Closing The Digital Divide – Fiber vs. Wireless

Closing The Digital Divide – Fiber vs. Wireless

(Please note that although this blog clearly promotes the build out and use of fiber for the vast majority of our Internet and Telecommunications needs, the author in NO way supports the use of this fiber for the build out of wireless small cells. Hopefully, as people become more informed about the harms of wireless, innovations will increasingly make use of safe, fast, reliable, energy efficient and cyber secure fiber. Not wireless.)
 
Most everyone agrees that, like electricity and phone, the Internet is now a public necessity. The Federal Communications Commission states, “Broadband has gone from being a luxury to a necessity for full participation in our economy and society.”  But Telecom won’t deliver on it – at least not to everyone.
 
High speed Internet, aka fiber, is costly and somewhat cumbersome to build, so the private sector has now shifted to peddling 5G. Instead of installing the promised fiber we have already paid for through rate increases and taxes, Telecom is rolling out fiber only to utility and light poles in urban and suburban areas and then spraying the data through the air on a panoply of frequencies. Why? Because it’s cheaper and easier for them. Never mind the harms to us and the planet, and no worries about closing the digital divide
 
People in rural America are stuck with a choice between wireless hot spots, satellite, DSL or dial-up, none of which provide reliable “high speed Internet.”  And even 5G is too costly to extend to these areas – at least it is without big government subsidies and incentives.
 
“After years of waiting, it is now evident that ‘left to their own devices’, companies will gouge the rich, leave out the poor, cherry-pick markets and focus solely on their profits. It isn’t evil, it’s just the way things work.” Susan Crawford

 
Why Don’t We Have Fiber Yet?
The over-arching reason we lag behind other countries in providing fiber, is that our government believes a free market should drive the development of technology. In the words of the current FCC chairman Ajit Pai “The market, not government, is best positioned to drive innovation and investment.”  So essentially, as stated by Harvard law professor, Susan Crawford, “The mega-utility of the 21st century officially has no regulator.”
 
Since no one is really overseeing these companies, and scrutinizing the books, there’s quite a bit of wiggle room…and wiggling they’ve done as Bruce Kushnick has documented for many years. And they’ve wiggled all the way from delivering fiber-to-the-premise to essentially reneging on these contracts and pushing wireless instead. This includes the unfettered deployment of 4G/5G “small” cell antennas in front of our homes.
 
So if the private sector isn’t stepping up to the plate to deliver on fiber, municipalities can build their own publicly owned fiber network. But just a minute. Hold on. That’s not so easy either. Unfortunately, Telecom’s got these bases covered as wellAs of 2018, twenty states have laws that discourage publicly owned fiber networks. And this includes discouraging even public/private partnerships, which when well planned, can be a win/win for all parties: the city, the partnering telecom company, and the public as described here.
 
Whereas the FCC’s Connect America Fund provides money to the private sector to deliver high speed Internet to under-served areas, to the best of my knowledge, nothing of the kind is being offered to municipalities, alone or in partnerships, to help build a fiber network. Furthermore, when the FCC did give an exemption from state laws that prohibit municipalities from building their own fiber network, the exemption was shot down by a court ruling. As stated in Dividing Lines, “Big Telecom and their friends in state and federal legislatures are finding creative ways to keep the status quo.”
 
Defining Our Terms – Motte and Bailey Strategy?
What is meant by bringing “high speed Internet” to rural areas? Local communities and many others understand it to mean building a complete fiber network to all homes, businesses, and farms. Telecom and our government aren’t as clear about what exactly this means, which is a problem.
 
The powers that be identify something most people can agree on: High speed Internet should be accessible to all – which many of us understand to mean we should all have access to fiber. But then industry/government switch to something more controversial and not equivalent at all, and maintain we all need 4G/5G wireless densification in front of our homes.
 
Promises are cheap and Telecom throws them about quite freely. The current one is that 5G will bring high speed connectivity to rural areas. But (thankfully for those living in the country) that’s just PR to get regulations rolled back for the launch of 5G in cities. There are, however, other “fixes” being offered in rural America such as wireless “hot spots”, WiFi on school buses, or even satellite, but none of these will do because fiber and wireless are not equivalent or interchangeable services. 
 
Fiber is great for fixed locations such as a home or a business. (Though not recommended, a WiFi connection, can be used for mobility within the premises.) Fiber is the ideal medium for streaming videos or for remote surgery (were someone to want it) as fiber is super fast, safe, and reliable. 
Wireless can be used when out and about for short on-the-go communications, and texting, but is poorly suited for video streaming due to the huge energy consumption of wireless, and is not reliable enough for remote surgery.
 

“Fiber is safer, faster, more reliable, and far more energy efficient and cyber secure than wireless.” Ronald M. Powell Ph.D.

Beyond the different uses for fiber and wireless, there are other core differences that make fiber far superior to wireless. Fiber has virtually unlimited bandwidth and once laid, can last decades with little to no maintenance. But more importantly, thousands of scientific studies show adverse health effects from wireless and hundreds of  studies show harm to wildlife as well. (For more on health please see the Scientific Literature tab on the following website https://mdsafetech.org,)

So when our government drafts laws to subsidize putting Wi-Fi on school buses so children can do their homework, this is a clear example of conflating fiber with wireless as a means to bridge the digital divide. Wi-Fi on school buses is a far cry from providing fiber to the homes of these children. Not only would this ridiculous patchwork “fix” expose children to harmful radiation while enclosed in a metal box (think bus!) which greatly increases their exposure to radiation, but it would take away the few precious moments these kids still have in their day for real life, face-to-face communication with their peers. Similarly, 5G is a poor fix for rural America…or for that matter, for urban America as well.
 

Solution
We must bring health and the environment into the discussion of why fiber is far superior to wireless, or we may end up “closing the digital divide” by causing as much harm to those in rural America as those in cities are being subjected to now with 4G/5G densification. Bringing high speed broadband to rural America should not be about incentivizing the private sector through subsidies to bring 5G uniformly to all areas. It should be about delivering safe, fast, reliable fiber to everyone, everywhere.
 
We must expand our understanding and messaging about the benefits of fiber to not only include faster speeds and unlimited bandwidth, but to also include the fact that unlike wireless, which harms both people and wildlife, fiber is safe for all. 
 
By “closing the digital divide” we mean delivering safe, fast, and reliable fiber to all, and not offering makeshift and harmful solutions such as WiFi on buses, 5G, satellite, or wireless hot spots. 
 
Armed with the understanding of these additional benefits of fiber, we can add our voices to the growing number of people and organizations around the country seeking to close the digital divide. We can strengthen their platform and “clean-up” their messaging.
 
We don’t just want any kind of high speed Internet for all. We want fiber which is safe for us and for the planet. And who knows, perhaps, this message will trickle out, and people everywhere – both in cities and in rural areas –  will begin to use fiber for the vast majority of their Internet and Telecommunications needs, reserving wireless for short, on-the-go communications. And soon we will all be wise enough to not buy “smart” things. And good riddance to 5G!!
Alert On S 3157 – An Important Bill For Everyone To Oppose

Alert On S 3157 – An Important Bill For Everyone To Oppose

OVERVIEW

The Federal government is once again trying to strip away local authority over cell towers siting. Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act (S.3157)

S.3157  is an effort to make Congressional law consistent with recent FCC actions. In 2017 and 2018, Telecom managed to get the FCC to pass sweeping regulations that strip municipalities of local zoning rights and greatly cut back environmental and historic reviews.

Following you will find further information about the bill and actions you can take to oppose it:

For a detailed look at how S.3157 would alter Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, stripping municipalities and the public of our rights, please see:
http://scientists4wiredtech.com/legislation/2018-streamline-small-cell-deployment-act-s3157/

Here’s a simple description and easy template to take action to oppose S.3157.
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/take-action-to-stop-5g-senate-bill-s-3157/

Overview of S.3157 written by the National League of Cities
https://www.nlc.org/article/federal-advocacy-update-week-of-july-10-2018#Cell

The National League of Cities (NLC) opposes S. 3157. They wrote, “Despite urging from NLC and other local government advocates during the bill’s drafting phase, many preemptive provisions remain in the bill, including limiting the actions local governments can take on small cell wireless facility siting in an effort to make deployments cheaper, faster, and more consistent across jurisdictions.”
Please take a moment to do one or all of the following:
  1. Call your Federal representatives. If on the Senate Commerce Committee, please ask them to put a hold on S 3157.

Sample message:

“I’m calling to ask the (Senator or Representative) to please protect our rights and our property by prohibiting telecom companies from placing wireless transmitters all over our neighborhoods with no local review. We have the right to determine how to integrate technology into our own community. Telecom companies should not be allowed to override local control. Please do not allow S. 3157 or any other 5G bills to pass.”

  1. Email your representatives. You can use this link to find contact information for all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives.  https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials
  2. Consider also contacting members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. which is the Committee where S 3157 currently is awaiting a hearing. The full list of members can be found at the end of this post (scroll down) or at this link: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committeemembers
  3. The website https://zero5g.com, has an excellent letter and portal you can use for contacting your federal representatives. https://zero5g.com/take-action-usa/
  4. The National League of Cities will send a letter directly to your representatives in Congress for you. At this link, you can fill in your zip code (and your full address if your postal zone is split between jurisdictions), and the letter template will appear with a message to legislators generated by the National League of Cities (NLC).  http://advocacy.nlc.org/nlc/app/onestep-write-a-letter?0&engagementId=487075

PLEASE NOTE: The NLC opposes Federal control of small cell deployment, but does NOT mind small cells regulated by municipalities.  So instead of using the NLC generated letter, which has statements in support of small cells, either

  1. craft your own letter
  2. copy and paste the following text into their letter template
  3. use the letter given at this link, https://whatis5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Possible-letter-for-NLC-Template.pdf
Text to copy and paste into NLC letter template:

As a constituent, I am writing to express my opposition to the “Streamlining The Rapid Evolution And Modernization of Leading-edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance (STREAMLINE) Small Cell Deployment Act” (S. 3157).

S. 3157 is similar to a California bill (SB 649) which would have created a state mandated system of cell towers and eliminated local review and safety oversight. SB 649 was opposed by 300 cities, 47 counties and over 100 community, planning, health, environment and justice organizations. SB 649 was vetoed SB 649 by Governor Brown on October 15, 2017.

The threat of public and environmental harm from wireless radiation is real and growing. Local control is needed to ensure community safety, welfare and compliance with federal, state, and local laws.

Peer-reviewed published science shows wireless radiation harms public health and nature. Health effects include: fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, ringing in the ears, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, increased cancer risk, and more. Children, the ill, and the elderly are more vulnerable.

International independent scientists are calling for biologically-based public exposure standards and reducing wireless radiation.

S. 3157 represents a direct affront to traditionally-held local authority. S. 3157 introduces an unnecessary, one-size-fits-all preemption of local jurisdiction. The bill also imposes unfair and inappropriate timelines on local governments.

For more information see this joint letter to Congress asking you to oppose any and all bills related to 5G and wireless radiation expansion: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Letter-to-Congress-2017-1.pdf

Thank you!

(Sign your name)

Resources from Environmental Health Trust for Policy Makers:

Environmental Health Trust has compiled several key resources to ensure policy makers and governments have the scientific resources they need. Please take the time to review this list as well as the linked 5G organizations.
https://ehtrust.org/resources-to-take-action-on-us-5g-streamlining-bills/

 

Become Acquainted with Grassroots Environmental Education:

Doug and Patti Wood and the Grassroots Environmental Education team, are spear-heading an effort to bring together the organizations and individuals around the country who are working to oppose 5g. Please check out the following links put out by Grassroots Environmental Education as well as the suggested actions:
1. Short video clip on 5g: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u7k-7msciM&feature=share
2. The prior video will lead you to the website,  https://www.telecompowergrab.org
There you will find instructions for urging senators to NOT MOVE ON ANY BILLS RELATED TO 5G AND WIRELESS EXPANSION until after the election.
3. You will also see a link to the Grassroots Environmental Education website, Wireless Information Network (WIN), http://www.win19.org/
Wireless Information Network (WIN) is an excellent resource for up-to-date information about the harms of wireless radiation and what we can do to oppose 5g.
At the website, people can also sign up for the WIN ListServe which is intended for individuals and organizations to share their research, ideas and experience. Here is the link to the WINListServe:  http://www.win19.org/listserv.html

Here is a link to two strong Letters to the Editor re S.3157

Please note the modified and apt title of the bill, “Streamline Cancer Bill.”
https://whatis5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Two-Letters-to-the-Editor-re-S-3157.pdf

 
List of committee members on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committeemembers
 
Senator John Thune (R-SD) is the Commerce Committee Chairman.
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is the Ranking Member.
 
Contact Information for the Committee 
Full Committee Office 
Majority: 202-224-1251
Majority Address: 512 Dirksen Senate Building; Washington DC, 20510
Minority: 202-224-0411
 
MAJORITY MEMBERS:
1. CHAIRMAN: Senator John Thune, South Dakota
Washington D.C. Office
United States Senate SD-511
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2321
Fax: (202) 228-5429
Toll-Free: 1-866-850-3855
EMAIL FORM: https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
 
2. Senator Roger Wicker Mississippi
Washington, D.C.
555 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: (202) 224-6253
Fax: (202) 228-0378
EMAIL FORM https://www.wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
 
3. Senator Roy Blunt Missouri
Washington, D.C.
260 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5721
EMAIL CONTACT FORM: https://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-roy
 
4. Senator Ted Cruz Texas
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(202) 224-5922
404 Russell
Washington, DC 20510
EMAIL: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=form&id=16
 
5. Senator Deb Fischer Nebraska
Washington D.C.
454 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6551
Fax: (202) 228-1325
EMAIL: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/?p=email-deb
 
6. Senator Jerry Moran Kansas
Washington, D.C.
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 521
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6521
Fax: (202) 228-6966
https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry
 
7. Senator Dan Sullivan Alaska
WASHINGTON, D.C.
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202)-224-3004
Fax: (202)-224-6501
https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/contact/email

8. Senator Dean Heller Nevada
Washington, DC
324 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-6244
Fax: 202-228-6753
https://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form
 
9. Senator Jim Inhofe Oklahoma (site down)
 
10. Senator Mike Lee Utah (site down)
 
11. Senator Ron Johnson Wisconsin
328 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5323
Fax: (202) 228-6965
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator
 
12. Senator Shelley Moore Capito West Virginia
13  Senator Cory Gardner Colorado
Washington, D.C.
354 Russell
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
P: (202) 224-5941 
F: (202) 224-6524
https://www.gardner.senate.gov/contact-cory/email-cory
 
14. Senator Todd Young Indiana (site down)
 
MINORITY MEMBERS:
 
1. Ranking Member Bill Nelson Florida
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
United States Senate
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274
Fax: 202-228-2183
https://www.billnelson.senate.gov/contact-bill
 
2. Senator Maria Cantwell Washington
Washington, DC
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3441
Fax: (202) 228-0514
https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/contact/email
 
3. Senator Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
Washington, DC
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
phone: 202-224-3244
fax: 202-228-2186
https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-amy
 
4. Senator Richard Blumenthal Connecticut
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/contact
Washington D.C.
706 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC, 20510
tel (202) 224-2823
fax (202) 224-9673
 
 
5. Senator Brian Schatz Hawaii
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 
WASHINGTON, DC 20510 
PHONE: (202) 224-3934 
FAX: (202) 228-1153
https://www.schatz.senate.gov/contact
 
6. Senator Ed Markey Massachusetts
Washington, D.C.
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building   
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2742
https://www.markey.senate.gov/contact
 
7. Senator Tom Udall New Mexico
Washington/Capitol Hill
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
(202) 224-6621
https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/contact/email-tom
 
8.  Senator Gary Peters Michigan
Hart Senate Office Building 
Suite 724 
Washington, DC 20510 
(202) 224-6221 
https://www.peters.senate.gov/contact/email-gary
 
9. Senator Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin (site down)
 
10. Senator Tammy Duckworth Illinois (site down)
 
11. Senator Maggie Hassan New Hampshire (site down)
 
12. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto Nevada (site down)
 
13. Senator Jon Tester  Montana (site down)
 
 

 
SYNERGIES AND RFR SAFETY LIMITS

SYNERGIES AND RFR SAFETY LIMITS

by Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff

This document examines the role of synergies in setting of safety limits.

Studies that include synergies are necessary for credible RFR safety limit
setting. Single stressor experiments as the main determinants for safety/exposure limits may be insufficient for human health protection from these potentially toxic contributing factors.

The results from studies of synergistic effects will take years to produce. If we continue along our
present path, hundreds of thousands of new small cell towers will have been installed during that research
period. The damage will have been done by the time the results are produced.

We need a moratorium on new cell tower construction until such results have been obtained.

Read full document at this link:

https://whatis5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SYNERGIES-AND-RFR-SAFETY-LIMITS.pdf

Message and Comments from Ronald N. Kostoff on Maryland Bills SB 1188 and HB 1767, Wireless Facilities – Permitting and Siting

Message and Comments from Ronald N. Kostoff on Maryland Bills SB 1188 and HB 1767, Wireless Facilities – Permitting and Siting

Maryland Legislative Proposals to Mandate Implementation of Small Cell Towers/5G

By Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff

BACKGROUND

The Maryland legislature has proposed Senate and House Bills (SB 1188 and HB 1767) that would significantly impair the ability of municipalities to regulate the siting of small cellular antennas and related infrastructure.  They would preempt local authority regarding height of poles, size of equipment, amount of fees, and other critical factors that would affect quality of life issues in municipalities.  These Bills would convert an intrinsically local issue into a state issue.  Most of all, they would be a major contributing factor to the onset of myriad serious diseases.  At the end of this letter is a link to Comments I recently sent to the Maryland legislature in opposition to both of these Bills.

MASS KILLINGS WITH GUN-BASED ASSAULT WEAPONS

The health issue related to these small cell towers is central, and needs to be placed in proper context.  Two weeks ago, a lone gunman opened fire in a school in Parkland, FL, killing 17 and wounding 14.  This horrific event sparked outrage among politicians, the media, and citizens across the USA.  It is the latest in a series of such mass killing events.  From 1982-2018, it is estimated that such mass murders resulted in the deaths of over 800 people, an average of about twenty-five per year over that period.

(https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/)

MASS KILLINGS WITH RADIOFREQUENCY-BASED  ASSAULT WEAPONS

By comparison, our existing cell towers and other wireless transmitting devices are essentially assault weapons firing on our schools, our commercial and government buildings, and our residences, 24/7/52.  The ‘bullets’ they fire are not lead, but rather are packets of non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR).  In the long-term, they are far more deadly than their lead counterparts because they will impact most of the population, as my EMF health effects book chapter and attached letter show.

MEDIA RESPONSE

Where is the outrage of the media on these fully automatic and continuous RFR-based assault weapons relentlessly attacking our schools and most of our population, 24/7/52?  Over time, these RFR-based assault weapons will inflict orders of magnitude more suffering and premature deaths than the mass gun-based shootings ever would.  Why isn’t the damage inflicted by these RFR-based assault weapons discussed at the top of every media front page?

POLITICAL RESPONSE

Where is the outrage of our local, state, and Federal politicians over proposals to greatly enhance the power of these RFR-based assault weapons by mandating rapid implementation of millions of 5G cell towers throughout our population?  I am hearing impassioned pleas by members of Congress to reduce and restrict the numbers of gun-based assault weapons throughout society in order to to reduce the probability of these mass killings.  Where are their similarly impassioned pleas to reduce the far greater danger from RFR-based assault weapons?

GENERAL POPULATION RESPONSE

Where is the outrage of the general population and the students on having been subjected to these RFR ‘bullets’ in the past from 2G and 3G technology, in the present from the addition of 4G technology, and potentially in the future from the addition of 5G technology? 

I applaud the demonstrating of our citizens, especially the students, against the gun-based violence in the schools.  Why are they not doing similar, if not greater, demonstrating against these RFR-based assault weapons we euphemistically call cell towers?  These RFR-based assault weapons have resulted, are resulting, and will certainly result in producing far more suffering and premature deaths than the horrific mass gun-based shootings ever will.

FINAL THOUGHTS

As I point out in the attached letter, 5G has (for all practical purposes) never had anything resembling credible safety testing performed.  Yet, we are deluged with proposals from local, state, and Federal officials to remove any impediments to accelerated implementation of millions of these 5G-transmitting small cell towers throughout the USA. 

How would these politicians react if one of the major airlines introduced a fleet of new transport planes that had never been flight tested?  Would they participate in the inaugural flights? Would they volunteer members of their family to participate in the inaugural flights?  Analogous to what they are proposing for 5G and its infrastructure, would they mandate that their constituents participate in the inaugural flights?  If not, why are they willing to mandate the imposition of 5G and its infrastructure on their constituents?

In fact, the premier biomedical literature tells us in no uncertain terms that these RFR-based assault weapons are extremely dangerous to human health above some relatively low RFR threshold exposures.  These results are obtained despite the conduct of most RFR health impact studies under conditions most favorable to minimizing adverse health impacts of RFR. 

Implementation of these 5G/small cell tower proposals at the local, state, or Federal level should be opposed to the maximum extent possible!

RNK

Comments by Ronald N. Kostoff sent to Sponsors of SB 1188 and HB 1767, and Members of the Senate Finance Committee and the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee. 

https://whatis5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/COMMENTS-by-Ronald-N.-Kostofff-on-SB-1188-and-HB-1767.pdf

South Carolina Woman Arrested for Refusing Smart Meter; Letter Urging State Attorney General to Intervene

South Carolina Woman Arrested for Refusing Smart Meter; Letter Urging State Attorney General to Intervene

Press Release
For Immediate Release
Contact: E. Michelle Mancini • blufftonsc@icloud.com
Please email for phone number 
Armed Officers Arrest and Jail Woman to Enforce “Smart” Meters
PALMETTO ELECTRIC GETS ARMED THUGS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE TO FORCE THEIR POOR CHOICE OF METERS  
Bluffton, South Carolina, February 19, 2018 A Sheriff arrested and jailed a woman after she had a smart meter on her home changed to an analog meter due to health issues from the radiation. The arrest warrant for Elizabeth Michelle Mancini states that Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc., did not approve the meter, and could not read it.
Ms. Mancini, a Technical Writer with no criminal record, stated, “Palmetto did not, and could not rebut my affidavit of claims related to their having put an unsafe and invasive meter on my home. I didn’t violate any law because I was simply acting in self-defense against an unsafe and unlawful meter.” She said she had no intent to defraud the utility company, and that “Utilities have been able to read analog meters for over 70 years–a third grader can do it.”
Ms. Mancini began requesting Palmetto to remove their smart meter in 2015, to protect her health and her Fourth Amendment right to privacy in the home. Ms. Mancini described going through an administrative process, serving the CEO of the power company with a “Notice and Demand,” and a subsequent “Notice of Default,” prior to installing a safe, hardwired analog meter. She returned the smart meter, undamaged, to the CEO of Palmetto and included photos of all readings for meter reading purposes, and to show she was not attempting to defraud the company.
Armed officers came to her home and made the arrest.
“Most of us are being harmed by excessive radiation, but only a small percentage of the population are clinically sensitive to radio frequencies. There was no compelling public interest to strip search and shackle me, and there is no public benefit to my prosecution. These so-called smart meters are a profitable fraud. The crime is Palmetto’s gross negligence regarding the health effects from these meters and also the violation of our right to privacy within the home. They are simultaneously harming and spying on trusting, innocent customers under the guise of delivering the most basic human needs.”
Ms. Mancini made recordings of the police when they invaded her home, but law enforcement scrubbed the recordings.
“I hope my arrest will help lead to people joining together to refuse this technology. Easements are not open ended and do not include the forcing of a radiation emitting surveillance device,” she said. Ms. Mancini has requested a continuance of a hearing scheduled.
 
Letter to the Attorney General of South Carolina from We Are The Evidence https://wearetheevidence.org
Dear General Wilson, 
 
Yesterday, on February 19th, a resident of SC, E. Michelle Mancini,  was arrested for refusing to have a wireless “smart” meter installed on her home. Ms. Mancini is suffering from Microwave Sickness – i.e. sickness from wireless radiation (just like I do). 
 
Putting a wireless meter that emits non-stop pulsed microwave radiation on a home of a person with Microwave Sickness is like putting sugar in the water of a person with diabetes.
 
To the best of my legal understanding, forcing on Ms. Mancini a device that will cause her harm is criminal assault. 
 
I would like to receive General Wilson’s response to this arrest. 
 
I also would like to ask him to do the right thing and intervene and make sure that Ms. Mancini would not be forced to have a “smart” meter on her house and that no further action be taken against her. If anything, the executives of a company that is forcing a harmful device on people in their home should be the ones arrested and charged, not those who object to the assault
 
Please be aware that in more than half of the states in the US people are allowed to opt-out from having a “smart” meter on their home. Therefore, refusing to allow people to opt-out from the installation of a “smart” meter is also a violation of the Commerce Clause. 
 
Please also inform General Wilson that the results of the biggest Federal study on wireless radiation were published this month and the study confirmed not only that this radiation causes cancer, but that it also breaks the DNA.  These findings are contrary to the long-held false belief that non-ionizing radiation cannot break  DNA. Thereby this study refutes the wireless industry’s stance, as well as the FCC’s stance, that there are no biological and health effects.
 
How is it that a company is allowed to force on a woman, in her home, a wireless meter that can break her DNA and cause cancer, especially when she is already sick from this radiation?
 
Following is the Press Release for this disturbing incident. 
 
I look forward to receiving General Wilson’s response. 
 
Thank you, 
 
Dafna Tachover, Managing Director
Attorney (NY, Israel), MBA
Phone: (845) 377 0211