Author: Admin

Stop radar in cars!

If you don’t want a smart meter on your home, you won’t want V2V in cars. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to mandate radar (called V2V technology) in all new cars and light trucks.

The stated purpose of the V2V is to improve driving safety by warning drivers of imminent crash risks in time to avoid them and pave the way for self-driving cars.

V2V is like a smart meter in your car! The antenna is omni-directional, allowed to transmit up to approximately 2 watts of power output at 10 Mhz and 5.9 Ghz with a range of 300 meters, or three football fields in length, every 100 milliseconds, or 10 pulses a second. The proximity of the transmitter to the driver and passengers is unknown, but could be inches to a few feet away from people in the car.

We strongly oppose mandating V2V in cars and light trucks. All roadway corridors will have significant increases in RFR exposure from V2V and supporting infrastructure.  V2V poses increased safety hazards to drivers, passengers, people in homes who live along roadways, cyclists, and pedestrians. Increased RFR exposure from V2V threatens nature, trees, birds, bees and other insects. Vulnerable populations such as children, seniors, people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), and people with medical implants are at greater risk of harm.  Assertions of RFR harm are based in peer reviewed published science.

The NHTSA states they are taking RFR concerns seriously, however they make a couple of important inaccurate statements:

  1. No scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.
  2. There’s no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.
  3. The National Environmental Policy Act does not apply.
  4. V2V will not have a disproportionate effect on children.
  5. Consumer education by the Federal Government and vehicle manufacturers may help to alleviate RFR concerns.

We believe V2V technology will not make driving safer, but will make driving more harmful to people and the environment, create mobility access barriers, and should be stopped.

Comments are due Wed. April 12, by 11:59 ET.  Please comment on why you oppose V2V here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=NHTSA-2016-0126-0009

EMF Safety Network posted these comments to NHTSA: EMF Safety Network V2V comments

Oppose SB-649 “small cells” in California

July 15, 2017 update to this post is here: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/sb-649-is-a-shameless-gift-to-the-telecom-industry/

Would you want to have these all over your town, in your neighborhood, maybe even in front of your house?

SB-649 is a current California Senate bill introduced by Senator Hueso.  EMF Safety Network opposes this bill because it will fast track wireless radiation antenna deployments in our neighborhoods and communities, and thwart public participation.

The League of California Cities opposes SB-649.  They describe it stating, “This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of “small cells.”

How to oppose SB-649 “Wireless telecommunications facilities”

Please submit your comments by April 3rd!

1.  Go to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649

2.  Scroll down and click on “Comments to Author”

3.  If you have not registered you will need to do so.

4.  After you register click the circle “oppose” and send your comments (2000 characters) to the author by March 28.  If you are representing a group please sign as such.  Before you click submit, copy your comments into a separate email.

5.  Send the same comments to your State Senator which you can find here:  Type in your address and city.  http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

EMF Safety Network and Ecological Options Network sent the following letter opposing SB-649.

Suggested comments:  If you need help with what to say you can use any or all of these comments which are adapted in part from the California League of Cities form letter, and our letter.

Dear Senator Hueso,

I respectfully oppose SB-649. This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of “small cells.”

International scientists and doctors advise reducing wireless radiation exposure to protect public and environmental health.

Wireless disrupts cellular communication, damages immune and nervous systems, desynchronizes brain and heart rhythms, and causes headaches, sleep problems, tinnitus, anxiety and a host of other health problems.

5G millimeter wave technology is scientifically shown to affect humans, penetrating the skin and affecting biological systems

There is no substantial evidence to support SB649’s determination that the deployment fits the CEQA exemption. There is substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the project may create environmental impacts.

The National Toxicology Program published a 25 million dollar study which is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies on cell phone radiation and cancer. In the study the rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed two types of cancers, glioma, a brain tumor, and schwannoma, a tumor in the heart.

This bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life of their residents, and to protect public property and the public right-of-way from relatively unconstrained access by small cells.

Neither the CPUC, nor the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can be relied on to serve the public interest because they are both regulatory captured agencies.

SB 649 goes too far by requiring local governments to approve “small cells” in all land use zones, including residential zones, through a ministerial permit, thereby shutting the public out of decisions that could affect the aesthetics of their community and the quality of their environment.

Thank you!

[your name]

Take Action! Send your comments on 5G to the FCC by March 8

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is accepting comments on whether or not to fast-track 5G wireless networks. 5G will use a dense distribution of antennas (called “small cell”) on power and light poles throughout our towns, cities and rural areas. Fast tracking 5G deployment will thwart public participation and impede local control.

Mobilitie, the company that has petitioned the FCC claims: “ALL Americans” want wireless, and wireless is now an essential public service. Mobilitie argues “Robust deployment of wireless facilities and networks demonstrably serves the public interest…”, and “The Commission has found that all consumers require wireless broadband to have true and meaningful access to the Internet.”

Wireless is not required to access the internet! We can have safer internet access by using wired connections!

Last year, the US government, led by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) linked cancer to cell phone radiation. This study illustrates the need to reduce wireless frequencies not add more!

Will you take a few minutes to comment? The deadline is Wednesday March 8.
1. Start here: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
2. Click on “Express Comment”
3. Type in 16-421 into the “Proceedings” Field.  A drop down menu will appear, choose Docket No: 16-421
4. Fill out all required fields, write your comment and click continue.
6. Review and submit.
7. Write down your confirmation # so that you can check on your submission.

NTP study can be found here:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

Privacy International & the Electronic Frontier Foundation Raise Concerns About Privacy Implications of Smart Meters

Privacy International (PI) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief in the case of Naperville Smart Meter Awareness v. City of Naperville before the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

PI and EFF argue that usage data from smart electricity meters differs quantitatively and qualitatively from analog electricity meters, revealing intimate details regarding a person’s private in-home activities.

PI and EFF argue that an Illinois District Court’s decision that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in aggregate electrical usage data, regardless of whether the data is collected by a smart meter or analog meter, is flawed and that the Court’s decision should be reversed.

Patterns generated by smart meter data can be used to infer how many individuals reside in a home as well as their activities, habits, and rhythms of movement, including when they leave their home and when they go to sleep.

Smart meter data can even reveal which appliances are functioning at a given time, allowing one to infer, for example, when residents consume meals, take showers, watch TV, and use exercise equipment.

Privacy International Legal Officer Scarlet Kim said: “The transition from analog meters to smart meters — from a single monthly reading of energy usage to thousands of data points per month — transforms a blunt record of kilowatts consumed into a deeply personal snapshot of a person’s life. The data protection and privacy implications of collecting this data are not confined to Illinois but resonate around the world.”

Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Attorney Jamie Williams said: “The lower court made false assumptions about how smart meter technology works, and its decision is a threat to the privacy of the 57 million and counting American homes with this new technology.”

For more information: https://smartgridawareness.org/2017/02/28/privacy-advocacy-groups-amicus-brief-on-smart-meters/

“I’m shouting, but no-one is listening!” How to talk to people about wireless radiation.

Rachel Gaunt has an extensive 20 year background in advertising, marketing and social activism. Rachel has written this article, “I’m shouting, but no-one is listening! How to talk to people about wireless radiation so they can hear…and care” to help EMF activists.

She writes, “Why is it that our earnest explanations about the dangers of wireless radiation so often fall on deaf ears? Why in the face of so much science are people not rushing to protect themselves?

I have long been an observer of humans and how they behave, and have spent a long time puzzling the resistance and denial that conversations about wireless radiation can generate.  Recently, a meeting with behavior expert, Matthew Wilcox, author of The Business of Choice, helped to provide the final pieces of the puzzle.

When you look at the way humans make decisions, it turns out that there are three major factors working against us when it comes to shifting beliefs about wireless radiation.

Three factors working against us

First and foremost there is the “It will never happen to me,” response to anything bad that may happen to us in the future. This is especially true among young people.

“It will never happen to me. I am never going to die. It might happen to someone else but not to me.”…

Read Rachel Gaunt’s full article here: I’m shouting but no-one is listening!”

CA Department of Public Health sued for hiding cell phone radiation warnings

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of UC Berkeley School of Public Health has sued the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) for failing to provide a tax payer funded study on cell phone radiation risks. The CDPH refused to comment on the case.

Attorney Claudia Polsky states this is “tax payer funded scientific research over a period of years resulted in a review of the scientific literature about cell phone risks and the production of a document that was supposed to reach the public informing people about how to reduce risks from cell phone use.”

Dr. Moskowitz was asked why the state is trying to suppress the document. He stated, “They [CDPH] claim that they are concerned that this would lead to chaos and confusion among the public. I suspect that they were afraid of the reaction of the telecommunications industry should they publish this document; in fact, they even argued that in their brief.”

UPDATE: In response to media pressure the CDPH pre-released the cell phone advisory to the SF Chronicle. Here it is:  CDPH cell phone document April 2014

Trees injured by cell tower radiation

Scientists in Germany studied tree damage in relation to electromagnetic radiation for nine years, from 2006-2015.  They monitored, observed and photographed unusual or unexplainable tree damage, and measured the radiation the trees were exposed too.

“The aim of this study was to verify whether there is a connection between unusual (generally unilateral) tree damage and radiofrequency exposure.”
They found significant differences between the damaged side of a tree facing a phone mast and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups of trees in both sides. They found no tree damage in low radiation areas.
The 30 selected trees in low radiation areas (no visual contact to any phone mast and power flux density under 50μW/m2) showed no damage.
The scientists concluded, “Statistical analysis demonstrated that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone masts is harmful for trees.”  Link to the study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133?dopt=Abstract#
Damaged Magnolia trees across the street from a cell tower