Smart Meter Opt Out policies by state

Smart Meter Opt-Out Policies (


5G Feb. 10 2023 Berkshire Eagle Comment

Another month, another Berkshire community facing debate about the siting and safety of cell towers.

Now that the controversy has been transmitted to Great Barrington, our reaction is the same as when similar conflicts cropped up in Pittsfield, Lenox and Sheffield: We need better data and an updated regulatory structure for municipal officials to lean on when confronting these debates about wireless communications facilities.

With the Great Barrington town clerk’s certification of a residential petition, it looks like annual town meeting voters will decide whether to ban fifth-generation (or “5G”) cellular telephone technology until the government reviews radiofrequency emissions safety standards. Unfortunately, Great Barrington can expect a similarly heated run-up to that May 1 meeting as we saw in Lenox ahead of that town’s vote on a wireless facilities bylaw.

That proposed bylaw fell amid a vociferous campaign opposing new cell towers based on claims that the structures pose imminent health threats to surrounding populations. This underscores the bind local officials find themselves in while navigating a pressing infrastructure issue. Municipal officials, from the Pittsfield Board of Health to the Lenox Planning Board, are pressed by a vocal contingency of constituents who claim 5G technology and other wireless communication facilities pose myriad health threats, from headaches and tinnitus to nausea and cancer.

Even if local officials are completely convinced of these claims, they are between a rock and a hard place as wireless demand increases. Residents and businesses want better service; schoolchildren and homebound folks need high-speed connections need better wireless; first responders worry about the ability to field emergency calls even from some busy areas like downtown Lenox. Meanwhile, municipal officials don’t have much procedural wiggle room anyway, as local governments seeking to restrict the number or placement of cell towers are limited by federal telecommunications law.

We are skeptical of the more far-reaching health claims from the most strident cell tower opponents. The most-vocal minority often exaggerates the conclusions and certainty of clinical research on radiofrequency emissions while downplaying other biases nearby homeowners often hold against cell towers like impact on their property’s view or valuation.

Still, as we’ve noted, some cell tower opponents have a point: As wireless technologies’ capabilities and presence have expanded, the regulatory framework around them has not. Agencies like the Federal Communications Commission and telecom giants like Verizon point to operational rules developed in the previous millennium before mobile devices and wireless infrastructure were as ubiquitous and advanced as they now are.

That must change, and our state and federal leaders should see the need for that update as their municipal counterparts continue to trip over these wires.

Legislation previously filed on Beacon Hill could kickstart this necessary exploratory mission. In the last two sessions, bills that would establish a state 5G technology task force have languished, but they’re just what the situation demands. The most recent version of the bill would create a blue-ribbon committee bringing together lawmakers, regulators, state tech officials and business representatives to review the current state of wireless communications regulation and recommend relevant updates for the 5G era.

While the last two bills were sent to die in a study order, we hope state lawmakers — especially Berkshire delegates seeing more of their communities entrenched in these debates — see the benefit of pursuing such legislation in this new session. In addition to lawmakers, business figures and tech experts, it should involve health experts as well, since medical concerns fuel the tower tiffs for many towns.

Forming a state committee might not be the bold action some seek. But our communities require hard data — not just the talking points of the telecom industry and anti-tower advocates — that civilians and officials alike can turn to as these debates inevitably intensify. We have to start somewhere, and a meaningful state effort could build momentum for a more robust look at the federal level as well. Whatever information gleaned will be unlikely to move those dug in deep on either side, but we desperately need some broader and better-informed concensus on a topic where we have little to none.

This matter is complex as it is pressing. We aren’t experts on the intersection of public health and wireless technology. Neither are most town meeting voters in Lenox or Great Barrington. We have lawmakers and regulators for good reason, part of which is to avoid crafting policy on complex technological and infrastructure matters via simple referendum with no weight given to expertise. Now, though, the government must do the job it’s uniquely equipped to perform and objectively seek answers to public health questions popping up in town halls and public meetings across the region. Only then will we be well-positioned for a long overdue software update to the rules and regulations around cell towers. They are all that municipal officials have to rely on, and the multiplying local debates over 5G show they’re outdated and insufficient.

Beacon Hill won’t have time to diffuse that debate before it pressurizes Great Barrington’s town meeting warrant in May, but legislators should act swiftly to address the safety concerns and procedural headaches spreading through Massachusetts communities.

2023: Sheffield MA petition on 5G goes to a vote

47 voters signed the petition in Sheffield MA to set application requirements for 5G installations. It was accepted and now is a warrant for a vote at the annual town meeting in May.


(Citizen’s Petition) For the reasons set forth above and notwithstanding any other provision of the Town of Sheffield General By-Laws to the contrary, To see if the Town will vote under the General Bylaws Chapter 216: Wireless Regulations, to adopt a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) application requirement for completeness: WTF applications, will be considered incomplete until the FCC completes the DC Circuit court-mandated Environmental Review of the entire 800,000 to 1 million WTF roll out to the conditions as stated in the NEPA Policy Act 19691 including studies from scientists independent from industry, who have fully investigated millimeter wave 5G small cell technology safety; and that the FCC regulations have been updated to include measures that comply with the results of this review; and, that the Town of Sheffield shall consider reasonable alternatives such as fiber optic.

1 The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, among other things, to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment. On August 9, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its Ruling in Case 18-1129, vacated FCC Order 18-30‘s deregulation of small-cell Wireless Transmission Facilitie(s) [sWTFs] and remanded this to the FCC. In Case 18-1129, the judges stated that “the FCC failed to justify its determination that it is not in the public interest to require review of [sWTF] deployments” and ruled that “the Order’s deregulation of [sWTFs] is arbitrary and capricious.” The FCC was mandated to do this review in two court rulings which are submitted into the record: one in 2019 in Case 18-1129, Keetoowah et al. v FCC; and another in 2021 in Case 20-1025, EHT/CHD v FCC. To date the FCC has not complied.

Definition: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities means the plant, equipment and property including, but not limited to, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, electronics, and other appurtenances used or to be used to transmit, receive, distribute, provide or offer wireless telecommunications service. October 1, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Case No, 18-1051, Mozilla et al. v. FCC, confirmed internet “Services” to be reclassified by the FCC as Title I, unregulated “Information Services”. At present, only wireline and wireless telephone and text transmissions are classified as Title II, regulated “Telecommunications Services”.  Title I and Title II applications, therefore, need to be regulated differentially by local planning boards and commissions. Every new [wireless telecommunications facility (“WTF”)] must undergo NEPA review, and that WTF applications cannot be batched for such purpose. 

FCC mandated to investigate 5G harm

In Berkshire County, MA: First Pittsfield, then Lenox and now Sheffield. Heated debates over the lack of safety of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G” are igniting in communities across the Berkshires. The so-called “5th-generation” of WTFs (i.e. 4G/5G densification) is stalling in many places because this ill-advised push into communities, attempting to place heavy industrial equipment into residential zones is running into stiff opposition.

Local residents are informed, organized and asserting their political will. They are insisting on responsible placement of WTFS: only in commercial and industrial zones and only if there is a proven gap in telecommunications service, which is judged as the inability to make outdoor wireless phone calls along major roadways.

The big problem for the Wireless industry is that on Friday the 13th in August 2021, the wireless world irrevocably changed due to a landmark ruling in the US Courts of Appeals, DC Circuit in Case 20-1025 Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021). In that ruling the DC Cir. judges based their ruling on the following substantial written evidence: 11,000+ pages of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense and others plaintiffs placed in the FCC’s public record: Vol-1Vol-2Vol-3Vol-4Vol-5Vol-6Vol-7 Vol-8Vol-9Vol-10Vol-11Vol-12Vol-13Vol-14Vol-15Vol-16Vol-17Vol-18Vol-19Vol-20Vol-21Vol-22Vol-23Vol-24Vol-25Vol-26 and Vol-27.

The judges in that case ruled:

“. . . we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its [microwave radiation maximum public exposure] guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio-frequency [microwave] radiation. It must, in particular,

  • (i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines,
  • (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and
  • (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”

This ruling extinguishes the old tale spun by wireless industry propaganda that often fills mainstream media: that there is a debate about the safety of wireless infrastructure. That debate is over. The evidence of biological harms caused by the microwave radiation pollution that spews from WTF infrastructure antennas 24/7 has been

  1. Entered into the FCC’s public record,
  2. Accepted by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
  3. Ruled upon by the D.C. Circuit and all Circuits are bound by this ruling.

The judges mandated that the FCC finally address the substantial written evidence of negative impacts of pulsed, modulated wireless radiation from cellular infrastructure antennas on adults, children and the environment. The judges also mandated that the FCC determine whether its exposure guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio-frequency microwave radiation. Therefore, no community should allow irresponsible placement of WTFs.

That is the evidence fueling the citizen action we’ve seen recently at the Pittsfield Board of Health and Lenox Planning Board. Now Sheffield officials are learning that the wireless industry propaganda holds no water.

Please note that any person or media outlet that claims that there “is a dearth of comprehensive scientific evidence on the long-term health impacts of exposure to microwave transmissions” is wrong and woefully uninformed. The links to the 11,000+ pages of evidence, inform everyone.

Similarly, any person or media outlet that alleges there is “little procedural wiggle room:” is also uninformed about the legislative intent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, expressed in the 1996-TCA conference report cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 101 Cal.App.4th 367, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 80 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)

​Justice Breyer, with whom Justice O’Connor, Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, concurring

“Congress initially considered a single national solution, namely a FCC wireless tower siting policy that would preempt state and local authority. Ibid.; see also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, p. 207 (1996). But Congress ultimately rejected the national approach and substituted a system based on cooperative federalism. Id., at 207-208. State and local authorities remain free to make siting decisions.

The Legislative intent of the 1996-TCA is stated clearly in the 1996-TCA Conference Report:

“The conferees also intend that the phrase ‘unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services’ will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services. For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.”

In 1996, via cooperative federalism. localities were granted the power to locally regulate the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G” in order to ensure public safety. Sheffield’s cell tower controversy, like the ones before it and those that will inevitably follow, underscore that localities are not sufficiently informed about cooperative federalism and are overly-influenced by Wireless industry propaganda.

Any person or media outlet that alleges there is “a need for state and federal officials to give a helping hand to municipal panels”. or that there is a need for “a more robust and thoroughly updated regulatory framework that town planners and health boards can rely on when wireless facility opponents press their public safety case in town meetings and tower permit hearings” is reading straight from the Wireless industry propaganda playbook. There are no such needs. The Federal law, the 1996-TCA is clear: localities have the final say in zoning matters to restrict WTF placement in order to deliver actual safety to its residents.

Although, the Berkshire Eagle has expressed its “skepticism about far-reaching claims of myriad health problems caused by the [RF microwave] emissions from cell towers and that such claims should “require evidence demonstrating not just correlational but causal links.” . . . nothing in the 1996-TCA requires such causal links. That is just more Wireless industry propaganda.

The 1996-TCA says in Title 47 U.S. Code §332(c)(7)(B) (iii)

Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.

The “substantial evidence contained in a written record” are the links to the 11,000+ pages of evidence, cited in the links, above. Any locality can cite that evidence to substantiate its decision to deny any irresponsible placement of a WTF in its community.

Berkshire Eagle Article on Sheffield MA 5G moratorium

Sheffield wants to ban 5G wireless until health questions are resolved. Will the town be able to stop it? READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Sheffield residents and activists have filed a petition with the town for a moratorium on 5G wireless installations until the higher radio frequencies they emit are proven safe. But outsmarting federal telecommunications law could prove difficult. It wrests control from local governments where matters of health and the environment are concerned.

A person standing in front of a group of people sitting in chairs

Description automatically generated with medium confidenceTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Lenox residents prevail.

Dear All, 

My deepest gratitude to everyone who worked so tirelessly on educating those in Lenox about the unprotective, incomplete and full of holes bylaw that was not in the best interest of the town or the residents. Thank you to all who worked on and participated in the Safer Siting forum, who wrote letters for the record to the town, and who shared much better versions of  the bylaw which allowed necessary facilities to be placed where they belonged.  In this last busy holiday month, everyone has been amazing and efforts in this last week and last night were phenonenomal. 

Sadly, the town choose to use an industry consultant who dished out medical, scientific, engineering and legal advice despite not being a doctor, scientist, engineer,  or  lawyer.  While the town didn’t listen to our suggestions to hire- or simply talk to an non industry attorney who does this work- THE PEOPLE DID.   Our voices, even though most of us were silenced when they cut open comments off early to “call the question” have been heard loud and clear. 

Thank you to each of you for your unbelievable support, incredible efforts and strength in ensuring new towers are sited appropriately and not 30 feet from bedroom windows and 150 feet from front doors.  We will continue to try to work with town leaders to get a new, appropriate ordinance passed. 

The people have voted. They voted for health and safety. 

Eagle Article below- 

With gratitude, 


LENOX — Cheers erupted in Lenox Thursday night, as if the Red Sox won the World Series.

But it was opponents of the Planning Board’s proposed wireless telecommunications bylaw, victorious in their effort to defeat the plan.

The high-stakes special town meeting adjourned far earlier than expected. Resident Judy Moss called the question on the bylaw, asking voters to cut off debate after less than 30 minutes of discussion on the hotly contested wireless plan crafted by town planners over nearly two years and over 150 hours of Town Hall meetings.


A proposed bylaw regulating wireless facilities in Lenox has prompted vigorous opposition. Will these concessions win enough votes?

Residents voted 68 percent in favor of proceeding directly to a vote on the towers bylaw warrant article, more than the two-thirds majority needed to end discussion, after eight residents voiced support and opposition for the plan, designed to clear the way for improvement in the town’s spotty cellphone service, especially affecting Verizon customers.

But the vote on the wireless bylaw itself narrowly missed the needed two-thirds supermajority. Residents voted 251-147 for the bylaw, a 63 percent majority. In order to pass, 266 “yes” votes would have been needed.

Views on wireless bylaw

During the abbreviated debate on the wireless bylaw, former Selectman Channing Gibson argued that cell phones are a vital link in today’s world, since fewer people have land lines. Without service, medical emergencies and other vital communications are impossible. He added that social justice issues are at stake.

“An unwillingness to trust existing health and scientific guidelines is not a valid excuse to deny members of our community help for their very real safety concerns,” Gibson said.

Amy Judd said the bylaw lacked necessary details and specific requirements for potential wireless facility applicants.


A wireless bylaw to improve cell reception? Debate intensifies in Lenox as opponents urge caution

Sue Merritt, owner of Lenox Fit on Pittsfield Road, where the town’s major cell tower is located, spoke in support of the bylaw. “So far, I’m not glowing and I’m still here to talk about it. A lot of misinformation has been spread through the community.”

But Amelia Gilardi, teenage daughter of bylaw opponent Courtney Gilardi, described how she was “forced out” of her family home in southeast Pittsfield because of illness from a new Verizon Wireless cell tower, the subject of prolonged litigation by aggrieved residents.

She came to Lenox as a “safe haven” and stated that she didn’t vomit, get dizzy or miss school because of headaches, as she did in Pittsfield, but still suffers health impacts. “I lost the last three years of my childhood to this,” she told residents, asking for a “no” vote on the bylaw.


Courtney Gilardi

413 418 6925

Scientific American blog questions safety of 5G

Scientific American blog:

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks

By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe – Scientific American Blog Network

The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of “fear mongering” over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.  

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.


Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

This reprint offered by The Scientific Alliance for Education

Sheffield MA petition for 5G moratorium

Petition for a moratorium of small cell installations in the Town of Sheffield, MA

We the undersigned, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation 5G in the Town of Sheffield, MA, until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.

Our concerns regarding small cell installations:

•Small cell wave antennae, although they can be more discreet visually, are biologically harmful. The FCC which regulates safety levels, has not tested these frequency levels thoroughly. Their safety limits only pertain to what was tested in 1996 and has not been updated since.

•International scientists 2 and recent research speak of harm from millimeter waves (5G). Thus, Sheffield will benefit if the Town By-laws preclude any implementation until the FCC properly updates their safety regulations to include millimeter waves.

>5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans, the environment and pollinators.3

•In 47 USC § 324 (1) states that all radio stations (of which wireless towers are) shall use the “minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired”. The MINIMUM frequency and no more is all that is needed for proper wireless communication. Higher levels have always been considered more dangerous and facilities need to be tested periodically to be sure the FCC levels are maintained.

•The 1996 Telecom Act  § 107 does not preclude Sheffield from regulating the ordinance relating to telecom 4, be they health, environment or otherwise. For now, we the undersigned wish to keep Sheffield Safe by having a moratorium on the rollout of 5G in Sheffield.

1 In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired. (June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, § 324, 48 Stat. 1091.)

2 EU Appeal to Halt 5G Implementation 5G Appeal – 5G Appeal Scientist 5G appeal call for 5G roll out moratorium

3 Rev Environ Health 2022; 37(2): 247–258; Martin L. Pall* Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics

4 The operations of Wireless Telecom facilities was never preempted from local zoning authority – by virtue of the fact that final version of Telecommunications Act of 1996 § 107, the words ‘operate’ and ‘operations’ were removed…meaning local municipalities DO have a say on issues such operations in general and those that affect health!








Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humansDamage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.”–As of September 9 2022, 424 scientists and medical doctors have signed the 5G Appeal and are urgently calling for the EU to halt the roll out of 5G due to serious potential health effects from this new technology. 

“There are no studies that show that this technology and the increasing and common exposure to 5G and 4G base stations at levels allowed by the government is safe. On the contrary, studies have repeatedly and convincingly showed increased risk of the microwave syndrome and cancer, at levels that are far below the levels that the government and the telecom companies falsely claim are safe.” -Mona Nilsson, managing director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation

August, 2021: The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit courtthe FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

Over 600 cities in Italy have passed resolutions to halt 5G, as have cities throughout Europe, such as Trafford, United Kingdom, Lille, France, Ormidia, CyprusBalchik, BulgariaHawaii County, Easton ConnecticutKeene New Hampshire and Farragut Tennessee have passed resolutions to halt 5G in the US with many more passing legislation to restrict 5G rollout. Other communities that have passed ordinances to restrict cell antennas near homes and schools include numerous cities in California such as Petaluma, Mill Valley, Malibu, Santa Barbara, Encinitas, Fairfax, Palo Alto, Walnut City and San Diego County as well as  Bedford New Hampshire, Mason Ohio and more. Locally Lenox and Pittsfield, MA are addressing radiation concerns from RF towers.

According to Verizon, 5G Ultra Wideband network’s signal can reach up to 1,500 feet without obstructions. This means a pole every 1500’ if no buildings or trees are in between. If obstructions limit the signal more poles closer together will be erected affecting the beauty of the landscape, its draw for tourism and more toxic radiation frequency coverage.

COP 27 missses the boat on the real climate issue: EMFs that ultimately may destroy earth.

Report from the COP 27
In order to navigate the Conference, reports Cellular Phone Task Force assistant Kathleen Burke from Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, one must have a cell phone out and on nearly at all times. For the United Nations’ 27th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change, held this year at this resort city on the Red Sea, four fake palm trees have been erected on the grounds of the COP in order for the 40,000 conference attendees to all be on their cell phones at the same time, all day long, every day for two weeks. Each “tree”, captured in the foreground in the photo above, is simply a metal scaffolding for antennas.   The Safe and Sound Pro II radio frequency meter, which Kathleen brought to the COP in order to measure radiation levels, reads “Extreme” at all times everywhere on the grounds of the COP, inside and out. She may be the only person at the conference who does not have a cell phone.   The purpose of Kathleen’s participation as an observer at the COP is to begin to build bridges to the people who care most about the future of our world, who are not even aware of an existential threat that is even more urgent than the one they came to Egypt to address, and yet is intimately related to it. She is distributing the following letter to the delegates — a letter that I wrote and officially submitted to the COP 27 before she arrived. Kathleen delivered the letter by hand today to all the offices of the parties (the countries represented at the Conference), as well as the Environmental Defense Fund and the World Health Organization.

 ” A blind spot must be filled   Outside of an atomic nucleus, there are only two fundamental forces in nature: gravity and electricity.  “The electromagnetic force is  1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000 times stronger than the gravitational force. Yet much of western science pretends that it does not exist.
This is now having terminal consequences for life on Earth. The consequences for life are being blamed on microorganisms. The consequences for the environment are being blamed on climate change.   This Conference is rightly concerned with halting the burning of fossil fuels. Unless that is stopped, the Earth will become uninhabitable. But even if it is stopped, the Earth will not survive unless global electrosmog is also stopped — electrosmog from the wireless cloud and from satellites. And electrosmog is even more of an emergency than climate change. We have only years to stop it, not decades. In addition, many of the strategies for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels — solar power, wind power, the smart grid, electric vehicles, smart highways, smart cities, and so forth — are only making matters much worse. The methods used to gather information about altered animal habitats — GPS, radio tracking devices, etc. — are killing wildlife instead of saving them.   The following are a few of the facts that the United Nations must immediately recognize and take control of in order for our children to live to grow up:   Electricity, and no other force, is responsible for life. The study of electricity must be restored to biology, chemistry, and medicine.
  >Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) interfere with the flow of electrons in our nerves, our brains, and our hearts’ pacemakers. This is responsible for the recent huge increases in the prevalence of neurological diseases such as ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and autism, and the large increase in the incidence of heart attacks in young people.
 > EMFs interfere with the flow of electrons from the food we eat to the oxygen we breathe, which occurs day and night in the mitochondria of every cell in order to make the energy necessary for life.
  >This interference with metabolism — interference with the burning of sugars, fats and proteins for energy has put all living things into a state of oxygen deprivation. This is occurring to every person, every animal, every insect, and every plant, without ceasing and without possibility of escape.
 > The reduced ability of our cells to digest sugars is called diabetes.
  >The reduced ability of our cells to digest fats causes them to be deposited in in our tissues, resulting in obesity. It causes them to be deposited in coronary arteries, resulting in heart disease.
  >The reduced ability of our cells to utilize the oxygen we breathe causes them to revert to anaerobic (non-oxygen-using) metabolism, resulting in cancer.
  >The extraordinary increases in these four pandemic diseases — obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer — are predominantly caused by constant radiation from personal wireless devices and the global infrastructure that supports them.
  >In bees, which have a very high metabolism, this interference is quickly lethal. Colony collapse disorder is caused almost entirely by electrosmog.
 > The 75% decline in flying insects in nature reserves throughout Germany, and the 98% to 99% decline in the number of crawling insects in a Puerto Rican rainforest — decreases that reflect what is globally being called “insect apocalypse” — are predominantly caused by the enormous increase in the intensity of radiation from the global wireless infrastructure.
  >The unprecedented mass deaths of nesting birds worldwide in the spring and summer of 2022 was due to the tremendous global intensification of wireless infrastructure now occurring on land, in space, and in the oceans.
  >The emissions from wireless devices are called radio frequency (RF) radiation. In addition to the general interference with electron flow in our bodies that occurs from any source of EMFs, RF radiation carries complex information from one wireless device to another in the form of frequencies and pulsation patterns. It carries the same information to the cells of our bodies, interfering with and drowning out the communication between our cells, and between our bodies and the Earth.
  >This interferes with reproduction, growth, differentiation, maturation, healing, and normal functioning, and is responsible for the dramatic degradation of human health in the past two and a half decades.
  >This interference with internal communication does not depend on dose. Even at near-zero power levels, RF radiation has been shown to alter brain waves and change the structure of DNA.
  >Every wireless device and every antenna is responsible for electrosmog. None can ever be used safely, not even theoretically. Not cell towers, not cell phones, not WiFi, not Bluetooth, and not any of the 25 different wireless devices owned by the average household today.
Communication satellites, now being launched almost every other day, up to 54 at a time, by governments and private corporations, are massively polluting and altering the electromagnetic environment of the Earth itself. This is further degrading all of life below, because every living thing is part of the global electric circuit which flows at all times between the sky and the Earth.
  There are 15 billion cell phones on Earth today emitting RF radiation, along with more than 6 million cell towers. At least 5,000 satellites are emitting radiation globally from space, with at least 100,000 more being scheduled and planned.   On behalf of my organization, the millions of people who support my work, and on behalf of humanity, all of life, and the Earth, I ask the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to recognize electrosmog as the emergency that it is, and a huge contributor to aspects of the degradation of life that have heretofore been blamed only on climate change. I further ask the United Nations to open an official discussion on this emergency threat to all nations and I propose the drawing up of a new treaty and the establishment of a Convention on Electrosmog. I, and the thousands of global experts with whom I communicate, are available to assist in this effort in any way that is required.”

Kathleen also gave a copy of the above letter to Amy Goodman, who is the host of Democracy Now!, a news program that she founded 26 years ago and that airs on over 1,400 public radio and television stations worldwide. Her broadcasts from the COP 27 have been amazing. On Tuesday I heard her interview Vanessa Nakate, a climate justice activist from Uganda, and what Vanessa had to say about the climate emergency applies with equal force to EMFs. Tuesday was Vanessa’s 26th birthday, or “bearthday,” as she spelled it for Amy.   Vanessa reported that the Horn of Africa is experiencing severe drought, while large parts of Nigeria and Pakistan are underwater from record floods. The world must stop talking about “adaptation,” she said, because adaptation is already impossible. “You cannot adapt to extinction,” she said. A just transition to renewable energy is essential, she said, as is the total cessation of investments in fossil fuels. She is appalled that the Conference on Climate Change is being openly used as a marketing venue for the fossil fuel industry: more than 600 representatives of the fossil fuel industry are marketing their products in the pavilions at the COP!   Her sentiments are equally applicable to EMFs. With radiation already so pervasive that the majorityof people in some nations have diabetes or prediabetes, and 98% to 99% of insects have disappeared even in rainforests, “adaptation” is impossible. “Adaptation” in this case meaning “safe use” of wireless technology. The burning of fossil fuels must cease, and the use of cell phones must also cease. Those are the two things that must happen if we are to have a planet to live on in the near future.   Yesterday (Wednesday), Amy interviewed Harjeet Singh, an activist from New Delhi, India who is with the Climate Action Network. Like Vanessa, he is outraged that not only has there been no progress on climate change in 30 years, but there is not even any mentionof fossil fuels in the Paris Agreement that was adopted in 2015. And (as of yesterday) there was no mention of fossil fuels in the draft report of the COP 27 either. He, too, is scandalized by the 600 fossil fuel lobbyists that have turned the COP 27 into an Expo for their products. He is urging the nations of the world to develop a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Tuvalu and Vanuato are calling for. They are two island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising sea levels.   The parallels to EMF activism are striking. Just as 600 fossil fuel lobbyists are hawking their products at a conference on climate change, so most people that attend EMF conferences and protests of 5G have cell phones in their hands. Just as there has been no progress on climate change for 30 years, so there has been no progress on radiation for 30 years.   “A fight for climate justice is a fight for human rights,” said Vanessa Nakate. Likewise, a fight for a radiation-free world is a fight for human rights. It is time to stop nations from being flooded and submerged, and it is time to stop millions of people from being tortured and made homeless, and children worldwide from growing up with brain damage. It is time to stop burning fossil fuels, and it is time to stop using cell phones.   My letter, as submitted by me to the COP on my organization’s stationery, with my credentials, is here:

I ask everyone to please write to Amy Goodman requesting her to begin talking about radiation from wireless technology on Democracy Now! She is popular, respected, and reaches millions of people. Please do notquestion climate change when you write to her. We need to join forces with those who care about our planet if we want to keep it alive. The best way to contact Amy is on her website.      
-Arthur Firstenberg, President Cellular Phone Task Force (End Cellphones Here On Earth) P.O. Box 6216 Santa Fe, NM 87502 November 17, 2022                                                                                    I    

Key Points on Wireless industry harm subversion


How the FCC shields cellphone companies from safety concerns

  • By Peter Elkind, ProPublica Nov 16, 2022

The Berkshire Eagle newspaper

More than 20 foreign governments  have adopted protective measures or recommended precautions.

  • Italy, India, Israel, Chile, Croatia, Ukraine, Kuwait, Greece, China, Russia, Canada, Switzerland, Brussels Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Greece, Belarus, Georgia, Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Turkey India, Liechtenstein, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Kuwait,  Republic of Moldova, Iraq

France requires new phones to be sold with headsets and written guidance on limiting radiation exposures; it also bans phones marketed to small children and ads aimed at anyone younger than 14. Greece and Switzerland routinely monitor radio-frequency radiation levels throughout the country. Britain, Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, India and South Korea urge citizens to limit both their own exposure and cellphone use by children. The European Environment Agency does too, noting: “There is sufficient evidence of risk to advise people, especially children, not to place the handset against their heads.”

Why isn’t the USA recommending precautions?

Thread of roadblocks below:

Henry Lai, an emeritus professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, has compiled a database of 1,123 peer-reviewed studies published since 1990 investigating biological effects from wireless-radiation exposure. Some 77% have found “significant” effects, according to Lai. By contrast, an earlier review by Lai found that 72% of industry-sponsored studies reported no biological effects.

As the FCC moved toward adopting wireless-radiation limits in 1996, EPA officials, whose experts had conducted the most extensive government research on wireless-radiation risk, affirmed their concern about possible biological harm in a presentation to the FCC. They urged the FCC to follow a two-stage strategy: to meet a looming congressional deadline by first setting interim limits covering known thermal effects; then to commission a group of experts to study biological risks and develop permanent exposure guidelines. But the FCC never pursued “Phase 2.” Instead, just months later, Congress completed a multiyear defunding of the EPA’s wireless-radiation group, sidelining the agency from researching the issue.

in 1999, the FDA asked the NTP (National Toxicology Program) to “assess the risk to human health.” The results were dramatic. The study found “clear evidence” of rare cancerous heart tumors, called schwannomas, in male rats; “some evidence” of tumors in their brains and adrenal glands; and signs of DNA damage. The percentage that developed tumors was small, but, as the study’s authors noted earlier, “Given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communication devices, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure” could have “broad implications for public health.”

The FCC in 2013 had been prodded by a Government Accountability Office report to review its radio-frequency exposure limit, unchanged since 1996. “We recognize that a great deal of scientific research has been completed in recent years and new research is currently underway, warranting a comprehensive examination,” the FCC wrote, in opening its inquiry. An Interior Department letter voiced concern about the impact of radiation from towers on migrating birds, noting that the FCC’s limits “continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” “The inquiry was just on a back burner, and the back burner was turned off.”

In 2014, the CDC added this modest language to its website: “Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cellphone use.” They were coerced to revising it and changing there “we” to “some organizations.”

In 2017, as the FCC’s review of its wireless standards entered its fourth year, Mantiply, a soft-spoken physical scientist said, he and three colleagues proposed hiring an outside consulting firm to conduct an environmental assessment, a detailed formal examination, of the submissions on the radiation safety limits. But their boss, Julius Knapp, the head of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology, summarily rejected the proposal. Mantiply’s proposal came at a time when the Trump White House and FCC commissioners were aggressively promoting 5G.

In 2018, a massive, nearly-two-decade study by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, found “clear evidence” that cellphone radiation caused cancer in lab animals. “We’re really in the middle of a paradigm shift,” said Linda Birnbaum, who was director of the NTP (National Toxicology Program) until 2019. It’s no longer right to assume cellphones are safe, she said. “Protective policy is needed today. We really don’t need more science to know that we should be reducing exposures.” The FCC rejected the need for any such action when it reviewed its standards on cellphone radiation in 2019. The agency decided it would continue to rely on exposure limits it established in 1996, when Motorola’s StarTAC flip phone was considered cutting edge.

To find out more about this potential hazard:

A Link between 5G and Covid

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) public health policy has focused on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and its effects on human health while environmental factors have been largely ignored. In considering the epidemiological triad (agent-host-environment) applicable to all disease, we investigated a possible environmental factor in the COVID-19 pandemic: ambient radiofrequency radiation from wireless communication systems including microwaves and millimeter waves. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, surfaced in Wuhan, China shortly after the implementation of city-wide (fifth generation [5G] of wireless communications radiation [WCR]), and rapidly spread globally, initially demonstrating a statistical correlation to international communities with recently established 5G networks. In this study, we examined the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the detrimental bioeffects of WCR and identified several mechanisms by which WCR may have contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic as a toxic environmental cofactor. By crossing boundaries between the disciplines of biophysics and pathophysiology, we present evidence that WCR may: (1) cause morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that can contribute to hypercoagulation; (2) impair microcirculation and reduce erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplify immune system dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increase cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals resulting in vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increase intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsen heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.

Relevance for Patients:

In short, WCR has become a ubiquitous environmental stressor that we propose may have contributed to adverse health outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and increased the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we recommend that all people, particularly those suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection, reduce their exposure to WCR as much as reasonably achievable until further research better clarifies the systemic health effects associated with chronic WCR exposure.

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G – PMC (

A great website to help stop 5G in schools.

SEPTEMBER 09, 2022

Link copied

Our kids need your help to protect them from harmful 5G and cell tower radiation! Schools are accepting financial incentives from telecom giants to add cell towers to their properties. In true Big Tech fashion, corporate profits have taken priority over public health.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) wants to stop the uncontrolled rollout of 5G and cell tower equipment near schools and residential neighborhoods. We need your help to force legislative action to stop the ever-increasing risk to our children caused by dangerous radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by this equipment.

Contact your elected officials today to demand they introduce and support federal and state legislation banning cell towers and small cells from being on or near school grounds.

Canada bans Huawei 5G

Joining the rest of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, Canada is banning China’s Huawei Technologies and ZTE Corp (OTCPK:ZTCOY) from providing 5G (and even 4G) services in the country. Providers who have already installed the gear will also be required to remove it without compensation or reimbursement. With regards to deadlines, 5G machinery must be taken out by June 2024, while companies using related 4G equipment must clear them from their networks by the end of 2027.

Snapshot: The decision follows a nearly four-year national security review, prompted by the U.S. due to espionage concerns. Washington has cited fears over the potential use of 5G equipment as a backdoor for spying by the Chinese government, even warning allies it would limit intelligence sharing with countries that use Huawei equipment. “This is very much in line with what our allies have been doing in order to protect a critical piece of infrastructure,” said François-Philippe Champagne, Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. 

Fearing an eventual ban, Bell Canada (NYSE:BCE) and Telus (NYSE:TU), two of the nation’s largest wireless players, had already started to exclude Huawei from their network buildouts, opting for alternative gear from Sweden’s Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) and Finland’s Nokia (NYSE:NOK). The Chinese embassy in Canada was quick to slam the announcement, calling it politically motivated and a violation of the principles of free trade and market economies. “China will take all necessary measures to protect the interests of Chinese companies,” according to a spokesperson.