Sebastopol: Rethink smart water meters

Years of support for reducing EMF’s in Sebastopol evaporated in October 2021, when the city council unanimously approved smart water meters. In February 2022, the Sebastopol city council approved a pay to opt-out fee of  $18.75. We have hired attorney Ariel Strauss and are pursuing legal action.  Please donate to support our legal efforts. 

Beware of Climate Washed Smart Water Meters!

Why did Sebastopol, who banned smart meters in 2013, do this?  Syserco, a registered contractor for PG&E, sold the 2.2 million dollar project to Sebastopol as a water and energy savings initiative. Council members promoted the meters as a climate action solution. When asked to provide clarifying information on the purported savings, Syserco wrote:

“…there has never been a claim that the new meters “save energy, save water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

The real reason for the new meters according to Syserco is money.  However, Syserco did claim the meters would save water and were energy efficient, and the staff report called the meters a “green initiative”. This is climate-washing, the use of deceptive marketing spin. 

By approving the smart water meters the city failed to comply with: 

  • Sebastopol’s 2013 Ordinance 1057  that banned smart meters for “matters of public health, safety and consumer protection…”. This ban was referenced in a letter to PG&E signed by Mayor Neysa Hinton in 2019.
  • Sebastopol’s 2016 General Plan Community Health and Wellness Goals call for minimizing EMF’s and community wide opt out of public utility smart meters.
  • 2019 Telecommunications Ordinance 1123 which requires a conditional use permit for utility antennas, including:  notice and  public meeting to vet the cost and technical specifications prior to a planning commission review.
  • California Environmental Quality Act as referenced in the General plan and Telecommunication Ordinance 1123.
  • Sebastopol’s Zero Waste Sonoma Purchasing Policy which calls for purchasing products that minimize environmental impacts, toxins, pollution and hazards to worker and community safety, as well as to purchase durable and long lasting products. (The meter batteries are non-replaceable. The entire unit will need to be replaced if/when the battery fails.)
  • CA Government Code 4217.12 (a) “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public agency may enter into an energy service contract and any necessarily related facility ground lease on terms that its governing body determines are in the best interests of the public agency if the determination is made at a regularly scheduled public hearing, public notice of which is given at least two weeks in advance, and if the governing body finds:…”  (Two weeks notice was not provided to the public.)

How you can help:

EMF Safety Network recently hired attorney Ariel Strauss and we are moving forward with legal action.  Please donate to support our efforts: 

Paypal has a credit card option. Click on the Donate button. (Online donations are not tax deductible)

The EMF Safety Network is a sponsored project of Ecological Options Network (EON) a 501 (c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Donations of $100 or more are tax deductible. Make check payable to EON, and mail to EMF Safety Network PO Box 1016, Sebastopol CA 95473.

 Community health effects of increasing EMF radiation

Smart water meters will harm the EMF aware and injured community. They will harm our quality of life, disturb our sense of safety and peace and create a nuisance throughout our city.  You can’t opt out of a “smart city”.

Adding 3002 smart water meters will increase EMF radiation in our community. Peer reviewed published studies find EMF radiation threatens nature and causes a wide range of health impacts: “Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.” https://www.emfscientist.org/

Dr. David Carpenter, a Harvard trained physician and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment wrote a letter opposing smart water meters and said:

“Governments should be reducing RFR exposures, not increasing them.”

He warns that the greatest risk from exposure to radiation (RFR) is cancer, and there’s growing evidence for brain and reproductive impacts. He writes, “Some people develop a condition called electro-hypersensitivity (EHS). These individuals respond to being in the presence of RFR with a variety of symptoms, including headache, fatigue, memory loss, ringing in the ears…” among many symptoms. He further warns, “exposure to smart meters is a trigger for development of EHS.” 

“It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulato- ry agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34047144/

More background information!

The public process on the smart water meters decision was limited, deficient and confusing. Technical details about how the water meters worked were sparse and the issue was hidden under energy efficiency. Staff purchased the software before the meters were approved, and they ordered the meters before the financing was approved. They approved a 5 million dollar project in one late night meeting!

In February of 2021 the Sebastopol Public Works director said they were testing 56 new digital water meters. He said they would be manually read and that they did not have a radio transmitter. A few months later the city started a survey asking if the community wanted “cellular” water meters.  What if they had asked, “do you want a smart water meter?” or, “do you want a city wide radar installation for water meters?” There were 329 responses to their water meter survey. 54.7% of respondents approved, 31% opposed, and 14.3% were undecided. Nearly half were opposed or undecided! The survey is an unreliable source of community input, because people were not given any details about the cost or how the meters work. Anyone could have taken the survey including the company who will profit from the sale.

  • Smart water meters are two way radios that collect granular data about customers water use.
  • Smart water meters use sound waves, batteries and transmit EMF radiation.
  • Santa Fe is using Badger meters and they say their system will use 4G and 5G frequencies.
  • Scientists are warning against 5G:  http://www.5gappeal.eu
  • Sebastopol is borrowing over 5 million dollars to pay for improvements to city infrastructure. Included in that cost is over 2 million dollars for smart water meters. In order to pay back the money it was proposed that the city raise water rates by 4% a year for 15 years. See Sebastopol city council video to see their financial plan starting at 2:42:00
  • For the past fourteen years the Sebastopol City Councils have been given many independent peer reviewed studies on the risks and harm from EMF radiation smart technologies to people and nature.
  • Sebastopol has taken action by writing letters to officials, banning smart meters, defending senior residents at the mobile home park from PG&E smart meters, and getting lower kelvin LED streetlights.
Sebastopol’s 2016 General Plan Community Health and Wellness Goals calls for minimizing EMF’s, including:
  • Minimize unsafe EMF radiation levels near sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, playgrounds, high density residential, and libraries when planning for electrical transmission facilities repair and new construction.
  • Promote community education and awareness on EMF health information and stay abreast of current research and regulations.
  • Explore programs and legal remedies available to the City in order to reduce unsafe EMF exposure to the greatest extent allowed by State and federal law.
  • Advocate that all new major electrical transmission projects and telecommunications facilities evaluate EMF as part of the project’s environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
  • Request from PG&E and wireless telecommunications facilities providers, public disclosure of existing and proposed electrical transmission and wireless telecommunications facilities projects in the vicinity of Sebastopol and their anticipated EMF levels in the Sebastopol Planning Area.
  • Maintain data regarding the location, size, strength, and EMF levels of major cell and radio towers, public power facilities, including transmission and distribution lines, and other substantial public or community EMF sources in the Sebastopol Planning Area, to the extent that data and information is available.
  • Support efforts to approach and encourage the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to allow the City to opt out of public utility wireless data transmission systems (such as smart meters).

On Dec 21, 2021 the Sebastopol city council approved the financing for smart water meters, which were already ordered! The vote was 3-2. Sarah Gurney and Una Glass opposed.  Diana Rich, Mayor Patrick Slayter and Vice Mayor Neysa Hinton approved. At this meeting the Superintendent of the Water Department dismissed evidence presented by a council member that the smart water meters transmitted a signal every 4 seconds as a “typo” and he evaded the Mayor’s question about the meter’s use of 5G technology. Meeting video here (starts at 4:55:02)

Timeline

The following is a timeline of information found in 933+ pages of emails on the smart water process:

  • Oct. 2018:  Syserco stated the water meters could be drive-by or AMI and that AMI meters transmitted every 4 seconds at 1 watt of power and additional repeaters and collectors would need to be installed.
  • Oct. 2020: water meters could be drive-by or touch stick.
  • Jan. 2021: the options for RF transmissions were none, touch, drive-by or remote.
  • Feb 22, 2021 EMF Safety Network director emailed the city with questions about the 56 water meters being tested.  The Public Works Director wrote to Syserco and Badger meter asking for a “standard reply” to our inquiry. At that time we were told the meters were digital, but there were no RF emissions from the water meters.
  • Feb 24, 2021 city staff suggested a survey and wrote that customers support radio read meters and sent some “useful information” about EMF concerns that included a page on EMF protections products and smart meter papers from CCST, EPRI, UTC, FDA, (ie government assurances that smart meters are safe.)
  • Feb 25, 2021 the city manager advised the Public Works Director to say the city has no plans for wireless water meters.
  • Feb 25, 2021 the Public Works Director supports a survey to gather a representative tally of residents desires, and not just the opinion “of a few anti-EMF voices that frequent city council meetings”.
  • Feb 25, 2021 the Public Works Director writes the water meters transmit “a minimal ping of information every 15 minutes”.
  • May 2021 the Public Works Director wants to poll the council on using radio read [wireless] meters.
  • June 14, 2021 the Public Works Director repeats the water meters transmit “a minimal ping of information every 15 minutes”.
  • July 6, 2021 at a late night city council meeting the idea of a one question survey is discussed but approved by the council and they are told the water meters transmit a “small ping 4 times a day. “
  • Oct.19, 2021 the Sebastopol City Council approved a $5 million dollar “energy efficiency” project, which included 3002 smart water meter antennas in the sidewalks. 5-0 vote.
  • Dec.9, 2021 Sebastopol signed a contract with Syserco
  • Dec. 16, 2021 City staff places a purchase order with Syserco for the water meters
  • Dec. 21, 2021 Council approved the financing in a 3-2 vote.
  • Dec. 23, 2021 EMFSN filed a PRA with Sebastopol on how the technology worked and  sent this APPEAL to the city. We were told we cannot appeal, instead our only legal recourse is to sue.
  • Jan. 2021 Hired Mitch Maifeld, RF engineer to review and explain the RF emissions from water meters.
  • Feb. 7, 2022 Syserco denied the water, energy and greenhouse gas savings claims for smart water meters
  • Feb.15, 2022 Council discussed a pay to opt out of water meters and this issue will return to council for final approval. EMFSN comments sent to the city council asking for an OPT-IN:  smart meter opt-in.
  • Feb. 17, 2022 EMFSN filed second PRA with Sebastopol
  • May 6, 2022 EMFSN hires attorney Ariel Strauss of Greenfire Lawfirm in Berkeley CA.

How the Orion Badger Smart Water Meters work

An RF engineer, Mitch Maifeld, reviewed the RF information from Badger Meters and the FCC. This is what we understand to be true about how the meters work..

Sebastopol ordered 3002 Badger Orion E series water meter “endpoints”. An endpoint houses one antenna.The 56 test meters Sebastopol trialed last year did not include endpoints. 3002 Badger water meters collectively transmit approximately 12,000 times a day unless they are in activation or troubleshooting mode when each meter can transmit every 15 seconds. They transmit in the 902-928mHz range. This is the same frequency range the Navy used for radar. The meters transmit pulsed radiation and use a frequency hopping system. The meters can emit spurious emissions in the 30 mhz-40 ghz range. These are created by harmonics and reflections within the action of the meter. The meters work with infrared signals. The maximum power output per meter is 1/4 watt which would add 750 watts throughout the city. The antennas are isotropic, meaning they radiate out in all directions. Water absorbs radiation. One meter can transmit about 1/2 mile, depending on factors like how tall the cell tower is, interference in the area, buildings and trees etc. They work with the internet of things cellular network and are smart city ready. No new repeaters are used.  The RF engineers report for the Badger smart water meters can be found here.  Here’s a comparison chart for water, electric and gas smart meters.

 

 

 

 

 

This post was updated on 5/19/2022

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.