Divide & Co-Opt

 

 

Divide & Co-Opt: $hit

By Kirstin Beatty

 

On every issue, there are powerful forces united against change. The liability or potential financial collapse of any business sector means that there are both personal (investments, job) and corporate interests in continuing the status quo, and so both individuals and corporations have an interest in undermining regulations and legal action.

I believe it is worthwhile to examine strategies to divide and rule, which may include:

    • relying on deep pockets and media to drown out other voices
    • encouraging wasteful spending, leaving little for useful purchase
    • promoting legislation or actions that distract or accomplish nothing or, worse, cause harm
    • lobbying for ideas and bills which drown out better options
    • sowing distrust
    • generating propaganda, like spreading truths among lies for confusion and argument
    • preventing alliances that could challenge the propaganda
    • co-opting movements, promoting only those willing to cooperate with a false leader

The biggest threat is outsize influence through outsize wealth. There needn’t be any planning at all for a single wealthy person to co-opt or destroy a movement, since wealth easily drowns out other ideas.

A wealthy person can easily smear anyone, as Juan Cole suggests with his GoogleSmear article. Wealth can easily manipulate trending articles and social expression through fake accounts, identify theft, paid influencers, and online harassment as evidenced in 2018 by Mexican political parties. Corporations are also using deceptive practices – propaganda. Marketing campaigns, press, bots, and trolls are paid, not volunteers.

The influence of wealth may be hard to recognize. Bill Gates was the driving force for school computers and the major funding source behind the Common Core. Whether or not you like school computers or the Core, this outsize influence is fundamentally undemocratic and bypasses parents and teachers except under the artifice of details, rather than the larger picture. Gates’ foundation has come under criticism as well for promoting corporate globalization in health and agriculture.

Stories making the news today show that corporations are willing to pay to undermine the voice of the People, not only with bots. The following stories are factual and should be taken as a reminder to learn from history and the recent past.

Examples where industry was caught causing trouble include (1) faking emails from citizens to the government; (2) using actors to load town meetings; (3) spying on local groups, such as PG&E spying in California; (4) paying for fake science and testimony (5) paying for fake independent news, smear campaigns, and disinformation (wireless, climate, Covid19, pesticides, autism, benzene, etc.) – marketing campaigns undermine what is fair in democracy by favoring wealthy interests & astroturfing.

Soon well-funded, realistic telephone AI may fake being local voters speaking on behalf of business interests.

Troublesome nonprofits may also be fronts for wealthy contributor and have fake membership, like Massachusetts Parents United as identified by Maurice Cunningham. Cunningham critiques Boston papers for failing to vet claims and funders.

Media fails to call out industry sponsorship or public relations ‘news’ while allowing targeting and baseless, bizarre, one-sided attacks – such as a NY Times article insulting science on wireless dangers as a propaganda tool of the Russians, coincidentally when a major Times stockholder holds a major telecommunication company and is considered ruthless, a criminal. Billionaires rule.

Shaming of questions and criticism prevents building local community, shared goals, and political movements, and impairs advocacy and corporate regulation. Such insults foster lies and fake conspiracies, shielding corporations from deep investigations of real conspiracies.

In closing, please see the MA legislation page for some recommended bills.

 

Warning about the Movement & Support

This is a message from director and ballot measure co-chair Kirstin Beatty:

I have two concerns.

The first one is fixed so we can celebrate – finally, we have a working mailing list for Last Tree Laws and just need to find and input email addresses!

The second is getting publicity and support for good bills, instead of bills that take a lot of time to fix. Last session another advocate promoted a bill for 5G, first saying it was helpful and then saying it could be fixed. This session I remain concerned about several bills.

So, I hope people will stop advocating for problematic bills and instead support those listed as ‘good’ on the MA legislation page.

However, since I expect these bills will move forward anyway, please help me to meet with the parties who have sponsored problematic bills to help push for corrections, who include as follows:

Please support the list of positive MA legislation, which offers concrete solutions for change!

Here are a few lobbying tips and tips for advocacy:

  1. Support ideas first, secondly support bills that support those ideas. Avoid signing on in favor of “great” bills that can be changed later anyway, behind closed doors, and stick instead to signing on in support of explicitly stated concrete ideas.
  2. Read the bills. Don’t just rely on secondhand information. Look through the bills, for the devil is in the details. Bill titles are usually sweet-sounding propaganda – look at the details.
  3. Speak to Legislators 1-to-1. Speaking privately one-to-one or with a team with your personal legislators appears more helpful to being heard – we know first-hand some legislators do not read emails due to the number incoming! If you cannot speak well, then bring writings and bring a group of constituents to help. Take the time to truly educate one or two legislators in advance of public hearings, since public hearings often limit speaking time to 3 minutes per person and can be disjointed.
  4. Speak for yourself. When the poor, elderly, sick, and other marginalized groups struggle to with time and ability to speak, others with easier lives step in to do so. Those others may have less concern, less problem, and more interest in the status quo thanks to easier, more comfortable lives. Let others speak for themselves. If others speak for you, be sure that speech is limited to as agreed and is verifiable – since what is behind the scenes or in email may be different. Where possible, use your own powerful voice.
  5. Template warning. When signing onto shared testimony or using templates, be careful. I’ve seen templates highlight problem bills as solutions. Be honest about your desires and select the bills or topics you support, rather than following a template to the letter. Also, the problem with templates is that these are generic, and simply bury legislators in reading that often has little new to say.
  6. Co-opting advocacy & movements. People offering help may be self-interested, seeking only fame, employment, sales, an industry, property, et cetera, and may not have the same or sincere concerns. Also, FBI strategy is to select individuals to infiltrate, create division, take over leadership, censor dissent, and tone down and redirect movements, including by offering paid work opportunities and wasting opportunities. Where threatened, industry may follow the FBI playbook. Be wise when working on sensitive topics. You may need to bring issues to the sunlight.

To Investigate or Not to Investigate? Commission Bills 101.

The merit of a political investigation depends on the state — limits and alternatives are recommended

Outcomes of past wireless health risk investigations have varied by state:

    • New Hampshire – successful acknowledgment of risks and suggestions for improvements by the committee, but yet little has been done to address the problem
    • Oregon – nothing to see, according to failed investigation, but advocates are using this event for public accusations of corruption

In New York, Doug Wood of Grassroots Communications states he has a positive impression of the legislature and the intentions for two similar investigation bills in the NY Assembly (A6448) and Senate (S5926). This bill must be followed by interested New Yorkers to determine whether continued public support is warranted.

The success of such a bill depends on political integrity. In many states, political pressures would likely interfere. Popular support forced the Oregon bill forward, but backroom deals watered down the bill such as by omitting all animal studies from consideration.

Even if a bill states that appointees must be ‘experts’ on issues, the industry has consultants & nonprofits at the ready who can claim expertise in nearly any topic, whether or not sincere. Rather than trust, safeguards must exist to prevent industry influence.

The same risk is true for an existing Massachusetts bill, An Act for Disclosure of Radiofrequency Notifications (S. 186), sponsored by Senator Cyr, which could backfire since technology interests are powerful in Massachusetts and political leadership has been accused of making backroom deals in their favor.

In 2020 other advocates pushed the bill forward, but Last Tree Laws and I campaigned against the MA bill and direct & indirect appointments by our state governor, who has been widely accused of favoring utility and broadband interests. Neither could the state legislature, now facing a popular campaign charging lack of transparency and integrity, be an expected savior.

In New Hampshire, the lack of action may be due to the lack of participation on the committee by powerful groups such as unions – such inclusion would increase awareness and political pressure.

In sum, due to political pressures, an investigation bill with substantial political appointments or few powerful members is likely to have a less than gratifying outcome in most states.

To investigate or not to investigate?

The claim is that an investigation provides impetus for change, through education and publicity. Certainly, if grounded in sincerity, that is true.

Yet, technically, Massachusetts legislators have learned about this issue from testimony in public hearings and directly from constituents, and constituents can even easily access and share expert online presentations.

In Massachusetts, when environmental health issues have been at odds with economics, popular demand has pushed issues to the forefront and not legislative investigative commissions. Examples such as halting the gas pipeline, halting biomass facilities, quitting dangerous pesticide use, shutting down nuclear energy facilities demonstrate legislative action results from popular demands rather than legislative commissions.

Setting a new precedent where action requires a “commission” where legislators can become experts as educated by other experts I think is rather disingenuous. This precedent is a delaying tactic.

Passage of a bill generally takes two years in Massachusetts. This means focusing on an investigation bill could mean waiting two years for a commission, and more years for action on other bills. That delay could be used by industry to protect assets and otherwise limit justice, such as further degrading constituent power. Therefore, I advocate for more direct, concrete bills for change, such as listed under the MA Legislation page.

Adapting a Wireless Investigation Bill for Good Purpose

If choosing to adapt a wireless investigation bill, then there are several options to limit political pressure.

One option is to balance political appointees with independent, outside groups. Selection is critical! Outside groups with good reputation, fairly independent of the issue, should make the majority of the appointments to reduce politics or charges of prejudice.

Board members of the group and donation dependence needs to be vetted. Big organizations may have big donors that are a conflict of interest, and hierarchy may prevent the members from much say. The Audubon Society allows each state branch independence — so it depends on how each independent version is run. Money is influential even for ‘nonprofits’ and board members can change.

Other ideas to increase independence include limiting the connections of appointees to industry.

Below is one draft I worked on in 2020 which may be useful for comparison and ideas, especially on limiting conflicts of interest. Most commissions have 12 or fewer appointees, but this draft has a great number of appointees for consideration.

I never finished, and instead broke down the bill to focus on a commission for security and emergency services, as listed alongside bills on the MA legislation page. One reason is a smaller commission is easier to define. Secondly, I felt that was an issue on which research has not been synthesized, where education is needed, and where there is a greater balance of power is needed to counteract politics. Thirdly, police and security forces are treated with respect if only due to fear, and the union remains powerful. For this reason, I felt a commission to examine the impact of technology on emergency and security services could be useful and lead to positive changes.

DRAFT: An Electromagnetic (Wireless, Electricity) Investigation

Prepared by Kirstin Beatty (Beatty.fyi, co-chair of Last Tree Laws)
Updated version from 2 December 2020

SECTION 1. Whereas, other countries and some states have chosen to limit or ban certain exposures to wireless or electrical frequencies.

Whereas, reputable, peer-reviewed evidence shows wireless frequencies may cause or promote cancer, heart disease, and learning problems – such as research on cancer by the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

Whereas, peer-reviewed science associates certain types of electric exposures with cancer, infertility, and miscarriage.

Whereas, Massachusetts residents would benefit from a review of the science and potential solutions free of influence from corporate and political interests.

Whereas, the following investigative commission reduces political pressure by diversifying who appoints, restricting appointments by politicians, and setting limits on conflicts of interest.

SECTION 2. Resolved, Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, there shall be a special commission, hereafter called the commission, to research the impact of electromagnetic (EMR) radiation ranging from zero to 300 Ghz, with respect to consumer protection, public health, and the environment to determine, if detrimental, how to equitably allay environmental and health impacts.

(a) Commission objectives. The commission shall convene no later than 60 days following enactment in order to research and review non-industry-funded and peer-reviewed science regarding EMR, inviting comment from medical and scientific experts independent of industry.

If concerns are deemed warranted, the commission shall with respect to safer housing, utilities, business, public health, environment, and telecommunications:

(i) identify and review the current state laws, regulations, and administrative directives; (ii) identify the key sectors and regions that would best benefit from improved legislation, regulations, and administrative directives;
(iii) secondarily, as time allows, identify same at the federal level;
(iv) identify funding sources for recommendations;
(v) require the department of housing and economic development to submit reports to the legislature it obtains from cellular and cellular technology companies;
(vi) set a schedule, dividing into smaller committees as warranted to meet objectives; (vii) invite testimony from other experts as useful; and
(viii) may accept public testimony.

The commission shall submit a report of its findings, or a series of reports, including any draft legislation and regulations, to the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate within 16 months of the passage of this act.

(b) Transparency. The commission’s meetings and communications shall be recorded and subject to the Massachusetts open meeting laws so as to be transparent.

(c) Formation and resources.The Office of the Governor shall organize and support the commission arrangements. The chairperson or chairpersons shall with the commission members set a meeting schedule. Commission members shall elect a chair by majority vote, who may be replaced at any time upon majority vote. If the commission members break into smaller committees, the same process shall apply. Commission member attendance and expert testimony by videoteleconference or telephone shall be allowed.

The commission shall be assisted by and have access to all the resources available to the legislature and the executive branch in its investigations.

(d) The commission shall have the following composition:

(a) The Attorney General or designee;
(b) A nominee of the Massachusetts Teachers Association or Boston Teachers Union;
(c) A nominee of the Massachusetts School Nurse Association;
(c) One union member nominated by the Massachusetts AFL-CIO;
(d) One telecommunications worker representative nominated by the Communications Workers of America;
(e) One doctor nominated by the American Environmental Academy of Medicine;
(f) One scientist nominated by the Silent Spring Institute;
(g) One doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Medical Society, ideally with expertise in either cancer, neuroscience, or infertility;
(h) One scientist nominated by New England-based Community Action Works, formerly the Toxics Action Center;
(i) One pediatric doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics;
(j) One doctor nominated by the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility;
(k) One doctor or scientists nominated by the Environmental Health Trust [or Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition];
(l) One representative or lawyer nominated by the Massachusetts Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action;
(m) 2 representatives nominated by the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union;
(n) 2 nominees from the Institute of Building Biology & Sustainable IBN
(o) A representative of the State House selected by the Speaker of the House;
(p) A senator of the State Senate selected by the President of the Senate;
(q) A representative of small business appointed by the governor;
(r) 3 non-voting members appointed by governor:
Telecommunications representative;
Medical system representative;
Engineer in wireless networks;
(s) 4 non-voting commissioners, directors, or their designees for the following departments:
Public Health;
Telecommunications and Cable;
Technical Assistance and Technology Office;
Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation.

(e) Conflicts of interest. No member, except a non-voting member, or spouse of voting member of the Commission shall have a history involving current telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility industry clients or job dependency; nor shall any voting member have a current investment portfolio with conflicts of interest in the areas of energy, telecommunications, IT, or utilities. No voting member or spouse of a voting member of the Commission shall receive funding or a job from telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility sectors in the two years following the commission’s final report. All commission members must file a statement detailing any relevant conflicts of interest as specified, including activities in relation to immediate family and extended family members. Copies must be freely available for viewing by the public. These statements must be filed with the Secretary of State during the commission period and in the two years following closure of the commission.

Chairmanship, legislative and policy decisions for reports to the Commonwealth shall be decided by vote only of all members with voting status.

Only members deemed voting members may author commission reports. Any commission member deemed a non-voting member shall recuse himself or herself from any commission votes to decide or influence the commission reports, and shall instead serve only to assist the commission. Any nominee with conflicts of interest intended as a voting member shall recuse himself or herself from nomination, except insofar as the nominee’s job represents a conflict of interest, is specified in subsection (d), and the individual is not described as non-voting.

MASSACHUSETTS STATE LEGISLATION IN DRAFT FOR 2021

 

 

Federal wireless bills and 2 phone scripts

The wireless industry has federal bills to halt local community control over wireless infrastructure placement AND to end currently required environmental reviews.

Call or write to tell your house representative to stop these bills and why — be brief (see phone script below). Find your federal house representative here:

https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

or

https://www.govtrack.us/.

Also, call the following persons to say: “I object to wireless exposures based on health considerations and want federal investments in WIRED ONLY and the FCC commissioner set on WIRED communications.”

Here is a phone or email script:

I object to house legislation to limit local rights to contest deployment of wireless infrastructure, including to eliminate NEPA environmental review.

I ask you to remove Title I from the Lift America Act (HR 2741) to prevent the auction of further wireless spectrum; halt increasing 911 wireless power density; and stop funding of communication infrastructure that lacks consideration for safety.

I ask you to halt these 5G bills:

    • HR 1060,
    • 1069, and
    • 1074 [Slowly list so numbers can be written down].

I ask you oppose these bills for the same reasons:

    • HR 1039,
    • 1043,
    • 1045,
    • 1051,
    • 1053,
    • 1056,
    • 1058,
    • 1064, and
    • 1067 .

One last bill is simply to create broadband availability maps, but this could be improved by identifying the state of wired broadband and telecommunications availability. This bill is: HR 1044.

Related, I ask you to remove Title III of the Lift America Act (HR 2741), for similar safety reasons with respect to electric vehicle charging, and remove sections of Title IV to prevent further broadband or energy requirements with respect to on health information technology

Lastly, I ask that you support a commission of relevant, independent scientists, medical experts, and engineers to examine how to insure non-ionizing radiation exposures from electricity and communications are limited for public and environmental health.


LIST OF RELEVANT HOUSE BILLS (Find bills here)

    1. H.R. 1060: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to streamline siting processes for personal wireless service facilities, including small personal wireless service facilities, and for … other purposes.
    2. H.R. 1069: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that the Federal Communications Commission is not required to perform any review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, as a condition of permitting the placement and installation of a communications facility, and for other purposes.
    3. H.R. 1074: To provide that the deployment of a small personal wireless service facility shall not constitute an undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code, or a major Federal action for the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes.
    4. H.R. 1039: To provide that a project for the deployment or modification of a communications facility entirely within a floodplain is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    5. H.R. 1043: To provide that an eligible facilities request under section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews. [Note: https://wia.org/wp-content/uploads/Advocacy_Docs/6409a_Siting_Checklist.pdf]
    6. .R. 1045: To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to amend the definition of eligible facilities request, to codify the 60-day time frame for certain eligible facilities …
    7. H.R. 1051: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to streamline siting processes for telecommunications service facilities, and for other purposes.
    8. H.R. 1053: To provide that a project to remove and replace communications equipment or services listed under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    9. H.R. 1056: To provide that a project for the collocation of a personal wireless service facility is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    10. H.R. 1058: To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to amend the definition of eligible facilities request, to codify the 60-day time frame for certain eligible facilities, and for other purposes.
    11. H.R. 1064: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to amend provisions relating to franchise term and termination and provisions relating to the elimination or modification of requirements in franchises, and for other purposes.
    12. H.R. 1067: To streamline the process for consideration of applications for the placement of communications facilities on certain buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

The following bill is simply to create a map of broadband accessibility, which ought to be a neutral task.

  1. H.R. 1044: To create a task force at the Federal Communications Commission to ensure the policy and funding decisions of the Commission are informed by data collection and analysis required in title VIII of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.

Quick Call: Co-Sponsorship Requests!

There is a new list of bills Last Tree Laws will support, though not all will receive equal or full attention.

Please call your legislators to request support or cosponsorship – instructions below! Senators can cosponsor until public hearings. State representatives cannot cosponsor but getting support from them is very important for future votes!

Most legislators know of these issues, but if you need more info please see the Resources page. There are also posts on Facebook and I’m on Twitter to share relevant social media images occasionally.

Please tell me who you call and who listens or cosponsors.

~ Best, Kirstin

ACTION

Hi, my name is _________, and I am a constituent of ______ (name town).

I am calling to request that __________ cosponsor or support the bills supported by Last Tree Laws to limit wireless radiation. All bills are listed at LastTreeLaws.com, including a PDF listing.

These bills are the first step to begin hard-wiring the state and limiting our wireless exposures.

I would appreciate if you would confirm support or co-sponsorships. You can call me at ________.

Please understand this is very important! __[SAY WHY OR SAY THE FOLLOWING:]. The Federal Communications Commission is in court about the safety of its wireless exposure guidelines and likely to lose according to recent statements of the presiding judges. The LA public schools were just required by the CA Court of Appeals to provide disability accommodations for a teacher’s sensitivity to wireless. Clearly, there is something wrong with wireless.

Thank you for efforts!

New Hampshire Report Supports Restricting Wireless

New Hampshire Report Supports Restricting Wireless

By Kirstin Beatty on 31 October 2020

 

A New Hampshire commission has released a report recommending that wireless expansion be reversed on the basis of public health.

The recommendations include migrating schools and public libraries away from wireless, providing health warnings, mapping and labeling cell towers, and adopting policies to hard-wire communications.

Some of the recommendations by the commission, such as setbacks from cell towers, reflect measures included in ordinances across the nation designed to limit 5G cell towers.

In Massachusetts, towns such as Cambridge, Burlington, and Worcester have adopted new ordinances to regulate new technologies like small cell towers, but many other municipalities question the right to set requirements.

To protect residents more universally, the New Hampshire Commission recommends state-wide laws to regulate cell towers. The trick is to make sure state-wide laws are strong and protective, rather than weak regulations that limit the setting of more stringent local zoning laws. Legislators in the pockets of industry can easily turn a promise of protection into a trap. States such as Connecticut have enacted state-wide regulations that weaken, instead of strengthen, local zoning protection.

The commission was initially formed after passage of NH bill HB 522 written by Rep. Abrami, which he wrote after investigating the concerns of resident Deb Hodgdon. The commission’s finding are the result of a months-long investigation by an independent state commission including:

    • Paul Héroux, PhD, a scientist in the electromagnetic field
    • University of New Hampshire electrical and computer chair specializing in electromagnetics, Kent Chamberlain, PhD
    • 5 legislators, including:
    • Bedford Town Councilor Denise Ricciardi
    • two industry representatives, Bethanne Cooley (CTIA) and David Juvett (Business and Wireless Association);
    • Brandon Garrod, Esq., from the Attorney General’s office;and
    • state agency representatives:
      • Michele Roberge (health) and
      • Carol Miller (business).

Of the commission members, two industry representatives and Senator James Gray, a former naval engineer, opted to write an opposing report reflecting industry views.

Full recommendations of the commission can be found online as the Final Report of the Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology (HB 522, Chapter 260, Laws of 2019, RSA12-K:12-1).

Many of the recommendations reflect legislation I put forward in Massachusetts, via my legislator and posted here on LastTreeLaws.com, but which have not moved forward: to hard-wire public libraries, limit school wireless, invest in hard-wiring infrastructure, register cell towers, and educate medical professionals and patients. Some recommendations reflect ideas I researched and developed with an ordinance group, and then further placed in a sample ordinance for Massachusetts. The overlap is welcome, yet more must be done to improve organizing and lobbying to enact these recommendations.

A summary of the recommendations is listed below, as well as links to presentations.

    1. Resolution for US Congress to require FCC to conduct an independent study into mitigation and health effects.
    2. Require appropriate NH agencies provide health warnings, particularly for newborns, pregnant women, and youth.
    3. Label every small cell tower antenna, in such a way as to be legible 9 feet away.
    4. Migrate schools and public libraries away from wireless.
    5. Measure radiation at all facilities, repeating at every instance of software or other relevant change, with costs borne by the site installer.
    6. Improving accuracy of cellular radiation.
    7. Setbacks from businesses, schools, private citizens.
    8. Upgrade the educational offerings of home inspectors to include private measurements.
    9. Map state-wide measurements.
    10. Require cellphone software to prevent radiation when held against the body.
    11. Adopt a state-wide position to hard-wire and use fiberoptic cables.
      Use warning signs in buildings. Establish safe zones in hospitals, state, and commercial buildings for refuge, especially for those sensitive to exposures.
    12. Engage scientists with ecological knowledge to establish measures to protect nature.
    13. Legislate that the FCC do a NEPA (environmental) evaluation of the state- and country-wide impact of wireless expansion.

The following are direct links to presentations given to the commission:

The following are 2 examples of presentations recorded in the minutes – with notes to highlight some points:

  • Dr. Tim Schoechle, on policy
  • Dr. Paul Heroux on historical background of federal guidelines and scientific aspects, – notable points:
  • History perspective:
    • US guidelines were developed by 15 people, 10 being from the military.
    • USAF exposure limits from 1960 survived more or less as the current US limits – at the time, lowering the exposure limits was considered antipatriotic due to use by military
    • Soviets based exposure limits on nervous system disturbances, and differentiated limits between the public and military.
    • 44% of the world has lower limits than the USA and most of the western world.
  • Industry will want to change federal exposure limits to prevent 5G phones from being illegal
  • 5G Necessity:
    • Remote medicine can be accomplished with FioS, you do not need 5G
    • 5G is not necessary for autonomous vehicles
  • Wireless Properties & Effects:
    • 5G mmW penetrate further than the UV waves from the sun
    • 5G beam steering and focusing is a new aspect
    • 5G beams can be narrowed to 3 to 10 degrees in width
    • 5G frequency can change every 12.5 seconds
    • Amplitude modulation, modulated by a person’s voice, of wireless and digital amounts to being hit, a pulsing, and has a more negative effect than analog which is more like a push.
    • 5G will create more problematic noise (like static)
  • Health impacts:
    • altered enzyme activity, biochemical changes, oxidative changes (ROS), pathological cell changes, neuro-behavioral changes, DNA damage, altered gene instruction, brain wave changes [hundreds of research papers]
    • cancer cells all react to wireless & other non-ionizing radiation
    • most at risk: youth, brain, pancreas
  • Dr. Herman Kelter on 4G and 5G power densities and associated health effects, sample points:
    • Manufacture of antennas may malfunction, increasing exposures
    • With multiple transmitters in an enclosed space, meters understate the actual power density due to variations in space
    • Pulsating, peak power of great concern
    • 5G may lead to:
      • temperature spikes and tissue damage in skin
      • more adverse effect than recorded for 5G mmW frequencies due to combination of pulsing, data sending, and special phased array antennas
      • Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors are induced in the body, damaging cells and organs by moving charged particles [Albanese,R, Blaschak, J, Medina, R, Penn, J. “Ultrashort Electromagnetic Signals: Biophysical Questions, Page 13of 34Safety issues, and Medical Opportunities.” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. May 1994: A116-A120 (“Albanese May 1994”.; see also OMB No. 0704-0188 94-24875 AD-A282 990 dated Jan 90-Aug 93; Jakobsen PK and Masud Mansuripur. “On the Nature of the Sommerfeld-Brillouin Forerunners (or Precursors.” Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations(November 8, 2019)]
    • Bioweapon capability enhanced by targeted 5G beam, which envelopes user, by facial recognition software, and by ability to intensify beam using software – one known instance of wireless being used in past to injure Catholics in Northern Island in conjunction with investigation by Dr. Barrie Trower
    • Associated with exposures:
      • rising suicides and reduced mental health – Dr. Kelting suggests federal agencies have concealed this by removing the online federal data after he sent a letter informing of rising suicides
      • brain damage to fetuses, miscarriages, cancer, children’s behavioral difficulties, ADHD, cancer of the brain, salivary gland, and breasts; leukemia, anxiety, depression, stress, sleep disturbances, reduction in melatonin, cataracts, inflammation; damage to the testes, sperm, blood brain barrier, DNA (damage through strand breaks), eyes, heart, thyroid hormones, electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EMH), damage to the autoimmune system, etc.

Request to Medical Professionals for Electromagnetic Education

This has been updated as of 21 July 2021.

13 October 2020

Request to All Medical Professionals for Electromagnetic Education

 

Fighting against environmental pollutants is often hindered by ignorance, corporate public relations, and the burden of harm. Death and disability has resulted from industry denial, as seen with tobacco, asbestos, and other products.

Most experts in the field recommend rolling back wireless and other electromagnetic exposures, yet these voices have been neglected in mainstream U.S. news, even though the evidence is very strong that wireless greatly increases cancer, infertility, and contributes overall to ill health and disease.

In Massachusetts, I’ve written many state legislative solutions, such as policies to reduce exposures in medical settings, but seen these die. Legislators shy from sponsoring bills for actual change, or leadership prevents a vote.

Medical professionals have a pivotal say in whether society recognizes environmental pollutants and their ensuing harm.

Given this social responsibility, as a medical professional, wireless awareness and education is critical. Excellent free resources are available online as well as medical conferences that may provide CMEs, support networking, and help establish a broad base of knowledge.

Because of the relationship of wireless to industry and military interests, unified public support is needed. As a medical professional, you can directly influence public awareness, understanding, and support, thus persuading public officials and the courts to change course. Unified public statements by medical groups, associations, and professional medical guidance to every single patient are needed to help shift public opinion and protect patients.

I hope for patient education on safer technology habits and your active political support for change with Last Tree Laws.

Sincerely,

Kirstin Beatty

Co-chair of Last Tree Laws

Massachusetts ballot measure committee

 

Resources:

 

  1. MA Legislation at https://LastTreeLaws.com/ma-legislation; lawsuits and other examples of state legislation on top menu
  2. Register for virtual conference, held 28-31 January, Thursday – Sunday, at https://emfconference2021.com/
  3. Bioinitiative dot org (see Henry Lai’s research summaries)
  4. Physicians for Safe Technology and SaferEMR.com
  5. EMF-Portal search engine (Aachen University, Germany)
  6. Additional resources at https://lasttreelaws.com/resources/ ~ and the recent New Hampshire Report recommending reduction of wireless exposures: https://lasttreelaws.com/11/nhreport/

Support Attorney Healey’s Smart Grid Investigation

Support Attorney Healey’s Smart Grid Investigation

By Kirstin Beatty

 

Update September 2021:

The Department of Utilities is working on expanding the smart grid, despite allowing opt outs of smart meters. This will increase electromagnetic exposures and so I’m working on preparing joint testimony for docket 21-90 through 92 in addition expanding on what I’ve already submitted for 21-80 through 82. I’ve filed a last-minute, imperfect petition to intervene which appears ignored.

The Attorney General is likely only to examine financial aspects of the grid, and little else, due to that being the office’s primary legal role, and so cannot be relied upon to do more in examining this docket.

However, you can file a civil rights complaint on this issue with the Attorney General’s office. Highlight that this is a civil rights complaint, to avoid sending it to the lawyer in the Attorney General’s office who is hired by the DPU.

Update June 2021:

The Department of Utilities has not recommended a full stop to the smart grid, but has recommended that ALL Massachusetts utilities now allow opting out of smart meters for a fee. This decision is likely because of the submissions to the docket, including my own submission, a version of which is posted here.

Update 6 November 2020:

November 17 & 20, the DPU is holding virtual technical conferences on the smart grid, which advocates can present regarding opt-out provisions on November 20th at the very end, within a one hour slot, with the request being that repetition of prior testimony be avoided and a joint presentation occur synthesizing ideas.

The topic of the technical conferences is essentially to discuss technical workings & needs of smart grid, appearing to acccept smart grid expansion and continuation as a done deal. I initially thought was meant to discuss the uneven burden of ratepayer costs upon those without EV – but that doesn’t seem to be considered. The only recognition of the health issue appears to be the possibility of an opt-out provision.

If you have facts or suggestions for topics to include in a synthesized presentation, please email using addresses in the footer.

________________________

Deadline: Friday, 4 September, 5 PM Eastern.

Background

The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities is accepting public “reply” comments on whether to expand the smart meter program, possibly to serve electric vehicles (EV). As a result of existing comments on the docket by various organizations and individuals as described here, the Massachusetts Attorney General is initiating a public investigation into the matters discussed in the docket, which included counter-arguments to the grid for reasons of health, environment, economic justice and civil rights.

See an excerpt of the statement, where the Attorney General states she is engaging consultants to investigate the claims and suggest (propound) discovery, a pre-trial procedure: “better insure an outcome in this proceeding that is in the best interests of ratepayers, the Attorney General’s Office must engage consultants with the expertise to review and analyze the material filed in response to the Department’s Vote and Order, and to assist the Attorney General’s Office in preparing itw own filings and in propounding discovery . . . “

 

Reply comments could help guide the Attorney General, with domino effects on smart grids in Massachusetts and others states, as well as upon 5G and other wireless technologies.

Reply comments are meant to reply to existing comments in the docket. The Attorney General’s initial comment was in support of smart meters in order to advance green technology and to save energy.

Filing comments may mean that you can be included in any court case filed against the DPU or the state. You would need to say in the docket and be able to prove you are being or would be harmed by grid expansion.

Do say if the smart grid harms you & how.

If expounding on a topic, pick one or two and just do those well – the AG may have to read all comments. The best reply comments would probably include or be as follows:

      • Information on why smart meters are not green
      • Personal suffering and disability caused by the smart grid and/or wireless
      • Scientific and medical references
      • References from proven sources
      • Submissions from scientific and medical experts
      • Submissions by legislators, such as Senator Moore submitted
      • To thank Last Tree Laws, please link to the website in your submission!

A template and instructions are provided below.

Much thanks to Patricia Burke, who initially was very active with Halt Smart Meters Massachusetts and is likely the state smart meter expert, for sending a mass email encouraging comments on the DPU docket and for suggesting the topics of economic and environmental justice as well as health. Patricia Burke’s detailed comments can be found online here.

Submission Requirements:

Draft your statement and save as a .pdf file. The DPU requires a .pdf file to be posted to their website.

  1. Observe deadline – fillings are required by Friday, September 4, 5 PM Eastern
  2. Address email to:
    • Peter.Ray@mass.gov
    • Tina.Chin@mass.gov
    • Sarah.Spruce@mass.gov
  3. CC line: Please add Patricia’s gmail account, as she is confirming the DPU receives and posts emails – please cc Last Tree Laws as well:
    • gmail via stopsmartmetersmass@
    • lasttreelaws.com via action@
  4. Subject line for email:
    • Reply Comment MA DPU 20-69 Modernization of Electric Grid Phase Two
  5. Place in text of email:
    • See attached reply comment of ___________ (your name) in Opposition to MA DPU 20-69 Modernization of Electric Grid Phase Two
    • Your name or company, title, credentials
    • Email address
    • Telephone number
    • Note: File size may not exceed 20 MB, so larger files must be split. If you send additional attachments or articles other than your comment, please list them in the email.
  6. Craft your testimony in a separate document (not in the body of the email)
    • See template below.
    • Include your name and credentials at top
    • For all links and references, state at the end: “All references, including links, are incorporated into this testimony by reference.”
    • Do not include personal contact information, which will be posted online as part of the PDF.
  7. Save your document as a PDF. If you’re not sure how to create a .pdf file, reach out to Patricia’s gmail account and she’ll help: stopsmartmetersmass@
  8. Attach the PDF to your email and send.
  9. Check that your PDF is posted a few days later by typing 20-69 into this search box.

Template

DATE:___________

FROM:____[Name, credentials]_____

TO: Mark D. Marini, Secretary, Department of Public Utilities, One South Station, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02110

RE: Reply Comment MA DPU 20-69 Modernization of Electric Grid Phase Two

Please halt any smart grid expansion and roll back existing installations. Right now, the question of safe wireless infrastructure is a subject of federal and state court cases. Proceeding is foolish. Smart meters threaten health, safety, resources, energy, and economic justice.

Expanding the smart grid in Massachusetts impacts me because _______.

I am going to discuss: _________.

[Discuss topic – for resources, see SmartMeterHarm dot org (reports); StopSmartMeters dot org (problem page); StopSmartMetersBC dot com (tabs of many issues); MichiganStopSmartMeters dot com (legal and other points); and ElectronicSilentSpring dot com (eco-focus) – EHTrust dot org and MDSafeTech dot org are also helpful]

Please take these concerns into consideration.

 

5G Actions

Massachusetts – Actions:

This page needs some updating, so please also check the resource page for materials.

  • Social media:
    • Twitter – you can retweet from @BeattyKirstin, co-chair, and other advocates or organizations – we don’t have a LastTreeLaws account!
    • Check Facebook for helpful posts or links to share – we’re not so active but have some posts!
  • Letters to the editor such as to the following papers (choose one paper):
        • letters@tauntongazette.com
        • letters@heraldnews.com
        • submissions@thecantoncitizen.com
        • letter@globe.com
        • your local paper (most likely to publish your letter)
      • Contacting Medical Doctors:
        • Physicians for Safe Technology 5G Letter
  • News to Share:

 

 

 

 

Past Teleconferences:

29 August 2020 ~ 5G Strategies

1 August 2020, Saturday, 3 PM ~ How to Get Safer, Respectful Technology

      • Discussion of health and social impacts of technology & solutions. Led by Last Tree Laws co-chair Kirstin Beatty, a former teacher in Springfield public schools. This event is sponsored by the Springfield Cultural Council and therefore Springfield residents have priority seats. This is part of a grant titled “Safer Technology, Healthier Society.”