Immediate Action March 22nd

For information on 5G and Senate Bills S19 and S88, begin video at 2:50.
Cece Doucette – PSA: S.19 5G and S. 88 IoT Hazardous to Public Health

S 19 – “MOBILE NOW Act” IS NOW ON THE SENATE FLOOR FOR FINAL VOTE!!!  The “Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless Act’ is Heading for Unanimous Consent (passed without hearing, debate or recorded vote) UNLESS WE GET AT LEAST ONE SENATOR TO OBJECT TO THIS BILL BY PUTTING IT ON HOLD!

It is urgent that you call every senator IMMEDIATELY and ask them to put S.19 on HOLD so that it cannot be heard by the Senate
ONE SENATOR CAN PLACE A BILL ON HOLD TO STOP IT! 
 
This bill lays the foundation for 5G Network that will require a small cell transmitter every couple of homes emitting high frequency 24Ghz to 90Ghz wireless radiation. These transmitters will be put in public right of ways EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, OR SAFETY REVIEW.  These transmitters will expose occupants to harmful wireless radiation so that you can download movies faster wirelessly, your IoT appliances and devices can communicate with one another (which does not seem like a necessity), you will be far more vulnerable to hacking, and your privacy can be violated even more easily.
1. Please call Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader’s Office First (202) 224-2541
2. Please call as many senators as possible and ask them to PUT A HOLD this bill ASAP
3. Dial *67 before you call a senator’s office.  This will block your caller ID and keep the office staff from asking for your address or zip code right away
4. Please Forward this email to everyone you know and post on social media.
Directions to Call Senator’s Offices:
1. Click here to find Names and Phone Numbers of all Senators: https://www.senate. gov/senators/contact/
2. Call your Senator and ask to speak to the Legislative Director explain that it is regarding pending legislation (if not available ask to speak to staff in charge of health). If not available leave a message for either one. Try not to talk to the receptionist that answers because they often don’t even note that you called.  Follow up with an email after you make calls.  Staffers do read emails.
3. Tell them you want the Senator to PUT A HOLD on the Mobile Now Act S.19. Talk about health effects and your experience.
4. You may call other state senators by dialing *67 then the Senator’s number and tell them the same thing. There are only 100 Senators, your story can make a real impact.
5. You can also send an email by asking for the legislative director’s First and Last Name and use the standard email format
First Name_Last Name@Senator’s Last Name.Senate.gov (ex: Jane Doe in Senator Harris’s office would have this email: Jane_Doe@Harris.Senate.gov)
For more information on Bill S.19, click on the links in the Table of Contents below:
S.19: Mobile Now Act (a) Short Title.—This Act may be cited as the “Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and
Needless Obstacles to Wireless Act” or the “MOBILE NOW Act”.
Table Of Contents.—The table of contents of S.19 is as follows:
Debunking the Self-Proclaimed Debunker

Debunking the Self-Proclaimed Debunker

By Kate Kheel, March 13, 2017

The Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council (CEHPAC), a Maryland state organization dedicated to protecting children from hazardous environmental exposures, recently released precautionary recommendations regarding WiFi in schools.   Shortly thereafter, an OpEd piece about these recommendations appeared in the Baltimore Sun.  The article, titled Recommendation to limit Md. School Wi-Fi based on ‘junk science’ by reporter Alex Berezow, was so filled with misleading and slanderous statements that it wreaked of a money trail behind the article. And here it is.

In a short video clip, reporter Alex Berezow shared a bit about himself. He explained he was a Senior Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and as a journalist, the areas he liked most covering were biology, epidemiology, and health.  He explained, “I also do my fair share of debunking of organic food and anti-vaccine myths and other anti-chemical myths – and so it’s a mix of bio med and debunkery.”

It turns out that the organization Berezow works for, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), has a self-proclaimed mission to counter activists that seek healthy and non-toxic living for all.  According to their website,

“Activist groups have targeted GMOs, vaccines, conventional agriculture, [that is, Monsanto, factory f and agribusiness] nuclear power, natural gas, and ‘ chemicals,’ while peddling health scares and fad diets. Worse, they have attacked the credibility of academic and private sector scientists, undermining the integrity of the scientific enterprise, by claiming unless they are funded by the government their work is illegitimate.” 

ACSH also boasts that a letter they sent to Columbia University demanding that Dr. Oz be removed from their faculty, got “national attention” – but thankfully, Dr. Oz still holds his position at Columbia University.

Apparently, ACSH stopped disclosing the sources of their funding over 20 years ago, but a short Google search led to a 2014 Mother Jones article about ACSH –  Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.  This article presents a veritable laundry list of donors and doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of the inner workings of the Council:

“ACSH’s donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who’s-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical, and tobacco corporations. ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000). Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Phillip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.”  

Further inquiry into Berezow’s quest to debunk revealed a recent article he had written about Dr. Joel Moskowitz (Ph.D), Director of Berkeley School of Public Health – UC Berkeley Psychologist Joel Moskowitz Is Cell Phone, Wi-Fi ‘Truther’

In this article, Berezow ridicules Dr. Moskowitz’s laudable push to get the California Department of Public Health to release a document containing safety guidelines for cell phones, which had been withheld from the public for seven years.  Berezow mockingly writes,

“On his website, Dr. Moskowitz promotes media stories that cover the supposed link between harmless kinds of electromagnetic radiation and cancer. It appears that needlessly scaring parents is how this professor of public health spends his free time.”

As it turned out, thankfully – and to Dr. Moskowitz’s credit – a few days after Berezow’s article, a California judge ruled that the recommendations were to be released. No comment to date from Berezow.

Berezow – quite the prolific reporter – wrote another piece entitled, Infographic: The Best and Worst Science News Sites, which has a graph of science news sites graded according to their “fundamental trustworthiness”.   BBC received a very favorable rating from Berezow which led to checking out what BBC had to say about precautionary measures regarding children and WiFi.  Turns out they have a very different take on this than Berezow.  Click here for their excellent 2014 video documentary on WiFi (15 minutes).

In theory, an organization can publish articles that are unfavorable to those from whom they receive funding. ACSH argues this point stating that  “…the sources of our support are irrelevant to our scientific investigations.”

So let’s see if the Op Ed piece indeed is truly objective or if perhaps it’s serving as a mouthpiece for industry.

Berezow criticizes CEHPAC for the use of the term “radiation.” “‘‘Radiation’ is a scary word,” he explains, and CEHPAC shows a “fundamental ignorance of scientific terminology.”

“It’s [the word ‘radiation’] so scary to so many people that even hospitals try to avoid using words like it, including ‘nuclear.’ For instance, the machine that we call MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is similar to a machine used by chemists called NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) to determine molecular structure. The word ‘nuclear,’ however, scared patients, so hospitals dropped it. A similar phobia exists over the word ‘radiation.’

Restated, Berezow is arguing that because radiation is a “scary” word, CEHPAC displayed a “fundamental ignorance of scientific terminology”  by using this term in their recommendations to describe the frequencies and pulses of radiofrequency microwave radiation that emanate from WiFi routers, tablets, and cell towers.

”The title of Berezow’s article states that the CEHPAC recommendations were based on “junk science.”

Following are a few links to some of the science submitted to CEHPAC in public comments that presumably were the “junk science” on which CEHPAC relied for their recommendations:

Behavior and memory – https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TaylorPASSession.pdf

Autism – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24095003

Sperm damage – http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/early/2016/09/06/REP-16-0126

Brain damage – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25775055?dopt=Abstract

And of course, another “junk science” study CEHPAC based their recommendations on were the Partial findings from the $25 million NIEHS/NTP Study, released in May 2016 – the largest study to date the NTP has ever conducted on anything! This study showed showed a significantly higher rate of Glioma and Shwannomas of the heart in rats exposed to 2G cellular radiation. The findings were dose related, and corroborate similar findings in humans with heavy cellphone use. This study comes on the heels of thousands of other peer-reviewed studies showing harm from non-ionizing radiation. For a sampling of some of these studies, click herehere, and here.

Finally, click here for an International Appeal from over 230 scientists calling for better protection from “non-ionizing radiation” (is that a scary term??) – And please do check out Dr. Ronald M. Powell’s Message to Schools and Colleges about Wireless Devices and Health along with his bibliography of further resources.

After reviewing the science, you can decide if Berezow’s OpEd piece was about  “junk science” or was an example of “junk journalism”.

 

2017 Test of 5G in Sacramento

2017 Test of 5G in Sacramento

Photos from Public Planning Documents

We have discovered a series of photos we can share with you right now.

  1. All over downtown Sacramento
  2. 25 feet from second story bedroom windows
  3. No Radio-Frequency Microwave Radiation (RF/MW radiation) pre/post analysis
  4. Public Hearing in March 2017, awaiting final scheduling
  5. Call Sacramento Planning at 916-808-7686 for hearing date

Community Action Alert

Community Action Alert

Please share this Action Alert with your community.  

 The Problem

5G small cells are not needed for cellular service but are being deployed to bring about the Internet of Things, which is an effort to connect every machine, appliance, “thing”, and device wirelessly to the Internet. This rollout will involve deploying millions of cell towers/small cells and power supplies throughout our residential neighborhoods. An industry video on 5G can be found here if you are not yet familiar with 5G and the Internet of Things. Please also see www.whatis5G.info for more information.

The FCC approved this 5G rollout in July 2016 despite the National Toxicology Program release of “preliminary findings” of their $25 million study on health effects from cell phone radiation. An exposed group of rats showed statistically significant increases in Gliomas and Shwanomas of heart cancer as well as other adverse health effects – The NTP findings corroborate many other studies linking cell phone use with cancer and comes in the wake of thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing harm from exposure to wireless radiation. Perhaps this study accounts, in part, for the mad rush to get 5G-infrastructure in place before the public becomes informed.

In addition, the FCC has not completed their 2013 Docket 13-84, Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies – all this while the Department of the Interior (DOI) wrote in 2014 that the FCC standards are 30 years out of date and inapplicable.  The rollout of 5G has significant public health and environmental ramifications.

Since the FCC approval in July, the wireless industry has been lobbying hard at both the Federal and State levels to remove any roadblocks to small cell antenna deployments that would place antenna arrays that output 1,250 Watts Effective Radiated Power (ERP) or higher, 15-30 feet from second story bedrooms. The biggest roadblock is local zoning regulations that control siting processes. The wireless companies want unbridled access to the rights of way on our residential streets and properties. Unless there is a massive public outcry, the wireless industry will succeed.

Small cell deployment in residential areas will require a minimum installation every 300-500 feet per industry documents and can include antennas on light posts, utility poles, and street signs as well as 65-foot mini cell towers on your front lawn.

See this photo that shows what happened to a Maryland homeowner (page 25) here.

And other examples of what 5G small cells look like and what could show up next to our homes:  http://nathpo.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DAS_Small_Cell_Deployments_Pictures_Only.pdf

Current Wireless Industry Initiatives and Actions You Can Take

1) US Senate: There are two bills pending in the US Senate, which are intended to fast track the deployment of 5G and the IoT, as well as to preempt local zoning regulations:

S19 – The MOBILE NOW Act – “To provide opportunities for broadband investment, and for other purposes.”  https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/19/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22S19%22%5D%7D&r=1


S88 – The DIGIT Act: “To ensure appropriate spectrum planning and interagency coordination to support the Internet of Things.” – https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/88/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22S88%22%5D%7D&r=1

More on these bills and Instructions for contacting your senators can be found here.

2) FCC Proceeding WTB-16-421 – STREAMLINING DEPLOYMENT OF SMALL CELL INFRASTRUCTURE

To view the comments that were submitted to the FCC regarding this proceeding, please click here.

A wireless infrastructure company, Mobilitie, LLC, has petitioned the FCC to get relief on local siting fees. But if you read the ex-parte filings, the entire wireless industry is lobbying not just for relief on fees, but also for relief on siting regulations and timing. They want the FCC to preempt local regulations and control.

3) US Department of Transportation:

The US Department of Transportation has a proposed rule out for comment that will MANDATE two way radios and “basic safety messaging” in all new light trucks and cars. These radios transmit 10X a second. If you read their documents you will see that this is step 1.  Down the road they will mandate after market devices for all cars and trucks. And further down the road prohibit human drivers. Comments close for this Docket on April 12, 2017. See https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-2016-0126

4) State Initiatives:

The wireless industry never puts their eggs in one basket, so they are lobbying the states to preempt local zoning regulations. A bill has already passed in Ohio. Note the limits placed on local authority control:

Limits On Local Authority

In new Section 4939.0315, the Bill prohibits 17 specific actions by location governments.  Among other things, under the Bill local governments cannot

  • Prohibit location in residential areas or within a specific distance from a residence;
  • Requirethe applicant to submit information or otherwise consider “need” for the facility, customer demand, or quality of service;
  • Evaluatethe request based on availability of other potential locations (however the city can propose an alternate location within 50 feet, which must be used if the applicant has authority and there are not technical limits or additional costs);
  • Require removal of existing wireless support structures or facilities;
  • Require bonds, escrow deposits, or letters of credit, unless also imposed generally on right of way occupants;
  • Impose unreasonable requirements regarding appearance;
  • Require the use of municipally-owned facilities or property;
  • Require the applicant to agree to allow collocation;
  • Limit the duration of permits;
  • Impose setbacks or fall zone requirements that are different from requirements, if any, imposed on other structures in the public rights of way;
  • Impose separation requirements between wireless facilities

 

Bills in other states: 

There are bills in Florida as well as in Virginia that will preempt local control over the deployment of small cell infrastructure.

FL SB 596 – https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0596/BillText/__/PDF

FL HB 687 – https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0687/BillText/Filed/PDF

VA SB 1282 – https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+sum+SB1282

There may be bills in other states as well. Everyone needs to check his/her own state.

Overwhelmed yet? This is an onslaught. The wireless industry and our government want to get these small cell/cell towers everywhere! Please consider sending something out to your personal mailing/reader lists to alert the public of these initiatives and encourage them to call/write their local, state and federal representatives, as well as to comment on the FCC proceeding 16-421, by March 8th – and the Department of Transportation Docket NHTSA-2016-0126, by April 12, 2017. Or just post a link to this document on FB or Twitter.