Category: Petition Initiative

In Massachusetts if enough registered Massachusetts voters sign a petition a question can be put on the ballot — a ballot question — and Massachusetts voters can help decide critical issues.

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
  • on both sides – but they can be in the same or different directions according to Matt at the secretary of state’s office

We are uncomfortable with posting a printable PDF because any error in printing invalidates the petition. If you print it, not only be careful, but also print the campaign flyer which includes signing instructions here:

Petition Printables

Note deadlines are listed at the top of the petition on one side, but please leave the petitions at town election officials for us to get, and please donate $8, $28, $108 to help with the expense of collection. Remember to avoid using USPS which has current delivery issues.

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:

2024 PETITION A (download link for petition A for radiation limits)

Posted on

Petition Printables

Petition Printables (8″x 11″)

  • 2024 Campaign Handout (2-sided) – Radiation Limits Background & Signing Instructions
  • Signature Gathering Instructions (out-dated, but still has useful info): Where to Collect & Tips (2-sided) (this page also has related links)
  • Poster – not specific to petition A, but to request assistance
  • Poster – like above poster, but space for notes (e.g. contact info)
  • More printables to come later.

Social Media

  • Blog Post: MA Voters Get Your Petition on Radiation Limits
  • Blog Post: Limit Radiation at Home
  • Image to share, even if not specific:
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. Again, in 2024 we submitted a revised version 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. They are a nonprofit and so cannot bring forward a petition initiative under the nonprofit, but surely are building a network to do so at some level. Other nonprofits are working on this as well.

FYI, these are not the only issues, but let’s start here.

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 one 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. Current 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. During public hearings, many legislators ‘missing in action’ perhaps because they know their presence does not matter as only the Speaker decides.

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 or punishment be something that involves delaying legislation.

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 school recess time have been in the legislature for years without action despite numerous legislative sponsors. 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 personal experience. There are times when bills industry loves are halted because of public opposition. The only power the public appears to have in the Massachusetts legislature is to prevent bills from exiting committees, although the Speaker could simply put forward bills that bypass everyone.

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 also 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 discuss how the industry paid for fake scientific and expert reviews to pretend Roundup was safe: anti-genetic engineering (GMO) research/news group]: https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/
Posted on

Summary – Petition A (Corporate Radiation Limits 2024)

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 official summary of petition initiative A, for which we are gathering signatures, and below the summary is the text of the proposed law – the attorney general’s office has not yet posted this petition online:

SUMMARY OF PETITION A

This proposed law would establish new requirements for corporations to reduce consumer exposure to wireless and electrical radiation emitted by technology.


The proposed law would require technology companies that design, manufacture, install, or maintain digital, internet or wireless infrastructure, technology, or services, to make design and technology choices that reduce consumer exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

These companies would be required to limit consumer exposure to wireless radiation from personal devices, personal computers, and other technologies, by requiring that these products meet certain design requirements, such as having the ability to limit the number of wireless transmissions, greater functionality in offline, non-wireless, or airplane modes, and increased non-wireless options.


These companies would also be required to design their infrastructure, technology, or services to limit electrical radiation frequencies by using appropriate connectors and good electrical design.


These requirements would apply to new products, services, installations, and infrastructure and, where compatible, to service and product upgrades and software updates. These requirements must be implemented immediately, within two years, or within four years, as further specified in the proposed law.


The proposed law directs the Attorney General to enforce compliance and creates a private right of action.


The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

FULL TEXT OF 24-01 INITIATIVE PETITION FOR A LAW RELATIVE TO CORPORATE RADIATION LIMITS (VERSION A)

Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority:

SECTION 1. The following legislative summary may be removed upon passage of the law.

The purpose of this law is to limit exposures to all radiation emitted by technology by requiring certain corporations to, when able, adjust the design, manufacturing, maintenance and installation of technological products and services. The radiation that is emitted by technology includes wireless radiation and radiative fields from electricity.

Some specific requirements to limit wireless radiation include to limit the number of transmissions; allow greater functionality in offline, hard-wired, or airplane modes; and to provide access to hard-wired options.

Some specific requirements to limit radiative fields from electricity are to use quality electrical design, including filtering out non-60 hertz frequencies.

While other specific limits are provided by the law, relevant corporations are expected be proactive in further researching and applying findings to limit any potential harm from radiation exposure. Prosecution under chapter 93A and chapter 106 is allowed for failure of compliance.

SECTION 2. The General Laws are hereby amended by inserting after chapter 166A the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 166B.

CORPORATE RADIATION LIMITS

Section 1.

(a) As used in this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

“As Safe As Reasonable and Achievable” or “ASARAA” means that when humans or the environment are exposed to radiation from technology, the exposure should be as safe as is reasonable and achievable with respect to all software design, installation, and technological aspects, such as with regard to but not limited to non-use (an elimination of exposure), pulsing, modulation, frequencies, resonance, power density, polarization, power quality, distance of reach, shielding, filters, grounding, and synergism between frequencies or other bio-active substances.

“Reasonable” means within the term ASARAA a prioritization of safety and does not refer to a risk and benefits analysis – reasonable refers to the fact that prioritizing safety is reasonable. Reasonable design means that non-use or elimination of radiation applies when a potential for great danger to the public or environment exists as judged by a reasonable interpretation of available science, expert warnings, or when effects are unknown.

“Electromagnetic radiation” or “radiation” means all radiation emitted by technology, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and includes the radiative fields emitted by electricity, including from poor power quality, and the radiating frequencies that are emitted by wireless technologies.

(b) Corporations which design, manufacture, install, or maintain digital, internet, or wireless infrastructure, technology, or their respective services must within their purview make design and technological choices that limit harm from electromagnetic radiation – exposures from technology must be ‘As Safe as Reasonable and Achievable’, which will hereafter be called ‘ASARAA’. Where products or services are actually intended to operate wirelessly or otherwise intentionally emit radiation, such corporations are to minimize harm with ASARAA design.

This directive for ASARAA design refers to all new products, services, installations, infrastructure and, where compatibility exists, to service upgrades, product upgrades, repairs, and ongoing software updates.

(c) General ASARAA design principles and more specific requirements are as follows:

(1) Limit consumer exposure to wireless radiation from personal devices, personal computers, and other radiating technologies including but not limited to the following requirements:

  1. Provide hard-wired integration options for wireless technologies and services so that any wireless antenna can be turned off when hard-wired transmission is preferred;
  2. Automatically block wireless radiation emissions, but not reception, when positioned close to the head or body;
  3. Include a soft key that easily allows all wireless transmissions to be turned on or halted;
  4. Include a soft key for a mode that only receives and does not transmit;
  5. Set factory and default mode to wired connectivity, allowing updates, downloads, and installations to occur with wired instead of wireless connectivity and insuring that updates do not restart wireless transmissions that were preset as wired;
  6. As related to messaging, data collection, and other applications, provide an application that allows consumers to turn off antenna transmissions individually as well as allows consumers to set transmissions to occur at certain times.
  7. Eliminate continuing transmissions of location so that transmissions only occur when expressly and actively sought by the consumer for an immediate, active use, and that when use appears to stop then inquire whether location service transmissions are still needed.
  8. Provide an application to turn on location services on remote inquiry in order to find lost mobile devices.
  9. Set routers, wireless home phones, and other transmitting devices to only transmit on demand and turn off when no longer in use by the consumer.
  10. With respect to data collection, integration, and related work on the part of the consumer utilizing a mobile device, provide simple, preferential functionality for inputing and collecting data offline and for use of wired connectivity for downloading and syncing onto any pertinent device, including a passive storage device.
  11. Use automated protocol-based reductions of all of the following: the number of emissions, emission duration, and the integrated dose;
  12. Providing an easy to access, free application with personal wireless devices to limit call durations according to an estimation of the effective radiated power emitted by the device that allows: (A) consumers to track and further refine call duration limits beyond any default settings; (B) parents to set the limits for their children’s phone.
  13. Except where only wireless connectivity can provide functionality, insure wired or offline functionality is available and comparable in quality or better than wireless functionality;
  14. Insure use of quality connectors that prevent leakage of radiation;
  15. Modify the antenna of personal mobile devices so the emission pattern is more hemispherical and radiates away from the head and the body.
  16. With new personal computer, cellphone, and other internet technology product sales, provide the connecting necessities, minus an Ethernet cord, for hard-wired functionality as part of the sales package.
  17. Provide simple, accessible information on how to hard-wire products, including where to get or buy the necessary equipment to do so;
  18. When installing, programming, or setting up relevant technology, limit radiation wherever possible.
  19. Limit the reach or distance of and the power density of antennas to only that necessary for functionality.

(2) Limit consumer exposure to electrical radiation with good design including the following requirements:

  1. Limit electrical radiation frequencies through the use of appropriate filters, connectors, and quality electrical design to prevent the addition of electromagnetic frequencies besides 60 hertz on the electrical linesand to comply with electrical code standard IEEE 519;
  2. Limit electrical radiation fields through the use of shielding, grounding, distance setbacks, and quality electrical design.

(d) While subsection (c) above provides some specific requirements, the general principal of ASARAA means that corporations have a duty to be proactive in the prevention of harm through continuing investigation and application of findings to further additional modifications for the best, safest, future-proof design. Corporations have a duty to pay attention to critics, cautions and guidance from existing scientific knowledge around the world from past to present in order to craft safer technology – and a duty to avoid ignorance or compromised, inadequate research as an excuse to avoid responsibility. Recommended resources to guide design include the Building Biology Institute and the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.

(e) The attorney general shall enforce good faith compliance of this section through adjudication of complaints alleging such violations in accordance with chapter 93A and with chapter 106, section 2-314. This remedy shall not be exclusive and shall be in addition to all other causes of action, remedies and penalties provided by law, and shall allow for a qui tam action as well as a private right of action for product liability and negligence. The office of the attorney general shall provide a mechanism for anonymous reporting of violations. Corporate whistle-blowers shall be provided comparable rewards and protections to that of the Massachusetts False Claims Act and the Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act.

SECTION 3. The provisions of this act are severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this law or an application thereof shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or application adjudged invalid and such clause, sentence, paragraph, section or application shall be reformed and construed so that it would be valid to the maximum extent permitted.

SECTION 4. This act shall take effect upon its passage. Upon the effective date of this section, compliance shall be in good faith with steps initiated to implement changes within
a month and changes rolled out as soon as functional. Some changes can take place immediately, such as in the choice of settings and equipment during installation of existing technology. Specific software requirements listed should be enacted at minimum within 2 years, while those requiring manufacturing should at minimum take no more than 4 years to be enacted and should also be reflected in the ongoing design of new models.

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
Last Tree Laws Massachusetts