Agent Provocateurs and Efficacy

AGENT PROVACATEURS AND EFFICACY

By Kirstin Beatty, with thanks to Sigrid Schmalzer for the sickle cell details

Updated 21 July 2021, 6 April 2022

 

Some people wrongly believe the Black Panthers were anti-white and violent (they promoted self defense), but setting that aside a moment, notice what can be learned from their experience.

One successful project was that the Black Panthers provided sickle cell testing and highlighted how the health of African-Americans had been neglected, using the issue to advocate for free and better health care and better treatment of African Americans and rallying support.

As the Black Panthers gained publicity and support by highlighting the health care issue, the government stepped in and began to offer sickle cell testing — suddenly grants of money were provided to professionals, to the wealthy and white, while bypassing the Black Panthers.

The sickle cell testing provided by the government was welcome, but the Black Panthers also needed thanks and continuing support for their work, including for the fair point of needing decent health care and payment for their work.

The loss of sickle cell organizing and testing events hit the Black Panthers hard, as fewer events with testing for African-Americans meant less opportunity to share the message. Government action on sickle cell testing appeared on its face to have solved the problem, but African-Americans still lacked access to decent health care.

Instead of the government offering sincere support, the FBI had also infiltrated the Black Panther movement at every level to destroy it with agent provocateurs.

J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI infiltrated many different groups: socialists, communists, peace activists, etc., as part of a counter intelligence program or COINTELPRO.

As far as the Black Panthers, the COINTELPRO sought to sow violence between the Black Panthers and others, disrupt scheduling, promote paranoia, fuel jealousy, accuse innocents of being ‘informants’, tap phones, employ the KKK, plant disinformation in the media, falsely define Black Panthers as white racists, and kill and imprison members – the same members who professed the right to self defense which, ironically, is today often a right-wing, white-faced mantra which the Black Panthers were not.

This concerted attack is what destroyed the Black Panthers, which originally had wide-spread support among the African American community but was destroyed from the inside. In this context, the decision of the government to support sickle cell testing seems to have been designed to undermine a major source of the Black Panther’s membership growth.

Despite being painted as white racists, the Black Panthers in fact sought to fight racism through solidarity with people of all backgrounds. The FBI went after the Black Panthers not just because of their strong unifying platform, but because the Black Panthers were anti-capitalist, because capitalism or profit motives had fostered slavery.

How could things have been different?

I think first we need to recognize how important working together in unity can be. The FBI sought to create division among different groups to divide and conquer.

Secondly, in relation to the sickle cell testing, we also need to be careful we do not lose sight of the bigger picture. When we ask for one piece of the puzzle to be fixed, we need to simultaneously ask for the larger picture to be fixed. Both need to be front and center so neither is lost.

Maybe a little appeasement of the rich and powerful is necessary to avoid being shot or maimed. Whether appeasement is possible is questionable — Putin jumps to mind. Still, maybe planning solutions that everyone can support, even greedy planet-destroying pigs, is wise.

Considering how the Black Panthers were never paid for their work to make sickle cell testing mainstream, we need to pay back and thank those who fight for us all, ideally the ones who are sincere and not the agent provocateurs.

All too often, the poor, the disabled, the marginalized bring up problems they experience and after they work long enough the government decides to pay a bunch of businesses to profit from the problem with half measures. People who worked on this issue and especially those who suffered deserve to be compensated, treated as leaders and invited find full solutions, never patronized as incompetent victims.

I believe we need to recognize that when we ask for meaningful change we are bound to have hidden opposition, and we need to stop saying that is impossible and instead look hard for where problems might be.

The Black Panthers were destroyed from the inside by paranoia generated by agents who had the intention of destroying trust, leadership and creating drama. This is so easy. The agent might play the victim, say the angry person has a bad temper, and undermine leadership, capability, and respect with a sneer and gossip.

Opposition does not have be sourced from the FBI or a big industry. Opposition can be local, sent by an opposing political party, local business, or just anyone.

I believe we need an all for one, one for all mentality where we support those who operate as a team rather than as a bullies. To do this, we need to recognize and stop when people  use drama and control to lead away from the goal. Those kinds of people need to stopped and not heralded.

I once found a list online of tactics to infiltrate movements, prepared by our government — perhaps it was for anti terrorism. These tactics can be used by anyone, and so it is important to know those tactics so you can call them when you see them.

In addition to those tactics listed above, the following struck a cord with me:

    • use charismatic leaders to infiltrate and takeover grassroots initiatives, e.g. capturing control of all decisions
    • steer movements away from effective goals
    • develop community with cliques, drama, and infighting
    • gain loyalty and steal volunteers by offering lucrative opportunities
    • capturing and not sharing intelligence or connections
    • faking communications (deep fakes could be used)

Agent provocateurs need not be advocates but may also be represented by paid industry marketing groups, scientific ‘consultants’, or nonprofits. Note that nonprofits may be shams – look at the lack of policing of 501(c)4 tax-exempt groups and of 501(c)3 ALEC.

Industry’s work to shape public perception is quite an evil, so anything is possible with advocacy – US Right to Know has documented how ‘experts’ have been paid off, just as one example.

In any case, how can you tell who is sowing discord and division? On a personal level, sometimes you can tell by whether effective choices or bizarre wrong turns are being supported. On a more abstract level, sometimes it is harder. I think to myself of how my ideas are stolen and peddled without thanks.  I feel no one knows, because I’m not a marketer.

Here are a few points to examine regarding advocates and advocacy organizations:

        • Openness or honesty regarding who runs the organization (online):
          • If concealed, is the concealment real, partial, and is there any reason?
          • If someone admits to or says he/she is leading an organization, then why is it not listed on the website?
          • Is relevant background information shared of leaders?
          • If you are contributing to the organization, then are you listed as doing so on the website or in materials?
        • For what does the group/ person advocate?
          • Aside from education, what kinds of political changes are being moved forward?
          • Is advocacy for the status quo or minimal change?
          • Does advocacy undermine the work of ‘competitors’ even when that work is good?
          • Are there clear policy statements?
          • Is the direction of advocacy unclear?
          • Is advocacy hidden from view, i.e. occurring behind the scenes so that you don’t know what is said?
          • Are mistakes admitted?
          • If the group provides or funds research, is the research needed? Is the research conducted following best practices to allow for satisfactory peer review?
          • If the group provides education, is the education free or at cost?
          • Check advocacy materials:
            • Are these accurate?
            • Do these align with your beliefs?
            • Are any of these for sale, and if so is the price reasonable or fair?
          • Is the group mailing list used for marketing?
        • Where do donations or where does the money go?
            • How much money does the organization have?
            • Is the money going towards marketing that appears to benefit personal sales?
            • If marketing occurs, is it transparent? Are connections to family, etc., and the group made clear?
            • Are donations going towards a specific project?
            • If there is a list of supporting organizations, is it clear whether those organizations receive any part of the donations?
            • Are affiliated businesses or nonprofits reaping profits – and if so, how is the money used by affiliates?
            • Are salaries being paid to those who don’t need it while volunteers who do need support go without funds?
        • Sharing is caring – in public and online:

          • Do they share information that is helpful to you?
          • Do they share relevant lawsuits or engaged in lawsuits?
              • Are the lawsuits shared effective?
          • Do they share relevant legislation or engaged in writing legislation?
                • Did you double-check the efficacy of legislation promoted?
          • Do they share information on lobbying via other avenues, such as federal agencies?
          • Does the organization reasonably reference other outside, useful resources?
          • If not, is there a decent reason such as ability only to focus on a few things (which are?)?
        • Membership:
          • Do you know other members in the organization?
          • Do you have the sense that you are being kept from contact with other members or placed in silos?
        • What is the organizations privacy policy?
          • How does the organization collect or share email addresses and contacts – and is this ethical?
        • Testimony:
          • Are you given an opportunity to sign onto testimony or platforms in support or automatically added without explicit consent?
          • Are requests for support of testimony or platform straightforward?
          • Is there a trustworthy review of emails sent on behalf of the organization to insure consistency with mission and with member intentions?
          • Is there oversight of communications?
          • Are there private meetings with legislators behind the scenes? What is being said and can this be verified?
        • Exaggeration of personal accomplishments, taking ownership of other’s work, and omission of other’s accomplishments:
            • Do they use a name which is similar to a larger, better-known organization (to steal its reputation)?
            • Is work original or does it build, with fair credit, on the work of others?
            • Does work plagiarize or mimic the work of others – copying other websites, articles, theories . . . ?
            • Is name-dropping used to suggest ownership of an activity or person?
            • Note the scale of any marketing or self-promotion – is anyone over-promoted, such as being the first subject of every sentence?
            • Note omission of thanks;
            • Note whether thanks is public to give honor – note BCC: email may not be trustworthy as “public;”
            • Note when giving thanks or credit if major players are omitted, focusing on non-competitors only;
            • Accomplishments – are these accomplishments simply by virtue of knowing someone and being there, i.e. what did the person actually do?
            • Make a list of actual accomplishments – evaluate for originality, practicality, and effectiveness;
            • For legislation, do they admit the original source of the idea or any support?
            • For lawsuits, do they share information on the proceedings and who is involved?
            • Is the resume based on paying contractors to do work and on expensive services, rather than work by the group?
        • Who does the organization or personality dismiss, attack, or critique, and is this justified?
            • If an individual is described as “angry” or otherwise emotional – is the individual in the loop to explain or reply?
              • Why is the individual “angry” or emotional? Is there a good reason?
            • If targeting the competence or work of another – is there a well-explained basis or is this just a prejudicial statement?
            • How does the organization, personality, or industry benefit from the attack?
            • How does the targeting impact the cause?
            • Does the personality or organization effectively isolate or break apart community and collaboration?
            • Is there any benefit to this behavior and to whom or what?
        • Deflecting Criticism:
          • Has the group deflected criticism through money, such as via (a) sales agreements, (b) offering jobs or well-paid bonuses, or (c) by virtue of access to expensive material goods or services?
          • Has the group deflected criticism by virtue of having many connections, or at least saying so?
          • Does the resume show marketing rather than substance?
        • Check reputation:
          • If a nonprofit, use these resources to check:
            • CharityNavigator dot org
            • Guidestar dot org
            • Give dot org (Take reviews with a grain of salt)
            • CharityCheck101 dot org (Not every organization will be listed, such as Last Tree Laws which is politically organized and not a nonprofit)
          • For any group, check connections via:
            • SourceWatch dot org (Background information on organizations such as ties to industry)
            • Check history of board members,
            • Check history of administrative teams,
            • Check primary donors,
            • Check affiliations,
            • Check product sales and licensing agreements (the latter is possible in big organizations),
            • Check openness or direct honesty regarding sales and affiliations,
        • If the organization appears to be doing little, can you contact the organization for information, assistance or advice? Is the organization paid to do its work? Is the organization underfunded and understaffed?

Just a few more random thoughts:

In the UK, a user-led disability services group was out-competed by big charities for contracts, which then asked the user-led group to do the work for ‘small pots of money.’ In the USA, addiction treatment centers often fail since treatment is too short, yet failure doesn’t hurt business and so some see relapse as profit. Just as we ask for representation of all kinds of people in jobs and on committees deciding public policy, I believe we need to do more to get people with disabilities in leadership roles providing disability services and so forth — what happened in the UK is patronizing and enriches a few at the expense of the many.

Also, Bill Gates is overrated and is also profiting off his ‘nonprofit’ foundation. The Bill Gates Foundation has been critiqued for supporting his child’s school and his stocks in pharma, education, and GMOs. While I can understand someone lacking money might use a nonprofit to raise money for his or her child’s school, Bill Gates has more than enough to pay taxes.  For examples, see:

              • The Nation‘s “Bill Gates gives to the rich, including himself” March 17, 2020, by Tim Schwab
              • The book No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy by Linsey McGoey
              • Vox dot com “The Media loves the Gates Foundation. These experts are more skeptical” by Julia Belluz 2015 June 10
              • ChildrensHealthDefense dot org “The Brave New World of Bill Gates and Big Telecom” 8 May 2020 by Robert F. Kennedy and Dafna Tachover

Also, regulations on nonprofits are way too lax. The American Cancer Society pays its executives exorbitant amounts – 2 million plus for one executive alongside numerous six-figure salaries – while maintaining reliance on many volunteers. One letter to the editor, by Vernon Hill  in the Carteret News-Times on 3 December 2009, states his organization sent the ACS 900K over three years, covering 37K of costs and tightening expenses at ACS request, while the ACS spent 45% on salaries but wouldn’t even cover event T-shirts and, to top it off, culled 140 staff positions that year.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition has called for a boycott of the American Cancer Society (ACS) for taking big donations from Big Pharma, Big Telecommunications, and Big Chemical, and ignoring environmental pollution as a cause of cancer.  Yet, many people support the ACS offhand, without thinking twice because of name recognition.

In Massachusetts, Rep. Peter Durant has put forward bill H. 3708, “An Act Limiting the Compensation of Executives in Nonprofit Organizations.” He has the right idea but the limits proposed seem too low: he proposes for a nonprofit with a budget of $249,999 a maximum CEO salary of $49,719. If this were a part-time job, that would be more than adequate, but as a full-time job that is on the border of or not quite enough to support a family without a second income or government charity.

In sum, good work needs support, but abuse of the system and agent provocateurs needs to be identified and halted.

Amendments for Bill S.186 (Investigation of Electromagnetic Impacts)

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

This issue must be swiftly addressed to curtail further harm — see these FAQs or resources.

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:

I. Correct language and scope: [Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill S. 186 by striking out lines 2 and 3 and inserting in place thereof the following new text:-

“special commission to research the environmental and public health impact of non-ionizing radiation generated by technologies and, if any harm exists, propose potential solutions.”

Why? This is amended to remove electromagnetic radiation, which refers to all kinds of radiation including ionizing like X-rays; to remove RFR as this is to narrow; to use non-ionizing radiation since this includes new technologies like LiFi; eliminate ‘consumer protection’ in favor of solutions; and add environmental health.

II. Insure transparency as follows: [Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill S.186 by inserting before line 35 the following new paragraph:-

“The commission’s meeting notes, meeting transcripts, other communications, meeting attendance, votes of each member that votes, and member conflicts of interest shall be recorded and made available to the public. Records shall be freely available and immediately accessible for public viewing online as well as included in any commission report(s), with the exception, if more than one report is submitted, that meeting notes, attendance, and communications may be split among reports according to relevant time period.”

III. Illuminate transparency of conflicts of interest to insure recusal from voting as follows: [Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill S.186 by inserting between line 34 and 35 the following new paragraphs:-

“All commission members with conflicts of interest due to industry or employment shall be prohibited from participating as voting members, but shall be called non-voting members. Any commission member deemed a non-voting member shall recuse himself or herself from any commission votes to decide or influence the the outcome of commission reports and commission decisions, and shall instead serve only to assist 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.

Certain members of the commission shall automatically be stipulated as non-voting members who attend to assist but may not vote. Non-voting members shall include any member appointed whose livelihood with conflicts of interest, but who nevertheless is a required appointment according to the list of defined members, such as any member appointed by virtue of government position but who has conflicts of interest.

In contrast, all other voting members of the commission must be free of conflicts of interest, and for this reason any nominee shall recuse himself or herself from nomination if conflicts of interest exist or provide evidence of elimination of conflicts of interest before appointment, such as placement of a relevant investment portfolio into a blind trust.

Conflicts of interest of a commission member shall be defined as a current investment portfolio in or a history or present livelihood depending upon the telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility industry, as well as to related industries such as to the medical device industry. Conflicts of interest of a member shall extend to the member’s family, including the member’s spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity and affinity.

All commission members, both voting and non-voting members, must file a statement detailing any relevant conflicts of interest and continue to do so in the two years following the commission’s final report. These statements must be filed with the Secretary of State promptly during the commission period and in the two years following closure of the commission, and must be freely and immediately accessible to the public online.”

IV. Address the problem of environmental and public health simply and holistically, rather than carving out any special treatments: [Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill (Senate, No. 186) by striking out lines 20 through 34 and inserting in place thereof the following new text:-

“Through public hearings, invited speakers, and literature review, the commission shall conduct an investigation including but not limited to the following topics:

(a) identify past and present factors which may obscure relevant scientific findings, including but not limited to study conditions and methodology (such as but not limited to frequency pulsing and polarization), sources of funding, economic interests, FCC regulations, historic events, and industry compliance;

(b) utilize the knowledge gleaned from subsection (a) to further critically evaluate scientific research, conclusions, and hearing testimony;

(c) based on research, identify:

    1. gaps in knowledge;
    2. common and potential exposures in the past as compared to the present and expected future;
    3. known, likely, and potential impacts of existing and future exposures, particularly in relation:
      • i. to the reproductive, neurological, and immune systems; and
      • ii. to agriculture, ecosystems, and the continued viability of the human race;

d. if legitimate concerns exist to justify limiting exposures, then:

    1.  identify potential guidelines or solutions for safer technology, including with respect to telecommunications, utilities, IT, and building wiring and technology use
    2. identify recommended action steps in the short- and long-term to limit harm from exposures in the arena of private and public buildings, transportation, utilities, workplaces, education, emergency services, medical care, medical devices, building wiring, manufacturing, and government services.
    3. identify solutions to limit negative economic impacts upon the general populace and small businesses, including with regard to retirement funds, funding safer technology, and reports of disability or disease caused by exposures.”

Here are the reasons for replacement:

    • (i) we know it will cost industry and investors – wastes time to examine costs;
    • (ii) better to outline how the state can freely and apolitically and through established government systems educate consumers than to rely on private sources for education;
    • (iii) this investigation requires industry research be examined but does so without caveat as if it’s equal to non-industry research;
    • (iv) this is basically the same as the previous clause;
    • (v) the point of this is not clear;
    • (vi) creating detailed guidelines for quality research may be beyond the scope and expertise of this commission and should not be a requirement;
    • (vii) – at this point it is probably best just to start over and the point is not clear – “examining the impacts of premarket safety testing procedures for wireless technology”;
    • (viii) – at this point it is probably best just to start over and it is not necessary to state – “reviewing national and international regulatory best practices that address the impact of EMR and RFR radiation on technology, consumer protection, and public health”

V. Remove excessive extraneous parties and telecommunication representation as follows: [NOTE ** THIS SECTION, ESPECIALLY IF PART VI IS REVISED, COULD BE FURTHER EDITED**]

[Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill (Senate, No. 186) by striking out lines 10 through 19 and inserting in place thereof the following new text:-

“Society, ideally a neurology or cardiac specialist; a scientist nominated by the Environmental Health Trust; and a non-voting member with ten years of work experience in the field shall be appointed by the governor, who shall be an engineer with expertise in wireless network engineering, technology, and knowledge of non-ionizing radiation.”

Why? Deleting a telecommunications representative, telecommunications lawyer, and wireless medical device expert is possible because the telecommunications commissioner is on the committee and can invite these persons or provide information when useful. Non-industry is added. Neurologists and cardiac specialists work with frequencies (EKG, EEG) which should be helpful for understanding some of the research literature.

In addition, some changes are being removed to prevent the governor from having too much control of the commissions make up due to controlling not only executive branch nominations but substantial other commission nominations.

VI. Add these parties to the commission, nominated by the respective organizations and not the governor or the executive commissioners to distribute responsibility and influence:

THIS SECTION IS STILL IN DRAFT AS I’D LIKE TO HEAR BACK FROM THE ORGANIZATIONS BEFORE INSERTING – HELP IS APPRECIATED CONNECTING.

[Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill S.186 by striking line 9 and inserting the following new text:-

“Regulation or his designee; one of whom shall be a telecommunications worker nominated by the Communications Workers of America; one of whom shall be a nominee of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police; . . . . . ; one of whom shall be a member of the Massachusetts Medical”

Including big organizations is another way to shine a light and bring pressure to bear on the issue. At the bottom of this blog page on investigative commissions, some more ideas were listed for groups in a draft amendment previously created.

Stop 5G Legislation Now Mass!

 

Please call your legislator and ask that a word be put in for H. 105 – 114 and against S. 54 & H. 124 with the Joint Committee of Advanced IT (chairs Finegold & Campbell) — and to find out the status of these bills. Committees finalize decisions 2 February.

If possible, send an original letter to the editor before 25 January to a newspaper (suggestions here) supporting H. 105 – 114 & against wireless expansion generally.

S. 54 is sponsored by the committee chairs and a member, who may have been deceived by industry of 5G safety. The bill would:

    • Require a rollout of 5G by 2024
    • Penalize municipalities 10% of the previous tax year’s receipts if:
      • Reported by industry as blocking 5G
      • Found guilty by the DPU (which tends to favor industry

Maybe the MA  joint committee on advanced IT will stop this and other 5G & IT expansion bills, since it heard testimony on 13 October for H. 105-114 to limit:

  • wireless dangers
  • privacy concerns in schools (H. 106)
  • excess screen time in public schools (H. 107)

For more on bills H. 105-114, please see the MA legislation page and look at the bars for wireless and schools.

H. 124 is a bill to create a task force for industry and legislators to work together to support 5G.

End Water Fluoridation

 

The following letter is testimony for a legislative hearing – please call in support!

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.

Natick: http://www.fluoridation.com/natick.htm

Wilmington: https://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/wilmington.erickson.2000.pdf

Despite public interest, Massachusetts state law fails to allow either municipalities or residents a path to opt out of fluoridation, instead allowing only a referendum 90 days after any Board of Health increase in fluoride.

Instead of an opt out, the Commonwealth subsidizes a coalition that promotes fluoride and that enjoys conferences, prestige, and marketing. Municipalities pay as well. Opting into fluoridation costs Holyoke, for example, about $30,000 a year. More than half of the state, including Boston, has fluoridated water.

State-funded Better Oral Health Massachusetts Commission: http://massoralhealth.org/community-water-fluoridation/

MA statistics: https://www.mass.gov/doc/massachusetts-communities-receiving-communities-water-fluoridation/download

Worse, in 2020 the US National Toxicology Program released a report finding that fluoride is a cognitive hazard. Children deserve protection, in particular infants and the unborn who are most vulnerable.

Other populations of special concern include individuals with kidney disease.

While the National Toxicology Program (NTP) focused on neurotoxicity, other reviews are under consideration, such as on cancer and endocrine disruption.

Linda S. Birnbaum, former director of the NTP: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.supplement.appendix-e.11-4-20.pdf

NTP Report: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2015/december/meetingmaterial/fluoride_508.pdf

The American Dental Association (ADA) continues to support and market fluoride to its members and the public, likely because the ADA receives numerous annual product certification fees for the ADA seal. Industry also has a strong financial incentive, as fluoride sold for water fluoridation would otherwise need to be disposed of as a toxic chemical. Fluoride added to water supplies is the same as that emitted by coal-fired plants, incinerators, aluminum production, and cigarette smoke as noted in an EPA fact sheet — it is not a natural product.

ADA seal products: https://www.mouthhealthy.org/en/ada-seal-products.

EPA fact sheet: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/hydrogen-fluoride.pdf

Several nonprofits, such as the Fluoride Action Network and Food and Water Watch, have gone to trial to get the EPA to acknowledge fluoride as a neurotoxin. As Dr. Michael Connett testified: “We have 4 high quality cohort studies. Each has found associations between early life exposures to fluoride and lowered IQ…by around 5 IQ points. The effect size rivals the neurotoxic effects of lead.”

During the trial, the judge appeared to support the plaintiffs, noting that the standard of evidence is of high quality and asking whether the EPA could conduct a proper review and, if not, noting the judge has the power to rule against the EPA.

The EPA did not call its own scientists to testify, instead calling Exponent consultants with limited expertise. EPA scientists have in the past complained that their findings on fluoride have been diminished and politicized, such as in senior vice-president of an EPA union described in 2000 testimony to the US Senate.

EPA testimony: https://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/hirzy/

Trial review and documents: https://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/

The passage of fluoridated water into wild streams is even an issue for fish, such as a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports. An Ottawa review of several studies concludes fluoride may have various environmental effects such as altering soil microbial populations or reducing egg laying reproduction.

NOAA study: https://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/fluoride.salmon.noaa.1993.htm

Ottawa review: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/canada.cadth-report.feb_.2019.pdf

Fluorosis, caused by years of fluoridated water or excess exposure, results in brittle bones.

According to state statistics, towns with a long history of water fluoridation have a much higher rate of hip fractures. For example, Amherst, fluoridated since 1987, has a rate of 671 while Colrain, which is not fluoridated, has a rate of 147 per 100,000 of elderly (over age 60).

State statistics similarly show worse rates for fluoridated communities with respect to asthma ER visits, mental or physical disability, and deaths from diabetes or heart conditions.

Questions remain regarding whether fluoride is useful at all. Data from the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) of 39,207 school children showed zero relationship between cavities and water fluoridation.

Review of data: http://www.icnr.com/articles/national-fluoride-tooth-decay-study.html

Initial studies, on which claims rely, were poorly done. 97% of Europe does not use water fluoridation, yet the Europeans are not complaining of losing teeth.

Europe: http://fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/

If any dental benefit exists, this is accomplished by topical application, not by ingestion. Insistence on water fluoridation is therefore not only harmful, but odd.

Aside: This remaining petition still needs signatures to show support.

FOR FURTHER STUDY

RESEARCH RELATED TO CHILDREN

7 studies indicate formula-fed infants and fetuses are most vulnerable to fluoride toxicity. The most recent 2019 Canadian study found formula-fed infants had an IQ drop. https://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/the-mother-offspring-studies/

With increased serum F in the mother, there is an inclination towards pre term delivery, low birth weight and poor APGAR count. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/15518/

Passing through placental barriers, the fluorine exposure of pregnant rats can have a certain effect on the learning and memory capabilities of baby rats, and it may be related to SOD activity and MDA content in the brain. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/16621/

This pilot study in a community with stable lifetime fluoride exposures supports the notion that fluoride in drinking water may produce developmental neurotoxicity, and that the dose-dependence underlying this relationship needs to be characterized in detail. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012 (The Mayo Clinic warns against fluoridated water for babies).

Thyroid significantly changed in children exposed to fluoride: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24455464

These results indicate that high iodine and high fluorine exert severe damage to human body. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7859263

Thus, fully formula-fed infants consuming mother milk substitutes prepared with optimally fluoridated water may be at increased risk of dental fluorosis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21554919

IQ drop: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18038039

It was found that excessive use of the fluoride toothpaste doubled the fluorosis risk, whereas when fluoride supplements (tablets, drops) were given the risk was about 20 times higher than without a fluoride supplement. . . [And also fluoridated water is rejected and recommended to be ended ASAP because of “preventive, toxicological, psychological and didactic reasons.”] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11791200

Conclusions related to fluoride and heart trouble in children: Endemic fluorosis is a risk factor for decrease in calcium and FT4 levels, increase in sodium levels and QT prolongation. These findings might be related with some cardiovascular system dysfunctions such as arrhythmias or syncope. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21342861

(Mice pups neurologically damaged): Fluoride exposure significantly increased its accumulation, lipid peroxidation and decreased the activities of catalase, superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione-S-transferase and glutathione levels in discrete regions of the central nervous system (CNS) of pups indicating oxidative stress and inhibited antioxidant defense. The results implied the vulnerability of developing CNS to fluoride toxicity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21341542

This study discusses fluoride as a risk factor for anemia in pregnancy and low-birth weight babies: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/199829.php It mentions how B-12 is suppressed by fluoride.

A recent study found fluoride passes through amniotic fluid to the fetus: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-020-00581-2

Natural sources of fluoride are endemic in India, which has thus spent money to research reduction and upon toxic effects. Here is one study on children, fluoride, and thyroid showing impacts: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/susheela-2005.pdf

IMMUNE/CHEMICAL CHANGES — inflammation, apoptosis, etc.:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24456662
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22422340
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20536340
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24907160 (changes in blood count)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22004959

Fluoride damages organs: “Taken together, our results provide compelling evidence that ER stress and inflammation would be novel and significant mechanisms responsible for fluoride-induced disturbance of spermatogenesis and germ cell loss in addition to oxidative stress.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23707774

BRITTLE BONES

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7560402

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1640574 (Utah)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8827156 (USA)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10675073 (England, 1 ppm)

Patients with skeletal fluorosis compared to fluoridated sheep, who had “a significant decrease in both cortical and trabecular bones.” Also, “reminiscent of those found in osteoporotic patients with treatment-induced fluorosis. Mechanical testing revealed a significant decrease in the bending strength, concurrent with the clinical observation of fragility fractures in sheep within an area of environmental fluoride exposure.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24777741

ARTHRITIS

Previous researchers have found fluoride causes fluorosis, which shows as white or brown spots on teeth. Skeletal fluorosis causes arthritic symptoms within 5 years of drinking fluoridated water, according to calculations presented in the journal Fluoride in 1997, issue 30, page 4 (discussion), and worsen with continued consumption.

CANCER

Here is a review on cancers and a drop-down menu for other illnesses including prenatal problems: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/cancer/

THYROID

This very recent, large-scale study utilizes English thyroid statistics and strongly confirms thyroid impacts, with hypothyroidism resulting (England mandates this reporting, and so the statistics have accuracy): https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peckham-2015.pdf

SKIN RASH

Vulvar Pagets disease: recovery without surgery following change to very low-fluoride spring and well water

QUESTIONING FLUORIDE

Failure of fluoride varnishes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24481085

Why I Changed my Mind About Water Fluoridation pp. 29-44 | DOI: 10.1353/pbm.1997.0017 — John Colquhoun (John C. was the principal dental officer for Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city, and later studies fluoridation world-wide.) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9394474/

After studying dental health world-wide, John Colquhoun, D.D.S., Ph.D., stated he’d erred in assuming fluoride improved teeth because, while world-wide dental health improved, it had comparatively worsened in fluoridated communities.

COMMONWEALTH STATISTICS

The following statistics seem to have vanished, but formerly were online through the MA government website:

MA TOWN HIP FRACTURE STATISTICS for ages 60+ per 100,000:

3 towns in W. MA fluoridate. About 140 towns in Mass. fluoridate in total, many big cities.

855 Holyoke (fluoridated since 1970–note poor nutrition increases fluoride/toxin absorption–likely poor nutrition common in Holyoke)

671 Amherst (F. since 1987)

646 Longmeadow (F. since 1989)

vs.

491 Easthampton (non-fluoridated)

442 Springfield (non-fluoridated)

147 Colrain (non-fluoridated rural town, away from industrial pollution, which includes fluoride)

DEATH RATES FROM DIABETES: Decades-long fluoridated Holyoke worse than non-fluoridated Springfield, Chicopee, and rest of state.

DEATH RATES FROM HEART DISEASE: Same comment as above.

ASTHMA ER VISITS: Fluoridated Holyoke three times as bad as most of western MA, excepting Springfield at just about same level. 1.7%–Springfield ER same, just about.

555 OF AGE 65-74 have PHYSICAL DISABILITY (Worse than rest of MA–21.6% vs. 17.5 for state)

168 OF AGE 65-74 have MENTAL DISABILITY (6.5% Holyokers vs. 4.9% state)

Safe MA Broadband & Electric

The following was written testimony provided, additional to spoken testimony. Please call in support!

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).

FIRST RESPONDERS IN TROUBLE

Epidemiological studies of human subjects and animal studies bear out that these exposures lead to disease, pain, and behavioral changes. In California, a 5-year 2G antenna installation on a fire station led to cognitive impairment, headache, insomnia, irritability, depression, and edginess, which led to a brain scan of fire fighters confirming brain abnormalities. This study resulted in a California ban upon fire station antennas. The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has a lengthy policy statement opposing antenna installations on or near fire stations, listing as objection potential central nervous system, immune system, and metabolic disorders.

Although tied to poor health and judgment, wireless transmitters are often on top of hospitals, fire and police stations. New products and communications infrastructure continue to be developed for first responders without regard to reducing exposures to wireless or fields from electricity.

[H.114] An Act studying technology impacts on police, firefighters, and emergency and security personnel attempts to rectify this problem through a commission including first responders to examine health and societal impacts.

IMPACTS ON HEALTH & BEHAVIOR

A review commissioned by the German government of 878 Russian studies conducted from the 1960 through 1997 based on thousands of Russian workers in electric utilities and radio stations, who had to be verified as healthy to apply and have at least one heath check per year by an industrial hygienist and occupational health care professional. Exposures were only during the day from 2 to 8 hours. Initially the body may even positively adapt, but symptoms after 5 years exposure included sleep disorders, impaired memory, hyperactivity of the thyroid, fatigue, heightened stress response (excitability), digestive complaints, weakened immunity, cardiovascular and EEG changes. After 10 years, symptoms worsen and were classified firmly as a disease with physical and mental decline.

Studies continue to show chronic exposure induce behavioral changes including anxiety, irritation, depression, paranoia, hostility, and edginess, as well as trouble with concentration, memory, and learning. These behavioral changes are supported by research demonstrating often clearly pathological shifts in thyroid hormones, cortisol, testosterone, enzymes, reactive oxygen species (ROS), EEG, down- or up-regulation of processes, cells, DNA, blood-brain barrier, and mitochondria. In some instances, changes may be hereditary, such as to DNA or mitochondria, or cause nausea, such as ROS oxidation, or lead to early and intense onset of disease.

[H.108 An Act supporting patients and residents suffering from environmental pollutants and modern technologies, e.g. wireless is necessary to insure medical training and guide patients towards safer technology.

YOUTH IN TROUBLE

Mental illness is rising faster among young adults age 18 to 25 than among adults – mental illness rates were 19% in 2008 and 26% by 2018 (according to the National Institute for Health Care Management) — a fourth of young adults with mental illness before the pandemic.

From 2001 through 2004, 1 in 3 teens had an anxiety disorder.

Numerous academics have linked the sudden rise in adolescent mental distress, learning trouble, and social problems to the rise in digital media use, often blaming the addictive, anti-social nature and negative messaging of modern technology. Given that exposures to wireless and constant proximity to electrical devices is new and constant for youth, and given that science has found profound biochemical changes from these exposures, these exposures must be a major contributing factor to mental illness.

Children and smaller youth absorb more radiation and are growing, and thus suffer from greater effect including feeling unwell. The research literature additionally reports headaches, nausea, dizziness increase with dose response.

We need to limit youth screen time and support to [H.106], An Act regulating screen time in early and K-12 education, since health impacts occur not only from wireless, but from fields near electricity.

Two bills are proposed to limit school wireless and electrical exposures. H. 105 is the better choice.

H. 115, An Act relative to best management practices for wireless in schools and public institutions of higher education, HAS 4 PROBLEMS:

1. One, as it states guidance is “for the purchase and installation of wireless internet service” **H. 115 continues wireless**.
2. Two, the bill is only about internet service, although cellphones, burglar alarms, and other sources of exposures exist.
3. Three, the bill proposes a top-down review of best practices, which is far too easy for industry to influence and is a delay.
4. Four, the bill does not make clear whether local communities will be allowed or encouraged to adopt guidelines and practices safer than that proposed.

[H.105], An Act reducing non-ionizing radiation such as wireless from early to higher education, is a better choice.

* One, H. 105 **requires that every public school and university reduce exposures as within its means, thus immediately requiring local action**.
* Two, public records of progress are required and subject to review, insuring attention.
* Three, it prioritizes hard-wired broadband.
* Four, it requires that any antenna in operation be set to minimum power density.
* Five, boards and departments are also to review how to reduce exposures, but only with experts independent of industry.
* Six, early education is included in the review.
* Seven, it **prohibits further construction of cell towers** on public education grounds.
* Eight, it adds student environmental health to the mission of the education department.

Because data collection interests are another pressure advancing technology marketing, bills which protect privacy should also be supported, such as ***[H.107](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/H107)  An Act regulating privacy and technology in education*** and Senator Mark Montigny’s ***[S.220](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/S220)  An Act to protect personal biometric data***.

PROTECT MASSACHUSETTS

Even if Massachusetts invests in hard-wired communications, fiberoptic can still be used to install wireless infrastructure. Video-streaming, which is not an FCC mandate, appears to be driving demand.

The Commonwealth must quickly ban all close proximity and 5G installations, due to public harm from intense exposures, and must begin to roll back all other wireless communications excepting that needed by First Responders.

The recent DC federal court decision finding the FCC guidelines provides strong grounds to challenge any federal mandate. Regardless, the Commonwealth must take a stand, just as it did with marijuana. ***[H.110](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/H110)  An Act halting 5G high frequencies and close proximity antennas ***begins this process, requiring full and public disclosure of antenna ownership and location.

Section 4 allows that a lessee of property to a mobile services provider may break the contract, since such installations are harmful.

***[H.113](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/H113)  An Act requiring wireless insurance*** insures wireless providers carry quality insurance or place funds in escrow. Insurance providers have an incentive for quality control, although none seem to offer wireless insurance. Lawyers report that wireless providers use variations of the corporation name, such as Verizon, to insure risks are held by a corporation without assets, and that further the insurance agreements are weak or nonexistent.

Requiring wireless insurance is an act that would deter dangerous installations.

WISER INVESTMENTS

***[H.112] An Act hard-wiring state offices and investing in hard-wired communications:***

* Requires the Massachusetts educational commissioner to develop a plan to hard-wire educational institutions.
* Prohibits construction of wireless facilities near playgrounds.
* Allows the Board of Library Commissioners to provide libraries grants to reduce exposures.
* Revises existing law to require only wired investments or use of wired broadband by:
1. Massworks, the Massachusetts Broadband Institute, the executive office of information technology, the director of wireless & telecommunications.
* Where relevant, privacy, reliability, security, and affordability are also added to safety as goals, the latter prioritized.
* Section 11 requires an annual public audit by the department of all common carriers, which includes all utilities.

Section 11 is of particular interest because telecommunication companies have been rigging accounts to pay for wireless with funds intended for wired services. This has led to the deterioration of or lack of investment in wired services. A decision by the DC circuit means states are free to go over and recover those funds (Irregulators v. FCC). New York has had a public audit and, as a result, the rigged accounts were discovered.

Safe and worthwhile communications needs to be identified. The proposal for the Massachusetts Broadband is meant to help redirect the Commonwealth, although more needs to be done.

ELECTRICITY

While fixing wireless seems as simple as using wires, fixing the problem with electricity is more complex. Our digital and energy-saving devices do not use 60 hertz electricity. Converting these connections to 60 hertz is not a clean process, for it results in many other frequencies being added to the electrical lines. Harmonics such as 120 hertz and other frequencies end up riding upon the electrical lines along with frequency surges. Utilities are supposed to only have 60 hertz on the electrical lines and, if so, this is called *good power quality*. In contrast, *poor power quality* leaks energy, damages electronics, and harms human health.

Fields from electrical lines extend about 5 feet from wiring, and in the last 2 decades have become increasingly contaminated thanks to utility and manufacturing negligence. The increases in pulses, surges, frequencies, and field strength in modern electricity must be reversed. Presently, utilities have only shown an interest in fixing power quality for businesses with sensitive electronic equipment, such as in hospitals.

An additional problem results when too much electricity runs along utility wires. A solution would be to build more infrastructure to carry it, but often instead the extra electricity runs down the pole into the ground to create what is called ground current. This is harmful, especially if there is lightning which could cause electrocution. The failure of utilities to address the ground current and power quality problems is rooted in the desire to save money, but at what cost?

UTILITY SOLUTION #1

[H.111] An Act requiring better power quality and reduced radiation from utility infrastructure sets a safety standard for utilities based on guidance of the Building Biology Institute and recommendations of research scientist Dr. Neil Cherry [(d)2], requires utility providers remedy problems and keep public records of inspections, and allows the attorney general to enforce provisions. In addition, the bill protects privacy by limiting utility providers right to collect data only to that necessary for utility operations.

UTILITY & WIRELESS SOLUTION #2

[H.109] An Act improving non-ionizing radiation regulation and monitoring provides for inspectors to check the safety of utility electricity and monitor wireless exposures. It renames the Massachusetts radiation department an agency (which is not necessary), and sets duties including:

* maintain a registry of non-ionizing radiation specialists and hiring several to provide monitoring, advice, and complete other duties;
* hire 5 non-ionizing radiation specialists to assist residents, provide, state and municipal advice, and for other duties;
* set regulations and warnings based on exposures;
* license and register products based on emissions, and allowing product certifications based on the Building Biology guidelines;
* allow any citizen to hire a licensed technical expert to measure exposures on *qui tam basis* and to bring a case for personal injury before an administrative court;
* provide that the administrative court tribunal includes a judge, a non-ionizing radiation specialist, and a member of the jury;
* prepare an emergency plan for non-ionizing radiation (e.g. an EMP or hacking event which strengthens transmissions intensely); and
* creating a searchable antenna database requiring registration of ownership.

PROBLEM BILLS

***Please HALT [H.124] An Act relative to a 5G technology task force promotes 5G.*** This bill was pushed through last session mistakenly by an advocate who told others the bill was helpful or could be fixed by the sponsor. Just like session, the bill promotes 5G and is at odds with technology safety.

***Please be careful with [H.143] An Act internet access on private ways.*** This bill allows abutting property owners with right of ingress or egress the right to install ‘internet’ which could very well include powerful antennas placed by utilities. The changes also appear to say internet service is a utility.

Thank you.

REFERENCES

* FCC Order 19-126, page 328 “neural” effects: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf
* Court order overturning FCC decision in 19-226 to reconsider exposure guidelines based on science: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/chd-v-fcc-we-won-decision.pdf
* International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) cell tower policy statement: https://www.iaff.org/cell-tower-radiation/
* Russian studies: Visit https://kompetenzinitiative.com/brochures/ and click English brochures and scroll down to Dr. Karl Hecht’s summary of elektrosmog health implications
* Biochemical shifts: Visit Physicians for Safe Technology for relevant research – examples include:
* **Frequent cellular phone use modifies hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis response to a cellular phone call after mental stress in healthy children and adolescents: A pilot study.** *Sci Total Environ*. 2015;536:182-188.
* **How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?** *Clin Biochem*. 2012;45(1-2):157-161. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2011.11.006
* **Effects of exposure to GSM mobile phone base station signals on salivary cortisol, alpha-amylase, and immunoglobulin A.** *Biomed Environ Sci*. 2010;23(3):199-207. doi:10.1016/S0895-3988(10)60053-0
* **8-oxoG DNA glycosylase-1 inhibition sensitizes Neuro-2a cells to oxidative DNA base damage induced by 900 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.** *Cell Physiol Biochem*. 2015;37(3):1075-1088. doi:10.1159/000430233
* **Effect of 900 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation on the Induction of ROS in Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells.** *J Biomed Phys Eng*. 2015;5(3):105-114. Published 2015 Sep 1.
* Parmar K, Tandon R, Kumar N, Garg RK. **Variations in electroencephalography with mobile phone usage in medical students.** *Neurol India*. 2019;67(1):235-241. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.253610
* **Nonthermal GSM RF and ELF EMF effects upon rat BBB permeability. (2011)** Nittby H et al. (2011) The Environmentalist. **31**, pages140–148(2011) [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-011-9307-z  ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-011-9307-z)    <https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/19140>
* **Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on neuronal differentiation and mitochondrial function in SH-SY5Y cells.** *Toxicol In Vitro*. 2019;61:104609. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2019.104609
* **2450 MHz EMR exposure causes cognition deficit with mitochondrial dysfunction & activation of intrinsic pathway of apoptosis in rats.** (2018) Gupta SK et al. J Biosciences. June 2018, Vol 43, pg 263. <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12038-018-9744-7>
* Prenatal studies (the harshest time for exposure): Visit Physicians for Safe Technology at https://mdsafetech.org/prenatal-effects/ – studies include the following:
* **Maternal exposure to a continuous 900-MHz electromagnetic field provokes neuronal loss and pathological changes in cerebellum of 32-day-old female rat offspring.  (2016)** Odacı E. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):105-10. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26391347>
* **Effects of prenatal exposure to WIFI signal (2.45GHz) on postnatal development and and behavior in rat: Influence of maternal restraint**. Othman H et al. **(2017)** [Behav Brain Res.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28288806)2017 Mar 10;326:291-302. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28288806>
* **Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study. (2017)** Li et al. Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 13;7(1):17541. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5727515/>
* **Maternal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy in relation to the risk of asthma in offspring. (2011)** [Li DK](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Li%20DK%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21810627)1, [Chen H](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Chen%20H%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21810627), [Odouli R](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Odouli%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=21810627). [Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810627)2011 Oct;165(10):945-50. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810627>
* **Prenatal and early postnatal exposure to radiofrequency waves (900 MHz) adversely affects passive avoidance learning and memory.** *Toxicol Ind Health*. 2020;36(12):1024-1030. doi:10.1177/0748233720973143
* R. D. Morris, L. L. Morgan and D. Davis. **Children Absorb Higher Doses of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation From Mobile Phones Than Adults.** *IEEE Access*, vol. 3, pp. 2379-2387, 2015, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2478701.
* Studies on behavior, memory, and learning: Please visit Physicians for Safe Technology at https://mdsafetech.org/science/behavior/ – studies include:
* **The effect of chronic exposure to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on sleep quality, stress, depression  and anxiety.** *Electromagn Biol Med*. 2019;38(1):96-101. doi:10.1080/15368378.2018.1545665
* **Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health**. Meo SA et al. American Journal of Men’s Health. December 7, 2018. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1557988318816914>
* **Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children.  (2012) Divan HA et al**. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Jun;66(6):524-9. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21138897>
* **Chronic exposure to ELF fields may induce depression. (1988)** Wilson BW. Bioelectromagnetics. 1988;9(2):195-205. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3288221>
* Review of numerous studies indicating behavioral changes including hostility and paranoia:
* **Microwave frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMF’s) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression.** (2015)  Pall. M.  Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. Aug 21, 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599>
* National Institute for Health Care Management graphic: https://nihcm.org/publications/youth-mental-health-trends-and-outlook — selected relevant citations:
* SAMHSA, 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Table 10.1B – Any Mental Illness in Past Year among Persons Aged 18 or Older, by Demographic Characteristics: Percentages, 2008-2018 https://www.samhsa.gov/data/release/2018-national-survey-drug-use-and-health-nsduh-releases
* “Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication,” Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2005 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15939837/
* U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Mental Health. (2017). Any Anxiety Disorder. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/any-anxiety-disorder
* Screen time research:
* **Age, Period, and Cohort Trends in Mood Disorder and Suicide-Related Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Dataset, 2005-2017**, by Jean Twenge, PhD, San Diego State University; Thomas Joiner, PhD, and Mary Duffy, BA, Florida State University; Bell Cooper, PhD, Lynn University; and Sara Binau, Pomona College. *Journal of Abnormal Psychology*, published online March 14, 2019.
* Feeling Unwell:
* **Mobile phone use, school electromagnetic field levels and related symptoms: a cross-sectional survey among 2150 high school students in Izmir.** *Environ Health*. 2017;16(1):51. Published 2017 Jun 2. doi:10.1186/s12940-017-0257-x
* **Mobile Phone Base Stations Health Effects** [ Shahab A. Alazawi](https://www.iasj.net/iasj/search?query=au:”Shahab A. Alazawi”) *[Diyala Journal of Medicine ](https://www.iasj.net/iasj/journal/166/issues)*[2011, Volume 1, Issue 1](https://www.iasj.net/iasj/issue/873), Pages 44-52 https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/26456
* First Responders:
* A copy of **Barrie Trower’s police report** is available at http://www.tetrawatch.net/tetra/trower.php – clear explanation
* Huang LY, Hu HY, Wang ZT, et al. **Association of Occupational Factors and Dementia or Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.** *J Alzheimers Dis*. 2020;78(1):217-227. doi:10.3233/JAD-200605
* Schulte PA, Burnett CA, Boeniger MF, Johnson J. **Neurodegenerative diseases: occupational occurrence and potential risk factors, 1982 through 1991**. *Am J Public Health*. 1996;86(9):1281-1288. doi:10.2105/ajph.86.9.1281
* Baste V, Moen BE, Oftedal G, Strand LA, Bjørge L, Mild KH. **Pregnancy outcomes after paternal radiofrequency field exposure aboard fast patrol boats**. *J Occup Environ Med*. 2012;54(4):431-438. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182445003
* Mjøen G, Saetre DO, Lie RT, et al. **Paternal occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.** *Eur J Epidemiol*. 2006;21(7):529-535. doi:10.1007/s10654-006-9030-0
* Hardell L, Carlberg M. **Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden**, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. *Pathophysiology*. 2015;22(1):1-13. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001
* Peleg M, Nativ O, Richter ED. **Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting.** *Environ Res*. 2018;163:123-133. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.003
* Richter E, Berman T, Ben-Michael E, Laster R, Westin JB. **Cancer in radar technicians exposed to radiofrequency/microwave radiation: sentinel episodes**. *Int J Occup Environ Health*. 2000;6(3):187-193. doi:10.1179/oeh.2000.6.3.187
* Summary of measured radiofrequency electric and magnetic fields (10 kHz to 30 GHz) in the general and work environment
* Finkelstein MM. **Cancer incidence among Ontario police officers.** *Am J Ind Med*. 1998;34(2):157-162. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199808)34:2<157::aid-ajim8>3.0.co;2-u
* Davis RL, Mostofi FK. **Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar.** *Am J Ind Med*. 1993;24(2):231-233. doi:10.1002/ajim.4700240209
* Theisen K, Slater R, Hale N. **Taser-Related Testicular Trauma.** *Urology*. 2016;88:e5. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.11.011
* Mehl LE. **Electrical injury from Tasering and miscarriage.** *Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand*. 1992;71(2):118-123. doi:10.3109/00016349209007967
* Ground current: [https://www.ecs.csun.edu/\\\~bruno](https://www.ecs.csun.edu/%5C\~bruno/MultiGroundedNeutralFinal_4-17-7.pdf)
* 5G: An Open Letter to Medical Professionals Advocating for Safer Technology for Societal Health (January 1, 2020) Endorsed by Physicians for Safe Technology https://lasttreelaws.com/letter-to-medical-professionals/
* [/MultiGroundedNeutralFinal_4-17-7.pdf](https://www.ecs.csun.edu/%5C\~bruno/MultiGroundedNeutralFinal_4-17-7.pdf) or <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/>

Recorded hearing with Kirstin speaking at c. 30:44. The hearing was on many other bill topics, but several people spoke in support of these bills, such as at 2:43:54 (a teacher) 2:59:57 (a mother, daughter, and legislator) and 54:34 (a doctor).

SIGN to End MA School Screen Time Mandate

The following letter was provided to legislators in a hearing. Please call in support before the February 2, 2022, deadline!

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?

Doctors even report early technology use is interfering with motor skills and the ability to hold a pencil.

A Stanford study reports 1 in 8 adults report difficulty remaining offline, showing compulsive attachment to cyberspace such as with chat rooms, blog entries, emails, etc. If adults have trouble, why are we habituating preschoolers?

Providing technology education makes sense if circumscribed to be age appropriate and taught in specialized courses on computer programming and useful software. However, cross-curriculum mandates and performance reviews on the basis of “innovative” or chronic use of technology take time away from other subject matter and undermine sensible technology programming and reasonable limits.

Two types of technology are entering our schools, one that replaces traditional learning with virtual education, and another that simply adds technology tools.

Limits are needed on all technology to protect students from problems attached to excessive technology use, such as addiction, obesity, depression,  cyber-bullying, marketing, and loss of privacy.

Limits are needed because virtual education is already highly attractive to communities because it can be cheap, well marketed, and effort and accountability can be outsourced. Accountability pressures are intense, including requirements for data and tying daily curriculum to hundreds of specific educational standards. Outside financial interests, including in data collection, mean that grants are provided with harmful strings (often to encourage more technology).

Programmed virtual education often lacks oversight and undermines local academic freedom, for often programs are set in stone and content only available to students.

The screen time bill (H. 106) sponsored by Representative Patricia Duffy (and prepared by Kirstin Beatty, director of Last Tree Laws) was put forward to encourage local school authorities to set screen time limits through a public hearing. A template is provided which can be adapted except for some baseline limits. Baseline limits for grades 10-12 are 120 minutes daily, for grade 8 are 90 minutes daily, and below grade 8 no more than 5 hours monthly. Exceptions are allowed in special cases, including for virtual schools.

These baseline limits exist to protect students from financial and other pressures pushing for screen time despite evidence of academic and social harm. For example, the Organisation for Co-Operation and Development, funded by 34 countries, in 2015 released a study finding that just viewing emails beyond once or twice a week negatively impacted reading skills. Ample research indicates technology is harmful to learning.

This is all the more heart-breaking when considering that the DC federal district court just ruled that federal wireless and RF exposure guidelines are arbitrary and fails to weigh current research, in particular with regard to children and pregnant women and including neurological effects.

By moving this legislation forward, the committee will make an important statement to the public and educational leaders that Massachusetts that our youth are too important to allow technology interests to take over our educational system.

REFERENCES

Rights of the Child

Brodeur, J (2016 Nov 21) Media Education and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Smart Media Education for the 21 st Century. Available online July 14 2019 at https://acmesmartmediaeducation.net/2016/11/21/media-education-and-the-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child/

Motor Skills

Hill, A (2018 Feb 25) Children struggle to hold pencils due to too much tech, doctors say: children need opportunities to develop hand strength and dexterity needed to hold pencils. The Guardian. Available at
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/25/children-struggle-to-hold-pencils-due-to-too-much-tech-doctors-say

Coughland, S (2018 Oct 30) Surgery students `losing dexterity to stitch patients.` BBC News. Available July 14 2019 at
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46019429

Addiction

Paton, G (2014 Apr 15) Infants `Unable to use toy building blocks` due to IPad Addiction. The Telegraph. Available 2019 July 14 online at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10767878/Infants-unable-to-use-toy-building-blocks-due-to-iPad-addiction.html

CNBC (2018 Jan 8) Apple should address youth phone addiction, two large investors [Jane Partners and California State Teachers’ Retirement System] say.

Kardaras, N (2016 Aug 27) It’s ‘digital heroin’: How screens turn kids into psychotic junkies. NY Post. Available at https://nypost.com/2016/08/27/its-digital-heroin-how-screens-turn-kids-into-psychotic-junkies/

Stanford University Medical Center. (2006, October 17). Internet Addiction: Stanford Study Seeks To Define Whether
It’s A Problem. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 12, 2019 from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061017164435.htm

Socioeconomic Faults

Bowles, N. (2016 Oct 26) The digital gap between rich and poor kids is not what we expected: America’s public schools are still promoting devices with screens—even offering digital-only preschools. The rich are banning screens from class altogether. The New York Times. Available July 14 at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/digital-divide-screens-schools.html

Academic Problems

Woodworth L, Raymond M, Chirbas K, Gonzalez M, Negassi Y, Snow W, & Van Donge C. (2016 Apr 20) Online charter school study 2015 [Found brick-and-mortar schools do better than online]. CREDO.

Miron G, Gulosino C (2016 Apr 20) Virtual schools report 2016: directory and performance review. NEPC. Available at
https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2016

Shapiro J (2015 Apr 30) 4 Fundamental Problems With Everything You Hear About The Future Of Education. Forbes. Available 10 October 2021 at https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2015/04/30/4-fundamental-problems-with-everything-you-hear-about-the-future-of-education/?sh=62a725dc7ab9

Social Emotional Development

Ravitch, D (2015 Dec 7) District Adopts Federally-Endorsed Tech Product, and It Bores the Kids to Tears. Diane Ravitch’s Blog. Online July 14 2019 at https://dianeravitch.net/2015/12/07/district-adopts-federally-endorsed-tech-product-and-it-bores-the-kids-to-tears/

Council on Communications and Media Executive Committee, 2016-2017. Media Use in School-Aged Children and
Adolescents. American Academy of Pediatrics.

Nixon, CL (2014) Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health. Adolesc Health Med Ther. 5:143-158.

Margalit L (2016 Apr 17) What screen time can really do to kids’ brains: Too much at the worst possible age can have lifetime consequences. Psychology Today. Available online at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/behind-online-
behavior/201604/what-screen-time-can-really-do-kids-brains

Health

DC Court decision affirming FCC guidelines are ‘arbitrary and capricious’ – https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/chd-v-fcc-we-won-decision.pdf

Several research studies reviewing the wireless in schools are reviewed at the Environmental Health Trust online at: https://ehtrust.org/peer-reviewed-research-studies-on-wi-fi/

Deshmukh PS, Nasare N, Megha K, Banerjee BD, Ahmed RS, Singh D, Abegaonkar MP, Tripathi AK, Mediratta PK
(2015) Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation. Int J
Toxicol. 34 (3): 284-290. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749756

Massachusetts EdTech

Digital Learning: Personalized Learning. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Available
July 14 2019 at http://www.doe.mass.edu/odl/personalized.html

Note: Currently, mandates for technology use by teachers, administrators, and superintendents are enforced by state performance rubrics and also promoted by the resources or grants available through the state Massachusetts Personalized Learning Edtech Consortium (MAPLE) and the New England Secondary Schools Consortium (NESSC)].

Outside Interests

EdTechXGlobal Press Release. (2016 May 25) Global Report Predicts EdTech Spend to Reach $252bn by 2020. Cision PR Newswire. Available 2019 July 14 at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-report-predicts-edtech-spend-to-reach-252bn-by-2020-580765301.html

Papallo J (2015) Report Estimates US EdTech at $8.38 billion. Education World. Available 2019 July 14 at
https://www.educationworld.com/a_news/report-estimates-us-edtech-838-billion-210811064

Strauss, V (2014 Mar 14) Netflix’s Reed Hastings has a big idea: Kill elected school boards. Washington Post. Available
July 14 2014 at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/14/netflixs-reed-hastings-has-a-big-
idea-kill-elected-school-boards/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.93092f5b1f2c

Press Release (2010 Apr 20) DreamBox Learning Acquired by Charter Fund in Partnership with Education

Philanthropist and Netflix CEO Reed Hastings: Agreement Includes $10 Million R&D Investment and Newly Appointed Board Members: Company Poised for Accelerated Growth as Leading Innovator of Effective E-Learning in the Classroom. Dreambox Learning. Available July 14 2019 at http://www.dreambox.com/press-release-20100420

Anonymous Guest Post (2016 Jan 26) 21st Century Learning? Or 21st Century Profiteering? [Conflict of interest of school adminsitrators] Educational Alchemy Blog by Morna McDermott. Available July 14 2019 at https://educationalchemy.com/2016/01/26/21st-century-learning-or-21st-century-profiteering/

Ravitch, D. Executive Salaries at K12, Inc. [Chairman and CEO made 4.2 million in 2014]. Diane Ravitch’s Blog. Available online July 14 2019 at https://dianeravitch.net/category/on-line-education/

Kharpal A (2016 Jun 30) A $19 trillion ‘digital revolution’ is coming and the US is lagging: Cisco’s Chambers. CNBC. Available online 2019 Jun 14 at https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/a-19-trillion-digital-revolution-is-coming-and-the-us-is-lagging-cisco-john-chambers-viva-tech.html

Vaute V (2018 Oct 29) Recycling Is Not The Answer To The E-Waste Crisis. Forbes. Online 2019 July 14 at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vianneyvaute/2018/10/29/recycling-is-not-the-answer-to-the-e-waste-crisis/
#22b3fc137381

To Investigate or Not to Investigate? Commission Bills 101.

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

Since outcomes of past wireless health risk investigations have varied by state as follows, an amendment, here, has been drafted for bill S.186 in Massachusetts:

    • 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.

The current Massachusetts bill has been modified somewhat, but if the bill passes in 2022 Governor Charlie Baker would still determine most appointments, and he has a history of favoring industry.

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 1848) to prevent the auction of further wireless spectrum; halt increasing 911 wireless power density; and stop funding of communication and utility 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.
Last Tree Laws Massachusetts