The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-0520 Study Session MIN CITY OF �S H LAN D CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES Monday,May 20,2019 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street Mayor Stromberg called the Study Session to order at 5:30 p.m. Councilors' Slattery, Graham and Akins were present. Councilors' Seffinger,Rosenthal and Jensen were absent. I. Public Input(15 minutes, maximum) Tom Doolittle-Ashland—Spoke regarding his wife's health issues due to cell phone towers.He spoke to stop the City from allowing 5G and protect the City of Ashland. Unmani-Ashland—Spoke that she lives near powerlines and is concerned. She spoke in concern of 50. She recommended to find a way to get acoustimeters in the City buildings. II. Oregon for Safer Technology Presentation on Implementation of Nationwide 50 Wireless Networking Kelly Marcotulli—Ashland—Thanked Council and Volunteers. She explained what Oregon for Safer Technology is. She spoke regarding the concerns and harms of 5G. She spoke that we act now to prevent illness and urged Council to not allow 50 in Ashland. She spoke regarding the dangers of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) levels. Alan Rathsam—Ashland -Presented Council with a PowerPoint Presentation (see attached). Items discussed were: • Non-ionizing radiation. • Ionizing radiation. • Artificial frequencies. • Natural frequencies. • Exposure limits for outdoor pulsed radio-frequency radiation. Ivy Ross—Ashland - Spoke regarding the health hazards of wireless radiation. She spoke regarding her research on the topic. Lynn Georgens—Ashland—Spoke regarding research showing the harms of wireless technology radiation. She spoke to the illnesses that can be caused by wireless radiation. She urged Council to not allow a new cell tower. Ms. Marcotulli spoke regarding the potential costs of 5G. Ms. Marcotulli spoke to safety measures for all to consider while using wireless devices. Managing Director of"We are the Evidence" Dafna Tachover discussed studies showing the hazards of wireless technology radiation. Documents submitted in the record (see attached). The Study Session was adjourned at 7:00 PM Respectfully submitted by: i 3JLkL) City Recorder Melissa Huhtala Attest: Mayor StrAmberg In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). __ _ , .ii SOURCE: MONICA FERRULLI ; : .. � 1' .v l J , 1 `I Is 1. V s • i t i • I ' ' Power Density, pw/cm2 m (microwatts per square centimeter) p Cr, 00 o to 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o CD r p .. Salzburg (Austria) 3 r N 9 Liechtenstein CI 0 O -I 3 Bulgaria ° _ N O 0 r Luxemburg, Belgium, Ukraine 3 0 Cr ‘IC mra I N Switzerland (Schools, Hospitals) 0 y _• fD i5 C. I LPILD Switzerland (General) 4< XI D) O. ■�• I ii; China, Lithuania, Russia, Italy, Poland, Paris 9 9 c 5 tD 111 o India, Israel D t a c CD a 4. _, XI sv —. 0. A) o -I 3 `x REGULATE FACEBOOK! III MARCH FOR OUR LIVES BRUCE SHAPIRO JOAN WALSH M II ) ElIli 0 \\\\ 4 6..I% c?: . I L----' (7 DriT . ("t i ' 10 . ., i" 4.i; I A l 1 E`IVI:V...5 IV in, f t " iI HOW BIG , , , . . ..:.• .. L` • . . . I WIRELESS _ • , _ . , , MADE a fe p t 1 II .., t l N 4x S[� P� F ,si y� a t ,,� f, i I . . . ..J. ,_,,T e F spy. r ` THAT CELL t ,t rl , . t . y . .i�, J F r�}r. A ONES . , I n •V� a .Lf iE* 1 °rE SAFE � � Y: ; , . . .. ' A .... , as DISINFORMATION r CAMPAIGid REVEALED; / ;r , 56 ROLLOUT TO .ate 1. EJPOSE EVERYONE T® "MASSIVELY 1.1111PI�IIIIIIIII,thl,lll By MARK HERTSOAARD RADIATIOPI al+e MARK DOWIE INCREASING I,g T:p'S8p68z6z0S 8 - i i • -IOwoa,%IGi 900-.8:as10la50266A9i - ' , NEVI Read yoursubsaipUtiri on an IPA or!Phone FREE VsitTheNafon.omfapp • ` 1P111Y3.Y018 111181111110r ' ' . I Link to this Nation article: www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made- u -think-that-cell-.h. es-a e- a e-a-s -investiat . Things didn't end well between George Carlo and Tom Wheeler;the last time the two met face-to-face,Wheeler had security guards escort Carlo off the premises.As president of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), Wheeler was the wireless industry's point man in Washington. Carlo was the scientist handpicked by Wheeler to defuse a public-relations crisis that threatened to strangle his infant industry in its crib. This was back in 1993,when there were only six cell-phone subscriptions for every 100 adults in the United States. But industry executives were looking forward to a booming future. Cellphones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993,David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife's NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV,the story went viral.A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation;investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action. A week later,Wheeler announced that his industry would pay for a comprehensive research program. Cell phones were already safe,Wheeler told reporters;the new research would simply "re-validate the findings of the existing studies." Carlo's Past George Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfill Wheeler's mission.He was an epidemiologist who also had a law degree, and he'd conducted studies for other controversial industries.After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks.With chemical-industry funding,he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project(WTR), whose eventual budget of$28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date. Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington,over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell- phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR's general counsel sent a letter to the university's president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research.protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment's results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other's accusations. Critics also attacked what they regarded as the slow pace of WTR research. The WTR was merely "a confidence game" designed to placate the public but stall real research, according to Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. "By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved [scientific] community," Slesin argued, "Carlo guaranteed silent obedience.Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions." Carlo denies the allegation. Carlo finds "serious questions" about cellphone safety. , Whatever Carlo'smotives might have been, the documented fact is that he and Wheeler would eventually clash bitterly over the WTR's findings, which Carlo presented to wireless-industry leaders on February 9, 1999. By that date, the WTR had commissioned more than 50 original studies and reviewed many more. Those studies raised "serious questions" about cell-phone safety, Carlo told a dosed-door meeting of the CTIA's board of directors,whose members included the CEOs or top officials of the industry's 32 leading companies,including Apple,AT&T, and Motorola. Carlo sent letters to each of the industry's chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR's research had found the following: "The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled...in cell phone users"; there was an apparent"correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head"; and "the ability of radiation from a phone's antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive...." Carlo urged the CEOs to do the right thing: give consumers "the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume," especially since some in the industry had "repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children." The World Health Organization classifies cell-phone radiation as a "possible" carcinogen. The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media.In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was "certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention"—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo's hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity. Wheeler's tactics succeeded in dousing the controversy.Although Carlo had in fact repeatedly briefed Wheeler and other senior industry officials on the studies, which had indeed undergone peer review and would soon be published,reporters on the technology beat accepted Wheeler's discrediting of Carlo and the WTR's findings. (Wheeler would go on to chair the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless industry. He agreed to an interview for this article but then put all of his remarks off the record,with one exception: his statement that he has always taken scientific guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration,which,he said, "has concluded, 'the weight of scientific evidence had not linked cell phones with any health problems.") Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry's annual conference, where he submitted the WTR's final report to the CTIA board.According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him. When Carlo arrived,he was met by two seriously muscled men in plain clothes;the larger of the two let drop that he had recently left the Secret Service. The security men steered Carlo into a holding room,where they insisted he remain until his presentation. When summoned, Carlo found roughly 70 of the industry's top executives waiting for him in silence. Carlo had spoken a mere 10 minutes when Wheeler abruptly stood, extended a hand, and said, "Thank you, George." The two muscle men then ushered the scientist to a curbside taxi and waited until it pulled away. In the years to come, the WTR's cautionary findings would be replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a "possible" human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain,France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children. But as the taxi carried Carlo to Louis Armstrong International Airport, the scientist wondered whether his relationship with the industry might have turned out differently if cell phones had been safety-tested before being allowed onto the consumer market,before profit took precedence over science. But it was too late: Wheeler and his fellow executives had made it cleat; Carlo told The Nation, that "they would do what they had to do to protect their industry,but they were not of a mind to protect consumers or public health." This article does not argue that cell phones and other wireless technologies are necessarily dangerous; that is a matter for scientists to decide. Rather, the focus here is on the global industry behind cell phones—and the industry's long campaign to make people believe that cell phones are safe. As happened earlier with Big Tobacco and Big Oil, the wireless industry's own scientists privately warned about the risks. That campaign has plainly been a success: 95 out of every 100 adult Americans now own a cell phone; globally, three out of four adults have cell-phone access, with sales increasing every year. The wireless industry is now one of the fastest-growing on Earth and one of the biggest, boasting annual sales of$440 billion in 2016. Carlo's story underscores the need for caution, however,particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively.Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a "catastrophic" temperature rise, so Carlo's testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s)that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage. Carlo's October 7, 1999, letters to wireless-industry CEOs are the smoking-gun equivalent of the November 12. 1982,memo that M.B. Glaser,Exxon's manager of environmental-affairs programs, sent to company executives explaining that burning oil, gas, and coal could raise global temperatures by a destabilizing 3 degrees Celsius by 2100.For the tobacco industry, Carlo's letters are akin to the 1969 proposal that a Brown & Williamson executive wrote for countering anti-tobacco advocates. "Doubt is our product," the memo declared. "It is also the means of establishing a controversy...at the public level." Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren,wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America,Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers.Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen. This Nation investigation reveals that the wireless industry not only made the same moral choices that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries did;it also borrowed from the same public-relations playbook those industries pioneered. The playbook's key insight is that an industry doesn't have to win the scientific argument about safety; it only has to keep the argument going. That amounts to a win for the industry,because the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, even as it fends off government regulations and lawsuits that might pinch profits. Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all 8 scientists agree.Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry vhas "war gamed" science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the • industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit bo scientists whose views depart from the industry's. E (y Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this ltrategy,because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is • 3• divided. Thus,when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage —as Carlo's WTR did in 1999; as the WHO's Interphone study did in 2010; and as the U +• • •_' •_•: •u , •• •'e '_ 0_•—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. "[T]he overall balance of the evidence" gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley,research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe's wireless trade association, speaking to reporters about the WHO's findings. A closer look reveals the industry's sleight of hand. When Henry Lai,the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005,he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split:But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect,while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai's findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect. One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance 5, industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. "Why would we want to do that?" one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits to outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of$1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a judge in Ital Y who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence. Even so, the industry's neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the "Internet of Things." Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer's vehicles and home appliances, even their baby's diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be . achieved. Billions of cell-phone users have been subjected to a public-health experiment without informed consent. 5G There is a catch, though: The Internet of'Things will require augmenting today's 4G technolo gy with 5G, thus "massively increasing" the general population's exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent "a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field," according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing. Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry's earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agericies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale. "The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,"Annie Sasco, the former director of epidemiology for cancer prevention at France's National Institute of Health and Medical Research, told the attendees of the 2012 Childhood Cancer conference. "The younger one starts using cell phones, the higher the risk," Sasco continued, urging a public-education effort to inform parents, politicians, and the press about children's exceptional susceptibility. For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been shown to damage the blood-brain barrier, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting,for example,from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to interfere with DNA replication, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults' skulls do, while children's longer life span increases their cumulative exposure. The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones' safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on"specific absorption rate," or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC that its guidelines "do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children." Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards. The FCC has granted the industry's wishes so often that it qualifies as a "captured agency"" argued journalist Norm Alster in a report that Harvard University's Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or"require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone's packaging. "Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC's congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,"Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for "its light regulatory touch." The revolving-door syndrome that characterizes so many industries and federal agencies reinforces the close relationship between the wireless industry and the FCC. Just as Tom Wheeler went from running the CTIA(1992—2004) to chairing the FCC (2013-2017), Meredith Atwell Baker went from FCC commissioner (2009-2011)to the presidency of the CTIA(2014 through today). To ensure its access on Capitol Hill, the wireless industry made$26 million in campaign contributions in 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and spent$87 million on lobbying in 2017. Neutralizing the safety issue has been an ongoing imperative because the research keeps coming,much of it from outside the United States. But the industry's European and Asian branches have, like their US counterpart, zealously war-gamed the science, spun the news coverage, and thereby warped the public perception of their products' safety. The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF)in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was "independent" of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO's EMF program,Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi denied that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola's payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO's program$150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that"EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health." ' Two wireless trade associations contributed$4.7 million to the Interphone study launched by the WHO's International Agency for Cancer Research in 2000. That$4.7 million represented 20 percent of the$24 million budget for the Interphone study, which convened 21 scientists from 13 countries to explore possible links between cell phones and two common types of brain tumor: glioma and meningioma. The money was channeled through a "firewall" mechanism intended to prevent corporate influence on the IACR's findings,but whether such firewalls work is debatable. "Industry sponsors know [which scientists] receive funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding," Dariusz Leszczynski, an adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki,has explained. The FCC grants the wireless industry's wishes so often that it qualifies as a "captured agency" To be sure, the industry could not have been pleased with some of the teihuae study's conclusions. The study found that the heaviest cell-phone users were 80 percent more likely to develop glioma. (The initial finding of 40 percent was increased to 80 to correct for selection bias.)The.Interphone study also concluded that individuals who had owned a cell phone for 10 years or longer saw their risk of glioma increase by nearly 120 percent.However, the study did not find any increased risk for individuals who used their cell phones less frequently;nor was there evidence of any connection with meningioma. • • When the Interphone conclusions were released hi 2010,industry spokespeople blunted their impact by deploying what experts on lying call "creative truth-telling." "Interphone's conclusion of no overall increased risk of brain cancer is consistent with conclusions reached in an already large body of scientific research on this subject."John Walls, the vice president for public affairs at the CTIA, told reporters.The wiggle word here is "overall": Since some of the Interphone studies did not find increased brain- cancer rates, stipulating "overall" allowed Walls to ignore those that did. The misleading spin confused enough news organizations that their coverage of the Interphone study was essentially reassuring to the industry's customers. The Wall Street Journal announced "Cell Phone Study Sends Fuzzy Signal on Cancer Risk," while the BBC's headline declared: "No Proof of Mobile Cancer Risk." The industry's $4.7 million contribution to the WHO appears to have had its most telling effect in May 2011, when the WHO convened scientists in Lyon, France, to discuss how to classify the cancer risk posed by cell phones. The industry not only secured "observer" status at Lyon for three of its trade associations;it placed two industry-funded experts on the working group that would debate the classification, as well as additional experts among the "invited specialists"who advised the group. Niels Kuster, a Swiss engineer, initially filed a conflict-of-interest statement affirming only that his research group had taken money from "various governments, scientific institutions and corporations." But after Kuster co-authored a summary of the WHO's findings in The Lancet Oncology,the medical journal issued a correction expanding on Kuster's conflict-of-interest statement,noting payments from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, Motorola,Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, Sony, GSMA, and Deutsche Telekom. Nevertheless,Kuster participated in the entire 10 days of deliberations. The industry also mounted a campaign to discredit Lennart Hardell, a Swedish professor of oncology serving on the working group.Hardell's studies,which found an increase in gliomas and acoustic neuromas in long-term cell-phone users,were some of • the strongest evidence that the group was considering. Hardell had already attracted the industry's displeasure back in 2002,when he began arguing that children shouldn't use cell phones. Two scientists with industry ties quickly published a report with the Swedish Radiation Authority dismissing Hardell's research. His detractors were John D. Boice and Joseph K. McLaughlin of the International Epidemiology Institute, a company that provided "Litigation Support" and"Corporate Counseling" to various industries, according to its website. Indeed, at the very time Boice and McLaughlin were denigrating Hardell's work, the institute was providing expert-witness services to Motorola in a brain-tumor lawsuit against the company. The wireless industry didn't get the outcome that it wanted at Lyon,but it did limit the damage.A number of the working group's scientists had favored increasing the classification of cell phones to Category 2A, a "probable" carcinogen;but in the end, the •t •u + ._ • :r-- on an increase to 2B, a "possible" carcinogen. That result enabled the industry to continue proclaiming that there was no scientifically established proof that cell phones are dangerous.Jack Rowley of the GSMA trade association said that"interpretation should be based on the overall balance of the evidence." Once again,the slippery word "overall" downplayed the significance of scientific research that the industry didn't like. Industry-funded scientists had been pressuring their colleagues for a decade by then, according to Leszczynski, another member of the Lyon working group. Leszczynski was an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School when he first experienced such pressure, in 1999. He had wanted to investigate the effects of radiation levels higher than the SAR levels permitted by government,hypothesizing that this might better conform to real-world practices. But when he proposed the idea at scientific meetings, Leszczynski said, it was shouted down by Mays Swicord,Joe Elder, and C.K. Chou— scientists who worked for Motorola.As Leszczynski recalled, "It was a normal occurrence at scientific meetings—and I attended really a lot of them—that whenever [a] scientist reported biological effects at SAR over[government-approved levels], the above-mentioned industry scientists, singularly or as a group,jumped up to the microphone to condemn and to discredit the results." Years later, a study that Leszczynski described as a "game changer" discovered that even phones meeting government standards, which in Europe were a SAR of 2.0 watts per kilogram, could deliver exponentially higher peak radiation levels to certain skin and blood cells. (SAR levels reached a staggering 40 watts per kilogram-20 times higher than officially permitted.)In other words, the official safety levels masked dramatically higher exposures in hot spots,but industry-funded scientists obstructed research on the health impacts. "Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up." —Dariusz Leszczynski, adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki said in an interview in 2011. Sure enough, the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, where Leszczynski had a long career, discontinued research on the biological effects of cell phones and discharged him a year later. Accg vd he process, the WHO may decide later year to reconsider ordin its to scientists categorizaintion olve of the in cancer t risk posed by cell phones; the WHO this itself told The Nation that before making any such decision, it will review the final report of the National Toxicology Program, a US government initiative. The results reported by the NTP in 2016 seem to strengthen the case for increasing the assessment of cell-phone radiation to a "probable" or even a "known" carcinogen. Whereas the WHO's Interphone study compared the cell-phone usage of people who had contracted cancer with that of people who hadn't, the NTP study exposed rats and mice to cell-phone radiation and observed whether the animals got sick. "There is a carcinogenic effect," announced Ron Melnick, the designer of the study. Male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation developed cancer at a substantially higher rate, though the same effect was not seen in female rats.Rats exposed to radiation also had lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, and more heart problems than those in the control group. The cancer effect occurred in only a small percentage of the rats,but that small percentage could translate into a massive amount of human cancers. "Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communications devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease...could have broad implications for public health," the NTP's draft report explained. But this was not the message that media coverage of the NTP study conveyed, as the industry blanketed reporters with its usual "more research is needed"spin. "Seri stop with the irresponsible reporting on cell phones and cancer," demanded a Vox . • headline. "Don't Believe the Hype." urged The Washington Post. Newsweek, for its part, stated the NTP's findings in a sit gle paragraph, then devoted the rest of the article to an argument for why they should be ignored. • The NTP study was to be peer-reviewed at a meeting on March 26-28, amid signs that the program's leadership is pivoting to downplay its findings. The NTP had issued a public-health warning when the study's early results were released in 2016.But when the NTP released essentially the same data in February 2018,John Bucher, the senior scientist who directed the study, announced in a telephone press conference that"I don't think this is a high-risk situation at all,"partly because the study had exposed the rats and mice to higher levels of radiation than a typical cell-phone user experienced. Microwave News's Slesin speculated on potential explanations for the NTP's apparent backtracking:new leadership within the program,where a former drug-company executive,Brian Berridge,now runs the day-to-day operations;pressure from business- friendly Republicans on Capitol Hill and from the US military, whose weapons systems rely on wireless radiation; and the anti-science ideology of the Trump White House. The question now: Will the scientists doing the peer review endorse the NTP's newly ambivalent perspective, or challenge it? • "The research keeps coming." The scientific evidence that cell phones and wireless technologies in general can cause cancer and genetic damage is not definitive,but it is abundant and has been increasing over time. Contrary to the impression that most news coverage has given the public, 90 percent of the 200 existing studies included in the National Institutes of Health's PubMed database on the oxidative effects of wireless radiation—its tendency to cause • cells to shed electrons,which can lead to cancer and other diseases—have found a significant impact, according to a survey of the scientific literature conducted by Henry Lai. Seventy-two percent of neurological studies and 64 percent of DNA studies have also found effects. The wireless industry's determination to bring about the Internet of Things, despite the massive increase in radiation exposure this would unleash, raises the stakes exponentially. Because 5G radiation can only travel short distances, antennas roughly the size of a pizza box will have to be installed approximately every 250 feet to ensure connectivity. "Industry is going to need hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of new antenna sites in the United States alone," said Moskowitz, the UC Berkeley researcher. "So people will be bathed in a smog of radiation 24/7." d 14 There is an alternative approach,rooted in what some scientists and ethicists call the q "precautionary principle,"which holds that society doesn't need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology. If the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for delaying the deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The scientists'petition discussed earlier urges government regulators to apply the precautionary principle to 0 5G technology. Current safety guidelines "protect industry—not health," contends the petition,which"recommend[s] a moratorium on the roll-out of[5G].-until potential 44 hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry." No scientist can say with certainty how many wireless-technology users are likely to contract cancel;but that is precisely the point: We simply don't know. Nevertheless,we are proceeding as if we do know the risk, and that the risk is vanishingly small. Meanwhile, more and more people around the world,including countless children and adolescents, are getting addicted to cell phones every day, and the shift t g p y y, to radiation- heavy 5G technology is regarded as a fait accompli. Which is just how Big Wireless likes it. *see 14 min.video of Dr.Martin Pall at the SanFrancisco Commonwealth Club describing specific mechanisms of microwave radiation biologic harms: https:vimeo.com/132870272 Internet Links for Important Testimonies (Most are 15 minutes or less) 1. Senator Blumethal asks wireless industry about safety of SG: Winning the Race to 5G and the Next Era of Technology Innovation in the United States; United States Senate executive hearing. (Advance the video to 2:04 hours:minutes.) https://www.commerce.senate.gov/pu blic/index.cfm/hearings?ID=06336057-CC60- 45DF-A361-32D7401EE6CB 2. Wireless Tech Forum: Introduction (Patrick Colbeck) httbs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5f-aDbVvCQ&feature=youtu.be 3. Dr. Ron Melnick: NTP study https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=LjLPTNf NGI&feature=youtu.be 4. Body of Evidence behind Cancer Assertions (Dr. Anthony Miller) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4CxDucJKHo&feature=youtu.be 5. Biological Mechanisms of Cell Functions (Dr. Paul Heroux) httbs://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3yOk3Y6NGE&feature=youtu.be 6. Clinical Observations of Microwave Sickness (Dr. James Ziobron) httos://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4B130m2EWE&feature=youtu.be 7. Microwave Sickness (Dafna Tachover) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjmaEoian808Lfeature=youtu.be 8. Dr. Sharon Goldberg Testifies at Michigan's 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation Hearing October 4, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKOAIiMeKA&list=PL405LcFFUtushANnli QnAP KxKxuDhFtN 9. Practical Safeguards (Theodora Scarato) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1.11WOIMxtA&feature=youtu.be 10. Kevin Mottus, CA Brain Tumor Association https://www.voutube.com/watch?time continue=973&v=ljLynbr5iPc France - htt s: wearetheevidence.or french-court ec - p // g/ r ognized electromagnetic sensitivity-as-an-occupational-disease/ Belgium - http://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/14753/radiation-concerns-halt-brussels- 5q-for-now Massachusetts — htti ://www.bcattv.orq/bnews/top-stories/verizon-drops-small- cell-wireless-booster-application-in-faceoffees/ http://www.bcattv.org/programming/government-channel/board-fselectmen/boa rd- of-selectmen-october-22-2018/ Burlington, Massachusetts — http://www.burlington.orq/town government/small cell information.php Portland, Oregon - https://orepforthat.com/portland-blocking-5g-networks-over-health- risks/ Marin County, CA - https://www.marinij.com/2019/02/06/marin-supervisors- urged-to-reject-5g/ 5 Other References on the Internet Sharon Goldberg testimony - Dr. Sharon Goldberg Testifies at Michigan's Small Cell Tower Legislation Hearing October 4th, 2018 https://voutu.be/CKOAliMe-KA Firefighter's cell-tower exemption- https://www.collective- evolution.com/2019/02/11/watch-firefio hters-report-neurological-damage-after-50- cell-tower-installation-near-their-station/ https://scientists4wi redtech.com/2018/07/fi refig hters-1 ivi n g-next-to-cell-towers- suffer-neurological-damage/ San Diego State - https://healthjournalism.orq/blog/2009/03/san-diego-cancer- clusters-hazard-or-coincidence/ Ripon cell tower - https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/after-8-cancer- diagnoses-a nd-2-vea rs-of-protest-sprint-fi na I Iv-a o rees-to-remove-cel I-tower-fro m- california-school-property.html Letter from Golomb - http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health- bloq/golomb/ Lloyds of London - http://scientists4wiredtech.com/what-are-4g-5Winsurance- underwriters-refuse-to-cover-wireless-industry/ Increase in diabetes, autism, ADHD - https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on- 5g-and-health/ Harvard University documents — Health Safety - http://emfsafetvnetwork.orq/harvard-doctor-warns-against-wi-fi-hazards/ Communications Safety - https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/huawei-and- race-5g-latest-generation-cellphone-communication Comparison to Tobacco Industry con - https://www.wired.com/beyond-the- beyond/2018/03/5g-smartohones-cause-cancer-big-wireless-doesnt-want-know/ Telecommunications Act of 1996 - https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications- act-1996https://mdsafetech.orq/telecommunications-act-of-1996/ Italy - https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/italv-a-landmark-iudgment-condemns-the- state-to-info rm-the-population-of-the-Health-risks-d ue-to-mobile-phones 4 Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, 124 Mount Auburn Street, Suite 520N, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/ 16 The Telecommunications Act of 1996, (See "Text of the Act" and Section 704) httos://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996 17°International Radio Frequency "RF" Exposure Limits for 1800 MHz Range," Safe Living Technologies, Inc. https://www.slt.co/Downloads/Ed ucation/RF-ExposureGuidelines-International.pdf 18"Lloyds Insurers Refuse to Cover 5G Wi-Fi Illnesses," Principia Scientific International, February 12, 2019, written by phibetaiota.net. https://principia-scientific.org/Ilovds-insurers-refuse-to-cover-5g-wi-fi-i l lnesses/ 19"What the Telecom Industry Doesn't Tell You...But Does Tell Its Investors," slide presentation from Environmental Health Trust. https://ehtrust.orq/wp-content/uploads/Telecom-10-K-Liability-and-Insu rance- Companies-Slides-EHT-6-2016.pdf 20Milham, Samuel, MD, MP, "Dirty Electricity, Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization," Second Edition, iUniverse, Inc., Bloomington, IN, Copyright 2012, p. xii. "Dirty Electricity" is a term used in the utility industry. It refers to voltage transients that are superimposed on the 60-cycle-per-second alternating current (AC) that is supplied to homes and businesses. The frequency of these transients ranges from 2000 to 100,000 cycles per second (2 to 100 kilohertz). The sources of these transient voltages include switching circuits in all electronic devices, power inverters, and electric power from the utility. 21Schoechle, Timothy, PhD, Senior Research Fellow, National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy, "Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks." https://www.emrsa.co.za/re-inventing-wires-the-future-of-land li nes-and-networks/ • 3 'Adams, R. L. and Williams, Dr. R. A., "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) — Eurasian Communist Countries," DST- 18105-074-76, March, 1976, Defense Intelligence Agency, prepared by U. S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency, Office of the Surgeon General (Declassified). 6Biolnitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David 0. Carpenter, Editors. Biolnitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation at www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012, Copyright 2012 Cindy Sage, Sage Associates, All Rights Reserved. 9Glaser, Zorach R., PhD, Lt, MSC, USNR, "Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (`Effects') and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation," Research Report, Naval Medical Research Institute, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, Second Printing, with Revisions, Corrections, and Additions: 20 April 1972. 1oVijay, Suchetha and Hegde, Asha, "Study on Electromagnetic Radiation from Cell Phone Towers and Their Effects on Animals, Plants and Environment," International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, Vol. 3, Special Issue 7, October 2015. www.tiircce.com "Yakymenko, I. Sidorik, E., Kyrylenka, S., and Chekhun, V., "Long-Term Exposure to Microwave Radiation Provokes Cancer Growth: Evidences from Radars and Mobile Communication Systems," Experimental Oncology, Exp Oncol 2011, 33, 2, 62-70. 12Gomez-Perretta a, Navarro EA, Segura J, et. al., "Subjective symptoms related to GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) radiation from mobile phone base stations: a cross-sectional study," BMJ Open 2013.3:e003836. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003836. Downloaded from bmjopen.bmj.com on January 1, 2014. Published by group.bmj.com. 13Pall, Martin L., PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, "5G: Great risk for EU, U. S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them." • 14Hertsgaard, Mark and Dowie, Mark, "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special.Investigation," The Nation, April 28, 2018 Issue. https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-.us-think-that-cell- phones-a re-safe-a-special-investigation 1sAlster, Norm, "Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates," Published by: Edmond J. 2 Important References for Understanding EMF Issues (It's informative to read just the reference titles.) Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are found in a spectrum of frequencies from a few Hertz (Hz) (cycles per second), corresponding to the earth's natural frequency, to more than 1020 Hertz, corresponding to gamma radiation. In between these limits are frequencies that include radio waves, the visible light spectrum, X-rays, and much more. An Internet search on "EMF Spectrum"will locate graphic representations and more details about this type of energy. 'Sources of EMF Exposure and How to Avoid Them, EMF Environmental Health Initiative by Cindy Sage and Nancy Evans. https://www.healthandenvironment.orq/dots/xa ruploads/EM FSou rcesAndChoices.pd f. 2"What are EMFs? Your Guide to the Types & Sources," Nontoxic Living, July 10, 2017. https://www.nontoxiclivinq.tips/bloq/what-are-emfs-your-guide-to-the-types- sources 3Melnick, Ronald L., PhD, "Peer Review of the Draft NTP Technical Reports on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation," National Toxicology Program, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 28, 2018. (Click on Final Documents) https://nto.niehs.nih.gov/events/past/index.html?type=Peer+Review+Panels+- +Technical+Reports&&date=2018-03-526 4"Ramazzini Study on Radiofrequency Cell Phone Radiation: The World's Largest Animal Study on Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link," Environmental Health Trust. https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confi rms- cancer-link https://www.scientifica merican.com/article/new-stud ies-link-cell-phone-radiation- with-cancer 5Decision of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP), Children and Mobile Phones: The Health of the Following Generations is in Danger, Moscow, Russia, and 14 April 2008. (SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03 point 6.9) 6The EMF-Portal of the RWTH Aachen University, an Internet information platform that summarizes scientific research data on the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). It is a searchable literature data base, in German and English, which contains 27,962 publications and 6,315 summaries of individual scientific studies- on this subject. https://www.emf-portal.org/en 1 4 tt , Wireless ElectromagneticRadiatidn Executive Summary • All of today's wireless devices send and receive data through two-way microwave radiation that exposes our citizens to biologically active electromagnetic fields(EMFs). • Current FCC guidelines governing public exposure to wireless radiation were set in 1996 and have not been updated to reflect use of today's wireless technology. • The public exposure limits are based on a half hour of exposure from one device.They do not account for the 24/7 exposures emitted by cell towers,street antennas,wireless devices and routers today,or the cumulative effects from constant exposure over time. • The 1996 guidelines were set by electronic and electrical engineers(IEEE)and do not take into account the knowledge possessed by scientists,doctors and public health experts who specialize in human biology. • These outdated guidelines were based solely on a thermal theory;i.e.how much heat it takes to raise the temperature of one's skin. • Today's science proves there are many adverse biological effects at the non-thermal level,and our outdated guidelines still allow radiation thousands of times higher than where biological effects are occurring. • Today's devices are tested at a distance away from the body;the fine print indicates using them on the body(i.e.,holding a cell phone,putting it to one's head,using a laptop or tablet in the lap and touching it with one's hand)may cause exposure to radiation higher than even the FCC's allowable limits. • The IEEE now recognizes the need to update public radiation exposure guidelines for non-thermal effects. See this article from 2016 and the 2018 article on the NW study, "Clear Evidence of Cell Phone RF Radiation Cancer Risk". • Since public policy has not caught up to the science,industry continues to aggressively promote products and infrastructure that expose the public to toxic levels of microwave radiation including the utility"smart"grid being piloted in Worcester,and the small cell antennas/distributed antenna systems(DAS)being rolled out state-wide to support SO and the Internet of Things. • Wireless technology has never been safety tested for children,fetuses,the elderly or those with known health compromises.Today's science proves these sub-populations are especially vulnerable to wireless radiation.Many in Massachusetts are already becoming ill. - Executive Summary 3 See summaries below for the current science as well as international,U.S.federal, state and Commonwealth EMF activities.Financial impact,information on common points of confusion and solutions are also provided at the end. Current Science • The U.S. National Toxicology Program in 2018 published final results from a multi-year, $30M study on electromagnetic radiation and health.They reported peer-reviewed findings of DNA damage, brain and heart tumors at the non- thermal level. • The FDA appears to be downplaying the results, and the now-retired scientist Dr. Ronald Melnick who designed the study indicates, "The NIT studies clearly show that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancers and other adverse health.effects." • The Ramazzini Institute in Italy published another large study in 2018 that confirms the NTP findings. • These support findings of epidemiological studies on wireless radiation that show increased cancer risks, especially for children. • Thousands of studies world-wide are reporting further evidence of long-term biological harm at the non-thermal level including autism,Alzheimer's, infertility,neurotoxicity,genotoxicity,DNA damage and more. • In the short-term, evidence is linking this form of non-thermal radiation to a new debilitating disease called electrosensitivity(ES)that commonly presents with one or more of the following: headaches,insomnia,nausea,dizziness, tinnitus,skin heating/flushing/tingling,fatigue,tachycardia,learning disabilities,impaired cognitive function,nose and ear bleeds, behavior issues and more. International Initiatives • See the EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention,diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses which indicates, "During the last 20 years,more than 20 position papers and resolutions regarding EMF and health have been adopted by EMF researchers and physicians. These include the Vienna EMF Resolution,Austria, 1998; Stewart Report,UK,2000; Salzburg Resolution,Austria,2000;Freiburg Appeal, Germany,2002; Catania Resolution,Italy, 2002;Irish Doctors' Environmental Association Statement,Ireland, 2005;Helsinki Appeal, S. 1268 Executive Summary 4 • Finland,2005;Benevento Resolution,Italy,2006;Venice Resolution, Italy, 2008; Porto Alegre Resolution,Brazil, 2009;Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Resolution,Russia,2001;International Doctors'Appeal, Europe,2012; and the Report of the Standing Committee on Health, Canada,2015." • Many other countries allow far less wireless radiation exposure to their citizens than the U.S., and many have governance in place to minimize public health risks. See the Environmental Health Trust for a summary of international policy actions on wireless. • In 2011 the WHO classified wireless radiation as a 2B Possible Human Carcinogen and today's science merits moving the classification to a known human carcinogen. • Leading world scientists have submitted an appeal to the United Nations and World Health Organization to protect the public from wireless radiation. They outline a plan to do so until the industry brings biologically safe technology to market. Columbia University's Dr. Martin Blank provides a three-minute introduction to the appeal here. • Longtime World Health Organization advisor Anthony B.Miller, M.D., indicates radiofrequency (RF) radiation from any source now fully meets the criteria to be classified as a "Group 1 carcinogenic to humans"agent. U.S. Federal Activity • After the first oncologist stated his patient died from tumors on the side of her brain that lined up with the antennas in her cell phone,the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) commissioned a$28M multi-year study that showed wireless technology is carcinogenic. The CTIA suppressed evidence of harm in the 1990s and did not inform the public. • In 1996,the FCC established thermal guidelines for radiation exposure based on engineering standards,not the scientific biological evidence that shows harm at the non-thermal level. • In 1997, the industry influenced the passage of the Telecommunications Act and lead local municipalities to believe there could be no recourse if citizens became ill or expressed concerns over radiation emissions from cell towers. They also buried disclaimers in the legal fine print of cell phone manuals indicating users should keep the devices at a distance from their bodies, else exceed the FCCs public radiation exposure guidelines. S. 1268 Executive Summary 5 • • Harvard University's Law School Center for Ethics published a 2015 report detailing these events and more. See Captured Agency:How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated bp the Industries it Presumably Regulates. • In 2018 The Nation conducted a similar special investigation,How Biu Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Sale:A Special Investigation, The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 50 rollout. • EMFs were addressed in a 2008 congressional hearing where scientists presented findings of increased penetration of cell phone radiation in the brains of children:https:/Avww.youtube.com/watch?v=h YhKblPlOo c In 2012 the Biolnitiative Report was published, summarizing evidence of harm from thousands of studies all over the world. • In 2013 the U.S. Government Accountability Office instructed the FCC to "formally reassess the current RF energy exposure limit, including its effects on human health."More.than 900 public comments from doctors, scientists, the American Academy of Pediatrics,the American Academy of Environmental Medicine and more have been submitted under Docket 13- 84,The FCC has not responded. • The Environmental Health Trust summarizes additional Policy activities including statements from the EPA,Department of the Interior,Radio Frequency Interagency Workgroup,U.S. Science Advisory Board and more. • The United States Access Board's IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality Project indicates electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA: https://www.access-board.goy/research/completed-research/indoor- environmental-quality/introduction • The Access Board recommends the following accommodations: https://www.access-board.t oy/research/completed-researchandoor- environmental-quality/recommendations-fo - r accommodations • Job Accommodation Network(JAN) is one of several services provided by the U.S.Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP). JAN offers the following Accommodation Ideas for Electromagnetic Sensitivity: S. 1268 Executive Summary 6 http://aslciamorg/soar/other/electrical.html • Israeli and New York lawyer Dafna Tachover has developed electrosensitivity from wireless technology and in September 2016 testified before the FCC's Disability Advisory Committee. See her five-minute testimony here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= cm0H63GLIW&feature=voutu.be Ms. Tachover is also building We Are The Evidence(WATE)to document that this issue is affecting constituents from all professions and stations in life. • On June 20, 2016,just weeks after the National Toxicology Program announced EMPs cause DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, former FCC Chairman Toni Wheeler indicated in a speech at the National Press Club the priority with SG is to be first to market,regardless of public health or safety. He states, "Turning innovators loose is far preferable to expecting committees and regulators to define the future. We won't wait for the standards to be first developed in the sometimes arduous standards-setting process or in a government-led activity." • Fifth-generation technology,or SG,will not go through buildings, walls, • ceilings, floors, etc., like 3G and 4G do. To get the faster speeds that 5G promises for the Internet of Things,the industry will need to put small cell antennas at close range to make those connections. 50 will still use 3G and 40 to operate, so existing antennas and cell towers will remain; 50 will add to the existing radiofrequency radiation infrastructure with toxic millimeter waves (MMW). We will have more antennas emitting hazardous radiation 24/7/365 at eye-levels where we live,work, go to school and play. • The industry is fast-tracking 50+federal bills to remove control from local municipalities to install small cell antennas/distributed antenna systems (DAS) throughout our neighborhoods every four to 12 houses. If not stopped,these bills will set the infrastructure for the Internet of Things, and allow hazardous radiation to be emitted on our citizens at street level 24/7. See S.19 MOBILE Now Act, 5.88 DIGIT Act. 5.1682 AIRWAVES Act,HR. 3895 Smatt Cities and Communities Act, and HR. 3901 Moving FIRST Act. • Not one to put all their eggs in one basket, the industry is also trying to push state-level 5G infrastructure legislation to take away home rule rights from municipalities. The Environmental Health Trust is tracking the bills. • In September 2017, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, recommended a moratorium to the European Union on the roll-out of the fifth generation,SG,for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. S. 1268 Executive Summary 7 ' I o The 2018 National Institutes of Health (NM)Health in Buildings Roundtable Conference featured a technology panel with wireless radiation experts warning of the harm from today's wireless exposures and offering safer solutions. Massachusetts Leads the Nation • o In the 2015/16 legislative session,the Joint Committee on Public Health reported out favorably S. 1222.An Act creating a special commission to study the health impacts of electromagnetic fields. Scientists, doctors,technologists and concerned citizens sent in testimony supporting the need to educate and protect citizens from wireless technology hazards. The bill did not progress further. o In the 2017/18 session, Senator Karen Spilka reintroduced the bill as S.1268 Resolve creating a special commission to examine the health impacts of electromagnetic fields to look at non-industry-funded science and recommend public protections. A panel of world experts held a briefing at the State House in 2015 to encourage legislation giving citizens the right to know wireless radiation is hazardous. See leading scientist and Nobel Peace Prize Co-Laureate Dr.Devra Davis and retired long-time Microsoft Canada President Frank Clegg address the legislature here. o Following the above legislative briefing, the panel of world experts held a standing-room only public forum in Framingham: o Dr. Devra Davis,Ph.D. in Framingham,MA talks about wireless radiation • Frank Clegg speaks more casually to the Framingham forum audience with details on what industry and other countries are doing, including •France's recent ban on wi-fi in preschools • Child Psychologist, School Consultant,Researcher and Author Dr. Catherine Steiner-Adair speaks of the developmental,social mid emotional impact technology is having on our children • Dr. R.S. Sharma from India speaks on health and environmental impacts • of mobile phones and other wireless devices. and how India has lowered • their public radiation exposure limits by 90% o Janet Newton,President ofEMR Policy Institute speaks on wi-f dangers for rooftop workers S. 1268 Executive Summary 8 • Framingham Board of Health Director Mike HUED speaks on a desire to implement right-to-know labeling in retail stores, and wired technology in schools • Dr. Devra Davis, 0&A with OB/GYN on dangers of Wi-fi on children and pregnant women • Dr. Devra Davis, O&A with Ashland school board member on dangers of Wi-Fi &children • National Grid is piloting the utility"smart"grid in Worcester,installing microwave radiation emitting meters on homes without informed consent. The project is being examined by the MA Attorney General's Office for cost overruns and public health implications. . • Senator Michael Moore introduced 5.1864: An Act relative to utilities. smart meters. and ratepayers' rights to give citizens the choice of using a utility "smart"meter or a traditional non-radiation-emitting mechanical analog meter. • Harvard's Professor Lawrence Lessig is representing Berkeley, CA pro bono in their attempts to inform the public on the right to know what the fine print disclaimers say in mobile device manuals. The city ordinance passed and the industry lost three court attempts to block it. Senator Julian Cyr has introduced two bills to give Massachusetts citizens the right to know too: 5.107 An Act relative to disclosure of radiofrequency notifications(requires warning labels on radiation-emitting products)and 5.108 An Act relative to the safe use of hand- held devices by children(requires posting of safety notices at point of sale). The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure has received an extension to examine this issue. • Representative Carolyn Dykema introduced H.2030 An Act relative to best management practices for wireless in schools and public institutions of higher education,which was discharged by the Joint Committee on Education then reported out favorably by the Joint Committee on Public Health before being sent to study, • School districts throughout the Commonwealth are beginning to seek guidance on EMF protections in school.Parents and administrators in Ashland, Worcester, Framingham, Brookline,Dover-Sherbom, Medway,Pepperell,Lexington, Concord, Sudbury, Wilbraham, Dedham, Shrewsbury, Southborough,Belmont, Newburyport and elsewhere are examining the issue. S. 1268 Executive Summary 9 • U Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has issued the first-in- the-nation Wi-Fi Radiation in Schools Report advising hard-wiring with wi-ti turned off. Dr.Robert Knorr,MA Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health Director is also drafting public health fact sheets on EMFs. California issued a cell phone radiation fact sheet December 2017. (Note: Maryland has a bill this session too,House Bill 866:AN ACT concerning Primary and Secondary Education—Health and Safety Guidelines and Procedures —Digital•Devices.) 1 • Local boards of health in Ashland.Framingham, Southborough and Pepperell have begun discussing measures to protect their citizens from EMFs. • Residents in Hamilton, Weston,Wayland, Sherborn and Framingham have sought protections from cell tower and small cell antenna installations. • Towns like Randolph have already begun putting by-laws in place to retain local decision-making control for wireless communication systems as industry pushes to take that right away from our municipalities through federal bills S.19 MOBILE Now Act and S.88 DIGIT Act. Other towns are examining proactive measures too. • Building commissioners and inspectors discussed this issue at the 2017 annual conference of the Massachusetts Association of Building Commissioners. • The Massachusetts Association of School Committees and Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents shared information on wireless radiation at their 2016 and 2017 convention. a The MBTA has rejected a commuter rail wi-fi upgrade project that would put hundreds of 74'monopoles in historic and residential areas;they too are examining the biological hazards of wireless radiation. o A child at the prestigious Fay School in Southborough has been diagnosed with electromagnetic sensitivity caused by the school's industrial strength wi-fi system. • The school declined to grant reasonable accommodations so there is a federal ADA lawsuit underway in Worcester. Other children are also suffering symptoms at the Fay School and elsewhere. In a ground-breaking ruling, the judge has accepted expert testimony confirming there is harm at the non-thennal level. • In 2004,the Brookline Fire Fighters were instrumental in developing the International Fire Fighters Association position paper opposing cell towers at fire stations after fire fighters became ill, S. 1268 Executive Summary 10 • • SAW'. a Ashland Public Schools has become the first in the nation to adopt Best Practices • for Mobile Dev ices to protect students and staff. The non-industry funded scientists tell us hard-wired Internet connections with the wi-fi antennas turned off is the only safe solution, but this was a courageous first step in the absence of higher authorities to advise them. Parents and teachers' unions throughout the country are discussing Ashland's Best Practices and encouraging their schools to do the same. MAS6 • • Ashland Public Library is the first in the nation to host a six-part film and discussion series on Electromagnetic Radiation and Health. met,g. • AshlandAPublic Library is also the first in the nation to put on loan an Acoustimeter so residents and employees can measure the amount of radiation emitted in their homes,offices,schools and places of leisure. WACA-TV helped to produce a 23-minute public service video to show how to use the meter and offer suggestions for rethediation. • Pepperell Community Media released a five-part cable series on The Dangers of Wi-H aired in communities all over the United States. Financial Impact • The science is showing that one of the biological effects of wireless radiation's constant pulse is that it causes a leakage in the cell membrane at the voltage- gated calcium channels(VGCCs)which control many of our bodies' systems. This leakage creates a chemical reaction outside the cell wall that produces a very destructive free radical called peroxynitrite. • Peroxynitrite is linked to not only cancer and heart disease, but to 40 other escalating chronic illnesses that have more than doubled since 1990.Data culled from U.S. government databases on disease stemming from peroxynitrite show economic impact for medical costs,lost income and medical research is estimated to be over$2.5 trillion annually. • Insurers including Lloyd's of London are no longer covering EMF exposure risks, and the financial liability may fall to the state as it imposes wireless infrastructure and systems onto their citizens and schools. California's Department of Finance opposed their heir SG infrastructure bill, SB- 649 based on financial analysis. Common Points of Confusion S. 1268 Executive Summary 11 • • U When first joining the conversation on the health effects of EMFs it is easy to get confused and overwhelmed by conflicting information. Please see EMT' Points of Confusion vs. Fact to help make sense of what you will find in your research, or what you might hear from industry representatives. The Urgency The industry knows the NTP study results are due out at the end of 2018 so they are furiously pushing legislation at state and federal levels to take away home rule rights so they can be first to market with toxic 50 and the Internet of Things (IoT). • In 2018,Martin Pall,PhD,Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences explains why 50 will be extremely harmful: 50: Great risk for EU, U.S.and International Health: Compelling evidence for eight distinct types of great harm caused by electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures and the mechanism that causes them • Arthur Firstenberg explains"phased array", the most dangerous aspect of 5G cellular antennas: http://www,eellphonetaskforce.org/5g-from-blankets-to-bullets/ • In September 2017 over 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries sent a declaration to officials of the European Commission demanding a moratorium on the increase of cell antennas for planned 50 expansion.Experts have also signed on from the U.S. and other non-European countries: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B 14R6QNkmaXuelFrNWRQcThNVOU/view Solutions • With your help, this problem is solvable. The International EMF Scientists (www.emfscientist.org)have already laid out a plan in their Appeal to the World Health Organization and the United Nations. We each just have to own our part of the solution and develop the political will to get started. o Wireless networks are not as fast,secure, reliable or energy-efficient as wired systems. The policy paper, "Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks,"indicates the U.S. should instead invest in hard- wired telecommunications infrastructure to support economic growth,bridge the digital divide and diminish risks to security,privacy, public health and the environment. • S. 1268 Executive Summary 12 • • You can listen to a 2018 Commonwealth Club audio presentation on Re- Inventing Wires: https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/reinventing-wires- fi Lure-land)Ines-and-networks • The film Generation Zapped is being released for world-wide private and community screenings to educate the public on wi-fi hazards and solutions for safer technology use. It won Best Documentary at the 2018 D.C.Independent Film Festival and was shown at the Massachusetts State House, Google headquarters, and elsewhere around the U.S.and the world. Generation Zapped is a great tool to educated the public and is now widely available on- line. • The non-profit Wireless Education is poised with on-line,training courses to quickly educate Schools &Families and the Corporate workplace. Please, let's work with the industry to bring biologically safe technology to market, and inform the public immediately of ways to reduce current exposures to microwave radiation from today's wireless technology. Thank you for reviewing this information. Please contact technology safety educator Cece Doucette for additional information at c2douce@gmail.com or 508-395-4212. S. 1268 Executive Summary 13 EMF Points of Confusion vs. Fact Many are surprised to learn the electromagnetic fields(EFMs) emitted by wireless technology are biologically hazardous,and they often get push-back from others when they open the conversation.This fact sheet provides information to help sort fact from misinformation and identifies solutions for safer technology use. Point ofoconfusiahr r .1 .,+ ..t �'v -7s n FACT ., 'L.. t`r.�� ./�t3 F'k Si q4 -a :� ''� ✓i. f`' �ti tf F £ G 5 ti w- �✓ `^' L -,r W td--+1 . i RT F i 5 §-t� � 4,, is ' r n �lY � , �? ✓e 1 s� ry n .. r x a �. .$ n.,3 r': "�r� ,y.� d � `5 X.LJ' ''c Y ..m..r...,. .-a.r'.'e 't. _.h:�.3's.l r ..se4,�-' .. -;.. .-ay. 'L,ti'•.r. ...a,.u.-:. .n.._�'.S-*..`�`�i�_nt;T� �i1i The FCC says wi-fi is fine. FCC guidelines are outdated for the non-ionizing electromagnetic fields(EMFs)generated by electric and wireless devices. The U.S.Government Accountability Office in 2012 instructed the FCC to bring their public radiation exposure limits in line with current science. Hundreds of formal comments have been submitted to the FCC by EMF scientists,doctors and the American Academy of Pediatrics.The FCC has failed to respond and continues to promote wireless technology. To understand how the FCC came to protect corporate profit over public health,see Harvard's Captured Agency:How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates. The manufacturers make it look Most consumers,and even many who work in the industry,are unaware of the manufacturers'fine print that like all wi-fi all the time is the way comes with each device indicating one should never keep an active device on one's body or radiation to go. exposure may exceed even the FCC's outdated non-protective guidelines.Additionally,science indicates we should have invoked the Precautionary Principle decades ago when evidence of harm was first found,and not exposed the public until proven safe. We have not done this in the U.S. but other countries have.This table illustrates the disparity in exposure levels. There are studies showing no No evidence of harm is not the same as safe.This technology was brought to market without safety testing evidence of harm. and has never been proven safe. Using the tobacco industry playbook,the telecommunications industry produces its own scientific studies under conditions designed to show no evidence of harm.This creates doubt among consumers so they will continue to purchase wireless products. Dr. Henry Lai provides insights here. The non-industry funded international EMF scientists have done the research proving wireless radiation is hazardous and are appealing to the WHO and UN to take action to protect the public. There are not many studies done Cellular technology came first so that is why the majority of studies,which can take years to complete, use cell on wi-fi. phones. However,all mobile devices and wireless technologies operate in a biologically hazardous segment of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum.So,what cell phone studies reveal holds true for 2G,3G,4G,56,wi-Fi and the Internet of Things too.We have thousands of studies showing man-made EMFs are hazardous to all biological species—humans,plants,animals,and insects--including the pollinators needed to grow our food. Polnt of Confusion z a 5 FQCTtir Y N 'tae ✓ tt � ,r .'..q, ce., 9iu fl "*ry a`s.� Cx vrfU..ri '�1 ar:I h s xz 1 r 3 pa: r.,,, ..:..- °t_�,.;u.rw.. .... . .. 4. e.,ry :.. t ,^ .. .k ...w4.42: ..._z.Y.:., F:a "CF . Surely we would know if this were Advertising dollars influence media content,and telecommunications,energy and technology companies are an issue. among the top advertisers. Media executives will not allow true investigative journalism into this issue or their revenues will drop so we rarely hear of wi-fi harm in mainstream media.The non-industry funded O'Dwyer Report may be the only journalistic outlet covering this issue extensively in the U.S. The rest will say more research is needed,to appease industry advertisers which keeps consumers taking their chances with the latest wireless products. Our education agencies do not see Few state or federal agencies have investigated this issue because the industry has been so effective at this as an issue. suppressing evidence of harm while offering financial incentives to adopt EMF products and infrastructure.In our top-down education system,local schools often do not feel empowered to act. However, legal precedents are being set that leave schools,public agencies and companies at risk.The insurance industry has identified EMFs as one of the top emerging hazards. Lloyds of London and other insurers do not cover EMF damages so schools and businesses can be held directly responsible for harm. Workers compensation cases have also been awarded for EMF damages in the workplace,and teachers unions are beginning to request hard-wired work environments. Click here for additional information.Ashland Public Schools, MA has become the first in the nation to adopt Best Practices for Mobile Devices and others are beginning to investigate. We need wireless for the 21st The industry identified children as an untapped market and began their 21st Century Classroom campaign to century classroom. put a wireless device in the hands of every child. In addition to biological harm from wi-fi,studies are showing excessive screen time is harming neurological brain development. This is causing impaired social and emotional skills,digital addiction and poorer educational outcomes. Finland students do not use computers. Some say electrosensitivity doesn't The United States Access Board's IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality Project indicates electromagnetic exist sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA and recommends accommodations.Just as Lyme Disease was dismissed by medical practitioners before it was widely understood,today's doctors, nurses, psychologists and social workers in many countries have yet to be trained to diagnose and treat electrosensitivity(ES).School nursing records often indicate an increase in one or more common symptoms among students and staff following the installation of wireless systems: headaches,tachycardia, bloody noses, ear bleeds,skin rashes,nausea,tinnitus(loud ringing in the ears),vertigo, inability to concentrate,depression, anxiety,insomnia.See also the EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses and the Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF related health problems and illnesses(EMF syndrome). ' EMF Points of Confusion vs. Fact Contact Cece Doucette,c2douce @gmail.com 2 �'!.{ Y r t4 .T C 4 ";l lii''r }[ 3x `•ii zygs s. Cn P� ♦'a< x '� e '€ fi'�a, 5 .w a i r ♦♦ n 3 n.r R - a > i a.a"'a a1 , +.. a- ^v , t pent Of COIIfUSton a�C..,r' FAC I'rr %'•> NJ.�'Sz, - r ♦ 't re A .., r a.+ 3 Y a `s 4 x s y s+ 4.yu ,i'.^w=lt �. rn.� 1 ♦,� �' z. The radiation drops off with This is true,in physics the inverse-square law states the intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. distance from the source of that physical quantity.While it is good practice to keep one's distance from a radiation-emitting device,the hazardous effects still occur at a distance. It is the pulsed,spiked,erratic wave that causes biological damage. Many routers and cell antennas send and receive data at long distances,and those erratic pulses,though spread out with distance,go through our bodies just as they go through buildings, walls, ceilings,etc.They still cause biological effects as a distant bullet would,and are cumulative over time. Respected engineers, physicists, Most professionals have been taught in school and in their work that there must be enough heat from a medical professionals and wireless device to raise the temperature of skin tissue in order to cause harm. Non-industry funded science technologists in our community has now proven this thermal effect premise is false. Thousands of studies show biological effects at the non- want our children to have wi-fi in thermal, non-ionizing level;most recently the U.S. National Toxicology Program study found DNA damage as schools. well as brain and heart cancer. Professionals in all sectors will benefit from education on EMFs. There is nothing we can do,wi-fi is Leading non-industry funded EMF scientists from around the world have already sent a formal appeal to the everywhere. World Health Organization and United Nations to address this"emerging public health crisis".They succinctly outline specific measures to solve this problem,the first of which is to protect children and pregnant women. Until policy catches up with science and biologically safe technology is brought to market: • Use hard-wired connections with antennas turned off(cell,data, Bluetooth,wi-fi,locator)to access the internet safely and avoid legal exposure. Hard-wired is not only safer, it is faster, more reliable and more secure than wireless. Use Ethernet cables and adapters to hard-wire routers, laptops, • tablets,etc.Clear sleeping areas of EMFs,and never give to or use an active device near a child. • Choose corded baby monitors,gaming devices,entertainment systems;turn off any wi-fi antennas. • Use corded landline phones,they are safer and more reliable,especially during power outages.Avoid DECT cordless phones,they have highEMFemissions.Cell.phones can be forwarded tolandlines. • Keep analog utility meters,they do not emit the electromagnetic radiation that"smart" meters do. • Work with public servants to keep wireless infrastructure-away from where We live;work, learn,play. The U.S.Collaborative for High Performance Schools provides Low-EMF Best Practices to establish a hard- , wired school environment and 'prohibit use of personal wi4i devices in school,except during emergencies. See Wirelesseducation.org,a non-profit chaft that distills thescience and medical recommendations into easy=to:learn concepts in.affordable 40=minute;e learning courses or families,schbdls:and::workpfaces. EMF Points of Confusion vs. Fact Contact Cece Doucette,c2douce @gmail.com 3 Is ELECTROMAGNETIC f WATOO . Really That Dangerous? • Humans: Radiofrequency Guidelines & Effects Power Density (µW/cmz) 10000 Canada,Germany,Japan,NZL,USA nilcrowav hearing � e 1000 - leukemia,skin melanoma,bladder cancer 100 lVtransmitter,humans Australia'-3,. 4 'Auckland,NZL Impaired memory&visual 10 `� �'---'reaction time,humans Italy' A I China s ; 1 trt ,-�" In cm dqr ea ache,dizziness,fatigue, Bulgaria,Hungary�l weakness,insomnia,humans i ,� Russia Switzerland 0:1 A altered-white blbcd`eelfs„school'chTdren Salzburg,Austria,.pulsed 0.01' I 4 impaired motor function,reaction time, 0.001 r= - _ memory,attention,sex ratio •,p childhood leukemia New South Wales,Australia i 0.0001 decreased cell growth(epithelia amnion),humans 0.00001 - . _ - - - human sensation 0.000001 _ sleep disorders,weakness,fatigue,pain 0.0000001 - — -- _ -_ =Effects:Humans 0.00000001 _ ®Guidelines 0.000000001 - EEG altered,humans Data from 9rstenberg 2001 0.0000000001 Public Health SOS:The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution - 55 • • _ v c Comment Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its oa 0 GonWh impact As the Planetary Health Alliance moves forward after a anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid- productive second annual meeting,a discussion on the 20th century, and levels will surge considerably again, rapid global proliferation of artificial electromagnetic as technologies like the Internet of Things and Sc add fields would now be apt. The most notable is the millions more radiofrequency transmitters around us. blanket of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, Unprecedented human exposure to radiofrequency largely microwave radiation generated for wireless electromagnetic radiation from conception until death communication and surveillance technologies, as has been occurring in the past two decades. Evidence mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged of its effects on the CNS, including altered neuro- exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation development" and increased risk of some neuro- has serious biological and health effects. However, degenerative diseases,�5 is a major concern considering public exposure regulations in most countries con- the steady increase in their incidence. Evidence exists tinue to be based on the guidelines of the International for an association between neurodevelopmental or Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection'and . Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,'which Joe —ICNIRP(occupational peak) al 2010s,typical were established in the 1990s on the belief that only —ICNIRP(occupational) 01980s,typical ICNIRP(public peak) 01950s,typical acute thermal effects are hazardous.Prevention of tissue 106 —ICNIRP(public) 0 Natural background heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is a now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical — 0e and physiological interference. For example, acute a • non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human 1 1 brain metabolism by NIH scientists; electrical activity o in the brain;and systemic immune responses.=Chronic 0 1- I exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage61 and cancer risks Laboratory ?' ° - studies,including large rodent studies by the US National ` '0f - S s Toxicology Program' and Ramazzini Institute of Italy,'° , lm m confirm these biological and health effects in vivo.As we 2 ___ - address the threats to human health from the changing .... u • .` . - environmental conditions due to human activity," the increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic IN-� I `� v laagg radiation needs to be included in this discussion. 'rn� ®' ' .- a -x �r..3 yam.. Due to the exponential increase in the use of wireless v u o i so55� personal communication devices(eg,mobile or cordless °" a e, e 9 phones and WiFi or Bluetooth-enabled devices) and the infrastructure facilitating them, levels of exposure a Ios • 109 10° to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation around 1MHz • 16Hz 1THz Frequency(Hz) the 1 GHz frequency band, which is mostly used for modern wireless communications, have increased from Figure:Typical maximum daily exp osure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from man-made and natural powerfuxdensities in comparison with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation extremely low natural levels by about 1019 times(figure). Protection safety guidelines' Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is also used Anthropogenicradiofrequency electromagnetic radiation levels are illustrated for different periods in the evolution of wireless communication technologies.These exposure levels are frequently experienced daily by for radar,security scanners,smart meters, and medical people using various wireless devices.The levels are instantaneous and not time-averaged over 6 minutes as I equipment (MRI, diathermy, and • radiofrequency specified by International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection for thermal reasons.Figure modified from Philips and(amburn°with permission.Natural levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation were 1 ablation). It is plausibly the most rapidly increasing based on the NASA reviewreportCR-166661." www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 2 December 2018 e512 1 Comment • • behavioural disorders in children and exposure to natural electromagnetic fields, such as the Schumann wireless devices," and experimental evidence, such as Resonance that controls the weather and climate, the Yale.finding, shows that prenatal exposure could have not been properly studied. Similarly, we do not cause structural and functional changes in the brain adequately understand the effects of anthropogenic associated with ADHD-like behaviour.te These findings radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on other deserve urgent attention. natural and man-made atmospheric components Fortheoceanie Radlofrequency At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory or the ionosphere. It has been widely claimed that Scientific Advisory Association Association, an independent scientific organisation, radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, being non- seewww.orsaa.org volunteering scientists have constructed the world's ionising radiation, does not possess enough photon largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed energy to cause DNA damage. This has now been • studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation proven wrong experimenta1ly.1&39 Radiofrequency and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower electromagnetic radiation causes DNA damage frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies apparently through oxidative stress,'similar to near-UV (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, radiation,which was also long thoughtto be harmless. animal,and plant experimental systems and population At a time when environmental health scientists studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68.2%) tackle serious global issues such as climate change and have demonstrated significant biological or health chemical toxicants in public health,there is an urgent effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic need to address so-called electrosmog. A genuine electromagnetic fields. We have published our evidence-based approach to the risk assessment and preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic regulation of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of will help the health of us all, as well as that of our experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress planetary home. Some government health authorities endpoints showed significant effects?This weight of have recently taken steps to reduce public exposure to scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation by regulating the deployment of wireless technologies poses no use of wireless devices by children and recommending health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal preferential use of wired communication devices in radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence general,but this ought to be a coordinated international Forthelnternational EMF supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by effort. ScientistAppealseewww. 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on emfsclentlstorg the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively *PriyankaBondara,David 0Carpenter petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate Oceania RadiofrequencyscientificAdvisory Association, measures to reduce public exposure to artificial Scarborough,QLD 4020,Australia(PB);and Institute for Health • and the Environment,University at Albany,Rensselaer,NY,USA electromagnetic fields and radiation. (Doc) Evidence also exists of the effects of radiofrequency pri.bandara @orsaa.org electromagnetic radiation on flora and fauna. For We declare no competing interests.WethankAlasdair Philips forassistancewi th example, the reported global reduction in bees and to figure and Victor Leach and Steve Wellerforessistencewi th the0RsAA Database:which has enabled our overview of the scientific evidence in this area other insects is plausibly linked to the increased of research. radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in the Copyright®TheAuthor(s).Published by Elsevier Ltd.This is an Open Access environment" Honeybees are among the species ertideunderthe CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. that use magnetoreception, which is sensitive to 1 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric,magnetic,and anthropogenic electromagnetic fields,for navigation. electromagnetic fields(up t0 BOO GHz).Health Phys 1998;74:494-522. Man-made electromagnetic fields range from 2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.IEEECRS.7-2014—IEEE recommended practice for radio frequency safety programs,3 kHzto extremely low frequency (associated with electricity 3o0GHz.IEEEStandardsAssociat ion,2014.https://standards.ieee.org/ standard/C95_7-2014.html(accessed Nov6,2018). supplies and electrical appliances) to low, medium, 3 Volkow ND,Tomasi D,Wang GJ,etal.Effectsofcell phone radiofrequency high,and extremely high frequency(mostly associated signal exposure an brain glucose metabolism.JAMA 2011;305:808-13. 4 Schmid MR,Loughran SP,Regels),etal.Sleep EEG alterations:effects of with wireless communication). The potential effects different pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic of these anthropogenic electromagnetic fields on 6eld.JsleepR 2012;21:50-53. e513 www.thelancetcom/planetary-health Vol 2 December2018 • • Comment 5 Kimata H.Microwave radiation from cellular phones increases 13 RainesJK.NASA-CR-166661.Electromagnetic field interactions with the allergen-specific lgEproduction.Allergy 2005;60:838-39. human body:observed effects and theories.NASATechnical Reports 6 Zothansiama,Zosangzuali M,Lalramdinpuil M,Jagetia GC.Impact of Server,1981.httpsJ/ntrs.nasagov/archive/nesa/asi.ntrs.nasa. radiofrequenry radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral gov119810017132.pdf(accessed Oct 10,2018). blood lymphocytes of humans residing inthevicinity of mobile phone base 14 Divan HA,Khelfets L Obel C,Olsen J.Prenatal and postnatal exposure to stations.Electromagn Biol Med 2017;36:295-305. cell phone use and behavioral problems In children.Epidemialegy 2008; 7 Bandara P,Weller S.Biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency 19:523-29. electromagnetic radiation—time fora paradigm shift in regulation of 15 Zhang X,HuangWJ,Chen WW.Microwaves and Abheimer%disease. public exposure.RadlatProtettAustratas2017;34:2-6. ExpTherMed2016;12:1969-72. 8 Carlberg M,Hardell L.Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use 16 AldadTS,Gan G,GaoXB,Taylor HS.Fetal radiofrequenry radiation andglloma risk using the badford hill viewpoints From 1965 on exposure from 800.1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects association or causation.Biomed Res lnt 2017;2017:9218486. neurodevelopment and behavior in mlce.Scl Rep 2012;2:312. 9 Cell phone radio frequency radiation.NatiooalToxicology Program, 17 Taye RR,Deka MK,Rahman A,Batharl M.Effect of electromagnetic US Department of Health and Human Services,2018.https://ntp.niehs.nih. radiation of cell phone tower cm foraging behaviour ofAsiatic honeybee, gov/results/areas/cellphones(ndexhtml(accessed Nov 8,2018). Apiscerono F.(Hymenoptera:Apidae).JEntomolZeolStud 2017;5:1527-29. 10 Falclani L Bua L,Tibaldi E,etal.Report of final results regarding brain and 18 Smith-Roe SL,Wyde ME,Stout MD,at al.Evaluation of the genotoxicity of heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until cell phone adiofrequency radiation In male and female rats and mice natural death to mobile phone radiofrequenry field representative of a following subchronlc exposure.Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics 1.8GHz GSM base station environmental emision.Environ Res 2018; SocietyAnnualConference;Raleigh,NC,USA;Sept 9-13,2017. 165:496-503. 19 Ruediger HW.Genotoxic effects ofradio frequencyelectromagnetic fields. 11 Myers 55.Planetary health;protecting human health on a rapidly changing Pethaphystology2009;16:89-102. planet Lancet2018;390:2860-68. 12 Philips A,Lamborn G.Natural and human-activity-generated electromagnetic fields on Earth.Childhood Cancer 2012;London; April 24-26,2012. • • • • www.thelancetcom/planetary-health Vol 2 December2018 5514 i I-' • the rtale Robert D.Kane was actively employed with Motorola in the telecommunications industry for more than 30 years. He was the user'sbrainl phones is absorbed in a small region of directly involved with programs and projects for the design and development of portable cell phones,radio frequency The CTIA(Cellular Telecommunications Industry radios,microwave telecommunications systems,video display Association) representatives tell industry insiders that systems, and biological effects research. scientists are very dangerous and if the scientific process is used the scientists would come back with more This is what Kane writes in the final section of his 2001 book questions than answers, which is very risky. This Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette. information comes as part of a series of CTIA seminars held to teach cellular industry people how to wage the public relations battle for the minds of the public. This is "Damage Control"II-A Continuing Public Deception termed research by press release or research by public relations Many of the problems of the industry could have been instead of good old-fashioned scientific research. Of course,research by press release is more predictable than avoided had the influences of the scientific researchers superseded those of the product marketers. But the the laboratory research,of biological could provide industry chose to ignore researchers who were providing embarrassing evidence oown s of portab e cellular telephones unfavorable answers. The industry instead organized a However, p are now warned that if they are concerned about the broad and comprehensive public relations campaign to they radiation then the should limit their use to the shortest • persuade users of portable cellular telephones.that the possible and completely avoid use except for operation was safe. The cellular telephone industry emergency situations. Is it possible that by now even the engaged in the business of preaching a "belief system." manufacturers of these "high-tech" wonder devices and Never mind that the most current research their association spokesmen are prepared to admit that findings report DNA damage to brain tissue as a result of they may have unleashed the next unseen plague on exposure to radio frequency radiation. humanity? Probably not-there are still too many Never mind that recent conferences sponsored by executives and managers looking for their next the cellular telephone industry manufacturers and service promotion and continuing their long careers. providers, were dominated by reports of research The cellular telephone industry is the observer or findings that show that most of the energy radiating from spectator, at a game.... It is nothing less than cellular Russian roulette. The only difference is that with regular Russian roulette the results are immediate. You know *Note: Since this book was published one would think that immediately if you're a loser or not. With cellular the cellular industry might have reduced radiation from Russian roulette you may not know for years if you are cell phones and devices,but that is not the case. Ninety percent of the phones tested in France within the last 4 years the loser. You may not know of a brain tumor until five have exceeded safety guidelines-sometimes by 3 or 4 times. or ten years after the day you"lost" at the game. You pick up the phone once, twice, ten times a day Germany and S.Korea are advising the public about which -or only a few times a month. But each and every time phones give out the least radiation. you're gambling that "this time" won't be the occasion when the radiation causes irreparable damage to your Centinel,a start up cellular company has a new phone in the works which promises an independent data privacy brain. It only takes a seemingly small trauma at a very sliding switch on its phones as well as a detector that will small location to result in tissue damage, DNA damage, alert users about strength of ambient signals in their or chromosome mutations. environment. This nonscientific industry experiment using the general population is unique in the history of humanity. Never before has such a large "guinea pig" experiment been performed.-Even the government experiments with nudear radiation only exposed a few thousand • uninformed people. This bold experiment may expose virtually the entire segment of the population that can afford to operate the high-tech portables. It is cellular telephone Russian roulette. Go ahead and make the call. Do you feel lucky today? • • • GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT BAN OR WARN AGAINST WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY•Cellular Phone Task Force 3/31/19,4:11 PM GOVERNMENTS .AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT BAN OR WARN AGAINST WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY 1993:Environmental Protection Agency(EPA):The FCC's exposure standards are"seriously flawed" Official comments to the FCC on guidelines for evaluation of electromagnetic effects of radio frequency radiation,FCC Docket ET 93-62,November 9,1993. 1993:Food and Drug Administration(FDA):"FCC rules do not address the Issue of long-term,chronic exposure to RF fields."Comments of the FDA to the FCC,November 10,1993. 1993:National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH):The FCC's standard is inadequate because it"is based on only one dominant mechanism—adverse health effects caused by body heating." Comments of NIOSH to the FCC,January 11,1994. 1994:Amateur Radio Relay League Bio-Effects Committee:°The FCC's standard does not protect against non-thermal effects."Comments of the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee to the FCC,January 7,1994. 2000:UK Department of Education:Children under 16 should not use cell phones except in an emergency. htt o://www.cellular.co.za/news2000/news-08052000uk schools warned ovef_radiation.htrm 2002:Interdisciplinary Society for Environmental Medicine(3000 physicians in Germany)recommends banning cell phone use by children and banning cell phones and cordless phones In preschools,schools,hospitals,nursing homes,events halls,public buildings and vehicles.httP://wwwcellphonetaskforce.ore fwp-content/uploads/2018/11/Freiburger-Aopeal-orlg aln I-Enalibp_df 2003:American Bird Conservancy and Forest Conservation Council:Brought a lawsuit against the FCC because millions of migratory birds were being disoriented by microwave radiation and crashing into cell towers.http.:/ /awfacemaispfay,cfmANire ID/1498 2004:International Association of Flre Fighters opposes communication antennas on fire stations. htlp:4 vww.laff org/HS/Facts/CellTowerFinal asp 2005:Salzburg,Austria's Public Health Department bans WLAN and DECT phones in public schools. Ilp://www..safelnschool org/2011/01/wl-fi- js-removed-from-schools-a nd.htm I August 2005:Austrian Medical Association:Warns against Wi-Fi,cordless phones,and cell phone use by children. htto'/Avww1heoeoolesinitiative.org/Wi8 and Schools.html August 2005:Vienna Medical Association warns against Wi-FI,and cell phone use by children up to age 16.hh ://freiburcer-appell- 2012.i nfo/media/EM F%20Guideline%200AK-AG%2O%202012%2003%2003.pdf 2006:Frankfurt,Germany's government states It will not install WFi In Its schools until it has been shown to be harmless. 1itp://www.icems.eu/dots/deutscher_i21LLfliaag_plf 2006:UK schools remove their wireless networks:Prebendal Preparatory School,Chichester,West Sussex;Ysgol Pantycelyn School in Carmarthenshirem,Wales;and Stowe School,in Buckinghamshire,England.London limes,November 20,2006. hllp9lwww.tlmesonline co.uk/tol/life and tyle/educationlarticle642575.ece 2007:Ballfnderry Primary School,Ireland:Removed Wi-Fl to protect young children.!ifp://www.safeinschool.org/2011/01/wi-fi-is-removed-from- schnois-and.html 2007 Bavaria,Germany's Parliament recommends against Wi-FI in schools.htlp://wwa.icems.eu/docs/deutscher bundestagpf 2007 Australian Democrats:The"explosion in wireless communications technology"is causing widespread illness. h1,112 ,democrats o g,au/dots/2007/Joining flts ExecSummary df 2007:European Environmental Agency,Europe's top environmental watchdog,calls for immediate action to reduce exposure to radiation from 1/41-Fi,mobile phones and their masts.)gip:/Avww.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/arficie.cfm?c. Id=28objectid=10463870 2008:International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety(comprised of scientists from 16 nations):Recommends limiting cell phone use by children,teenagers,pregnant women and the elderly.h!p'//wmvicems eu/resolution.htnt • return to top of page • hitp://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/governments-and-organizations-that-ban-or-warn-against-Wireless-technology/ Page 1 of 4 GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT BAN OR WARN AGAINST WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY•Cellular Phone Task Force 3/31/19,4:11 PM • • 2007:Therold,Ontario closes down its citywide Wi-Fi pilot scheme.h11p glastnnburynaturalhealth.co.uk/WhyWi-FL.html 2008:Lakehead University,Ontario bans Wi-Fl on campus.blip'/ . :/n-w/ ...../o . . . /2010/08/15lontario-wif.html 2008:Madhya Pradesh,India:Bans cell phones In schools by both students and teachers. http:Aww..indiaedunews.net/Madhya Pradesh/Teachers,students_unhappy with mobile phone ban in schools_5241/ 2008:National Library of France:Removes Wi-Fi because of health concerns and limits installation to cable connections.hltpi/wwwnexl- sip.o_gr /pdf/FranceNa tionalLibraryGivesUpwiF107042008,per 2008:Paris,France removes Wi-FI from four public libraries because of health concerns.bltpJ/www accessory 'r, •u .,. 2 _ 0286- 35451555`ITkt 2008 Sainte-Genevieve University,Paris:Removes Wi-FI from Its library because of health concerns.Mtp://www.next- up.org1 pdf/AnalysisW FiHot SootsDeactivationSainteGenevieveLlbraiy 052006 Paris24 .pdf 2008:Progressive Librarians Guild recommends against wireless technology in libraries.hllp:/Aibr orcor /l /wifresnlulon pha 2008:Russian National Committee for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection warns that cell phones are unsafe even for short conversations. Children under 16,pregnant women,epileptics,and people with memory loss,sleep disorders and neurological diseases should never use cell phones.http:!/www radiationresearch orglodfs/rncnim children p f 2008 Sebastopol,California:Reneges on its contract to install citywide Wi-Fi.http://wv w.boingboing.netI2008/03/24/town-of-sebastopol-c.htmi 2008:University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute:Children should never use a cell phone except in an emergency.frittp:lAwi post- gazette.com/py108205/898803-114.stm 2008:Voice(UK Teachers Union)calls for a ban on Wi-Fl in schools. hilo•/N,awvvoicelheunion orc uk/index.crmloaael lion . ant nt Tm/.id/1 6/navid/4 4foarentitl/330 2009:Herouville Saint-Clair,France:Bans Wi-FI in public schools.b2p://www.wifinschools.org,uk/4.html • 2009:Irish Doctors Environmental Association:Warns that current safety guidelines are"not appropriate.°bitp://www.ideaireland.org( 2009:Karnataka State,India:Bans cell phones in all schools and pre-university colleges. hit.'...... rl. . 'II I. 1• • _•r••• • ...r .r I u May 2009:U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service urges Congress to focus on the potential connection between electromagnetic fields and"Bee Colony Collapse°. lip•//eleclromagneticheallh orc/electromagnetic-health-bldg/emf-and-warnke-report-on-bees-birds-and-mankind/ December,2010:French Parliament passes a law prohibiting advertising cell phones to children under 14;prohibits children up to age 14 from using cell phones in pre-schools and public schools;requires cell phones to be labeled with SAR values and a recommendation to use headsets. hllp•//www.envi roblog,nrg/2010/12/french-cell-phone-radlaton-disclosure-al-polnl-of-sale.hlm( May 27,2011:Council of Europe passes a resolution recommending wired Internet connections in schools,and the creation of radiation-free zones to protect electrosensilive people.htto://assembly.coe Intl Documents/AdoptedTextltall/eRES1815.htm. August 30,2011:The Israeli Ministry of Education publishes guidelines strictly limiting the use of mobile phones on all school grounds,citing children's and youths'Increased risk of malignant tumors and the"passive exposure"experienced by children who do not use phones. • htto•J/norad4u caflogspot.com/2011/09/israeli-ministry-of-education-ls-ggigl 8,2011:Pretty River Academy In Coilingwood,Ontario removes WWFi from campus as a precaution,Joining Roots and Wings Montessori school in Surrey,British Columbia.http://www safeschooi.ca/uploads/CTV School cuts WiiFi.pdf; help:/Nrwwsafeschool.ca/School Bans WIFI.htmt Feb 13,2012:Citing safety concerns,the Ontario English Catholic Teacher's Association representing 45,000 teachers,is calling fora ban on new Wi-Fi installations in the province's 1,400-plus Catholic schools and advocating that computers in all new schools should be hardwired as well. httPJ/www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/13/toronto-oecta-wife.html March,2012:the Austrian Medical Association(OAK)releases guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of health problems caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields. htip://www.aerztekammer at/documents/10618/976981/EM F-Guideline.pdf June 19,2012:The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection has officially recommended that WiFi not be used in http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/governments-and-organizations-that-ban-or-warn-against-wireless-technology/ Page 2 of 4 GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT BAN OR WARN AGAINST WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY•Cellular Phone Task Force 3/31/19,4:11 PM schools.bile outu.be/SCemIJ-y1A4. 25 Aug 2012:Israeli Minister of Health Rah!Yaakov Lltzman states that he supports cats to action for a ban on Wi-Fi in schools. jillp://www,mast-victims org/index.phip?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&Id=5723 5 July 2013:Supreme Court of India upholds a decision of the High Court of the State of Rajasthan to remove all cell towers from the vicinity of schools,colleges,hospitals and playgrounds because of radiation"hazardous to life." The over 200-page November 27,2012 Rajasthan decision reviews worldwide evidence that cell towers are harming human beings and wildlife. hgp://wew.gole.comlurl? sa=t&rct=j&4c=israni%20%22unlon%20of%20indie%22%20%22high%20court%22%2grajaslhan&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3 A%2F%2RWwv.rtilndia.org°/2Fforum%2Fatlachmenls%2Fchil-chat%2F8595d1358495483-no-mobile-towers-near-schools-hospitals-directs- rajasth a n-he-no-mobile-towers-near-scho ois-h ospitals-directs-rajasth a n-h Ig h- court.pdf&ei=80MeUg7ONMnkyQGJmYGwDA&usg-_AFOjCNFCfNEmAnTRaTYhfxag1 UQdZohJky 15 Aug 2013:Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario,representing 76,000 teachers,recommends that cell phones be turned off in classrooms,and that all WiFi transmitters be labeled as part of a hazard control program. htlp://annuaimeeting,ca/wp- contenvuploads/2013/07/Session-71 pdf 16 Sept 2013:City of Mumbal,India adopts a policy prohibiting cell towers on schools,colleges,hospitals,orphanages,and juvenile correction homes;prohibiting nearby antennas from being directed toward such buildings;and requiring that antennas on such buildings be removed. The policy also requires the approval of 70%of the residents of an apartment or condominium building,and the approval of 100%of the residents of the top floor,before antennas are installed on the root http2t8ffiv.mcotn,gnv.in/i fj/go/km/dots/documents/M CG M%20Depadmenl%20Us1/Public%20Relalion%200ffi ter/Press%2ORelease/Public%2ONotic e%20for%20Chief%20Fr(gineer°%20Development%20PIan%20Departme nt%20enq,p-df • 4 Jan 2014:High Court of West Bengal,India ordered a cell tower removed because°The radiation of the said lower is dangerous to the life of human beings and also flora and fauna causing severe Imbalance to the wholesome environment which is emancipated as one of the basic fundamental rights included with right to life as enshrined In Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 20 April 2016:City of Haifa,Israel bans WIFI In schools.WiFI Is ordered immediately removed from all kindergartens and schools in the city to protect the children from radiation.A wired Internet system is being Installed in all schools. September 2018:Cell phones to be banned In primary and middle schools In France.As of the beginning of the 2018 school year,cell phones will be banned not only in classrooms but at breaks,lunch times and between lessons°as a matter of public.health.° DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CALLING FOR STRICTER REGULATION AND/OR A MORATORIUM ' ON WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY http:/International-emf-alliance orgfindex.php/appeals,hllp://www..ralf-woelfe.de/elektrosmog/redir.hlm?http:Hwww.ralf- woelfe.de/elektrosmoq(aflgnmein/apnelle.htr0,hllp:f/wwwavaate org/IMG/doc/Alcalaci dot Vienna Resolution 1998 Salzburg Resolution 2000 Declaration of Alcale 2002 Catania Resolution 2002 E ireburger Appeal 2002 Bamberger Appeal 2004 Maintaier Appeal 2004 Coburger Appeal 2005 Oberammergauer Appeal 2005 Halbacher Appeal 2005 Pfarrkirchener Appeal 2005 Freienbacher Appeal 2005 Lichtenfelser Appeal 2005 Hofer Appeal 2005 Helsinki Appeal 2005 Parish Kirchner Appeal 2005 Saarlander Appeal 2005 Stcckacher Appeal 2005 Benevento Resolution 2006 Allgauer Appeal 2006 WiMax Appeal 2006 http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/governments-and-organizations-that-ban-or-warn-against-wireless-technology/ Page 3 of 4 GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT BAN OR WARN AGAINST WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY•Cellular Phone Task Force 3/31/19,4:11 PM Schl0chterner appeal Brussels Appeal 2007 Venice Resolution 2008 Berlin Appeal 2008 Paris Appeal 2009 • London Resolution 2009 Porto Alegre Resolution 2009 European Parliament EMF Resolution 2009 Dutch Appeal 2009 Intl Appeal of WOrzburg 2010 Copenhagen Resolution 2010 Seletun Consensus Statement 2010 Potenza Picena Resolution 2013 Doctors'Appeal to Health Canada 2014 Scientists'Declaration to Health Canada 2014 International Scientists Appeal 2015 Brussels Declaration 2015 Paris Appeal 2016 EgyJW4 pea12017 International Scientists Appeal for a 5G Moratorium 2017 Nicosia Declaration 2017 Madrid Declaration 2017 Sage ton oI pagg • http://www.celiphonetaskforce.org{governments-and-organizations-that-ban-or-warn-against-wireless-technology/ Page 4 of 4 WSC Recommendations—Presentation to City Council May 21,2019 The last year has been a lively one for our commission. We have a wide range of projects currently in the works towards increased wildfire safety. I'm happy to say our commission has grown into an extraordinarily well qualified body, including landscapers,building contractors,realtors, experienced wildfire consultants,FireWise leaders, as well as business and media professionals. Together we're exploring some kind of Fire Safe Business License or certification for local building and landscape contractors. We're investigating how to best change the illegal camping culture that utilizes the woodlands surrounding our town during fire season. We're looking into the safety of the feeder electric lines surrounding our area beyond Ashland Electric's jurisdiction. We have one or two other small but important fire-related town ordinance change requests we'll be sharing with you in coming months. On a typical year,this also might be the time for me to share details of our various accomplishments, such as the new"wildfire preparedness campaign"that we now expect to be an annual event. But I'm not going to talk about that tonight. I'm here representing your Wildfire Safety Commission to applaud the high priority your council has recently given to emergency preparedness.Expanding on that theme, our report tonight is focused on the reality of Ashland's increasing risk of a large-scale fire and what would be an appropriate investment to avoid that future. The Wildfire Safety Commission has given this much thought and developed recommendations I will share tonight.These recommendations outline how to reverse course and reduce Ashland's risk on multiple fronts. Several involve imminent City Council budget deliberations. 1)We commend the Budget Committee for affirming the importance of maintaining the current Fire Department staff size. One thing that caught our attention on this question was the staff Budget Committee presentation May 1, suggesting a Fire Department staff reduction could be offset by "Staffing Up"during Red Flag days.At the scale suggested in this proposal,this would lower department effectiveness and morale by requiring excessive overtime.A staff reduction would also impact the safety of our citizens year round,not just during fire season. 2)We do,however,urge reinstatement of the$100,000 overtime fund cut that's under consideration. We believe it is critical that our Fire Department has the resources to respond with full effectiveness,given Ashland's increasing fire risk. 3)Illegal campers pose a significant fire threat. Our fire department has dealt with a number of wildfires started accidentally by campfires in our woodlands. One of these could easily spread into our town surprisingly quickly in the right wind conditions. Later tonight the fire department will be presenting a way to locate camps and campfires using infrared equipped drones that spot fires while protecting the privacy of Ashland residents. Our commission fully supports this plan. 4)Emergency preparedness is clearly one of your highest priorities. Towards that goal, our commission recommends your council fund the Sim Table purchase.A Sim Table uniquely offers staff detailed emergency planning information before an emergency.This is not just for Wildfires. hurl'rut o.n r.■rt.n.•Inrl......tl+ But. Considering how Ashland's risk of a major urban fire has actually increased in the last decade —due to the trifecta of changes in climate,the state of southern Oregon's forests, and Ashland's beautiful but dense landscaping, our recommendation is that reducing risk of widespread fire is important enough to justify having your council, city staff, and budget committee work together to find a solution. Our commission believes Ashland's citizens, if made aware of the potential consequences of just maintaining the status quo, would be willing to support a well thought out plan to reduce our risk, much as our population voted to pay for improving Ashland's library services recently, and school bonds. We offer our full support in doing our part to help educate our citizens. So far tonight,I've been speaking mostly about current budget issues. Once the current budget is resolved, however, we believe it's critical that we work together in new conversations, exploring ways to increase our town's resistance to wildfires and urban fires. Ashland has thousands of homeowners that need guidance—and other help—making their - properties safer. We need a bigger conversation in our town to sort out how to accomplish this in a relatively short period of time. A measure pertinent to this discussion was just voted in by the City Council in Redding, due to the Can Fire that destroyed 170 homes in West Redding last year. Earlier this month Redding's Council approved an$8 million package to beef up their fire department. They decided that in the long run,this investment will save their city money.A kind of insurance. We're also learning about unexpected hidden costs in the aftermath of major urban fires. Before the Camp Fire,Paradise was a bit larger than Ashland.Their population, and so the town's tax base, is expected to take decades to recover. Last report has it at around a thousand. Only 6 percent of the toxic debris has been hauled away to date, 6 months later. And— even deeper down than the toxic debris layer—it turns out big fires can compromise city water supply piping. In Paradise they're looking at up to 173 miles of now contaminated pipeline due to cancer-causing benzene and other volatile organic compounds.Their city water isn't safe to drink even after boiling. Paradise's estimated cleanup cost is 2 Billion. It's impossible to project what a major urban fire would do to our town's financial health, but it seems safe to assume, even with outside disaster aid, it would be devastating. Considering the number of lives at risk, as well as our financial exposure,we urge your council to get out ahead of this, instead. We hope you'll agree that it just does not make any sense to wait until after we've experienced a significant urban fire before we make sure Ashland has what it needs to be properly prepared, and start lowering our risk in significant ways. At our Wildfire Safety Commission's meeting last week, as we were reaching consensus on what I would be saying tonight,the group urged me to close by reminding us all that... ...as much as we might enjoy all the services and benefits Ashland's town government offers us,the essential, core purpose of town government is to keep its citizens safe.