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.
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.
“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 firstname.lastname@example.org, stating that the American people choose health and privacy over wireless speed and data harvesting.
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: email@example.com.
To add extra weight to your message, please cc the following people from the FDA, CDC, and NCI (National Cancer Institute)
(Posted by www.whatis5g.info)
Letter from Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D. to the Montgomery County Council, Maryland.
October 31, 2017
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.
Update: SB 649 passed out of the House and was sent back to the Senate for a final vote on the amended version. Since SB 649 also passed out of the Senate, it will now go to Governor Brown for signing. Letters, emails and calls should pour into Governor Jerry Brown’s Office within the next few days.
We are having a Post Card Campaign at the Ecology Center Booth at the Berkeley Farmer’s Market this Saturday. \Don’t have time to send a postcard? We can send one for you, please email us back – Saraharminoff@aol.com. There’s a coordinated social media campaign, asking folks to take pics of their postcards and post using #STOP SB 649 to further amplify the avalanche.
4) SB 649 ruins aesthetics in California. Teamsters are opposed and might pull the film industry out of state. Please retweet! “We view this bill as a full assault on local democracy!” Barry Broad, Teamsters Public Affairs Council #NoOnSB649https://twitter.com/CaCities/status/908742091668307968
5) SB 649 protects industry not health. Harmful effects of RF-EMF fields are already proven. A large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports show harm to human health including increased cancer and deaths around cell towers — subsequently when cell towers are removed, studies show that the death rate returns to normal levels. The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) shows an increase in incidents of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF.
7) More than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.
8) SB 649 creates unsafe working conditions for utility workers. SB 649 antennas will be placed on utility poles, and utility workers will be exposed all day up close.
After asking Gov. Brown to veto SB 649, what else can you do? Post a link to this website on your Facebook page, your Twitter feed or your Instagram account. http://www.noon649.org/ Together we can protect the health and safety of all Californians! Thank you taking a moment to do this, and for taking a stand on this important issue!
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING AND SUBMITTING COMPLAINT
(Links to Complaint forms below)
To stop SB649 from becoming a law, we need to make a formal complaint to the CA Attorney General whose job it is to inform the Governor regarding the legality of legislation, uphold the law, and protect our rights. This complaint demands that the Governor VETO SB649 based on several legal grounds.
Below are clear instructions. Please print the form; fill it out; and either fax it, or online-fax it* (instructions below) as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the Governor does not provide an email only a fax number.
If you have a question, please contact Brenda at 310-458-8886 or email her at firstname.lastname@example.org.
We need a mass of complaints to be submitted to the Governor and Attorney General (see more information about the complaint below).
IMPORTANT – We expect the Governor to sign SB649 soon. Thus we need to submit these complaints immediately. PLEASE try to fax these complaints to the Governor and AG as soon as possible – ideally by Monday, September 18th.
PLEASE contact any person you know in CA to do the same. This is IMPORTANT. Let’s make this happen!!
(NOTE – YOU CAN TYPE DIRECTLY ONTO THE DOCUMENT, SAVE, AND/OR PRINT IT.)
Choose the complaint that most closely applies to you.
Person Sick with Cancer – Complaint to Governor and Attorney General
Person Not Yet Sick from Wireless – Complaint to Governor and Attorney General
Complete your personal information in Section 1.
Complete your sickness information (if applicable) in Section 2.
Print the form and sign it.
Fax the Complaint to the Governor and the AG.
Fax completed form to the Governor: (916) 558 3160
Fax completed form to the Attorney General: (916) 445 6749
The Governor does not have an email address. He does not want to make it easy for you to give him feedback. Please make the effort to fax him your complaint.
* Fax Online for Free using: https://faxzero.com/fax_governor/California
Or find a fax in hotels, office depot, Staple, Fed-Ex Office, UPS store, Mail-Box Etc (if you do not have one).
Please keep a copy of your complaint for your records.
Please save and email us a copy of your Complaint (no need for signature) so we can follow-up with the Governor and the Attorney General – (Email Brenda: email@example.com) If the form is hand-written, and it is difficult for you to scan, please email your contact info and to let us know that you submitted the Complaint and your contact information.
Further explanation and background for the Complaint:
SB649 is ILLEGAL. It violates the Constitutional Rights of every resident of California, essentially legalizes Criminal Assault and violates the Disability rights of those who already have become sick from wireless radiation. It is also illegal and discriminatory because of the exemption to fire stations/fighters. We should demand that our rights be protected.
It is the Role of the Governor and especially that of the State Attorney General to protect the rights, health and safety of the residents of their state and uphold the law. We need to demand that they comply with their legal responsibilities and the law.
This complaint explains why SB649 is illegal and how it would harm people and why it should not become law. Please fill out this form to demand that the CA Governor VETO SB649 and the Attorney General protect our rights and uphold the law, and if it becomes law challenge SB649.