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 reversedon 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

Please share with medical professionals. Scroll down for PDF version.

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.

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.

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. Instead, legislators have advanced legislation focused on protecting big business, such as allowing industry dominance on a legislative commission to propose 5G laws, and some advocates have mistakenly supported problematic bills. I am concerned that some are willing to delay progress due to timidity or even for personal gain, and that deceptive legislation favoring businesses will continue to move forward under the guise of “moderation” and empty promises.

I hope for patient education on safer technology habits and your support.

Sincerely,

Kirstin Beatty

Co-chair of Last Tree Laws

Massachusetts ballot measure committee

Resources:

 

  1. Beatty.fyi is my own blog, with a resume of my advocacy since c. 2013

  2. MA Legislation at https://LastTreeLaws.com/ma-legislation; lawsuits and other examples of state legislation on top menu

  3. Register for virtual conference, held 28-31 January, Thursday – Sunday, at https://emfconference2021.com/

  4. Bioinitiative dot org (see Henry Lai’s research summaries)

  5. Physicians for Safe Technology and SaferEMR.com

  6. EMF-Portal search engine (Aachen University, Germany)

  7. Additional resources at https://lasttreelaws.com/local/ ~ and the recent New Hampshire Report recommending reduction of wireless exposures: https://lasttreelaws.com/11/nhreport/

 

PDF DOWNLOAD: Request for Medical Education

 

 

 

Asking Legislators to Sponsor Bills – Model

The following is an UPDATED model to ask state legislators to sponsor bills as listed under MA Legislationmake a phone call first!

Legislative contact information can be found at the MA legislature or Openstates. For Kirstin’s #, contact by email!

 

Date:

Hello Senator ____ and Representative ______:

I’m following up to ask if you would like to be a lead or supporting sponsor on one or more bills to regulate wireless, many written by Last Tree Laws co-chair Kirstin Beatty of Holyoke. A summary of bills is listed in the attachments, details are online at Last Tree Laws under MA Legislation.

Research indicates wireless is extremely harmful to our health, environment, and even a factor in climate change (see links to educational resources in attachments below).

Champions and supporters are needed.

Are you willing to:
    • sponsor or champion any of these bills?
    • join other sponsors to support their existing bills?
    • willing to call or email Kirstin to share feedback or offer assistance?

I hope so – you can email Kirstin using lasttreelaws@ followed by pm.me and cc: me if willing to help.

Best wishes,

___________

Attached Below:
  1. Overview of proposed MA Legislation
  2. Educational resources on topic

Overview: proposed MA Legislation at Last Tree Laws:

  • 2020 – in play now!

    1. amendment to make 5G investigation more neutral – see version here or under MA legislation.
    2. opt out of smart meters (S. 1988) – Sen. Michael Moore
  • 2020 > 2021 – bills with prior sponsors:
    1. opting out of smart meters bill (S. 1988, still in play) – Sen. Michael Moore
    2. state recommendations for school exposures (changes recommended to strengthen) – Rep. Carolyn Dykema
    3. local control of cellular siting by railroads – Sen. Keenan
    4. Note – Senator Cyr’s bill on cellphone labeling probably can’t go forward due to a recent federal appeals court decision against labeling.
  • 2021 bills – ready as is:
    1. independent wireless investigation (see 2020 amendment above)
    2. hard-wire libraries
    3. set school policy to reduce electromagnetic radiation/wireless
    4. reduce school screen time, but retaining local control
  • 2021feedback sought, can be adapted
    1. make reducing exposures a quality control measure at hospitals (review)
    2. fund to hard-wire public schools
    3. educate patients
    4. ban certain dangerous facilities (review & discussion)
    5. registering towers – this was cosponsored with me in 2020 by Rep. Gonzalez
    6. Protect school technological privacy and safety (2 or 3 versions exist, one is listed)
    7. invest in hard-wiring facilities – this was cosponsored with me in 2020 by Rep. Gonzalez
  • 2021 bills suggested to write (see link for detailed content)
    1. resolution to reduce wireless
    2. setting insurance requirements on all cellular infrastructure
    3. monitoring of wireless levels
    4. set standard warning label for all manufactured goods (intended to get around prohibition on consumer awareness of cellphone warnings buried in manual)
    5. accounting transparency of state monies invested in telecommunications (will post version from another state when time)
  1. Education:

  2. General facts
  3. Disturbing reproductive effects, presentation reviewed by Dr. Paul Heroux
  4. 71 of 82 studies find wireless harmful to insects likely significant cause of decline; wireless harms & heats bees; research listing of nature’s sensitivity.
  5. At 35:23, Dr. Devra Devries says a cow brain heated to 140 degrees Fahrenheit from 6 minutes 5G frequency exposure (39 GHz) – study by IEEE life-long fellow.
  6. Digital technology inordinately draws on energy, increases consumption, and creates pollution and waste.
  7. Climate change may be substantially influenced by wireless increasing electron precipitation (p.4, section 2).
  8. Digital technology is hijacking minds, & digital entrepreneurs are unplugging
  9. Opening of the blood-brain barrier for 2 weeks or more from wireless exposure, Physicians for Safe Technology – note this effect favors meningitis, Alzheimer’s, other nervous system diseases, etc.
  10. Immune & endocrine system harmed, Physicians for Safe Technology (scroll down page for research)
  11. Symptoms of exposure & electromagnetic sensitivity, by Dr. Beatrice Golomb (acclaimed research for work with statins, Gulf War illness)
  12. 5G summary (cataracts, bacterial resistance, etc.) by physician Dr. Cindy Russell
  13. Regulators steamroll health concerns (Dr. Moskowitz, Washington Spectator)
  14. World policy or regulations to restrict exposures, Environmental Health Trust

Support Attorney Healey’s Smart Grid Investigation

Support Attorney Healey’s Smart Grid Investigation

By Kirstin Beatty

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 below, where the Attorney General states she is engaging consultants to investigate the claims and suggest (propound) discovery, a pre-trial procedure:

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.

 

Appeal to Amend 5G Bills and Smart Opt Out

Appeal to Amend 5G Bills and Support Allow Smart Meter Opt Out

The following is a simple, short email that can be modified to send to your legislators as well, followed by phone call if no response. Ideally, the committees with the bills would get this as well.
Email addresses:
Speaker of the House Rep. Robert Deleo:
Senator Rodiguez, Chair of Senate Ways & Means: Michael.Rodrigues@masenate.gov
Representative Aaron Michlewitz, Chair of House Ways & Means:
Aaron.M.Michlewitz@mahouse.gov
Senate President Karen Spilka:
Karen.Spilka@masenate.gov
23 August 2020
Hello Rep.s — and Senators —:
Please set up an appointment with me and co-chair Kirstin Beatty via LastTreeLaws.com (elm@) to discuss relevant legislation for 2021.

Secondly, please fully support S.1988, a bill to allow free opt-outs of wireless digital meters:

      • Support: S. 1988 in the Senate Ways and Means Committee
Thirdly, these two 5G bills benefit or may benefit industry:
      • Halt or Amend: H. 383 is in the House Committee on Rules
      • Amend:S. 129 is in theSenate Ways and Means Committee
Both of theseterrible billscan be amended.
Kirstin has written a very sensible replacement text, listed below this email and available at LastTreeLaws.com under MA Legislation, since 5G needs to be halted.
Please act for me and others. I am concerned –[add thoughts]-. Dr. Devra Davis, who shared a Nobel Prize with Al Gore, wrote arelevantappeal that Massachusetts legislators protect youth from wireless radiation.
——————————————-

Sincerely,

[Add your name]

[Add your town]

 

For amendment of H. 383 OR S. 129 – a full replacement text

Or as a new bill in 2021

Prepared by Kirstin Beatty (Beatty.fyi, co-chair of Last Tree Laws)

The following changes were made to insure a wide range of stakeholders are representated in all fairness, and to emphasize independence. The major stakeholder missing would be the sick and poor, who haven’t time or money to participate. Excepting the American Environmental Academy of Medicine, none of the organizations have made a public statement on this issue.

A Wireless or Electromagnetic Investigation

Resolved, Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, there shall be a special commission to research the impact of electromagnetic (EMR) and radiofrequency (RFR) radiation on consumer protection, public health, and and the environment, and determine, if detrimental, how to allay health and financial repercussions, the former having primacy.

The commission shall be composed of the following 21 members, as follows:

(a) The Attorney General or designee;

(b) A nominee of the Massachusetts Teachers 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 Community Action Works;

(i) One pediatric doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics;

(j) One representative or lawyer nominated by the Massachusetts Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action;

(k) 2 representatives nominated by the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union;

(l) A representative of the State House selected by the Speaker of the House;

(m) A senator of the State Senate selected by the President of the Senate;

(n) A representative of small business appointed by the governor;

(o) 3 non-voting members appointed by governor:

    • Telecommunications representative;
    • Medical system representative;
    • Engineer in wireless networks;

(p) 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.

Chairmanship, legislative and policy decisions for reports to the Commonwealth shall be decided by vote of all members with voting status. Commission members shall elect a chair by majority vote, who may be replaced at any time upon majority vote.

No voting member or spouse of voting member of the commission shall have a history of or current telecommunication, energy, IT, or utility industry clients or job dependency; nor shall any voting member have current telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility direct financial investments exceeding the sum of $5,000. No voting member or spouse of a voting member of the commission shall receive funding or a job from telecommunication, energy, IT, or utilities in the two years following the commission’s final report. All commission members must file a statement of any relevant conflicts of interest as specified above, including in relation to immediate family members, i.e. parents, children, siblings, uncles, aunts, with the Secretary of State during the commission period and continuing through each year until two years after the commission ends. These statements must be made public by the Secretary of State.

The meetings and communications shall be subject to the Massachusetts open meeting laws so as to be transparent. The commission shall be assisted by and have access to the resources available to the legislature and the executive branch in its investigations. The commission shall file a report of its recommendations and proposed legislation or regulatory changes, if any, with the clerks of the House and Senate and with the chairs of the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure not later than December 31st 2022, and may file a series of reports.

 

5G Actions

Massachusetts – Actions:

  • Our action will involve outreach relevant local organizations, professionals, and leaders with reasons to stop 5G such as via:
      • State Legislators:
      • Social media:
        • Check our this web page for links on Saturday
        • 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 on Saturday:
      • Letters to the editor such as to the following papers which may hit leaders with influence on current bills (choose one paper):
        • letters@tauntongazette.com
        • letters@heraldnews.com
        • submissions@thecantoncitizen.com
        • letter@globe.com
        • yourlocal paper (most likely to publish your letter)
      • Contacting Medical Doctors:
        • Physicians for Safe Technology 5G Letter
        • Invitation to electromagnetic medical conference or independent study
      • Contacting Eco-Organizations:

Other Resources for the event:

    • First, please mention Last Tree Laws if you can – we’d like to expand our outreach and support for the legislation we’ve prepared. That can only happen with connections, support, and publicity.
    • Connect on Facebook as well – either Last Tree Laws or through Stop 5G Massachusetts we will share ideas.
    • Recent News to Share:
    • More Resources:
        • resources here, including wireless awareness materials (environmental, medical, etc.)
        • resources at Stop5GInternational

EVENTS:

10 October Session

Cancelled Q&A due to illness. Cancelled due to CA fires School Surveillance Presentation

Safer Technology Teleconference Series

Ask questions in comments below – no email required.

 

Previous Teleconferences:

29 August 2020 ~ 5G Strategies

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

Teleconference Number – dial 1 (302) 202 – 1104 and enter code 483409.

      • 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 Bill

By Kirstin Beatty on 10 May 2020 ~ Updated 23 August

 

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

These two bills are still in play and still terrible:

  • H. 383 for a 5G Task Force
    • 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 for a Resolution for Radiofrequency Disclosure
    • 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 “environmental” lawyer
      • The first item of business for the commission is to examine how the industry may be financially impacted if wireless is harmful!

Update: Some advocates are now recommending the New Hampshire bill as a replacement text despite our proposed amendment listed the MA Legislation page, but the New Hampshire bill has similar problems that fail to address the politics of Massachusetts.

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
        • 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
        • Independence of the commission needs to be examined as the American Cancer Society is known to have serious conflicts of interest.

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.

I believe critical analysis posted here at Last Tree Laws is helpful, as well as the original legislation we’ve put forward. 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 . . .
        • Etc. . . .

If you haven’t, please consider subscribing, signing our testimony (when relevant), and helping so as to magnify our efforts. Our organization operates on the backs of a few with limited time and funds.

We don’t receive grants, funding is nightmare, technology needs are great, and we don’t have time or expertise for marketing although we’d love an ice-cream social benefit. Lobbying requires numbers – other groups are not necessarily going to support our efforts.

Your subscription and any help matters.

Note: To read about the specific problems with the bills listed, please visit the MA Legislation page. ~ One more problem with bad bills proceeding: making corrections is a worrisome, time-consuming process.