TIMEBOUND: This May Be Our Gandhi Moment — Comment by May 15 on the Adequacy of the FCC’s Outdated Radiation Exposure Guidelines
“The future depends on what we do in the present.” – Gandhi
Back in late December of 2013, while many Massachusetts residents were focused on the holiday season, the Dept. of Public Utilities published its order 12-76: D.P.U. 12-76-A December 23, 2013, Investigation by the Department of Public Utilities on its own Motion into Modernization of the Electric Grid. The docket included time of use rates, the installation of wireless smart utility meters, and grid modernization.
The deadline for the public to weigh in was January 17th, spanning the holiday season of Hanukah, Christmas, and New Years.
A small group of informed and concerned citizens at HaltMAsmartmeters had already been watching the issue in the Commonwealth. Fortunately, a charismatic tea party member found out about the docket, and rallied her colleagues. At the other end of the spectrum, the editor of the local holistic health magazine shared the information about how to submit comments with her readers.
What Happened in California and Maine with Smart Meters Didn’t Stay in California and Maine, People Were Hurt
When the deadline arrived, there were 120 comments, 20 primarily from industry and industry enthusiasts, and 100 comments from citizens in opposition, including individuals from other states reporting harm and/or health vulnerability.
Since that time, the drive to install smart meters across Massachusetts continues. An unprecedented auto-enrollment pilot program was targeted for 15,000 households in Worcester, meaning that individuals who received smart meters and were in the pilot did not provide informed consent. A tobacco scientist, literally, provided health testimony to undermine citizen health concerns. The City’s Mayor, Manager, Assessor, and Health Department were clearly aligned with the utility before the program even started. The local Chamber of Commerce and several area colleges had already been enticed to support the pilot as active partners, and the monopoly utility was infiltrating other groups, promoting the technology as “green” and “sustainable.”
Several City Councilors attempted to advocate for the residents, and the City’s lawyer courageously addressed the utility’s lack of authority to override local zoning regulations prohibiting the installation of a 90 ft microwave antenna in a residential neighborhood. The local community cable television station, a small local paper, and several key individuals in Worcester neighborhoods played a significant role in continuing to challenge the pilot, attending meetings, writing letters, and strategizing,
The pilot was supposed to inform decision making for the Commonwealth, but it violated nearly every tenant of research integrity. An industry-embedded consulting firm provided glowing, fraudulent analysis that remains unaddressed to this day. The pilot was clearly administered as an example of decision-based evidence making, or outcome oriented research.
Had no citizens taken the time to take action back in 2013, the state might already be deployed with the RF-emitting meters. The wireless smart meter battle continues in Massachusetts, and it remains a David and Goliath battle. But if the time ever comes when decision makers face scrutiny, every effort expended to create a paper trail will help to tip the scales.
Cary Gillam was able to chronicle Monsanto’s work in her book Whitewash because a paper trail existed. When Lisa-Martino-Cooper investigated the Manhattan-Rochester Coalition’s spraying of ionizing radiation on low-income residents in the St. Louis area, she was able to meticulously piece together the sordid story of unethical covert research on poor black neighborhoods, despite being denied access to paperwork through official channels.
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.” – Gandhi
While much of the public now questions the unquestioned, wanton use of chemicals in the 20th century, a minority of individuals recognize that the commoditization of the EMF frequency spectrum is as misguided as the commoditization of the periodic table of the elements. It is perhaps even more dangerous due to population-wide, involuntary, invisible, ubiquitous exposure across every age group. Increasingly, there is no unexposed control group. And despite major indicators of compromised health such as fertility challenges, poor immunity, increasing chronic health conditions in children, and skyrocketing neurological death rates (especially in older women), recognition of the association with environmental exposure to man-made artificial radio frequencies remains unacknowledged.
Like the tobacco wars that have already spanned a century, the battle over the safety of 30-year-old radio frequency exposure guidelines is not a debate about science. It is a war operating exactly as the tobacco wars did; attack the scientists and the science, generate contradictory research, fund mercenary liar-for-hire experts, ridicule victims, minimize opportunities for compensation, delay the urgently-needed course correction in the face of evidence of harm, make as much money as possible for as long as possible, no matter what.
Why the FCC Comment Process is Under the Microscope Now: The Russians and the Net Neutrality Ruling
The FCC currently has an opened docket asking for input on whether or not its radio frequency exposure limits need to be reevaluated.
At the same time, the FCC’s comment system is under unprecedented scrutiny.
As reported by Ars Technica:
The New York Times has won its lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, as a federal judge ruled Thursday that the FCC must turn over net neutrality comment records that it refused to give to the NYT.
The NYT sued the FCC in September 2018, saying the agency denied a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request for records that the NYT said might shed light on possible Russian interference in the net neutrality repeal proceeding. The Times’ motion for summary judgment was granted by Judge Lorna Schofield of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The public-comment process leading up to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s December 2017 repeal of net neutrality rules attracted more than 22 million comments, but millions were made using stolen identities. The NYT filed a FoIA request for server logs related to public comments in June 2017, but the newspaper narrowed its request multiple times in response to the FCC’s refusal to provide the records. The pared-down request the judge approved is for timestamps, originating IP addresses, and user-agent headers related to public comments, which are contained in an API proxy server log at the FCC.
How FCC Docket Comment Tallies Might Be Used
The FCC’s recent controversial decision regarding the use of the 5.9 Band resulted in this analysis:
FCC Proposal on the Use of the 5.9 GHz Band: Reply Comment Synopsis
Similarly to the overwhelming proportion of comments opposed to the NPRM in the initial comment period for the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 5.9 GHz Band proceeding, the record established by the reply comments once again displays that the depth and diversity of groups opposed to reallocation of the 5.9 GHz Band far outweighs those who support of the FCC’s plan – 64 comments opposed band reallocation with only 11 in favor of the proposal. State and city departments of transportation, safety groups, technology companies, automakers, technical experts, first responders, and many others submitted compelling arguments in support of maintaining the full 75 MHz of the 5.9 GHz Band for vehicle communications, echoing the nation’s premier authority on transportation safety, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). – Source
The tally of 64 against and 11 in favor may play a role in future legislation and litigation. It most likely mirrors the split in the Massachusetts smart meter docket, with those in favor representing those with the promise of financial gain.
What the FCC Does Not Bother to Count
Despite remarkable day-to-day analysis of the covid epidemic, the FCC has not kept track of health complaints or environmental impacts associated with radio frequency exposures.
And despite remarkable efforts to protect the health-vulnerable in the face of covid, the FCC has shown no consideration of health vulnerable populations regarding wireless exposures. (For example, one Massachusetts resident with a heart condition and a doctor’s recommendation to reduce her exposure to RF had her water shut off when she refused to have a wireless water meter installed.) Instead, municipalities use the FCC’s claims as justification to override residents and their health care providers. Utilities across the country have ignored recommendations for accommodation for their patients.
“In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” – Gandhi
Commenting now on the FCC radio frequency exposure limits may determine what happens to all of this in this generation.
Please be counted.
Courtesy Physicians for Safe Technology:
Key Points Regarding Expanding FCC Guidelines to Higher Frequencies
Researchers and physicians are concerned that the new proposed FCC guidelines are flawed in their assumptions of safety for the following reasons:
-New guidelines for higher frequencies will still only consider heat effects, not adverse biological effects demonstrated at non-thermal levels far below current safety guidelines, including reproductive, neurologic, immunologic and carcinogenic effects.
-There are no special considerations for pregnant women, children, the elderly, those with chronic illness or those who are electrosensitive.
-New guidelines do not consider known mechanisms of harm from non-ionizing radiation such as oxidation, calcium channel effects, resonance effects, radical pair mechanism (alteration of the spin state of free radicals).
-There are scientific concerns with regards to injury to the skin and eyes with regards to higher frequencies. There is also evidence that metabolic dysregulation can occur through skin signaling.
-There is a recognized absence of independent safety testing in higher Gigahertz and Tetrahertz frequency radiation
Studies are typically performed on one frequency, not the mix of frequencies we will be exposed to, in addition to other toxic stressors.
-Averaging radiation makes it appear that levels and exposure are very low, however, peak levels of radiation as well as modulation (pulsation) are known to be more harmful to biological and cellular processes.
-Environmental concerns have been dismissed for the same reasons stated above.
Requested submissions can be statements, letters and/or peer-reviewed scientific research article links which document evidence of biological effects from non ionizing electromagnetic radiation. If sending links to scientific studies please state the following, “Links hereby incorporated by reference” to ensure that the study becomes a part of the record, or paste the entire study or citation with full references into the comments.
See more at: