Category: Uncategorized

The following testimony was shared orally in abbreviated form at a public hearing June 12, 2025 – starting at -34:15 in this video – only 3 minutes time was allowed. Additional excellent testimony was also provided by other organizations beginning at -48:08 through -22:02. Resident Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International has focused on this issue, and her detailed written testimony can be found here. See our testimony page for suggestions on how to continue to help.

SUPPORT FOR AN ACT RELATIVE TO SMART METERS [2025-6 MA state bills H.3551 sponsored by Estela A. Reyes and S.2306 sponsored by Michael O. Moore

SYNONYMS: ‘electromagnetic fields’ (EMFs) / ‘radiofrequencies’ (RF) ‘electromagnetic exposures’ / ‘non-ionizing radiation’

My name is Kirstin Beatty. I am director of Last Tree Laws Massachusetts and have been an advocate on this issue for over a decade. In the past two years I’ve started to think that most of the legislature should be fired, because it doesn’t seem like anything gets passed to which industry is opposed or even anything much at all. The house appears to be at greater fault thanks to numbers.

This year we have an approved state petition initiative to reduce non-ionizing radiation or EMFs from technology, but I’m starting to think that we need petitions for everything. We also had an approved petition initiative 3 years ago to make the state legislature more fair, egalitarian, and transparent, and we’re working on improving it for submission and working with other groups to get it passed. Feedback and ideas are welcome.

Studies on harm from non-ionizing radiation began in the 1930’s and in the 1970’s caught the public’s attention when Dr. Robert O. Becker and Dr. Andrew A. Marino began testifying against such exposures, including against powerful high-voltage lines. On that note, large alternative energy installations are emitting fields far beyond their concerns quite commonly now since the legislature has not seen fit to regulate such fields. Some states set limits, not ours, although be warned some lobbyists/ industry scientists have proposed laughable limits.

Becker published the cult classic The Electromagnetic Body, and his research found that bones could regrow from non-ionizing radiation exposure. More importantly, he understood that the chemical reactions in the body were all controlled by non-ionizing radiation at very low power density. [See any of his many books or robertobecker.net or andrewamarino.com for more information]

Research is further now, & business interests push further investigation into how to mind read or alter the brain using non-ionizing radiation – you can even find a talk on the World Economic Forum where professor Dr. Nita Farahany discusses how businesses could monitor and disrupt employee minds [e.g. 2016 article weforum.org/stories/2016/10/wearable-devices-at-work-allow-your-boss-to-monitor-your-brain/ as I can’t find the talk quickly]. –By the way, Dr. W. Ross Adey, who was one of Becker’s peers, also studied how electrical stimulation could cause lust, love, anger, etc., in his subjects.

The fact is, our brains and bodies are electromagnetic and so pulses and surges from wireless or dirty electricity can misdirect the chemical reactions in our bodies and brains, leading to chronic or acute discomfort, pain, memory loss, and illness. Dirty electricity occurs when we use wall warts or inverters, such as with alternative energy, for this adds frequencies other than 60 hertz to the electrical line. For all electromagnetic exposures including wireless, research shows older women are often more aware and can sense these exposures, but everyone experiences the effects including DNA damage that transfers to the next generation.

In my case, removal of smart meter transmissions reversed the decline of my white blood cells and lymphoma concerns. However, I continue suffering because EMF’s continue increasing and are impossible to avoid – my pains and other health problems increase alongside EMF intensity.

When you take your paycheck, you may think you are safe. But EMF’s are everywhere and tied to sudden sensitivity, chronic conditions, & acute illness. Your family and friends are at risk, IQs, fertility, and our expectation of social security (because the youth on which we depend are increasingly in poor health mentally and physically that is impacted by EMFs).

In addition, lack of action on environmental issues and insistence on listening to the lies of industry threatens your position as a legislator. Decades of evidence of harm from fluoride, non-ionizing radiation, and other toxins is one reason why Robert Kennedy was able to move the dial in support of Trump. This is the first time environmental health has been such a major factor in elections, simply because so many are in ill health and even disabled.

In addition, the people are failing to demand technology – it is industry that wants these technologies in order to profit from centralization, surveillance, sales, and manipulation. You become complicit in this system when you agree to the industry’s demands instead of setting limits.

All tech gathers data that can be abused, ideal for dictators. Smart meters gather data that is not necessary for sale, plus these meters have been found to over-estimate energy usage. Alternative energy and utility systems are being centralized at harm to our oceans and ourselves. The industry is glossing over the use of way outdated nuclear reactors for energy to sustain current technology and data collection. Smart systems are hackable and there have been nation state attacks on such systems (you can find some information on this reading the attached slides, also available at: https://fileservice.eea.comacloud.net/FileService.Api/file/FileRoom/12920172

People are tired not only of tech that is harmful to social systems, the environment, and which constantly requires more money to operate. Fight for what is right – change.

Note: I have submitted several electromagnetic reduction bills for the 2025-6 session that can be found by inputting my last name, Beatty, at malegislature.gov. All are practical steps to reduce EMFs, screen time, or privacy.

The following testimony was shared orally in abbreviated form at a public hearing June 2025 – starting at 1:03:54 at this video – only 2 minutes time was allowed. Organizations that would like to support this bill can contact Last Tree Laws, sign here, and prepare written testimony for the education committee as described here ASAP. See our testimony page for suggestions on how to continue to help.

S463 An Act regulating screen time and technology privacy in early and K-12 education. 

My name is Kirstin Beatty, director of Last Tree Laws Massachusetts which works on petition initiatives. I formerly taught in our public schools. A different version of this bill was sponsored in a previous session by Rep. Patricia Duffy, exclusively regarding screen time. At the last minute, however, I requested this be filed only as a senate bill because of senate president Karen Spilka’s prior support for an EMF study bill (S.1278 2017-2018) and the addition of EMF restrictions in early education.

(REASONS TO SUPPORT THIS BILL:) School tech often disrupts time-on-learning, privacy, health and allows illegal site access, addiction, and corporate control of educational programming.^{1 2 3} It often takes time away from mastering skills like computation and higher order thinking (e.g. literary analysis, liberal arts).^{4 5}

Thousands of studies also show non-ionizing radiation or EMFs cause harm – one WHO-funded study recently concluded there is high certainty in evidence linking cancer to cellphones.^{6 7 8} Another found, like several before it, that rats exposed to cell phone radiation in utero had decreased estrogen, progesterone, ovarian size, follicles: all of this is needed for egg development and the CDC continues to document rising infertility such as to 14.2% and impaired fecundity to 23.6% between 2011 to 2015.^{9 10} In France, Israel, Cyprus and other countries, steps have been taken to reduce exposures to non-ionizing radiation or EMFs in early education & care.¹¹ California has also studied in schools how to reduce fields from electricity, leading to a checklist of no- and low-cost methods to reduce field exposures, and power line distance restrictions.^{12 13}

(BILL CONTENT:) This is a practical bill using performance benchmarks [§4] to reverse excess tech and limit harm. S463 also ends the mandate to use tech in all subjects[§2(k); §3], providing the option of choice to teachers & schools. Training on harms is provided for violations K-12 [§2(h)] and included in certification and recertification for early education and care [§7(b)9].

It establishes cellphone limits under local control [§2(i); §2(e)10; §7(b)7,13] and basic limits on screen time [§2(e); §7(b)] from early education through grade 12 (e.g. maximum 4 hours passive screen time in kindergarten year)allowing some exceptions [§2(f); §7]. Local school authorities must tie screen use to educational benefits and can set stricter limits during an annual public review [§2(e)(d)].

Virtual schools may use correspondence learning [§5] and are required to give access to real teachers, teacher-led instruction, and, when possible, reduce time online (e.g. provide printed reading) [§6].

Privacy safeguards include attention to technology utilized [§2(g)], avoiding risks [§2(b)10-13], transparency, allowed opt outs [§2(b)8; §2(g); §3], performance benchmarks and, in early education, eliminating toys that can record [§7(b)3].

This bill limits EMFs by requiring in early education and care that necessary tech is hard-wired, wireless use avoided, and electric and magnetic fields checked [(§7(b)15-17], as well as allowing less exposure via less technology K-12. Section 2 (c) 10 provides a window to reduce EMFs K-12 by mandating that technology implementation follow best practices for health and safety and also restricts cellphones, which are to be left at home or in airplane mode in lockboxes [§2(e)10].

Please report this bill favorably. Thank you.

1David Lundie, Andrej Zwitter, Dipayan Ghosh. January 31 2022. Corporatized education and state sovereignty. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/corporatized-education-and-state-sovereignty/

2Jeff Bryant. Feb 13 2020. How Corporations Are Forcing Their Way into America’s Public Schools. EdPolitics: A Project of OUR Schools. https://edpolitics.org/how-corporations-are-forcing-their-way-into-americas-public-schools/

3Lauraine Langreo (March 25 2025) Schools Face an Uphill Battle in Protecting Student Data in the Age of AI. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/schools-face-an-uphill-battle-in-protecting-student-data-in-the-age-of-ai/2025/03

4Muppalla, Sudheer Kumar et al. “Effects of Excessive Screen Time on Child Development: An Updated Review and Strategies for Management.” Cureus vol. 15,6 e40608. 18 Jun. 2023, doi:10.7759/cureus.40608

5Jared Woodard (August 2019) Rotten STEM: How Technology Corrupts Education. American Affairs Journal. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/08/rotten-stem-how-technology-corrupts-education/

6Moskowitz, J. Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields [2000+ studies from 2016 to 2025 alone] June 5, 2025. https://www.saferemr.com/2022/06/recent-research-on-wireless-radiation.html

7Moskowitz, J. The Need for More Stringent Wireless Radiation Exposure Limits to Protect Human Health [Summary Reports]. (June 17, 2025) https://www.saferemr.com/2025/01/the-need-for-more-stringent-wireless.html

8Mevissen M, Ducray A, Ward JM, et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environ Int. 2025;199:109482. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482

9Yousefi, B., Jadidi, M., Nabizadeh, Z. et al. Impairment of Oogenesis and Folliculogenesis in Neonatal Rats after Maternal Exposure to Mobile Phones. Reprod. Sci. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-025-01880-0

10Evelin Fajardo-Alvarez. Percentage of women ages 15-44 who have impaired fecundity. CDC National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/i.htm#infertility

11International Action Database. https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/

12California Electric and Magnetic Fields Program’s School Exposure Assessment Survey (The Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure Assessment of Powerline and Non-Powerline Sources for California Public School Environments). California EMF Program and Enertech Consultants. (January 2000)

13Title 5, California Code of Regulations. Article 2. § 14010 (c) Standards for School Site Selection.

Your support is needed for Mass. bill S463 which eliminates tech cross-curricular mandates and covers improving early ed & K-12:

• privacy (details on all this further below),
• cellphone limits,
• screen time limits,
• virtual schools, and
• electromagnetic exposures only in early education (like Israel, France, Cyprus etc. – see international policy actions at ehtrust dot org).

Written testimony prepared for submission to the MA legislature can be found here.

You can support this bill by: 

• signing in support online here (even past the hearing date & no email required);
• sharing this post with individuals, experts, & groups for their support;
• attending the Boston hearing Tuesday 17th June 1 PM to speak in person 2 minutes; and/ or
• submitting written testimony (deadline unknown, but will ask at hearing).

Written testimony details are listed here and at the bottom of this email. Please note that if you submit suggestions & criticism to the legislature for change, the bill may not move at all. 

The bill is S463 An Act regulating screen time and technology privacy in early and K-12 education. 

BILL DETAILS 

REDUCE SCREEN TIME – In section 2, specific base limits on screen time are set as listed in subsection (e) of the bill, with communities allowed to set stricter limits through the public school authority which must hold an annual public hearing and base decisions on educational benefits. Early childhood care limits are set in section 7, subsection (b) – currently MA has none. Some K-12 exceptions to such limits are granted as listed in subsection (f) of section 2, such as for computer-based courses, medical needs, or virtual schools, however, there is still an emphasis on reducing screen time even in virtual schools and also computer-based courses cannot be mandated. Student cellphones are to be left at home or locked up at school (with some exceptions) and school authorities are to set a policy in subsection (i) — note that many other bills to eliminate cellphones in schools are being heard at this hearing. A performance benchmark for schools is added to reduce tech time and require use to have educational benefits.

PROTECT PRIVACY – Transparency for students, guardians, and staff is required regarding the technologies and data processing agreements, and informed consent and allowing opt outs required. Privacy is added as a performance benchmark for K-12. In early education and care in section 7, relevant privacy and cybersecurity training is to be given, toys may not record confidential data, and posting information online is limited. In K-12, tech implementation should follow best practices such as to limit data gathering – see section 2, subsection (c), paragraphs 10 through 13. Limiting tech also goes a long way to protecting privacy.

EARLY EDUCATION ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPOSURE – In section 7 subsection (b), early education sites are to insure magnetic and electric fields are low [paragraph 15], wireless devices avoided in children’s areas [16], and necessary digital devices hard-wired [17].

IMPROVE VIRTUAL SCHOOLS – For example, section 6 reads:

In reviewing proposals, conducting certification and re-certification, the board and department shall require virtual schools to adopt pedagogical strategies and curriculum, when possible and appropriate to student ability, which adopt the following policies: (1) reduce the time students spend before digital screens; (2) with remote learning, provide real-time access to the subject-area teacher during school hours or an option clear to the students for reaching subject-area teachers during school hours for help; (3) provide a weekly schedule for students or guardians to access teachers with a phone call or other  real-time in-person method comparable to after-school hours at traditional brick-and-mortar schools; (4) routinely include teacher-led virtual lessons in real time, rather than relying exclusively on EdTech programs; (5) utilize and favor curriculum and lessons the teacher has vetted, modified, and chosen or created in coordination with student needs and current events, rather than industrial, mass-produced, programmed, or otherwise scripted curriculum.  

HEARING INFO

• HEARING ONLINE – Spoken testimony on this bill starts at 1:03:54 – only 2 minutes time was allowed.
• WRITTEN TESTIMONY – Submit as soon as possible because committees must submit a complete report on this and other bills by 16 August 2025.
• Please submit written testimony to Fiona Bruce-Baiden at fiona.brucebaiden@mahouse.gov and  Emily Reynolds at emily.reynolds@masenate.gov, or to the Committee on Education at 24 Beacon Street, Room 473G, Boston, MA 02133. The Chairs request that those submitting written testimony include “EDUCATION COMMITTEE TESTIMONY” and the bill number IN THE SUBJECT LINE, and provide the committee with your name, organization, and phone number.   

All matters filed in the House that are listed above are required to be reported on August 16, 2025, subject to extensions consistent with House Rule 27.