Biologically Safe Levels For Wireless Exposure Have Never Been Established

Biologically safe levels for long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing wireless radiation at non-thermal levels, what today's wireless technology exposes us to, have never been established by any United States health regulatory agency.  Current safety guidelines are based upon the heating of tissue, or thermal effects, from short-term exposures only, and do not consider long-term non-thermal effects.

"The RFR (radiofrequency radiation) exposure limits were designed to protect the general public only from heating risks due to short-term exposure to this type of non-ionizing radiation. The limits were not designed to protect individuals from chronic exposure to low-intensity (i.e., non-thermal levels of) RFR. Yet the preponderance of peer-reviewed research on low-intensity RFR exposure finds biological effects and adverse health effects."  ~ Joel M. Moskowitz,  Ph.D., Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley | Worldwide Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Limits versus Health Effects

In 2002 (and prior) the EPA questioned the adequacy of the current U.S. RFR safety guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1996.  Yet U.S. RFR exposure guidelines are still the same today as they were in 1996, and are based upon thermal, or heating effects, only.  They still do not consider long-term exposure at non-thermal levels.

The 4G / 5G small cell antenna infrastructure is creating long-term exposures to exponentially higher levels of RFR at non-thermal levels.  NO safety is assured.

If someone tells you that 5G technology is going to use lower power or lower energy levels than 4G and 3G (and therefore assumed 'safer'), let them know it's not the power levels or energy levels that elicit the most severe  adverse biological effects.  It's the pulses and modulation that appear to be so biologically damaging, according to the scientists and medical professionals who have been studying this issue (see images HERE for a better understanding of modulation).

The 5G wireless infrastructure is in ADDITION to the 3G / 4G infrastructure, adding exponential levels of RFR to our environment, with no biological health impact or environmental impact assessment.

Large cell towers are not being removed as the 4G / 5G infrastructure is being built.  In fact, many large cell towers are getting taller with more cells and antenna.  RFR measurements are increasing exponentially across Michigan as the 4G / 5G infrastructure is being installed.

Because safe levels for long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing RFR at non-thermal levels have never been established, we have absolutely NO assurance of safety from any of the wireless technology we are exposed to over the long-term.

We can limit cell phone use, use speaker-phone or air-tubes, turn WiFi 'off' at night, and shield 'smart' meter RFR.  But when a small cell antenna is installed on a light pole outside our bedroom window, our options to avoid excessive untested exposure to RFR  (already making some people very ill) are limited.

This is why we need an immediate moratorium on wireless infrastructure expansion including small cell antenna installations until safe levels for long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing RFR at non-thermal levels are established. 

To protect your health, and the health of your loved-ones, please contact state lawmakers and ask for legislation placing a moratorium on wireless expansion until a systematic review of the science is done by independent researchers without conflicts of interest, and safe levels are established for long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing RFR at non-thermal levels.

What Small Cell Antenna Legislation and Sh*t Have In Common

Image from HERE

My former husband had a saying:

"Just because ten-thousand flies eat sh*t doesn't mean you should."

I was reminded of this recently when someone mentioned that other states (besides Michigan) were passing small cell antenna infrastructure legislation.

Just because other states have passed similar forms of cookie-cutter legislation that benefits telecommunications companies at the expense of the citizens of the state, doesn't mean we should. 

But "we" did. 

And by "expense" I mean not only monetarily, but we also pay with our health because wireless technology has repeatedly been proven harmful to humans and the environment.  

The law reads:

"The People of the State of Michigan enact..."

SAY WHAT?!?  

The People of Michigan did NOT enact Public Acts 365 and 366 (formerly SB 637 and 894).

The people of Michigan, for the most part, didn't even KNOW about SB 637 and 894 thanks to our public media that apparently didn't think a law that strips the citizens of their rights to health, safety, and welfare was newsworthy enough for headlines.  Or that stripping local authorities of revenue and control of public right of way space was newsworthy enough either.

However, it was included at the bottom of an article about a rapist and child custody case.  Not exactly where most people would look for an announcement of groundbreaking legislation with extensive ramifications.

The people of Michigan did not enact these small cell antenna laws.  The 2018 Michigan House of Representatives, Senators and Governor enacted them, and thereby gave telecom companies the right to install their equipment just about anywhere in public right of ways without our knowledge or consent.  

AND with NO safety testing.

"This is about radiation, and people need to understand that..."

"Scientists state that wireless radiation is a human carcinogen. Governments have no proof of safety and the peer reviewed published literature has substantial evidence of harm."

So just because other states also passed similar legislation, and just because other states are not looking at a repeal to these horrible laws, doesn't mean we shouldn't.

To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Michigan, we must repeal these laws and place a moratorium on further installations of small cell antennas until safe levels of pulsed modulated non-ionizing wireless radiation have been established for long-term exposure at non-thermal levels by qualified experts with absolutely NO conflicts of interest.  

Which means NOT the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

* * *

Links & resources:

• What Is 5G: Resources for States Facing ALEC (Cookie Cutter) 5G Bills
• Mike Watza from Protec Speaks in Opposition to Michigan's 5G Infrastructure Bills
• Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: Scientist and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G
• Bees, Birds and Mankind – Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’
• Detroit Free Press: Lawmaker wants no repeat of Sanilac County rapist and child custody case
• U.S. Senator Blumenthal: Wireless carriers concede they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on safety of 5G technologies
• Senator Patrick Colbeck Testifies in Opposition to 5G in Michigan - May 29, 2018
• Environmental Health Trust: Top Facts On 5G: What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless And “Small” Cells
• Harvard Ethics: Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated By The Industries It Presumably Regulates
• Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC 

I love this quote...

Photograph by Wayne White

“In a herd of deer, we need some super-sensitive ones. They are the ones that will hear that teeniest little crack, or smell the one or two molecules of scent from the mountain lion that’s stalking them. Their job is to use their hyper-sensitivity to alert the whole group.” 

~ Peter Levine

I found it in this excellent article by Patricia Burke: EHS, ADA, FCC and 5G — Time for a Reboot 

Too bad humanity is taking so dang long to realize that the same applies to us. We have sensitive ones in regards to exposure to non-ionizing wireless radiation at non-thermal levels. And still, for the most part, we are being ignored...

Wireless Safety in Schools - Presentation by Cece Doucette

Cece Doucette 11/20/18 Public Comment to Massachusetts Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education

From the video description:

Good morning, my name is Cece Doucette from Ashland where we have become the first in the nation to post best practices for WiFi safety (Best Practices for Mobile Devices)

On November 1st the U.S. National Toxicology Program published the final report from their $30M study. They determined the radiofrequency radiation that carries our wireless signals causes DNA damage, brain and heart tumors.

The Ramazzini Institute in Italy found the same. (Understanding EMFs - Cancer)

It’s understandable that we’ve fallen for the industry’s all-WiFi-all-the-time messaging. As Harvard’s Captured Agency report indicates (Captured Agency: How the FCC is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates), the industry has been extremely effective at taking over federal agencies and deploying the big tobacco playbook to suppress evidence of harm while promoting their toxic products, even to our children.

Other studies show wireless radiation is a neurotoxin that can account for our skyrocketing rates of behavior issues, autism, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, cognitive impairment, insomnia, headaches, nosebleeds, skin abnormalities and more.

Children, the science shows, are especially vulnerable as they absorb more radiation than adults, and it’s cumulative. (Understanding EMFs - Impact on Children)

In April the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Consumer Protection wrote their own bill to examine wireless radiation and public health. It joins eight other bills this session to address man-made radiation. (Understanding EMFs - MA EMF Bills)

Last month, the New York Times investigated and published:

• “A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley: I am convinced the devil lives in our phones.” 
• A second article revealed, “The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected: America’s public schools are still promoting devices with screens — even offering digital-only preschools. The rich are banning screens from class altogether.” (The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected)

I recommend you see Generation Zapped at your earliest convenience (Generation Zapped).

There were three local screenings last week:

• At one, a seasoned first-grade teacher said the children come to school now exhausted, with behavioral issues and unable to focus on learning. 
• At another, a Northeastern University professor said all her students are on Adderall, and are offering it to her because she herself experiences migraines and nausea several times a week. 
• At the third, a woman indicated she got walloped with vertigo just walking in downtown Boston because of the 5G antennas being installed on the street poles. 

It’s time to protect ourselves and all of our children with safe hard-wired technology and put a moratorium on toxic wireless radiation.

The non-profit Wireless Education has built on-line courses and can quickly train our schools (Wireless Education - Schools & Families Course).

The packet I’ve given you provides additional resources. 

We don’t have to reinvent the wheel, but we do owe it to our children this school year to prioritize their well-being over the corporate agendas we unwittingly bought into.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Also provided is the policy solution book, Reinventing Wires (Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines & Networks).

Note: this meeting was the day before Thanksgiving break, and we'd all driven there in a snow storm so folks were a little giddy. Please don't confuse the jovial comments at the beginning and end of the video with the seriousness of the wireless radiation facts.

Senator Blumenthal 5G Safety Statement

Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) 5G Safety Statement, December 3, 2018

"We're talking about health and safety."

"The America people deserve more from the Federal Communications Commission than they are getting right now, and that's why I'm going to be demanding answers and studies..."

• Captured Agency: How the FCC is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates
• Millimeter waves (5G) SAR and Human Sweat Glands
• 5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects
• Effects of Microwave and Millimeter Wave Radiation on the Eye | SpringerLink

 

FDA ‘Ignoring The Evidence’ on Cellphones & Cancer

"A $25 million study on the effects of cellphone radiation on rats found clear evidence of tumors. But the Food and Drug Administration, which had requested the study in the first place, is casting doubt on its conclusions. RT America’s Dan Cohen has the details."

Dan Cohen then "tweeted":

"The FDA ordered the program studying the effects of cell phone radiation on humans in 1999. It's now under the leadership of industry insider, venture capitalist and former neocon think tank @AEI fellow Scott Gottlieb." Physician with drug-industry ties is Trump's FDA pick

"Before Trump appointed Gottlieb to head the FDA, he was a partner at New Enterprise Associates whose portfolio includes multiple wireless companies that would hate for the public to know about the dangers of cell phone radiation." NEA "wireless" search

"While the FDA suppresses science on cell phones causing cancer, it approves powerful opioids that it knows will kill people."

It looks like not only is the FCC a captured agency, but so may be the FDA...

The good news is, we can't fix a problem unless we shine some light on it and know what's happening.

An Open Letter to Michigan House of Representatives: Before you vote on SB 637 & SB 894, the small cell wireless infrastructure bills...

Photo by Steve & Christine from USA - https://www.flickr.com/photos/24224567@N06/2699080007/Uploaded by xnatedawgx, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8137689

November 1, 2018

Dear Representative of the Great State of Michigan,

I hope this finds you well!

Today, November 1, 2018, the government admitted that wireless radiation can cause cancer and DNA-breaks:

• National Institute of Environmental Health Science:  National Toxicology Program releases final reports on rat and mouse studies of radio frequency radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cell phone technologies
• Wall Street Journal:  Scientists Find ‘Clear Evidence’ Cellphone Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Rats
• Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.:  NTP Cell Phone Radiation Study: Final Reports
• Microwave News:  Cell Phone Radiation Leads to Cancer, Says U.S. NTP in Final Report | Rats Developed Rare Heart Tumor | Cancer Link Was Once Thought Impossible  
• US Brain Tumor Association:  $25 Million NIH Study Proves Wireless Technology Causes Cancer and DNA Damage | Scientific Evidence Enough for Class 1 Human Carcinogen-Scientists Demand 5G Moratorium

Unless you are in opposition to SB 637, the small wireless communications 36-page bill with a 17-page summary, and its companion bill SB 894 (another 7 pages), before you vote, please listen to some of the expert testimonies given in opposition to these bills.

"Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and the peer-review literature. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans we have clear evidence of cancer now; there is no question. We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects... 5G is an untested application of a technology that we know is harmful; we know it from the science. In academics this is called human subjects research." ~ excerpts from Dr. Sharon Goldberg's October 4, 2018 testimony to the House Energy Policy Committee in opposition ti SB 637 and SB 894. Dr. Goldberg is an internal medicine physician with 21 years experience. Dr. Goldberg's entire 14 minute testimony is HERE.

The FCC and telecommunications companies refer to the FCC safety standards as protective of public health, but they aren't.  The FCC's safety standards were not developed for chronic exposure to wireless radiation, the type of exposure common today, and the type of exposure that will increase exponentially with a small cell tower / DAS tower infrastructure that SB 637 and SB 894 facilitate.  We need to be reducing our exposure to radiofrequency radiation, as Dr. Goldberg mentions, not increasing it.

"This is about radiation... The FCC is staffed by former members of the telecommunications industry.  They're effectively indemnified against adverse health impact lawsuits whenthe acceptable limits are higher than the limits actually shown to cause harmful health effects." ~ excerpt from Senator Patrick Colbeck's May 29, 2018 testimony to the House Energy Policy Committee in opposition to SB 637 and SB 894.  Senator Colbeck's entire 11 minute testimony is HERE.

Respecting our need to close the digital divide in Michigan, please consider that hard-wired (coaxial cable, telephone cable, and fiber optics) is faster, safer, more secure, more reliable, and less expensive in the long-run, than wireless technology.  Plus, hard-wired does not expose us to exponentially greater levels of radiofrequency radiation now proven to cause cancer and DNA-breaks.

As shown in the brief you have received, Policy Guidance Regarding Wireless Radiation, the bottom graph on page 8 shows how the United States, Canada, and Australia have radiofrequency radiation exposure limits 100 times higher than the majority of the rest of the world, and 10 times higher than India and Israel.

Since insurance companies in the United States consistently exclude liability coverage for electromagnetic fields (which includes the radiofrequency radiation from transmitting utility meters, "smart" meters, cell phones, cell towers, small cells, DAS towers, and all other wireless devices and equipment), I request that you introduce an amendment to SB 637 that would place liability for adverse health effects on the telecommunications companies.  If they are so sure the FCC's safety limits are protective, they would have no reason to oppose such an amendment.  

As Senator Colbeck mentioned in his May 29, 2018 testimony, SB 637 usurps your authority of Article 4, Section 51, to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Michigan.  

Some representatives may believe that because of the FCC declaratory ruling their hands are tied regarding SB 637 and SB 894.  What they may not realize is that the FCC's order represents an unprecedented federal intrusion on local control and authority, and that cities and municipalities are already filing lawsuits against the FCC.  

"I think the FCC has wildly overstepped it's limitations." ~ Michigan municipal Attorney Mike Watza  

• Washington Post:  More than a dozen cities are challenging the FCC over how to deploy 5G cell sites
• Bloomberg Law: States, Cities Feud Over Wireless Network Small Cells
• American City & Town: Cities announce opposition, intent to sue FCC over new 5G rules
• ARS Technica: Cities will sue FCC to stop $2 billion giveaway to wireless carriers
• GT Government Technology: Portland, Ore., Prepares for a Fight with the FCC Over 5G Ruling
• Telecoms: US cities issue lawsuit threats against the FCC over 5G rules

Recognizing that my rights and the rights of every citizen of this great state are usurped by SB 637, SB 894, and the FCC declaratory ruling, you now have an opportunity to help preserve our rights and your oath of office by voting "no" on these two bills.  

From the movie Philadelphia, Andrew Beckett, who was an attorney, said, "It's that every now and again - not often, but occasionally - you get to be a part of justice being done.  That really is quite a thrill when that happens."   

You now have that opportunity to be part of justice being done by opposing SB 637 and SB 894, bills that facilitate the installations of cancer-causing, DNA-breaking wireless towers and antenna outside our children's windows.  Please choose justice for the people of Michigan.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jeanine Deal

Take Back Your Power

Take Back Your Power 2017 (Official) - smart meter documentary

"The award-winning documentary TAKE BACK YOUR POWER 2017 uncovers the shocking story behind why hundreds of local governments and millions of ratepayers are standing against the multi-billion dollar rollout of 'smart’ utility meters. Take a journey of revelation, examining evidence of in-home surveillance, hundreds of home fires and several fatalities, systemic over-billing, health risks, unprecedented hacking vulnerability, and even extortion."

"The insightful and often astounding new material in this 2017 final cut exposes the agenda behind smart meters with even more clarity. And the way to solution is also opened, as the forthcoming sequel – the InPower Movement – is introduced."

"With compelling insight from whistleblowers, government agents, lawyers, doctors, researchers and environmentalists, Josh del Sol’s TAKE BACK YOUR POWER investigates the claimed benefits and emerging risks of a profit-based global initiative that seeks to change the way we live. What you’ll discover will surprise, unsettle and ultimately empower you."

~ ~ ~

Click HERE to listen to a mother talk about her son who died from brain cancer.  She later discovers a "cancer cluster" at the college where her son first was diagnosed with bleeding in the brain.  All individuals in the "cancer cluster" she found, including her son, spent large amounts of time very close to a large cell tower.

Click HERE to listen to the former Chairman of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) talk about 5G, the 5th generation of wireless technology.  Note how he states, "We won't wait for the standards."  

The FCC "safety standards" are decades old, have been up for review, but the FCC dropped the ball on that about five years ago... though they've been pushing 5G hard and fast.

We are in a fabricated "race to 5G" which requires massive amounts of small cell towers to be installed in public rights of way, some only feet from homes, schools, businesses, and libraries - places where we spend a lot of time.  5G capable small cell towers are already being installed all over Michigan and throughout the United States with no human safety testing.

And the radiation from small cell towers is NOT small.  They have been measured to put out FIVE-times the radiation of mega-towers.  

We can sit back and do nothing about this, and be in compliance.

Or we can speak-out against small cell tower installations in public rights of way.

The choice is ours.

5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

Monday, August 7, 2017

5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects

by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

The emergence of 5G, fifth-generation telecommunications networks, has been in the news lately because the wireless industry has been pushing controversial legislation at the state level to expedite the deployment of this technology. The legislation would block the rights of local governments and their citizens to control the installation of cellular antennas in the public “right-of-way.” Cell antennas may be installed on public utility poles every 10-20 houses in urban areas. According to the industry, as many as 50,000 new cell sites will be required in California alone. 

Although many major cities and newspapers have opposed this legislation, the potential health risks from the proliferation of new cellular antenna sites have been ignored. These cell antennas will expose the population to new sources of radio frequency radiation including MMWs.

5G will employ low- (0.6 GHz - 3.7 GHz), mid- (3.7 – 24 GHz), and high-band frequencies (24 GHz and higher). In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has allocated “low-band” spectrum at 0.6 GHz (e.g., 600 MHz), “mid-band” spectrum in the 3.5 GHz range, and 11 GHz of “high-band” frequencies including licensed spectrum from 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37-40 GHz, as well as unlicensed spectrum from 64-71 GHz which is open to all wireless equipment manufacturers.

Prior to widespread deployment, major cell phone carriers are experimenting with new technologies that employ “high-band” frequencies in communities across the country. The “high-band” frequencies largely consist of millimeter waves (MMWs), a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths of one to ten millimeters and frequencies ranging from 30 to 300 GHz (or billions of cycles per second). 

The characteristics of MMWs are different than the “low-band” (i.e., microwave) frequencies which are currently in use by the cellular and wireless industries. MMWs can transmit large amounts of data over short distances. The transmissions can be directed into narrow beams that travel by line-of-sight and can move data at high rates (e.g., up to 10 billion bits per second) with short lags (or latencies) between transmissions. The signals are blocked by buildings, and foliage can absorb much of their energy. Also, the waves can be reflected by metallic surfaces. Although antennas can be as small as a few millimeters, “small cell” antenna arrays may consist of dozens or even hundreds of antenna elements.

What does research tell us about the biologic and health effects of millimeter waves?

Millimeter waves (MMWs) are mostly absorbed within 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Thus, the skin or near-surface zones of tissues are the primary targets of the radiation. Since skin contains capillaries and nerve endings, MMW bio-effects may be transmitted through molecular mechanisms by the skin or through the nervous system. 

Continue reading HERE.

Generation Zapped - Introduction to the Documentary

From the video description:

"Generation Zapped is an eye-opening documentary, which reveals that wireless technology poses serious health risks, from infertility to cancer. Through interviews with experts in science and public health, along with people who suffer from high sensitivity to wireless radiation, the film suggests ways to reduce your exposure and protect your family."

Factcheck: FCC Chair Says 5G Small Cell Wireless Antennas Are Safe Despite No Evidence of Safety

The EPA was defunded from researching wireless radiation in 1996 and no federal health agency has done a systematic review of current science.

Learn more at https://ehtrust.org/

WeAreTheEvidence.org
5gInformation.net

MI State Rep. Donna Lasinski Defends Her Support of 5G Streamlining Bills

House Energy Policy Committee, October 4, 2018, hearing on Michigan's two 5G streamlining bills, SB 637 and SB 894.

Rep. Donna Lasinski clarifies the heart of her question, recognizing those with concerns around the clear biological health effects from wireless radiation, why she supports SB 637 as clarifying the FCC’s preemption of every state and locality in the nation.

What she and others who supported these bills don't understand is that neither the FCC Order, nor SB 637 are in the public interest. Cities are not rushing out to fulfill the FCC Order. Instead, cities are planning to sue the FCC over this ruling:

• Cities will sue FCC to stop $2 billion giveaway to wireless carriers
• Portland, Ore., Prepares for a Fight with the FCC Over 5G Ruling
• US cities issue lawsuit threats against the FCC over 5G rules

By supporting the FCC Order and SB 637, she and others on the committee are supporting stripping the rights of local authorities to control public right of way space, and giving those rights to a for-profit industry for an untested new product that will add exponential amounts of a class 2B carcinogen to our environment, with absolutely no safety testing.

The telecom industry's new product "5G" will utilize ultra-high frequency millimeter waves not yet in use. These frequencies are due to be auctioned off by the FCC in November. There are no published peer-reviewed studies proving that long-term exposure to ultra-high frequency millimeter waves is safe for children and pregnant women.

However, there are studies showing biological harm from ultra-high frequency millimeter waves:

• 5G-Army Review Studies BioEffects Millimeter Wave
• Human Skin As Arrays of Helical Antennas in the Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range

Devil in the Details

When public utility companies tell us their new electronic meters (smart, advanced, digital, AMR, AMI, AMR ERT, to name a few NON-analog meters) only transmit for a very short period of time per day/week/month/year, you gotta look at the details.

Recently I answered a question about a new electronic gas meter that "only turns on for a fraction of a second per day," per the utility company.

This was my response (names have been changed to protect the innocent):

Hi Brandon 

Under "signal duration" they compare "a fraction of second per day" for the gas advanced meters, to "less than one minute per day" for the electric smart meters. 

We know that the electric smart meter's transmissions are made up of numerous micro-bursts of radiation throughout the day, which added together, total "less than one minute" per day.  

Is it the same for (the) advanced gas meter?  Is the "fraction of a second" transmission they mention, one continuous (uninterrupted) pulse?  Or (more likely) is that fraction of a second made up of more than one pulse?   

There are 1000 milliseconds in one second.  So their advanced gas meters could be pulsing 999 times per day (at the most), in millisecond bursts, to make up the "fraction of a second" signal duration.  This is something I would press them to answer. 

FYI, our new gas meters, called AMR ERT, pulse in 5.86 millisecond burst, over 15,000 times per day, to make up their 1.5 minutes per day of transmissions.  I did the math here:  Utility Companies, Lies, Deceptions, Cover-Ups & Fires

Numerous mini-pulses or micro-bursts of radiation, 24/7, is what many experts say is so damaging to the body.  They nearly killed me.  Our dogs were adversely affected also, until we wrapped the meters in lead, because there's no "opt-out". 

There are no studies that show smart or advanced meters are 100% safe, while evidence of harm continues to mount. 

Also, the FCC is not a health regulatory agency, and their exposure limits are being contested.  Cell phones are voluntary, and can be turned off.  Smart and advanced meters expose us to unnecessary radiation.  They also operate at the same frequency as cell phones, and the safety of cell phones is questionable:  Cell Phones 

All the best,

Jeanine Deal

Corrections, Psychics & Evidence of Health Effects

Following are my comments given during the Tuesday, March 15, 2016 Battle Creek, Michigan, City Commission meeting...

Consent Agenda Comment

During Commission Comments, Perry Hart (the Director of Public Works in Battle Creek) was asked about House Bill 4916 and he gave some incorrect information.  I'd like to correct that.  

The House Bill doesn't just address Consumer's Energy (electricity provider in Battle Creek), the Bill addresses all of Michigan (public) utility companies who are utilizing wireless technology (in their meters).  (House Bill 4916) is a bipartisan supported Bill, with 13% of Michigan State Representatives supporting it.  Four Democrats and 10 Republicans are co-sponsors on this Bill.  So I just wanted to clarify that it addresses all wireless utility meters, not just Consumers Energy.  It would be Consumers Energy, SEMCO Energy (our natural gas provider), Battle Creek Water Department, you name it.

Also, Mr. Hart referred to FCC requirements as the, quote-unquote, "safety net" they are installing smart meters under.  It must be noted that the FCC is not a health regulation agency and it must also be noted that the FCC's allowable levels of radio frequency radiation are among the highest in the world.  The United States is among the highest in the world.  

And then, I spoke to Rene' Stoia, Deputy City Clerk in Marysville (Michigan), and she said that their Resolution addressed their electric company, DTE, because that's who the citizens were concerned about.  She also said that they sent their Resolution for a no-fee, analog (utility meter) opt-out choice for all their residents, to Michigan State Legislators, and that, (quote), "Hopefully they will do something about this."

One more thing: City Manager said during this discussion (about Marysville), quote, "Very different composition demographics and the provision of utility service than the City of Battle Creek, they don't have a provision of utility services," or something like that.  I didn't quite understand what that meant.  So if you can explain that?  (I've been told that city officials do not have to answer any questions from the public, and so far, City Manager Rebecca Fleury hasn't clarified that statement for me.)

I do want to thank both Commissioner Faris and Flores for supporting a little more detail in the minutes regarding Public Comments.  Thank you.

Adoption of Ordinance Comment

I would really appreciate it if you did not pass this Ordinance.  I referred to it last week as the "censorship ordinance."  No matter how you cut it, when you do the numbers, it's a 27% reduction in the opportunity for the public to comment at City Commission meetings.  And like others have said, if you welcome public comment, you're not showing it in your deeds by passing this ordinance, because a 27% reduction in the comment time is not welcoming.  It's welcoming 27% less comments.  So I would appreciate it if you did not pass this ordinance as it is.  

The way (the proposed Ordinance) was worded, and I don't have it with me, but it was worded such that, "we do not anticipate that this will infringe upon public participation."  Something like that.

And my argument is, unless you're psychic, and can see the future, and know who's going to say what, when; you can not anticipate who is going to participate.  Did you anticipate that I was going to come here and talk about smart meters six, seven, however many months ago?  I don't think so.  You probably wish I didn't!

A 27% reduction in the opportunity for the public to make a comment is a form of censorship.

General Public Comment

This is regarding health effects from the City of Battle Creek Water Department's wireless smart meters, as well as the smart meters from other (public) utility providers in Battle Creek: Consumers Energy and SEMCO Energy...

The number of signatories continues to grow, and currently there are two-hundred and twenty scientists (medical doctors, public health physicians, PhD's, university professors, engineers, and other scientific professionals), who have put their name, their credentials, their reputation on the line by signing this Appeal to the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the United Nations Member States.  You can view this Appeal online at EMFScientist.org.  I would like to quote a little of it here:

"We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF).  Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.  These include - but are not limited to - radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors..."

"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."

At this point I would like to bring your attention to an article published by Oxford University Press, Oxford Journals, Neuro-Oncology: American Brain Tumor Association - Adolescent andYoung Adult Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012.

This analysis shows that brain tumors are now the most frequent form of cancer in adolescents in the United States.  And it's our adolescents today who have grown up with increasing numbers of cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, baby monitors, and now smart meters.  

This Oxford Journal analysis confirms 
what these EMF scientists are saying about health effects.

Thank you for listening.  May you all truly be blessed!

Some after thoughts...

DTE, the electric company that Marysville's Resolution covers, has a history of shutting-off power to some customers who refuse smart meters.  The Resolution Marysville passed was a  very smart move, to nip that shutting-off-power sh*t in the bud.