Electric Vehicle (EV) Critique

 

 

 

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

 

Dear Secretary Marini:

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

PROPOSED ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) INFRASTRUCTURE

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

1. Financial support to provide:

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

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

RADIOFREQUENCY GUIDELINES LACK AUTHORITY

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

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

EVALUATE & LIMIT RADIOFREQUENCY EXPOSURES

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

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

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

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

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

HEALTH IMPACTS OF EV INFRASTRUCTURE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EV INFRASTRUCTURE

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

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

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

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

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

PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM EV INFRASTRUCTURE

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

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

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

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

RECONSIDER EV INVESTMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed 14 September 2021 by:

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

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

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

Laura Josephs
7 Conway Dr. #2
Greenfield MA 01301

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes:

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

Strong Revenues in Connecticut Boost $1.2 Billion Profit for Eversource

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.

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
    • encouraging wasteful spending, leaving little for useful purchase
    • promoting legislation or actions that distract or accomplish nothing or, worse, cause harm
    • lobbying for ideas and bills which drown out better options
    • sowing distrust
    • generating propaganda, like spreading truths among lies for confusion and argument
    • preventing alliances that could challenge the propaganda
    • co-opting movements, promoting only those willing to cooperate with a false leader

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 MA legislation page for some recommended bills.

 

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

Outcomes of past wireless health risk investigations have varied by state:

    • 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.

In New Hampshire, the lack of action may be due to the lack of participation on the committee by powerful groups such as unions – such inclusion would increase awareness and political pressure.

In sum, due to political pressures, an investigation bill with substantial political appointments or few powerful members is likely to have a less than gratifying outcome in most states.

To investigate or not to investigate?

The claim is that an investigation provides impetus for change, through education and publicity. Certainly, if grounded in sincerity, that is true.

Yet, technically, Massachusetts legislators have learned about this issue from testimony in public hearings and directly from constituents, and constituents can even easily access and share expert online presentations.

In Massachusetts, when environmental health issues have been at odds with economics, popular demand has pushed issues to the forefront and not legislative investigative commissions. Examples such as halting the gas pipeline, halting biomass facilities, quitting dangerous pesticide use, shutting down nuclear energy facilities demonstrate legislative action results from popular demands rather than legislative commissions.

Setting a new precedent where action requires a “commission” where legislators can become experts as educated by other experts I think is rather disingenuous. This precedent is a delaying tactic.

Passage of a bill generally takes two years in Massachusetts. This means focusing on an investigation bill could mean waiting two years for a commission, and more years for action on other bills. That delay could be used by industry to protect assets and otherwise limit justice, such as further degrading constituent power. Therefore, I advocate for more direct, concrete bills for change, such as listed under the MA Legislation page.

Adapting a Wireless Investigation Bill for Good Purpose

If choosing to adapt a wireless investigation bill, then there are several options to limit political pressure.

One option is to balance political appointees with independent, outside groups. Selection is critical! Outside groups with good reputation, fairly independent of the issue, should make the majority of the appointments to reduce politics or charges of prejudice.

Board members of the group and donation dependence needs to be vetted. Big organizations may have big donors that are a conflict of interest, and hierarchy may prevent the members from much say. The Audubon Society allows each state branch independence — so it depends on how each independent version is run. Money is influential even for ‘nonprofits’ and board members can change.

Other ideas to increase independence include limiting the connections of appointees to industry.

Below is one draft I worked on in 2020 which may be useful for comparison and ideas, especially on limiting conflicts of interest. Most commissions have 12 or fewer appointees, but this draft has a great number of appointees for consideration.

I never finished, and instead broke down the bill to focus on a commission for security and emergency services, as listed alongside bills on the MA legislation page. One reason is a smaller commission is easier to define. Secondly, I felt that was an issue on which research has not been synthesized, where education is needed, and where there is a greater balance of power is needed to counteract politics. Thirdly, police and security forces are treated with respect if only due to fear, and the union remains powerful. For this reason, I felt a commission to examine the impact of technology on emergency and security services could be useful and lead to positive changes.

DRAFT: An Electromagnetic (Wireless, Electricity) Investigation

Prepared by Kirstin Beatty (Beatty.fyi, co-chair of Last Tree Laws)
Updated version from 2 December 2020

SECTION 1. Whereas, other countries and some states have chosen to limit or ban certain exposures to wireless or electrical frequencies.

Whereas, reputable, peer-reviewed evidence shows wireless frequencies may cause or promote cancer, heart disease, and learning problems – such as research on cancer by the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

Whereas, peer-reviewed science associates certain types of electric exposures with cancer, infertility, and miscarriage.

Whereas, Massachusetts residents would benefit from a review of the science and potential solutions free of influence from corporate and political interests.

Whereas, the following investigative commission reduces political pressure by diversifying who appoints, restricting appointments by politicians, and setting limits on conflicts of interest.

SECTION 2. Resolved, Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, there shall be a special commission, hereafter called the commission, to research the impact of electromagnetic (EMR) radiation ranging from zero to 300 Ghz, with respect to consumer protection, public health, and the environment to determine, if detrimental, how to equitably allay environmental and health impacts.

(a) Commission objectives. The commission shall convene no later than 60 days following enactment in order to research and review non-industry-funded and peer-reviewed science regarding EMR, inviting comment from medical and scientific experts independent of industry.

If concerns are deemed warranted, the commission shall with respect to safer housing, utilities, business, public health, environment, and telecommunications:

(i) identify and review the current state laws, regulations, and administrative directives; (ii) identify the key sectors and regions that would best benefit from improved legislation, regulations, and administrative directives;
(iii) secondarily, as time allows, identify same at the federal level;
(iv) identify funding sources for recommendations;
(v) require the department of housing and economic development to submit reports to the legislature it obtains from cellular and cellular technology companies;
(vi) set a schedule, dividing into smaller committees as warranted to meet objectives; (vii) invite testimony from other experts as useful; and
(viii) may accept public testimony.

The commission shall submit a report of its findings, or a series of reports, including any draft legislation and regulations, to the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate within 16 months of the passage of this act.

(b) Transparency. The commission’s meetings and communications shall be recorded and subject to the Massachusetts open meeting laws so as to be transparent.

(c) Formation and resources.The Office of the Governor shall organize and support the commission arrangements. The chairperson or chairpersons shall with the commission members set a meeting schedule. Commission members shall elect a chair by majority vote, who may be replaced at any time upon majority vote. If the commission members break into smaller committees, the same process shall apply. Commission member attendance and expert testimony by videoteleconference or telephone shall be allowed.

The commission shall be assisted by and have access to all the resources available to the legislature and the executive branch in its investigations.

(d) The commission shall have the following composition:

(a) The Attorney General or designee;
(b) A nominee of the Massachusetts Teachers Association or Boston Teachers Union;
(c) A nominee of the Massachusetts School Nurse Association;
(c) One union member nominated by the Massachusetts AFL-CIO;
(d) One telecommunications worker representative nominated by the Communications Workers of America;
(e) One doctor nominated by the American Environmental Academy of Medicine;
(f) One scientist nominated by the Silent Spring Institute;
(g) One doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Medical Society, ideally with expertise in either cancer, neuroscience, or infertility;
(h) One scientist nominated by New England-based Community Action Works, formerly the Toxics Action Center;
(i) One pediatric doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics;
(j) One doctor nominated by the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility;
(k) One doctor or scientists nominated by the Environmental Health Trust [or Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition];
(l) One representative or lawyer nominated by the Massachusetts Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action;
(m) 2 representatives nominated by the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union;
(n) 2 nominees from the Institute of Building Biology & Sustainable IBN
(o) A representative of the State House selected by the Speaker of the House;
(p) A senator of the State Senate selected by the President of the Senate;
(q) A representative of small business appointed by the governor;
(r) 3 non-voting members appointed by governor:
Telecommunications representative;
Medical system representative;
Engineer in wireless networks;
(s) 4 non-voting commissioners, directors, or their designees for the following departments:
Public Health;
Telecommunications and Cable;
Technical Assistance and Technology Office;
Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation.

(e) Conflicts of interest. No member, except a non-voting member, or spouse of voting member of the Commission shall have a history involving current telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility industry clients or job dependency; nor shall any voting member have a current investment portfolio with conflicts of interest in the areas of energy, telecommunications, IT, or utilities. No voting member or spouse of a voting member of the Commission shall receive funding or a job from telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility sectors in the two years following the commission’s final report. All commission members must file a statement detailing any relevant conflicts of interest as specified, including activities in relation to immediate family and extended family members. Copies must be freely available for viewing by the public. These statements must be filed with the Secretary of State during the commission period and in the two years following closure of the commission.

Chairmanship, legislative and policy decisions for reports to the Commonwealth shall be decided by vote only of all members with voting status.

Only members deemed voting members may author commission reports. Any commission member deemed a non-voting member shall recuse himself or herself from any commission votes to decide or influence the commission reports, and shall instead serve only to assist the commission. Any nominee with conflicts of interest intended as a voting member shall recuse himself or herself from nomination, except insofar as the nominee’s job represents a conflict of interest, is specified in subsection (d), and the individual is not described as non-voting.

MASSACHUSETTS STATE LEGISLATION IN DRAFT FOR 2021

 

 

Federal wireless bills and 2 phone scripts

The wireless industry has federal bills to halt local community control over wireless infrastructure placement AND to end currently required environmental reviews.

Call or write to tell your house representative to stop these bills and why — be brief (see phone script below). Find your federal house representative here:

https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

or

https://www.govtrack.us/.

Also, call the following persons to say: “I object to wireless exposures based on health considerations and want federal investments in WIRED ONLY and the FCC commissioner set on WIRED communications.”

Here is a phone or email script:

I object to house legislation to limit local rights to contest deployment of wireless infrastructure, including to eliminate NEPA environmental review.

I ask you to remove Title I from the Lift America Act (HR 2741) to prevent the auction of further wireless spectrum; halt increasing 911 wireless power density; and stop funding of communication infrastructure that lacks consideration for safety.

I ask you to halt these 5G bills:

    • HR 1060,
    • 1069, and
    • 1074 [Slowly list so numbers can be written down].

I ask you oppose these bills for the same reasons:

    • HR 1039,
    • 1043,
    • 1045,
    • 1051,
    • 1053,
    • 1056,
    • 1058,
    • 1064, and
    • 1067 .

One last bill is simply to create broadband availability maps, but this could be improved by identifying the state of wired broadband and telecommunications availability. This bill is: HR 1044.

Related, I ask you to remove Title III of the Lift America Act (HR 2741), for similar safety reasons with respect to electric vehicle charging, and remove sections of Title IV to prevent further broadband or energy requirements with respect to on health information technology

Lastly, I ask that you support a commission of relevant, independent scientists, medical experts, and engineers to examine how to insure non-ionizing radiation exposures from electricity and communications are limited for public and environmental health.


LIST OF RELEVANT HOUSE BILLS (Find bills here)

    1. H.R. 1060: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to streamline siting processes for personal wireless service facilities, including small personal wireless service facilities, and for … other purposes.
    2. H.R. 1069: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that the Federal Communications Commission is not required to perform any review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, as a condition of permitting the placement and installation of a communications facility, and for other purposes.
    3. H.R. 1074: To provide that the deployment of a small personal wireless service facility shall not constitute an undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code, or a major Federal action for the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes.
    4. H.R. 1039: To provide that a project for the deployment or modification of a communications facility entirely within a floodplain is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    5. H.R. 1043: To provide that an eligible facilities request under section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews. [Note: https://wia.org/wp-content/uploads/Advocacy_Docs/6409a_Siting_Checklist.pdf]
    6. .R. 1045: To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to amend the definition of eligible facilities request, to codify the 60-day time frame for certain eligible facilities …
    7. H.R. 1051: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to streamline siting processes for telecommunications service facilities, and for other purposes.
    8. H.R. 1053: To provide that a project to remove and replace communications equipment or services listed under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    9. H.R. 1056: To provide that a project for the collocation of a personal wireless service facility is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    10. H.R. 1058: To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to amend the definition of eligible facilities request, to codify the 60-day time frame for certain eligible facilities, and for other purposes.
    11. H.R. 1064: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to amend provisions relating to franchise term and termination and provisions relating to the elimination or modification of requirements in franchises, and for other purposes.
    12. H.R. 1067: To streamline the process for consideration of applications for the placement of communications facilities on certain buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

The following bill is simply to create a map of broadband accessibility, which ought to be a neutral task.

  1. H.R. 1044: To create a task force at the Federal Communications Commission to ensure the policy and funding decisions of the Commission are informed by data collection and analysis required in title VIII of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.

Quick Call: Co-Sponsorship Requests!

There is a new list of bills Last Tree Laws will support, though not all will receive equal or full attention.

Please call your legislators to request support or cosponsorship – instructions below! Senators can cosponsor until public hearings. State representatives cannot cosponsor but getting support from them is very important for future votes!

Most legislators know of these issues, but if you need more info please see the Resources page. There are also posts on Facebook and I’m on Twitter to share relevant social media images occasionally.

Please tell me who you call and who listens or cosponsors.

~ Best, Kirstin

ACTION

Hi, my name is _________, and I am a constituent of ______ (name town).

I am calling to request that __________ cosponsor or support the bills supported by Last Tree Laws to limit wireless radiation. All bills are listed at LastTreeLaws.com, including a PDF listing.

These bills are the first step to begin hard-wiring the state and limiting our wireless exposures.

I would appreciate if you would confirm support or co-sponsorships. You can call me at ________.

Please understand this is very important! __[SAY WHY OR SAY THE FOLLOWING:]. The Federal Communications Commission is in court about the safety of its wireless exposure guidelines and likely to lose according to recent statements of the presiding judges. The LA public schools were just required by the CA Court of Appeals to provide disability accommodations for a teacher’s sensitivity to wireless. Clearly, there is something wrong with wireless.

Thank you for efforts!

New Hampshire Report Supports Restricting Wireless

New Hampshire Report Supports Restricting Wireless

By Kirstin Beatty on 31 October 2020

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to Medical Professionals for Electromagnetic Education

This has been updated as of 21 July 2021.

13 October 2020

Request to All Medical Professionals for Electromagnetic Education

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Kirstin Beatty

Co-chair of Last Tree Laws

Massachusetts ballot measure committee

 

Resources:

 

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

Support Attorney Healey’s Smart Grid Investigation

Support Attorney Healey’s Smart Grid Investigation

By Kirstin Beatty

 

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 appears ignored.

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.

 

5G Actions

Massachusetts – Actions:

This page needs some updating, so please also check the resource page for materials.

  • Social media:
    • Twitter – you can retweet from @BeattyKirstin, co-chair, and other advocates or organizations – we don’t have a LastTreeLaws account!
    • Check Facebook for helpful posts or links to share – we’re not so active but have some posts!
  • Letters to the editor such as to the following papers (choose one paper):
        • letters@tauntongazette.com
        • letters@heraldnews.com
        • submissions@thecantoncitizen.com
        • letter@globe.com
        • your local paper (most likely to publish your letter)
      • Contacting Medical Doctors:
        • Physicians for Safe Technology 5G Letter
  • News to Share:

 

 

 

 

Past Teleconferences:

29 August 2020 ~ 5G Strategies

1 August 2020, Saturday, 3 PM ~ How to Get Safer, Respectful Technology

      • Discussion of health and social impacts of technology & solutions. Led by Last Tree Laws co-chair Kirstin Beatty, a former teacher in Springfield public schools. This event is sponsored by the Springfield Cultural Council and therefore Springfield residents have priority seats. This is part of a grant titled “Safer Technology, Healthier Society.”

Lemmings for Bad Bills

Lemmings for Bad Bills

By Kirstin Beatty on 10 May 2020

~ Updated 21 July 2021

 

Please be careful and pay attention to what you support or sign. Don’t be a lemming!

These two bills are still in play IN 2021-2022 and still a problem:

  • H. 383 for a 5G Task Force > now H. 124 (2021-2)

    • This bill is to create ‘equity’ in 5G development – this is a misleading objective, equity, because:
      • 5G is an injustice to our health
      • Big business would have a big seat at the table
      • Municipalities & residents are fighting to stop 5G and failing because the industry, supported by the FCC, has too much weight.
  • S. 129 Resolution for Radiofrequency Disclosure > now S. 186 (2021-2)
  • Note: I heard from legislative staff that this bill, although sponsored by Senator Cyr, was sent to the department of health by the Joint Committee of Consumer Protection & Licensing and then rewritten as above.
  • Note 2: Although I’d rather the bill was just halted, I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET WITH SENATOR CYR TO FIX THIS BILL since proposed New Hampshire bill replacement text is problematic for Massachusetts.
  • This post discusses more issues with commissions, such as years of delay on action, and potential solutions if pushed forward.
    • This bill is for a commission to study impact of wireless harm, but looks like planning for industry bailout – of 11 members:
      • Governor Baker, with a dark money rap, controls all appointments.
      • 3 members depend on the wireless industry
      • 4 members are directly beholden to Baker, of which:
        • 2 work closely with IT and telecommunications
        • 1 works closely with business
        • 1 denied release of a fact sheet on reducing exposures created with the Massachusetts public health department
      • Of the remaining 4, nothing prevents conflicts of interest and every position could be filled by industry hacks
        • 2 positions as written could be filled by local industry hacks: the scientist and the “environmental” lawyer
      • The first item of business for the commission is to examine how the industry may be financially impacted if wireless is harmful!

Some of the bills submitted to the Massachusetts legislature on wireless may look good on the surface, but the devil is in the details as noted. The same can be true for requests for testimony – you must be sure to know what the bill actually represents before signing.

Advocates are going to support the bills most close to heart, but I find sometimes that advocates support problematic legislation without caveat.

In addition to the above bills, here are examples of 2019-2020 Massachusetts bills that need a little work to meet public needs:

      • The Best Management Practices bill H. 1874 > Now H. 115
        • For 2021, a constituent and I contacted Representative Dykema and discussed all the issues below and she did not want to change the install wireless phrasing, and in fact nearly did not submit the bill as she did not have the interest. Yet, she has several sponsors for the bill and an actual bill to hard wire, H. 105, has only Rep. Patricia Duffy and I as sponsors. I find this a mistake on the part of advocates who apparently don’t understand that Rep. Patricia Duffy is willing to do more and deserves support.
        • Marketed as a solution for harm from school wireless, but phrasing was to install wireless and use “best practices.”
          • In real life, asking individual teachers and students to turn wireless on and off is impractical.
          • The education department under Governor Baker has been closely tied to technology interests and may not be the best for developing “best practices.”
          • This bill offers a small step but needs improvement – in the 2019-2020 session, H. 587 does better at effecting changes – but with tweaks, both might work well together.
          • In the previous 2017-18 session, Dr. Devra Davis offered support for the best management bill and my bill criminalizing wireless.
      • The Commission to Study Power Frequencies bill 1956 > Now H. 2351
        • 2021 – As a sign that legislators do not read emails, this bill has been regularly submitted each legislative session without any changes to the criticisms below. Before this session, I asked a constituent who knew Representative Linsky to catch him and discuss these issues, as well as sponsor bills, but have the sense that never happened as there are not any changes or sponsorships. True, this session the time frame for sponsorships was odd due to Covid19 but it is disappointing.
        • Independence of the commission needs to be examined as the American Cancer Society is known to have serious conflicts of interest. The Environmental League of Massachusetts is also of concern due to working closely with a corporate council and other reasons (see the MA legislation page).

Legislators barely have time to examine or alter bills, and to support these bills or support them without caveat is a disaster. H. 383 is in fact to directly promote 5G – how can this help without a miracle?

I’ve heard advocacy for the above problem bills without any discrimination, despite my critiques or warnings. Looking at the templates offered by advocates in support of some of these bills, criticism and details about bills are absent. When I prepare testimony for others to sign, I make very clear what the testimony supports in fairness to signatories and legislators.

By focusing on problem bills, we waste our efforts on fixing those bills as legislators rarely have the staff and time to do so, especially given the number of bills to review. Instead, a simple bill to hard-wire buildings should get full support, and this could move forward even just on a internet security and speed basis, without mention of health, while leading to real change.

I believe legislation and critical analysis posted here at Last Tree Laws is helpful, as well as the original legislation I’ve written. Current 2021-2022 examples of positive legislation are posted at MA legislation and need lobbying in support. Some examples submitted in MA for 2019-2020 include:

        • S. 294 An Act Limiting School Screen Time – to allow schools to opt out of mandated technology use in every classroom;
        • S. 295 and H. 588 – bills which protect student and staff privacy and support a more thorough education about technology risks.
        • S. 1271 – Educating patients on environmental health risks – initially conceived in 2015 and submitted then as SD. 2256.
        • In fact, I did put forward a bill to require release of a fact sheet on wireless and other electromagnetic radiation – that flew under the radar and is another story . . .
        • Etc. . . .

Your subscription and any help matters.

Note: To read about the specific problems with the bills listed, please visit the MA Legislation page.