” Original Report: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/propositions/pion2065.asp
    • 2018 French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) published a report on power line exposures and issued recommendations to limit exposures from electricity: https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/effets-sanitaires-li%C3%A9s-%C3%A0-l%E2%80
  • %99exposition-aux-champs-%C3%A9lectromagn%C3%A9tiques-basses-fr%C3%A9quences
  • • Overview of French ANSES and other countries reducing electrical exposures: https://ehtrust.org/reduce-exposure-to-children-french-health-agency-issues-2019-report-on-health-effects-of-low-frequency-electromagnetic-fields/

RadLimits Review

Please join our action alert list and support action now! 

RadLimits Donation

IMPORTANT INFO ON MASSACHUSETTS BALLOT INITIATIVE
RADLIMITS AT LAST TREE LAWS (LastTreeLaws.com)

For public safety, we need a law that limits non-ionizing radiation exposures (from electricity & wireless).

To bypass industry, we need to a voter signature drive to let voters approve the law: a Massachusetts ballot initiative!

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.

WE NEED STRONG LIMITS BECAUSE since c. 2000 most of us sit near computers, routers, and other electrical and wireless equipment while regulations fail to address this chronic exposure.

INTELLIGENT PEOPLE AGREE – e.g. 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. Many scientists in this specialized field have appealed for stronger limits citing existing harm, and very few say otherwise – but those who do have their voices amplified by industry marketing and money. In sum most say WE NEED LIMITS FOR OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE, HEALTH & JOY.

WE PROPOSED A LAW FOR STRONGER LIMITS which so far includes:

    • Tech design that makes turning off or limiting wireless easy or default mode;
    • Limits on incidental non-ionizing radiation from electrical and wireless equipment to as little and as safe as possible;
    •  Wireless facility (e.g. cell towers) maps & ownership public info;
    • Require MA telecommunications department prefer technologies that lessen exposures;
    • Take steps to hard-wire and limit exposures where under state control in public institutions;
    • Set up a commission of first responders to examine how to protect them.

WE COULD IMPROVE THIS LAW WITH FUNDING & VOLUNTEERS NOW to support:

    • Time for improvements and legal expert feedback;
    • Polling to see what voters will support.

REFERENCES

    • RadLimits at Last Tree Laws: https://LastTreeLaws.com
    • US states with exposure limits relevant to electricity or policies of prudent avoidance: https://www.emfs.info/limits/limits-usa/
    • Dr. Olle Johansson’s donation page with information: https://research.radiation.dk/
    • Scientific appeal on wireless & electricity with summary: EMFscientist.org
    • Scientists and doctors appeal for 5G moratorium: 5GAppeal.EU
    • For international policies please see the Environmental Health Trust

A SAMPLE OF SOME SMART SCIENTIST CONCERNS:

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. 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. 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. 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:

  • 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. 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

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?”

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”

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”

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”

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”

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”

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”

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”

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.

First of all Agenda 21, now Agenda 30, is not mandatory or enforceable. 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 a recent 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. 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.

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 at Last Tree Laws.

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.

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.

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, like insurance coverage, 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.

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 is off base.

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