https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/action/no-5g-near-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.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/central_berkshires/legal-action-pittsfield-cell-tower-mayor-linda-tyer/article_91aa3d2e-0f4b-11ed-a2fb-0bd279394765.html

For more information visit Cecelia’s website: https://www.ma4safetech.org

87 folks turned up to see the movie Generation Zapped and hear the talk by the leader of Massachusetts for Safe Technology. Watch this 5 minute video to see the most important segments of the event held in Hillsdale, NY. https://youtu.be/g_BOGe7wF18

Non Profit Groups Petition HHS and FDA to Declare Imminent Hazard from Wireless Radiation   Petitioners Claim Inaction by FDA is Causing Confusion and Harm to the Public 
(Washington, DC)

A group of non-profit organizations and private individuals led by the national coalition Americans for Responsible Technology (ART) today petitioned the Health and Human Services Department and its constituent agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to publicly issue a declaration of Imminent Hazard and clarify its position on the safety of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from cell phones, cell towers, smart meters, small cell antennas, wireless kiosks, tablets, computers and other wireless devices. The groups contend that the FDA is allowing and encouraging the misleading and false impression that it has engaged in a careful examination of the evidence, reached a science-based conclusion and developed standards for human exposure following government procedures. It has not.

“We’re asking a simple and basic question that Americans have a right to know the answer to: where are the FDA’s science-based standards for exposure to RF radiation?” says ART founder and National Director Doug Wood, whose organization represents more than 130 grassroots organizations across the country. “The FDA is our nation’s primary agency to protect and promote public health and it has a statutory responsibility to evaluate the safety of wireless devices. This is an imminent hazard to human health. The FDA must act.”

The rapid deployment of 5G antennas in neighborhoods across the country, along with the national effort to make every school classroom wireless has raised questions among parents and others as to the safety of near-constant exposure. The concurrent publication of more studies linking RF radiation to cancer, DNA damage and reproductive and neurological problems, has ignited a fierce debate over the wisdom of increasing involuntary exposure to RF radiation. Petitioners argue that the current FCC thermal guidelines, developed more than a quarter century ago, do not address proven biological impacts occurring at levels below the thermal threshold.

“The public is completely uninformed and unprotected,” says Cindy Franklin, founder of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, a co-petitioner in the action. “Most people think the FDA is carefully evaluating the science, and that FCC regulations are based on properly developed scientific input from the FDA. None of that is true.”

A recent lawsuit seeking a judicial review of the FCC’s decision to keep its outdated safety guidelines in place resulted in the Court ordering the FCC to look again at emerging science linking exposure to RF radiation with biological harm, especially to children and the environment. The court called the FCC’s decision to keep its thermal-only guidelines “arbitrary and capricious.”

“People all over the country are suffering from exposure, but may not realize it’s the RF radiation from a nearby antenna, smart meter or router,” says Ellen Marks, founder of the California Brain Tumor Association whose husband developed a brain tumor after years of holding his cell phone against his head. “RF radiation can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, insomnia, inability to concentrate – and those are just the acute symptoms. Cancer takes longer to develop. We can’t wait. This is a public health crisis that needs to be addressed immediately!”

Demanding Action from FDA on Wireless (mailchi.mp)

Hi All, 

We finally arrived at the finish line of the OTARD case and we are finishing with a smile. The hearing on December 7 went well and Scott McCollough did a fantastic job arguing the case. However, it is impossible to predict the outcome. We did the best we could, we are content with our efforts and we are hopeful. The title of a Law360 article published today about the hearing expresses my opinion of it. Full text: DC Circ. Appears Skeptical Of FCC Wireless Antenna Rules.

Court’s Decision – Now we just have to wait for the Court’s decision. The DC Circuit usually issues its decisions within 6 months of the hearing. 

Join Our OTARD Webinar – I know many people have questions about this case and its implications and have questions. Therefore, on Wednesday, December 15, at 3 pm ET, Scott McCollough and I will conduct a webinar with a Q & A session in which we’ll discuss the case and the hearing.
Register for the Webinar Here (pre-registration is required). We thank 5G Free California for hosting this event. 

Recording of the Hearing – For those who missed the hearing, the recording is available on YouTube. The hearing starts at 30:35 and ends at 1:12:00. It is only 37 minutes and I recommend listening to it. See below links to transcripts of selections from the oral arguments:
Transcript of CHD’s Oral Arguments 
Transcript of FCC’s Oral Arguments

A Snapshot of the Hearing 

The judges asked good questions including several regarding the increase in RF exposure, property and homeowners’ association rights and due process. It seemed they were especially concerned with aesthetics. Judge Randolph asked whether local communities would be allowed to pass regulations to prevent these antennas because “they are ugly and we don’t want them in our town?” The FCC’s attorney admitted that it would likely be considered an “unreasonable restriction” and therefore would be prohibited. 
 

The judges’ questions led the FCC to reluctantly admit that we are correct in our assertions as to the impact of the rule amendment: no notice of installation of these antennas is required;  there is no ability to object to their installation; and that essentially, the FCC considers any barrier to installation unreasonable and therefore unlawful, so indeed all state and municipal laws are preempted except for compliance with electric, building and fire codes. 

The judges, especially Judge Millet, who presided over the panel, appeared to see through the FCC’s efforts to minimize the impact this rule has. The FCC continuously argued that the only thing the rule does is to remove the “private use” restriction. McCollough explained that this alleged small change completely flips the whole purpose of the rule, resulting in a massive impact. 

It felt as if the FCC’s attorney attempted to avoid answering the questions knowing the answers would not help the FCC’s case. It was quite noticeable, even to a child. In a comment on my Facebook page Amy wrote: “I had my 10-year-old son listening and he could understand what she [Judge Millet] was asking. He didn’t understand why the FCC attorney couldn’t answer. While usually attorneys want more time to speak, not less, after yet another intense exchange with Judge Millet, the FCC attorney told the court “I am out of time, your honor.” 

Concluding his arguments, McCollough used vivid comparisons suggested to him by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to demonstrate the difference between the old and the new rule allowing “really really ugly powerful antennas”: “The difference is like the difference between a porch light to stadium lights emitting out to a mile, or the difference between TV speakers to a large rock band playing at a stadium for people who can hear it up to a mile.“

It Takes A Village

As always, it takes a village. Many people were involved and worked hard and under a lot of pressure. First and foremost – a huge thank you to Scott McCollough, who as always has done a superb job at every step of the way. To Shannon Koenig who is an essential part of our team, and to Ed Friedman for his help with editing even though it was always late and last minute. I have the utmost appreciation for our Petitioners and our Affiants and their family members for being willing to share their personal experiences and hardships. It takes a lot of courage. Thank you Dr. Elliot, Ginger, Jonathan, Angela, Dr. Hoffman, Michele, and Jennifer. Special thanks to the medical experts who filed reports:  Prof. Beatrice Golomb, Prof. Riina Bray and Dr. Toril Jelter.  Most Importantly, thank you Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the Children’s Health Defense team and their donors for enabling us to bring this case. 

Link to the video is below the text..

The ubiquitous installation of smart meters raises serious legal and policy concerns over false claims, RFR/EMF exposure, privacy, surveillance, hacking, national security, disability, consumer choice, energy inefficiency, and fire. This webinar will assess the public’s legal rights and remedies and offer a balanced path forward for policy makers

Doug Wood is the co-creator of the TechSafe Schools Program and founder of Americans for Responsible Technology.

Julian Gresser, international attorney, professional negotiator, inventor, and former Professor at Harvard Law School is a principal at the law firm of Swankin and Turner and co-founder of the Broadband International Legal Action Network (BBILAN).

Joshua Hart is Director of StopSmartMeters.org, an advocacy, media outreach, and direct action network providing activism consultation and advice to groups who are fighting the wireless ‘smart’ meter assault.

Nina Beety is an investigative writer and public advocate on the environment and wireless radiation hazards, working for policy changes, and a disability rights advocate. Her reports for public officials on Smart/AMI meters are on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in California.

Eric Windheim is a Certified Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist, Certified Building Biology Environmental Consultant, and Radio Frequency Safety Officer based in Sacramento, CA. WindheimEMFSolutions.com

Jennifer Andree is a wife, mother, nurse, veteran, and a victim of Smart Meter radiation exposure.

2021-Nov-17 Confronting the Health Risks of Smart Meters — Broadband International Legal Action Network (bbilan.org)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) –  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has raised significant concerns about a plan to use spectrum for 5G wireless networks on aviation safety and is planning to issue a formal warning about the issue, according to sources and a letter seen by Reuters.

The aviation industry has voiced alarm about the plan to use C-Band spectrum for more than a year. Network carriers are expected to begin using the spectrum starting Dec. 5 starting in 46 markets.

FAA Deputy Administrator Bradley Mims in a previously unreported Oct. 6 letter said the agency shares “the deep concern about the potential impact to aviation safety resulting from interference to radar altimeter performance from 5G network operations in the C band.”

An FAA spokeswoman said Friday it “continues to engage with other agencies so that aviation and the newest generation of 5G cellular technology can safely coexist.”

The Federal Communications Commission said Friday it remains committed to ensuring air safety as the agency’s successful track record demonstrates, while moving forward with the deployment of new technologies that support American business and consumer needs.”

The FAA held a lengthy Oct. 14 meeting with the aviation industry on the issue. FAA and FCC officials have held numerous discussions about the issue, the sources said.

The FAA is planning to soon issue a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin and an airworthiness directive about the issue, two officials told Reuters, confirming a Wall Street Journal report.

The aerospace and airline sector met with the FCC in August https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1081157361951/Aviation%20and%20Aerospace%20Ex%20parte%20Notice%20Aug%206%202021%20w%20OET%20WTB%20IB.pdf, warning without changes “major disruptions to use of the National Airspace System can be expected from the rollout of 5G” and added the FAA will be forced to “drastically reduce aviation operational capacity.” 

Wireless trade group CTIA said Friday 5G networks can safely use C-band spectrum “without causing harmful interference to aviation equipment,” and cited numerous active 5G networks using this spectrum band in 40 countries… Any delay in activating this spectrum risks America’s competitiveness.”

One longer-term solution is retrofitting some altimeters with “out-of-band filters,” but it would likely take years and “many thousands of civil aircraft are likely to be impacted, the aviation industry said.

(Reporting by David Shepardson)

2 hour informative discussion on the Pittsfield cell tower that was erected in a neighborhood without notification and is causing health problems with the residents.