We envision a world free of EMF pollution where children, communities, and nature thrive! Our mission is to educate and empower people by providing science and solutions to reduce EMFs to improve lives, achieve public policy change, and obtain environmental justice.
EMF Safety Network and Ecological Options Network filed these comments to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in WT Docket 17-84 on why copper lines must be retained and maintained. The FCC is discussing “retirement” of the copper line telephone system.
1. Copper landline phones save lives.
Copper landlines work when the power is out, fiber optics don’t. In an emergency, with no power, no phone, and no 911 services, people will be at risk for life threatening situations. Who will pay the price for this aggressive push to end copper landline service?
People with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)
Low income people
Residents of rural areas
People who want a choice
2. Copper landline phone systems cost less.
A fiber optic VOIP system requires internet service, computer, router, VOIP device, plus a phone. A VOIP system costs more to purchase, maintain, and replace worn out devices. A VOIP uses more electricity. A copper landline phone is simpler and more cost effective because it only requires a phone.
The city of Berkeley won against the powerful CTIA, the wireless industry association who appealed Berkeley’s ordinance which requires cellphone retailers to provide customers with this notice:
“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radiofrequency (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.”
The appeal was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges determined that “there was no irreparable harm based on the First Amendment or preemption, that the balance of equities tipped in Berkeley’s favor, that the ordinance was in the public interest, and that an injunction would harm that interest.”
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.”…
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.”
Psychic and author Joseph Martin interviews Building Biologist and EMF specialist Eric Windheim on electromagnetic fields and radiation (EMF) hazards. Joseph and Eric bring a candid and humorous approach to the discussion of the science and risk of harm from everyday EMF exposure in the modern world.
Everything wireless is tested on a plastic head
Designed by engineers back in 1996
They put salty fluid in it – set their timers for six minutes and if at six minutes
The temperature hasn’t risen more than 2 degrees
They declare the product safe for you and for me
Who don’t have plastic heads – We don’t have plastic heads.
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.
The summary includes, “Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.”
A media teleconference is being held today by the National Institutes of Health. However the news is already being reported on by Mother Jones, Wall Street Journal and others.
“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer” “It’s the moment we’ve all been dreading.”-Mother Jones
“A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects.”- Wall Street Journal