Agent Provocateurs and Efficacy

AGENT PROVACATEURS AND EFFICACY

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

Updated 21 July 2021, 6 April 2022

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could things have been different?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few more random thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following are 6 proposed S.186 amendments, for which feedback is welcome (esp. #V, VI). These could be submitted as one amendment with a complete text or in parts as presented below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“All commission members with conflicts of interest due to industry or employment shall be prohibited from participating as voting members, but shall be called non-voting members. Any commission member deemed a non-voting member shall recuse himself or herself from any commission votes to decide or influence the the outcome of commission reports and commission decisions, and shall instead serve only to assist the commission. Chairmanship, legislative and policy decisions for reports to the Commonwealth shall be decided by vote only of all members with voting status. Only members deemed voting members may author commission reports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) based on research, identify:

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

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

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

Here are the reasons for replacement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End Water Fluoridation

 

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

Many residents have sought to remove fluoride from municipal water supplies after examining the research.

In Wilmington, the Director of Public Health in 2000 recommended ending fluoridation after researching the subject. In Natick, a study committee of individuals defined as “qualified” “unbiased” and “scientifically trained” recommended the same. Cities and towns such as Topsfield, Gloucester, Rockport, Newburyport, Cambridge, Concord, Amesbury, Methuen, Worcester, Greenfield and others have also attempted to end water fluoridation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other populations of special concern include individuals with kidney disease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER STUDY

RESEARCH RELATED TO CHILDREN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRITTLE BONES

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

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

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

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

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

ARTHRITIS

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

CANCER

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

THYROID

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

SKIN RASH

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

QUESTIONING FLUORIDE

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

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

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

COMMONWEALTH STATISTICS

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

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

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

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

671 Amherst (F. since 1987)

646 Longmeadow (F. since 1989)

vs.

491 Easthampton (non-fluoridated)

442 Springfield (non-fluoridated)

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

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

DEATH RATES FROM HEART DISEASE: Same comment as above.

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

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

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

What’s with Agenda 21? UPDATED

 

What’s with Agenda 21?

by Kirstin Beatty – Updated 27 August 2021

 

I was curious what is with Agenda 21, tossed about as an evil by some, and examined complaints.

Honestly, my expectations were low. In the same way that governments state that continuing emissions at the current rate will lead to devastation yet continue enabling the same emissions, I expect similar, if less so, dissonant action from the United Nations.

First of all Agenda 21, now Agenda 30, is not mandatory or enforceable. Agenda 30 includes many laudable goals, such as recommendations to protect the rights of women and support environmental health for all.

Continuing with the positive, Agenda 30 seems to make some attempt to prevent big business from winning all contracts and owning everyone and everything. Small farmers, which have been decimated by the false promise of a green revolution and industrial agriculture, are to be protected from big business. Of course, protection may not exist in practice.

Secondly, the United Nations is an organization intended to share the thoughts of nations, or governments, rather than businesses. A one nation, one vote policy was intended to give even small, poor countries a say.

Isn’t discussion among nations helpful to preventing war? So, check, another positive.

Yet, in 2019, the United Nations made an accord with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to circumvent votes from each nation in favor of including business stakeholders in formulating decisions, as discussed in an article by Harris Gleckman on OpenDemocracy.net.

Ivan Wecke, in a recent article also posted at OpenDemocracy.net, discusses how the WEF chairman Klaus Schwab has promoted ‘stakeholder’ capitalism, intended to give corporations more power by setting aside democratic precepts of government so that corporations make decisions.

As with treaties and trade agreements, transnational corporations were welcomed to help craft the Agenda 30 vision, and Agenda 30 states that nations and ‘stakeholders’ (i.e. businesses) are to take apart in achieving the goals.

In other words, transnational businesses will have access to the U.N. plans most lack, and the time and wealth to ‘fix’ decisions with details against cheap solutions in favor of saleable investments. While U.N. plans are unenforceable, the plans are meant to guide countries and are influential.

To welcome transnational corporations into these discussions undermines the one nation vote policy and is a fundamental problem existing not only within the United Nations, but within U.S. local, state, and federal representative government, where businesses are often invited as ‘stakeholders’ into crafting laws and policies.

Even without being invited to help craft plans, transnational corporations can monopolize business opportunities and undermine competition. A more recent problem is that transnational corporations can frame the conversation and public attitudes towards these plans with technological propaganda and wealth. Advance notice of United Nation plans helps transnational companies revise, undermine, and outright oppose ideas shared by nation representatives.

With illusions created by wealth, transnational companies can sidestep real solutions and cause indirect harm, such was seen in the opioid crisis.

I haven’t read the entire document, but Agenda 30 emphasizes innovation, such as modern energy investments. Yet better, cheaper options may exist with older technology or with none at all. Yet, businesses are likely to argue otherwise due to conflicts of interest.

I’ve criticized the smart grid as costly and harmful for several years, but my criticisms have fallen on deaf ears in both business and government.

There is a positive statement advancing the concept of medicine for all, or of affordable medicine, which remains a dream in many countries, but nowhere does Agenda 30 address accountability for pharmaceutical companies regarding honest marketing and safer pharmaceuticals.

Covid-19 is a perfect example of how admirable goals can be circumvented. Vitamin C, D, antivirals, and any cheap treatment are not part of the conventional standard of care or of much consideration. Vaccines for all are being offered only at hefty prices and, with emergency authorization liability protections for indemnification through the U.S. PREP Act. Abroad, companies have refused to provide vaccines unless profits and indemnity are assured. In the USA, no payouts for any related adverse reactions have been made at all, despite 1,693 claims as of 2 August 2021. Any risk taken is a risk borne, apparently, only by the private consumer.

However, I can’t blame the United Nations alone, or transnational companies, for failing to consider pharmaceutical accountability. The United States has done little to halt conflicts of interests of government officers or to insure pharmaceutical accountability. The answer is to first set up laws in our own country to at least prevent conflicts of interests, such as the ballot measure proposed at Last Tree Laws.

As far as private property dispersal there is a vague statement that all should have equal access to ownership of property. Agenda 30 uses the words “access” to ownership, which suggests that the meaning is about preventing discrimination in ownership, such as the historic denial of home ownership to African Americans or in some countries to women and ethnic minorities.

Equal rights to economic resources is also discussed, which may involve rights to water as countries struggle over drought or rights to agricultural land for farmers. While a nice idea, this goal is likely to go ignored, especially since the United Nations cannot enforce any of  its recommendations. Israel and Palestine battle over land in a way that shows just how useful recommendations for sharing are heard.

The arguments against Agenda 30 based on giving away private property are specious.  If ‘property’ is ever shared freely by the wealthy, then it will be a cover for transferring liability or creating ‘sharecroppers’ of some kind.

As far as sharing wealth otherwise, Agenda 30 advocates for social protection measures and these, if business interests reign, may not necessarily equal high quality work, education, or housing. The idea is noble, but is for ‘coverage’ which, like insurance coverage, may come with conditions.

Presently, businesses are mandating medical treatment for Covid-19 — this sets a precedent to allow businesses to mandate any medical care for ‘societal good’ even if the concept of societal good can be manipulated and abused. At one time women were thrust tossed into mental hospitals on questionable psychological assessments, in order to limit their opinions or to acquire their property.

I also see a statement that private property cannot be an excuse to harm others through environmental devastation, with which I’m sure we can all agree. Do you want your neighbor or any business to be excused on the basis of personal property to place, on their property, a hazardous chemical dump next to your home?

In sum, the criticism of Agenda 30 across social media is largely about redistribution of private property, which is off base.

Is the criticism that Agenda 30 will mean loss of private property fabricated by corporate interests to divert attention from the positive goals of Agenda 30, including limits on corporate power, or to divert attention from the detrimental influence of business interests? The American Policy Center, at the forefront of Agenda 21 and UN criticism, has long campaigned against corporate regulation, including pharmaceuticals, and environmentalism under the guise of private property rights.

Criticism of Agenda 30 is also part of a campaign against the United Nations. Check the news, and you’ll see that there is a campaign against the United Nations as well – why, I’ve no idea. I may be against transnational companies participating, but not against the concept of the United Nations.

I see the criticism of Agenda 30 is often laced with the words communism and socialism. This seems like a trick to get people to automatically react badly to the words communism and socialism, when people should be able to discuss economic ideas calmly.

Socialism has been successful in cooperatively-owned businesses. In socialism, the means of producing or distributing goods is owned collectively, such as work cooperatives like Real Pickles. Socialism can also mean when the government owns the means of producing and distributing goods as exemplified in part by Medicare and Social Security. The U.S. military has been held up as a partly socialist system.

Socialism does not appear to be discussed in Agenda 30, and cooperatives are mentioned only as a business entity like any other — not with any preference.

There isn’t a country that is fully socialist, but several have adopted some socialist programs or policies. Denmark and Costa Rica seem to have done well with high taxes and universal health care as the National Geographic ran an article some years ago on how Denmark and Costa Rica have among the happiest people in the world.

There is not mention in Agenda 30 of providing universal health care, although universal coverage appears mentioned as part of ‘social protection’ — coverage comes with many more conditions than anything universally applied. Restructuring taxation is not mentioned either, except to restructure energy subsidies away from fossil fuels.

In contrast to socialism, communism has failed in many countries. Communism occurs when the community provides funds to the government for equal redistribution, but in practice governments have pocketed the money. Some have observed that communism could work on a small scale, such as within a tribal community.

The ideal of communism is nice, and deserves less hate.

Communism is often used as an insult because of its association with authoritarian governments but also, probably, since communism frightens the wealthy. At one time just being accused of being a communist destroyed careers of people who were not even communist as part of the ‘Red Scare’ propaganda. To weaponize the word communist or any other academic idea is dangerous as it supports aggression, censorship and undermines free discussion.

Associating Agenda 21 or 30 with communism is pushing it. The United Nations, full of capitalistic and some wealthy nations, is not going to become communist or, if so, not easily.

The use of communism and socialism as marketing campaign insult to Agenda 30 may be a marketing trick to create division and shut down discourse. Agenda 30 doesn’t, so far as I can see, have anything at all to do with socialism or communism. The criticism, if it is even a criticism, is way off base. I would say that is a marketing trick. If only criticisms exist of Agenda 30 as communism or socialism, which does not exist in the proposal so far as I can see, then critics must be dismissed and Agenda 30 must be a good thing. I would say the public is being misused to attack Agenda 30 on the wrong and imaginary basis, rather than on any real basis, and I wonder if leading critics are paid for by some party intent on sowing division and prejudices in the United States.

Or, I wonder if the criticism is simply to divert attention from more important avenues for change.

Divide & Co-Opt

 

 

Divide & Co-Opt: $hit

By Kirstin Beatty

 

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

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

    • relying on deep pockets and media to drown out other voices
    • promoting legislation or actions that distract or accomplish nothing or, worse, cause harm
    • lobbying for ideas and bills which drown out better options
    • encouraging wasteful spending, leaving little for useful purchase
    • undermining funds, communications, and support for industry opponents
    • capturing all data and communications so as to identify opposition and potential problems
    • preventing alliances that could challenge the propaganda
    • generating propaganda, mixing truths with lies to confuse
    • paying for technology or actors to pretend popular support exists for the industry action
    • promoting half-measures which fail to address the systemic problem and thus protect financial interests
    • relying on industry-funded consultants and experts to undermine grassroots opposition by using the authority of their position and elitism
    • building loyalty to industry-preferred leaders through media, funding, professionalism, favors, etc.
      • In other words, the fully-funded industry-preferred leader is able to provide favors, gifts, salaries, and professional materials, etc., which impress the community even when the goals are misdirected and the favors far cheaper than sincere action
    • co-opting movements, promoting only those willing to cooperate with a misdirection or a false leader
    • using industry-planted leaders or tools to:
      • demand fealty and obedience to terrible ideas as a matter of ‘personal’ loyalty
      • demand an end to questions and criticism as a matter of ‘personal’ or ‘tribal’ loyalty
      • eliminate deep discussion & preventing contacts among various advocates
      • provide different directions to people who expect and know more versus to those who know little
      • capture communications and people to identify targets and grassroots plans
      • sow distrust, hate, and drama to undermine unity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In closing, please see the home page for some recommended actions.

 

Warning about the Movement & Support

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

I have two concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few lobbying tips and tips for advocacy:

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

To Investigate or Not to Investigate? Commission Bills 101.

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

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.

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.

 

Strong Stands Make a Difference

SUPPORTING STRONG STANDS FOR THE PEOPLE  AND EVERYONE

By Kirstin Beatty

Updated 21 July 2021, 6 April 2022

 

Note: The article originally here has been moved and can be found here.

As advocates for safer electronics and communications, we need strong stands supported and led by the grassroots. When you examine the civil rights movement, there wasn’t talk among the African-American community of letting the legislators form a commission to discuss how to dole out civil rights. The civil rights movement went ahead and said we want decent health care, transportation, and housing – equal treatment.

Just recently I put several amendments together as it is a last ditch effort this session to see if hard-wiring might get support.

I was on the phone with a sensitive friend who promised to call her legislator. I later asked how it went and she said she just had too much to do taking care of her family and avoiding wifi. Another said she was going to change things basically through meditation and spirituality. Now, lots of people I have no idea what they do and others even donate or say thank you. But when I hear this from just 2 people who I know can take action, I feel betrayed. Politics is personal.

Substantive change can come through the courts or legislative action, and neither is certain.

The courts are just as afraid as legislators to take action, and for this reason, we must take a radically strong stand. We must ask and make demands.

I know sometimes we are sick and simply can’t do what needs to be done. But when we can, we should be able to make a sacrifice and take a strong stand.

Asking for a commission to study the issue is not a strong stand.

Asking for an opt out of smart meters is not a strong stand.

We can make small requests such as opt outs. (the commission bill needs revision). Compromise still is a way of moving the dial.

However,  we can’t just ask for compromise. We can’t just ask to fix one detail, smart meters, and be railroaded by 5G antennas outside our windows or a block of smart meters on our wall.

We need to make a strong stand and ask for much more, and when there is an opening, take that opening. The amendments are an opening, but only if legislators are convinced of the issue’s importance.

The bills I prepared for 2021-2020, this session, included hard-wiring schools, hospitals, public buildings, requiring insurance for cell towers, etc. The amendments I managed to write are for hard wiring, basically, and fixing the proposed commission.

The reason I wrote those bills and amendments is because I knew it is very hard for legislators and their staff to find the time, plus the time to understand what we need.  Many legislators simply lack staff and time, and staff complain of being overwhelmed and underpaid. For this reason, I suggested trying to meet the legislator in person to discuss the issue, as it might otherwise be lost in emails.

Preparing the bills and amendments was time consuming. I had to read slowly through the General Laws, which will change again next year. Because of changes, I would have to rewrite these for next year.  I don’t know if I can do keep doing this as a volunteer with health problems.

In 2021, after sending out a quick note about the legislative bills, I received a mass email asking I get sponsors for other bills, in other words excluding mine, for bills such as H. 115  to ‘best’ continue using wireless. I’d spoken with the sponsor, Representative Dykema, and she’d said point blank that she would only support a bill to continue using wireless. I cannot fathom why my bill to hard wire was not included and instead a bill to continue wireless was.

Do people even read these bills?

People need to read these bills, clearly, and read the legislative analysis on this website and through the Last Tree Laws email lists.

I should be getting a lot of support. The amendments and bills I suggested are truly common sense ideas. Moreover, we may not have another chance for some time to pass a bill or win a court battle.

If you can, please call your legislator and ask them to support the amendments and why. Secondly, please ask them to give me a call.

Here are the amendments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last Tree Laws Massachusetts