Besides our simple summaries on our handouts, the Massachusetts attorney general’s office is required to create summaries for initiative petitions that are concise and accurate, though not necessarily detailed.
The following is the attorney general’s summary of petition S, which is online in full form here, for which we are gathering signatures – emphasis has been added in bold along with the sections in brackets :
SUMMARY OF PETITION S (Topic: Radiation Limits)
This proposed law would establish new requirements for private corporations and governmental agencies to reduce and mitigate the effects of certain electromagnetic radiation.
The proposed law would require technology companies, including internet and personal wireless services providers and electronic product manufacturers, to limit electromagnetic field exposures to the minimum required for access to their services and operation of their devices. This limit would apply to new products, services, and installations and, where compatible, to service and product upgrades and software updates. The proposed law directs the Attorney General to enforce compliance. These limits must be implemented by two months, one year, or one year and three months, as further specified in the proposed law. [See section 1, page 1, here]
The proposed law would require carriers, personal wireless services, wireless facilities, and any corporation offering internet and telecommunications access to limit electromagnetic field exposures to the minimum required for operation of services. The proposed law directs the Attorney General to enforce compliance. [See section 8 on page 20]
The proposed law would require the Department of Telecommunications and Cable (DTC) to monitor and collect data on electromagnetic radiation emitted from wireless facilities [see section 2, page 4], expand the DTC’s policy development authority to include transmission media and technology that best reduces electromagnetic radiation exposures [see section 4, page 5, here], and create a new Division of Communication and Electronic Radiation Monitoring that would collect and share data on electromagnetic radiation from wireless facilities and other technologies [see section 5, page 5]. This would take effect one year from the effective date of the proposed law.
The Department of Public Utilities and utility companies would be required to offer ratepayers non-wireless equipment [see section 14, page 38 – this is modified slightly from Senator Moore’s current bill S.2152 – please tell your legislator to support his bill which has not moved forward since submitted in 2013 or 4 legislative sessions even though considered quite problematic].
The proposed law would establish new requirements for wireless facility operators, including annual radiation testing, certification, and reporting; minimum cash or conventional and environmental pollution insurance coverage; and a ban on the installation of wireless facilities on public higher education and public school campuses, state parks, and state forests, except for basic emergency services at state parks and state forests. Violations of these new requirements would incur civil and criminal penalties. [See section 6 on page 11]
The proposed law would update the mission and board composition of the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) to prioritize MBI’s pursuit of hard-wired connectivity and expertise in Building Biology and reducing exposure. [See section 14 on page 37 – specifically, the text redirects the MBI to maintain & develop wired infrastructure used for telecommunications and IT; divest from wireless except for emergency services; and to support hard-wired connectivity in public spaces.]
The proposed law would update the Code of Massachusetts Regulations to include Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) as a disease subject to Department of Public Health (DPH) surveillance. DPH would educate health care providers and the public on EMS, including through an EMS disease registry advisory committee within DPH. [See section 6 on page 17 – this section is based on Representative Farley-Bouvier‘s state bill H.2158 – please encourage your legislator to support this bill]
The proposed law would require the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), public schools, public school districts, the Board of Higher Education (BHE), and public or independent institutions of higher education to reduce or eliminate man-made non-ionizing radiation emissions that are known, likely, potentially, unintentionally, or unknown to be harmful. DESE and BHE would develop guidelines and recommendations to reduce or eliminate harmful radiation for their respective stakeholders. [For example see section 11 on page 27, which requires public schools to set objectives within their means to reduce exposures, and see section 13 on page 33, which requires the DESE and BHE to develop recommendations.]
The proposed law would establish a commission to investigate the health and environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation and prohibit further installation of small cells and wireless facilities during the investigation. [See section 10 on page 22]
The proposed law would establish a commission to determine how to minimize non-ionizing radiation exposure for first responders who use wireless technology. [See section 11 on page 25]
LIMITS ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION ARE GOOD:
- In Massachusetts, limits exist to prevent electric shock;
- In other states, limits exist on magnetic and electric fields from high-voltage power lines;
- In the US, limits on cell tower transmissions are meant to prevent heating;
- In India, cell tower transmissions are much lower than in the US to reduce harmful biological effects;
- In Chile, limits exist on cell towers near hospitals or schools;
- In Cyprus, WiFi is prohibited in pediatric wards and elementary schools;
- French regulators ordered a pause on sales of the Apple iPhone 12 since the radiation exceeded their limits – Apple promised to reduce radiation with a software update.
A SAMPLE OF SOME SMART SCIENTIST CONCERNS:
– Dr. Chris Portier, recently retired from the US NIEHS, chaired the committee at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that in 2015 stated wireless and radiofrequencies were a 2b ‘possible’ carcinogen. Many original members of the committee have since stated wireless is carcinogenic and the classification must be strengthened. In 2022 for a brain cancer lawsuit, Portier wrote 176 pages of testimony with scientific references to prove cellphones cause brain cancer.
– Dr. Robert Becker, MD (1923 – 2008), became famous for bringing media and a generation’s attention to the dangers of high-voltage power lines. Despite his hitherto successful career, he lost his research contracts and retired early because he spoke out against non-ionizing radiation. He wrote the cult classic The Body Electric and was nominated twice for Nobel Prize because he discovered electricity could heal bone.
– Dr. Henry Lai, PhD, and Dr. Narinda Singh, PhD, in 1995 published that wireless signals broke DNA strands, and then dealt with industry attempts to discredit their work. Dr. Singh is best known for developing the comet assay, a technique used around the world to detect DNA breaks. Dr. Lai, who became a research professor at the University of Washington, has published evidence of harm documented in peer-reviewed science for the public on the Bioinitiative.org.
– Dr. Olle Johansson, PhD, discovered that computers even without wireless could change the skin biome, with markers such as mast cells increasing. Dr. Johansson is now retired from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, but continues with research and advocacy for limits.
– Dr. Neil Cherry, PhD (1946-2003), who published on how modulation of small amounts of non-ionizing radiation, including solar and geomagnetic activity (such as thunderstorms) can have harmful effects and advocated for making technology as safe as possible. Cherry also examined cancer clusters, such as on high rates of cancer in the line of transmissions from the Sutro Tower in San Francisco. In 2002 Dr. Cherry was appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, for services to science, education and the community.
– Dr. Sam Milham, PhD, used his access to a WA state database to find workers exposed to more non-ionizing radiation, such as electricians, contracted leukemia more than would be expected, sparking other researchers to look and find similar patterns. After retirement, he did further research and discovered that where electricity was newly introduced, ‘diseases of civilization’ like heart disease arose, about which he wrote the easy read Dirty Electricity. Milham believes the problem is linked to pulsing or surges and harmonics on ‘dirty’ electrical lines.
- Scientific appeal on wireless & electricity with summary: EMFscientist.org
- Scientists and doctors appeal for 5G moratorium: 5GAppeal.EU
- Dr. Henry Lai: https://seattlemag.com/news/uw-scientist-henry-lai-makes-waves-cell-phone-industry/
- Dr. Narendra P. Singh: https://microwavenews.com/news-center/singh-comet-assay-radiation-research
- Dr. Robert Becker: https://robertobecker.net/
- Dr. Olle Johansson’s donation page with information: https://research.radiation.dk/
- Dr. Portier’s 176 page report tying wireless to tumors: https://microwavenews.com/papers/chris-portier-rf-evaluation
- Dr. Portier’s resume at IARC where he represented the CDC: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PORTIER_Bio.pdf
- Dr. Sam Milham: https://microwavenews.com/milham.html
- Dr. Neil Cherry (Archived Website): https://web.archive.org/web/20190628014620/http://www.neilcherry.nz/bio.html
- US states with exposure limits relevant to electricity or policies of prudent avoidance: https://www.emfs.info/limits/limits-usa/
- France and Apple iPhone 12: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/15/tech/apple-iphone12-france-update-radiation-levels/index.html
- For international policies please see the Environmental Health Trust
Safer Utilities Amendment 2022
Scroll down for sample amendments to limit the smart grid.
Why? As far back as 2014, warnings were filed with the DPU that people were getting very sick from the ‘smart’ grid – such as Dr. Robert Pontius Gilmore who was one of four members appointed by Clark University to examine the technologies; Dr. William Rea, MD; physicist Dr. William Bruno; BLEC; MACI — alongside sad stories from residents. But the DPU has refused to bend, mandating the grid. Current bill H. 3309 includes a provision to mandate the ‘smart’ grid across the state and require ratepayers cover all costs. Continue reading “Safer Utilities Amendment”
AMENDMENTS TO HARD-WIRE FOR SAFETY
Even if you set aside thousands of studies showing wireless harms wildlife, wireless is a known security risk.
We need legislators, in the very brief time available now before the session for major bills ends on 31 July 2022, to propose the below amendments to wire broadband and telecommunications in nursing homes, soldier’s homes, schools, colleges, etc. If not, to give support for these changes next year. Continue reading “Wired Broadband – Amendments”
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 an EchoEarth.org petition to cut cellphone use. Continue reading “Frequently Asked Questions”
ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CRITIQUE
Critical testimony jointly submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities dockets 21-90, 21-91, and 21-92 on utility EV proposals on 14 September 2021 — available at MA DPU, but link may change after corrected copy is provided. Ken Gartner also provided a separate letter including more technical criticism.
Dear Secretary Marini:
All of the proposals from the above-captioned utility plans sound wonderful if one believes electric vehicles (EV) are the route to preventing climate disaster. However, sound environmental and public health reasons exist to stall these proposals for modification or elimination, in addition for privacy and property protection. Continue reading “Electric Vehicle (EV) Critique”