Pentagon report investigated lasers that put voices in your head

Pentagon report investigated lasers that put voices in your head

Department of Defense

A recently unclassified report from the Pentagon from 1998 has revealed an investigation into using laser beams for a few intriguing potential methods of non-lethal torture. Some of the applications the report investigated include putting voices in people’s heads, using lasers to trigger uncontrolled neuron firing, and slowly heating the human body to a point of feverish confusion – all from hundreds of meters away.

A US citizen requested access to the document, entitled “Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons,” under the Freedom of Information Act a little over a year ago. There is no evidence that any of the technologies mentioned in the 10-year-old report have been developed since the time it was written.

The report explained several types of non-lethal laser applications, including microwave hearing, disrupted neural control, and microwave heating. For the first type, short pulses of RF energy (2450 MHz) can generate a pressure wave in solids and liquids. When exposed to pulsed RF energy, humans experience the immediate sensation of “microwave hearing” – sounds that may include buzzing, ticking, hissing, or knocking that originate within the head.

Studies with guinea pigs and cats suggest that the mechanism responsible for the phenomenon is thermoelastic expansion. Exposure to the RF pulses doesn´t cause any permanent effects, as all effects cease almost immediately after exposure ceases. As the report explains, tuning microwave hearing could enable communicating with individuals from a distance of up to several hundred meters.

“The phenomenon is tunable in that the characteristic sounds and intensities of those sounds depend on the characteristics of the RF energy as delivered,” the report explains. “Because the frequency of the sound heard is dependent on the pulse characteristics of the RF energy, it seems possible that this technology could be developed to the point where words could be transmitted to be heard like the spoken word, except that it could only be heard within a person´s head. In one experiment, communication of the words from one to ten using ´speech modulated´ microwave energy was successfully demonstrated. Microphones next to the person experiencing the voice could not pick up these sounds. Additional development of this would open up a wide range of possibilities.”

The report predicts that communicating at longer distances would be possible with larger equipment, while shorter range signals could be generated with portable equipment. Putting voices in people´s heads could cause what the report calls “psychologically devastating” effects. The technology might even allow for communicating with an individual hostage surrounded by captors, although this would require “extreme directional specificity.”

With another weapon, electromagnetic pulses could be used to disrupt the brain´s functioning, although this technology was still in the theoretical stages at the time.

Under normal conditions, all brain structures function with specific rhythmic activity depending on incoming sensory information. Sometimes, the brain synchronizes neuronal activity in order to focus on a specific task, but the degree of neuronal synchronization is highly controlled. However, under certain conditions (such as physical stress or heat stroke), more areas of the brain can fire in a highly synchronized manner, and may begin firing uncontrollably.

The report describes a method for replicating this highly synchronized neuron firing across distances of several hundred meters. High-voltage (100 kV/m) electromagnetic pulses lasting for one nanosecond could trigger neurons to fire, disrupting the body´s controlled firing activity. Short-term effects may include loss of consciousness, muscle spasms, muscle weakness, and seizures lasting for a couple minutes. These high-voltage pulsed sources, which would require an estimated frequency of 15 Hz, exist today.

Another form of non-lethal torture described in the report is microwave heating. By raising the temperature of the body to 41°C (105.8°F), humans can experience sensations such as memory loss and disorientation, and exhibit reduced aggression. According to the report, humans can survive temperatures up to 42°C (107.6°F), at which time prolonged exposure can result in permanent brain damage or death.

The microwave heating technique was tested on a Rhesus monkey, where a 225 MHz beam caused an increase in the animal´s body temperature. Depending on the dosage level, the temperature increase occurred within a time of 15 to 30 minutes. After the beam was removed, the animal´s body temperature decreased back to normal. The report suggests the technique could be useful for controlling crowds or in negotiations.

While the investigations reveal intriguing techniques for non-lethal torture, the report does not mention plans for carrying out specific experiments or studies in the future.

Full report: Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weaponsvia: Wired

 

 

https://phys.org/news/2008-02-pentagon-lasers-voices.html

PROTECTING MILITARY PERSONNEL AND THE PUBLIC FROM THE HAZARDS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION FROM MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS AND RADAR SYSTEMS

{This is an unclassified document written in the 70’s.  We have made little to NO progress in understanding and developing laws, protection and safety for the Public.

We are guinea pigs; as we are with Covid 19. If you are waiting for someone else on a white horse to fix all this; you are living in a bubble…….Sandaura}

 

PROTECTING MILITARY PERSONNEL AND THE PUBLIC FROM THE HAZARDS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION FROM MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS AND RADAR SYSTEMS

Document Title : Protection Military Personnel and the Public from the Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation from Military Communications and Radar Systems.
AD Number: ADA076936 Subject Categories: RADIOBIOLOGY Corporate Author: ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS Title: Protection Military Personnel and the Public from the Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation from Military Communications and Radar Systems. Descriptive Note: Final rept., Personal Authors: Oliva,Stephen A. ; Report Date: 08 JUN 1979 Pages: 126 PAGES Supplementary Note: Master’s thesis. Descriptors: *ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION, *RADIATION PROTECTION, *RADIATION HAZARDS, USSR, MILITARY PERSONNEL, UNITED STATES, BATTLEFIELDS, THESES, SAFETY, MILITARY APPLICATIONS, STANDARDS, RADAR EQUIPMENT, COMMUNICATION AND RADIO SYSTEMS, EXTREMELY HIGH FREQUENCY, FIELD CONDITIONS, POLAND, EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY, SUPERLOW FREQUENCY. Abstract: This study has as its objective the improvement of the protection provided by the military services to military personnel and members of the general public from the hazards of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) of military communications and radar systems. The focus of the investigation is on the area of the electromagnetic spectrum from 30 Hz to 300 Gegahertz. As part of the investigation, the nature of EMR with respect to its interaction with biological matter is reviewed, and the extent of the hazard created by EMR at various frequencies is examined. The extent of military involvement with systems that emit EMR and with research into the hazards of EMR is detailed. An analysis of the military services protective measures, both physical and administrative, is made. Investigation reveals that there are several areas in which the individual services could improve their protective measures by adopting measures in use in other services. Limitation Code: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Source Code: 037260
MASTER OF MILITARY AFlT AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE .
Name of candidate Stewhen A. Oliva. MU. USA Title of thesis Protecting Military Personnel and the Public from the EIazards of Electrornaiznetic Radiation from
Approvyd b:..
, Research Advisor
, Member, Graduate Faculty
, Member, Consulting Faculty
Accepted this /’. . .&u:’&&
day of
dw-1979 by , Director, Graduate Degree
Programs.
The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General. Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement)
PROTECTING :MILITARY PERSONNEL AND THE PUBLIC FROM THE HAZARDS
OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION FROM MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS AND
HADAR SYSTEMS, by Major Stephen A. Oliva, USA, 114 pages.
ABSTRAST
This study has as its objective’ the improvement of’ the protection provided by the military services to military personnel and members of the general public from thE’ hazards of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) of military communications and radar systems. The focus of the investigation is on the
area of the electromagnetic spectrum from )0 Hz to 300 Gigahertz.
As part of the investigation, the nature of EMF with respect to its interaction with biological matter is reviewed, and the extent of the hazard created by EMR at various frequencies is examined. The extent of military involvement with systems that emit EMR and with research into the hazards of EMR is detailed.
An analysis of the military services protective measures, both physical and administrative, is made. Investigation reveals that the…., are several areas in which the individual services could improve their protective
measures by adopting measures in ·’.lse in other services.
Recommendations as to corrective measures are suggested.
iii

 

SYMPTOMS
hypothermia mutations
cataracts and lenticular opacities hemocancentration
auditory nerve effects* hemodilution
neurological effects* pulminllary dilation
fatigability* hypothermia
headache* burns
sleepiness* vascular hypertension
irritability* hemorrhage
loss of appetite” testicular effects
memory difficulties* chromosomal aberrations
cardiovascular effects neurological (CNS) effects*
heart enlargement
E5G charges
increased thyroid activity
alterations in serum proteins
x.
decrease in olfactory sensation* Possible non-thermal effects, uncon-
hair loss* firmed by United States scientists.
disruption of sexual potency
unstable mood*
hypochondriasis*
anxiety*
respiratory changes
histamine elevations in serum
reaction in auditory sensitivity*

SUMMARY
In examining the problem of the hazards associated with EMR, this study concludes that there are many areas where differences are apparent in individual service regulations, instructions guidance and standards. Services not implementing protective measures in use in other services may benefit by implementing such measures, Discrepancies between EMR exposure standards among the services may lead to a lessening of credence in the standards. Differences in other areas, such as EMR emitter monitoring programs, use of protective devices, use of hazard warning signs, and medical monitoring programs tend to cast doubt on the adequacy of some service programs when compared to the progress of other services.
In an effort to improve the EMR hazard protection provided by the military services, several recommendations are offered. The recommendations include: establishing a tri-service committee to coordinate the implementation of protective methods among the services; providing specific guidance concerning physical protective measures to be used in the research, development, test and evaluation phases of new equipment procurement; resolving differences between

Wireless Radiation (RFR) – Is U.S. Government Ignoring Its Own Evidence for Risk?

Wireless Radiation (RFR) – Is U.S. Government Ignoring Its Own Evidence for Risk?

 

To EMF Community:

Below is information I pulled together for a government employee questioning risks from non-ionizing radiation, as he was under the impression only thermal effects cause harm. The material below, and attached, documents thumbnail_IMG_56242that the U.S. has known for over a half century that there are biological and health effects of non-thermal radio frequency radiation.

    1. Naval Medical Research Institute (1971), “BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REPORTED BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA (‘EFFECTS’) AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO MICROWAVE AND RADIO-FREQUENCY RADIATION”, Zorach R. Glaser, PhD,

 

    1. NASA publication (February 1972)– Translation of Russian Research, “INFLUENCE OF MICROWAVE RADIATION ON THE ORGANISM OF MAN AND ANIMALS

 

    1. Defense Intelligence Agency (March 1976)“BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES”, prepared by U.S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency

 

    1. NASA Report (April 1981)“ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD INTERACTIONS WITH THE HUMAN BODY: OBSERVED EFFECTS AND THEORIES”

 

    1. U.S. Air Force (June 1994)– “RADIOFREQUENCY/MICROWAVE RADIATION BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND SAFETY STANDARDS: A REVIEW”. Original classified report June 1988.

 

    1. Department of the Army – “Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons” (February 1998, declassified Dec. 6, 2006), Addendum to the Nonlethal Technologies Worldwide Study -NGIC 1147-101-98 study) provided through FOIA request

 

  1. Please also see the attached report on 5G biological risks by Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Washington State University (May 2018):

 

“5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them”

 

    1. Also see Dr. Martin Pall’s “List of 170 Reviews on Non-thermal Effects of Microwave/Intermediate Frequency EMFs”. These scientific reviews document the non-thermal effects from Radio Frequency Radiation, citing many thousands of studies.

 

  1. Finally, last year the NIEHS’s National Toxicology Program(NTP) published a large $30mm animal study on cancer risks from Radio Frequency Radiation, which found the very same cancers, glioma brain tumors and schwannomas (nerve sheath tumors), previously found in human epidemiology studies and in another recent large animal study published last year by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy. Dr. Ron Melnick, the leader of the team that designed the NTP study, said “The assumption has always been that RF radiation could not cause cancer. Now we know that was wrong.” (Microwave News)

It is a fallacy that the only risk from electromagnetic fields are the thermal effects.

The FCC exposure guidelines today are non-protective of existing cell phone and wireless exposures. They do not take into consideration the large body of science documenting non-thermal effects, including the U.S. government’s own science, nor the reality that the biological effects of our many kinds of exposures these days are additive and cumulative. And, the guidelines are certainly also non-protective from the coming higher frequency and higher pulsation (i.e. more biologically disruptive) millimeter exposures planned for antennas using 5G, that the industry plans to densely place throughout our neighborhoods, on every few utility poles, unless the American people stand up for their right to health.

The U.S. government has terribly failed the American people by not acting on the very serious risks its own science has long revealed. And we are at a disgraceful place where industry’s plans for further antenna densification may put our very species at risk.

Thank goodness Senators Richard Blumenthal and Anna Eshoo are now questioning the safety of 5G in Congressional hearings. Thank goodness for their courage and truth-telling.

Others within the U.S. government have warned before. For example,

  • FDA – 1993 – An FDA internal memo admitted microwaves can accelerate cancer. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biologists concluded that the available data **strongly suggest** that microwaves can **accelerate the development of cancer**. This assessment is in an internal agency memo obtained by Microwave News under the Freedom of Information Act. http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-f03issue.pdf

 

  • EPA– 2002– EPA Letter to EMR Network affirmed the following:

 

This letter from the EPA stated, “The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the IEEE and ICNRP, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations. They are believed to protect against injury that may be caused by acute exposures that may result in tissue heating or electric shock or burn”.

 

  • Department of Interior Letter –2014–to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce. This letter stated:

“ FCC standards for cell phone radiation are outmoded and no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife.” (Feb 2014)

“Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death. Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges- 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States. However, the electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.

It is highly unusual to have one U.S. Department criticizing another.

And also, we’ve known about risk from an industry-commissioned report, The Ecolog Report, published in 2000 (conducted for T-Mobile Deutsche Telecom). This review of the scientific literature showing non-thermal effects cited evidence for the following:

  1. Gene Toxicity
  2. Impacts on Cellular Processes, Communication and Proliferation
  3. Pathological Effects on:

– Immune system

– Central nervous system, including the Blood Brain Barrier, Neurotransmittors, EEG and Cognitive Functions

– Hormone systems—including stress hormones, melatonin

  1. Evidence for association with Cancer and Infertility

 

Note some of the Ecolog report’s conclusions:

“Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.”

“Impairment of cognitive functions was found in animal experiments at power flux densities of 2W/m2. In humans, there are indications that brain functions are influenced by fields such as they occur when using a mobile telephone.”

“An epidemiological study of children who had been exposed to pulsed high frequency fields, found a decrease in the capability to concentrate and an increase in reaction times.”

“Effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on the central nervous system are proven for intensities well below the current guidelines.”

I hope this information is helpful to all.

If anyone would like to add to this list please be in touch.

Download PDF of this Post

 

Please support our work by making
a tax-deductible donation.
We are 100% donation-based
and need your support to
educate, communicate and analyze
critical developments in this field.
Thanks so much for your help!
Please give generously.
We depend on you.

Wireless Radiation (RFR) – Is U.S. Government Ignoring Its Own Evidence for Risk?

Electromagnetic fields and public health: radars and human health Americans  

Smart meters are pulsed RF microwaves that emit non thermal radiation.  The technology is functioning no different than radar.  We cannot escape the radiation effects because it radiates 24/7.  During power outages it does not shut down because it operates on back up batteries.  What is disturbing is the concern for cell phone exposure has not grown in the past 14 years. The concern for the negative impact of smart meters has not grown.  Now, we are in chaos about wearing a mask to save lives.  We can’t fight and stand up together if we don’t take these dangers seriously.  My worst fear is the continued dumbing down of America, along with health and good judgement declining to a point where we will be unable to fix everything that needs our attention….Sandaura

World Health Organization logo, logotype

Electromagnetic fields and public health: radars and human health Americans

 

Fact sheet N°226

Radar systems detect the presence, direction or range of aircraft, ships or other, usually moving objects. This is achieved by sending pulses of high frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF). Invented some 60 years ago, radar systems have been widely used for navigation, aviation, national defense and weather forecasting. Their primary objective is individual and collective safety and protection.

People who live or routinely work around radars have expressed concerns about long-term adverse effects of these systems on health, including cancer, reproductive malfunction, cataracts and changes in behaviour or development of children. A recent example has been the alleged increase in testicular cancer in police using speed control hand-held radar “guns”.

It is important to distinguish between perceived and real dangers that radars pose, as well as to understand the rational behind existing international standards and protective measures used today.

EMF emissions

Radars usually operate at radio frequencies (RF) between 300 MHz and 15 GHz. They generate EMFs that are called RF fields. RF fields within this part of the electromagnetic spectrum are known to interact differently with human body.

RF fields below 10 GHz (to 1 MHz) penetrate exposed tissues and produce heating due to energy absorption. The depth of penetration depends on the frequency of the field and is greater for lower frequencies. Absorption of RF fields in tissues is measured as a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) within a given tissue mass. The unit of SAR is watts per kilogram (W/kg). SAR is the quantity used to measure the “dose” of RF fields between about 1 MHz and 10 GHz.

  • An SAR of at least 4 W/kg is needed to produce known adverse health effects in people exposed to RF fields in this frequency range.

RF fields above 10 GHz are absorbed at the skin surface, with very little of the energy penetrating into the underlying tissues. The basic dosimetric quantity for RF fields above 10 GHz is the intensity of the field measured as power density in watts per square metre (W/m2) or for weak fields in milliwatts per square metre (mW/m2) or microwatts per square metre (µW/m2).

  • Exposure to RF fields above 10 GHz at power densities over 1000 W/m2 are known to produce adverse health effects, such as eye cataracts and skin burns.

Human exposure

The power that radar systems emit varies from a few milliwatts (police traffic control radar) to many kilowatts (large space tracking radars). However, a number of factors significantly reduce human exposure to RF generated by radar systems, often by a factor of at least 100:

  • Radar systems send electromagnetic waves in pulses and not continuously. This makes the average power emitted much lower than the peak pulse power.
  • Radars are directional and the RF energy they generate is contained in beams that are very narrow and resemble the beam of a spotlight. RF levels away from the main beam fall off rapidly. In most cases, these levels are thousands of times lower than in the main beam.
  • Many radars have antennas which are continuously rotating or varying their elevation by a nodding motion, thus constantly changing the direction of the beam.
  • Areas, where dangerous human exposure may occur are normally inaccessible to unauthorized personnel.

Radar sources

Some of the common types of radars encountered in daily life include:

Air traffic control radars are used to track the location of aircraft and to control their landing at airports. They are generally located at elevated positions where the beam is inaccessible to persons on the ground. Typical air traffic control radars can have peak powers of 100 kW or more, but average powers of a few hundred watts. Under normal operating conditions, these systems pose no hazard to the general public.

Weather radars are often co-located with air traffic control radars in remote areas at airports. They operate at higher frequencies but generally have lower average and peak powers. As with air traffic control radars, under normal conditions, they pose no hazards to the general public.

Military radars are numerous and vary from very large installations, which have large peak (1 MW or greater) and average powers (kW), to small military fire control radars, typically found on aircraft. Large size radars often evoke concern in communities living around them. However, because its power is radiated over a large surface area, the power densities associated with these systems vary between 10 and 100 W/m2 within the site boundary. Outside the site boundary RF field levels are usually unmeasurable without using sophisticated equipment. However, small military fire control radars on aircraft can be hazardous to ground personnel. These units have relatively high average powers (kW) and small area antennas, making it possible to have power densities up to 10 kW/m2. Members of the general public would not be exposed to these emissions because during ground testing of radars access to these areas by all personnel is prohibited. The military also use most other types of radars described below.

Marine radars can be found on small pleasure boats to large ocean going vessels. Peak powers of these systems can reach up to 30 kW, with average powers ranging from 1 to 25 W. Under normal operating conditions, with the antenna rotating, the average power density of the higher power systems within a metre of the antenna is usually less than 10 W/m2. In accessible areas on most watercraft, these levels would fall to a few percent of present public RF exposure standards.

Speed control radars are hand-held by police in many countries. The average output power is very low, a few milliwatts, and so the units are not considered hazardous to health, even when used in very close proximity to the body.

Possible health effects

Most studies conducted to date examined health effects other than cancer. They probed into physiological and thermo-regulatory responses, behavioral changes and effects such as the induction of lens opacities (cataracts) and adverse reproductive outcome following acute exposure to relatively high levels of RF fields. There are also a number of studies that report non-thermal effects, where no appreciable rise in temperature can be measured.

Cancer-related studies: Many epidemiological studies have addressed possible links between exposure to RF and excess risk of cancer. However, because of differences in the design and execution of these studies, their results are difficult to interpret. A number of national and international peer review groups have concluded that there is no clear evidence of links between RF exposure and excess risk of cancer. WHO has also concluded that there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to RF shortens the life span of humans, or that RF is an inducer or promoter of cancer. However, further studies are necessary.

Thermal effects: RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. The earliest signs of an adverse health consequence, found in animals as the level of RF fields increased, include reduced endurance, aversion of the field and decreased ability to perform mental tasks. These studies also suggest adverse effects may occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized exposure to RF fields sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1°C. Possible effects include the induction of eye cataracts, and various physiological and thermo-regulatory responses as body temperature increases. These effects are well established and form the scientific basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to RF fields.

Non-thermal effects: Exposure to RF levels too low to involve heating, (i.e., very low SARs), has been reported by several groups to alter calcium ion mobility, which is responsible for transmitting information in tissue cells. However, these effects are not sufficiently established to provide a basis for restricting human exposure.

Pulsed RF fields: Exposure to very intense pulsed RF fields, similar to those used by radar systems, has been reported to suppress the startle response and evoke body movements in conscious mice. In addition, people with normal hearing have perceived pulse RF fields with frequencies between about 200 MHz and 6.5 GHz. This is called the microwave hearing effect. The sound has been variously described as a buzzing, clicking, hissing or popping sound, depending on the RF pulsing characteristics. Prolonged or repeated exposure may be stressful and should be avoided where possible.

RF shocks and burns: At frequencies less than 100 MHz, RF burns or shock may result from charges induced on metallic objects situated near radars. Persons standing in RF fields can also have high local absorption of the fields in areas of their bodies with small cross sectional areas, such as the ankles. In general, because of the higher frequencies that most modern radar systems operate, combined with their small beam widths, the potential for such effects is very small.

Electromagnetic interference: Radars can cause electromagnetic interference in other electronic equipment. The threshold for these effects are often well below guidance levels for human exposure to RF fields. Additionally, radars can also cause interference in certain medical devices, such as cardiac pacemakers and hearing aids. If individuals using such devices work in close proximity to radar systems they should contact manufacturers to determine the susceptibility of their products to RF interference.

Ignition of flammable liquids and explosives: RF fields can ignite flammable liquids and explosives through the induction of currents. This is a rare occurrence, and normally of most concern where there is a large concentration of radars, such as on board a naval ship where measures are taken to prevent such effects.

International standards

Exposure limits for RF fields are developed by international bodies such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). ICNIRP is a non-governmental organization formally recognised by WHO. The Commission uses health risk assessments developed in conjunction with WHO to draft their guidelines on exposure limits. The ICNIRP guidelines protect against all established RF health effects and are developed following reviews of all the peer-reviewed scientific literature, including reports on cancer and non-thermal effects. Environmental RF levels from radars, in areas normally accessible to the general public, are at least 1,000 times below the limits for continuous public exposure allowed by the ICNIRP guidelines, and 25,000 times below the level at which RF exposure has been established to cause the earliest known health effects.

Protective measures

The aim of protective measures is to eliminate or reduce human exposure to RF fields below acceptable limits. An extensive program of measurement surveys, hazard communication, coupled with effective protective measures, is required around all radar installations. In most countries, comprehensive documentation is prepared, including an environmental impact statement, before a radar system can be constructed.

Following construction of the radar facility, site surveys should be performed to quantify RF field levels in the area. While extremely high RF field levels can be measured directly in front of a radar, in most cases levels in public areas are not easily measurable. In order to prevent both workers and the general public from entering areas where the RF levels are above the limits, both engineering and administrative controls are used.

  • Engineering controls include interlocks, electronic means to exclude the radar pointing in certain areas, and shielding.
  • Administrative controls include audible and visible alarms, warning signs, and restriction of access through barriers, locked doors, or limiting access time to radar.

When engineering and administrative controls do not suffice, workers should use personal protective equipment to ensure compliance with exposure standards. Conductive suits, gloves, safety shoes and other types of personal protective equipment for RF fields are now commercially available.

  • They should be used with great care, since the attenuation properties of the material used to make this protective equipment can vary dramatically with frequency. Only when the attenuation properties of the equipment is known at the frequency in question can they be used reliably.
  • Special care should be exercised with RF safety glasses since any metal may enhance local fields by acting as a receiving antenna.
  • There are no exposure situations where members of the general public need to use protective equipment for RF fields from radars.
  • In recent years, clothing and other materials have appeared on the consumer market claiming to have RF shielding properties, and directing their claims to “sensitive” members of the general population, such as pregnant women. The use of these types of products is unnecessary and should be discouraged. They offer no effective RF shielding, and there is no need for these devices.

Human exposure to EMF emitted by radar systems is limited by international standards and protective measures, which were adopted on the basis the currently available scientific evidence. In summary:

  • RF fields cause molecules in tissue to vibrate and generate heat. Heating effects could be expected if time is spent directly in front of some radar antennas, but are not possible at the environmental levels of RF fields emanating from radar systems.
  • To produce any adverse health effect, RF exposure above a threshold level must occur. The known threshold level is the exposure needed to increase tissue temperature by at least 1oC. The very low RF environmental field levels from radar systems cannot cause any significant temperature rise.
  • To date, researchers have not found evidence that multiple exposures to RF fields below threshold levels cause any adverse health effects. No accumulation of damage occurs to tissues from repeated low level RF exposure.
  • At present, there is no substantive evidence that adverse health effects, including cancer, can occur in people exposed to RF levels at or below the limits set by international standards. However, more research is needed to fill certain gaps in knowledge.

Auditory Response to Pulsed Auditory Response to Pulsed

Auditory Response to Pulsed 

Radio Frequency Energy

J.A. Elder* and C.K. Chou

Motorola Florida Research Laboratories, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA

The human auditory response to pulses of radiofrequency (RF) energy, commonly called RF hearing,is a well established phenomenon. RF induced sounds can be characterized as low intensity sounds
because, in general, a quiet environment is required for the auditory response. The sound is similar toother common sounds such as a click, buzz, hiss, knock, or chirp. Effective radiofrequencies range
from 2.4 to 10 000 MHz, but an individual’s ability to hear RF induced sounds is dependent upon high
frequency acoustic hearing in the kHz range above about 5 kHz. The site of conversion of RF energy to acoustic energy is within or peripheral to the cochlea, and once the cochlea is stimulated, the detection of RF induced sounds in humans and RF induced auditory responses in animals is similar to acoustic sound detection. The fundamental frequency of RF induced sounds is independent of the frequency of
the radiowaves but dependent upon head dimensions. The auditory response has been shown to be dependent upon the energy in a single pulse and not on average power density. The weight of evidence of the results of human, animal, and modeling studies supports the thermoelastic expansion theory as
the explanation for the RF hearing phenomenon. RF induced sounds involve the perception via bone conduction of thermally generated sound transients, that is, audible sounds are produced by rapid thermal expansion resulting from a calculated temperature rise of only 5 106 8C in tissue at the threshold level due to absorption of the energy in the RF pulse. The hearing of RF induced sounds at exposure levels many orders of magnitude greater than the hearing threshold is considered to be a biological effect without an accompanying health effect. This conclusion is supported by a comparison of pressure induced in the body by RF pulses to pressure associated with hazardous acoustic energy
and clinical ultrasound procedures.

Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 6:S162–S173, 2003.
2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Key words: RF hearing; microwave; thermoelastic; auditory response

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bem.10163

MEDIA ADVISORY-Children’s Health Defense’s

MEDIA ADVISORY

Media Contact: Stefanie Spear, stefanie.spear@childrenshealthdefense.org, 216-387-1609

PRESS EVENT: Children’s Health Defense Files Principal Brief in Landmark Case Against FCC on 5G and Wireless Harms


WHEN: Thursday, July 30 at 3:30 p.m. EDT


WHERE: Zoom. REGISTER HERE.


WHAT: Children’s Health Defense will file today, Wednesday, July 29, a landmark principal brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its case challenging the FCC’s refusal to review its 25-year-old obsolete wireless “health guidelines” and adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency (RF) emissions rules that adequately protect public health. The brief is filed jointly with the Environmental Health Trust.


Children’s Health Defense’s brief proves that overwhelming scientific and human evidence of harm from wireless and 5G was presented to the FCC, but the agency ignored the evidence. Therefore, its decision not to review the “health guidelines” is capricious, arbitrary, not evidence-based and an abuse of discretion.


Children’s Health Defense’s principal brief cites to thousands of studies and medical reports, including those conducted by U.S. government agencies, and references hundreds of testimonials by people who have been injured. This evidence shows clear evidence of harm from wireless radiation, from exposure to “non-thermal” radiation at levels well below current FCC emission limits.


The petitioners include parents of children injured by wireless devices, a mother whose son died from a brain cancer from wireless radiation, physicians who see the epidemic of sickness in their clinics and Professor David Carpenter, a renowned scientist and public health expert.


SPEAKERS: 


Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman and Chief Legal Council, Children’s Health Defense

Dafna Tachover, Esq. MBA, Director of 5G and Wireless Harms Project, Children’s Health Defense

Scott McCollough, Esq., Attorney, Children’s Health Defense

Prof. David Carpenter, M.D., Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, NY;  Petitioner in CHD’s case


Parents who submitted affidavits in the case will also participate in the press conference. Parents will share their children’s injuries from wireless radiation.


All speakers are available for interview upon request.


image.png

Dafna Tachover, Esq. MBA
Director, Stop 5G & Wireless Harms Project
Phone: (845) 377 0211
Managing Director
Attorney (NY, Israel), MBA
Sent from my WIRED Internet connection

 

MA-Senator Moore offered the smart meter legislation to the bill and he needs our help to get it through.

Thanks to all who are contacting their MA Senators!
Some have asked for a link to post on social media too — here you go, and thanks!

https://mailchi.mp/7621f1ff9930/urgent-smart-meter-bill-is-moving-must-contact-our-state-senators-today

Five-Minute Ask

Dear Friends, Family and Community Members,

Senator Michael Moore, courageous sponsor of the Massachusetts smart meter choice bill S. 1988, was notified yesterday the Senate will debate their version of the Economic Development bill this coming Wednesday.

Senator Moore offered the smart meter legislation to the bill and he needs our help to get it through.

He is asking us to contact our own Massachusetts State Senators to co-sponsor his amendment. It is critical our Senators receive our request TODAY.

Quick Action 

  1. Start a new email with the Subject line, “Please Co-sponsor Amendment #43 to the Economic Development Bill“. Feel free to add credentials as applicable — from Parent, Grandparent, Teacher, Student, Nurse, Doctor, Scientist, etc.
  2. Look up your State Senator’s contact info if you don’t already have it: https://malegislature.gov/Search/FindMyLegislator
  3. In the To: field, copy and paste your State Senator’s email address along with that of Senate Ways & Means Chair Rodrigues and Senate President Spilka below (note, we include MA4SafeTech@gmail.com too so we have record of what’s coming in):

    [Your Senator]; Michael.Rodrigues@masenate.govKaren.Spilka@masenate.govMA4SafeTech@gmail.com

  4. Copy/paste in the following message, or feel free to write your own:

    Dear Senator,

    Even during this pandemic, the wireless industry is relentlessly forcing toxic wireless radiation on our homes via utility “smart” meters that pulse harmful radiation at our loved ones 24×7.

    We cannot let industry take control from our families and municipalities any longer.

    Please co-sponsor and support Senator Moore’s Amendment #43 to the Economic Development bill S.2842 to establish ratepayer rights which includes:

    * Requiring utility companies to provide ratepayers with a choice of the type of utility meters to be installed and operated on their places of residence or business.

    * The ability to retain and operate an “electromechanical analog meter” on an ongoing basis at no cost to the customer.

    * The right to replacement of a wireless meter with a non-radiation-transmitting electromechanical meter at no cost.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Full Name
    Address
    Phone Number

  5. Since this bill will be debated in the Senate this Wednesday, all emails should be sent ASAP. Please call your Senator’s office to politely let them know your email is in their in-box.
  6. Please ask MA loved ones, friends, colleagues and community members to do the same ASAP.
Thank you — this is closer than we’ve ever gotten in eight years, let’s give it our best!

Mass EV charging: is a can of worms hiding under the bonnet?

Mass EV charging: is a can of worms hiding under the bonnet?

The Government’s push to electrify road transport and domestic heating could place major cost burdens on consumers, says a new report

24 July 2020

Electric vehicles have become something of a panacea for politicians as they grapple with how to decarbonise the transport sector. But for some engineers, the headlong rush to electrify road transport and domestic heating too is a major cause for concern. LTT reported in May the top-down analysis of Michael Kelly, the former chief scientific adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government (LTT 29 May & Letters 26 Jun). Now a more bottom-up analysis has been prepared by retired engineer Mike Travers. Both reports have been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank.

“It is clear that the costs of supporting all the plans the Government has for transport and homes is going to be very high, and it is going to be made worse by the fact that the changeover is not being thought through, let alone planned effectively,” says Travers. “Part of the problem is that there is no institution or organisation in a suitable position to do so. The distribution companies own the transformers and cables, but may or may not be responsible for the smart meters. They therefore have little interest in some form of smart control [of electricity demand]. As profit-making companies, they also have no interest in investing for the future load increases, as they can charge for all the upgrading work as it is required.”

Decarbonisation will place huge new demands on the electricity network, with homeowners installing electric vehicle charging points, heat pumps and electric showers. “The extra demand for electricity will overwhelm most domestic fuses, thus requiring homeowners to install new ones, as well as circuit-breakers and new distribution boards,” says Travers. “Most will also have to rewire between their main fuse and the distribution network. In urban areas, where most electrical cabling is underground, this will involve paying for a trench to be dug between the home and the feeder circuits in the street.”

The Government wants millions of electric vehicles on Britain’s roads within the next decade. Those residents lucky enough to have off-street parking, will have two main choices for charging their EVs, says Travers: slow charging using a standard 13-amp supply, or fast charging using a special 7kW (32-amp) supply.

“For those with time on their hands, the 12 hours needed to fully charge a typical battery car on a 13-amp connection may be acceptable, although there is still the cost of fitting earth fault protection, which will set the homeowner back around £250. Most people will require fast chargers, however, and indeed the Government is considering making their installation mandatory in new homes. Homeowners will therefore need to install a charging pillar.

“These will cost £1,200 to install in new homes, or twice that to retrofit to old ones, because the household distribution board is likely to require upgrading.”

Travers says home chargers will present residents with new social dilemmas as friends and relatives ask to recharge when visiting. “Should you charge visitors for a recharge? You might gift the cost to friends and relatives, but what about the plumber or the carer?”

Vehicle to Grid: but why?

Many EV advocates champion the idea of ‘Vehicle to Grid’ charging. This involves vehicle owners feeding electricity back into the grid from their vehicle’s battery when electricity demand is high. Travers dismisses the concept, at least for residents. “This is unlikely to happen, not because it cannot be done but because it would be ridiculous to do. Firstly, many EVs will be on charge for 12 hours per day, and thus unavailable for supplying the grid. Secondly, it is hard to imagine why anyone possessed of a fully-charged EV would allow the battery to be drained when they might need the car at any moment, and when there was a shortage of electricity.

“Thirdly, the battery is direct current (DC), but the grid requires alternating current (AC). It is unlikely that any homeowner would be prepared to invest £800 in a DC-to-AC inverter to allow them to sell electricity, particularly since the sales value they will derive from doing so would be small. If your EV has cost £10 to charge at 15p/kWh, would you allow the grid to take half of that charge, if it had a value of only £5? The grid would have to pay an extraordinary premium to get someone to bother to connect their car up.”

EVs + heat pumps

Some of the costly problems of EV charging become apparent when combined with the parallel drive to decarbonise homes with electric heat pumps. “As homeowners have to take on all the new electrical devices, they will create new loads on the fuse. Were they to do this without considering the implications, they would quickly find that their fuses become overloaded.”

Most homes have 60 amp fuses, though new homes often have 100 amps. Travers presents calculations to show that even a 100-amp fuse would be “blown regularly”.

“It might be possible for householders to prevent this happening by controlling when they used the shower and cooker, but the difficulties would become insurmountable if fast EV chargers become common in homes,” he says. “The upshot is that the electrics are going to need to be upgraded. Installing a bigger incoming fuse is relatively straightforward, although it comes at a cost of £600. But further works will also be required.

“Cables become loose in terminals over time and, as the heating effect of a loose connection is the square of the current passing through it, the increased loads as we move to a net-zero world mean there is a greater risk of distribution box terminals overheating and catching fire. As a result, all new domestic distribution boxes now have to be metal, rather than the plastic that has been used in recent decades. So when the main fuse is upgraded, it will also be necessary to replace the whole distribution board, at a cost of £2,500.”

Smart meters have been championed as a way of controlling electricity demand and  reducing the need for expensive upgrades to distribution networks. But Travers is sceptical. “The costs and inconveniences – and therefore the political ramifications – of utilising a demand management approach appear to be significant. It seems more likely that the distribution system will be upgraded.

“When the smart meter hype began, it was insinuated that these remote readings would enable the local power company to ‘manage’ the load in a ‘smart’ way; in other words that they would also be able to switch-off households should the distribution transformer be in danger of overload. 

“The implications of doing so are disturbing. It is quite unacceptable and unsafe to switch-off entire households, say at 5pm when the family are cooking over a hot stove, and particularly to do so on a regular basis. While other loads – washing machines, tumble dryers, car chargers and heat pumps – might be less critical, to enable them to be switched off while leaving critical systems like lighting with a supply, the smart meter would need at least two contactors.”

Travers says existing smart meters have a single contactor, which can switch the supply to the house on and off. “They are primarily aimed at allowing suppliers to remotely record consumption and switch to customers who do not pay their bills. 

“The options for homeowners are: upgrade the smart meter to a two-contactor model, or fit a separate circuit for non-critical equipment, with its own smart meter. The first option may well be cheaper, since the second would also require installation of a new distribution box. In essence though, there will need to be a repeat spend on 28 million replacement smart meters.” 

This is not the end of the story. “At present there is no equipment installed between the distribution transformer and the home that could control the process of switching off a home or homes. It would therefore be necessary to install control systems on each feeder circuit. These would need to connect with the smart meters in all the houses, to read how much current each was drawing and, equally importantly, on which phase of the three-phase supply.

“It would then be able to reduce demand as required, keeping the phases balanced and preventing overload of the transformer. The formulation of the algorithm to determine which householder will be cut off will be a knotty problem. Who will decide which householder deserves priority?”

Travers says that, to increase capacity, both service cables and feeder circuits will need upgrading. “In urban areas, the homeowner will have to pay to dig a trench and maybe install a duct for the new cable. Even a short run is likely to cost £2,500 per house, and if the work involves digging up an expensive front drive it could be considerably more.

“When the first household installs a heat pump or fast EV charger, the upgrade of the service cable is the only external work that will need to be performed. However, as more households fall into line with demands for electrification, the load on the feeder circuits will become too great, and the component cables will need to be upgraded too.

“Adding to the complexity, and therefore to the cost, is the fact that all the works will need to be done while the existing cabling is in place and in use; people can hardly be expected to live without electricity while the work is completed. This will take weeks in a single road.”

The distribution transformer may need upgrading too. “I have not attempted to put a cost on this exercise because transformers have long lifetimes and it is therefore likely that the upgrades would involve a large proportion of repurposing existing transformerss”.

PLEASE SIGN SMART METER PETITION

We just got word that 300+ people sent in a statement of support for a 5G ban in Hawaii County on the Big Island, and Resolution 678-20 passed their Planning Committee — the Hawaii County Council will take it up next week!

Won’t you please take five minutes to send in a statement of support for the Massachusetts bills? You needn’t be from Massachusetts to submit, we — and especially our collective children — really need your help. See simple instructions below.

And there’s a smart meter petition to sign too if you’d be so kind.

Quick Action 1

1. Start a new email with the Subject line, “In Support of S. 129 and S. 1988“. Feel free to add credentials as applicable — from Parent, Grandparent, Teacher, Student, Nurse, Doctor, Scientist, etc.

2. Copy and paste the following addresses into the To: field (note, we included MA4SafeTech@gmail.com too so we have record of what’s coming in):

Michael.Rodrigues@masenate.govCindy.Friedman@masenate.govJason.Lewis@masenate.govMike.Barrett@masenate.govJoseph.Boncore@masenate.govMichael.Brady@masenate.govBarry.Finegold@masenate.govNick.Collins@masenate.govAnne.Gobi@masenate.govAdam.Hinds@masenate.govPatricia.Jehlen@masenate.govEric.Lesser@masenate.govJoan.Lovely@masenate.govMichael.Moore@masenate.govMike.Rush@masenate.govPatrick.OConnor@masenate.govRyan.Fattman@masenate.govDean.Tran@masenate.govJulian.Cyr@masenate.govTackey.Chan@mahouse.govThomas.golden@mahouse.govKatherine.Holahan@mass.govKaren.Spilka@masenate.govMA4SafeTech@gmail.com;

3. Copy/paste in the following suggested message, but by all means feel free to write your own or resend to this new group if you submitted last time:

Massachusetts is poised to join New Hampshire and Oregon as the third state to urgently pass legislation to investigate the health and environmental impact of today’s wireless technology.

Even during this pandemic, the wireless industry is relentlessly forcing toxic wireless radiation on our homes via utility “smart” meters, wi-fi systems in our schools, and 4G+/5G small cell antennas outside our homes and offices.

They are also providing toxic wireless devices to our children, with no safety instructions or adapters to hard-wire.

We cannot let industry take control from our families and municipalities any longer. Please, expedite passage of S. 129 Resolve relative to disclosure of radio frequency notifications and S. 1988 An Act relative to utilities, smart meters, and ratepayers’ rights.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Full Name*
Address*
Phone Number*

* These are required to enter your statement into the public record.

4. Please ask others to help too, we must use our collective voices if we expect to get to safe technology. All emails should be sent ASAP. Thank you!


Quick Action 2

Simply sign this smart meter opt-out petition.

Note: this petition was created early in the legislative process by a citizen before we knew a second bill would be advancing too, and a petition can’t be changed once it has signers.

Hence, we still need your help with Quick Action 1 above to cover both bills.

Thank you!


The Details

We are very grateful that even as our legislators are working over-time to address the pandemic and racial justice, they have made it a priority to advance two of the Massachusetts EMF bills.

One bill gives the right to choose no-fee non-radiation-emitting utility meters. The other forms a commission to investigate the whole wireless radiation issue.

Our progress, in large part, is due to those who took a moment to provide testimony for the first round — thank you!

As the bills pass from one committee to the next though, we start with a clean slate so testimony is once again required.

 


The Smart Meter Choice Bill

Feel free to learn more about this bill below, and/or copy any of this into your own statement (thank you to Helen, Patricia, Jean, Ula, Ruth and Rebecca for your expertise!):

  • The pandemic has reinforced the concept that medically vulnerable residents deserve, and are entitled to, protection of their health and well-being by society at large.
  • Decision-makers are often in the position of having to translate that expectation into guidance and specific actions, including public policy.
  • While the pandemic response in MA has been extraordinary, protection of medically vulnerable residents has been overlooked in the case of the very basic need to provide safe and reliable electric, gas, and water service for all. Utilities, municipalities, and the MA Department of Public Utilities (DPU) have all fallen short.
  • The Senate Ways and Means Committee may not be aware that a significant number of Massachusetts residents experienced adverse health effects immediately after installation of wireless utility meters on their homes.
  • Symptoms include headaches, sleeplessness, cognitive and memory problems, problems with balance, irregular heartbeats and intermittent tremor; these symptoms can be disabling.
  • Children experience problems with anxiety, insomnia, attention, memory and learning.
  • Legislators should know recent research has confirmed the medical diagnosis of sensitivity to EMF and its impact on the brain, links to a number of other serious medical conditions, and increasing neurological damage over time, especially for women.
  • The phenomenon is well known throughout the country, and in other states an opt-out is often provided by the public utility commission or sometimes by the legislature as Vermont did.
  • As part of its Grid Modernization Order 12-76B, the Massachusetts DPU required an opt-out from the proposed smart meter program. However, the order addressed only new AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) meters but did not address the thousands of wireless AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) meters already in service or installed after the order.
  • As allowed under the order, National Grid filed a punitive tariff (MA DPU 13-83) for opt-out fees to cover both one-time installation charges and monthly manual reading service charges for both gas and electric meters.
  • These fees are a financial burden to customers, some of whom become too sick from the meters to work. Imposing a surcharge for an accommodation required because of a medical condition is discriminatory.
  • The health issues are the same for the AMR as for the AMI water meters but these customers have no choice for safe technology.
  • Furthermore, MA DPU 12-76B only applies to customers of investor-owned utilities, leaving municipal customers without a choice.
  • Many of the customers who continue to experience adverse health effects related to their wireless meters have Eversource AMR meters or municipal wireless water meters with no choice to opt out.
  • As recently as July 2, 2020, the DPU issued the new Order 20-69 which will investigate time of use applications for electric vehicle customers by possibly working with existing AMR wireless meters.
  • The order directs utilities to “discuss whether the Department should require all new service meters to be capable of providing advanced meter functionality when installed to replace an existing meter that reaches the end of its useful life or otherwise needs to be replaced.”
  • The DPU appears to be moving in the direction of increased deployment of toxic wireless electric meters, and there is no mention in Order 20-69 of opt-outs to accommodate medically vulnerable customers or those who prefer a non-radiation emitting meter.
  • Thus the pressing need to enact S. 1988 An Act relative to utilities, smart meters, and ratepayers’ rights to protect the public. This bill will allow the ratepayer to choose what type of utility meters to have installed on one’s property and to do so without paying punitive fees.
  • S. 1988 will provide an immediate lifeline for customers who are sheltering at home with wireless utility meters that cause them adverse health effects. Please pass this bill without delay.

Sincere thanks to Senator Moore for listening to constituents and sponsoring this bill, to Senator Barrett and Representative Golden for seeing the bill reported favorably out of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, to Senator Tran of this Committee for co-sponsoring, and to the additional co-sponsors for supporting this bill.

 

Sign Petition

The EMF Commission Bill

Feel free to learn more about this bill below, and/or copy any of this into your own statement:

  • S. 129 Resolve relative to disclosure of radio frequency notifications began as a requirement that the product safety warnings buried in the legal fine print for wireless devices be clearly identified on the packaging.
  • But the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure investigated and went further, aiming to create a special commission to research the impact of electromagnetic (EMR) and radiofrequency (RFR) radiation on consumer protection, public health, and technology in the Commonwealth and to produce a report to guide public policy going forward.
  • This bill is modeled after an ordinance in Berkeley, California which was unanimously passed to give the public the right to know there are risks with wireless technology.
  • Three times the wireless industry sued Berkeley, all the way to the Supreme Court. Three times the industry lost.
  • In this period of ever-expanding dependence on technology, customers should be given the right to know the warnings and be provided with education to make safe technology choices.
  • New Hampshire and Oregon also see the urgency and quickly passed bills into law. Both states are actively investigating.
  • Last month the City of Boston, which is now inundated with toxic small cells for 4G+/5G and the Internet of Thing (IoT), filed a submission to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stating, “Boston believes that the concerns of the public are real and that the Commission has done a disservice to itself, local government, consumers, and even the wireless industry in failing to understand and respond to the broadly shared mistrust of the safety of RF emissions.”
  • Wireless radiation is also an environmental justice issue. National Grid targeted Worcester for their toxic smart grid pilot program. Verizon targeted Brockton as a 5G test city while Sprint enticed Brockton high school students with free smartphones and tablets but no safety information.
  • We are experiencing explosive growth in communications infrastructure that has never been tested for biological safety. It is essential that the most up-to-date science regarding the potential health effects of EMR and RFR guide public policy.
  • S. 129 paves the way for this critical work to begin, please pass this bill immediately.

Sincere gratitude to Senator Cyr for introducing this resolve, to Senator Feeney and Representative Chan for seeing the bill reported out favorably by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection & Professional Licensure, and to Senators Friedman, Lovely, Moore and Tran of this Committee for co-sponsoring this resolve, as well as to the additional co-sponsors who have investigated the wireless issues and signed on.


Thank you for sending in support for these safe technology bills!

Warm regards,

Cece & The MA for Safe Technology Team
https://www.ma4safetech.org/

Facebook
Twitter
Link
Website
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts for Safe Technology, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because we have been in touch about wireless radiation risks and safer technology solutions.

Our mailing address is:

Massachusetts for Safe Technology

P.O. Box 393

ConcordMassachusetts 01742

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp