EKG Proof That “Smart” Meters Affect the Human Heart

Published on May 16, 2017

Everyone’s health is being affected by “smart” meters. The evidence in this video is a world first, and shifts the debate from whether anyone should have to pay a fee to refuse a “smart” meter to: When does the safety recall start? We now know that even if people are not showing outward symptoms, their bodies are being unnecessarily and involuntarily stressed by “smart” meters. There must be a complete safety recall of all “smart” meters at once.

Lawyers: PG&E ‘knew or should have known’ of electrical dangers at Ghost Ship

Lawyers: PG&E ‘knew or should have known’ of electrical dangers at Ghost Ship

Plaintiffs in the Ghost Ship warehouse fire lawsuit have added PG&E as a defendant, claiming they should have known about electrical issues inside the building. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group)

Plaintiffs in the Ghost Ship warehouse fire lawsuit have added PG&E as a defendant, claiming they should have known about electrical issues inside the building. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group)
PUBLISHED: May 16, 2017 at 8:57 am | UPDATED: May 16, 2017 at 12:36 pm

OAKLAND — Family members of Ghost Ship fire victims, survivors and former residents sued Pacific Gas & Electric on Tuesday, adding the utility to more than a dozen defendants already named in a massive lawsuit and claiming it “knew or should have known” of electrical dangers in the warehouse where 36 people died in a fire Dec. 2.

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday morning names PG&E, the property owner and master tenants of the Ghost Ship and the two adjoining shops, as well as a number of other individuals associated with the dance party held the night the fire broke out, trapping people who were on the second floor and could not find their way out in the thick smoke.

This marks the first time that the utility has been included in litigation associated with the Ghost Ship fire.

According to the complaint, PG&E was negligent for failing to monitor the power distributed to the building, including spikes, power outages and irregularities. Lawyers for the plaintiffs stated that PG&E had installed a smart meter above the Boost Mobile store on International Boulevard, a few doors down from the Ghost Ship warehouse. According to attorneys, PG&E “knew or should have known” of the dangerous and defective nature of the electrical systems that posed an “imminent threat” to the inhabitants of the Ghost Ship and their guests.

At issue is a utility rule which would have required separate meters for each of the adjacent businesses on International Boulevard, as well as Custom O’s Autos and the Ghost Ship warehouse on 31st Avenue. According to the complaint, if the utility had fulfilled its duties, an inspection would have followed and PG&E would have noticed the “overloading of the circuitry,” “substandard and missing meters,” and the power connection that ran from the auto body shop to the Ghost Ship.

Joining the legal team will be the law firm Girardi & Keese, a Los Angeles-based firm famous for taking on PG&E in the Hinckley, Calif. case that inspired the movie Erin Brockovich, as well as the San Bruno pipeline explosion.

“Was this just an act of God, lightning struck somebody in the parking lot, or was it preventable?” Tom Girardi said. “… As we looked into it further, we found there was a responsibility of other people that should have known better. It’s one thing if someone owns a business and doesn’t cross a ‘t’ or dot an ‘i,’ but if you have somebody like PG&E – they have been down this road before. They know what they should be doing. They should be watching.”

For the first time, the lawsuit also names Ben Cannon, a tenant of a building next door to the warehouse, who was tapped by master tenant Derick Almena and property manager Kai Ng to perform unlicensed and unpermitted electrical work on the building following a 2014 transformer fire.

Cannon, an unlicensed contractor, had reported to Ng and Almena that the smaller transformer had been overloaded. Cannon replaced the burned-out transformer with a new 25-kilovolt-amp transformer and forwarded an invoice to Ng, detailing “grossly unsafe” conditions that would require $15,000 in upgrades “to get the whole building into a safe state.”

Although investigators have not officially announced the cause of the fire, sources have told this news organization it is blamed on an overloaded electrical system.

PG&E has previously declined to answer any questions regarding the property and has claimed that there were no irregularities associated with the power usage at that site.

According to emails obtained by this newspaper, Ng had planned on getting quotes from Cannon to install electrical submeters in each of Ng’s commercial units that would allow the landlord to gauge how much electricity each was using. The submeters “were not managed by PG&E,” Ng wrote, and he offered to pay for half of the installation costs at $1,232 per unit.

Electric bills, sent to warehouse owner Chor Ng at 3071 International Boulevard and obtained exclusively by this newspaper organization, show that the usage on the one electrical meter increased over 350 percent, from 69.37 kilowatt hours per day in June 2013 to 242.09 kilowatt hours per day in December 2014. Chor Ng is Kai Ng’s mother.

In the December 2014 statement, which showed usage of 8,000 kWh over 33 days, amounted to a monthly bill of more than $1,400. An email from Kai Ng to resident Max Harris, named as Max Ohr in the lawsuit, in October 2016 cited mounting electrical bills that were “well over $2,000 per month.”

Ng’s email was in response to Harris’ attempts to lease defendant Omar Vega’s Custom O’s auto body shop next door, so that the artist collective could gain access to the electrical panel and “ensure there are no more blackouts due to combined overexertion across the 3 warehouse units.”

Brian Dunn, partner with the Los Angeles-based Cochran Firm which has joined the lawyers’ group, said that the lawsuit against PG&E will give “more concrete answers for the survivors.”

“They really want to know what happened. How was this type of situation allowed to occur?” Dunn said. “Closure is the first component of the process of seeking justice. PG&E knew there was a situation out there that could potentially be unsafe. They probably weren’t expecting a disaster, but they didn’t take steps to prevent it from occurring.”

Emilie Grandchamps, mother of victim Alex Ghassan, got through Mother’s Day with great difficulty.

“My birthday is coming up too. It’s going to be difficult for a long time,” Grandchamps said. “Nothing will be the same.”

Grandchamps feels anger and sadness when she thinks of her son’s last moments, and what she imagines he tried to do to escape.

“What any parent wants to see is justice for the murder of their child, but in every situation, there are loopholes that let you get away with that,” Grandchamps said. “I’m trying to learn how to create justice, to seek justice, to know whose door to knock on to get justice. Not just for my son, but for all the artists that have died along the way from improper housing situations or maintenance. We should all be able to live somewhere.”

PG&E’s inclusion in the Ghost Ship fire lawsuit comes just as the utility nears a final settlement in a lawsuit over the fatal San Bruno pipeline explosion that killed eight people in 2010. A $90 million shareholder settlement making its way through San Mateo County Superior Court is the last remaining legal proceeding in that incident.

In January, a federal jury convicted PG&E on six criminal felony counts related to the explosion, including obstruction of justice, labeling the utility a felon and requiring it to run a three-month advertising campaign admitting its guilt. The state Public Utilities Commission fined the utility $1.6 billion in 2015 over the explosion, the largest fine in the regulatory agency’s history.


People don’t trust scientific research when companies are involved

People don’t trust scientific research when companies are involved

May 7, 2017 8.53pm EDT

A soda company sponsoring nutrition research. An oil conglomerate helping fund a climate-related research meeting. Does the public care who’s paying for science?

In a word, yes. When industry funds science, credibility suffers. And this does not bode well for the types of public-private research partnerships that appear to be becoming more prevalent as government funding for research and development lags.

The recurring topic of conflict of interest has made headlines in recent weeks. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has revised its conflict of interest guidelines following questions about whether members of a recent expert panel on GMOs had industry ties or other financial conflicts that were not disclosed in the panel’s final report.

Our own recent research speaks to how hard it may be for the public to see research as useful when produced with an industry partner, even when that company is just one of several collaborators.

What people think of funding sources

We asked our study volunteers what they thought about a proposed research partnership to study the potential risks related to either genetically modified foods or trans fats.

We randomly assigned participants to each evaluate one of 15 different research partnership arrangements – various combinations of scientists from a university, a government agency, a nongovernmental organization and a large food company.

For example, 1/15th of participants were asked to consider a research collaboration that included only university researchers. Another 1/15th of participants considered a research partnership that included both university and government scientists, and so on. In total we presented four conditions where there was a single type of researcher, another six collaborations with two partners, four with three partners and one with all four partners.


When a research team included an industry partner, our participants were generally less likely to think the scientists would consider a full range of evidence and listen to different voices. An industry partner also reduced how much participants believed any resulting data would provide meaningful guidance for making decisions.

At the outset of our work, we thought including a diverse array of partners in a research collaboration might mitigate the negative perceptions that come with industry involvement. But, while including scientists from a nonindustry organization (particularly a nongovernmental organization) made some difference, the effect was small. Adding a government partner provided no substantive additional benefit.

When we asked participants to describe what they thought about the research partnership in their own words, they were skeptical whether an industry partner could ever be trusted to release information that might hurt its profits.

Our results may be even more troubling because we chose a company with a good reputation. We used pretests to select particular examples – of a corporation, as well as a university, government agency and nongovernmental organization – that had relatively high positive ratings and relatively low negative ratings in a test sample.

Can industry do valid science?

You don’t have to look far for real-life examples of poorly conducted or intentionally misleading industry research. The pharmaceutical, chemical, nutrition and petroleum industries have all weathered criticism of their research integrity, and for good reason. These ethically questionable episodes no doubt fuel public skepticism of industry research. Stories of pharmaceutical companies conducting less than rigorous clinical trials for the benefit of their marketing departments, or the tobacco industry steadfastly denying the connection between smoking and cancer in the face of mounting evidence, help explain public concern about industry-funded science.

But industry generally has a long and impressive history of supporting scientific research and technical development. Industry-supported research has generated widely adopted technologies, driven the evolution of entire economic sectors, improved processes that were harmful to public health and the environment and won Nobel Prizes. And as scientists not currently affiliated with industry scramble to fund their research in an era of tight budgets, big companies have money to underwrite science.

Does it matter within what kind of institution a researcher hangs her lab coat? Vivien Rolfe, CC BY-SA

Can this lack of trust be overcome? Moving forward, it will be essential to address incentives such as short-term profit or individual recognition that can encourage poor research – in any institutional context. By showing how quickly people may judge industry-funded research, our work indicates that it’s critical to think about how the results of that research can be communicated effectively.

Our results should worry those who want research to be evaluated largely on its scientific merits, rather than based upon the affiliations of those involved.

Although relatively little previous scholarship has investigated this topic, we expected to find that including multiple, nonindustry organizations in a scientific partnership might, at least partly, assuage participants’ concerns about industry involvement. This reflects our initial tentative belief that, given the resources and expertise within industry, there must be some way to create public-private partnerships that produce high-quality research which is perceived widely as such.

Our interdisciplinary team – a risk communication scholar, a sociologist, a philosopher of science, a historian of science and a toxicologist – is also examining philosophical arguments and historical precedents for guidance on these issues.

Philosophy can tell us a great deal about how the values of investigators can influence their results. And history shows that not so long ago, up until a few decades after World War II, many considered industry support a way to uphold research integrity by protecting it from government secrecy regimes.

Looking forward, we are planning additional social scientific experiments to examine how specific procedures that research partnerships sometimes use may affect public views about collaborations with industry partners. For example, perhaps open-data policies, transparency initiatives or external reviewer processes may alleviate bias concerns.

Given the central role that industry plays in scientific research and development, it is important to explore strategies for designing multi-sector research collaborations that can generate legitimate, high-quality results while being perceived as legitimate by the public.

Maine Voices: Your smart meter isn’t necessarily safe or healthy

Posted March 28, 2016

Maine Voices: Your smart meter isn’t necessarily safe or healthy

Maine lives are at risk from the noncancer effects of smart meter-induced radiofrequency radiation.

BOWDOINHAM — The title of Marina Schauffler’s recent column referring to the “wired world” (“We live in a wired world, ignoring potential threats from our devices,” March 20) is a bit misleading. The myriad of problems discussed in the piece stem from an increasingly “wireless” world. Typically, wired connections are safe – or at least far safer than radiofrequency-emitting wireless.

In this excellent column, the real electromagnetic radiation elephant in the room gets barely a mention. While the impact of cellphones, Wi-Fi and personal electronic devices results from voluntary choices (excluding secondhand effects), smart meters, by contrast, which emit radiation and gather detailed information, are mandatory.

One reason that many people who aren’t made ill by other wireless devices are becoming sick from smart meter exposure is that meters, essentially plugged into the back of your breaker box, radiate transmissions on home wiring, all of the time. This exposes the whole body, and everyone in the home, nonstop. Mainers’ lives are being destroyed right now by noncancer effects of smart meter-induced radiofrequency radiation.

Below are well-documented problems associated with smart meters. Reliable independent and government-published findings on all topics are available via the Web.

 Warrantless collection of detailed data.

 Taking of property without compensation.

 Mandatory exposure to radiofrequency radiation from one’s own and neighbors’ meters.

 Increased risk of fire from devices.

 Discrimination against those with acute sensitivities to radiofrequency waves.


Everything electrical in your home has a distinct electronic fingerprint. Smart meters collect all specific electrical use data from the home: when you open the refrigerator, turn on the TV, take a shower, etc. Detailed information can be determined from these data, including when you are home, how many people are there and what you are doing at any given time.

Right now, whether or not these data are separated from the aggregate, shared or sold is in the hands of your utility while third-party marketing firms clamor for it and law enforcement can request it without your knowledge or permission.

Think of your smart meter as a video camera recording activity in each room, but in a different medium than film. This should alarm everyone concerned with intrusive government and upholding our Constitution.

Upward of 20,000 peer-reviewed publications demonstrate adverse biological effects from low-level radiofrequency exposure. Impacts are not limited to humans but affect plants and wildlife as well.

A well-written report by India’s Ministry of the Environment and Forest on cell towers’ impacts on wildlife, birds and bees reviewed over 900 scientific publications and notes that electromagnetic waves interfere with biological systems in multiple ways. Imagine your Thanksgiving dinner without pollinators. It would look pretty much like an empty plate.

Given the exposure of humans, plants and wildlife worldwide to radiofrequency waves – including the upcoming (and climate-changing) radiofrequency barrage from space, courtesy of Google, Facebook, SpaceX and others – unchecked wireless proliferation becomes a human rights issue of epic proportions and a violation of all 10 points of the Nuremburg Code of research ethics principles.

Don’t expect help from the government. Columnist Schauffler rightly points out the well-known bias found in Federal Communications Commission guidelines. In fact, the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard recently released a report: “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates.” Unfortunately, the same can be said for the Maine Public Utilities Commission and pretty much all of its sister agencies around the country.

Lack of adequate regulation and enforcement is consistently driven by the influence of money in politics and, at the base level, by human and corporate greed. As Walt Kelly, creator of the “Pogo” comic strip, aptly noted many years ago: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

— Special to the Press Herald


Smart meters and cell damage from pulsed em radiation – our health at risk?

The Ecologist

Smart meters and cell damage from pulsed em radiation – our health at risk?

Lynne Wycherley

11th April 2017

‘Smart meters’ looked like a great idea, writes Lynne Wycherley, giving us more control over our energy use. The downside? They emit as many as 14,000 short bursts of intense microwave radiation a day, disrupting cellular electrochemistry and causing health symptoms from migraine to tinnitus, insomnia, dizziness, anxiety, chest pain, palpitations and memory loss. Now a growing number of ‘electro-sensitives’ have had enough!

Smart meters’ should be abolished because they use short high-intensity pulses of microwave radiation. We know from the nanosecond studies these can be very damaging with calcium channel activation continuing long after the pulse has ceased.

As early as 2012, environmental health Professor David Carpenter, founder of Albany School of Public Health, and author of 370 peer-reviewed publications, issued a public letter on the plausible toxic risks of intensive, pulsed-microwave smart metering.

His letter Smart-meters: Correcting the Gross Misinformation was rapidly signed by 50 international health experts.

“We, the undersigned … have co-authored hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) … Mass deployment of smart grids could expose large chunks of the general population to alarming risk scenarios …

“More than a thousand studies done on low intensity, high frequency, non-ionizing radiation going back at least fifty years, show … biochemical changes which … may lead to diseases.”

Noting, among other risks, the free-radical / cellular / genetic harm recorded in many recent papers on wireless exposure – and the relative potency of smart-meters’ pulses – he adds: “Prolonged exposure … may eventually lead to cellular malfunction … With both cell towers and smart meters, the entire body is immersed by microwaves.”

Though his letter needs updating (see Belpomme, for example, below) he and his signatories are correct in signalling that all of us in the Green movement – activists, politicians, energy suppliers, families – have been given a sanitised version of long-term EMF health risks, including from high-density smart metering. At worst, equivalent to Big Tobacco’s “smoke it baby! there are no risks!”

The International Appeal to the United Nations

Though there is no world consensus on the degree of risk arising from pulsed-microwave pollution (RF-EMFs), it is salutary that most independent EMF scientists are voicing caution. And their numbers are rising rapidly.

In an unprecedented step, 190 precautionary scientists launched an appeal to the United Nations (2015, ongoing) to seek progressive, healthy alternatives to high-SARS phones / tablets and the piercing pulsed microwaves from smart meters, plus similar rollouts.

“Now is the time to ask serious questions about this emerging environmental health crisis”, their video warns, before offering some strong medicine:

“We have created something that is harming us and it is getting out of control! … Wireless utility meters, and cell towers, are blanketing our neighborhoods with radiation… BIOLOGICAL facts are being ignored … International standard setting bodies are not acting to protect the public’s health.” [Emphasis as per the published transcript]

In its call for cleaner, safer, ways forward, the International EMF Scientist Appeal is undeniably ‘Green’. Yet how many of us are fully aware of its call? Today, it carries 224 signatories from 41 nations; all have peer-reviewed research in the field, and none – to their credit – have been cowed or co-opted by the multi-billion dollar Big Telecoms industry: a colossus whose turnover has begun to rival that of fossil fuels.

Standard-setting bodies with documented conflicts of interests, meanwhile, continue to stifle reform – not least in the UK: see the shocking exposé of AGNIR, for example, by UK neuroscientist Dr Sarah Starkey. Plus French documentary Microwaves, Science & Lies, and the recent letter of no confidence in the EMF wing of the World Health Organisation.

People testifying to harm

Within months of PG&E’s (Pacific Gas & Electric) Californian smart-meter rollout, over 2,000 health complaints were filed. Harsh headaches, dizziness, tachycardia, insomnia, tinnitus; in desperation, some householders fled their homes, while others slept in their cars.

Let’s not forget that PG&E is the energy giant first exposed by Erin Brockovich for dumping hexavalent chromium.

As wave after wave of people have attested to similar problems from US and Canadian rollouts – many testifying to no prior inkling of smart-meter problems (as here /here) – court cases have arisen. Biophysics professor Andrew Marino, an authority on physiological reactions to ‘weak’ EMFs, gave lengthy evidence in defence of impacted residents.

Eviscerating outdated exposure standards, he concluded “coercing the complainants to endure… such exposure … amount[s] to involuntary human experimentation.” In addition health risks from “the type of electromagnetic energy emitted from smart meters … are heightened in the very young, the very old, and in those with pre-existing diseases and disorders.”

Case histories, echoing others around the world, include, for example, 84-year old Dr Georgetta Livingstone (Michigan). When her meter was fitted, she was hit by unexpected sharp pains in her body, headaches, violent head-to-toe rashes, insomnia, intense itching, depression and anxiety. With no remission, it seems, until her meter was finally removed. (Notice Professor O Johansson: skin reactions to EMFs). Such testimonies, however contested, may offer us helpful clues.

IT professionals are among those testifying to impacts. Silicon Valley consultant Jeromy Johnson (see his TED talk) and his wife, a GP, were axed by headaches, insomnia, and palpitations.

In Smart meters, the opposite of green, hosted by Green editor Rob Sidon, Johnson notes that if we connect everything wirelessly to smart meters we risk “filling our homes, our children, and ourselves” with RF microwaves emerging as subtly bioactive. (See, e.g., harm to insects from all ‘weak’ sources tested: Margaritis et al 2013). “How can a technology be considered sustainable if its byproduct harms not only humans but plants, insects and animals?”

Problems have also emerged in Australia, and beyond. In her peer-reviewed paper, Dr Federica Lamech, GP (Victoria), shares 92 in-depth patient case histories. Smart meters, it seems, were ‘the last straw’ in wireless exposure, tipping them into full-blown electrosensitivity – a syndrome now hallmarked, it seems, by toxic and inflammatory biomarkers, and impaired brain blood-flow (Belpomme 2015-2016: nearly 700 lab-verified cases, Paris).

Lamech herself was stricken “with palpitations, chest pain, insomnia, dizziness, inability to concentrate, memory loss and fainting spells. I [later] found out it was [when] the smart meters were remotely turned on.”

Professor Dariusz Leszczynski, biochemist, notes it is normal to have a bell-curve of responses to environmental toxins, and pulsed RF, his field, is no exception. If so, how can we, as Greens, find ways to support the human rights of adults / children at the ‘unlucky’ end of the spectrum?

Dr Isaac Jamieson, who advises the EU on bio-sustainability, analysed (1, 2,) how Big Energy smart-metering can infringe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially birthright to health.

Eyes on stalks: the corporate hijack of smart-metering

According to multi-award-winning health documentary Take Back Your Power, Big Energy may have hidden drivers for smart-metering. Filmed in Canada and the USA, this deeply humanitarian film, best seen in full [here], reveals how Green aims can sadly become co-opted and perverted. In a race “to monetise the data”, a focus on the bottom line is sweeping injured families aside.

Director Josh del Sol told me, based on his long research, “with more than 5,000 technology patents muffled by the USPTA … new, decentralized, clean energy technologies are in fact being artificially-blocked from market proliferation.” TNCs “are hijacking the good intentions of environmentalists everywhere … with a profit potential (for them) in the trillions.”

Notice, for example, this big-client marketing by Onzo (2017): “We take data from smart meters… and build a highly personalized profile for each and every utility customer. We then tag this profile with key behavioural, attitudinal and lifestyle characteristics … We even tag appliances that we see being used in the home. .. giving [you] the ability to monetise [your] customer data by providing a direct link to appropriate third party organisations.”

Hidden risks to our cells

Dr Dietrich Klinghardt and team (New Jersey) found striking increases in toxic, inflammatory markers in patients’ blood samples – and their asymptomatic spouses – after smart-meter installation. Naturally, this needs wider testing, controlling for any confounding factors, but might there be wider risks, however subtle, at a cellular level?

Professor Martin Pall, a biochemist with 8 international awards, clearly thinks so. In 2013, he won a Global Medical Discovery listing for his landmark paper on a master mechanism of harm from wireless pulsed microwaves: watch his gripping, short talk. Supported by many peer-reviewed papers, it helps to explain the damage (nitrosative / oxidative) to organs and DNA seen in many new studies on WiFi and similar sources.

It’s striking that Pall singles out smart metering. “‘Smart meters’ should be abolished because they use short high-intensity pulses of microwave radiation. We know from the nanosecond studies these can be very damaging and act via VGCC [calcium channel] activation [his research] with activation continuing long after the pulse has ceased … It has been known for over 30 years that short microwave pulses can cause massive cellular damage.” See also his review of pulsed-microwave neurological risks, including from wireless smart meters (2015).

Disturbing toxic ‘window effects’ have been found at low wireless intensities: co-tumour promotion, for example, from levels comparable to tablets’ (Professor Lerchl 2015). While peer-reviewed findings at far lower levels – a clue to life’s sensitivity – raise growing questions about microwave-dense ‘smart homes’ and corporate IoT.

A 2011 study, ‘Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome‘ described by DE McCarty et al in the International Journal of Neurosciences concluded that “EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome.”

The single subject was a self-diagnosed EMF sensitive exposed to a 60Hz field of 300V/m in a “double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize unintentional sensory cues” who “developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 100 s after initiation of EMF exposure (p < .05).”

The authors continue: “The symptoms were caused primarily by field transitions (off-on, on-off) rather than the presence of the field, as assessed by comparing the frequency and severity of the effects of pulsed and continuous fields in relation to sham exposure. The subject had no conscious perception of the field as judged by her inability to report its presence more often than in the sham control.

“The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs under conditions that reasonably excluded a causative role for psychological processes.”

Downplayed pollution; ripples in the UK

When governments or smart-meter manufacturers cite ‘compliance’, they are referring to widely challenged ‘safety standards’ based on high microwave levels that cook tissue; all risks from lower exposures – growing annually in peer-reviewed literature – are air-brushed away.

Output is often time-averaged, disguising the microwave pulse-intensity, allowing some misleading comparisons with cell-phones: see industry whistle-blower Diana Ostermann and Dr Karl Maret. Sporadic uploads to masts (WAN) can be cited without mentioning the all-hour house-piercing ‘spikes’ [here] – every two seconds, in the case of tested British Gas meters.

Dr Andrew Tresidder, GP, perceives medical risks (ditto Dr Liz Evans GP): “some have 14,000 very high intensity spikes per day. Biologically, 14,000 screams are not silence!” Data obtained by a Californian court revealed, for example, 9,600 spikes per day, rising up to 190,000.

Dr Andrew Goldsworthy, a senior EMF biologist, advised Parliament that permanent exposure “without the fully informed consent of the people affected is in contravention of the Nuremberg code”. Contrast this to Big Energy’s all-soothing, all-cosy smart meter adverts, and questions of ethics hit home.

As Greens, we may have missed these aspects. Governments, in Rachel Carson’s words, have fed us “little tranquilliser pills of half truth”. Can we catch up with the rapidly growing precautionary science? In all conscience, how many households may be struggling with hidden impacts?

With no clue that the meters (though not a full-blown mesh network, UK) may be a plausible risk factor, particularly if by children’s bedrooms or banked in flats? (See Notes for emerging case histories).

Kilohertz voltage-spikes from smart meter’s switched-mode power (lay measurements here) can add to EMFs in homes, and raise other potential health questions (see Dr David Carpenter), even – unfortunately – in wired smart-meters.

Under revised EU energy rules, meanwhile, some countries have waived smart-metering as cost-ineffective. Overseas, fires have prompted some large recalls.

A potential creeping stress on trees?

In last year’s peer-reviewed research paper revealing phone-mast microwave damage to trees – even, in cases, at two miles – the authors noted “this constitutes a danger to trees worldwide”. Might wireless smart grids exacerbate this? Notice Professor C Georgiou‘s work on EMF free-radical risks to plants, and Haggerty 2010 on aspen seedlings sickened by background RF.

Civilian researchers in Monterey (California) recorded unusual bark splits in oaks and pines following the microwave ‘smart’ grid and WiFi grid switch-on: could this be a theme for eco-research? According (again) to Dr Andrew Goldsworthy, Imperial College, in Why Our Urban Trees Are Dying, our rocketing RF pollution could be a factor in tree disease:

“Trees are now dying mysteriously from a variety of diseases in urban areas all over Europe and are also showing abnormal photoperiodic responses. In addition, many have cancer-like growths under the bark (phloem nodules) and the bark may also split so that the underlying tissues become infected. All of these can be explained as being a result of … radio-frequency radiation.”

Wings for a wiser world

As Greens, we have not always penetrated the emerging risks of dense, pulsed-microwave smart-metering and grids. Nor have we questioned, as fully as we might, other electrosmog raisers, such as LTE, IoT and corporate-proposed 5G. [NEW: see the Environmental Health Trust on 5G and the skin-burning properties of weak millimetre waves.]

Nor have we challenged the deep, pervasive big-industry influences on EMF research, regulation, and ‘spin’, as exposed in a remarkable new book (just published), Corporate Ties That Bind: An Examination of Corporate Manipulation and Vested Interests in Public Health.

But as we catch up with the latest cautioning science, we can begin to expose these dark trends, and the risks and pollution levels they feed. While laying bare the outworn paradigm (denial of all non-heating effects) to which TNCs and governments so scandalously cling.

And on balance, we could begin to initiate healing changes. For though it is challenging to discover that pulsed RF is emerging, by degrees, as subtly bioactive, our Green ethics, our courage, surely enables us to adapt.

Potential solutions, for social and technical visionaries, are legion. From the new, responsive data-over-grid technology, for example, that can manage energy without microwave smart meters. To cleaning up kilohertz EMFs (dirty electricity, also from solar inverters) including, perhaps, the subtly neuro-active frequencies.

To the deep carbon savings of simple energy bill comparison with neighbours, a growing trend. To lending families plug-in energy monitors, perhaps, an alternative to permanent pollution. To conserving wired resources while cleaner technologies evolve. To the inspiring possibilities of data-rich infrared and VLC (LiFi / visual light communication) – now found to have useful reflectivity – combined with fibre-optics … And so on.

Globally, the more we can integrate EMF precautionary science into our daily lives, low carbon strategies, and environmental health awareness, then the more bio-sensitive, and inspiringly fit for the future, we become. So hatching an overdue paradigm – Wings for a wiser world.



Lynne Wycherley is a nature poet with six published collections. Working in parallel with pioneering doctors, she has been investigating non-ionizing radiation for five years.


Professor Belpomme Scans revealed damaged blood-flow in limbic area of brain (a seat of Alzheimer’s); Belpomme flagged potential dementia risks. Follow-up brain scans, where taken, found improvements from sustained wireless reduction – not easy, in today’s environments.

Emerging testimonies (UK)

ES-UK health charity Confidential help-line is hearing from people testifying to problems

Other testimonies Although circumstantial, these examples give a flavour of the type of testimonies emerging around the world:

Anna, a freelance journalist/film-maker, told me she moved from London into a small block of flats, Bedford, in March 2012. A fit runner and gym-user on a super-healthy diet, she was bewildered by the onset of inexplicable illnesses that would persist until her departure 4 years later.

She was afflicted by a set of symptoms she had never experienced before: violent headaches, deep ‘brain fog’, exhaustion, neurological symptoms – “my nerves felt wired” – chest-tightness, buzzing tinnitus, repeated nausea / dizziness, leg jitters, a racing / irregular heartbeat, and poor sleep. All with no known allergen, or other salient stress.

Working from home, she struggled to continue. Eventually, weakened, she caught a serious neurological viral infection and later meningitis (also neurological: see Pall 2015, above). But to her surprise, on moving to a new flat with analogue meters, almost all of the four years’ symptoms vanished and did not return. What had been different about her previous flat?

One day, speaking to Southern Electricity, she discovered her previous electricity meter had been a smart meter, along with the others in the block. In her 4 years, she had not realised that the meter near to her bed, plus the 11 others crammed in the building (3 nearby) were wireless smart meters.

In her view, it all began to make sense: the “suicidal headaches”, fatigue, illnesses, and astonishing improvement on moving house to a smart-meter free area.

Cathy, a normally fit horse rider, also shared her experience with me. When her neighbours adopted a smart-meter (on a thin partition wall, 3/1/2017) she was hit with inexplicable harsh headaches, tachycardia, weakness, tinnitus, disorientation, blurred vision, ‘brain fog’, insomnia, irritability, fatigue, labile temperature, and high blood pressure – all new.

She had hoped it was a passing coincidence, but experienced no relief for weeks until 7 days lodging with a friend (no smart meter); her symptoms vanished, her sleep was restored. She returned home feeling optimistic but was felled by the same symptoms. Her neighbour eventually asked for the meter’s output to be deactivated; the suppliers said they would do so remotely.

When the harsh discomfort continued, a technician discovered only the in-house display was dormant: the meter was still emitting non-stop microwave pulses. The neighbour was reluctant to help further. She continues to struggle.

IT professional Steve Weller‘s public testimonial (Australia) submitted to regulators, is worth reading. A calm, alert, resumé of problems that began with close exposure to a WiFi router, he describes being woken nightly, as if “someone had [pushed] a long sharp needle into my head”, only to discover his neighbour had fitted two smart meters behind his bed.

Forced to retreat from rising work pollution to salvage his health, he does not know how he will support his family. His exposé of industry-favoured ‘tests’ that discredit people experiencing problems (page 8) is illuminating and echoes many points by cautioning scientists. (Also notice physics professor James McCaughan, who was impacted by wireless devices, and has to work in a Faraday Cage).

Compliance. Public Health England’s exposure assessments of smart meters are based on the unreformed ‘safety standards’, already described, based only on thermal injury. It cites AGNIR and ICNIRP, both under fire for conflicts of interest, nepotism, and stifling reform.

For contrast see, e.g., physicist Dr Ron Powell‘s cautious assessment: he notes that even ZigBee exceeds levels at which bio-effects have been recorded. Since the US National Toxicology Programme’s cancer findings in RF-exposed mice (see Paul Mobbs) – scientists’ calls for pulsed RF to be upgraded to a class 1 or 2A carcinogen have increased. After classifying pulsed microwaves as a 2B carcinogen in 2011, IARC clarified that this applied to all wireless sources.

Images in case helpful:

Smart meter health refugees: Vic & Rosemary Trudeau (Melbourne)

testified to nausea, chest pain and insomnia after smart-meter installation c. Herald Sun

A tree in Berkeley by a newly installed bank of PG&E smart meters (top) and 20 days later (below) despite ‘ample rain’ c. Berkeley residents.



Study Finds Link Between Brain Damage and Religious Fundamentalism


Study Finds Link Between Brain Damage and Religious Fundamentalism

Lacking “cognitive flexibility” could contribute to radical religious belief.

Photo Credit: Cheryl Casey / Shutterstock

new study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness.

Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge. On the other hand, religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism. They are fixed and rigid, which helps promote predictability and coherence to the rules of society among individuals within the group.

Religious fundamentalism refers to an ideology that emphasizes traditional religious texts and rituals and discourages progressive thinking about religion and social issues. Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life. For this reason, they are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs, and towards science, as these things are seen as existential threats to their entire worldview.

Since religious beliefs play a massive role in driving and influencing human behavior throughout the world, it is important to understand the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism from a psychological and neurological perspective.

To investigate the cognitive and neural systems involved in religious fundamentalism, a team of researchers—led by Jordan Grafman of Northwestern University—conducted a study that utilized data from Vietnam War Veterans that had been gathered previously. The vets were specifically chosen because a large number of them had damage to brain areas suspected of playing a critical role in functions related to religious fundamentalism. CT scans were analyzed comparing 119 vets with brain trauma to 30 healthy vets with no damage, and a survey that assessed religious fundamentalism was administered. While the majority of participants were Christians of some kind, 32.5% did not specify a particular religion.

Based on previous research, the experimenters predicted that the prefrontal cortex would play a role in religious fundamentalism, since this region is known to be associated with something called ‘cognitive flexibility’. This term refers to the brain’s ability to easily switch from thinking about one concept to another, and to think about multiple things simultaneously. Cognitive flexibility allows organisms to update beliefs in light of new evidence, and this trait likely emerged because of the obvious survival advantage such a skill provides. It is a crucial mental characteristic for adapting to new environments because it allows individuals to make more accurate predictions about the world under new and changing conditions.

Brain imaging research has shown that a major neural region associated with cognitive flexibility is the prefrontal cortex—specifically two areas known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). Additionally, the vmPFC was of interest to the researchers because past studies have revealed its connection to fundamentalist-type beliefs. For example, one study showed individuals with vmPFC lesions rated radical political statements as more moderate than people with normal brains, while another showed a direct connection between vmPFC damage and religious fundamentalism. For these reasons, in the present study, researchers looked at patients with lesions in both the vmPFC and the dlPFC, and searched for correlations between damage in these areas and responses to religious fundamentalism questionnaires.

According to Dr. Grafman and his team, since religious fundamentalism involves a strict adherence to a rigid set of beliefs, cognitive flexibility and open mindedness present a challenge for fundamentalists. As such, they predicted that participants with lesions to either the vmPFC or the dlPFC would score low on measures of cognitive flexibility and trait openness and high on measures of religious fundamentalism.

The results showed that, as expected, damage to the vmPFC and dlPFC was associated with religious fundamentalism. Further tests revealed that this increase in religious fundamentalism was caused by a reduction in cognitive flexibility and openness resulting from the prefrontal cortex impairment. Cognitive flexibility was assessed using a standard psychological card sorting test that involved categorizing cards with words and images according to rules. Openness was measured using a widely-used personality survey known as the NEO Personality Inventory. The data suggests that damage to the vmPFC indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by suppressing both cognitive flexibility and openness.

These findings are important because they suggest that impaired functioning in the prefrontal cortex—whether from brain trauma, a psychological disorder, a drug or alcohol addiction, or simply a particular genetic profile—can make an individual susceptible to religious fundamentalism. And perhaps in other cases, extreme religious indoctrination harms the development or proper functioning of the prefrontal regions in a way that hinders cognitive flexibility and openness.

The authors emphasize that cognitive flexibility and openness aren’t the only things that make brains vulnerable to religious fundamentalism. In fact, their analyses showed that these factors only accounted for a fifth of the variation in fundamentalism scores. Uncovering those additional causes, which could be anything from genetic predispositions to social influences, is a future research project that the researchers believe will occupy investigators for many decades to come, given how complex and widespread religious fundamentalism is and will likely continue to be for some time.

By investigating the cognitive and neural underpinnings of religious fundamentalism, we can better understand how the phenomenon is represented in the connectivity of the brain, which could allow us to someday inoculate against rigid or radical belief systems through various kinds of mental and cognitive exercises.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist, a researcher in the Visual Attention and Cognition Lab at George Mason University and a science writer whose work has been widely published.





Happy Mother’s Day everyone. If you are a resident of California, please see urgent, timely instructions for the SB649 mass call-in to the CA State Senate Appropriations Committeefor tomorrow at 1pm, below. If you are not a resident of California, please forward to any friends or relatives in the state. What happens in California with millimeter wave “small cell” policy will affect the rest of the country. This is your chance to speak to legislators directly about the health and environmental impacts of wireless proliferation, and impacts you have suffered.

Hold them accountable and stand up for local government and public rights!


If you are a resident of California, we need you to take action tomorrow- May 15th- to speak directly to the senate by telephone to say NO to SB 649, the 5G proliferation bill that would unconstitutionally eliminate local government authority to regulate placement of wireless facilities.

Paul McGavin of Scientists for Wired Technology has managed to convince the State Senate to provide a rare call-in testimony opportunity for those unable to attend the hearing in Sacramento due to wireless exposure or any other reason. Here are the links with more information about the bill, action steps, and how to participate in the mass call-in event tomorrow- please spread far and wide– be on the call tomorrow and BE PAR T OF HISTORY!




Thank you as always,

Josh Hart

Woodbury, L.I. Residents Furious Over Cellphone Repeaters On Their Block

Woodbury, L.I. Residents Furious Over Cellphone Repeaters On Their Block

WOODBURY, Long Island, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — Long Island residents have vowed to fight back, after two dozen cellphone repeaters were put up in front of their homes.

As CBS2’s Carolyn Gusoff reported Thursday, the cellphone repeaters were put up legally, but without notice to homeowners.

The view from Denise Tufano’s Woodbury, Long Island home abruptly changed last month, when the cellphone repeater suddenly appeared towering on her front lawn.

“I could not believe this was actually happening,” Tufano said. “I said, how could the town permit this? How could they do this to us?”

Tufano and other Woodbury neighbors were fuming over the placement of the 22 cell repeaters for Verizon in front of homes. They are technically on public property, but they were mounted without notice or compensation.

“You couldn’t give me $10 million for this, OK?” said Dr. David Burg of Woodbury. “There are potential health risks to these. They are aesthetically not pleasing. There’s also the devaluation of our home.”

The 5G technology enabled by the repeaters promises faster service, but the jury is out on constant exposure to ITS radio frequency radiation.

“A cellphone you use, you put down. A microwave you use, you stop,” said Marc Herman, president of the Gates Ridge Civic Association. “This is constant bombardment and we don’t know what is the long term effects.”

And residents said their cell service was good enough as it was.

“Put them in a commercial area. We don’t need it,” said Vicki Kramer of Woodbury. “And you know what? We should have at least been asked. I don’t think the health of my children is as important as my cell phone service.”

When CBS2 asked the Town of Oyster Bay supervisor why the cellphone repeaters ended up on the residential block, he came to the protest and was peppered with residents’ demands.

“They have no place in front of homes in residential neighborhoods,” said Oyster Bay Town Supervisor Joseph Saladino.

But Saladino, who is new to the post, said the town’s hands are tied by federal rules that cut local government out. He has now rescinded permits for more repeaters, and is calling for a federal health study.

Saladino vows to do everything in his power to have the repeaters taken down, and to prevent any more going up in front of homes.

Verizon issued a statement to CBS2 about the repeaters:

“More people are using more wireless devices to do more things in more places. In fact, the demand for wireless data services has nearly doubled over the last year, and is expected to grow 650 percent between 2013 and 2018.

“We’re working to stay ahead of that growth with more fiber optics and small, low-powered antennas closer to where people need to connect. These antenna, sometimes known as small cells or microcells, are typically mounted on street lights or utility poles to bring wireless signals into areas that need better coverage or more capacity.

“According to CTIA, small cells and microcells have typical radio frequency exposure levels similar to baby monitors and microwave ovens. This represents significantly less than 1 percent of the FCC allowable exposure.

“Verizon Wireless follows all local, state and federal guidelines as we build our network.”

Crown Castle International, which is installing the cell repeaters in the town, also issued a statement:

“Crown Castle is the nation’s largest provider of wireless infrastructure. We design and operate network solutions to enhance broadband coverage and capacity. The technology in question is referred to as a small cell network, which is designed to provide a more targeted, specialized solution to provide the needed coverage and capacity. Unlike traditional towers, small cells are deployed on utility pole in the public right of way.

“Wireless devices today consume more and more data, due in large part to the capabilities and usefulness of the smartphone. While a mobile device may display full bars, calls can still drop and video streaming may not work properly. This happens when there is not enough network capacity to handle the volume of traffic in an area, at a particular time. Crown Castle’s systems are designed to enable enhanced network performance and avoid such issues, improving the experience for the smartphone user.

“The recently constructed locations for our small cell network are not currently activated.

“Crown Castle fully complies with all FCC regulations addressing the safety of this technology and we have submitted a report demonstrating compliance to the Town. The wireless equipment to be used in the Town of Oyster Bay produces RF levels well below the FCC’s permitted maximums.”

Woodbury, L.I. Residents Furious Over Cellphone Repeaters On Their Block



Share: http://stopsmartmeters.org/2017/05/10/red-alert-on-california-5g-wireless-saturation-bill-sb-649-tweetstorm-protests-brewing/

Posted on May 10, 2017 by Josh Hart

(You can still take action if outside of California- see stop sign below)

SACRAMENTO– Scientists, physicians, and local governments throughout California are raising the alarm about Senate Bill SB649 (similar bills exist in other states), which would eliminate the established planning control that local governments currently have over the placement of wireless facilities along streets and on public property. Powerful wireless corporations want this local control eviscerated to pave the way for forced 5G (Millimeter wave) deployment. The wireless industry claims the public wants this new infrastructure, but if the public really wanted these new cell sites in their neighborhoods, SB 649 would of course not be necessary. SB 649 is all about suppressing democracy to suit the CTIA.

If the bill passes, expect big telecom to try and bully their way into your community with high frequency microwave cell sites on street poles (adding to electrosmog from existing smart meter, 3G, and 4G antennas) in a way that will make recent smart meter deployments seem like a friendly tea party with the utilities. It has been documented that these 5G cell sites emit constant radiation at the same frequencies as crowd control microwave pain-inducing weaponry. Millimeter wave wireless is already in testing in certain areas in California and elsewhere.

The author of SB 649, Senator Ben Hueso of San Diego, does not have a lot of experience in radiation and preventative public health, but he does have experience with bad judgment and endangering public safety. Hueso was arrested for drunk driving the wrong way down a one way street in Sacramento after a Senate holiday party in 2014.

The California State Senate Governance and Finance Committee met on April 26th and voted unanimously to approve SB 649. You can watch the disgusting display in its entirety here. (Go to 04/26/2017 Senate Governance and Finance Committee- watch or download starting at 4:51:45)

At the hearing, Senator Robert Hertzburg of the San Fernando Valley had this to say explaining his disregard of compelling health issues and his yes vote on SB649:

“And you know, and I don’t disregard and I did not not look at your, at those books that you gave me ’cause I read everything – the gentleman who gave those green, those books last year, at those studies (on wireless health damage -ed.). And look, you know, there have been through society all sorts of times when we make decisions and technology, we see these things change and the like, but we make balances.

We have automobiles. There was a 38,000 deaths in society last year – people dead, dead because of cars. Not just injured. But we say there’s a value to having an automobile. And we make these public policy decisions, you know, in terms of those balances.

Did I blink and not notice that legislators have shifted from ridicule, denial, and disregard of wireless health hazards directly to apathy and calculated, cynical, and callous disregard for human suffering, pain and loss? Are we really openly discussing- at the highest policy levels in California- without question or analysis- the sacrifice of human lives to enable the “internet of things?”

Sen. Hertzburg’s comments reflect a casual disregard for taking life and a willingness to trade dollars, cents, and convenience for acknowledged health hazards. His comparison between our auto-dependent transport system and our telecommunications system is flawed and is based on a false premise.

We already have a (3G/ 4G) wireless communication network that blankets our communities, just as we already have a road network that introduces access (and often barriers) where we live. SB 649 is not about “balancing” anything. SB649 is the wireless equivalent of forcing interstate highways down quiet roads and through backyards, without a shred of input or control of residents and local governments. It’s a way of taking the existing damage and death being inflicted on Californians through pulsed radiation from smart meters, 3G and 4G and then adding a high frequency wireless network on top of that, pulsing hundreds of gigahertz and ensuring no business or residence is out of range, or out of sight from this additional layer of microwave saturation. This is serious shit, folks.

While cynical, sleazy and corrupted politicians like Robert Hertzburg and Ben Hueso,

greased with the cash and perks of the wireless industry at hush hush golf events, play fast and loose with the lives of our pregnant women, infants, and children, our environment and our future, and with the help of corporate cash, apparently convincing their senate colleagues that the bill is a good idea, real people will suffer and die because of a willingness to brutally force millions of powerful small cells in neighborhoods.

Remember this is the same state government whose Department of Public Health sat on a cell phone health warning flyer that could have saved thousands of lives, for 7 years until UC Berkeley’s Joel Moskowitz sued the state to release it. The same CDPH was the recipient of thousands of smart meter health damage reports from StopSmartMeters.org starting in 2010 as well as directly from the injured. There were so many of these complaints the CDPH had to establish a special e-mail address to receive them. Yet no formal investigation was ordered or warning issued. There is good reason why many of us who have been working on these issues see state and federal response to the wireless health crisis as corrupt, blinkered, and non-existent. And now they want to make it worse. Way worse.

Dr. Cindy Russell, VP of Community Health for the Santa Clara County Medical Association urges lawmakers to “not proceed to roll out 5G technologies pending pre-market studies on health effects” due to evidence linking millimeter wave radiation to cataracts, skin damage and other harm. Read Dr. Russell’s full report on 5G health risks and share it with your contacts and especially the legislators below.

OK Now it’s time to take action- this week– to defeat this odious bill.

SB 649!!


1. ATTEND the Appropriations Committee this Monday May 15th at 10:00 A.M. in Room 4203 in Sacramento- we don’t care if you don’t have time. Have time for neighborhood barricades or skin cancer ?

2. CALL members of the Senate Appropriations Committee with health reports:

  • 916-651-4033 — Senator Ricardo Lara (Chair)
  • 916-651-4036 — Senator Patricia Bates(Vice Chair)
916-651-4015 — Senator Jim Beall
916-651-4035 — Senator Steven Bradford
916-651-4013 — Senator Jerry Hill
  • 916-651-4004 — Senator Jim Nielsen
  • 916-651-4900 — Senator Scott Wiener
Scott Wiener
  • And might as well tie up the (landline) of the author of SB 649 Ben Hueso at (916) 651-4040

3. TWEET to California legislators and others to make them aware of the serious downsides to this bill.

-If you don’t have a twitter account, go to http://twitter.com and sign up for an account.

-Once you have a twitter account:

a. Follow @stopsmeters to access the latest updates
b. Search for #SB649 and see what others are saying (retweet if you approve!)
c. Tweet your direct experiences of health damage from 3G, 4G, and smart meters, as well as scientific studies documenting wireless harm. Simply copy and paste

#SB649 .@CASenateDems

into a tweet and then a brief message. These messages will remain online as a testament to the great, historic mistake these legislators are making.

More information about the bill and links can be found at http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2017/04/oppose-ca-sb-649/ Let’s mobilize and stop this corrupt and dangerous wireless industry legislation from becoming law in California!

%d bloggers like this: