Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

Reprinted with permission, with extra italicized parts added by K. Beatty. Arthur Firstenberg, director of the Cellphone Task Force, prepared this Q&A (posted on the site under newsletters) with a focus on cellphones, to invite support for a petition to halt cellphone use at EchoEarth.org.

Wireless technology is any means of sending information or energy through space
without wires. It includes:

    • satellites, radar, radio, television, cell towers, cell phones, cordless phones, microwave ovens, oceanic ‘cell towers’
    • smart meters, WiFi, Bluetooth, fitness trackers, smart watches, baby monitors
    • wireless keyboards, mice, printers, headphones and speakers, wireless security systems, wireless car keys, wireless garage door openers, wireless battery chargers, remote controls, wireless microphones
    • RFID chips in credit cards and driver’s licenses, radio collars and chips in wildlife, cattle and pets, chips in home appliances
    • wireless hearing aids, assistive listening devices, medical alert pendants, chips in medical implants, wireless pacemakers
    • autonomous vehicles, drones, and robots
      numerous other radio-enabled devices that are proliferating in today’s world

Every one of these devices, without exception, emits radiation.

All frequencies of radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, lasers, sound waves, even nuclear radiation. Most home devices use microwaves.

By substituting radiation for wires, we are swimming in an ocean of artificial electromagnetic fields that interfere with life itself. We are in effect electrocuting ourselves, our children, our pets, the insects, birds, animals, microbes, trees and plants around us and all of living creation. We are killing our planet.

Ecosystems are suffering from adverse impacts on soil, microbial life, plant life, insects, and wildlife. Soil nitrogen can fall from either electrical transmission cables or wireless. Plant life struggles to germinate, shows physiological changes, loses medicinal value and storage length.

Survival of honeybees is now only possible through the intervention of beekeepers who use queen bees that would normally be left to die by nature. As explained in a 2007 brochure review by Dr. Warnke, wireless causes bees to disappear. Synergistic effects are possible. A 2021 study combining mobile radiation with pesticides saw survival of only 25% in one year and plummeting bee health,, while a 2018 study noted certain 5G frequencies could also cause dielectric heating of bees.

A 2021 research review on flora and wildlife impacts published in Reviews on Environmental Health, that counts former U.S. Fish and Wildlife senior biologist Albert Manville and local Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council director Blake Levitt among authors, cites more than 1,200 scientific references which find at very low intensities adverse impacts on wildlife, such as birds struggling to build nests, mate, and reproduce (Levitt et al., 2021a, Levitt et al., 2021b, Levitt et al., 2021c). Part 2, supplement 3, includes a table of biological effects available through a FCC docket.

Oceans are a new frontier including sonar, optical, laser, and radiofrequency communications to support military, mining, research, and travel, with floating and underwater transmissions to support underwater vehicles, torpedoes, robots, etc. Sonar noise alone is known to impair hunting and orientation of life undersea.

No. The effects are rapid. Heart rate changes immediately. Blood sugar rises in minutes. Having wireless devices on in your house interferes with your sleep and your memory. Using a cell phone destroys brain cells in minutes to hours, and can cause a stroke or a heart attack. Studies show that even cancer can develop within months of first exposure. When a cell tower is turned on, birds leave the area immediately. Insects disappear. Even slugs and snails vanish. Most of this takes no time at all.

Some scientific references to physiological changes can be found here from pages 6 to 38. PowerWatch.org.uk has an extensive library with documents summarizing research on wireless radiofequencies and health risks: https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/library/

First, cancer is not the only problem caused by wireless.

However, cancer can develop slowly and exist in the body for years, unnoticed, for example as lymphomas that may contribute to exhaustion. Lymphomas are strongly associated with electromagnetic exposures.

Former director of the U.S. Environmental Toxicology Program, Dr. Chris Portier, prepared a 176-page report with 443 references for a tumor court case concluding: “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF [wireless] exposure causes gliomas and neuromas [tumors] is high.”

Avoiding wireless is wise because tumors can take 10 to 25 years or longer to manifest. However, aggressive cancers like glioblastomas, which are a type of glioma tumor, can also suddenly appear and end life a year, months, or weeks later. Gliomas are on the rise, as admitted in Denmark, although countries appear to have trouble collecting accurate data.

Notably, colorectal and thyroid cancers, areas near cellphones, are also surging. In 2019 the leading cause of death ages 5 to 14 was cancer, and in all ages cancer was the second leading cause of death, following heart disease.

Heart disease is also tied to exposures, such as through blood coagulation and hidden heart tumors. Heart tumors (schwannomas) were found in two important studies, one at the Ramazzini Institute using ambient radiation and the other using strong nonthermal exposures at the U.S. Toxicological Program.

Almost all the radiation we receive from the universe is the light and heat from the sun, not microwave radiation. The microwave radiation a person receives from an average cell tower is millions of times stronger than all the microwave radiation from the sun and stars. The microwave radiation a person’s brain receives from their cell phone is billions of times stronger than the microwave radiation from the sun and stars. And at any particular frequency it is trillions of times stronger than the microwave radiation he or she receives from the sun and stars at that frequency. And the faint microwaves from the sun and stars are not pulsed and modulated. It is the pulsations and modulation that cause much of the harm.

No. That is like saying arsenic is safe because oxygen and arsenic are both elements, or that cyanide is safe because water and cyanide are both chemicals. But oxygen and water are necessary for life, while arsenic and cyanide are deadly poisons. It is the same with electromagnetic radiation. Visible light is necessary for life. Microwave radiation is a deadly poison.

Electromagnetism is more complex and more fundamental than chemistry. Electromagnetism shapes the sun and stars. Electromagnetism animates life. Electromagnetism is behind chemistry. There is no “chemical force” in the universe. Outside of atomic nuclei, there is only gravity and electromagnetism.
Electromagnetism guides everything we see, including ourselves. Chemistry is an effect, not a cause.

That is looking at both wireless technology and life too simplistically.

Most wireless technology has only one goal: to transmit information to computers, information of great complexity and variety. It is not simple, constant radiation of one amplitude and one frequency: such radiation would carry no information. Instead, it is multiple large frequency bands, each divided into hundreds, thousands, and millions of individual frequencies of all different bandwidths, overlapping and interacting, pulsed at an enormous variety of intervals, in an enormous variety of shapes, patterns and durations, all over the world. Even a single signal from a single device has a variety of amplitudes, frequencies and pulsations, and is modulated in complex ways in order to carry all the information needed to be read by a cell phone or computer.

Life has to also carry an enormous, almost infinite complexity of information in its nervous systems and its meridians, and to store and process this information in its cells, organs and chakras, and in its DNA which is shared and circulated among trillions of individuals of 50 million different species, all connected to one another and to the earth, sky and universe in a grand circuit of energy and information.

The artificial cloud of energy and information is interfering with, overpowering and destroying the natural, living circuitry of energy and information. It cannot be otherwise.

Light is a nutrient. We absorb it with our eyes, and into our blood. It is necessary for health. It regulates our biorhythms. Green plants need it for photosynthesis. We absorb more of the pulsations and modulation frequencies when they are carried into our bodies by light than when they are carried into our bodies by microwaves. LiFi is more harmful to life than WiFi.

Some scientific references to physiological changes can be found here from pages 6 to 38. PowerWatch.org.uk has an extensive library with documents summarizing research on wireless radiofequencies and health risks: https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/library/

Cell phones and cell towers emit the same radiation; size has nothing to do with it. The main difference is that a cell tower emits as many signals simultaneously as there are cell phones communicating with it at that time, whereas a cell phone only emits one voice channel and one data channel. A cell tower therefore emits stronger radiation than a cell phone, but by the time it reaches your body, its radiation is
much weaker than the radiation from a cell phone that you hold in your hand, near your body. And a cell phone emits signals that a cell tower does not: Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS and other signals.
The radiation from a cell phone travels just as far as the radiation from a cell tower.

The radiation from a cell phone will reach all people, animals, birds, insects and plants in line of sight with it, no matter how far away. It will reach a cell tower 90 miles away. It will reach a satellite 22,300 miles away. It will reach Mars 200 million miles away. With 15 billion mobile devices on the Earth, we are polluting not just our homes, our neighborhoods and our planet, but the entire solar system.

Your cell phone is damaging your health whether you are aware of it or not. It is damaging your blood-brain barrier -- the barrier that keeps bacteria, viruses and toxic chemicals out of your brain tissue; the barrier that maintains the inside of your head at a constant pressure, preventing you from having a stroke. Since brain tissue has no pain receptors, plenty of damage can occur without pain. Instead, it will cause memory loss, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders and so forth. In rats, damage to the blood-brain barrier can be detected after just a two-minute exposure to a cell phone. After a two-hour exposure the damage is permanent. There is no reason for it to be different in humans.

The radiation from your cell phone is also slowing your metabolism -- your ability to digest sugars, fats and proteins. This causes either obesity or weight loss, depending on your genetic makeup. It also causes diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Wireless technology is the cause of more obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer than any other factor.

The people who are aware of the damage in real time are the people who can feel it in their nervous system or their heart. That is maybe one-third of the population. It feels to them like they are being electrocuted. And they are, but so is everyone else. The few who have heard of such a thing call themselves “electrosensitive.” Those who have not heard of it think they are suffering from anxiety, or that they have a neurological or cardiac disorder.

The first peer-reviewed paper proposing and documenting evidence that pulsed radiofrequency radiation likely was responsible for the so-called “Havana Syndrome” was published by Dr. Beatrice Golomb. She was invited to brief the state department-funded Standing Committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, whose report released in December 2020 agreed with her conclusion.

With a solid background in neurobiology, physics, and medicine as well as an impressive research career including work with RAND and the defense department, Dr. Beatrice Golomb is a credible authority who in 2014 testified, based on scientific evidence, that society has a duty to reverse electromagnetic exposures to curtail suffering and prevent increasing cases of sensitivity.

Many studies include wireless warnings like ‘'may cause hazardous effects to the brain’ (2015) and recommend limiting exposures.

‘Dr. Henry Lai, professor emeritus of bioengineering at the UWA, found that of 261 wireless peer-reviewed studies published from 2007-2020, 91% had found significant free radical effects — when an excess of free radicals contributes to aging and disease — and of 336 wireless peer-reviewed studies 73% had found significant neurological effects.

Dr. Lai has transparently published the abstracts of those studies online at the Bioinitiative.org. . . .

. . . Findings in Dr. Lai’s abstracts are difficult to dispute, since many are animal or cell studies showing significant structural or chemical changes that have serious consequences. Findings of astrogliosis, potential gliosis, reduced neurotransmitters, and rising GFAP levels in four studies are, for example, associated with central nervous system damage and diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, mood disorders, and stroke, all of which have been trending, with earlier onset, sharply upward long before COVID-19.’ Quote from Hampshire Gazette column.

In 2014, a diagnosis of a 29-year-old father with Alzheimer’s coupled with rage and confusion mirrored trends of a 373% increase in ages 30-44 just from 2013 to 2017. This is far from normal in prior decades.

Skyrocketing learning disabilities and behavioral disorder rates among youth are so great the evidence is before all of our eyes. This is far from normal before the intense adoption of cellphones and WiFi circa late 1990s and 2005.

WifiinSchools.org.uk lists studies showing ‘cognition inhibition’ and damage to health.

The WHO Russian National Committee for Radiation Protection in 2008 released a strong statement including these words: ‘For the first time in history, we face a situation when most children and teenagers in the world are continually exposed [to mobile phones] . . . Potential risk for the children’s health is very high . . . health hazards are likely . . . in the nearest future: disruption of memory, decline of attention , diminishing learning and cognitive abilities, increased irritability, sleep problems, increase in sensitivity to stress, increased epileptic readiness.

Expected (possible) remote health risks: brain tumors, tumors of acoustical and vestibular nerves (in
the age of 25-30 years), Alzheimer’s disease, “got dementia”, depressive syndrome, and the other types of degeneration of the nervous structures of the brain (in the age of 50 to 60).’

Both are digital and both emit pulsed, modulated microwave radiation. And despite what many people think, flip phones can emit as much radiation, or more, than smartphones. But safety is not determined by power level. Damage to the blood-brain barrier is greatest at the lowest power level, at least in laboratory rats. The bandwidth is more important than power level. Smartphones use more bandwidth
than flip phones.

The bottom line is that cell phones have been killing people since they were invented. In each city in the United States where 2G “flip phone” service was turned on for the first time in 1996 or 1997, mortality rose immediately, on the day it was turned on in each city. And the overall health of the population was damaged permanently. At least ten thousand Americans died from the radiation within three months after 2G “flip phone” service was turned on in various cities in 1996 and 1997. Whether more people died from their new phones or from the new cell towers is impossible to know: the radiation comes from both.

About 20 years ago someone started promoting the idea of the “near field plume” which was supposed to extend out six inches from a cell phone, and that if you held your phone more than six inches from your head, you were safe. That is a complete fiction. There is no such thing as a near field “plume.” It does not exist.

The region very near to a source of radiation, where the electric field and the magnetic field are separate and complex, is called the near field. The space very far from the source, where the electric and magnetic fields are tied together and diminish with distance, is called the far field. The near and far fields blend into one another. There is no dividing line where one stops and the other begins. And it is
certainly not true that the radiation stops at six inches. If that were true, the radiation would never reach a cell tower and the phone would not work. And if it were true of a cell phone, it would also be true of a cell tower, which emits the same radiation. Then a cell tower would be safe if you stood more than six inches away from one. How absurd!

And your body is a conductor, so if you are holding the phone in your hand, no matter how far away from your head, the microwaves are conducted into your hand and throughout your body, and your arm is an extension of the phone and is part of the radiating antenna.

If you put the phone on a table in front of you and do not hold it, then the microwaves are just irradiating you and not being conducted into you. But since for some types of harm, for example damage to the blood-brain barrier, the damage increases with distance, that does not protect you either.

No. It is the informational content, not power level, that causes the harm. A cell phone exposes the brain to microwave radiation at roughly 10 milliwatts per square centimeter. At power levels one trillion times lower than that, microwave radiation has been shown to affect ovulation, the immune system, plant growth, human brain waves, and the structure of DNA.

No. We already had 10,000 studies by 1980. Today we have at least 30,000 studies. There are more studies showing harm from microwaves and radio frequency radiation than from any other pollutants except tobacco smoke and mercury.

For as long as wireless technology has been around. At Marconi’s first public demonstration of radio in Salisbury Plain in 1896, spectators described various nerve sensations they experienced. When Marconi turned on the first French radio station in Wimereux, one man who lived nearby “burst in with a revolver” because the waves were causing him sharp internal pains. On the evening of January 22, 1901, when Marconi fired up a new, more powerful transmitter on the Isle of Wight, Queen Victoria, in residence on the island, had a stroke and died. Within a few years, 90 percent of the bees on the island had disappeared. Marconi himself suffered from recurring fevers from the time he began experimenting with radio and for the rest of his life. He suffered nine heart attacks, the last one killing him at age 63. Even prior to Marconi, in the early 1890s, Jacques-Arsène d’Arsonval published the results of experiments on humans and animals showing that high frequencies affect blood pressure and profoundly alter metabolism.

Note: Firstenberg has written The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, which includes citations for many historical anecdotes.

No. Smart or wireless devices hog energy, resources, and even damage electronics.

State and federal grants conceal the costs of the smart grid with taxpayer money. IT and utility interests lobby for these grants at your expense, often marketing smart utilities as ‘green’. Smart meters allow utilities to change pricing based on any condition, and have been tied to high time-of-use billing harmful to the poor and exorbitant prices or false energy readings. Smart meters also allow utilities to pay less for alternative energy through digital calculations. Massachusetts utility shareholder profits have been rising since the advent of smart meters.

National Grid’s 2021 proposed plans include a private communications network, which few municipalities can afford. Nationally, meter installations alone can range from $300 to over a $1000. Over a 20-year period, National Grid projects customer bills will be 1.63% of current prices. This expected increase does not include all costs, for National Grid expects 727.92 million in savings, resulting in total costs of only 480.67 million for its 1.3 million customers. Cross your fingers.

Wireless is much more energy intensive than wired connections, may even be 69 times more energy intensive, so it is the opposite of green.

The smart grid also increases energy and resource consumption with numerous wireless transmitters, from ‘smart’ meters, to relays, cell towers, field devices, computers, and by supporting connections to home devices from thermometers to coffee machines (IOT).

Utilities may say smart meters allow the energy use to be reduced remotely, but completely ignore that the infrastructure continually uses more energy to remotely track data and control energy use.

Utilities may say smart meters save energy by allowing consumers to track energy use, but studies show people never act on this data.

Marketing smart cities and utilities as green is just that: marketing. Utilities omit that smart meters can cause many issues, like household wiring problems, fires, and damage to electronics. Your data can be sold for a profit – but this has little to do with saving the planet.

An economics professor and former energy advisor, after reviewing a British smart meter plan, has called the project ‘astonishingly expensive’ and said civil servants ‘cooked the books’ to conceal a €4 billion dollar expense with imagined and inadequate energy savings.

They all use cell phones like the rest of the world and are as much in denial about them as everyone else. The denial, which runs deep in society, goes back to the beginning of the development of electricity in the 1700s.

Today, modern electricity is contaminated with extra frequencies that run along the wires and emit. These result when we plug devices into the grid that do not use the same type of frequency as the electrical wiring. Alternative energy, digital devices, and energy-saving devices all add different frequencies to the lines. This contamination is called poor power quality quality and can introduce radio static and shorten the life of electrical devices.

Poor power quality can be eliminated with proper design, such as use of quality filters, but regulations must force the issue.
An easy-to-understand book about this topic is titled Dirty Electricity, by Dr. Samuel Milham. In the 1990’s the Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SiF) also studied electromagnetic and chemical sensitivity, publishing many easy-to-understand reports for 'No Risk' that are saved online at EMFacts.com/NoRisk.

A cell phone leaks radiation from all of its resonant circuitry, even if it is turned off, as long as the battery is in it. So does a modem or router that has WiFi, as long as it is plugged in. I have measured radiation coming out of modems in which the WiFi was disabled. I can always tell when someone is carrying a cell phone because I can feel the radiation, even if it is turned off and hidden in their pocket, even from across a room. I have never been wrong.

For whatever reason you have a cell phone -- any kind of cell phone -- all of the world’s cell towers have to be there in order for it to work when you want it to. No matter how rarely you use the phone, all the cell towers have to be there. If you use it “only in emergencies,” that is even worse, because you are likely to be using it in remote places where there are no cell towers and service is not good. Every call you make from a location where there are no towers is recorded as a request for service, and your provider will eventually put up a cell tower there in response to those calls.

It does not protect you because it is still emitting radiation. It does not protect others because when you are not at home you need all the cell towers to be there and you are irradiating everyone around you simply by carrying the phone around.

Unless people get rid of their cell phones, there will soon be no landlines left anywhere. The existence of landlines depends on demand. The existence of cell phones depends on demand. No one is doing this to us. We are doing it to ourselves.

Note: In some states, like California, residents may demand a corded land line.

Fiber enables 5G. 5G antennas are connected to each other and to the Internet by fiber optic cables. Wireless companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars laying fiber all over the world for 5G. When a fiber company or a city lays fiber optic cables, wireless companies pay for the right to use it. After the fiber is laid, they stick antennas into it and broadcast 5G.

5G can use much higher frequencies (millimeter waves). But the biggest difference is that 5G towers and 5G mobile devices aim narrowly focused beams at each other instead of sending the radiation in all directions. If you are holding a 5G phone in your hand, the nearest 5G tower is tracking you and aiming a beam of radiation directly at your body. This is called phased array technology and it results in greater penetration of the radiation into your body, even at millimeter wave frequencies, than previous wireless technologies. 5G towers also send radiation in all directions because they are constantly scanning the environment looking for devices to connect with.

No. 5G can use millimeter waves. There are also crowd-control weapons that use millimeter waves. But the weapons are a thousand times more powerful and they are not modulated and carry no information. They are different technologies that were developed by different people for different purposes.

There are many companies today that prey on the gullibility of people who are desperate to protect themselves from an assault that is coming from everywhere. They sell “protective” chips to put on your cell phone or computer, pendants and bracelets that will “neutralize” or “harmonize” the radiation, devices to plug into your wall that will “protect” an area hundreds or thousands of square feet around your house. Some advertise that they are “quantum” devices, or are based on “scalar” technology or “torsion” fields, which are sexy words that sound scientific but mean nothing. You cannot “neutralize” or “harmonize” radiation. These devices, without exception, are ineffective and most will harm you.
Many of these devices emit a 7.83 Hz signal which is supposed to duplicate the first Schumann resonance of the Earth. These are point sources that cannot duplicate a natural frequency that bathes us from all sides. They make some people feel good for a couple of weeks, and they can be addictive, just like the frequencies from a cell phone or computer can be addictive, but they will harm you.

The alternative is wires. Wired phones. Wired computers. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, wires are what we had before wireless and are superior in every way. Wires carry the same voices, but clearer. The same information, but more securely. And the information is contained in the wires, instead of being broadcast all over the earth in a cloud of radiation. Wireless is convenient, but for the sake of convenience we are killing ourselves in real time and destroying our planet. Setting and enforcing power quality regulations for electricity and manufacturing is necessary, too, for safer wiring.

Printable version: FAQ_Firstenberg

For more information, please see the resources page.

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.

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

Electric Vehicle (EV) Critique

 

 

 

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

 

Dear Secretary Marini:

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

PROPOSED ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) INFRASTRUCTURE

The following, with some slight variation, describes utility proposals, which are based upon published directives for electric vehicle infrastructure in D.P.U. 20-69-A, and the rate structure for demand charges regulated by Section 29 of Chapter 383 of the Acts of 2020 (the ‘Transportation Act”):

1. Financial support to provide:

    • In public sites and workplaces, Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) installations, for Level 2 (L2) chargers;
    • Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) in environmental justice communities or in public sites and workplaces;
    •  In properties with 1-4 units and multi-unit dwellings, EVSE and at-home charging enabling;]
    • EVSE installations in light duty fleet, including school buses;

2. Pilots to support electric fleet conversion in ‘environmental justice’ communities;
3. Workforce development and electrician training;
4. Demand charge alternative rate structure with a sliding scale, in accordance with the Transportation Act.

RADIOFREQUENCY GUIDELINES LACK AUTHORITY

Of great import, in Environmental Health Trust v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 20-1025 (D.C, Cir. 2021) the court held that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for deciding its radiofrequency guidelines are safe. This decision, unusual in chastising the FCC’s inquiry decision, upends any claim of safety and reliance upon FCC guidelines, and now the FCC must again review and reconsider its guidelines.

Given this court decision, the Commonwealth, department, and utilities should stall investments into EV and EV infrastructure, in addition to the smart grid, in order to limit radiofrequencies.

EVALUATE & LIMIT RADIOFREQUENCY EXPOSURES

Secondly, the scientific evidence that these exposures are harmful should be seriously evaluated, and appropriate action taken to limit exposures from existing infrastructure.

Relevant health studies can be found on the Aachen University EMF Portal or at PubMed, and in addition experts independent of industry can assist with review and considerations such as safer options.[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] The International EMF Scientist Appeal is a good starting point for identifying and contacting credible scientists and public health doctors independent of industry, while the Institute of Building Biology is another for identifying engineers and building biology consultants who have studied remediation.

While utilities and the department can adopt the ALARA principle, ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’, radiofrequency exposures from EV infrastructure and EVs, including electric fleets, require time and study for remediation and appropriate investment.[11 12] Hence, EV infrastructure should be delayed.

If utilities and the department proceed with electric cars and corresponding infrastructure, then powering these cars must be planned carefully. Utilities and the department can take steps to limit transients, harmonics, etc., on the power lines from EV, in addition to heavy loads that create strong fields, as well as wireless signals. Technical problems, such as ground current, ground faults, and fire hazards, which also need to be addressed, are discussed by Ken Gartner in his testimony to these dockets – he also suggests a permitting process for all EV chargers.

As a matter of transparency and accountability, utilities should provide public information on existing radiofrequency exposures, including power quality, as well as utility remediation efforts and potential hazards.

HEALTH IMPACTS OF EV INFRASTRUCTURE

Poor power quality results when electrical lines carry extra frequencies ranging from less than 5 kHz to more than 500 kHz. Poor power quality may cause calcium to be deposited in the heart, thereby damaging the heart, or may cause other health issues.[17 18 19] EVs and EV infrastructure will compromise the power quality of electrical lines in areas serviced, including in targeted environmental justice communities, workplaces, and multi-unit dwellings.

A recent study discusses how Direct Current Fast Chargers will cause enormous power quality problems, but recommends a solution.[20] How much of a solution is this and is this tenable?

Another recent study found that magnetic fields are often dangerously high near Direct Current Fast Chargers.[21] If installed in environmental justice communities as planned, how is this an environmental justice? If these are installed near parks, where children rest and play, or adjacent to a bedroom how will the hazards be eliminated?

Future EV infrastructure may even include wireless charging, which will simultaneously lead to strong magnetic field exposures capable of disrupting medical devices.[22 23] EVs already have
wireless emissions embedded, requiring calculations of multiple sources of exposure in concert with utility equipment.[24]

Dr. Ron Kostoff, with a Ph.D. in Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering from Princeton University and who has worked for Bell Laboratories, Mitre Corporation, and the Department of Energy, has noted that he cannot find measurement devices to measure the ~24 GHz and ~77 GHz frequencies emitted as part of ‘safety’ sensors in modern vehicles, but he can find indications levels are directed at passengers and likely exceed thermal levels.[25]

Researchers at the University of Mainz measured brain activity of a driver who step-by-step turned on the car, the air conditioning, the cellphone connection, and the WLAN with alarming disruption evidenced.[26] Research repositories are ripe with evidence that these exposures are harmful, so why build infrastructure rife with these exposures?

Assumptions need to be challenged. For example, as part of ‘Equity pilots’ in environmental justice communities, Eversource proposes a car-sharing program that may cost more or less than $2,000,000 and also proposes to establish electric fleets such as for buses and community transport that may cost more or less that $3,000,000. [27] Establishing these programs in environmental justice communities ironically causes harm, misleading consumers, while simultaneously charging for the opportunity.

Many questions exist, and the department and utilities need to find answers and share these with the public. For example, what are the measurements of power quality, power frequency fields, and radio-frequencies from Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment and other types of installations? Are there wireless components within the infrastructure and, if so, can these be proven safe or eliminated? Are there hazard zones?[28] Can hazard zones be fenced? Is wildlife at risk? What is the cost of remediation? Are there differences between public, corporate, and occupational exposures?

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EV INFRASTRUCTURE

Wireless, electromagnetic noise, and strong fields from electricity are known to disturb flora and fauna, such as by sickening trees, disorienting birds, and interfering with hunting and nesting.[29 30 31 32] Fostering wireless also threatens climate by contributing to global warming, because radiofrequencies contribute to heat.[33] Dielectric heating from wireless also harms insects like bees.[34 35]

The entire purpose of moving towards EVs is protecting our environment by reducing carbon emissions, but needs to be assured rather than assumed. EVs can have greater carbon emissions than gas-powered vehicles when relying fossil fuels.[36] The biomass industry is also agitating hard to be allowed into the federal renewable energy standard, yet consumes mature trees at a pace faster than regeneration, contributing to carbon emissions through hauling, fuel burning, and loss of carbon sinks.[37 38]

Modern EV infrastructure resource demands have not been factored into energy-use calculations.[39 40] For Level 2 chargers along streets alone, as expressed by Unitil, requirements include replacement of street pole, installation of underground electricity service, 3 pole-mounted transformers, a weather resistant cabinet, excavation, concrete footing, grading, utility meters, distribution panels, conduits, and breakers.[41 42] Loss of energy and equipment damage is a known effect of poor power quality, which results from EV infrastructure – this also needs to be factored into energy calculations. [43 44 45 46 47] Katie Singer has also referenced reports that EVs will require more energy consumption than gas-powered automobiles, while adding to E-waste and contaminating water – these reports deserve investigation.[48]

A cradle-to-grave environmental evaluation of electric vehicles and infrastructure is needed that is fully funded, independent of industry influence, and which evaluates energy footprint, resource consumption, service life, end-of-life removal costs, and environmental toxicity in addition to alternatives.

Independent evaluation is needed to compare electric cars to other investments, such as alternative fuels like hydrogen, different transportation systems, energy saving strategies, infrastructure efficiency, life-style adjustments, and urban planning impacts.[49 50 51 52] For example, quarantine led to significant carbon emission reductions in China. [53] Climate quarantines can cause disparate economic harm, but investments in alternative economies and urban planning can respectfully reduce automobile reliance.

PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM EV INFRASTRUCTURE

EV infrastructure presents significant potential for property loss, and this needs to be factored into budget projections and comparisons to alternative solutions.

Poor power quality can damage property, causing equipment deterioration, shutdowns, and misoperation at home and work.[54 55 56 57] A 2008 in-depth European Power Quality study found industrial loss to be 4% of turnover rate, even exempting data centers, and in excess of 135 billion Euro within Europe.[58] A 2001 study found a 2-second power quality interuption cost industry $37.03/kW.[59]

Cyberattack on EV chargers could damage home or community power distribution, service, and hardware; hacks may disable or command a single vehicle or a fleet; access home WiFi or a mobile App, and steal data for identify theft. [60 61 62 63]

Who bears liability for dangerous and poor investments? Filings in the above-captioned and other D.P.U. dockets by numerous parties are warnings based upon peer-reviewed science, likelihood of lawsuit, and potential for a court ruling that makes smart grid investments obsolete.[64 65 66 67 68] Liability may exist for infringements on constitutional privacy, property rights, and health.

RECONSIDER EV INVESTMENTS

In light of the foregoing, EV costs and investments need to be reconsidered. Total EV infrastructure spending forecast is estimated as $469.7 million in total from National Grid and Eversource, while Unitil lists $1.01 million.[69] These investments should be set aside and remediated or reconsidered. Why not instead invest in a car-free future, like Barcelona?

Utilities have a conflict of interest which may explain their drive even when new technologies fail to live up to marketing expectations. Investor-owned utilities can earn a profit, a Return On Equity invested (ROE) into distribution infrastructure:

Utilities profit primarily by buying new equipment (“smart” meters, power lines, transformers), charging ratepayers interest on this investment and paying less taxes as the equipment depreciates over time. The higher the investment risk, the higher the rate of return. The rate of return decreases each year. Once the rate of return reaches zero, the utility operates and maintains the equipment with no profit.[70]

Eversource reported an increase of 34% in profits for 2021 – this is an enormous profit.[71]

The utility profit model needs to be redesigned to encourage saving money, energy, health, nature, and existing investments.

In sum, here are the final recommendations for the department and utilities:

• Stall EV infrastructure plans;
• Adopt the ALARA principle;
• Establish policies to regularly monitor and share with the public electromagnetic measurements from the grid, including before and after corrective measures.
• Based upon a full accounting, examine whether EV infrastructure and EVs saves or costs resources and energy;
• Examine how EV infrastructure can be modified to respect privacy and protect reliability and security;
• Identify if liability remains, for whom liability exists;
• If EV infrastructure is a net environmental positive and health can be protected, prepare an adjusted budget and timeline to reflect new expenditures to fix problems;
• If remediation is not possible or problematic, lobby the legislature to halt EVs and attendant infrastructure.

Signed 14 September 2021 by:

Kirstin Beatty
Director, Last Tree Laws
149 Central Pk Dr
Holyoke, MA 01040

Patricia Burke
Stop Smart Meters MA
Halt MA Smart Meters
Scientific Alliance for Education
8 Eden Street
Mills, MA

Leslie Saffer
Worcester Info Team for Health (WITH)
392 Mill Street
Worcester, MA 01602

Laura Josephs
7 Conway Dr. #2
Greenfield MA 01301

Virginia Bradley Hines, PA, LMHC
Director, The EMR Network
Member, Concord Safe Technology [MA]

Liberty Goodwin, Director
Toxics Information Project (TIP)
P.O. Box 40572, Providence, RI 02940

Alexia McKnight, DVM, DACVR
258 Heyburn Rd.
Chadds Ford, PA 19317

Nikki Florio
Founder/Director of Bee Heroic
7823 W 38th Ave.
Wheat Ridge Colorado 80033

Eugene J. Bazan, Ph.D.
Secretary, PA Smart Meter Work Group
PO Box 24
Lemont, PA 16851
Lisa Lovelady
Stop 5GJax
4249 Ortega Place,
Jacksonville, Florida 32210

Cynthia Franklin, Director
Consumers for Safe Cell Phones
829 Briar Rd.
Bellingham, WA 98225

Endnotes:

1 Ozen S (2008 Jan) Low-Frequency Transient Electric and Magnetic Fields Coupling to Child Body. Radiation
Protection Dosimetry. Oxford University Press. 128(1):62-63
2 Milham S. Evidence that dirty electricity is causing the worldwide epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Electromagn Biol
Med. 2014 Jan;33(1):75-8. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2013.783853. Epub 2013 Jun 19. PMID: 23781992.
3 Neudorfer C, Chow CT, Boutet A, Loh A, Germann J, Elias GJ, Hutchison WD, Lozano AM. Kilohertz-frequency
stimulation of the nervous system: A review of underlying mechanisms. Brain Stimul. 2021 May-Jun;14(3):513-530.
doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2021.03.008. Epub 2021 Mar
4 Elferchichi M, Mercier J, Ammari M, Belguith H, Abdelmelek H, Sakly M, Lambert K. Subacute static magnetic field
exposure in rat induces a pseudoanemia status with increase in MCT4 and Glut4 proteins in glycolytic muscle. Environ
Sci Pollut Res Int. 2016 Jan;23(2):1265-73. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-5336-3. Epub 2015 Sep 10. PMID: 26358208
5 Tenforde TS. Biological interactions and potential health effects of extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields from
power lines and other common sources. Annu Rev Public Health. 1992;13:173-96. doi:
10.1146/annurev.pu.13.050192.001133. PMID: 1599584.
6 Drzewiecka EM, Kozlowska W, Zmijewska A, Wydorski PJ, Franczak A. Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Radiation Alters
Estrogen Release from the Pig Myometrium during the Peri-Implantation Period. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Mar
13;22(6):2920. doi: 10.3390/ijms22062920. PMID: 33805726; PMCID: PMC7999543.
7 Kiray A, Tayefi H, Kiray M, Bagriyanik HA, Pekcetin C, Ergur BU, Ozogul C. The effects of exposure to
electromagnetic field on rat myocardium. Toxicol Ind Health. 2013 Jun;29(5):418-25. doi: 10.1177/0748233711434957.
Epub 2012 Feb 9. PMID: 22323476.
8 Chung YH, Lee YJ, Lee HS, Chung SJ, Lim CH, Oh KW, Sohn UD, Park ES, Jeong JH. Extremely low frequency
magnetic field modulates the level of neurotransmitters. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2015 Jan;19(1):15-20. doi:
10.4196/kjpp.2015.19.1.15. Epub 2014 Dec 31. PMID: 25605992; PMCID: PMC4297757
9 Huss A, Peters S, Vermeulen R. Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of ALS:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Feb;39(2):156-163. doi: 10.1002/bem.22104. Epub
2018 Jan 19. PMID: 29350413.
10 Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Lercher P, Müller K,
Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention,
diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97.
doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. PMID: 27454111.
11 Yang L, Lu M, Lin J, Li C, Zhang C, Lai Z, Wu T. Long-Term Monitoring of Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic
Fields in Electric Vehicles. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 7;16(19):3765. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193765.
PMID: 31591344; PMCID: PMC6801816.
12 Niu D, Zhu F, Qiu R, Niu Q. Exposure to electromagnetic fields aboard high-speed electric multiple unit trains. J Biol
Regul Homeost Agents. 2016 Jul-Sep;30(3):727-731. PMID: 27655489
13 Markovskaya IV. The effect of low frequency electromagnetic radiation on the morphology of dental and periodontal
tissues (experimental investigation). Wiad Lek. 2019;72(5 cz 1):773-778. PMID: 31175771.
14 Kumari K, Koivisto H, Viluksela M, Paldanius KMA, Marttinen M, Hiltunen M, Naarala J, Tanila H, Juutilainen J.
Behavioral testing of mice exposed to intermediate frequency magnetic fields indicates mild memory impairment. PLoS
One. 2017 Dec 4;12(12):e0188880. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188880. PMID: 29206232; PMCID: PMC5714647.
15 Samuel Milham (2012 Dec 6) Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization. Second Edition.
iUniverse; 11.6.2012 edition
16 Brech A, Kubinyi G, Németh Z, Bakos J, Fiocchi S, Thuróczy G. Genotoxic effects of intermediate frequency magnetic
fields on blood leukocytes in vitro. Mutat Res. 2019 Sep;845:403060. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2019.05.016. Epub 2019
May 30. PMID: 31561904.
17 Shuvy M, Abedat S, Beeri R, Valitzki M, Stein Y, Meir K, Lotan C. Electromagnetic fields promote severe and unique
vascular calcification in an animal model of ectopic calcification. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2014 Sep;66(7):345-50. doi:
10.1016/j.etp.2014.05.001. Epub 2014 May 29. PMID: 24882371.
18 Plaintiff opening brief for Environmental Health Trust v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 20-1025 (D.C, Cir.
2021) discuss how modulation, pulsation, and peak exposures appear most important to bioactivity, which relates to
power quality – the brief also neatly summarizes health effects noted from RF and EMF science that had been submitted
to the dockets in question.
19 Yadegari-Dehkordi S, Sadeghi HR, Attaran-Kakhki N, Shokouhi M, Sazgarnia A. Silver nanoparticles increase
cytotoxicity induced by intermediate frequency low voltages. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015;34(4):317-21. doi:
10.3109/15368378.2014.919590. Epub 2014 Jun 5. PMID: 24901460.
20 Milanés-Montero MI, Gallardo-Lozano J, Romero-Cadaval E, González-Romera E. Hall-effect based semi-fast AC on-
board charging equipment for electric vehicles. Sensors (Basel). 2011;11(10):9313-26. doi: 10.3390/s111009313. Epub
2011 Sep 28. PMID: 22163697; PMCID: PMC3231284.
21 Trentadue G, Pinto R, Salvetti M, Zanni M, Pliakostathis K, Scholz H, Martini G. Assessment of Low-Frequency
Magnetic Fields Emitted by DC Fast Charging Columns. Bioelectromagnetics. 2020 May;41(4):308-317. doi:
10.1002/bem.22254. Epub 2020 Feb 11. PMID: 32043629; PMCID: PMC7217217.
22 Tell RA, Kavet R, Bailey JR, Halliwell J. Very-low-frequency and low-frequency electric and magnetic fields associated
with electric shuttle bus wireless charging. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2014 Jan;158(2):123-34. doi: 10.1093/rpd/nct208.
Epub 2013 Sep 15. PMID: 24043876
23 M. Clemens, M. Zang, M. Alsayegh and B. Schmuelling, “High Resolution Modeling of Magnetic Field Exposure
Scenarios in the Vicinity of Inductive Wireless Power Transfer Systems.,” 2018 IEEE International Magnetics
Conference (INTERMAG), 2018, pp. 1-1, doi: 10.1109/INTMAG.2018.8508403.
24 Z. Psenakova, D. Gombárska and M. Smetana, “Electromagnetic Field Measurement inside the Car with Modern
Embedded Wireless Technologies,” 2020 IEEE 21st International Conference on Computational Problems of Electrical
Engineering (CPEE), 2020, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/CPEE50798.2020.9238731.
25 Kostoff, Ron (2018 Sep 16) Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff on Automotive Radar and Electromagnetic Field Exposure in Cars.
Environmental Health Trust. Available 4 September 2021 at https://ehtrust.org/dr-ronald-n-kostoff-on-automotive-radar-
and-electromagnetic-field-exposure-in-cars/
26 Jürgen Kupferschmid Unter Strom: Autoelektronik versetzt Gehirn in Stress und Muskulatur unter Spannung.
SalusMed. Available 3 September 2021 at https://salusmed.ch/unter-strom-autoelektronik-versetzt-gehirn-in-stress-und-
muskulatur-unter-spannung/ ~ note a version of this in English can be found at the Environmental Health Trust
27 14 July 2021. Direct Pre-filed testimony of Kevin Boughan D.P.U. 21-90 on behalf of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a
Eversource EXHIBIT ES-KB-1 https://fileservice.eea.comacloud.net/FileService.Api/file/FileRoom/13758159
28 Hosseini M, Monazzam MR, Farhang Matin L, Khosroabadi H. Hazard zoning around electric substations of
petrochemical industries by stimulation of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. Environ Monit Assess. 2015
May;187(5):258. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-4449-y. Epub 2015 Apr 16. PMID: 25877640.
29 Shepherd et al., Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields impair the Cognitive and Motor Abilities of Honey
Bees, Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 7932 (2018)
30 Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. “Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations.” Science of the
Total Environment 572 (2016): 554-69.
31 Červený Jaroslav, Begall Sabine, Koubek Petr, Nováková Petra and Burda Hynek . (2011) Directional preference may
enhance hunting accuracy in foraging foxes. Biol. Lett.7355–357 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.1145
32 Levitt BB, Lai HC, Manville AM. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising
ambient EMF levels in the environment. Rev Environ Health. 2021 May 27. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0026. Epub ahead
of print. PMID: 34047144.
33 According to Dr. Livio Guiliani, PhD, Director of Research for the Italian Health National Service and spokesperson for
ICEMS (dot edu), in a 6 April 2020 CHE-EMF email discussion to prevent heating of climate “we need interim
exposure limits based on PP – 0,1 W/sqm as in some Countries of Europe and in Russia, or less – and interim
quality standards based on ALARA – 1 mW/sqm, as in the Resolution of Salzburg (2000), or less- and interim limits
for occasional exposures (not valid for earth cover from sky) deduced from the thermal threshold, having applied a
safety factor equal to 100 (as in IRPA Guidelines 1989, instead 50 as in IEEE, 1992, or ICNIRP, 1998, standards),
recognizing the thermal threshold at 2 W/Kg.”
34 Thielens et al., “Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” Scientific Reports
volume 8, Article number: 3924 (2018)
35 Thielens, A., Greco, M.K., Verloock, L. et al. Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure of Western Honey
Bees. Sci Rep 10, 461 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56948-0
36 Holzman DC. When it comes to electric vehicle emissions, location matters. Environ Health Perspect.
2012;120(6):A230-A231. doi:10.1289/ehp.120-a230a
37 Depro, Brooks M. Brian C. Murray, Ralph J. Alig, Alyssa Shanks. 2008. Public Land, Timber Harvests, and Climate
Mitigation: Quantifying Carbon Sequestration Potential on U.S. Public Timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management
255 (2008) 1122–1134 http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/21039/PDF
38 Hudiburg, Tara W., Beverly E. Law, William R Moomaw, Mark E. Harmon, and Jeffrey E. Stenzel. 2019. Meeting
GHG Reduction Targets Requires Accounting for All Forest Sector Emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (2019) 095005.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab28bb
39 Elgowainy A, Han J, Ward J, Joseck F, Gohlke D, Lindauer A, Ramsden T, Biddy M, Alexander M, Barnhart S,
Sutherland I, Verduzco L, Wallington TJ. Current and Future United States Light-Duty Vehicle Pathways: Cradle-to-
Grave Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment. Environ Sci Technol. 2018 Feb 20;52(4):2392-
2399. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06006. Epub 2018 Feb 8. PMID: 29298387.
40 Zhu L, Chen M. Research on Spent LiFePO4 Electric Vehicle Battery Disposal and Its Life Cycle Inventory Collection
in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 27;17(23):8828. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17238828. PMID: 33261047;
PMCID: PMC7730360.
41 Unitil DPU 21-92 Exhibit CSVG-5 https://fileservice.eea.comacloud.net/FileService.Api/file/FileRoom/13758181
42 To support complex metering including for electric vehicle chargers, National Grid has even sought to build its own
personal communications network, including fiberoptic cable and wireless.
43 Ding Zejun, Zhu Yongqiang and Xu Yu, “Economic loss evaluation and selective treatment of power quality,” 2010 5th
International Conference on Critical Infrastructure (CRIS), 2010, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/CRIS.2010.5617490.
44 IEC 61921 (2003). Power capacitors – Low voltage power factor correction banks.
45 A. Sharma, B.S. Rajpurohit, S.N. Singh, A review on economics of power quality: Impact, assessment and mitigation,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 88, 2018, Pages 363-372, ISSN 1364-0321,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.011.
46 M. Al-dabbagh , H Askarian , Rana Abdul , Jabbar Khan. (2001 Jan) Power quality and energy loss reduction in power
systems. Available 7 September 2021 at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254582980_POWER_QUALITY_AND_ENERGY_LOSS_REDUCTION_IN
_POWER_SYSTEMS
47 Kola Sampangi Sambaiah, Thangavelu Jayabarathi (2020 Feb) Loss minimization techniques for optimal operation and
planning of distribution systems: A review of different methodologies. International Transactions on Electrical Energy
Systems. Volume30, Issue2. E12230 https://doi.org/10.1002/2050-7038.12230
48 Singer, Katie. (3 November 2020) Proposing Cradle-to-Grave Evaluations for All Vehicles. Wall St. International
Magazine. https://wsimag.com/science-and-technology/63818-proposing-cradle-to-grave-evaluations-for-all-vehicles
49 Stephens-Romero S, Carreras-Sospedra M, Brouwer J, Dabdub D, Samuelsen S. Determining air quality and
greenhouse gas impacts of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles. Environ Sci Technol. 2009 Dec
1;43(23):9022-9. doi: 10.1021/es901515y. PMID: 19943683
50 Frey HC, Zhai H, Rouphail NM. Regional on-road vehicle running emissions modeling and evaluation for conventional
and alternative vehicle technologies. Environ Sci Technol. 2009 Nov 1;43(21):8449-55. doi: 10.1021/es900535s. PMID:
19924983.
51 Zhou C, Li S, Wang S. Examining the Impacts of Urban Form on Air Pollution in Developing Countries: A Case Study
of China’s Megacities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jul 24;15(8):1565. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15081565. PMID:
30042324; PMCID: PMC6121357
52 Jones SJ. If electric cars are the answer, what was the question? Br Med Bull. 2019 Mar 1;129(1):13-23. doi:
10.1093/bmb/ldy044. PMID: 30615073.
53 Wang Q, Su M. A preliminary assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on environment – A case study of China. Sci Total
Environ. 2020 Aug 1;728:138915. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138915. Epub 2020 Apr 22. PMID: 32348946; PMCID:
PMC7195154.
54 A. Sharma, B.S. Rajpurohit, S.N. Singh, A review on economics of power quality: Impact, assessment and mitigation,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 88, 2018, Pages 363-372, ISSN 1364-0321,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.011.
55 Shih-An Yin, Chun-Lien Su and Rung-Fang Chang, “Assessment of power quality cost for high-tech industry,” 2006
IEEE Power India Conference, 2006, pp. 6 pp.-, doi: 10.1109/POWERI.2006.1632616
56 Ding Zejun, Zhu Yongqiang and Xu Yu, “Economic loss evaluation and selective treatment of power quality,” 2010 5th
International Conference on Critical Infrastructure (CRIS), 2010, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/CRIS.2010.5617490.
57 J. G. Dougherty and W. L. Stebbins, “Power quality: a utility and industry perspective,” 1997 IEEE Annual Textile,
Fiber and Film Industry Technical Conference, 1997, pp. 5. 10 pp.-, doi: 10.1109/TEXCON.1997.598528.
58 Targosz, Roman, Jonathan Manson. European Power Quality Survey Report. LPQI, 2008.
https://idoc.pub/documents/european-power-quality-survey-report-zpnxke9qwy4v
59 Y. Shih-An, S. Chun-Lien, C. Rung-Fang. Assessment of PQ cost for high-tech industry. Power India Conference, 2006
IEEE, 2006.
60 S. Acharya, Y. Dvorkin, H. Pandžić and R. Karri, “Cybersecurity of Smart Electric Vehicle Charging: A Power Grid
Perspective,” in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 214434-214453, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3041074
61 Cyber Security Issues of Internet with Electric Vehicles. Pouted. Available 14 September 2021 at
https://www.pouted.com/cyber-security-issues-of-internet-with-electric-vehicles/
62 Barney Carlson & Ken Rhode (2018 Sept 12) Cybersecurity of DC Fast Charging: Potential Impacts to the Electric
Grid. Idaho National Laboratory. INL/MIS-18-5128. Available 7 September 2021 at
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/presentations/INLCyberSecurityDCFC.pdf
63 Kim M, Park K, Yu S, Lee J, Park Y, Lee SW, Chung B. A Secure Charging System for Electric Vehicles Based on
Blockchain. Sensors (Basel). 2019 Jul 9;19(13):3028. doi: 10.3390/s19133028. PMID: 31324058; PMCID:
PMC6651179.
64 Ed Friedman v. Central Main Power Company. ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS. No. 2:20-cv-
00237-JDL (1 st Cir. 2021) Available at https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/R.-Doc.-26-Friedman-ADA-Order-
Denying-CMP-MTD-3-31-21.pdf
65 Emily Cohen (2020 Nov 11) Court ruling throws Pennsylvania smart-meter plan into turmoil. The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Available 7 September 2021 at https://www.inquirer.com/business/peco-puc-pennsylvania-commonwealth-court-smart-
meter-decision-20201111.html
66 Consolidated brain cancer from cellphone cases currently winding through courts including Michael Patrick Murray, et
al., v. Motorola, Inc., et al.,” Case No. 2001 CA 008479 B in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia
67 See dockets 13-83, 20-69, 16-28, 17-53, 21-80, 21-81,18-28, 21-82, 21-90, 12-76 ALL critical submissions and
attachments including but not limited to that of Dr. Lisa Nagy, joint comments, Ken Gartner, Einar Olsen, Helen
Walker, Kirstin Beatty, MACI , Dr. William Maykel and Patricia Burke , Dr. Beatrice Golomb, Reply comments by
Patricia Burke, Kirstin Beatty, Kirstin Beatty, Jean Lemiux, Dr. William Bruno, Sandra Chianfoni and Laura Catullo,
Exhibit 3 by Kirstin Beatty, Thea Fornier Wireless Technology Health Effects, Dr. Robert Gilmore Pontius Jr, PhD,
EMR Policy Institute, Dr. William Rea, Dr. Carpenter, EMR Policy Institute, and many more in all the dockets far too
numerous to list here.
68 Ken Gartner observes, in his 21-90 to 92 testimony that the utilities offer to sell EV charging installations to
municipalities and that municipalities not only are poorly suited to manage such installations but will will be left liable.
What also is the cost of removing and recycling such installations? Reference: Massachusetts Electric Company and
Nantucket Electric Company each d/b/a National Grid D.P.U. 21-91 Exhibit NG-EVPP-1 (July 14, 2021) pp. 50-51
69 See Notice of Public Hearing filed in each respective docket for the utilities.
70 Singer, Katie. (3 Feb 2020) Basic needs, electrified: What we expect from electricity. Wall St. International Magazine.
https://wsimag.com/economy-and-politics/64758-what-we-expect-from-electricity
71 Crowley, B (21 Feb 2021) Strong Revenues in Connecticut Boost $1.2 Billion Profit for Eversource, CT Examiner.

Strong Revenues in Connecticut Boost $1.2 Billion Profit for Eversource

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

 

 

New Hampshire Report Supports Restricting Wireless

New Hampshire Report Supports Restricting Wireless

By Kirstin Beatty on 31 October 2020

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to Medical Professionals for Electromagnetic Education

This has been updated as of 21 July 2021.

13 October 2020

Request to All Medical Professionals for Electromagnetic Education

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Kirstin Beatty

Co-chair of Last Tree Laws

Massachusetts ballot measure committee

 

Resources:

 

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

Smart Grid Issues

Smart Grid Investigation

By Kirstin Beatty

 

Some filings which provide information on harm can be found here.

Update September 2021:

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

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

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

Update June 2021:

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

Update 6 November 2020:

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

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

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

________________________

Deadline: Friday, 4 September, 5 PM Eastern.

Background

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

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

 

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

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

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

Do say if the smart grid harms you & how.

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

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

A template and instructions are provided below.

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

Submission Requirements:

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

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

Template

DATE:___________

FROM:____[Name, credentials]_____

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

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

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

Expanding the smart grid in Massachusetts impacts me because _______.

I am going to discuss: _________.

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

Please take these concerns into consideration.

 

Last Tree Laws Massachusetts