Take Action!

Posted by .

How To Oppose Cell Towers Locally!

The #5G Spectrum Frontiers is a Boon for Industry and a Devastation to Our Health and Privacy

We need Citizens WORLDWIDE to call on US Agencies To DO THEIR JOB!

We have prepared this action list so you can TAKE ACTION NOW and call on health and safety agencies to protect the public. We must inform them and hold them accountable. Our health is non-negotoable.

Click Here to Read Letters Sent to the FCC

“Federally-protected wildlife species are in danger”

​Dr. Manville’s 2016 Wildlife Memo​

Ron Powells Comments to the FCC

​Dr. Joel Moskowitz Comments to the FCC

Maryland Smartmeter Awareness Comments to the FCC

We are the Evidence” Dafna Tachover handouts to the FCC

Dr. Yael Steins Comments to the FCC

Dr. Devra Davis FCC Comments

“Be on the Right Side of History”: Electrical Pollution

The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council Comments

Stop 5G harm to all living beings: The Science is Conclusive: Susan Clark’s Comments
(which includes a 1997 Petition signed by top public health Doctors)


Take Action: Please Email, Write and Call

Tell these agencies that the wireless deployment must immediately halt and the EPA should systematically review the issue and develop proper safety standards.

on Social Media? Please see Twitter and Facebook details below. We have divided the emails up and then have them all together if you choose to email all at once. Thank you!

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
“In keeping with our mission, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is responsible for protecting and promoting the public health. We assure that patients and providers have timely and continued access to safe, effective, and high-quality medical devices and safe radiation-emitting products.”

Emails of FDA Staff and Directors who should be working on this issue.
Michael.OHara@fda.hhs.gov; William.Jung@fda.hhs.gov; William.Maisel@fda.hhs.gov; Gregory.Pishko@fda.hhs.gov, Meredith.Isola@fda.hhs.gov; daniel.kassiday@fda.hhs.gov; Lauren.Silvis@fda.hhs.gov; Vasum.Peiris@fda.hhs.gov; John.Sheets@fda.hhs.gov; Robert.Ochs@fda.hhs.gov; Patrick.Hints@fda.hhs.gov; Aron.Yustein@fda.hhs.gov; DICE@fda.hhs.gov; Kristine.Butler@fda.hhs.gov; Alicia.Witters@fda.hhs.gov; Edie.Seligson@fda.hhs.gov; Elias.Mallis@fda.hhs.gov; Lynne.Rice@fda.hhs.gov;michelle.mcmurry-heath@fda.hhs.gov; jonathan.sackner@fda.hhs.gov; diane.mitchell@fda.hhs.gov; ruth.mckee@fda.hhs.gov; Jeff.shuren@fda.hhs.gov; margaret.hamburg@fda.hhs.gov; william.maisel@fda.hhs.gov ; nancy.stade@fda.hhs.gov; lillian.gill@fda.hhs.gov; david.buckles@fda.hhs.gov ;
Call them with phone numbers found here.

Contact the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
“As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats.”

Emails for CDC Director Tom Frieden, MD, MPH and staff assigned to the radiation issue.
krw2@cdc.gov; vjz7@cdc.gov; asb0@cdc.gov; txf2@cdc.gov; acs1@cdc.gov;lgi8@cdc.gov; ygn7@cdc.gov; hwj1@cdc.gov; rxo1@cdc.gov; jxa4@cdc.gov; dly1@cdc.gov; rmi0@cdc.gov; seb2@cd.gov; cir6@cdc.gov; ;jdb0@cdc.gov; byw3@cdc.gov; KPollard@cdc.gov; CMcCurley@cdc.gov;asa4@cdc.gov;

Contact the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program
francis.collins@nih.gov; angela.Ramirez@mail.house.gov; john.bucher@nih.gov; michael.wyde@nih.gov; martha.linet@nih.hhs.gov; chanocks@mail.nih.gov; wyde@niehs.nih.gov; berringtona@mail.nih.gov; kleinerr@mail.nih.gov; montserrat.garcia-closas@nih.gov; foster2@niehs.nih.gov; birnbaumls@niehs.nih.gov; bucher@niehs.nih.gov ;
Get Mailing Addresses Here.

Contact the Department of Labor, the Access Board, Board Chair and Vice Chair
“The U.S. Access Board is a federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards for the built environment, transportation, communication, medical diagnostic equipment, and information technology.”

talktodol@dol.gov; talktodol@dol.gov; info@access-board.gov; sue.swenson@ed.gov; regina@txsilc.org;

Contact The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Emails: wgl0@cdc.gov; zkz1@cdc.gov; zjn3@cdc.gov; kad8@cdc.gov

HERE ARE THE EMAILS ALL TOGETHER for US Health and Safety Agencies

We believe that these staff need to hear from us until adequate protections are in place.
wgl0@cdc.gov, zkz1@cdc.gov, zjn3@cdc.gov, kad8@cdc.gov, francis.collins@nih.gov, angela.Ramirez@mail.house.gov, john.bucher@nih.gov, michael.wyde@nih.gov, martha.linet@nih.hhs.gov, chanocks@mail.nih.gov, wyde@niehs.nih.gov, berringtona@mail.nih.gov, kleinerr@mail.nih.gov, montserrat.garcia-closas@nih.gov, foster2@niehs.nih.gov, birnbaumls@niehs.nih.gov, bucher@niehs.nih.gov, talktodol@dol.gov, talktodol@dol.gov, info@access-board.gov, sue.swenson@ed.gov, regina@txsilc.org, krw2@cdc.gov, vjz7@cdc.gov, asb0@cdc.gov, txf2@cdc.gov, acs1@cdc.gov, lgi8@cdc.gov, ygn7@cdc.gov, hwj1@cdc.gov, rxo1@cdc.gov, jxa4@cdc.gov, dly1@cdc.gov, rmi0@cdc.gov, seb2@cd.gov, cir6@cdc.gov, jdb0@cdc.gov, byw3@cdc.gov, KPollard@cdc.gov, CMcCurley@cdc.gov, asa4@cdc.gov, Jeffrey.Shuren@fda.hhs.gov, Michael.OHara@fda.hhs.gov, William.Jung@fda.hhs.gov, William.Maisel@fda.hhs.gov, Gregory.Pishko@fda.hhs.gov, Meredith.Isola@fda.hhs.gov, daniel.kassiday@fda.hhs.gov, Lauren.Silvis@fda.hhs.gov, Vasum.Peiris@fda.hhs.gov, John.Sheets@fda.hhs.gov, Robert.Ochs@fda.hhs.gov, Patrick.Hints@fda.hhs.gov, Aron.Yustein@fda.hhs.gov, DICE@fda.hhs.gov, Kristine.Butler@fda.hhs.gov, Alicia.Witters@fda.hhs.gov, Edie.Seligson@fda.hhs.gov, Elias.Mallis@fda.hhs.gov, Lynne.Rice@fda.hhs.gov,michelle.mcmurry-heath@fda.hhs.gov; jonathan.sackner@fda.hhs.gov; diane.mitchell@fda.hhs.gov; ruth.mckee@fda.hhs.gov;

Jeff.shuren@fda.hhs.gov; margaret.hamburg@fda.hhs.gov; william.maisel@fda.hhs.gov ; nancy.stade@fda.hhs.gov; lillian.gill@fda.hhs.gov; david.buckles@fda.hhs.gov ;

Send a Copy to your Elected Officials


Contact your Congressional Delegation (2 Senators and 1 Representative) Look them up and find their phone and FAX numbers at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and http://www.house.gov/representatives/
http://www.help.senate.gov/ links to contact the two ranking members

Email the FCC and elected officials staffers that is supposed to provide oversight to the FCC.
Just copy and paste these emails. (Sample email below)

(Note: We are having problems with emails being returned. Emails are coming back even though we are double and triple checking emails. We still hope you will send to this group. It is possible that breaking it up will help.)

​Mike.ORielly@fcc.gov; Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov; Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov; Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov; Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov; Sherry.Wood@fcc.gov; Emmaka.PV@fcc.gov;Adrienne.Perry@fcc.gov; edward.smith@fcc.gov; luisa.terrell@fcc.gov; ryan_nelson@thune.senate.gov; Jessica_mcbride@thune.senate.gov; michelle_richardson@wicker.senate.gov; crystal_tully@wicker.senate.gov; glen_chambers@blunt.senate.gov; sean_farrell@blunt.senate.gov; kasey_shelly@blunt.senate.gov; alberto_martinez@rubio.senate.gov; alex_burgos@rubio.senate.gov; rick_murphy@ayotte.senate.gov; erica_andeweg@ayotte.senate.gov; joe_hack@fischer.senate.gov; Jamie_susskind@fischer.senate.gov; joe_balash@sullivan.senate.gov; kate_oconnor@sullivan.senate.gov; tony_blando@johnson.senate.gov; meris_petek@johnson.senate.gov; mac_abrams@heller.senate.gov; scarlet_doyle@heller.senate.gov; Jason_thielman@daines.senate.gov; lauren_mccarty@daines.senate.gov; suzy_perezquinn@nelson.senate.gov; naveed_jazayeri@nelson.senate.gov; travis_lumpkin@cantwell.senate.gov; narda_jones@cantwell.senate.gov; Julie_dwyer@mccaskill.senate.gov; mark_dennin@mccaskill.senate.gov; Nick_choate@mccaskill.senate.gov; Elizabeth_peluso@klobuchar.senate.gov; tommy_walker@klobuchar.senate.gov; laurie_rubiner@blumenthal.senate.gov; Anna_yu@blumenthal.senate.gov; Joel_kelsey@blumenthal.senate.gov; andrew_winer@schatz.senate.gov; melika_carroll@schatz.senate.gov; joseph_wender@markey.senate.gov; hayes@manchin.senate.gov; alex_damato@manchin.senate.gov; eric_feldman@peters.senate.gov; sydney_paul@peters.senate.gov; Brian.Macdonald@mail.house.gov; David.Redl@mail.house.gov; allison.witt@mail.house.gov; rachel.schwegman@mail.house.gov; Craig.Roberts@mail.house.gov; jim.goldstein@mail.house.gov; Mike.Platt@mail.house.gov; charles.flint@mail.house.gov; charles.henry@mail.house.gov; eric.zulkosky@mail.house.gov; todd.mitchell@mail.house.gov; ryan.farrell@mail.house.gov; Eric.Bergren@mail.house.gov; joel.miller@mail.house.gov; ; william.zito@mail.house.gov; sarah.moxley@mail.house.gov; Jim.Richardson@mail.house.gov; aaron.ringel@mail.house.gov; Austin.Weatherford@mail.house.gov; josh.bagget@mail.house.gov; Elizabeth.Hittos@mail.house.gov; Jeremy.pederson@mail.house.gov; Mike.Smullen@mail.house.gov; laura.wilson@mail.house.gov; Joe.Lillis@mail.house.gov; ben.elleson@mail.house.gov; Al.Lytton@mail.house.gov; adam.wood@mail.house.gov; michael.hook@mail.house.gov; ryan.piligra@mail.house.gov; Ryan.Thompson@mail.house.gov; sophie.trainor@mail.house.gov; Joan.Hillebrands@mail.house.gov; mark.ratner@mail.house.gov; scott.wilson@mail.house.gov; David.Lucas@mail.house.gov; chris.bowman@mail.house.gov; Bob.Rogan@mail.house.gov; Patrick.Satalin@mail.house.gov; Julie.Carr@mail.house.gov; Jessica.Phelps@mail.house.gov; wendy.anderson@mail.house.gov; asi.ofosu@mail.house.gov; Eric.Witte@mail.house.gov; Ashley.shillingsburg@mail.house.gov; yardly.pollas@mail.house.gov; yardly.pollas@mail.house.gov; Lisa.Cohen@mail.house.gov; Thomas.woodburn@mail.house.gov; saul.hernandez@mail.house.gov; edward.hill@mail.house.gov; Julie.Eddy@mail.house.gov; margaret.mccarthy@mail.house.gov; Svetlana.matt@mail.house.gov; Angela.Ramirez@mail.house.gov; graham.mason@mail.house.gov; Janice.fuller@mail.house.gov; michael.rogers@mail.house.gov; parentsforsafetechnology@gmail.com; Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov; Mike.O’Rielly@fcc.gov; Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov; Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov; Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov; David.Redl@mail.house.gov; allison.witt@mail.house.gov; rachel.schwegman@mail.house.gov;Craig.Roberts@mail.house.gov; Mike.Platt@mail.house.gov; charles.flint@mail.house.gov;charles.henry@mail.house.gov; eric.zulkosky@mail.house.gov; todd.mitchell@mail.house.gov;ryan.farrell@mail.house.gov; Eric.Bergren@mail.house.gov; joel.miller@mail.house.gov;william.zito@mail.house.gov; sarah.moxley@mail.house.gov; Jim.Richardson@mail.house.gov;aaron.ringel@mail.house.gov; Austin.Weatherford@mail.house.gov; Elizabeth.Hittos@mail.house.gov;Jeremy.pederson@mail.house.gov; Mike.Smullen@mail.house.gov; Joe.Lillis@mail.house.gov; ben.elleson@mail.house.gov; Al.Lytton@mail.house.gov;adam.wood@mail.house.gov; michael.hook@mail.house.gov; Ryan.Thompson@mail.house.gov;sophie.trainor@mail.house.gov; Joan.Hillebrands@mail.house.gov; mark.ratner@mail.house.gov;scott.wilson@mail.house.gov; David.Lucas@mail.house.gov; chris.bowman@mail.house.gov;Bob.Rogan@mail.house.gov; Patrick.Satalin@mail.house.gov; Julie.Carr@mail.house.gov;Jessica.Phelps@mail.house.gov; wendy.anderson@mail.house.gov; asi.ofosu@mail.house.gov;Eric.Witte@mail.house.gov; Ashley.shillingsburg@mail.house.gov; yardly.pollas@mail.house.gov;Lisa.Cohen@mail.house.gov; Thomas.woodburn@mail.house.gov; saul.hernandez@mail.house.gov;edward.hill@mail.house.gov; Julie.Eddy@mail.house.gov; margaret.mccarthy@mail.house.gov;Svetlana.matt@mail.house.gov; Angela.Ramirez@mail.house.gov; graham.mason@mail.house.gov;Janice.fuller@mail.house.gov; michael.rogers@mail.house.gov; Jeff.Shuren@fda.hhs.gov; Mary.Pastel@fda.hhs.gov; Robert.Ochs@fda.hhs.gov; Michael.OHara@fda.hhs.gov; Brian.Beard@fda.hhs.gov; Bakul.Patel@fda.hhs.gov; CDRHOmbudsman@fda.hhs.gov; Daniel.Kassiday@fda.hhs.gov; martha.linet@nih.hhs.gov;jdb0@cdc.gov; byw3@cdc.gov; KPollard@cdc.gov; CMcCurley@cdc.gov;asa4@cdc.gov;

David.Redl@mail.house.gov; allison.witt@mail.house.gov; rachel.schwegman@mail.house.gov; Craig.Roberts@mail.house.gov; Mike.Platt@mail.house.gov; charles.flint@mail.house.gov; charles.henry@mail.house.gov;eric.zulkosky@mail.house.gov; todd.mitchell@mail.house.gov; ryan.farrell@mail.house.gov; Eric.Bergren@mail.house.gov;joel.miller@mail.house.gov; william.zito@mail.house.gov; sarah.moxley@mail.house.gov; Jim.Richardson@mail.house.gov;aaron.ringel@mail.house.gov; Austin.Weatherford@mail.house.gov; Elizabeth.Hittos@mail.house.gov;Jeremy.pederson@mail.house.gov; Mike.Smullen@mail.house.gov; Lillis@mail.house.gov; ben.elleson@mail.house.gov; Al.Lytton@mail.house.gov; adam.wood@mail.house.gov;michael.hook@mail.house.gov; Ryan.Thompson@mail.house.gov; sophie.trainor@mail.house.gov;Joan.Hillebrands@mail.house.gov; mark.ratner@mail.house.gov; scott.wilson@mail.house.gov;David.Lucas@mail.house.gov; chris.bowman@mail.house.gov; Bob.Rogan@mail.house.gov;Patrick.Satalin@mail.house.gov; Julie.Carr@mail.house.gov; Jessica.Phelps@mail.house.gov;wendy.anderson@mail.house.gov; asi.ofosu@mail.house.gov; Eric.Witte@mail.house.gov;Ashley.shillingsburg@mail.house.gov; yardly.pollas@mail.house.gov; Lisa.Cohen@mail.house.gov;Thomas.woodburn@mail.house.gov; saul.hernandez@mail.house.gov; edward.hill@mail.house.gov;Julie.Eddy@mail.house.gov; margaret.mccarthy@mail.house.gov; Svetlana.matt@mail.house.gov;Angela.Ramirez@mail.house.gov; graham.mason@mail.house.gov; Janice.fuller@mail.house.gov;michael.rogers@mail.house.gov; ashmedia@hhs.gov; francis.collins@nih.gov; angela.Ramirez@mail.house.gov; john.bucher@nih.gov; michael.wyde@nih.gov;

​​Submit your comments to the FCC on their Review of Radiofrequency and Health

1. Go to https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings— go to top of page and click “submit a filing”
2. under “proceeding, type in13-84 enter that and then add- 03-137
you will see a drop down and click on it to confirm.
3. Under name of filer, put in your name.
4.You only need to fill in where there is a star– so put in your email, your address and a zip.
5. Under upload documents, just drag over the document of your comments and drop them in- and while you are at it PLEASE put in all other research and documents you have that pertain to the issue.
6. Follow all prompts to submit this until it states that you are done.

> House Communications and Technology Subcommittee Telephone Numbers…
> Greg Walden, Chief of Staff: (202) 225-6730
> Bob Latta: (202) 225-6405
> John M. Shimkus: (202) 225-5271
> Marsha Blackburn: (202) 225-2811
> Steve Scalise: (202) 225-3015
> Leonard Lance: (202) 225-5361
> S. Brett Guthrie: (202) 225-3501
> Pete Olson: (202) 225-5951
> Mike Pompeo: (202) 225-6216
> Adam Kinzinger: (202) 225-3635
>Gus Michael Bilirakis: (202) 225–‐5755
> Bill Johnson: (202) 225-5705
> Billy Long: (202) 225-6536
> Renee Ellmers: (202) 225-4531
> Chris Collins: (202) 225‐5265
> Kevin Cramer: (202) 225‐2611
> Joe L. Barton: (202) 225‐2002
> Fred S. Upton: (202) 225-3761
> Anna G. Eshoo: (202) 225‐8104
> Mike Doyle: (202) 225-2135
> Peter Welch: (202) 225‐4115
> John A. Yarmuth: (202) 225‐5401
> Yvette D. Clarke: (202) 225-6231
> David Loebsack: (202) 225‐6576
> Bobby L. Rush: (202) 225‐4372
> Diana L. DeGette: (202) 225‐4431
> G. K. Butterfield: (202) 225‐3101
> Doris O. Matsui: (202) 225‐7163
> Jerry M. McNerney: (202) 225‐1947
> Ben R. Lujan: (202) 225-6190
> Frank Pallone, Jr: (202) 225-4671

Email addresses for FCC Commissioners:
Tom Wheeler, Chairman Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov
Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov
Ajit Pai, Commissioner Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov
Michael O’Rielly, Commissioner Mike.O’Rielly@fcc.gov

Twitter?

Please tweet this page and tweet the Comments

page link is goo.gl/MbLUQG
plus tweet to these

@TomWheelerFCC #SubCommTech, ‏@KatyontheHill , #GWIPPTech, ‏@AEItech @NARUC @MClyburnFCC @HouseCommerce#SubCommTech @FCC, @ChrisJ_Lewis@panjwaniPK, @lawandeconomics #telecom, #ConnectingCommunities #spectrum
#CancerMoonshot @theNCI #5G
@Ryan_Knutson @lizrhoffman @DanaMattioli @danacimilluca @DaveCBenoit @MariaBartiromo @keachhagey @lalpert1 @tgryta

Below see an excerpt of the film “Take Back Your Power”

and subscribe: TakebackYourPower.net

source

EXTRA VIDEO ADDED BY ADMIN:

Stop5G.net

~Research Hashtag #Stop5G on FB, Twitter, Reddit & Youtube

01. Like: http://fb.me/Stop5G
02. Follow: http://twitter.com/Stop5G
03. Join: http://fb.com/groups/Stop5G
04. Vote: http://reddit.com/user/Stop5G
05. Bookmark: http://stop5g.whynotnews.eu
06. Subscribe: http://bitchute.com/exomatrixtv

How To Oppose Cell Towers Locally CLICK ON ME!

Take Action to oppose 5G and federal wireless expansion

Take action

In the meantime, we as individuals must do everything we can to protect ourselves. Here’s what you can do:

  • Understand EMFs and their behaviours
  • Use EMF metres to measure, mark and avoid hotspots
  • Whenever possible, limit your exposure: use a headset or speaker mode while talking on a cellphone.
  • Refuse to use 5G phones and devices. Full stop. And discourage those you know from doing so.
  • Refuse to buy anything ‘smart’ – ‘smart’ appliances, ‘smart’ heaters, etc.
  • Carry shungite crystals to protect from radiation
  • No matter what, do NOT get a smart meter – these put high levels of 5G radiation right in your home
  • Join the growing numbers of dissenters. Get active with them here.
  • Do as the Hawaiians have done and threaten smart meter and 5G tech installers with liability. You can learn how to do that here.
  • Spread the word! Share this article with everyone you know

Even if the policy drivers and governments aren’t doing their due diligence, at least we can say we’re doing ours.

Legal

back to: Home

to: Environmental Refugees

ES recognized legally as a ‘functional impairment’ and ‘disability’

Legal framework (United Nations):

International Recognition of ES:

Nordic Council of Ministers: “The Nordic Adaptation of Classification of Occupationally Related Disorders (Diseases and Symptoms) to ICD-10” (2000)

  • R68.8 Other specified general symptoms and signs
    (suggested/recommended for multisymptomatic “idiopathic/environmental intolerance” (IEI),
    including “multiple chemical sensitivity” (MCS);
    “electromagnetic intolerance” (“el-allergy”) etc.
    if the patient has not one major symptom which should preferably be coded)
    (page 33)
  • “Electromagnetic intolerance” “El-allergy”.
    Usually general symptoms (tiredness, nausea, memory- and concentration difficulties etc.)
    related to use of TV/PC/data-screens, electrical transformers or fluorescent lamps.
    Symptoms disappear in “non-electrical environments”.
    (Appendix IV: page 50)

Legal and regulatory measures:

Legal awards, cases, laws and recognition of/for ES and EHS: examples:

Governmental and advisory groups on ES equality rights

  • American Academy of Environmental Medicine: “Recommendations Regarding Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Exposure” (2012):
    ​”Physicians of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine recognize that patients are being adversely impacted by electromagnetic frequency (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF)fields and are becoming more electromagnetically sensitive.”
  • BioInitiative Report: “Sensitive Populations Must Be Protected” (2012):
    “Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be set at lower than for healthy adult populations. Sensitive populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with developed electrical sensitivity (EHS).”
  • Brussels Declaration (2015):
    “International Scientific Brussels Declaration, on Electro-hypersensitivity and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, After the fifth Appeal of Paris Congress held on May 18, 2015 at the Royal Academy of Medicine, Brussels, Belgium”
    “EHS and MCS should, therefore, be fully recognized by international and national institutions with responsibility for human health.”
  • Freiburger Appeal by over 1,000 physicians: “International Appeal 2012” (2002, 2012):
    Recommendation 7:
    “Identify and clearly mark protected zones for electrohypersensitive people; establish public areas without wireless access or coverage, especially on public transport, similar to smoke-free areas for nonsmokers.”
  • International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS): “Benevento Resolution” (2006):
    Strategy required, no. 6.7:
    “Designate wireless-free zones in citiies, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF.”
  • International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP): Documents recognizing ES symptoms and the need for non-thermal limits (2002, 2010; 2014):
    People Being Protected:
    “Different groups in a population may have differences in their ability to tolerate a particular NIR exposure. For example, children, the elderly, and some chronically ill people might have a lower tolerance for one or more forms of NIR exposure than the rest of the population. Under such circumstances, it may be useful or necessary to develop separate guideline levels for different groups within the general population, but it may be more effective to adjust the guidelines for the general population to include such groups.Some guidelines may still not provide adequate protection for certain sensitive individuals nor for normal individuals exposed concomitantly to other agents, which may exacerbate the effect of the NIR exposure.”​

    Electrosensitivity symptoms:
    “a number of well established acute effects of exposure of low-frequency EMFs on the nervous system” “brain functions such as visual processing and motor co-ordination can be transiently affected by induced electric fields” “transient effects such as phosphenes and possible minor changes in some brain functions” “a number of well established acute effects of exposure of low-frequency EMFs on the nervous system” “brain functions such as visual processing and motor co-ordination can be transiently affected by induced electric fields” “vertigo and nausea”.
  • Electrosensitivity Australia: “Public submission to the ACMA Committee” (Julie McCredden, for ES.OZ, 2014):
    Requests:
    “We ask you to advise us how you plan to incorporate ICNIRP’s recommendations for the vulnerable into your legislative instruments.”
    Recommendations:
    “Establishment of White Zones.”
  • Swiss Physicians for the Environment: Letter on non-ionizing radiation to Federal Councillors (2012): ​
    Point 3.
    “The precautionary principle should be applied to non-ionizing radiation (NIR) strictly. We therefore call on you in your decisions for … continuous, independent, practical and interdisciplinary research, with focus on assisting vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, the chronically ill and electro-sensitive patients.”
  • Trades Union Congress: “Occupational Cancer: A Workplace Guide” (UK, 2012, p.6);
    Electromagnetic exposure is a 2B possible cancer agent: “The aim of trade unions is that there should be no workplace exposure to anything that causes cancer. Where possible this will mean removing carcinogens from the workplace completely.”

Legal cases involving non-thermal effects:

Financial compensation for stray voltage

Environmental evidence on non-thermal effects

 

Smart Meter lawsuits over health damage

  • Canada: “Lawsuit Against BC Hydro Proceeding December 7 to 11 2015”, Citizens for Safe Technology, Stop Smart Meters, November 2015: the British Columbia Supreme Court in Vancouver, from 7 December 2015: assessment of BC Hydro’s disregard of Charter Rights in relation to the deployment of radiation from smart meters, where there exists a reasonable basis for concern about health risk so as to give rise to a right of autonomy and free choice as to whether a microwave radiation emitting meter is operational from one’s own dwelling).
  • USA Maine Supreme Court: “Smart meter opponents argue to overturn Maine PUC decision” (Walter Wuthmann, The Forecaster, November 4 2015: the 2012 study on health damage from ‘smart’ meters by the Maine Public Utility Commission lasting over 2 years has been questioned; the length of the study appears to preempt the outdated 1996 FCC heating limits)

WiFi lawsuits and legal challenges over health damage

The legality of irradiating people with or without their informed consent with a human carcinogen, equality issues and summaries of legal cases:

Enforced environmental radiation violates the Nuremberg Code

Where governments allow civilian populations to be irradiated with environmental electromagnetic exposures which are classified internationally as 2B human cancer agents and are known neurotoxins, they are acting illegally and in contravention of the international Nuremberg Code of 1947. Such irradiation is known to be potentially harmful yet each member of the general population has not been consulted or given their individual consent to such experiments on their human health. In the case of children it is unlikely that any government could sanction such radiation experiments.

  • “Enforced introduction of wireless smart meters is a clear contravention of the Nuremberg Code which forbids the performance of experiments on human beings without their consent. Insofar as the long-term safety of continual irradiation from these devices has never been tested and many people (including many eminent scientists) believe that it is potentially harmful, the whole nation is being made a part of an uncontrolled experiment on their electromagnetic safety.”
    (Dr Andrew Goldsworthy: Letter, November 14 2010)

Informed consent is essential for scientific experiments

Informed consent is required for experiments on humans involving non-ionizing and ionizing radiation. It appears that some countries like the US try to evade this requirement by claiming that such experiments, even where they cover large populations, come under ‘classified research’. The irradiation of the population by cellphone towers without prior testing, where any adverse health effects will be discovered as a result of this irradiation, is often regarded as an experiment on the population without informed consent.

“In New York, experimentation is defined in terms of physical intervention upon a subject that is not required for the direct benefit of the subject. The law provides ‘no human research may be conducted in this state in the absence of voluntary informed consent subscribed to in writing by the human subject’.”

Prof. Andrew Marino (ed.): “Modern Bioelectricity” (Marcel Dekker Inc., CRC Press, 1988), p.1080.

“A better approach would be to require that the beam of greatest RF intensity from a macrocell base station sited within the grounds of a school should not be permitted to fall on any part of the school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents.”

UK’s Stewart Report (2000), 6.65.

There have been well known cases of experiments without informed consent, but few if any have resulted in criminal legal actions.

  • After Howard Rosenberg in 1981 revealed in Mother Jones concerning radiation studies at the Oak Ridge Institute for Nuclear Studies, US Rep. Al Gore chaired a sub-committee which found that the radiation experiments were “satisfactory, but not perfect” in September 1981.
  • Congressman Ed Markey’s report in November 1986, “American Nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens” reported that there were 31 human radiation experiments involving nearly 700 people.
  • “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” of 1991.
  • After outrage at further reports of human radiation experiments without informed consent, President Bill Clinton in 1994 established the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) which reported in 1995. Clinton issued an apology in October 1995, the same day as the O.J. Simpson jury returned its verdict.
  • President Obama’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2009-2016) apparently also failed to resolve this problem.
  • In 2017 small cell towers radiation devices were proposed for street-side installation without written informed consent by residents.

Sources and information:

 

Regulations, guidelines and bills limiting WiFi, cellphone, tower and other EM exposures:

  • Argentina:“The minimum prevention and control of electromagnetic pollution” bill in the Chamber of Deputies (March 2016), requiring wired internet connection in schools and hospitals, a limit of 1000 uW/m2 for digital pollution, a minimum offset of 100m from housing, schools, hospitals, sports faciliies, cultural places and green spaces for radiation transmitters, with an Environmental Impact Assessment and public meeting before applying for a permit, warnings and emission levels on radiation devices, an on-line Registry of radiation emission locations, and a Advisory Council to enforce the legislation.
  • Canada: House of Commons: Report of the Standing Committee on Health (HESA 2015): “Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians” (42 pages):
    Recommendation 2:
    That Statistics Canada consider including questions related to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the Canadian Community Health Survey.
    Recommendation 3:
    That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity testing, diagnosis and treatment, and its possible impacts on health in the workplace.
    Recommendation 4:
    ​That the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the World Health Organization consider updating their guidelines and continuing education materials regarding the diagnosis and treatment of electromagnetic hypersensitivity to ensure they are based on the latest scientific evidence and reflect the symptoms of affected Canadians.
    Recommendation 5:
    That the Government of Canada continue to provide reasonable accommodations for environmental sensitivities, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
    Recommendation 6:
    That Health Canada ensure the openness and transparency of its processes for the review of Safety Code 6, so that all Canadians have an opportunity to be informed about the evidence considered or excluded in such reviews, that outside experts are provided full information when doing independent reviews, and that the scientific rationale for any change is clearly communicated.
    Recommendation 7:
    ​That the Government of Canada establish a system for Canadians to report potential adverse reactions to radiofrequency fields.
  • European Council
    “Report warning of the harmful effects of WiFi and cell phones to children and babies, and proposes to member states to ban their use in schools.” (list, 2013).
    European Court of Justice:
    Need for Password Protection for open WiFi hubs:
    Alan Toner: “European Court Allows Copyright Owners to Demand Open Wifi Networks be Password Protected” (Electronic Frontier Foundation, September 26 2016)
  • France:
    Protection for children: WiFi banned in nurseries, limited in primary schools (2015).
    Transposition of European Commission EMF Directive: “Décret n° 2016-1074 du 3 août 2016 relatif à la protection des travailleurs contre les risques dus aux champs électromagnétiques” (Decree No. 2016-1074 of August 3, 2016 on the protection of workers against the risks arising from electromagnetic fields; 2016):
    – “Art. R. 4453-8.-In conducting the risk assessment, the employer shall take into consideration:
    6. any direct biophysical effects on the worker or any indirect effects that may result from exposure to electromagnetic fields;
    7. any impact on the health and safety of workers under 18 years and workers at particular risk, including pregnant women and workers equipped with implanted medical devices or not, active or passive;”Art. R. For 4453-15.-workers at particular risk referred to –
    “in Article 7 of R. 4453-8, the employer shall adapt, in liaison with the occupational physician, preventive measures provided for in this section.”
    Protection for Workers:
    Yann Galli: “Les entreprises vont devoir protéger les salariés des ondes électromagnétiques” (France Inter, January 1 2017),
    (trans. Towards Better Health: “Businesses are going to protect workers from electromagnetic waves” January 8 2017)
    Ban on cellphones in schools​:
    Benjamin Sportouch and Claire Gaveau: “Blanquer sur RTL : “Les portables seront interdits à l’école et au collège à la rentrée 2018” [Blanquer on RTL: “Laptops will be banned at school and college in September 2018”] (RTL, December 10 2017)
  • Germany, Switzerland: Bavaria 2007; Hesse 2010; Frankfurt 2006; Thurgau 2008:
    • ​Bavarian Parliament (June 21 2007): “If a wireless network is installed, the access points should only be turned on during active use … prefer the use of wired network solutions whenever possible.”
    • Parliament of Hesse (April 9 2010): BfS (Rederal Office for Radiation Protection) 2005 recommends “wireless access points shall not be placed in areas where people spend a considerable amount of time such as at a workplace, i.e. in our case the rooms of a school.”
    • School Department of the City of Frankfurt (FR08/06/06): “as long as the safety of wireless communication is not clarified … WLAN networks must not be used at Frankfurt schools.”
    • ​Governing Council of Thurgau Canton (August 4 2008): “a conventional wired network should be given preference over a wireless network.”
  • Israel:
    • Haifa, Israel’s third largest city, disconnects WiFi: Local News (April 18 2016) (trans.; trans.)
    • Ministry of Education (August 27 2013): “stop the installation of wireless networks in classrooms prior to the first grade and limit the use of WiFi between first and third grades; teachers are required to turn off mobile phones and WiFi routers when they are not being used.” (list)
  • Italy:

    • “Italian town shuts down Wi-Fi over health fears” (The Local, January 8 2016)
    • “Turin could slash Wi-Fi over ‘radiation’ concerns” (The Local, July 25 2016)​​
  • Russia (RNCNIRP) (2011) “Usage of a mobile phone by children and adolescents under 18 years old is not recommended by the Sanitary Rule SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03, and mobile phone use requires implementation of precautionary measures in order to prevent health risks. Mobile phone use by pregnant women is not recommended in order to prevent risk for a fetus.” (The Sanitary Rule “Hygienic Requirements for Placement and Operation of Onshore Mobile Radio Devices” (SanPiN 2.1.8/2.2.4.1190-03, p.6.9). Moscow, Federal Center for State Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision of the Ministry for Health Protection of the Russian Federation, 2003. (RNCNIRP, 2011: “Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones: Health Effect on Children and Teenagers”)
  • The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation (RNCIRP) (2012): “officially recommended that Wi-Fi not be used in schools.” (list)
  • Switzerland: Canton of Geneva:
    July 2017:
  • ​”General recommendations:
    For the well-being and health of children and young people, exposure time to screens must be limited according to age.
    Before age 3: No TV or DVDs.
    Between ages 3 and 6: Limiting the exposure time to screens to one hour a day is desirable.
    From age 6: From this age, the total exposure time to screens should be limited to one hour a day.​
    From age 9: The exposure time should also be limited to two hours a day for all screens.”

    Office de l’enfance et de la jeunesse: Service de santé de l’enfance et de la jeunesse​: “Usages du numérique: risques pour la santé” ​ (Republique et Canton de Geneve: Département de l’instruction publique, de la culture et du sport, September 5 2017)
    English Translation: “Uses of Digital Technology: Health Risks” (Translation by the Editor of “Towards Better Health”, September 7 2017)
  • Taiwan:ban on use by under 2s; teenage use ‘reasonable‘, 2015.
  • United Kingdom:
    • “the UK Chief Medical Officers advise that children and young people under 16 should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only, and to keep calls short.” (NHS: “Mobile phones and base stations: Health advice on using mobile phones”, 2011)
    • “Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer has advised that mobile phones should be turned off before bed, as she warned that the cocktail of pollution caused by modern life was a risk to health.”
      (Chris Smyth: “Silent killer in your bedroom… a mobile phone” The Times, March 2 2018)
    • “Excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged,” (PHE: “HPA response to the 2012 AGNIR report on the health effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields”, 2012)
    • “SI 2016/588 Health and Safety – The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations: 2016” (July 1 2016, transposing European DIrective 2013/35/EU: Electromagnetic Fields):
      “direct biophysical effect” means an effect on human body tissue caused by its presence in an electromagnetic field;
      “employee at particular risk” means—
      (a) an employee who has declared to his or her employer a condition which may lead to a higher susceptibility to the potential effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields;
      “health effect” means a direct biophysical effect which is potentially harmful to human health;
      “indirect effect” means an effect, caused by the presence of an object or a substance in an electromagnetic field, which may present a safety or health hazard;
      “sensory effect” means a direct biophysical effect involving a transient disturbance in sensory perception or a minor and temporary change in brain function.
      … (2) The risk assessment must include consideration of, where relevant—
      … (c) direct biophysical effects;
      … (g) multiple sources of exposure;
      (h) simultaneous exposure to multiple frequency fields;
      (i) indirect effects;
      (j) any effects on employees at particular risk;
      … 2. The ALs and ELVs are set out in tables and grouped according to their potential effects, being—
      (a) thermal effects, related to the heating of tissue due to its absorption of electromagnetic fields; and
      (b) non-thermal effects, related to the stimulation of nerves or sensory organs due to the presence of electromagnetic fields.
      … PART 2: Direct biophysical effects of exposure: Action levels – non-thermal effects.
      … 2. The ELVs may be exceeded during an employee’s shift where the employer ensures that—
      … (c) adequate information is provided to the employee on the possibility of sensory effects related to time-varying magnetic fields, including retinal phosphenes; and
      (d) where any of those sensory effects are reported to the employer, the risk assessment is updated where necessary.
      … PART 3: Indirect effects of exposure: Action levels – non-thermal effects.
    • SI 2016/588 EM Explanatory Memorandum – Health and Safety – The Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016
      • “Electromagnetic fields at work: A guide to the Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016” (HSE, 2016)
        What are the effects of exposure? (11) EMFs at different frequencies affect the human body in different ways, causing
        sensory and health effects; see Table 1.”
        0–1 Hz:Sensory effects: Nausea, vertigo, metallic taste in the mouth, flickering sensations (magnetophosphenes) in peripheral vision”
        1 Hz–10 MHz:Sensory effects: Nausea, vertigo, metallic taste in the mouth, flickering sensations (magnetophosphenes)
        Health effects: Nerve stimulation, effects on the central and peripheral nervous system of the body: tingling, muscle contraction, heart arrhythmia.”
        100 kHz–10 MHz:The health effects of both high and low frequencies can be experienced as detailed above and below.”
        100 kHz–300 GHz:Sensory effects: Auditory effects such as perception of clicks or buzzing caused by pulsed radar systems.
        Table 7 Sources of EMF which may pose a risk to workers with active implanted and active body-worn medical devices (and exceed the AL in the schedule to the CEMFAW Regulations, Table AL6)
        Wireless communications: Wireless communications: devices (eg Wi-Fi or Bluetooth), including access points for WLAN
        Use of cordless phones, DECT base stations and fax machines
        Use of mobile phones
        Office: Audio-visual equipment containing radio-frequency transmitters
        Infrastructure (buildings and grounds): Use of electric garden appliances
        Security: Article surveillance equipment and radio-frequency identification
        Tape or hard drive erasers
        Metal detectors
        Electrical supply: Work on generators or emergency generators and where workers need to be in
        close proximity to cables carrying high currents
        Inverters, including photovoltaic systems
        Light industry: …
        Medical: MRI equipment
        Construction: Construction equipment, eg working close to concrete mixers, cranes etc
        Transport: Motor vehicles and plant – working close to starter, alternator and ignition
        systems in motor vehicles and workplaces
        Maintenance of inverters used on mainline trains
        Miscellaneous: Battery chargers, inductive or proximity-coupling,
        Equipment generating static magnetic fields greater than 0.5 mT, eg by magnetic
        chucks, tables and conveyors, lifting magnets, magnetic brackets, nameplates,
        badges
        Headphones producing strong magnetic fields
        Professional inductive cooking equipment
        Two-way radios, eg walkie-talkies, vehicle radios
        Battery-powered transmitters
        Military activities: Maintenance of radar or high-powered communications systems
        [pages 16-17]
        Is a risk assessment needed?
        46. Where your exposure assessment demonstrates that:
        … and/or you have employees at particular risk;
        you must carry out an assessment of any risks to your employees arising from EMF exposure.
        Employees at particular risk:
        49. You must give special consideration to the safety of employees at particular risk (even if you are in compliance with the exposure limits).
        50. An employee at particular risk is:
        ˜˜ an employee who has declared to their employer a condition which may lead to a higher susceptibility to the potential effects of exposure to EMFs. This includes expectant mothers who have informed you of their condition and workers who have declared the use of active implanted medical devices (AIMDs), passive implanted medical devices (PIMDs) or body-worn medical devices (BWMDs);
      • Consultative Document CD276 (HSE, 2015)
    • “Non-binding guide to good practice for implementing Directive 2013/35/EU Electromagnetic Fields Guide for SMEs” (EU, 2015)
    • UK Official Secrets Act:
      Some aspects of biological effects of microwave radiation are apparently still covered by the Official Secrets Act (1889, replaced 1911, 1989), meaning that public servants who have signed the act are not supposed to talk about them, although they are commonly discussed in the media, medical literature and common conversation. From 1966 to 1993 the Post Office Tower in London, at first London’s tallest building and visible across the city, was also an official secret and its existence could not be acknowledged officially, until Ms Kate Hoey MP in 1993 stated: “I hope that I am covered by parliamentary privilege when I reveal that the British Telecom tower does exist and that its address is 60 Cleveland street, London.” (Hansard, column 634)

United States:
Job accommodations for people with electrosensitivity:

Electrosensitivity has been included under the American Disability Access Board since the 1990s (General Issues).

More recently people there has been advice given on specific accommodations for people with electrical sensitivity.

Job Accommodation Network (JAN), the US Department of Labor: the Office for Disability Employment Poiicy (ODEP):

Accommodation Ideas for Electromagnetic Sensitivity

Accommodation ideas for individuals with electromagnetic sensitivity:

  • Allow communication via typewriter or handwritten notes rather than via computer or cover the computer with Plexiglas or other shielding material
  • Provide headset/handset extenders or alternate headsets to lengthen the distance between devices that trigger symptoms and the employee’s body
  • Change the employee’s shift to allow for less exposure to others’ devices
  • Relocate workplace away from areas where symptoms are triggered. This may include limiting certain types of devices in the vicinity of the employee’s workstation
  • Allow telework (Note: regarding work at home, unless the employee wants to work at home, other options should be explored first to keep the employee in the workplace)
  • Allow the employee to meet with others in areas where triggers are minimized or allow remote access to meetings or activities that must take place in areas that trigger symptoms.
  • Provide wired telephones and network connections
  • Provide building-wide and/or workspace shielding of equipment and devices, for example add filters to fluorescent lights and tape electrical cords

Control of harmful electromagnetic devices:
The problem of electromagnetic devices harming people has been recognized. Legislation has been passed at a federal level and in some states regarding portable devices from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam can incapacitate temporarily or injure someone else.

The Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968

An Act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products:

  • “SUBPART 3—ELECTRONIC PRODUCT RADIATION CONTROL. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE. SEC. 354.
    The Congress hereby declares that the public health and safety must be protected from the dangers of electronic product radiation. Thus, it is the purpose of this subpart to provide for the establishment by the Secretary of an electronic product radiation control program which shall include the development and administration of performance standards to control the emission of electronic product radiation from electronic products and the undertaking by public and private organizations of research and investigation into the effects and control of such radiation emissions.
    ELECTRONIC PRODUCT RADIATION CONTROL. PROGRAM. SEC. 356. (a)
    Public Law 90-602 (1968)
  • Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council: “Wifi Radiation in Schools in Maryland, Final Report” (December 13, 2016):
    “The Council recommends that the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ask the United States Department of Health and Human Services to formally petition the FCC to revisit the exposure limit to ensure it is protective of children’s health and that it relies on current science.
    Where classrooms have internet access with a wireless connection, WiFi can be turned off and wired local area network (LAN) can provide a reliable and secure form of networking for as many wireless devices as necessary without any microwave electromagnetic field exposure.
    If a new classroom is to be built, or electrical work is to be carried out in an existing classroom, network cables can be added at the same time, providing wired network access with minimal extra cost and time.
    Have children place devices on desks to serve as barrier between the device and children’s bodies.
    Locate laptops in the classroom in a way that keeps pupil heads as far away from the laptop screens (where the antennas are) as practicable.
    Consider using a switch to shut down the router when it is not in use.
    Teach children to turn off WiFi when not in use.
    Consider placing routers as far away from students as possible.
    ​Sit away from WiFi routers, especially when people are using it to access the internet.
    Turn off the wireless on your laptop when you are not using it.
    Turn off WiFi on smartphones and tablets when not surfing the web.
    ​Switch tablets to airplane mode to play games or watch videos stored on the device.
    While this report focused on WiFi radiation in schools, there are additional concerns about mobile phones and cell phone towers.”
  • Massachusetts: General Laws: Part I – Administration of the Government; Title XX – Public Safety and Good Order; Chapter 140 – Licences; Section 131J – Sale or Possession of Electrical Weapons, Penalties:
    ​”No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill, except: (1) a federal, state or municipal law enforcement officer … or (2) a supplier of such devices or weapons designed to incapacitate temporarily … No person shall sell or offer for sale such device or weapon, except to federal, state or municipal law enforcement agencies … The secretary of public safety shall adopt regulations governing who may sell or offer to sell such devices or weapons in the commonwealth and governing law enforcement training on the appropriate use of portable electrical weapons.”
  • California Department of Public Health:
    Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control: “How to Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy from Cell Phones” (December 2017; release statement)

US legislation on safety limits, including FCC and EPA

A List of Schools and Organizations That Have Taken Action Regarding Wireless Technology” (updated to 2014)

“Teacher Unions and Parent Teacher Organizations Taking Action On Wi-Fi Health Risks” (February 18 2016)

Votes to ban WiFi:

Warnings and Safety Limits on radiation devices:

“Phonegate” scandal – cellphone testing and warnings are inadequate

The results of the 2015 measurement tests of 95 cellphones in body contact positions by the French National Frequencies Agency (ANFR) showed that nine out of 10 tested cellphones in contact with the skin exceeded the regulatory SAR threshold of 2 W/kg, set by the ICNIRP and used by the EU. Most members of the public are not aware that cellphones emit radiation waves even when in pockets, so direct skin contact is not even needed, and, moreover, the information on the allegedly safe distance between the phone and the body is currently in cellphone manuals, about which serious doubts have been expressed as to this not being the most effective place in terms of a source of information.

Merja Kyllönen (GUE/NGL), the Finnish Deputy at European Parliament raised the issue of “the impact of mobile phone radiation on the health of European citizens” in a parliamentary question to the European Commission on January 10 2018 (E-000081-18):

  • “What steps has the Commission taken or is it going to take in light of the findings in the above‐mentioned ANFR tests of mobile phones largely exceeding radio frequency radiation standards, and what steps is it going to take in order to better protect citizens, and to ensure that there is enough information on the risks available to European citizens in a more easily accessible form, independently of any commercial operators?”

EU Parliament (written question, January 10 2018)
“”Phonegate”: Finnish Deputy at European Parliament Raises Issue of Impact of Mobile Phone Radiation on Health of European Citizens” (Towards Better Health, February 1 2018)

Exclusion for EMF effects from Insurance:

Implications for Occupational Health:

Employer liability for cellphone use:

Law firms and Advice:

Public Law 90-602 of 1968 (pdf):
An Act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products.
Subpart 3 – Electronic Product Radiation Control: DECLARATION OF PURPOSE:
Sec. 354.
The Congress hereby declares that the public health and safety must be protected from the dangers of electronic product radiation.

Ecocide and the right to protect the environment

Crimes committed against the natural environment, preventing the environment from continuing in its living and existing state, are termed ecocide. This can include any destruction of the natural environment, whether by war, deliberate action or incidental effects. Man-made radiation is now seen as major factor disrupting the natural environments, not just for humans, animals, insects, plants and bacteria, but also for geo-tectonic and atmospheric effects.

Self-Defense: Reasonable Force to Protect People and Property from Aggression

The argument for the use of self-defense, or the use of reasonable force to protect innocent people from aggression, operates at three levels:
(a) between sovereign nations, (b) within a nation or civil society, and (c) at the level of the individual defending their person, family or property from external aggression.
  • (a) The responsibility to protect (R2P) is seen as part of international law behind intervention in another state. This can involve reasonable force if the aggressor does not desist when asked.
  • (b) It also lies behind police action to protect citizens within a civil society. This can involve reasonable force if the aggressor does not desist when asked.
  • (c) It also lies behind an individual’s right of self-protection. This can involve reasonable force if the aggressor does not desist when asked.

Articles:

Be Sociable, Share!