FCC LOSES lawsuit to EMF safety advocates!

Today the US Court of Appeals remanded the case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) back to the FCC to provide a “reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio frequency radiation unrelated to cancer…”

More info commentary from Environmental Health Trust: https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/

New study calls for EMF regulation to protect wildlife

There’s a new study by Blake Levitt, Henry Lai and Albert Manville: “Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, part 1. Rising ambient EMF levels in the environment” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/

It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards, which do not now exist, should be set accordingly for wildlife, and environmental laws should be strictly enforced.

 

Global EMF Monitoring Call for volunteers

Can you BRAG about your city?

Dr. Magda Havas has initiated a Global EMF Monitoring project, calling for volunteers to measure EMF’s in their city.  So far there are almost 200 volunteers from 16 countries.  Here’s short breakdown of what’s required of volunteers.

    1. You will need to either have or purchase a Safe & Sound Pro RF meter (either Pro I or Pro II) available at www.slt.com . If you volunteer for the Global EMF Project they will give you a discount code.
    2. You will be measuring at 4 corners of 5 main intersections in your city which will take about 2 hours. Because this is a science project, it’s important to follow these instructions carefully.
    3. Watch this video below for how to measure a location.

4. When you’re measuring people might ask you questions about what you’re doing. You can give them this fact sheet which will explain why you are measuring and help to educate people.

5. To learn more details about this project go to their website at globalEMF.net  and if you would like to volunteer please send a quick email to:  info@globalEMF.net

PG&E refunds smart meter “opt-out” fees to EMF disabled customer

On April 16, Pacific Gas and Electric refunded Smart Meter “opt-out” fees paid by the family of Nina Beety who is disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity. Beety requested disabled accommodation from PG&E to have analog electromechanical meters on her family’s home when the company initiated its wireless Smart Meter roll-out in her community. She explained that EMF-emitting devices cause her disabling health effects. PG&E ignored Beety’s requests for disabled accommodation, and refused to allow residential customers to have analog, non-digital meters without paying a so-called “opt-out” fee. The family was forced to pay $415. in fees to avoid Smart Meters on their home. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits surcharge fees for disabled people.
When PG&E filed for bankruptcy in 2019, Beety’s family then filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for the “opt-out” fees they paid, stating the claim basis as “Smart Meter opt-out fees that were unlawful surcharges against a disabled person (ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, II-1.3000 Relationship to title III)”
PG&E objected to this claim, and on February 25, 2021, asked the court to expunge it. “The simpler Customer Bar Date Notice made clear that Customers were not required to file Proofs of Claim for ordinary and customary refunds, overpayments, billing credits, deposits, or similar billing items. The Customer No Liability / Passthrough Claims listed on Exhibit 1 arise from either (1) Customer Security Deposits or (2) Claims that arise from Customer Billing Disputes…Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the Customer No Liability / Passthrough Claims should be expunged because, in accordance with the Bar Date Order, they will be resolved in the ordinary course.”
On March 24, 2021, Beety submitted this timely Response to the Bankruptcy Court: Our claim is not an “ordinary and customary” customer billing item. We have a special type of billing claim dispute that rises on the fact that I am disabled, and unlawful charges were placed on the household account that interfered with my disabled accommodation. Those unlawful charges were surcharges that are not allowed under the ADA/ADAA and FHAA. This is a meritorious disabled rights claim that was never resolved. It should be resolved by a full and complete refund. Closing my claim would be yet another burden, abrogating my civil rights. Please ensure that my rights are protected.
Faced with a federal judge who had read Beety’s response, PG&E withdrew its objection to the family’s claim to the Bankruptcy Court and did not further contest it (recorded in Judge Dennis Montali’s ruling, April 5, 2021).
On April 20, Beety’s family received a full refund check from PG&E for the $415. surcharge fee, plus $24.17 interest which they had not requested. It is noteworthy that this refund was not a percentage of claim or pennies on the dollar which bankruptcy claims often receive, but a complete refund with interest.
It took facing a bankruptcy judge in court for PG&E to quit fighting and refund fees that were unlawful surcharges under the ADA and that discriminate against disabled people.
Beety said, “With this action, PG&E and other utilities must now halt their practice of charging unlawful “opt-out” surcharge fees to customers disabled by electromagnetic sensitivity or who have other EMF-sensitive medical conditions, and the companies must refund all unlawful surcharge fees already paid by these disabled customers. Utilities must allow the simple, readily achievable, and reasonable disabled accommodation of analog, electromechanical, non-digital utility meters for all disabled persons who require them.”
Remember in 2015 when PG&E was threatening to turn off power to customers refusing to pay their “opt-out” fees.

California court ruling upholds Wi-Fi disability case

A California appeals court has ruled that Wi-Fi sickness, also know as EHS, merits disability accommodation.

On February 18, 2021 a decision was entered in the case of Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) at the 2nd district Court of Appeals in California. The court concluded that “Brown adequately pled her cause of action for failure to provide reasonable accommodation for her disability.” They reversed a lower courts decision that had ruled in favor of LAUSD. 

Brown is a teacher in the LAUSD school district. After the school upgraded their Wi-Fi system Brown experienced, “chronic pain, headaches, nausea, itching, burning sensations on her skin, ear issues, shortness of breath, inflammation, heart palpitations, respiratory complications, foggy headedness, and fatigue, all symptoms of Microwave Sickness or EHS.”

Brown sued LAUSD after efforts to obtain reasonable accommodations failed. The trial court ruled in favor of LAUSD. Brown appealed that decision and won. The appeals court based their decision on California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) which provides disability protections independent of, and above and beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Excerpt from the Decision:

“The Legislature has stated its intent that “physical disability” be construed so that employees are protected from discrimination due to actual or perceived physical impairment that is disabling, potentially disabling, or perceived as disabling or potentially disabling.”

“FEHA states a “physical disability” includes, but is not limited to, “any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does both of the following: Affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and endocrine…Limits a major life activity…`Major life activities’ shall be broadly construed and includes physical, mental, and social activities and working.”

You can read the decision here:  Brown vs LAUSD

JML Law Wins Appeal in ‘Unprecedented’ Disability Case Against LAUSD For Failure to Accommodate Teacher With Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity https://www.accesswire.com/viewarticle.aspx?id=637661&token=hzivngfkuma2h2xz6rhu

Save the analog meters in Maine

Maine Utilities New Smart Meter Scam

Simmering in the background with little notice since early 2019, Central Maine Power Company’s (CMP’s) proposal to get rid of analog electric utility meters opened for public comment at the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). The comment period ends Monday the 22nd. (Docket 2019-00044)

In 2011 the MPUC ordered CMP to provide two “opt out” alternatives for customers who didn’t want the controversial smart meters, an electromechanical (analog) meter, and a “radio off” smart meter. CMP was ordered to retain enough analog meters for the opt out customers. At that time they had 600,000 analog meters.

CMP now claims they are out of analog meters. They are proposing to only offer “solid state” meters. Solid state meters are in fact smart meters. “CMP appears to have violated their requirement to keep enough electromechanical meters for opt out customers”, said Ed Friedman, spokesperson for the Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters. “If they truly “misplaced” or scrapped the approximately 594,500 meters not being used by current opt out customers, they need to be held accountable.” he added.

Former State Representative Andrea Boland pointed out CMP’s history of vacant pretenses of expertise and failures. “Now”,she said, “they set out to again dissemble and deceive in an attempt to convince the MPUC that smart meters are not smart meters and the order permitting opt-outs by customers (even at a hefty monthly penalty) is not a valid order.”

Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters wants to save the analogs because smart meters, including “radio off” smart meters, create dirty electricity which is a heath hazard.

Elisa Boxer, one of the original complainants to the MPUC in 2011 said: “We presented evidence from engineers and other experts that digital solid-state meters were not an acceptable alternative to analogs for several reasons, including the emission of transients onto the home wiring. Voltage transients, otherwise known as one type of “dirty electricity,” are spikes of electromagnetic interference (EMI) that travel along the wiring in the walls and have been implicated in cancer cases worldwide.” (see Woodward & Harding oscilloscope comparisons)

Woodward & Harding-Power Quality Comparison: Smart Meter v Analog
These emissions from home wiring may be one reason why smart meters have had such devastating health effects. Dr. Beatrice Golumb MD PhD, Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego said:  “Our survey study shows this smart meter induced electrical sensitivity often led to catastrophic impacts in the lives of those affected”. She requested the PUC “please ensure purely analog electromechanical meters remain available for those who wish them”, citing this as an issue of importance for the health of vulnerable members of the public.
Golumb, 2020, EMF Medical Conference 2021
Dr. Albert Manville, retired wildlife biologist specializing in bird impacts from towers, powerlines and wireless radiation wrote: “concerns with smart meters (with or without transmitters) include radiation sensitivity, cancers and other health problems caused by the radiation frequencies, issues with dirty electricity, high maintenance costs, privacy and hacking concerns, fire dangers, and unfair opt-out fees we pay each month (at best, our meter is read every other month but we’re billed each month – double dipping).”
 

Thanks to: Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters.

Landmark 5G study by New Hampshire legislative Commission recommends reducing wireless exposure

The state of New Hampshire established a legislative commission to study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.  They recently completed their final report which includes 15 recommendations to raise awareness, educate, promote oversight, and reduce radiofrequency radiation (RF, also known as wireless).

The commission met between September 2019 and October 2020 and included 13 members with backgrounds in physics, engineering electromagnetics, epidemiology, biostatistics, occupational health, toxicology, medicine, public health policy, business, law, and a representative from the wireless industry.

They were tasked with answering 8 questions which included: why the insurance industry has exclusions for RF damages; why cell phone manufacturers have legal advice warning about distance between cell phones and the body; why 1,000’s of peer-reviewed RF studies that show a wide range of health affects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC); why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless; why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than other countries; why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen; why when the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation nothing has been done; and why the health effects of ever-growing numbers of pulse signals riding on the electromagnetic waves has not been explored.

Early on in their research the Commission learned that they could not discuss 5G without including all things wireless “…the Commission concluded that all things emitting radio frequency (RF) radiation needed to be considered together because of the interaction of all these waves.” At the heart of their discussion was whether or not RF affects humans, animals and nature. The introduction states:

There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum.

The Commission heard from ten experts in physics, epidemiology, toxicology, and public policy. Everyone except the telecom representative acknowledged the large body of science showing RF-radiation emitted by wireless devices can effect humans, especially children, animals, insects, and plants.

The Commission endorsed 15 recommendations. “The objective of those recommendations is to bring about greater awareness of cell phone, wireless and 5G radiation health effects and to provide guidance to officials on steps and policies that can reduce public exposure.”  

The following is a summary of their recommendations. Only exact wording is quoted and italicized. See their final report for exact wording for all their recommendations.

  1. Engage the US government to require the FCC to do an independent review of the RF standards and RF health risks;
  2. Require NH state agencies to include links on their website(s) about RF-radiation from all sources, including 5G, and showing how to minimize exposure, as well as public service announcements warning of RF health risks especially to pregnant women and children.
  3. Require eye-level signage for every 5G antenna in the public rights- of-way.
  4. “Schools and public libraries should migrate from RF wireless connections for computers, laptops, pads, and other devices, to hard- wired or optical connections within a five-year period starting when funding becomes available.” [please note, we support hard-wired connections, but as far as we know optical connections, such as Lifi, have not been proven safe. It is unfortunate that it’s included in this recommendation.]
  5. Collect signal strength measurements including worst-case conditions for all wireless facilities, including when changes are made, and make that information public. If measurements exceed radiation thresholds, the municipality can take the facility offline. Measurements taken by an independent contractor and the cost paid by the installer.
  6. Establish new protocols for measuring RF to better evaluate signal characteristics, taking into account the high-data-rate radiation known to be harmful to human health. Enable the summative effects of multiple radiation sources to be measured.
  7. Require that any new wireless antennae be set back from residences, businesses, and schools.
  8. Upgrade the educational offerings by the NH Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) to include RF measurements.
  9. The State of New Hampshire should develope a continually updated map of RF exposure levels across the state.
  10. “Strongly recommend all new cell phones and all other wireless devices sold come equipped with updated software that can stop the phone from radiating when positioned against the body.”
  11. “Promote and adopt a statewide position that would strongly encourage moving forward with the deployment of fiber optic cable connectivity, internal wired connections, and optical wireless to serve all commercial and public properties statewide.”
  12. “Further basic science studies are needed in conjunction with the medical community outlining the characteristics of expressed clinical symptoms related to radio frequency radiation exposure.”
  13. “Recommend the use of exposure warning signs to be posted in commercial and public buildings. In addition, encourage commercial and public buildings, especially healthcare facilities, to establish RF-radiation free zones where employees and visitors can seek refuge from the effects of wireless RF emissions.”
  14. “The State of New Hampshire should engage agencies with appropriate scientific expertise, including ecological knowledge, to develop RF-radiation safety limits that will protect the trees, plants, birds, insects, and pollinators.”
  15. “The State of New Hampshire should engage our Federal Delegation to legislate that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the FCC do an environmental impact statement as to the effect on New Hampshire and the country as a whole from the expansion of RF wireless technologies.”

This is a model of exemplary action by a state government. Please consider reading and sharing this landmark report with decision makers in your community and state in order to begin the reductions needed to protect people and nature from increasing exposure to RF radiation.

A minority report written by Senator James Gray, David Juvet (Business and Industry rep) and Bethanne Cooley (telecommunications rep) is included since they did not agree with the majority opinion. This minority report parrots the language of the telecommunications industry and exposes their agenda to ignore science and continue to confuse the public.

Special thanks to Cece Doucette, Theodora Scarato, the Environmental Health Trust, and the Senators, experts and committee members who collaborated on this important effort.

California Wildfires and EMF radiation pollution


In Sonoma County California we’ve had 3 major wildfires in the past two months, evacuations, and weeks of toxic smoke. This deadly scenario has played out for several years in a row and the damage to lives, homes, nature, and towns throughout California is unprecedented.  California’s investor owned utility, PG&E, has been found guilty for the majority of the previous fires, including many lives lost.

In 2019 Business Insider reported, “Over 1,500 California fires in the past 6 years — including the deadliest ever — were caused by one company: PG&E.” 

National Geographic reports on the science connecting wildfires to climate change, stating: “Increasing heat, changing rain and snow patterns, shifts in plant communities, and other climate-related changes have vastly increased the likelihood that fires will start more often and burn more intensely and widely than they have in the past.”

What if there are other unexamined reasons for the intensity of these wildfires? Or maybe a combination of reasons? How might the following be a factor? 
 
  • Smart grid equipment that emits microwaves was installed on utility power lines starting around 2013 throughout California.
  • Utility smart meters have caused fires at the meter or in an appliance. Smart meters transmit pulsed radiation every few seconds have dramatically increased microwave pollution. 
  • Trees and plants are stressed, drier, and more fire prone from years of microwave radiation pollution from cell towers, cell phones, smart meters, etc. 
  • Stressed trees and plants emit terpenes which makes them more fire prone.
Scientists conclude plants are stressed by microwave radiation. Here are a few studies:
  •  Eklipse Report: The impacts of artificial Electromagnetic Radiation on wildlife (flora and fauna) “Terpene emission was reported to be enhanced by EMR and could also be considered as a marker of stress perception.” https://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/documents/15803/0/EMR-KnowledgeOverviewReport_FINAL_27042018.pdf/1326791c-f39f-453c-8115-0d1c9d0ec942

  • Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations “Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306435017_Radiofrequency_radiation_injures_trees_around_mobile_phone_base_stations

  • Influence of microwave frequency electromagnetic radiation on terpene emission and content in aromatic plants “There was a direct relationship between microwave-induced structural and chemical modifications of the three plant species studied. These data collectively demonstrate that human-generated microwave pollution can potentially constitute a stress to the plants.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25050479/

  • Plant Responses to High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields “Indeed, numerous metabolic activities (reactive oxygen species metabolism, α- and β-amylase, Krebs cycle, pentose phosphate pathway, chlorophyll content, terpene emission, etc.) are modified, gene expression altered (calmodulin, calcium-dependent protein kinase, and proteinase inhibitor), and growth reduced (stem elongation and dry weight) after low power (i.e., nonthermal) HF-EMF exposure.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4769733/