Tighter standards needed
Do current standards for wireless radiation adequately protect our families? Not according to Uloma Igara Uche and Olga Naidenko, writing in the July issue of the journal Environmental Health.‘ Radiofrequency radiation can elicit carcinogenic, genotoxic, reproductive, developmental, neurological, and cognitive effects,’ the authors said. ‘Continuously increasing exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communication devices and sources brings urgency to the question of health-protective limits for such exposures.’ In their paper, the authors analysed data from two large, long-term animal experiments—one by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the other by Italy’s Ramazzini Institute. The NTP study found that rodents exposed to wireless radiation prenatally and long-term (for two years) had increased rates of cardiac, genetic and cancerous damage. The Ramazzini study found that rats exposed for their entire lifetime (prenatally and to death) had higher rates of schwannomas of the heart. Using this data, the authors calculated the exposure dose at which these problems developed. They applied the ten-fold safety factory that is usually applied to translate data from animals to humans; another ten-fold safety factor to account for differences in the human population, and a 5-fold safety factory to apply the data to children, who are generally thought be more sensitive to environmental stresses than adults. The results showed that current US standards are not sufficiently protective.The limits Uche and Olga V Naidenko derived are very much lower and are given as Specific Absorption Rates (SARs), ie how much radiation is absorbed by tissues. For adults, they arrived at a limit of 2 to 4 milliWatts per kg (mW/kg), 20 to 40 times lower than the existing US limit and less than international limits of the International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), followed by Australia. For children, they arrived at a limit of 0.2—0.4 mW/kg. ‘Both technology changes and behavior chances may be necessary to achieve these lower exposure levels. Simple actions, such as keeping the wireless devices farther away from the body, offer an immediate way to decrease RFR [radiofrequency radiation] exposure for the user.’Uloma Igara Uche and Olga V. Naidenko, ’Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach ‘, Environ Health (2021) 20:84 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1; https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12940-021-00768-1.pdfWhat you can do Set up radiation-free alternatives to wireless devices. Make your home safe with our new online course, Your Electromagnetic-safe Home Book a phone consultation to find answers to your questions here. What else you can doIf you found the information above of interest, please forward this email to others. If you’d like more information, you can download our latest issue of EMR and Health here. If you’ve been sent this message by a friend and would like to subscribe to future updates, you can do that here.
EMR Australia PL
A business that doesn’t discriminate
02 9576 1772
|LAKE TAHOE LAWSUIT UPDATE|
We have before us a rare opportunity to win a landmark federal lawsuit against the telecom industry.
For years, dedicated public health and environmental activists have undertaken Herculean efforts to challenge the placement of inappropriately sited wireless infrastructure near homes and schools. While activists have had some success in defeating specific proposed installations, we need some big legal wins under our belt to change the nature of telecom’s game.
The South Lake Tahoe federal lawsuit is the one that could do it.
More than 100 unregulated, radiation-emitting 5G antennas have already been installed throughout the area and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) wants to approve the construction of a 112-foot Verizon cell tower smack in the middle of a beloved bald eagle habitat!
Thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, environmental concerns cannot usually be considered by the courts when it comes to wireless infrastructure. But because Tahoe is a federally protected area, the state preemption rules imposed by the Telecommunications Act do not apply. Thus, environmental concerns related to wireless telecommunications facilities can — for the first time — be considered in federal court.
On November 24, 2020, a legal team from the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP) filed a lawsuit against the TRPA, Verizon Wireless, the Tahoe Prosperity Center, Inc., and a South Lake Tahoe property owner. If successful, the case will protect the lake from future wireless infrastructure deployments. It could even set legal precedent for our national parks and other sensitive environments across the country.
The NISLAPP attorneys feel so strongly about this case that they have been subsidizing the work for months out of their own pockets. Unfortunately, the scarce funds for this case have run dry with more than $100,000 spent on legal fees to date.
The legal team is currently seeking $7,500 in legal and attorney fees to cover the cost of preparing for and appearing at the October 14 hearing. This hearing will be a critical juncture in the case.
Make a tax-deductible contribution to this historic legal action today.
HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO!
1. PLEASE DONATE NOWIf you would prefer to send a check, please specify that the check is intended to support the TAHOE CASE. NISLAPP is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit organization so your generous contribution is tax deductible.
Please make checks payable to: National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP)5614 Connecticut Ave., NW #339Washington, DC 20015
If you have no interest in a tax deduction, an online GoFundMe campaign has been established so you can easily donate. Just go here: https://www.gofundme.com/save-lake-tahoe.
2. SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS THROUGH EMAIL & SOCIAL MEDIACut and paste the above text or download the flyer below and share the GoFundMe link on your social media!
For more information about the case, please visit: https://www.tahoeforsafertech.org/.
We can’t thank you enough for your support and generosity!DOWNLOAD THE LAKE TAHOE FLYER.Just Click on the Image to Get a Copy.Enjoy all our downloadable graphics and share in your communities.Connect with us on social to spread awareness.
The Pittsfield Board of Health has asked Verizon Wireless to remove or relocate the cell tower at 877 South St. to a safer area that still meets cell service needs. Since the tower went into operation last summer, near Alma Street, neighbors have complained of various health problems, including an increase in cancer diagnoses. EAGLE FILE PHOTO
PITTSFIELD — Remove the South Street cell tower, or relocate it.
The Pittsfield Board of Health personally has asked Verizon Wireless to dismantle the communications structure at 877 South St. because of a number of neighbors apparently getting sick, some seriously, from a variety of illnesses, cancer possibly being one of them.
After a meeting via Zoom with Verizon representatives last month to discuss the potential health risks of the tower, city health officials said residents shouldn’t get their hopes up that the tower will be gone.
“We flat out asked them, ‘Are you willing to consider removing the tower or relocating it?’” Andy Cambi, the city’s interim health director, said during the board’s monthly meeting Wednesday. Cambi and board member Brad Gordon, who both met with Verizon, said the communications giant will consider the request, but Gordon said “it was unlikely” it would be honored.
“We really pressed them to have an open mind and think about it, and they said that’s what they would do, but I don’t want to build false hope we’re moving forward in that manner,” Gordon said.
The board says it will give Verizon alternative sites for the tower to consider that meet cellphone service needs and are safely away from residents.
‘Sick in our own homes’
The cell tower was erected during summer 2020, on the southerly portion of 877 South St., putting it near the Oliver and Plumb streets neighborhood off Holmes Road. The structure was activated a year ago September and, shortly thereafter, according to residents, especially on Alma Street, which is the closest to the tower, the health problems kicked in.
The Gilardi family is among those residents who claim they started to suffer from headaches, nausea and ringing in the ears.
“For months after the cell tower started transmission, we were sick in our own homes. I watched my children vomit in their beds,” the mother, Courtney Gilardi, said before the board Wednesday evening.
vomit in their beds,” the mother, Courtney Gilardi, said before the board Wednesday evening.
Gilardi’s teenage daughter, Amelia Coco Gilardi, noted that the health problems persisted to the point that the family moved out of its home several months ago. Amelia wants her life back.
“After seven months of living out of a suitcase because I can’t live in my own home, I just want to go home and be safe in my room again,” she told the board.
The Gilardis said that since the tower was brought online, there has been an increase in the number of cancer cases among neighbors. While it’s unclear if the emissions from the tower are to blame, experts who have advised the board and residents caution that the exposure levels allowed by the Federal Communications Commission are dated and do not do enough, as wireless technology has advanced, to protect health.
As the city and residents seek an immediate solution to the claimed health effects of the cell tower, the Legislature on Monday took testimony on a bill to create an independent commission to study the health risks of wireless communications.
State Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, D-Pittsfield, who lives on Oliver Street, says the panel needs to have a balanced membership.
“It’s important the commission is not industry-controlled, but they should be represented. What we need are health experts on the commission,” she said.
Courtney Gilardi testified in support of the commission and took advantage of her trip to the Statehouse in Boston.
“We stayed at a nice hotel, and it was the first time in seven months we slept in real beds, not mattresses on the floor. It was the first time in seven months we took hot showers before going to sleep at night, as where we’re staying doesn’t have plumbing to do so,” she said.
Dick Lindsay can be reached at email@example.com.