Safer Utilities Amendment


Scroll down for sample amendments to limit the smart grid.

Why? As far back as 2014, warnings were filed with the DPU that people were getting very sick from the ‘smart’ grid – such as Dr. Robert Pontius Gilmore who was one of four members appointed by Clark University to examine the technologies; Dr. William Rea, MD; physicist Dr. William Bruno; BLEC; MACI — alongside sad stories from residents. But the DPU has refused to bend, mandating the grid and current bill H. 3309 includes a provision to mandate the ‘smart’ grid across the state and require ratepayers cover all costs.

We need to stop, even if money is to be made by a few and even if there are federal grants. The modern utility grid is a liability risk due to danger: wireless emissions, power quality, fire hazards, cybersecurity, etc. Cybersecurity is getting harder to control, so electromechanical operation is safer. Ukraine lost control of its grid once thanks to a Russian cyberattack. If the same happened in the USA, our grid could be down for a year not only because of labor, but because we would lack parts. Denial exists because the grid is a cash cow, and the utilities use ratepayer funds to market the mess as green.

Below is a sample amendment for H. 3309. This is not the only possibility, but a start.


I. Require healthy, hardened, safe infrastructure and end ‘smart’ grid mandate

[Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill H. 3309 by striking out “advanced metering infrastructure” in line 11 and inserting in place thereof the following new text:-

“safe, reliable, cybersecure, hardened, climate-change ready infrastructure of good power quality and minimal electromagnetic emissions”

[Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill H. 3309 by striking out “submit a plan for implementation of advanced metering infrastructure” in line 32 to 33 and inserting in place thereof the following new text:-

“submit a plan for implementation of safe, reliable, cybersecure, hardened, climate-change ready infrastructure that provides ratepayers good power quality of minimal electromagnetic emissions at reasonable cost”

[Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill H. 3309 by striking out “advanced metering” in line 49 and inserting in place thereof the following new text:-

“safe, reliable”

Protect privacy and remove strange transfer of all ‘detailed’ customer data to new energy supplier:

[Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill H. 3309 by striking out “access to detailed” in line 32 and inserting in place thereof the following new text:-

“access only to necessary”

[Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill H. 3309 by adding the following paragraph:-

“i. Distribution, utility, and non-utility companies and associated entities, including providers of software and other equipment, shall collect and share only the minimum of data necessary to supply and improve services and shall not sell or transfer data for any other purpose, except in the case of a court-ordered warrant for a specific individual.”

Eliminate fees for opting out of the ‘smart’ or AMI grid

[Mr.] [Ms.] moves to amend the bill H. 3309 by striking out “charge such a customer any reasonable and necessary fees for delivering non-advanced metering service” in lines 18 to 19 and inserting in place thereof the following new text:-

“shall not charge the customer a fee”


Wired Broadband – Amendments


Even if you set aside thousands of studies showing wireless harms wildlife, wireless is a known security risk. We need legislators, in the very brief time available now, to propose the below amendments to wire broadband and telecommunications in nursing homes, soldier’s homes, schools, colleges, etc.

Any or all of these amendments could be proposed to any bill — please contact us at elm ( if doing so.



Section 6B of Chapter 40J of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking ‘”Broadband”, high-speed internet access, including wireless internet access, and as may be further defined by the board’ and inserting thereof the following:-

“”Broadband”, only hard-wired and non-powerline internet access of a speed geographically appropriate to actual residential, government, and, where deemed beneficial to the Commonwealth including local interests, to commercial needs”

Section 6B subsection (d) of Chapter 40J of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking ”This broadband infrastructure shall include, but not be limited to, conduit, fiber and towers” and inserting thereof the following:-

“The broadband infrastructure investments shall include conduit and fiber, but shall not include wireless components except and exclusively for necessary emergency services of first responders”

Section 6B subsection (e) of Chapter 40J of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking ‘Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the corporation shall have the power to develop, lease or otherwise acquire, own, hold, dispose of and encumber conduit, fiber, towers and other real and personal property related to broadband infrastructure that shall be necessary or convenient to the fulfillment of such purposes.’ and inserting thereof the following:-

“Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the corporation shall have the power to develop, lease or otherwise acquire, own, hold, dispose of and encumber conduit, fiber, and other real and personal property related to broadband infrastructure that shall be necessary or convenient to the fulfillment of such purposes, with the caveat investments shall not be made in wireless properties or equipment except as necessary for emergency services by first responders, and if other wireless investments exist these shall be disposed of promptly through sale or through reconfiguration as wired property.”


Section 6B subsection (a) of Chapter 40J of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after the last sentence the following sentence:

”Safe broadband access”, broadband access which minimizes security risks and non-ionizing radiation, the latter through hard-wired connectivity using equipment with minimal leakage and with filtering to prevent any power quality disturbance.

Section 6B of Chapter 40J of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking the last sentence of subsection (b) “The first priority of the institute shall be to assess and improve conditions in the commonwealth’s communities that have no broadband access.” and inserting thereof the following:

“The first priority of the institute shall be to assess and improve safe broadband access, beginning in the commonwealth’s communities that lack or have little access.”

Section 6B subsection (b) of Chapter 40J of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking clause (i) “(i) assessing and improving broadband access conditions in communities that have no access or have limited or insufficient access to broadband;” and inserting thereof the following:-

“(i) assessing and improving safe broadband access conditions, beginning in communities that lack or have limited access to safe broadband;

Section 6B subsection (b) of Chapter 40J of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after the second word in clause (ii) the following word:-



Section 3 of Chapter 23A of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking the first sentence of subsection (a) “MOBD shall contain the following 4 divisions: business services, entrepreneurial and small business development, wireless and broadband development and manufacturing development.” and inserting in place the following subsection:-

“MOBD shall contain the following 4 divisions: business services, entrepreneurial and small business development, wired telecommunications and broadband development, and manufacturing development.”

Section 3 of Chapter 23A of the General Laws is hereby amended by replacing “wireless” in every instance occurring and inserting in place the following word:-

“wired, non-powerline”

Section 3 of Chapter 23A of the General Laws is hereby amended by replacing “cellular” in every instance occurring and inserting in place the following word:-


Section 3 of Chapter 23A of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking the words “, including, but not limited to, wireless technologies” in paragraph (12) of subsection (b).


Section 63 of Chapter 23A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after the first sentence of subsection (b) the following sentence:-

“Broadband and telecommunications eligible public infrastructure projects authorized by clause (i) of subsection (a) located on public land or on public leasehold, right-of-way or easement must minimize non-ionizing radiation by design, including but not limited to non-powerline wired transmissions and careful choice of connectors.”


Section 19G of Chapter 78 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after the first sentence the following sentence:-

“The board of library commissioners shall, subject to appropriation, also establish and administer a program of state assistance to cities and towns in the planning, design, construction and reconstruction of safer wired, non-powerline broadband and telecommunications services to be used by public library staff and patrons.”


Section 2 of Chapter 7D of the General Laws as appearing in the Official
2021 Edition is hereby amended by inserting after the second sentence the following sentence:-

“The executive office of information technology and security shall recommend and support throughout all executive offices and agencies safer broadband access, choosing hard-wired non-powerline connectivity, power quality filtration, and connectors and other equipment with minimal leakage of non-ionizing radiation.”

Section 3 of Chapter 7D of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking clause (xii) “(xii) adapt standards as necessary for individual agencies to comply with federal law; and” and inserting in place the following:-

“(xii) adapt standards as necessary for individual agencies to comply with state and federal law; and”


Chapter 15A of the General Laws as appearing in the Official 2021 Edition is amended by striking section 3A and inserting in place the following section:-

“Section 3A. (a) The secretary of education shall with the relevant boards, departments, administrators and agencies coordinate a plan to safely hard-wire public education facilities and support safer use of technology. The plan shall be referred to as safer edTech, or SET, and incorporate the following goals:

(1) establishing a hard-wired, non-powerline telecommunications and broadband system with minimal electromagnetic emissions within public schools, colleges, and university campuses;

(2) facilitating implementation of statewide training and educational materials for educators, relevant staff and administrators to clarify relevant laws, duties, and best technology practices for privacy and health;

(3) facilitating rapid adoption of interim best technology practices for privacy and health;

(4) facilitating the revision of statewide educational technology and data collection requirements in elementary, secondary, and higher education to foster health and privacy and minimize risks; and

(5) identifying relevant state and federal laws which interfere with best practices for privacy and health, including questionable requirements for technology use.

(b) For the purposes of this section, SET shall be broadly construed to include, but not be limited to, programs, courses, and capital expenditures including computer hardware and software, networks, television, fiber optics cable, calculators and video and audio tapes.

(c) Subject to appropriation, SET funds may provide grants to public universities, colleges, schools and school districts for the purposes of purchasing the equipment and other materials necessary for SET implementation. The secretary and the board of elementary and secondary education along with the board of higher education may establish such advisory groups or committees as deemed necessary for SET development and implementation, and shall insure members are independent of conflicts of interest regarding data collection, wireless connectivity, technology sales and other financial gain.

(d) The commissioner shall annually provide to the legislature a report on the status, progress, and financial needs of SET.”


Section 26 of Chapter 7D of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting a new subsection (p) and re-lettering the previous subsection (p) as (q) as follows:-

“(p) to require new housing projects include reliable hard-wired, non-powerline broadband and telecommunications access designed to minimize electromagnetic exposures and loss of service; set policies to limit electromagnetic exposures in existing housing from all equipment and appliances; and where existing housing projects lack reliable and hard-wired access, support reconfiguration; and



Chapter 111 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 72BB the following new section:-

“Section 72CC. (a) Each convalescent and nursing home, infirmary maintained in towns, rest home, charitable home for the aged, and intermediate care facility for the intellectually disabled shall limit electromagnetic exposures by safely hard-wiring broadband and telecommunications services, without the use of powerline connectivity, and by establishing policies to limit exposures from other sources.

(b) The department shall facilitate staff and administrative training and educational materials to support the provisions of this section.

(c) The department shall promulgate regulations under this section and may allow in such regulations extensions of time for certain homes and long-term care facilities which the department shall find to be in hardship if the provisions of this section are implemented forthwith.”

Section 72D of Chapter 111 of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking the first sentence and replacing it as follows:-

“Every nursing home, rest home, and long-term care facility shall provide hard-wired non-powerline telephone access for the use of the residents.”


Chapter 12C, as appearing in the General Laws of the 2021 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding after section 14 the following section:-

Section 14A. (a) Irrespective of all other recommendations for a standard quality measure set as listed in section 14 of this chapter, with regard to every health care provider facility, medical group, and provider group the following shall be required state-wide assessments as part of the standard quality control sets.

(1) Safely hard-wire broadband and telecommunications services, without the use of powerline connectivity, to minimize electromagnetic exposures;

(2) Choose equipment, including connectors and filters, to minimize power quality disturbances and leakage of electromagnetic frequencies;

(3) Minimize use of medical devices and equipment which lead to radiation exposures when optional or accessory to the medical purpose;

(4) Set facility-wide policies and signage for adoption of best practices to reduce radiation exposures;

(5) Promote access to natural lighting and, where artificial lighting and computer screens are used, prefer lighting options least disruptive to circadian rhythms.

(b) The department shall promulgate regulations under this section and may allow in such regulations extensions of time for facilities which the department shall find to be in hardship if the provisions of this section are implemented forthwith.”


Chapter 115A is hereby amended by adding the following section:-

“The office of veterans’ homes and housing and also the trustees of Soldier’s Homes in Holyoke and in Massachusetts shall establish policies, recommendations and regulations to limit artificial electromagnetic exposures of a non-medical nature.

Minimum requirements shall include safely hard-wiring, without the use of powerline connectivity, telecommunications and broadband services; using filters and careful purchases to avoid power quality disturbances and wireless transmissions including leakage; and establishing policies to limit exposures from all other sources.”

Safe MA Broadband & Electric

The following was written testimony provided, additional to spoken testimony. Please call in support!

Massachusetts needs to insure modern electricity and communications are safe.


Substantial evidence exists in the research record that radiofrequency emissions from electricity and wireless communications cause biological changes such as increased oxidation (ROS) leading to downstream effects including calcium release, mitochondrial, DNA, and neuronal damage.

Effects are found from exposures from wireless and near electricity. The FCC even recognized in [Order 19-126], which denied biological effects and was just overturned by court order, that electric fields can cause instant “neural stimulation effects” unrelated to heating and that current guidelines fail to provide protection (328).


Epidemiological studies of human subjects and animal studies bear out that these exposures lead to disease, pain, and behavioral changes. In California, a 5-year 2G antenna installation on a fire station led to cognitive impairment, headache, insomnia, irritability, depression, and edginess, which led to a brain scan of fire fighters confirming brain abnormalities. This study resulted in a California ban upon fire station antennas. The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has a lengthy policy statement opposing antenna installations on or near fire stations, listing as objection potential central nervous system, immune system, and metabolic disorders.

Although tied to poor health and judgment, wireless transmitters are often on top of hospitals, fire and police stations. New products and communications infrastructure continue to be developed for first responders without regard to reducing exposures to wireless or fields from electricity.

[H.114] An Act studying technology impacts on police, firefighters, and emergency and security personnel attempts to rectify this problem through a commission including first responders to examine health and societal impacts.


A review commissioned by the German government of 878 Russian studies conducted from the 1960 through 1997 based on thousands of Russian workers in electric utilities and radio stations, who had to be verified as healthy to apply and have at least one heath check per year by an industrial hygienist and occupational health care professional. Exposures were only during the day from 2 to 8 hours. Initially the body may even positively adapt, but symptoms after 5 years exposure included sleep disorders, impaired memory, hyperactivity of the thyroid, fatigue, heightened stress response (excitability), digestive complaints, weakened immunity, cardiovascular and EEG changes. After 10 years, symptoms worsen and were classified firmly as a disease with physical and mental decline.

Studies continue to show chronic exposure induce behavioral changes including anxiety, irritation, depression, paranoia, hostility, and edginess, as well as trouble with concentration, memory, and learning. These behavioral changes are supported by research demonstrating often clearly pathological shifts in thyroid hormones, cortisol, testosterone, enzymes, reactive oxygen species (ROS), EEG, down- or up-regulation of processes, cells, DNA, blood-brain barrier, and mitochondria. In some instances, changes may be hereditary, such as to DNA or mitochondria, or cause nausea, such as ROS oxidation, or lead to early and intense onset of disease.

[H.108 An Act supporting patients and residents suffering from environmental pollutants and modern technologies, e.g. wireless is necessary to insure medical training and guide patients towards safer technology.


Mental illness is rising faster among young adults age 18 to 25 than among adults – mental illness rates were 19% in 2008 and 26% by 2018 (according to the National Institute for Health Care Management) — a fourth of young adults with mental illness before the pandemic.

From 2001 through 2004, 1 in 3 teens had an anxiety disorder.

Numerous academics have linked the sudden rise in adolescent mental distress, learning trouble, and social problems to the rise in digital media use, often blaming the addictive, anti-social nature and negative messaging of modern technology. Given that exposures to wireless and constant proximity to electrical devices is new and constant for youth, and given that science has found profound biochemical changes from these exposures, these exposures must be a major contributing factor to mental illness.

Children and smaller youth absorb more radiation and are growing, and thus suffer from greater effect including feeling unwell. The research literature additionally reports headaches, nausea, dizziness increase with dose response.

We need to limit youth screen time and support to [H.106], An Act regulating screen time in early and K-12 education, since health impacts occur not only from wireless, but from fields near electricity.

Two bills are proposed to limit school wireless and electrical exposures. H. 105 is the better choice.

H. 115, An Act relative to best management practices for wireless in schools and public institutions of higher education, HAS 4 PROBLEMS:

1. One, as it states guidance is “for the purchase and installation of wireless internet service” **H. 115 continues wireless**.
2. Two, the bill is only about internet service, although cellphones, burglar alarms, and other sources of exposures exist.
3. Three, the bill proposes a top-down review of best practices, which is far too easy for industry to influence and is a delay.
4. Four, the bill does not make clear whether local communities will be allowed or encouraged to adopt guidelines and practices safer than that proposed.

[H.105], An Act reducing non-ionizing radiation such as wireless from early to higher education, is a better choice.

* One, H. 105 **requires that every public school and university reduce exposures as within its means, thus immediately requiring local action**.
* Two, public records of progress are required and subject to review, insuring attention.
* Three, it prioritizes hard-wired broadband.
* Four, it requires that any antenna in operation be set to minimum power density.
* Five, boards and departments are also to review how to reduce exposures, but only with experts independent of industry.
* Six, early education is included in the review.
* Seven, it **prohibits further construction of cell towers** on public education grounds.
* Eight, it adds student environmental health to the mission of the education department.

Because data collection interests are another pressure advancing technology marketing, bills which protect privacy should also be supported, such as ***[H.107](  An Act regulating privacy and technology in education*** and Senator Mark Montigny’s ***[S.220](  An Act to protect personal biometric data***.


Even if Massachusetts invests in hard-wired communications, fiberoptic can still be used to install wireless infrastructure. Video-streaming, which is not an FCC mandate, appears to be driving demand.

The Commonwealth must quickly ban all close proximity and 5G installations, due to public harm from intense exposures, and must begin to roll back all other wireless communications excepting that needed by First Responders.

The recent DC federal court decision finding the FCC guidelines provides strong grounds to challenge any federal mandate. Regardless, the Commonwealth must take a stand, just as it did with marijuana. ***[H.110](  An Act halting 5G high frequencies and close proximity antennas ***begins this process, requiring full and public disclosure of antenna ownership and location.

Section 4 allows that a lessee of property to a mobile services provider may break the contract, since such installations are harmful.

***[H.113](  An Act requiring wireless insurance*** insures wireless providers carry quality insurance or place funds in escrow. Insurance providers have an incentive for quality control, although none seem to offer wireless insurance. Lawyers report that wireless providers use variations of the corporation name, such as Verizon, to insure risks are held by a corporation without assets, and that further the insurance agreements are weak or nonexistent.

Requiring wireless insurance is an act that would deter dangerous installations.


***[H.112] An Act hard-wiring state offices and investing in hard-wired communications:***

* Requires the Massachusetts educational commissioner to develop a plan to hard-wire educational institutions.
* Prohibits construction of wireless facilities near playgrounds.
* Allows the Board of Library Commissioners to provide libraries grants to reduce exposures.
* Revises existing law to require only wired investments or use of wired broadband by:
1. Massworks, the Massachusetts Broadband Institute, the executive office of information technology, the director of wireless & telecommunications.
* Where relevant, privacy, reliability, security, and affordability are also added to safety as goals, the latter prioritized.
* Section 11 requires an annual public audit by the department of all common carriers, which includes all utilities.

Section 11 is of particular interest because telecommunication companies have been rigging accounts to pay for wireless with funds intended for wired services. This has led to the deterioration of or lack of investment in wired services. A decision by the DC circuit means states are free to go over and recover those funds (Irregulators v. FCC). New York has had a public audit and, as a result, the rigged accounts were discovered.

Safe and worthwhile communications needs to be identified. The proposal for the Massachusetts Broadband is meant to help redirect the Commonwealth, although more needs to be done.


While fixing wireless seems as simple as using wires, fixing the problem with electricity is more complex. Our digital and energy-saving devices do not use 60 hertz electricity. Converting these connections to 60 hertz is not a clean process, for it results in many other frequencies being added to the electrical lines. Harmonics such as 120 hertz and other frequencies end up riding upon the electrical lines along with frequency surges. Utilities are supposed to only have 60 hertz on the electrical lines and, if so, this is called *good power quality*. In contrast, *poor power quality* leaks energy, damages electronics, and harms human health.

Fields from electrical lines extend about 5 feet from wiring, and in the last 2 decades have become increasingly contaminated thanks to utility and manufacturing negligence. The increases in pulses, surges, frequencies, and field strength in modern electricity must be reversed. Presently, utilities have only shown an interest in fixing power quality for businesses with sensitive electronic equipment, such as in hospitals.

An additional problem results when too much electricity runs along utility wires. A solution would be to build more infrastructure to carry it, but often instead the extra electricity runs down the pole into the ground to create what is called ground current. This is harmful, especially if there is lightning which could cause electrocution. The failure of utilities to address the ground current and power quality problems is rooted in the desire to save money, but at what cost?


[H.111] An Act requiring better power quality and reduced radiation from utility infrastructure sets a safety standard for utilities based on guidance of the Building Biology Institute and recommendations of research scientist Dr. Neil Cherry [(d)2], requires utility providers remedy problems and keep public records of inspections, and allows the attorney general to enforce provisions. In addition, the bill protects privacy by limiting utility providers right to collect data only to that necessary for utility operations.


[H.109] An Act improving non-ionizing radiation regulation and monitoring provides for inspectors to check the safety of utility electricity and monitor wireless exposures. It renames the Massachusetts radiation department an agency (which is not necessary), and sets duties including:

* maintain a registry of non-ionizing radiation specialists and hiring several to provide monitoring, advice, and complete other duties;
* hire 5 non-ionizing radiation specialists to assist residents, provide, state and municipal advice, and for other duties;
* set regulations and warnings based on exposures;
* license and register products based on emissions, and allowing product certifications based on the Building Biology guidelines;
* allow any citizen to hire a licensed technical expert to measure exposures on *qui tam basis* and to bring a case for personal injury before an administrative court;
* provide that the administrative court tribunal includes a judge, a non-ionizing radiation specialist, and a member of the jury;
* prepare an emergency plan for non-ionizing radiation (e.g. an EMP or hacking event which strengthens transmissions intensely); and
* creating a searchable antenna database requiring registration of ownership.


***Please HALT [H.124] An Act relative to a 5G technology task force promotes 5G.*** This bill was pushed through last session mistakenly by an advocate who told others the bill was helpful or could be fixed by the sponsor. Just like session, the bill promotes 5G and is at odds with technology safety.

***Please be careful with [H.143] An Act internet access on private ways.*** This bill allows abutting property owners with right of ingress or egress the right to install ‘internet’ which could very well include powerful antennas placed by utilities. The changes also appear to say internet service is a utility.

Thank you.


* FCC Order 19-126, page 328 “neural” effects:
* Court order overturning FCC decision in 19-226 to reconsider exposure guidelines based on science:
* International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) cell tower policy statement:
* Russian studies: Visit and click English brochures and scroll down to Dr. Karl Hecht’s summary of elektrosmog health implications
* Biochemical shifts: Visit Physicians for Safe Technology for relevant research – examples include:
* **Frequent cellular phone use modifies hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis response to a cellular phone call after mental stress in healthy children and adolescents: A pilot study.** *Sci Total Environ*. 2015;536:182-188.
* **How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?** *Clin Biochem*. 2012;45(1-2):157-161. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2011.11.006
* **Effects of exposure to GSM mobile phone base station signals on salivary cortisol, alpha-amylase, and immunoglobulin A.** *Biomed Environ Sci*. 2010;23(3):199-207. doi:10.1016/S0895-3988(10)60053-0
* **8-oxoG DNA glycosylase-1 inhibition sensitizes Neuro-2a cells to oxidative DNA base damage induced by 900 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.** *Cell Physiol Biochem*. 2015;37(3):1075-1088. doi:10.1159/000430233
* **Effect of 900 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation on the Induction of ROS in Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells.** *J Biomed Phys Eng*. 2015;5(3):105-114. Published 2015 Sep 1.
* Parmar K, Tandon R, Kumar N, Garg RK. **Variations in electroencephalography with mobile phone usage in medical students.** *Neurol India*. 2019;67(1):235-241. doi:10.4103/0028-3886.253610
* **Nonthermal GSM RF and ELF EMF effects upon rat BBB permeability. (2011)** Nittby H et al. (2011) The Environmentalist. **31**, pages140–148(2011) [  ](    <>
* **Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on neuronal differentiation and mitochondrial function in SH-SY5Y cells.** *Toxicol In Vitro*. 2019;61:104609. doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2019.104609
* **2450 MHz EMR exposure causes cognition deficit with mitochondrial dysfunction & activation of intrinsic pathway of apoptosis in rats.** (2018) Gupta SK et al. J Biosciences. June 2018, Vol 43, pg 263. <>
* Prenatal studies (the harshest time for exposure): Visit Physicians for Safe Technology at – studies include the following:
* **Maternal exposure to a continuous 900-MHz electromagnetic field provokes neuronal loss and pathological changes in cerebellum of 32-day-old female rat offspring.  (2016)** Odacı E. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Sep;75(Pt B):105-10. <>
* **Effects of prenatal exposure to WIFI signal (2.45GHz) on postnatal development and and behavior in rat: Influence of maternal restraint**. Othman H et al. **(2017)** [Behav Brain Res.]( Mar 10;326:291-302. <>
* **Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study. (2017)** Li et al. Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 13;7(1):17541. <>
* **Maternal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy in relation to the risk of asthma in offspring. (2011)** [Li DK](, [Chen H](, [Odouli R]( [Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.]( Oct;165(10):945-50. <>
* **Prenatal and early postnatal exposure to radiofrequency waves (900 MHz) adversely affects passive avoidance learning and memory.** *Toxicol Ind Health*. 2020;36(12):1024-1030. doi:10.1177/0748233720973143
* R. D. Morris, L. L. Morgan and D. Davis. **Children Absorb Higher Doses of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation From Mobile Phones Than Adults.** *IEEE Access*, vol. 3, pp. 2379-2387, 2015, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2478701.
* Studies on behavior, memory, and learning: Please visit Physicians for Safe Technology at – studies include:
* **The effect of chronic exposure to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on sleep quality, stress, depression  and anxiety.** *Electromagn Biol Med*. 2019;38(1):96-101. doi:10.1080/15368378.2018.1545665
* **Mobile Phone Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings: Impact on Students’ Cognitive Health**. Meo SA et al. American Journal of Men’s Health. December 7, 2018. <>
* **Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children.  (2012) Divan HA et al**. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Jun;66(6):524-9. <>
* **Chronic exposure to ELF fields may induce depression. (1988)** Wilson BW. Bioelectromagnetics. 1988;9(2):195-205. <>
* Review of numerous studies indicating behavioral changes including hostility and paranoia:
* **Microwave frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMF’s) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression.** (2015)  Pall. M.  Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. Aug 21, 2015. <>
* National Institute for Health Care Management graphic: — selected relevant citations:
* SAMHSA, 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Table 10.1B – Any Mental Illness in Past Year among Persons Aged 18 or Older, by Demographic Characteristics: Percentages, 2008-2018
* “Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication,” Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2005
* U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Mental Health. (2017). Any Anxiety Disorder.
* Screen time research:
* **Age, Period, and Cohort Trends in Mood Disorder and Suicide-Related Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Dataset, 2005-2017**, by Jean Twenge, PhD, San Diego State University; Thomas Joiner, PhD, and Mary Duffy, BA, Florida State University; Bell Cooper, PhD, Lynn University; and Sara Binau, Pomona College. *Journal of Abnormal Psychology*, published online March 14, 2019.
* Feeling Unwell:
* **Mobile phone use, school electromagnetic field levels and related symptoms: a cross-sectional survey among 2150 high school students in Izmir.** *Environ Health*. 2017;16(1):51. Published 2017 Jun 2. doi:10.1186/s12940-017-0257-x
* **Mobile Phone Base Stations Health Effects** [ Shahab A. Alazawi](”Shahab A. Alazawi”) *[Diyala Journal of Medicine ](*[2011, Volume 1, Issue 1](, Pages 44-52
* First Responders:
* A copy of **Barrie Trower’s police report** is available at – clear explanation
* Huang LY, Hu HY, Wang ZT, et al. **Association of Occupational Factors and Dementia or Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.** *J Alzheimers Dis*. 2020;78(1):217-227. doi:10.3233/JAD-200605
* Schulte PA, Burnett CA, Boeniger MF, Johnson J. **Neurodegenerative diseases: occupational occurrence and potential risk factors, 1982 through 1991**. *Am J Public Health*. 1996;86(9):1281-1288. doi:10.2105/ajph.86.9.1281
* Baste V, Moen BE, Oftedal G, Strand LA, Bjørge L, Mild KH. **Pregnancy outcomes after paternal radiofrequency field exposure aboard fast patrol boats**. *J Occup Environ Med*. 2012;54(4):431-438. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182445003
* Mjøen G, Saetre DO, Lie RT, et al. **Paternal occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.** *Eur J Epidemiol*. 2006;21(7):529-535. doi:10.1007/s10654-006-9030-0
* Hardell L, Carlberg M. **Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden**, 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. *Pathophysiology*. 2015;22(1):1-13. doi:10.1016/j.pathophys.2014.10.001
* Peleg M, Nativ O, Richter ED. **Radio frequency radiation-related cancer: assessing causation in the occupational/military setting.** *Environ Res*. 2018;163:123-133. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.003
* Richter E, Berman T, Ben-Michael E, Laster R, Westin JB. **Cancer in radar technicians exposed to radiofrequency/microwave radiation: sentinel episodes**. *Int J Occup Environ Health*. 2000;6(3):187-193. doi:10.1179/oeh.2000.6.3.187
* Summary of measured radiofrequency electric and magnetic fields (10 kHz to 30 GHz) in the general and work environment
* Finkelstein MM. **Cancer incidence among Ontario police officers.** *Am J Ind Med*. 1998;34(2):157-162. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199808)34:2<157::aid-ajim8>;2-u
* Davis RL, Mostofi FK. **Cluster of testicular cancer in police officers exposed to hand-held radar.** *Am J Ind Med*. 1993;24(2):231-233. doi:10.1002/ajim.4700240209
* Theisen K, Slater R, Hale N. **Taser-Related Testicular Trauma.** *Urology*. 2016;88:e5. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.11.011
* Mehl LE. **Electrical injury from Tasering and miscarriage.** *Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand*. 1992;71(2):118-123. doi:10.3109/00016349209007967
* Ground current: [\\\~bruno](\~bruno/MultiGroundedNeutralFinal_4-17-7.pdf)
* 5G: An Open Letter to Medical Professionals Advocating for Safer Technology for Societal Health (January 1, 2020) Endorsed by Physicians for Safe Technology
* [/MultiGroundedNeutralFinal_4-17-7.pdf](\~bruno/MultiGroundedNeutralFinal_4-17-7.pdf) or <>

Recorded hearing with Kirstin speaking at c. 30:44. The hearing was on many other bill topics, but several people spoke in support of these bills, such as at 2:43:54 (a teacher) 2:59:57 (a mother, daughter, and legislator) and 54:34 (a doctor).

SIGN to End MA School Screen Time Mandate

The following letter was provided to legislators in a hearing. Please call in support before the February 2, 2022, deadline!

Through grade 12, our state standards require public school students utilize technology in nearly every subject in addition to media and computer science digital requirements.

Massachusetts has a Pre-K educational writing standard requiring pre-kindergarteners use digital tools to convey messages. Why demand technology use in Pre-K when students can barely spell?

Doctors even report early technology use is interfering with motor skills and the ability to hold a pencil.

A Stanford study reports 1 in 8 adults report difficulty remaining offline, showing compulsive attachment to cyberspace such as with chat rooms, blog entries, emails, etc. If adults have trouble, why are we habituating preschoolers?

Providing technology education makes sense if circumscribed to be age appropriate and taught in specialized courses on computer programming and useful software. However, cross-curriculum mandates and performance reviews on the basis of “innovative” or chronic use of technology take time away from other subject matter and undermine sensible technology programming and reasonable limits.

Two types of technology are entering our schools, one that replaces traditional learning with virtual education, and another that simply adds technology tools.

Limits are needed on all technology to protect students from problems attached to excessive technology use, such as addiction, obesity, depression,  cyber-bullying, marketing, and loss of privacy.

Limits are needed because virtual education is already highly attractive to communities because it can be cheap, well marketed, and effort and accountability can be outsourced. Accountability pressures are intense, including requirements for data and tying daily curriculum to hundreds of specific educational standards. Outside financial interests, including in data collection, mean that grants are provided with harmful strings (often to encourage more technology).

Programmed virtual education often lacks oversight and undermines local academic freedom, for often programs are set in stone and content only available to students.

The screen time bill (H. 106) sponsored by Representative Patricia Duffy (and prepared by Kirstin Beatty, director of Last Tree Laws) was put forward to encourage local school authorities to set screen time limits through a public hearing. A template is provided which can be adapted except for some baseline limits. Baseline limits for grades 10-12 are 120 minutes daily, for grade 8 are 90 minutes daily, and below grade 8 no more than 5 hours monthly. Exceptions are allowed in special cases, including for virtual schools.

These baseline limits exist to protect students from financial and other pressures pushing for screen time despite evidence of academic and social harm. For example, the Organisation for Co-Operation and Development, funded by 34 countries, in 2015 released a study finding that just viewing emails beyond once or twice a week negatively impacted reading skills. Ample research indicates technology is harmful to learning.

This is all the more heart-breaking when considering that the DC federal district court just ruled that federal wireless and RF exposure guidelines are arbitrary and fails to weigh current research, in particular with regard to children and pregnant women and including neurological effects.

By moving this legislation forward, the committee will make an important statement to the public and educational leaders that Massachusetts that our youth are too important to allow technology interests to take over our educational system.


Rights of the Child

Brodeur, J (2016 Nov 21) Media Education and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Smart Media Education for the 21 st Century. Available online July 14 2019 at

Motor Skills

Hill, A (2018 Feb 25) Children struggle to hold pencils due to too much tech, doctors say: children need opportunities to develop hand strength and dexterity needed to hold pencils. The Guardian. Available at

Coughland, S (2018 Oct 30) Surgery students `losing dexterity to stitch patients.` BBC News. Available July 14 2019 at


Paton, G (2014 Apr 15) Infants `Unable to use toy building blocks` due to IPad Addiction. The Telegraph. Available 2019 July 14 online at

CNBC (2018 Jan 8) Apple should address youth phone addiction, two large investors [Jane Partners and California State Teachers’ Retirement System] say.

Kardaras, N (2016 Aug 27) It’s ‘digital heroin’: How screens turn kids into psychotic junkies. NY Post. Available at

Stanford University Medical Center. (2006, October 17). Internet Addiction: Stanford Study Seeks To Define Whether
It’s A Problem. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 12, 2019 from

Socioeconomic Faults

Bowles, N. (2016 Oct 26) The digital gap between rich and poor kids is not what we expected: America’s public schools are still promoting devices with screens—even offering digital-only preschools. The rich are banning screens from class altogether. The New York Times. Available July 14 at

Academic Problems

Woodworth L, Raymond M, Chirbas K, Gonzalez M, Negassi Y, Snow W, & Van Donge C. (2016 Apr 20) Online charter school study 2015 [Found brick-and-mortar schools do better than online]. CREDO.

Miron G, Gulosino C (2016 Apr 20) Virtual schools report 2016: directory and performance review. NEPC. Available at

Shapiro J (2015 Apr 30) 4 Fundamental Problems With Everything You Hear About The Future Of Education. Forbes. Available 10 October 2021 at

Social Emotional Development

Ravitch, D (2015 Dec 7) District Adopts Federally-Endorsed Tech Product, and It Bores the Kids to Tears. Diane Ravitch’s Blog. Online July 14 2019 at

Council on Communications and Media Executive Committee, 2016-2017. Media Use in School-Aged Children and
Adolescents. American Academy of Pediatrics.

Nixon, CL (2014) Current perspectives: the impact of cyberbullying on adolescent health. Adolesc Health Med Ther. 5:143-158.

Margalit L (2016 Apr 17) What screen time can really do to kids’ brains: Too much at the worst possible age can have lifetime consequences. Psychology Today. Available online at


DC Court decision affirming FCC guidelines are ‘arbitrary and capricious’ –

Several research studies reviewing the wireless in schools are reviewed at the Environmental Health Trust online at:

Deshmukh PS, Nasare N, Megha K, Banerjee BD, Ahmed RS, Singh D, Abegaonkar MP, Tripathi AK, Mediratta PK
(2015) Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation. Int J
Toxicol. 34 (3): 284-290.

Massachusetts EdTech

Digital Learning: Personalized Learning. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Available
July 14 2019 at

Note: Currently, mandates for technology use by teachers, administrators, and superintendents are enforced by state performance rubrics and also promoted by the resources or grants available through the state Massachusetts Personalized Learning Edtech Consortium (MAPLE) and the New England Secondary Schools Consortium (NESSC)].

Outside Interests

EdTechXGlobal Press Release. (2016 May 25) Global Report Predicts EdTech Spend to Reach $252bn by 2020. Cision PR Newswire. Available 2019 July 14 at

Papallo J (2015) Report Estimates US EdTech at $8.38 billion. Education World. Available 2019 July 14 at

Strauss, V (2014 Mar 14) Netflix’s Reed Hastings has a big idea: Kill elected school boards. Washington Post. Available
July 14 2014 at

Press Release (2010 Apr 20) DreamBox Learning Acquired by Charter Fund in Partnership with Education

Philanthropist and Netflix CEO Reed Hastings: Agreement Includes $10 Million R&D Investment and Newly Appointed Board Members: Company Poised for Accelerated Growth as Leading Innovator of Effective E-Learning in the Classroom. Dreambox Learning. Available July 14 2019 at

Anonymous Guest Post (2016 Jan 26) 21st Century Learning? Or 21st Century Profiteering? [Conflict of interest of school adminsitrators] Educational Alchemy Blog by Morna McDermott. Available July 14 2019 at

Ravitch, D. Executive Salaries at K12, Inc. [Chairman and CEO made 4.2 million in 2014]. Diane Ravitch’s Blog. Available online July 14 2019 at

Kharpal A (2016 Jun 30) A $19 trillion ‘digital revolution’ is coming and the US is lagging: Cisco’s Chambers. CNBC. Available online 2019 Jun 14 at

Vaute V (2018 Oct 29) Recycling Is Not The Answer To The E-Waste Crisis. Forbes. Online 2019 July 14 at

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.


Kirstin Beatty

Co-chair of Last Tree Laws

Massachusetts ballot measure committee




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

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):
        • 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 and sponsored by the Springfield Cultural Council as 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; Feb, July 2022


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

I’ve noticed problematic non-ionizing radiation bills being promoted as solutions. Please take a look at the legislative analysis on Last Tree Laws (blog posts, action pages) to get a full sense of the situation before sending testimony, as you may accidentally be supporting the lesser of two evils instead of better or more ideas.

I can only guess why problem bills are promoted, but human nature is inclined to make mistakes for better or worse. I take time to review and consider existing bills, a job few do. I do it because it fits my abilities and matters so much, so please take the time to review what gets posted here (and seems to be copied without credit: down with plagiarism).

When I prepare testimony for others to sign, I make very clear what the testimony supports in fairness to signatories and legislators.

I’m hoping the promotion of problem bills will stop, but here’s the back story.

In 2015 through my legislators I first submitted non-ionizing radiation regulation legislation. I kept going, improving each session, but one or two other advocates dismissed my work, influencing others, despite changing, weak reasons.

To me, presenting a demand for effective change to legislators is fundamental to democracy. With or without passage of a bill, we need to support the best and oppose the worst ideas within any bills. This shows sincerity, that we believe that non-ionizing radiation enough of a threat to risk setting aside convention, fame, finances, power and so on in favor of unconventional truths.

To me, our demands should reflect the weight of our concerns.

Yet, as time passed, I noticed bills I didn’t like were being promoted without any cautions or warnings.

In 2019 through 2020 I saw my bill H. 587, to require school policies to limit wireless exposures, was not being given the same or greater weight as H. 1874, which encouraged wireless installation in concert with ‘best practices’ for safer use, with those practices decided, after a delayed study, by conflicted MA state education officials. At the very least, both bills could have been equally promoted by other advocates, but far better to promote H. 587 to avoid suggesting wireless could be safe.

In early 2019 I was shocked to see H. 383 promoted in a listing of bills to support online. I’d already recognized this bill as an industry bill. 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 could this help without a miracle?

By focusing support 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, and we risk that any amendments fail. I’ve given time to this, but shouldn’t do so anymore.

Instead of supporting problem bills, bills such as to hard-wire buildings (H. 112 in 2021-2022) should get full support, especially as this could move forward even without alluding to the health aspects.

There are a few more bills, but I’m going to stop right here and leave below the old notes on some relevant bills that I’ve opposed.

H. 383 for a 5G Task Force > now H. 124 in 2021-2022

    • 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: For 2022, if this bill advances, I have suggested there be a detailed amendment to prevent conflicts of interest, but need a senator or representative willing to do put forward the amendment. I sought to speak with Senator Cyr in advance but could not do so.
  • Suspicious minds: This bill was put forward by Senator Cyr but was in fact developed by someone hired by a committee who changed Senator Cyr’s original bill.
  • This post discusses more issues with commissions, such as years of delay on action, and, if pushed forward, potential solutions and a tentative draft for an alternative bill (with a section on conflicts of interest).
    • This bill S. 129 was for a commission to study impact of wireless harm, but looked like planning for industry bailout – of 11 members:
      • Governor Baker, with a dark money rap, controlled all appointments.
      • 3 members depended on the wireless industry
      • 4 members were 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 locally-known 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!
      • In 2022, if S. 186 advances, who the governor will be to appoint is still an open question, as is the ability of the new governor make good appointments on this issue.

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.

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, advocates pushed for this bill in previous sessions and in 2021-2022, advocating even for sponsors for this bill instead of other bills to hard wire. Dykema has several sponsors for this bill, but 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.
        • This bill was marketed in 2019-2020 as a solution for harm from school wireless, but phrasing was to install wireless and use “best practices” – in 2021-2022, the bill was then marketed as an investigative commission.
          • In real life, asking individual teachers and students to turn wireless on and off is impractical, and being near a router to turn off the router is a higher exposure that needs to be avoided as well.
          • The education department under Governor Baker has been closely tied to technology interests and may not be the best for developing “best practices.” There is no telling who the next governor will be, and at this point no one has championed this issue despite most being informed.
          • This bill offers a small step of consideration but needs improvement to prevent promotion of wireless – in the 2019-2020 session, H. 587 did 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).

I’ve heard advocacy for the above problem bills without any discrimination, despite my critiques or warnings.

Better bills have been highlights on the page for MA legislation. Some examples I prepared 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.
        • A bill to require release of a fact sheet on wireless and other electromagnetic radiation – that flew under the radar . . .
        • Etc. . . .


Kennedy bests Markey on Monopoly & Honesty

Massachusetts Senate Race: Senator Ed Markey vs. Representative Joe Kennedy

By Kirstin Beatty, 2020 April 17 ~ updated (again) 2020 June 30

Aside: To help on state legislation, join us or our  upcoming teleconference.


Please note, initially there was one early mistake in examining one scorecard from NFIB, by confusing Rep. Joe Kennedy with Sen. John Kennedy, the latter being a Louisiana Republican and who has quite different stances than Rep. Joe Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat.

If citing research and opinions below, please credit the author or Last Tree Laws.

Question: Which legislator might best protect consumers from electromagnetic exposures from either utilities or telecommunications infrastructure.

Finding: Kennedy is the clear winner, and Markey continues to neglect a promise to attend to safe technology.

Summary: Kennedy is the clear winner on this issue, but needs to do more. Both have alluded to support – Markey specifically for “safe” technology in response to wireless concerns and Kennedy for curtailing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. However, Markey has directly undermined his promises by continuing to put forward legislation that ignores safer, wired technologies or reduces local zoning control – this shows a lack of fidelity to his promises.

Worse, Markey authored the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and without remorse to this day, and for that ought to be last choice on this issue – the act denies environmental considerations in zoning decisions. Further, despite being warned of health impacts, Markey continues to advance wireless broadband funding which omits safer wired options. Markey continues to state he was proud to foster competition by breaking up the public telephone system. In fact, telecommunications is a ruthless, barely regulated monopoly – barely competitive and so consumers have few options and little standing.Markey’s support of the “free market” in these industries raises questions about his bonafides as a left-wing progressive. His neglect of wireless concerns is shamefully negligent. Perhaps Markey’s part in the Green New Deal rests on the odd inclusion of smart technology or the wireless smart grid, a Trojan Horse.

During debate, Kennedy has criticized Markey’s support for the Telecommunications Act of 1996, though not on the basis of health but rather on the basis of how it benefits industry and monopoly at the expense of the public. Kennedy did sign onto a letter that opposes the rapidly changing rules of the FCC, as these new rules fail to give municipalities time to adapt ordinances or give much time to examine 5G permit applications. However, this letter is only a political statement that sidesteps or fails to specifically address public health impacts. Asking for extra time for permit review does little to stop the cellular infrastructure in our front yards. In contrast, both federal Rep. Neal and Rep. McGovern have signed on to legislation protecting local zoning control. Legislation to change the act, rather than words, would be welcome.

Kennedy has put forward some legislation that indicates he is not an industry stooge, but generally in other arenas such as human rights, such as a LGBTQ protections (which Markey has also supported) or the right to a lawyer in civil suits or the right to health coverage during the pandemic. Both share environmental concerns and have signed onto net neutrality or other popular laws.

Kennedy has also put forward legislation that supported innovative technologies, an idea that seems to be popular among politicians and is marketed as good for business, jobs, even national defense. His bill emphasized providing support for smaller businesses, as opposed to monopolies. However, less innovation and a lot more safety testing in advance of entering the consumer market would be welcome. Yet, supporting small business is far better than supporting monopoly. Currently, monopolies are making or defying laws, which small business is less likely to do.

In terms of character, before running for office, Kennedy worked as a lawyer and a colleague reports Kennedy showed a rare generosity and respect for truth.

One clear difference is that Kennedy is against the filibuster as he says it prevents votes on controversial legislation, whereas Markey has not supported direct action to end the filibuster. When votes are not cast, legislators can avoid voting showing where they stand.

Kennedy’s reason to run: Clearly, Kennedy benefits by running now, instead of in a crowded field after Markey quits.

Secondly, Kennedy states that Markey has failed to stump for Democrats in other states, and that Kennedy would because now, more than ever, removing Republicans from office is the most important objective. He wants a better world for his young children, such as in terms of the environment. He disputes Markey’s left-wing credentials due to Markey’s part in the Telecommunications Act of 1997 – alluding to monopolies created by the act.

Here are our findings after checking submitted legislation, scorecards, and votes:

    • External scorecards: Markey and Kennedy had basically the same scores on all scorecards we checked (see our list below).
    • General Voting Records: Kennedy has been a yes vote for many bills promoted by the current Democratically-controlled House. He is a so-called moderate as identified by GovTrackUS.  He cosponsored the Right to Organize Act and Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019.
    • General Voting Records: Markey has voted yes on very little put forward by the Republican-controlled Senate. He has voted yes on popular bills such as opioid relief and put forward bills to restrict data collection, prevent ionizing radiation exposure, and improve fuel efficiency. Markey is identified as a so-called liberal by GovTrackUS. Left-wing groups have rallied behind Markey.
    • Follow the Money dot Org Comparison: For 2020 as of April 27, both share Dell Technologies donations (10K – Markey, 9K – Kennedy). Follow the Money has more data, but it is best to look at the site itself. Historically, Markey has received a great deal of money and support from the telecommunications industry.
    • Supporters: Markey’s support includes Sen. Warren, Rep. Alexandra Ocasia-Cortez and Rep. Ro Khanna, Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign co-chair, Rep. Neal, Rep. McGovern, and many others. Kennedy’s support includes Longshoremen (who, by the way, are threatened by job loss from 5G); recently Tom Steyer; members of the Hispanic caucus; the late Rep. John Lewis and local African-American political leaders, from City Councilor Malo Brown to Rep. Chynah Tyler. Unexpectedly, Pelosi has come out in support of Kennedy, saying Markey has been a “rat” for using Kennedy’s name against him, although speculation also includes Pelosi appreciates Kennedy’s work gathering donors & campaigning for Democrats. However, Pelosi may also be supporting Kennedy since Markey’s use of Kennedy’s name is rather cruel, especially considering the fall-out between his parents following divorce.
    • Kennedy’s Technology Stance, Funding, & Influence:
      • Recently, Kennedy has put forward bills designed to increase worker protections, which may be one reason for Longshoremen endorsement.
      • Some relevant sponsorship and voting record information:
        • Kennedy put forward a utility bill to allow impacted parties a hearing, since inaction by FERC currently limits access.
        • Kennedy voted against HR 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, which was designed to limit industry influence and also increase transparency of EPA officials. This bill passed the House but the votes were tight. Why did he vote against this bill?
        • Supporting HR. 2996 in 2014 to advance with financial & educational support domestic “manufacturing, innovation and technology” connected to small- and medium-sized enterprises advancing new processes and technologies
      • With 197 other sponsors, Kennedy cosponsored HR 1644 in 2019 to support an open internet, to prevent internet providers from blocking or slowing website content. The open internet is widely and popularly supported, but opposed by some financial interests.
      • Other bills that Rep. Joe Kennedy has been a early co-sponsor or major sponsor include:
        • Allow graduate stipends or monies to be placed in individual retirement accounts  (introduced every session)
        • To limit discriminatory practices, such as against LGBTQ, claimed protected by religious freedoms
        • Study of best practices in prevention of opioid and heroin addiction along with education and database (2015)
        • Publicity to promote pro bono legal services with regard to domestic abuse
      • Kennedy is currently member of a utility committee.
      • Childhood & Bio: Although Kennedy is a Kennedy, his parents divorced and he was raised largely by his mother who publicly fought annullment and won, destroying her ex’s career. Before running for office, Kennedy worked as a lawyer and has been given positive ratings for using his name to advance justice for the powerless.
      • Fortune: Kennedy has a fortune to inherit – reported online as circa 50 million. Forbes reports the estimated net worth of the Kennedy family is reported as 1.2 billion. The wealth has been maintained with an array of trusts and investments. One would expect this would be a blind trust, but this is a family trust currently outside Kennedy’s control. Recently, the trust divested from fossil fuels. Kennedy has said that these investments have never influenced his votes.
      • Top contributors to Kennedy include individuals at these relevant telecommunication companies:
        • Google Inc. (25K) – Google is involved in wireless network development – see WSJ 24 May 2013 – and its services like Stadia (gaming) will benefit from 5G.
        • Bain Capital (16K – this company has substantial technology investments)
        • Citizens Energy Corporation – relative Joe Kennedy is an executive of this company which develops high-voltage lines, invests in the micro-grid, is involved in solar, Vineyard Winds, and on a positive note highlights charitable work to provide energy for the poor from its profits – the CEO, Augsburger, is also board member of Roan Resources, a gas and oil exploration group. Wireless is presently being used as part of the microgrid. Also, high-voltage lines give off electromagnetic fields. For these reasons there may be a financial disincentive on the part of CEC to fully examine health effects from wireless to electricity. There is no way to know whether this would influence Kennedy’s decisions.
      • Joe Kennedy did not receive contributions from another high-profile relative, Robert F. Kennedy, who supports vaccine rights and who is opposed to wireless exposures. In a recent article, Robert F. Kennedy mentions his nephew Joe Kennedy, who is accused by Dr. Shiva of raising money for Joe Kennedy. There is no way of knowing the reason for the lack of donation directly from Robert Kennedy which could be:
        • because Joe objects to Robert’s vaccine concerns,
        • simply not showing up yet in the records,
        • unwillingness to admit support for such hot topics,
        • differences of opinion,
        • Joe Kennedy simply choosing not to ask.
    • Markey’s Technology Stance, Funding, & Influence:
      • Markey holds a position on the telecommunications committee, and thus may have some greater influence on the subject for better or worse.
      • Markey is still proud of his authorship of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That bill has been critiqued not only because of 47 U.S.C. Section 704, which limits local zoning rights of cell towers and denies consideration of environmental impacts ([in (b)(iv)], but also for consolidation of media. An April 2020 article in the Commonwealth Journal states Markey had noted the consolidation problem recently – yet his campaign page still reviews the act positively.
      • In May 2020, Markey advanced school wireless broadband funding but did not include funding for wired broadband. He touts integration of his proposal into the Moving Forward Act, which passed the house with a provision to provide WiFi on school buses, including children enrolled in early education programs (Sec. 31341. E-rate support for school bus Wi-Fi).
      • The Green New Deal is popular for advancing a symbolic commitment to alternative energy and decent jobs, but it promotes smart meters which are wireless and are a Trojan Horse. The meters require massive infrastructure which make additional energy demands. The Green New Deal fails to be critical of technologies like smart meters which contribute to surveillance, automation, and resource consumption.
      • Markey has been informed of wireless health risks: Markey responded positively to a letter on wireless concerns sent by myself, co-chair Kirstin Beatty. This was the second carefully-written letter I had sent Markey, not to mention a generic open letter sent to him and other state officials. I had just handed Markey and many others printables at the Springfield Democratic Convention, and had spoken with one of the leaders about problems of integrating the smart grid with the Green New Deal – that leader assured me that he would speak with Markey and others about this during the convention’s Green New Deal meeting. This man was very sincere. Not long afterwards, Markey sent a letter in response to my previous letter on wireless concerns. Markey’s response sent on Sept. 18, 2019, says: “…we must balance this need [for tech] with important health considerations.”
      • On the negative side, Markey joined colleagues in asking the FCC to allow use of public school E-rate funding for students to use wireless technology from home during the Covid19 pandemic. On the face of it the request appears reasonable, but this request shows that Markey does not fully appreciate or understand wireless health threats. Joe Kennedy was not a signatory, although Senator Elizabeth Warren’s name and others such as Senator Kamala Harris were included.
      • In a recent June 2020 tech interview, Markey has a wait and see approach about 5G and discusses providing 4 billion extra to fund school broadband during Covid19 through the E-rate program. Not once did Markey discuss the problems of health impacts or monopoly. Nor did Markey address FCC requirements  that E-rate funds be used only for wireless connections.
      • Markey recently introduced a bill (S. 2748) that would reduce wireless power levels by restricting use of public safety frequencies to public safety uses – this restriction would limit public use and thus limit power levels.
      • Markey has supported bills designed to reduce IT hacking and security threats – this is a reasonable position. He has critiqued industry for only informing shareholders and not consumers of driverless car risks.
      • Markey’s sponsorships and statements show he is a champion of privacy, which is a component of liberty, and he has introduced bills to protect children’s privacy as well as open internet or community television (S. 3218), avenues of free speech – this has meant holding stances counter to industry. Kennedy also signed onto the community television bill as a cosponsor.
      • The Markey Committee has received tons of cash. Granite Telecommunications leaders is listed as a top funder. Interestingly enough, Granite is focused on analog telephone line billing – which is not a wireless focus. Granite may be well positioned to deal with an economy that reverses wireless dependence. Blackstone Group, a private equity group, is also a top donor and one of its investments is in smart homes via Vivint – smart homes depend on wireless.


Strong Stands Make a Difference


By Kirstin Beatty

Updated 21 July 2021, 6 April 2022


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do people even read these bills?

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

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

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

Here are the amendments:











Last Tree Laws Massachusetts