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

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.

EMF Medical Conference 2021

The biological and health effects of electromagnetic field exposure are scientifically established and no longer deniable, and patients and clinicians are observing and documenting cases of EMF associated illness.

The EMF Medical Conference 2021, a virtual conference, will convene January 28-31, 2021 to review the latest exposure science. Leading physicians, clinicians, and scientists will conduct presentations on the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of EMF associated illness, and experts in EMF assessment will present proven methods that can prevent or limit EMF exposure hazards.  As a conference participant, you will receive:

  • 4 days of learning
  • 34 lectures
  • 6 panels
  • EMF Meter Workshop
  • Interactive format to meet fellow attendees
  • An interactive exhibit hall providing tools to enhance your practice
  • This conference has been approved for 16.5 hours of CME.

 For more information visit:  https://emfconference2021.com

Preparatory conference with Magda Havas, Ph.D., Professor Emerita. Prepare for EMF Medical Conference 2021 by enrolling in our Virtual Pre-Conference Course: Electrosmog & Electrotherapeutics 101. Dr. Havas will provide a basic understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, anthropogenic sources of electrosmog, natural sources of electromagnetic frequencies and their role in bio-modulation. Course consists of 4 hours of instruction plus 2 hours for Q&A for 4 CME credits.

Date: October 23 and 24, 2020
Time: 8 am until 11 am Pacific time

  • Early Bird Special cost of course if you register by September 15, 2020.
  • $99 – 4 hours of Contributing Medical Education (CME) credits
  • $49 – for those not seeking CME.
  • If you would like to enroll in the Pre-Conference Course separately, the price is $129 (4 hours CME) and $79 (non-CME).

MORE INFORMATION 

Olle Johansson, PhD Neuroscientist & Global Authority on Radiation and Health, formerly with the Karolinska Institute, spoke at the 2019 EMF Medical Conference. See clip of Professor Johansson’s  lecture from the 2019 EMF Conference: https://vimeo.com/449013621

Erica Mallery-Blythe MD will be speaking on Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) Diagnosis, Management and Prognosis at the
EMF Medical Conference 2021. See clip of Dr. Mallery-Blythe’s lecture from the 2019 EMF Conference: https://vimeo.com/452597619

Gunnar Heuser MD, PhD will be speaking on Functional Brain Scans of Patients Exposed to Neurotoxic Chemicals and/or EMF at the EMF Medical Conference 2021.See clip of Dr. Heuser’s lecture from the 2019 EMF Conference: https://vimeo.com/451286713

Protect Yellowstone from 480+ wi-fi antennas

TAKE ACTION!

A large-scale wireless communication system covering Canyon Village, Grant Village, Lake, Mammoth Hot Springs, and Old Faithful is proposed, including five microwave antenna locations, twelve wireless backhaul antennas, and up to four hundred and eighty (480) transceivers. Overview: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=89100
Send comments by Friday, November 29
Suggested Template (copy and paste and/or add your own comment):
I oppose the deployment of wi-fi and other wireless radiation technology in Yellowstone, and all National Parks. Peer reviewed published science shows wireless radiation harms trees, birds, bees and insects. Peer-reviewed published science shows wireless radiation harms people, and children are especially vulnerable. People with electromagnetic sensitivity (EHS) depend on having wi-fi free accommodations and access to nature to restore and heal. Increasing wi-fi in parks could become an ADA issue.
Wired and corded communications are safer and more reliable. Protect people, nature, and access to our wilderness treasures by creating policy to reduce wireless radiation throughout the park. Invite visitors to unplug and enjoy nature.
See science references in this joint letter to Congress asking them to oppose wireless radiation expansion: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Letter-to-Congress-2017-1.pdf
Thank you for your consideration.