einsteinsays Considering the rapid increase of technology in our world, people need to be aware of the health and safety risks of technology and take steps to reduce them.  This information has yet to become common knowledge, even though there is plenty of precaution advised by medical and science experts, and people are being harmed.

EMF’s have been linked to health problems, cancer, and other diseases. EMF’s include electric and magnetic fields, and wireless radiation.  In California and other states, prudent avoidance of EMF’s is recommended public policy.

Prudent avoidance means taking steps to reduce EMF exposure, for example: using wired internet; corded phones; avoiding smart meters; and setting limits on computer time for children.  Children are especially vulnerable to EMF’s.

The benefits of technology must be balanced with the science-based health and safety risks of technology.  Ultimately we want to protect children, public health, the natural environment, and our future.  Read more intro, or scroll down to read our blog.

Berkeley WINS Right to Know cell phone labeling law

Photo credit: Environmental Health Trust

The city of Berkeley California was recently sued by the wireless industry CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association) over their Cell Phone Right to Know ordinance.  The ordinance requires retailers to warn customers about cell phone risks.  Berkeley’s advisory at point of sale states: “To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”

CTIA argued the ordinance would be misleading, give off an impression of harm, and would violate retailers’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to distribute information they might disagree with.

In September U.S. District Court Judge Chen ruled that Berkeley’s law is not a violation of the industry’s first amendment rights, but did tell Berkeley to remove one controversial line about the risk to children, which they did.

Last week’s hearing was to remove the ban, now that the line has been removed, and allow implementation.  Ted Olson, attorney for the CTIA, sent Judge Chen 25 pages of further argument after his original decision. The Judge agreed to allow further argument last week.  Larry Lessig, Harvard Constitutional Law Professor and Robert Post, Dean of Yale Law School are defending Berkeley pro bono.

Yesterday, less than one week after the court hearing,  Judge Chen removed the ban on the Berkeley law despite CTIA’s numerous arguments. Chen also denied the wireless group’s motion to stay his order dissolving the injunction pending appeal.

Maine Supreme Court smart meter ruling ignores evidence of harm

This week the Maine Supreme Court upheld the finding of utility regulators regarding smart meter safety.  The Court supported this difficult to follow position: “It is one thing to make a finding that evidence is credible regarding potential harm and quite another to find there is a legally credible threat of Riskyharm—that a credible threat of harm is in fact credible: likely and probable to result in harm.”  

The court weighed health and safety precautions with utilities bottom line.  “The Commission, therefore, properly rejected Friedman’s approach because it would require an impractically high threshold for ensuring safety, and as a result would render nearly all utilities unsafe.”

The Court upheld this position, even though they knew there is evidence of risk. “The Commission acknowledged that there had been some evidence presented of potential future risk posed generally by RF exposure,…” 

The key to the ruling is what the court calls, “balancing the potential for harm against the usefulness and pervasiveness of the technology at issue.”

This ruling culminates a four year legal battle in Maine over the health and safety effects of smart meters.  Even though the legal burden was on the utility (CMP) to show smart meters were safe, the Court ignored this and placed the burden on the customer to pay to avoid the risk of pulsed radiation smart meters emit.

Marlboro2Ed Friedman stated: “ The Court has miserably failed the people of Maine.  They ignored independent testimony from international experts on the credible threat of harm RF exposures at smart meter levels pose, and instead chose to believe the “Marlboro Man” that smoking is good for us.”

Maine Supreme court ruling: http://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-ME-19-Friedman-Appeal-Decision-1-26-16.pdf

Would you stick your head in a microwave oven?

A math teacher from Ireland tells a story about going to a party where after dinner people are having coffee and tea. Several people have their cell phones on the table. The woman seated beside him places her phone close to his plate. In the video he says why he does not like cell phones, and what happens when he moves her phone away from himself.  The table conversation turns ugly.

Summary of Evidence on Smart Meter Fires

 BePreparedSMfire In California and around world, smart meters have been linked to fires, explosions, and damaged appliances.  For every fire started at the meter, in an appliance, or on wiring, smart meter causality should be suspected.

There has been a recent spate of fires in Guerneville, California which some people have blamed on the homeless.  The cause of the fires are still under investigation, but some have been linked to electrical wiring, faulty heaters, and possibly arson.  The link to smart meters has not been investigated.

A Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) whistleblower Pat Wrigley, who worked as a meter reader for 9 1/2 years testified at California Public Utilities Commission judicial hearing.  He stated:  “Smart meters cause fires” and “PG&E is covering up the risk”.

Two California  fire captains contacted us about two different types of problems from smart meter arcing.

Matt Becket’s refrigerator motor intermittently sped up and their lights became brighter.  He said, “As a seventeen year veteran and current Fire Captain this caused me to become very concerned.”  The smart meter on his house was replaced with an analog, and there were no problems, until a new smart meter was reinstalled.  This time he had two surge protectors burn out.

Another fire captain Ross writes, “I was at home doing yard work in the late afternoon when my wife came outside and told me that “half the power was off again”. This had been happening on and off for about two weeks … I then went outside to where my meter was and I could instantly smell the burnt electrical smoke. As I was looking at the meter I inadvertently placed my hand on the meter itself and almost burned my hand.”

Despite the above claims from knowledgeable whistleblowers, and media reports linking smart meters to fires and explosions, this issue has not received the serious attention it deserves.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is charged with overseeing utility safety.  They knew about the risk of smart meter fires in 2009, and their staff investigated in 2013.  The CPUC told the Governor and Legislature they found no problem.  If there’s no problem, why aren’t the details of their investigation public?  Why did they wait four years to investigate?

PG&E states they are now monitoring temperature and voltage readings of smart meters for hazardous conditions, which proves there’s a problem. If there was no problem they would not need to monitor these conditions.

Please see the Summary of Evidence on Smart Meter Fires which is culled from the EMF Safety Network Smart Meter Fires and Explosions page and documents this hazard with links to more information.  We have been tracking smart meter fires since 2010.

NY Times Looks Behind CDC Reversal on Cell Phone Risks

Dr Louis SlesinDr. Louis Slesin of Microwave News reports:  In August 2014, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued and then rescinded precautionary advice on the use of cell phones. Now, Danny Hakim, an investigative reporter at the New York Times, has published a behind-the-scenes look at what was going at the time, based on 500 pages of CDC internal documents, including e-mails, together with follow-up interviews.

Unfortunately, Hakim leaves a key question unresolved: Why do U.S. officials interpret the available data differently than their counterparts in many other countries?

Read the whole story at:
http://www.microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/nyt-cdc

Dr. Martin Pall: EMF’s are the major cause of autism

Dr. Martin Pall states EMF’s are the major cause of autism.  In addition, chemicals and EMF’s combined produce autism.  In this lecture he presents the scientific evidence. Dr. Pall is a professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University.

Venice Florida neighbors beat back cell tower plan

image003VENICE, Fla. – Leaders of a coalition of Venice community groups against a proposed cell tower say they’re encouraged that the Sarasota County Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a zoning exception for a 125-foot cell tower.  The tower was planned to be built on residential land in the Plantation Golf and Country Club community.   The tower would be visible to hundreds of residents in the neighboring Lake of the Woods of Jacaranda development.

The vote was taken at a public hearing attended by more than 100 residents of the two communities. Residents opposed to the tower wore red to show their disapproval. More than 20 residents spoke at the hearing in opposition to the tower.

image005Doug Barkley, chair of Stop Tower on Plantation, said, “A dedicated group of property owners has worked for a year to assure that a commercial cell tower was not constructed in the middle of their communities. The recommendation by the Planning Commission to deny the exception to land use creates faith in the integrity of the zoning system and the protection that it offers to property owners.”

A hearing before the Sarasota County Board of Commissioners is set for Tuesday, January 12th. The Planning Commission hearing may be viewed online at the following URL:
http://sarasotacounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=15&clip_id=3196