Kiss Your Child and Fight for Them; Letter from a Mom to FCC about Wireless and Children

Kiss Your Child and Fight for Them; Letter from a Mom to FCC about Wireless and Children

 

The following letter was written by a mom who tragically lost her one-year-old to leukemia. She learned too late that WiFi can potentially be a contributing factor in childhood leukemia.

The mom sent this letter to Commissioner Rosenworcel through the email address the Commissioner set up for the public to report on broadband coverage gaps – loosely interpreted to include other broadband problems.

broadbandfail@fcc.gov.

For more information and instructions on writing your own communication to the FCC opposing 5g and all wireless expansion, please see,  http://whatis5g.info/action/2017/11/not-happy-with-broadband-service-send-email-to-broadbandfailfcc-gov/

To contact your federal representatives, please see, http://whatis5g.info/small-cells/

 

Dear Entrusted Officials,

Raise your hand if your child has died before you. Hug your child if he or she is healthy. 

I write today to share that the choices you make about the environment we call home are far reaching, and that our precious homes must be protected.

RF radiation has never been proven safe for children. Ever. And the FCC wants to break down local barriers to deploy more of it?

RF radiation has been implicated by 400+ peer-reviewed studies as causing biological harms ranging from dizziness, sleeplessness and nausea to DNA damage, a precursor to cancer.

My daughter died before her second birthday of leukemia. How does this happen? As part of a university study, I learned that time in front of a WiFi-enabled computer while pregnant is a variable. 

My daughter’s death leaves my heart in the smallest of pieces. What was the happiest time in my life turned into tragedy the likes of which I couldn’t even imagine. Watching my husband carry her down the service elevator at the hospital to the funeral director’s car, parked back by the dumpster, for a last goodbye, is an image that will haunt me forever. Driving to the funeral parlor for several nights in a row to be with her dead body, while families were enjoying bedtime stories and playing games, is something I wouldn’t wish on anyone. A child’s death will wreck you. 

Please urge further studies of this invisible and very pervasive radiation. Please institute setback laws that protect our children — in our homes and in their schools.

You may think you are on the precipice of a technological heyday. Instead, you may be paving the way to a long, steady, massive health catastrophe. 

Follow other countries who revere their young; they have stripped WiFi radiation from schools and libraries, and are going back to wired connections. I beg you to find the middle ground. I beg you to conduct tests applicable to children and use aggregated exposure models.

For my deceased daughter, for me, for my husband and her brother, think twice before irradiating millions of people because a bunch of telecom titans have sold you a promise that will harm the innocent.

Even if it kills just one, believe me, that’s one too many.


For more information on WiFi in schools, please go to https://ehtrust.org/?s=Wifi+in+schools
For more information about the downsides of 5g and the Internet of Things, please see http://whatis5g.info

Not happy with your broadband service?  Send an email to, broadbandfail@fcc.gov

Not happy with your broadband service? Send an email to, broadbandfail@fcc.gov

In the following 3 minute video clip, FCC Commissioner Rosenworcel invites the American people to email her about broadband coverage problems around the country.

 

The Commissioner set up an email account specifically dedicated to hearing from the public about broadband “fails.”

 
Commissioner Rosenworcel states,
“I set up this account [broadbandfail.fcc.gov] to take in the public stories and ideas. And I will share everything that comes in with the Chairman and with my colleagues, because I think it’s time to turn every one of those ‘broadband fails’ into something better – ‘broadband success.’” 
Although the Commissioner’s invitation was intended to be used to map out and address coverage gaps, it would well serve those of us fighting 5g-small cells as a means to give the Commission honest feedback from the public of what we actually DO want – safe, reliable, fast, cyber secure, and energy efficient fiber to all homes and businesses.  We do NOT want to compromise our health and privacy with the forced installation of small cell towers next to our homes.  Profit and “mobile speed” do not trump our health and privacy. 
 
Please take a moment to send a short email to Commissioner Rosenworcel, at broadbandfail@fcc.gov, stating that the American people choose health and privacy over wireless speed and data harvesting.
 
The Message

We want safe, reliable, fast, cyber-secure, and energy efficient fiber to all homes and businesses. 
We do not want small cells in front of our homes emitting harmful radiation 24/7, and that will invade our privacy by providing the “necessary” infrastructure to harvest our data.

 
Again, send your email to:  broadbandfail@fcc.gov. 

To add extra weight to your message, please cc the following people from the FDA, CDC, and NCI (National Cancer Institute)

Letter from Ronald M. Powell to Montgomery County Council; Tragically, Small Cell Towers are about Life and Death

(Posted by www.whatis5g.info)
Letter from Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D. to the Montgomery County Council, Maryland.
October 31, 2017

To:

Roger Berliner, President
Hans Riemer, Vice President
Montgomery County Council
Montgomery County, Maryland
 
Dear President Berliner and Vice President Riemer,

My thanks to both of you gentlemen for your responses to my earlier email messages opposing small cell towers.  Both of you cited factors of importance when considering the installation of these towers in Montgomery County.  However, I was left uncertain about your own views of small cell towers.  At present, do you favor the installation of small cell towers in Montgomery County, or not?

If you favor installation

If you favor installation, and your goal is limited to maintaining control, at the County level, of the zoning requirements, then I can understand why County officials keep deflecting the health concerns raised by County residents.  Hence the frequent references to the “environmental effects” exclusion in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is frequently interpreted to be a “health effects” exclusion:
 
“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

(In the above quotation, the “Commission” is, of course, the Federal Communications Commission.)

If you oppose installation or are undecided

If you oppose installation or are undecided, then please consider the following line of reasoning for countering the supposed health exclusion in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Our laws are in conflict

The international biomedical research community has made it quite clear that radiofrequency radiation, and specifically cellular radiofrequency radiation, can harm people in an enormous number of ways.  Most recently the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiation to brain cancer (glioma) which is usually fatal, and to a nerve cancer (schwannoma) that can be fatal.  That is, the scientific evidence suggests that we must treat radiofrequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, not only as dangerous to health generally, but also as a CARCINOGEN that is dangerous to life itself.

So, when a small cell tower is placed “up close and personal” to people, those people must be regarded as under “assault” by a carcinogen. And, there are laws against assault. Further, since that assault can result in death, those people must be considered as under “assault with a deadly weapon”.  That is also against the law.  Furthermore, if any of those people die as the result of that assault, that is “murder”.  Murder is also against the law.

So, it seems fair to ask this question:  Is the 1996 Telecommunications Act so powerful that it overrides the laws against assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder? I doubt very much that the authors of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, in their zeal to promote the rapid expansion of cellular technology without prior testing for safety, intended to convey a right to the telecommunications industry to assault, and even kill, people.

If County officials want to protect the public from harm, they need to rally their legal might to resist ALL EFFORTS to install small cell towers in the County, not just because that is the right thing to do, but also because such installation violates multiple existing laws that are reasonably believed to be preeminent.

I would be proud to see Montgomery County take the lead in making this argument against the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which has proved to be an unjust law.

If you don’t believe that cellular radiation is harmful

If you reject the above line of reasoning because you don’t believe that cellular radiation is harmful, then I ask you to consider these questions:

  • On which sources of information are you relying for assurances of safety?  Do those sources have extensive backgrounds in the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation?  Are those sources free from vested interests in cellular communications or other wireless technologies?
  • Are those sources more authoritative on health issues than the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization?  That organization linked radiofrequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, to cancer back in 2011?
  • Are those sources more authoritative on health issues than the National Toxicology Program (NTP) at the National Institutes of Health?  The NTP confirmed the link of radiofrequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, to cancer in 2016 and to DNA damage more broadly in 2017?  And further findings are due for release in 2018.  These findings are the result of the largest study ($25 million) that the NTP has ever conducted of any toxin.
  • Have you read some of the scientific research literature that connects radiofrequency radiation to biological effects and that has been funded by impartial sources?

If your answer to the last question above is “No”, I hope that you will explore at least some of the vast biomedical research literature that Maryland residents have already submitted to you.

Also, for an excellent online overview of the impact of wireless technology on health, please see the web site of the Environmental Health Trust (https://ehtrust.org/).  This organization is led by Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H. who has had a distinguished career of public service in support of public health.  Dr. Davis was a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was named a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2007.

Who am I?

I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University, 1975).  During my Government career, I worked for the Executive Office of the President of the United States, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  For those organizations, respectively, I addressed Federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community.  I currently interact with other scientists and with physicians around the world on the impact of electromagnetic fields on human health.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards,

Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

 

Ronald N. Kostoff to Montgomery County Council on Small Cells

Posted by Kate Kheel, Nov. 4th, 2017 

Letter from Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D. to the Montgomery County Council on November 1, 2017

Dear Montgomery County Council Members,

I have been informed that Montgomery County is considering approval of the installation of small cell towers throughout the County, including up and down residential streets, starting with Potomac, MD and Germantown, MD.  I would like to offer my perspective on this proposal.

Over the past decade, I have been performing studies on causes and treatments of chronic diseases.  Much of the focus has emphasized identifying the causes of these diseases, and their specific impacts.  The most comprehensive of the studies was a book titled Pervasive Causes of Disease,

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/53714

and identified ~800 contributing factors that impacted more than a threshold number of the ~4000 diseases examined.

One of the specific factors I have been examining in detail is non-ionizing radiation.  Earlier this year, I published an invited book chapter on the health impacts of non-ionizing radiation combined with other stimuli, both toxic and non-toxic.  This chapter is attached.

For non-ionizing radiation in the power frequency band (~60Hz) and radiofrequency bands heavily used today (900 Mhz-cell phones and 2.45Ghz-WiFi), the biomedical literature is clear.  Heavy exposure of humans to this radiation for extended periods of time can be lethal, and exposure of test animals to non-ionizing radiation in isolation can be lethal.

As my book chapter shows, when non-ionizing radiation at the above frequencies is combined with other toxic stimuli, there is a strong synergy that results.  In some cases (depending on intensity, frequency, and duration), neither partner to the combination will exhibit effects when used in isolation, but will exhibit highly toxic effects when used in combination.  In most cases, the adverse effects of the combination will be much more highly toxic than the adverse effects of each partner used in isolation.  Thus, non-ionizing radiation in the above frequency bands is not only toxic/lethal in its own right, but it serves as a promoter/enabler/enhancer of the intrinsic toxicity of other stimuli.

For 5G, the proposed frequency band (~3Ghz-30Ghz, and higher) is in the millimeter-wave range, and has had little safety testing done, even in isolation.  There has been no long-term testing, and no testing on these frequencies in combination with other stimuli, which is the real-world condition.

Long-term testing on humans is required for two reasons.  First, latency periods for serious diseases can be measured in decades, in many cases.  For smoking, latency periods between initiation of smoking and lung cancer is between two and three decades, and for other types of cancers, latency times between onset of cause and eventual cancer can range up to five decades.  Latency periods for neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, can be five decades or more, considering the advanced ages at which they occur.  Alarmingly, Hardell has found that even after the relatively short period of a decade of ‘heavy’ cell phone use (~30 min/day), certain types of brain cancers for adults doubled, and for adults who started using cell phones as teenagers, these brain cancer rates quintupled!  One can only imagine the results after two or three decades of ‘heavy’ cell phone use.

Second, animal tests are not adequate.  Animals are different from human beings biologically, and animal tests are usually performed under very controlled conditions, where the non-ionizing radiation is applied either in isolation or with one other toxic stimulus.  Humans experience myriad toxic stimuli in parallel over their lifetime, as I have shown in my book, and the complex combinations of toxic stimuli bear little resemblance to the pristine test conditions applicable to animals.  Allowing 5G cell towers to be constructed with essentially no safety testing having been performed would be the height of irresponsibility!

The usual excuse for inaction on opposition to cell tower construction of any type, including 5G, is the statement from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that health reasons can not be used as a basis to halt tower construction.  This, in my view, is an abdication of responsibility of elected officials.

Suppose the Federal government passed a law stating that herbicides could be sprayed over populated areas by contractors, and these sprayings could not be opposed for health reasons.  If a local company wanted to initiate daily sprayings of Agent Orange over Montgomery County, would the members of the County Council allow it, despite what the law stated?  Would the residents allow it, despite what the law stated?  I suspect there would be an armed insurrection to block the spraying.  Yet, cell tower developers are proposing to ‘spray’ a highly toxic substance (non-ionizing radiation in RF bands) over Montgomery County, and the decision-makers act as if they have no options.

At some point in this one-sided battle between the wireless technology vendors and the defenseless public, someone has to take a stand.  Let Montgomery County at this time serve as the Waterloo for the 5G onslaught!

Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/56646

=======================

[Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D. is a Research Affiliate in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  The book chapter that is referenced in his message above was co-authored with Clifford G.Y. Lau and appears in Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins, edited by C.D. Geddes and published in 2017.  

Where is the Love?

Where is the Love?

By Alison Main

“And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence.”  
Simon & Garfunkel, The Sound of Silence (1964)

It was a hot summer night in 2007. Walking down the sultry streets of downtown Manhattan with my two best girlfriends, en route to dinner and drinks, one of my friends whipped out her iPhone. The very first iPhone. The iPhone that kept her squatting overnight, outside the 5th Avenue Apple Store, along with thousands of other burgeoning futurists. The iPhone that represented both trophy and promise of our digitally interconnected destinies. And it was all hers.

As she drew this obsessively acquired beacon out of her handbag, we “ooooh’d” and “aaaah’d.” We asked for tutorials. We concealed our envy. We requested play time, which she graciously granted. My fingertips danced over the magical glowing screen, delicately activating cartoon-like buttons that drew me out of my physical space and into cyber space. After bouncing from email app to text to web, I reluctantly handed the iPhone back to her. As she basked in her coveted possession, my second friend abruptly halted, looked straight at me, and in a severe tone, directed, “You. Alison. Never get that phone.” 

“But why?” I petulantly inquired. 

“Because you will do nothing else for the rest of your life, except hit: Check mail. Check mail. Check mail.” 

Did I heed her warning? Of course not. Who listens to sage advice when omnipotent ad agencies so clearly teach us how to be “smart?” 

Two years later, bored with my antiquated flip phone, failing in coolness factor while I attended media conferences and launched digital campaigns, I relented and bought my own iPhone. I reasoned with myself… this was solely a professional purchase. I needed to be accessible to my demanding clients. I needed to understand mobile marketing strategy. I needed to check the weather every five seconds (um, wait).

My prophetic friend wasn’t wrong. And not just about me. But as it turns out, she was right about everyone. What she glimpsed within me was the same latent existential anxiety we all carry within ourselves. As we wander through spaces and places, both bustling and quiet…we are all fundamentally afraid to be alone and unloved. And we’ll grasp at anything to pretend we are not.

Now, instead of a moon-shaped night light, we have a Netflix-streaming tablet. Instead of a pink cotton security blanket, we have a mobile device nestled under our pillows. And that’s just the beginning. There’s a reason you can’t stop checking your phone for messages, or scrolling through your Facebook timeline, or posting your pictorial life on Instagram. And it’s more than mere addiction. It’s one emotionally stimulating hit after the next, which breaks down to the following illusion: Someone texted me. Someone “Liked” me. I am loved. I am not alone.  

But, there’s no human love nor authentic connection in a digital ping.

Companies selling Virtual Reality (VR) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) products and services utilize some pretty slick psychological marketing strategies, designed to strike at our core vulnerabilities. If you’re “without” in this world, you can be “with” in their make-believe world. Strap on a VR headset, and suddenly, you’re not a socially awkward companionless kid who is teased and mocked in school. Rather, you’re transformed into a medieval knight with a powerful sword, slashing every enemy in your path, about to rescue your beautiful princess. Who would consciously choose to emerge from virtual reality and into reality when those worlds are so starkly different? In the material world, you’re a pariah. In the fake world, you’re king. The problem is, the adoring courtesans aren’t real. And you can’t put a tangible glass slipper on an avatar.

AI promises to give us solutions to problems Silicon Valley cogs have cunningly created. You’re desirous and lonely? Order a sex bot. You’re elderly and childless? Hire a robot caretaker. You’re overworked with a toddler? Employ an automated nanny. But generations before us figured out how to hook up, take care of their parents, and raise their kids, without a team of robots at the helm. What makes us so exponentially overburdened that we cannot do the same?  

People have been addicted to tobacco, drugs, alcohol, sugar, sex, and junk food for decades. But until digital tech and virtual reality, there’s been no other invention in the history of humankind that has so strategically manipulated our base human fear of being alone. From mobile to social to IoT, these technologies and networks trick our brains into thinking we’re connected to each other. When, in actuality, we’re not. 

We’re convinced that texting and emojis are drawing us closer, but we’re forgetting the energetic resonance of our friends’ voices and the comfort of our parents’ smiles. We think virtual gaming is fostering new communities, but our ghost-selves are wandering like holograms through pixelated forests, while our physical bodies are starved for grounding on the earth around a lively campfire. We think Jetsons-like automatons will offer us domestic peace and security, but we’re neglecting the healing power of human touch, and the soulful nourishment of a meal prepared and shared together as a communal unit. And this disconnect is dangerous. Not just physiologically and environmentally. But, culturally, psychologically, and behaviorally. Because, when we take our human hearts and merge them with machines, where does our love go?

I once took myself to a remote cottage in upstate New York for a week. Perhaps the word “cottage” is a bit too generous, as the structure was a tiny converted workman’s shed, with dirt and gravel for flooring, clans of spiders and stink bugs as roommates, and chickens for neighbors. There was no Internet, no computer, no TV, no landline, no people, but strangely, I did have cell reception. And as such, I relegated my mobile use to “emergencies only” (i.e. rabid racoon attack, black bear at my doorstep, rattlesnake in my bed). This required me to keep my phone turned off, hidden from plain sight, lest I trip over a goat while narrating my painful solitude to a friend on iMessage. 

On the first night, after sunset, I peered outside the window into … nothingness. No glow from a neighbor’s porch light, no twinkle from distant street lamps, no flash from passing car headlights. Just pitch-black nothingness outside. And me, alone, inside. 

It was terrifying. I tried to sit with the discomfort, with the fear, and the anxiety. I tried to read a book, but I couldn’t concentrate. I tried to write with pen on paper, but my eloquent words were blocked by my racing thoughts. I began to cry, then weep, then despair. So I turned on my cell phone, and I called a friend for support. She imparted great wisdom during that conversation, but one sentence has remained with me for years since. As I cried inconsolably, she said, “Alison, this is where you meet yourself.” 

And she was right. 

As Shakespeare wrote, “This above all, to thine own self be true.” Which means, do not engage in self-deception. But isn’t that what we’re all doing by living vicariously through our digital identities and cyborg fantasies? For how busy and productive we are, our world is becoming far too silent, save for the buzz of network servers, and the hum of mechanized devices. Between headsets, earbuds, microchips, and VR visors, we are isolating inward, instead of expanding outward. But, I’d rather have a good friend tease me for drinking too much coffee, than have a smart-bot remember which espresso roast I order. I’d rather feel heartbroken from losing a loved one, than never feel love to begin with. And I’d rather appreciate the value of presence than distract myself from the reality of absence. 

I’m not advocating that we all remove ourselves from society and recreate Thoreau’s Walden (although it’s ultimately worth it, if you try). But as we gaze down into an artificial blue light, instead of up into our companion’s eyes, we not only empty our lives of emotive connection, but we empty the love from ourselves. It’s up to each of us to reclaim our beating hearts before we are drowned out by digital silence.