Legislation

Good bills can serve as models for legislation in other states or at the federal level. Yes, problematic state legislation exists (see NCSL dot org for examples and CT). Leaving out duplication, here are a few helpful examples of legislation, available online via a key word search, that can be modified or adapted to regulate technology:

  • Screen Time Bills

      • Hawaii SB433 SB2 (2019) Ruderman, Chang – to fund a social marketing campaign on proven methods to reduce screen time.
      • Massachusetts S. 294 (2019) Beatty – to remove technology mandates set across all subjects in state standards & to allow schools to set screen time limits.
      • Maryland HB 1110 CH0244 (2018 passed) Health and Safety Best Practices – Digital Devices (Numerous delegates) – While well intended, results appear minimal because the law as modified only included the expertise of state departments, which tend to preach the status quo.
  • Reducing Wireless or Electromagnetic Exposures Bills

      • Rhode Island H 5992 (2019) Price, Bennet, Quattrocchi, McNamara – Regulate and prohibit harmful geoengineering with a state law (geoengineering defined as manipulation of the environment from sources including wireless, electromagnetic, chemical, etc.)
      • Montana HB 496 (2019) Dunn – Limits siting of antennas on or beside schools
      • Massachusetts H 587 (2019) Beatty – K-12 schools set a policy to reduce electromagnetic exposures and hard-wire wherever possible.
      • Massachusetts S. 1982 (2019) Keenan – Requires local approval of railway cellular infrastructure.
      • Massachusetts S. 1273 (2019) Beatty – Bans small personal wireless facilities and other items.
      • Massachusetts has several other decent bills.
  • Cellphone Limit Bills

      • California AB 272 (2019) Muratsuchi – allows public schools to limit cellphone use
  • Wireless Resolution Bills

      • Montana HJR 13 (Dunn, Olsen) – Passed House – Urging local control of wireless providers and amending federal law to account for environmental effects.
  • Cell Phone Labeling & Science

    • Cell Phone Right to Know Act (2012, federal bill, main sponsor Kucinich) – To increase scientific funding, study, provide warning labels, and amend exclusions of environmental considerations in siting of wireless facilities.
  • Wireless Commission Bills

    • Resolutions Preferred Note: Our opinion is that commissions can easily be politicized and misused, and that it is better to put forward a resolution for change than to put forward a commission to study the issue, such as one put forward in Montana to alter the Telecommunications Act: House Joint Resolution No. 13 (D. Dunn, A. Olsen).
    • In New Hampshire HB 522 (Abrami, Sherman) was passed to establish a wireless commission and the result appears successful and sincere in gathering information thus far. The Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology can be found on the state legislature website with links to documents and conversations.
    • Commissions allow attention, education and publicity. However, a bill ought to be written carefully as a commission for study, as opposed to setting up a concrete action, can be more easily influenced than a law for a specific action.
    • Hawaii (HRC197 and HCR178 -2019); Louisiana (HR 145 – 2019  Abramson – passed – note that advocates say this bill is an industry front); New Jersey (AB260 – Tully); New York (SB 1607 passed, S 7922); Oregon (SB 283 – 2019), and Massachusetts.
    • Alaska (SB 142 – 2019 – Begich) put forward a bill to require a report from the department of health and human services of independent studies on wireless impacts, followed by recommendations from the department of education.