Access to the internet is now considered a public necessity, similar to water and electricity. People lacking affordable and reliable internet access are at a disadvantage in navigating today’s world, especially in these times of social isolation.
The telecom industry is intent on “bridging the digital divide” to end this inequity. Sounds good at first blush, but unfortunately, the lowest cost internet option – one that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor respectful of privacy – is the one being offered. Will this fix the problem or are we rather substituting one disadvantage for another?
Not All Technology Is Created Equal
Internet can be accessed through wired connections such as fiber optics or coaxial cable, or wirelessly via cell towers, 4G/5G antennas and wireless “hot spots” next to homes, and/or via satellites. Wired connections are safer, faster, more cyber secure, energy efficient and reliable than wireless connections. Wireless, however, has one advantage over wired – mobility. You can access the internet wirelessly when out and about, something that cannot be done with a wired connection.
In its haste to “bridge the digital divide” the telecom industry is peddling 4G/5G antennas and wireless hot spots to under-served communities. Most people are unaware there are better ways to connect to the internet from one’s home or business and are oblivious to the harms and risks of these close proximity wireless antennas and hot spots. Thrilled to get online at all, these communities willingly accept telecoms offerings.
The industry is most pleased as their 4G soon to be 5G-wonder child, and its attendant and lucrative promises of data-harvesting, artificial intelligence, surveillance capitalism, “software as a service” all gain another captured market. And an added perk is that industry appears to be fixing a gross injustice. Seemingly, a win/win for all.
So, What Could Be the Problem?
Like many of us, these communities are unaware of the thousands of studies showing both long and short-term health effects from existing 2G, 3G, and 4G technologies, and the dozens of studies showing harm specifically from the millimeter wave frequencies to be used in 5G and the modulations carried along these frequencies. Not to mention the, as yet unstudied other virtuoso technological feats that will likely find their way into the 5G build out.
Similar to the playbook used by tobacco, asbestos, Teflon, and other toxins, the telecom industry has neglected to disclose risks from 5G. Instead, it unabashedly asserts 5G’s safety while providing not a single study to substantiate this claim that runs counter to the consensus of science on wireless health effects.
Internet access may indeed be a public necessity but so is our health. The challenge before us is not simply how to bridge the digital divide, but how to bridge it while preserving our health and that of all other living beings — not to mention our personal privacy, sovereignty and dignity.
Need for Digital Literacy is a Public Necessity
It follows that if internet is a public necessity, an understanding of the pros and cons of different ways of connecting to the internet, aka digital literacy, would also be essential. For without this understanding, people cannot defend their rights, and risk becoming victims of an inequitable system. Without digital literacy, we are seemingly locked into a binary choice: “Do we want 5G or no internet access?” when in truth, there is another option – safe wired internet.
Industry has a moral obligation to not only disclose the risks and benefits of the technologies the public is being offered and exposed to, but to advise people on the safest technology option for any given situation.
Governments have a duty to educate the public, starting with school aged children, on how to connect to the internet in the safest way possible. We all deserve the right to fully informed consumer choices to best protect ourselves, our families, communities, and our collective future on this planet.
Social Injustice in Internet Access
Environmental pollutants have a long and well-documented history of impacting communities of lesser means. In the case of 5G, there is no evidence to date that lower income communities are preferentially being targeted for 5G and that safer wired connections are being withheld.
However, defending against 5G takes lots of money, time, effort and resources, all of which communities of means have access to if they get organized in time and choose to push back against industry’s agenda.
Communities of lesser means cannot afford the luxury of fighting the system. Either they must accept a cell tower antenna outside their bedroom window or no internet connectivity at all — a grim choice indeed.
Written statement submitted by Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. a non-governmental organization in special consultative status.
By Olivier Vuillemin
Feb. 11th, 2019 (Links to statement and references can be found below)
Olivier Vuillemin is an entrepreneur with a background in innovation management. He has been suffering from Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic radiation poisoning since 2004. Among other things, he spent the better part of the past decade involved as an independent expert at the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and International Standards Organization (ISO) on topics related to healthcare metrology, telebiometrics and environmental metrology. He currently serves as main UN representative for the Planetary Association for Clean Energy in Geneva (UNOG), Vienna (UNOV) and New York (UNHQ).
This document was submitted to the UN Human Rights Council on February 11th 2019 from the perspective of human subjects experiments and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as cited in the preamble of UNGA Resolution 39/46. It seems that this is the first time ever since the signature of this treaty that anyone has used this mechanism in this specific way. The precedent is the doctor’s trial at Nüremberg.
From the legal perspective, this document was worked on by lawyers specialized in international law, environmental law and human rights law which included veterans at the UNHRC. It was peer-reviewed and commented upon by 25 scientists and medical doctors who also participated in the development of its 89 pages of references.
This is a valid UN work document which was established and submitted within its legal framework. Due to its unequivocal stance on the degree of conflicts of interests at the WHO, ITU, IEC, ICNIRP, SCENHIR and others, it was obvious from day one that neither the Special Rapporteurs nor the High Commissioner of the UNHRC would discuss its explosive content. Although polite, this document says that every UN sister organization who has a say on the topic of EMR is basically willingly and knowingly plagued with conflicts of interests. These organizations are not only accomplices but play the lead role in this cover-up. Five Special Rapporteurs were contacted (environment, toxic waste, rights of handicapped people, rights of children, inhuman and degrading treatments) to no avail except a brief discussion with the SR on Toxic Waste’s assistant.
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:
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:
Call your Federal representatives. If on the Senate Commerce Committee, please ask them to put a hold on S 3157.
“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.”
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
craft your own letter
copy and paste the following text into their 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
(Sign your name)
Resources from Environmental Health Trust for Policy Makers:
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
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 Address: 512 Dirksen Senate Building; Washington DC, 20510
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
EMAIL FORM: https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
2. Senator Roger Wicker Mississippi
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
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, DC 20510
5. Senator Deb Fischer Nebraska
454 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6551
Fax: (202) 228-1325
6. Senator Jerry Moran Kansas
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6521
Fax: (202) 228-6966
7. Senator Dan Sullivan Alaska
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
8. Senator Dean Heller Nevada Washington, DC
324 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
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
12. Senator Shelley Moore Capito West Virginia
13 Senator Cory Gardner Colorado
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
P: (202) 224-5941
F: (202) 224-6524
14. Senator Todd Young Indiana (site down)
1. Ranking Member Bill Nelson Florida
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
United States Senate
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
2. Senator Maria Cantwell Washington
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3441
Fax: (202) 228-0514
3. Senator Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
4. Senator Richard Blumenthal Connecticut
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
6. Senator Ed Markey Massachusetts
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
7. Senator Tom Udall New Mexico
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
8. Senator Gary Peters Michigan
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
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)
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.
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.
The following Letter by Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff was written to the Montgomery County Zoning Committee. Dr. Kostoff strongly admonishes the County to protect public rights even when these are in conflict with Federal law – in this case, with Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The arguments presented in this letter are compelling and should be brought before every public official making decisions relating to the deployment of 4G/5G “small” cells.
On the Montgomery County Government page that presents the Zoning Text Amendment, it is stated:
“Many residents have expressed concern about the health effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions. Under federal law, the County may not “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 [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” In other words, the County may enforce and require compliance with FCC regulations, but not create additional requirements.”
In my view, it is an abdication of the Council’s responsibility to hide behind a ‘federal law’, if adherence to that law could bring harm to the residents of Montgomery County. For example, consider the Holocaust Encyclopedia (https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005681). It lists tens, if not hundreds, of “federal laws” implemented in Nazi Germany against its Jewish citizens, starting in 1933. If you were a member of a German County Council in the 1933-1940 time frame, would you be comfortable with such laws? More specifically, would you be sending out a letter to the residents of that County telling them they have no choice but to obey and implement such laws?
That example is very analogous to the situation today with respect to implementation of small cell towers to support 5G. We know radiofrequency emissions (RF) are harmful in isolation, and potentially very harmful when combined with other toxic stimuli. I showed many examples of harm from RF (in isolation and especially in combination with other toxic stimuli) in my book chapter that I circulated to the Council in my previous mailing
How harmful? We don’t know.
Our chapter showed a plethora of potentially fatal and chronic diseases that could result from RF radiation. But, even the human effects data (horrific as it was) was based on relatively short-term exposure to RF, such as cell phones, cell towers, WiFi. We know that many diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, etc, can have very long latency periods for some toxic stimuli. Intense exposures to RF are relatively recent, and we don’t have the long-term human data (in isolation or in combinations) to ascertain the full extent of the damage these exposures can cause. I cannot rule out that the potential damage from these long-term exposures would not equal, or even greatly exceed, the horrific damage caused by the Holocaust, especially because of the potential world-wide implementation of small cell tower 5G technology. That’s why I draw the analogy above, even though the Holocaust had strong racial motivations, while the motivations for RF-5G implementation are profit and greed. It is small comfort for the victims to know that they died from someone’s greed rather than racial motivations!
JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT DURING WWII
On 19 February 1942, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing internment of tens of thousands of citizens of Japanese ancestry and resident aliens from Japan. That was essentially a Federal law. We view it from today’s perspective as horrific, and I have yet to see someone in recent times who would defend it. But, at the time, it was accepted by the majority of non-Japanese Americans. Should we have followed that proclamation blindly, as we did, causing undue hardship and disruption for a group whose only ‘crime’ was being of a particular ancestry? And, how is today’s action by the Montgomery County Council different from the actions of those authorities seventy-five years ago who went along with, and hid behind, an obviously harmful Federal Order?
Sanctuary cities limit their cooperation with the Federal government in enforcing Federal immigration law. In Maryland, three counties are listed as sanctuary counties: Baltimore, Prince George’s, and–Montgomery. Whether one agrees with their resistance or not, the officials (and residents) of these counties are willing to disobey Federal law because they think it is wrong.
So, for Montgomery County in particular, why are the officials willing to disobey Federal laws on immigration, but hide behind the cover of Federal law when it comes to the implementation of the infrastructure for 5G? Are the consequences of obeying Federal immigration law more serious than the consequences of obeying Federal telecommunications law?
I would argue the opposite. While the consequences of obeying Federal immigration law will result in substantial hardship and disruption of their lives for the individuals affected, for most the consequences will not be life-threatening. The consequences of obeying Federal telecommunications law have the potential of resulting in many severe illnesses and premature deaths. In short, the Council has shown willingness to disobey Federal law in the immigration situation, but unwillingness to do the same in the telecommunication situation.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
One reason for the schizophrenic behavior of the Council on the above problems of immigration and telecommunications infrastructure could be related to potential conflicts of interest. For the telecommunications implementation issue, have the Council members been vetted for conflict of interest? This would include: 1) any elements of their investment portfolio that would profit from operation and expansion of the mobile telecommunications network; 2) any elements of their present business endeavors that would profit from operation and expansion of this network; 3) any elements of pensions received that would profit from operation and expansion of this network; 4) any proposals in the pipeline or being considered that would profit from operation and expansion of this network; 5) any other existing or potential conflicts of interest by which they could profit from operation and expansion of the mobile telecommunications network. Anyone conflicted should be required to recuse themselves from decision-making on this network.
We are at a critical point in the fight to restrict exposure to very harmful levels of wireless radiation. Already, studies have shown extensive human damage resulting from the previous generations of mobile telecommunications networks. Implementation of 5G would raise potential human damage to unprecedented levels, because of the vastly increased density of cell towers required and their proximity to humans.
We need to make a stand: not tomorrow, not in some other location, but here, in Montgomery County, and now, in 2018! If Montgomery County can claim sanctuary status for immigration, they can certainly claim sanctuary status to be free from the potentially ravaging effects of 5G. Let’s not do the equivalent of making the trains to the Camps run on time, or of sending innocent people to internment facilities, as we did seventy-five years ago. Let’s do what is right, for once, and oppose installation of these 5G cell towers!