DATE: June 4, 2021
Pittsfield Department of Health and Board of Health
c/o Ms. Gina Armstrong
100 North St.
Pittsfield, MA. 01201
Kirstin Beatty, Last Tree Laws Director
149 Central Park Drive
Holyoke, MA 01040
Fax No. —
Phone No. Provided to Ms. Rozon
Email: — Did not work when sending from protonmail account, as discussed with Ms. Rozon
RE: Cell Tower Request
I submit this letter to the Pittsfield Board of Health and the Department of Health:
I am director of Last Tree Laws (see lasttreelaws.com) which is engaged on the wireless issue. I’ve tried and failed to send you this information by email, and so am sending a fax. I have for you some requests, as follows:
1. May I present briefly at your next meeting (I don’t know the date) about state legislation relevant to the cell tower issue?
2. Would you be willing to add to your existing cell tower letter, or to a new, similar letter written by myself or yourself, support for this legislation?
I am quite concerned that you are sending a letter to the Governor and the legislature that does not include mention of the state legislation before the State House relevant to cell towers, including legislation I prepared and submitted that is relevant to the cell tower problems you presented.
Perhaps this legislation or my work has in some way been wrongly dismissed. Though I am not a legislator, Dr. Tim Schoechle, referenced in the presentations provided to you this week as a telecommunications policy expert, has commended my legislative work, and my own representative signed onto several of my bills after thorough reading. Being sensitive, I have found myself often too sick to advocate for these bills and to direct others to help. Many of the bills were submitted too late for my own representative and other representatives to read and sign onto as sponsor due to the time I needed, leading to late submission, and the Covid-19 situation which altered normal processes in the legislature. I could not even manage to get previous sponsors to sign on due to my own limited time and the short window for house sponsors. State senators, however, can still sponsor.
I am requesting your help. I see that you composed a letter which will generate support on this issue, and I very much hope to acquire senate sponsors, rather than see sponsors for certain bills I see as faulty or problematic which some promote.
My other fear is by omitting this legislation you leave the topic open to be misused by others to advocate for the wrong bills, or that you promote faulty bills.
I am at odds with the legislation promoted by another advocate on the grounds that legislation is too easy to misuse and manipulate. One bill I’m against is for a commission that I’ve critiqued for two years as open to industry influence and for various reasons difficult to fix – last session I spent extensive time working on an amendment out of fear of passage, but I still believe it is tough to expect Massachusetts to manage an honest commission given the connections of the technology industry to the governor and some issues within the legislature. While a bill exists to hard wire, another bill is being promoted for which the main sponsor has been resolute on not proposing a bill to hard wire, and instead proposes examination of “safer” wireless which is quite a complicated concept. The time involved and publicity in such bills is likely fertile grounds for consultants and a new industry, but offers little in the way of concrete change.
I would be willing to provide to you a presentation on any of the legislation, such as the cell tower legislation, and possibly on ordinances. I have prepared an ordinance after reading ordinance materials from lawyers working in the subject, including private conversations or work, due to personal interest and several years work on research. Some ordinance information can easily be found online at lasttreelaws.com, but not everything is posted. I’m reluctant to post in public before adoption by towns, so it is a catch-22.
On the subject of the cell tower legislation, two bills of relevance include to require such towers to have coverage for health impacts, for example, and another bill to require removal of dangerous antennas, exempting personal devices and appliances. That last bill specifies that the small cell towers must be the first focus, but this starts a process towards examining what is and is not safe. That last bill is quite important because it also addresses the “OTARD” antennas, which are commercial antennas now being installed without a permit using the satellite TV antenna rule. The OTARD antennas present the same trouble for residents as the current Pittsfield tower presents, only local control is not an option and the antennas can be installed on any home – telecommunications companies are offering to pay hundreds to residents to install such antennas. There are other bills that are relevant to cell towers or wireless exposures.
On another topic, I’d like to share below my comments on the cell tower presentation.
One comment on the subject of a study as discussed in the meeting this week: I believe in terms of clout with Verizon and to support legal claims, I believe single case studies on individuals harmed would be helpful if these include a before and after review of medical records and clinical presentation. Even one or a few case studies of the most dire situations would be helpful. In the instances where cell towers were removed, generally there was a public outcry due to health effects such as pediatric cancers of just a few. Reviews could include analysis of factors recommended by Dr. Havas as well as CBCs. The criticism of epidemiological criteria is not quite the same as a case study and also a court of law may be moved by those facts and base decisions on other factors.
Dr. Alan Kulberg asked Dr. Carpenter about the diagnosis of sensitivity. So, for Dr. Kulberg I would like to share a few things. If you look at the website lasttreelaws.com there is a resources page with a section on electromagnetic sensitivity that lists a document from Austrian doctors on the subject of clinical diagnosis. This document is older, and Dr. Carpenter referenced Dr. Belpomme’s markers, but many of those markers are difficult to find tests available or affordable to use. Some have criticized Dr. Belpomme’s reliance on such markers for that reason, and since those markers are not all, every one or 100%, in sensitives. Dr. Belpomme is certainly right that those markers can be helpful, but it is to me quite wrong to dismiss clinical observation especially in the absence of affordable, certain, or available clinical marker tests. I can see how scientists might follow this practice due to having the tools to conduct those, but I can’t see it for medical doctors. I believe listening to patients is still a valuable way to understand, observation is also a tool, and the diagnosis of exclusion is also likely a false one because exposures may worsen existing conditions as is the case with me. Dr. Magda Havas mentioned how exposures triggered rapid increase of blood sugar in some who are sensitive and have diabetes. So, a diagnosis of exclusion may fail those who have both sensitivity and other conditions.
Further, for Dr. Kulberg, oxidation is found in so many studies to result from wireless exposure, and certain poor detoxification genetics can increase the amount of oxidation in sensitives or just when exposed to more powerful types of exposure. With this oxidation can come nausea and vomiting as reported. Because oxidation is a result, it also has to be noted that it takes time for oxidation to build up in the body or to lessen, so in a diagnosis a person may not always express the problem despite having sensitivity. While Dr. Carpenter expressed that studies on electromagnetic sensitivity are lacking, he did not get across that there are few well-done studies. Many of the studies focus on psychological evaluation rather that biochemical measures, and others simply shoot a random frequency for a minute and see if there is a noticeable result. The short time frame of the exposure and the often lack of controls makes such studies of low quality given, just for one reason, how oxidation takes time to have an effect.