Wireless or Electromagnetic Regulations Welcome to your Wireless or Electromagnetic RegulationsDo you support specific legislation for an Electromagnetic and Digital New Deal to protect human rights, including public and environmental health, in relation to digital and electromagnetic technologies?Please let us know by answering our poll.There are %TOTAL_QUESTIONS% questions.Historical Background Do you support legislation to test fields from electricity in and regulation of those fields for safety based on current science and caution?Background: Dr. Robert O. Becker and Dr. Andrew Marino testified in the 1970s regarding the hazards of strong emissions or fields from electricity. As result, citizens began to fear proximity to high-voltage power lines and Dr. Becker's The Body Electric became a cult classic. Today, current science suggests electricity or its "fields" increases asthma, miscarriage, brain tumor, leukemia, ALS, and other disease. Today, California requires electricity emissions or fields in schools not only be tested, but kept at low levels for reasons of safety. California has numerous qualified experts to do this testing as a result. Many other countries limit allowable fields from electricity. Yet, in Massachusetts even sick building investigations fail to include consideration of fields from electricity.Yes, expand building inspections to include electromagnetic fieldsYes, expand investigations of public building health issues to include electromagnetic fieldsYes, use the same rules as California for our schoolsYes, set regulations for electricity based on caution and current scienceYes, all of the aboceNoDo you support education for patients and medical doctors on threats from electromagnetic exposures, including wireless, as well as for tips on safer use?Background: Dr. Devra Davis, who has shared a Nobel Prize and is founder of the Environmental Health Trust, has campaigned compellingly against cell phones for reasons such as the threat of breast cancer. Current science associates wireless with cardiac problems, tumor, reproductive troubles, memory issues, thyroid cancer, etc. Despite industry opposition, scientists in the field share cellphone and other wireless concerns, and many have signed an international appeal for protection. Yet, many with cell phones or other powerful digital devices disbelieve the threat, and many are unaware of alternatives or how to reduce exposures, including such basics as keeping distance from wireless transmitters or restricting cellphone length.Yes, education for doctorsYes, education for patientsYes, patient education covered by insuranceYes, all of the aboveNo.Do you support independent research sponsored by the taxpayers to identify best practices for electricity and communications, wireless or hard-wired, in relation to safety?Background: Dr. Robert O. Becker, who had received awards for his work and was nominated for the Nobel Prize, lost his job due to his honesty about hazards of electricity. Yet, honest and public health research is necessary to identify hazards and safer substitutes. Dr. Becker predicted correctly that government would stop funding this research, with some rare exceptions. Dr. Henry Lai and Dr. Singh in 1995 published that DNA damage occurred from wireless exposures, and industry sought to discredit the scientists. Microwave News, a long-running periodical, has documented other instances of politics and manipulations to discredit the science proving harm regarding electricity and wireless, and the Environmental Health Trust has a listing.Yes, taxpayer-sponsored research IF measures are taken to insure independenceNoWould you support state and federal legislation designed to overturn the prohibition on environmental considerations in the Telecommunications Act?Background: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 makes it difficult for local municipalities to object to proposals for wireless infrastructure. When wireless infrastructure meets Federal Communications Commission guidelines, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [Section 704 (a) (B) (iv)] generally prohibits any environmental considerations in the review of a permit application. This means the FCC, which is not a medical or scientific agency, decides what is or isn't dangerous regardless of reasonable objections. Prohibition of personal wireless services is also prohibited [section 704 (a) (B) (ii)]. Because FCC leadership has a revolving door such that there are many ties with industry, the FCC is considered a "captured agency" that acts in the interests of industry instead of the public. The FCC has been taking actions to eliminate municipal permitting requirements and weaken out-dated exposure guidelines. These actions have drawn objection from some legislators, scientists, NGOs, municipalities, and some more independent members of the FCC. Yes, support federal legislation to remove this rule.Yes, support state legislation to ask federal legislature to remove this rule.No.Are you willing to advocate in public against current FCC exposure guidelines in favor of limits based on current science?Background: Wireless exposure guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are decades old, account only for a few minutes of exposure (6 minutes), consider only the average and not the peak exposure, and are based only on exposure to a large man - not to a child or pregnant woman. The FCC was required to reconsider guidelines based on an old court battle, and so kept an open docket in which the American Academy of Pediatrics and others requested lower limits. When the FCC finally closed the docket, the FCC refused to make any changes and so has been challenged in court on this issue. Even before the docket closed, a municipality has filed a case charging FCC negligence on exposure guidelines. The nonprofits Environmental Health Trust and Children's Health Defense Fund have each filed a challenge to the FCC's failure to update exposure guidelines based on actual usage and science. The two challenges have been sent to the DC federal district court. Showing Support: Contact us to sign on in support of science-based limits - our email is in the footer (all our emails are @lasttreelaws.com preceded by a word such as elm, below).Yes, support public statement in support of court battle for science-based limitsYes, support a public statement, such as a sign on letter and press release, in support of science-based limitsPrefer to avoid making a public statement in supportAre you willing to advocate in public in support of legislation for exposure limits and safer technology?Congressmen and federal representatives Richard Neal and McGovern each signed on to oppose recent rules enacted by the FCC which overturn local zoning rights to allow cellular infrastructure in rights of way, etc. Federal representative Joe Kennedy has also signed onto a later letter saying that the FCC is moving too fast and ignoring local municipal needs.Thank you for completing our poll!If you support our concepts for legislation, please stay in touch and look online at our website regularly to see if there is testimony to sign or legislators to contact in favor of legislation.You may also subscribe, although we presently are using the website for updates (see home page).Contact Information for Coalition SupportPlease also consider providing your name and contact information below to be contacted to have your name added in support of various initiatives. Time is Up!