Lloyds Insurers Refuse To Cover 5G Wi-Fi Illnesses

Lloyds of London, one of the world’s premier insurance groups, is refusing to insure health claims made against 5G wireless (“wi-fi”) technologies.

How curious that Lloyds of London has excluded from their policies any negative health effects caused by wi-fi technologies. Now, WHY would Lloyds leave all that money on the table if these technologies are so safe? And, why are other insurance companies following Lloyds’ lead?

If you think that following-the-money provides insights, you’ll probably conclude that something VERY BIG is embedded in this decision.

Here’s some background (including links):

The FCC and other government regulatory bodies, in collusion with the big telecomm industries, are ferociously pushing smart meters, 5G and the Internet of Things.

This roll-out is not only happening in the US, but all over the world. The giant telecomms gush enthusiastically about how EVERYTHING will be connected

OMG!! We’re gonna have Incredibly high-speed connectivity so your little girls and teens can, at supersonic speed, upload pix of their latest nail-polish jobs or cute puppy videos to FaceBook, Pinterest, etc., etc., for their friends to gasp and giggle…..and, of course, click “like” and forward these to their friends…. again, all at warp speed.

It’s pretty clear that this whole “play” by the giant telecomms is seen by them as a financial windfall – for them. And, via their lobby groups, it’s seen as a windfall for all the politicians who support this agenda. Politicians will be rewarded in the usual manner – pricey junkets to exotic places, elegant dinners, campaign contributions and, of course, cushy “golden parachute” jobs for those wi-fi supportive ex-politicians within the telecomm industries, or within their lobby groups. In short, crony business as usual.

BUT WAIT!! ….There’s a tiny but growing wrinkle in this rosy scenario of sugar plums dancing in the heads of these telecomm leaders. Specifically, Lloyds of London, one of the world’s premier insurance groups, is refusing to insure health claims made against wireless technologies. And, other insurance companies are following Lloyd’s lead in this.

If you follow the money, this is HUGE. After all, if these wi-fi techno-toys are so safe, why is Lloyds leaving all this additional money on the table?

Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer.

Keep in mind that Lloyd’s Risk Assessment study of wi-fi was published over 8 years ago. Even back then, however, their Risk Assessment Team was smart enough to realize that new evidence just might emerge showing that the various wi-fi frequencies do cause illness. The result? Lloyds opted to exclude coverage for wi-fi related illnesses.

And then, PG&E followed close on, slipping in its own legal clauses (just as it was rolling out smart meters) that claim no liability for wi-fi related health damage. The schools who opt to put in wi-fi are responsible, according to PG&E, and any other organizations that opt to have PG&E put wi-fi in their buildings are the responsible parties

Today, MANY more recent peer-reviewed scientific studies show a range of serious damage caused by these wi-fi frequencies. 5G brings a quantum leap in damage – to DNA, to cell mitochondria, and much more.

Fortunately the global public is waking up. Conversations are in the air about a global class-action lawsuit vs. the SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS WORLDWIDE who are recklessly ignoring the Precautionary Principle  in their promotion of advanced wi-fi technologies. In part – goes the growing conversation –  the lawsuit will be based on the Nuremburg Principle of “informed consent.”

After all, what’s going on is a tiny handful of people are pushing a huge experiment on what will be billions of people, all without have gotten their informed consent … and without insurance for those who are electromagnetically sensitive – a growing group to watch. These unfortunate individuals are our “canaries” in the coal mine.

Pay close attention. This whole issue is about to become a whole lot more interesting.

Why Does Lloyd’s of London Exclude EMF Coverage – EMF and Your Health Series #4

After years of listening to cellular phone companies assure us that WiFi and cell phone transmission is safe, why did Lloyds of London, a company who will take risks when other insurers won’t exclude EMF injuries? Are they expecting an avalanche of health claims related to EMF?

What Does Lloyd’s of London Know that We don’t know?

We think Lloyd’s underwriters must be reading the research findings from major publications like the BioInitiative Report. Included in this report are summaries of research publications between 1990 -2014 on the biological effects of radio frequency and cell phone radiation. The research news is chilling.  Prolonged exposure to EMF causes cellular malfunction, the formation of free radicals which then leads to a multitude of health issues. There are many physicians who now believe EMF effects underlie ALL medical issues.

This report was created by 29 authors from around the world, including 10 with medical degrees, 21 PhDs and 3 masters degrees. More than 100,000 people visit their site annually (http://www.bioinitiative.org).  No longer can public officials pretend EMF is harmless. The cat is out of the bag!

Schools May Foot the Bill with WiFi Injuries

Lloyds is dumping the blame back on schools. In their insurance waiver, they state clearly that it is schools responsibility to inform parents and teachers if WiFi is being installed in their schools.

Parents for Safe Schools and other groups want to know why schools are not acknowledging the proven health effects of EMF? By allowing WiFi to be installed in the schools, they are acting as if WiFi is a safe technology. For many individuals, animals and plant life, serious health consequences occur with daily exposure to EMF.

Get Protection for Your Cell phone and WiFi & Your Body

We do recommend multi-level protection.

First and foremost, protect your entire body from the harmful effects of EMF and WiFi with a BioShield. There are also a number of ways you can dampen the amount of radiation coming from your cell phone. Visit our store to view several EMF blockers for phones and tablets. Don’t wait until you have symptoms to get protected. If you want to add EMF protection in your work and living spaces, there are several options as well.

Lloyd’s Won’t Discuss Their New EMF Exclusion Clause

My interpretation of this revealing statement is that CFC Underwriting, and perhaps all of “the market” has realized that the time has come to hedge against a future surge in “illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Why else would they refuse coverage “across the market as standard.”?

Lloyds Refuse To Discuss Why They Excluded RF/EMF Claims

“Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Now I’m used to rejection as a reporter, but I couldn’t quite believe this and told her so in my reply, mentioning that their refusal to talk about the policy change would possibly “draw attention away from more important aspects of the story.”

Read more at phibetaiota.net

Source

Misleading radio ad claiming that smart meters can save on energy usage has been banned.

A 'misleading' radio advert which claimed installing a smart meter could save consumers an average of 354 kilowatt hours (kWh) a year has been banned.

The advert for Smart Energy GB claimed consumers could save 354kWh a year on average with a smart meter – but the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) says it was not made clear enough that this saving would be as a result of reducing household energy usage rather than installing the smart meter alone.

The ASA has ruled that the advert must not appear again in its current form.

What are smart meters?

Smart gas and electricity meters take automatic meter readings which are sent directly to your supplier, meaning you're charged on what you actually use rather than an estimate.

In theory, more accurate readings could also help you cut down your energy use, as you'll be able to see exactly what you're using – but installing a smart meter won't reduce energy usage by itself.

The Government wants everyone in England, Scotland and Wales to be offered a smart meter over the next few years.

But first generation SMETS 1 meters frequently stop working when you switch supplier, so you'll then need to start doing manual meter readings again. SMETS 2, the newer type, allow you to switch while keeping your meter's functionality. See our Smart Meters guide for more.

What did the advert say?

The Smart Energy GB advert, which was heard on the radio on 7 July 2018, listed activities which use energy such as boiling the kettle and watching TV, before adding: "Crikey, we use so much energy every day it is exhausting. And expensive. But with a smart meter you get an expected average saving of 354 kilowatt hours."

The ASA says that some listeners could interpret this as meaning that installing a smart meter would in itself save this amount of energy.

The advertising regulator acknowledged that the advert ended by stating "savings possible by measuring energy usage and reducing wastage" – but says that this qualification wasn't sufficient because it was separated from the original claim.

It also received complaints about the advert's claim that if everyone got a smart meter, enough energy could be saved to "power Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle", but these were not upheld.

The ASA also ruled a similar press advert, which was seen on 27 June 2018, was not misleading as it made it sufficiently clear the savings were based on behavioural changes.

What does Smart Energy GB say?

A Smart Energy GB spokesperson said it is planning on appealing the decision.

The spokesperson said: "It is extremely odd that they have ruled against something which is substantiated in the terms and conditions within the advert. Using terms and conditions to substantiate claims is widely used practice across the advertising industry."

Source

There is a word for the trauma caused by distance from nature

You’ve got problems. Perhaps more than you know. Apart from all the usual woes—work, relationships, money, time—the civilized life may also be causing you psychological trauma.

Disconnection from nature can be bad for our mental health. But there was no name for this particular malaise until Australian sustainability professor Glenn Albrecht coined the term psychoterratic, creating the beginning of a vocabulary to discuss the relationship between mental health and environment.

Since then, he’s thought up a whole lexicon. In May, Albrecht’s book, Earth Emotions: New Words for a New World, will be published by Cornell University Press. It includes gems like the word ecoagnosy, a term created to describe environmental ignorance or indifference to the ecology. Then there’s solastalgia, the psychic pain of climate change and missing a home that’s transforming before your eyes.

The healing power of nature

Julia Plevin, author of the upcoming book The Healing Magic of Forest Bathing, to be published in March by Random House, understands psychoterratic pain. As a design student in New York, Plevin recognized that all the gray buildings and dearth of greenery, was making her depressed and anxious. She focused her studies on the psychoterratic and began examining the connection between space, nature, health, and design.

When she returned to her native San Francisco to work in Silicon Valley, she alighted upon a miracle treatment for her psychological malaise. It’s remarkably simple… if you live near a forest, especially. As Plevin puts it, we just need to “rewild” regularly, spending time outside, especially among trees. Walking in the woods and cultivating a connection with nature is her medicine, and sharing this therapy has become her mission.

Plevin is the founder of the San Francisco Forest Bathing Club. When she started the group on Meetup.com in 2016, she didn’t know if people would be into it. They were. Within months, more than 500 members signed up, and she was talking to reporters worldwide about the tonic of the wilderness. Forest bathing, one of humanity’s oldest pastimes, was experiencing a sudden resurgence in popularity.

What’s old is new again

Wood wandering as therapy began in Japan in 1982, when the government introduced the concept of shinrin yoku, or “forest bathing.” It urged citizens to make use of the country’s 3,000 wooded miles to improve their wellbeing. Tomohide Akiyama, then chief of the forestry ministry, understood intuitively that the woods do people good, while distance from nature makes us sick.

Soon, Japanese researchers tried to quantify this intuition, studying the healing effect of trees. They discovered that forest bathing not only feels good but it is also healing, physically, because it exposes people to the healthy essential oils that trees release, called phytoncides. These antimicrobial oils protect trees from germs and have a host of human health benefits, including boosting mood and immune system function; reducing blood pressure, heart rate, stress, anxiety, and confusion; improving sleep and creativity; and possibly fighting cancer and depression.

From 2004 to 2012, Japanese officials spent about $4 million dollarsstudying the physiological and psychological effects of forest bathing, designating 48 therapy trails based on the results. In one very small (and thus limited) but interesting study, Qing Li, a professor at Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, measured the activity of human natural killer (NK) cells in 12 men’s immune systems before and after exposure to the woods. These cells provide rapid responses to viral-infected cells and tumors, and are associated with immune system health and cancer prevention. In a 2009 study, Li’s subjects showed significant increases in NK cell activity in the week after a forest visit, and positive effects lasted a month following each weekend in the woods.

Japan now has 62 designated therapeutic woods, attracting about 5 million visitors annually, and Li has become known as a postmodern shaman, the scientist pioneering tree medicine. Finland advertises itself to tourists as a forest bathing destination. There are forest therapy guide and certification programs in the US, UK, and Canada, and there’s a Global Institute for Forest Therapy. Around the world, groups like Plevin’s forest bathing club, official and unofficial, are treating their psychoterratica with a dose of nature, whether or not they know it.

Civilization and its discontents

That said, there are plenty of ways to take your nature medicine. Blue mind science is the study of water’s curative properties, and studies have shown that both a trip to the ocean and a shower at home prove soothing. A visit to the park is also restorative, as is walking barefoot and earthing—which is basically just connecting to the ground.

Even just digging your fingers in the soil of a potted plant can improve your mood and boost your immune system. It turns out that, like trees, dirt has properties that are good for human health. Soil has a microbiome and the more we contact it, the more we let it infiltrate our systems, the better our chances of maintaining physical and mental wellness.

We have both a physical and psychological need to be in nature, as new research increasingly reveals, and we get sick when we’re disconnected from it. Luckily, the prescription for what ails us turns out to be a simple fix that is inexpensive and has no negative side effects.

Source

Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk.

Panagopoulos DJ, Chrousos GP. Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk. Sci Total Environ. 2019 Feb 23;667:255-262. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.344.

Highlights

• Human exposure to man-made EMFs has increased with increasing health problems.
• Metal shielding is lately suggested by private companies/individuals as a way to reduce exposure.
• Metal shielding reduces both man-made and natural atmospheric EMFs.
• EHS symptom relapses and internal desynchronization are reported after shielding.
• An avoidance strategy of man-made EMFs should be preferable than metal shielding.

Abstract

Human exposure to man-made Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) has increased to unprecedented levels, accompanied by increase in various health problems. A connection has been indicated by an increasing number of studies. Symptoms characterized as Electro-hyper-sensitivity (EHS) are frequently reported especially in urban environments. Lately, people are advised by private companies and individuals to protect themselves from man-made EMFs by metal shielding through various products, for which there are reasonable concerns about their protective efficacy and safety. Indeed, any metal shielding practice, even when correctly applied, attenuates not only man-made totally polarized EMFs accused for the health problems, but also the natural non-polarized EMFs responsible for the biological rhythmicity and well-being of all animals. Strong evidence on this was provided by pioneering experiments in the 1960's and 1970's, with volunteers staying in a shielded underground apartment. We analyze the physical principles of EMF-shielding, the importance of natural atmospheric EMFs, and examine available shielding methods and suggested products, relying on science-based evidence. We suggest that an avoidance strategy is safer than shielding, and provide specific protection tips. We do not reject shielding in general, but describe ways to keep it at a minimum by intermittent use, as this is theoretically safer than extensive permanent shielding. We explain why metallic patches or "chips" or minerals claimed by sellers to be protective, do not seem to make sense and might even be risky. We finally suggest urgent research on the safety and efficacy of shielding methods combined with use of generators emitting weak pulses of similar frequency, intensity, and waveform with the natural atmospheric resonances.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30831365

Video - The Psychology Behind Why People Refuse to Accept the Data, Warnings and Dangers of 5G Technology

Good one!   10 minutes - https://youtu.be/aLy8fdT3C1M


Statement by the Advisors to the International EMF Scientist Appeal August 18, 2017 In addition to the technological advancements that have been transforming the electrical power and telecommunications industry over the last few decades, we are now witnessing a new infrastructure deployment – 5th generation (5G) wireless broadband, and the Internet of Things - that promises to establish a globally connected world. Some parts of 5G will operate at much higher frequencies than before, into the millimeter range. This new infrastructure will be transmitting through the environment with a multitude of low powered micro-sensors (emitters and sensors). There is scientific evidence to cause concern among independent scientists, that this new infrastructure, on top of existing electrical and wireless infrastructures, will cause more harm to mankind and nature. People who suffer from electrical sensitivity are facing the reality that they may have no place to go that is free from EMF hazards. New U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, issued in June 2017, realize that “the human rights of all” are an important aspect to achieving the U.N’s Sustainable Development Goals. These principles hold that business and investment do not come at the cost of human rights, based on the three pillars of “Protect, Respect and Remedy”. The current practice of deploying new technologies, without first completing an investigation to ensure there is no possible harm, violates these principles. We recommend that, in keeping with the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to “Protect, Respect and Remedy", 5G technologies must be subjected to an independent health and safety assessment before they are launched. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf

New Study: How does cell phone screen time affect grades?

Excerpt:   

The longer you spend on your phone, the higher the likelihood that you’ll get a lower grade (in the C’s or D’s).

According to Away for The Day, a study by Delaney Ruston on the effects of screen time, college students participated in various cognitive tests with phones present and not present and it was found that “the presence of phones negatively impacted attention and task performance.”

What effects can phone screen time have on students? At first glance, it may seem harmless but when we decided to take a closer look, we found a strong correlation between too much phone time and lower grades.

With 95% of Americans owning a cell phone of some kind and actually 77% of them owning a smartphone (according to pewinternet), the topic of phone time and its potential effects comes into question.

So, we asked undergraduate university/college students what their daily phone screen time was the last 7 days and their current grade to see if there could be any correlation between them.

Methodology

Our survey consisted of 875 undergraduate post-secondary students (1st-year students aged 17-19) from a number of US schools.

To keep the survey simple, respondents were asked what their daily phone screen time was the last 7 days and their current grade.

From the results, there were many findings, especially once we dug a little deeper into the data…SNIP

Read the full study findings here

Source

Our Web of Inconvenient Truths - 5G, Fiber Optics & the Law

An excerpt from Our Web of Inconvenient Truths: The Internet, Energy Use, Toxic Waste & Climate Change (forthcoming in May from SteinerBooks) by Katie Singer, www.electronicsilentspring.com

Around the country, telecom providers have begun mapping their plans to deploy 5G “small” cellular, microwave-emitting sites throughout neighborhoods. Every person deserves to be informed.

The largest thing that humanity has built

Already the largest thing that humanity has built, we double the Internet’s size every two years. The Internet of Things (IoT), also known as machine-to-machine communication, generates data traffic via the “smart” grid, billions of people who expect mobile web access and speedy video streaming 24/7, GPS networks and self-driving cars, toilets that analyze your stools and blood pressure and send the data to your physician, refrigerators that can message your phone that you need orange juice. A chipped diaper can message your device that your baby’s diaper needs changing.

Such exponential increases in data traffic have the telecom industry claiming that we need 5G, fifth generation of wireless infrastructure.

More than 25 states and several federal Acts now mandate “streamlining” (easing deployment) of 5G infrastructure.

Let me unpack what this means for municipalities and households.

Fiber optics’ role in telecommunications
Until 2016, businesses and households considered “fiber optics-to-the premises” the safest, fastest, most energy efficient and secure way to access the Internet. Encased in thick conduit, pulsing light on thin strands of glass fibers, fiber optic cables carry multiple frequencies for telecommunications. Effectively, fiber cables offer unlimited bandwidth.[1] They do not emit radiofrequency radiation. They tend to withstand weather catastrophes better than wireless systems.

For years, wireless telecom providers have run fiber optic cables from their core network to the large towers that support cellular antennas. Then, the system’s “last hop” (from the cell tower to individual, mobile devices) is delivered wirelessly. In other words, wireless telecom infrastructure is not entirely wireless.

To deliver data, voice or the Internet wirelessly, fiber optics’ light waves convert data (via a digital electronic process) to radiofrequency (RF) waves. 5G will combine fiber optics and millimeter RF waves. This combination offers the only way to create more usable frequencies for our increasing wireless data traffic: 5G (which is wireless) cannot operate without fiber optics.

Like radio stations that each pay the FCC a licensing fee for a frequency “band” on the electromagnetic spectrum, telecom corporations pay the FCC to lease frequencies that deliver their wireless services (i.e. voice, Internet and data). In the last few decades, the spectrum has nearly filled up. (In the iPhone’s first three and a half years, AT&T alone claimed that their data traffic grew 8000%, or 80-fold.[2])

Because services that include a wireless component are minimally taxed and regulated (compared to wired services), wireless services are much more profitable to telecom corporations.

Streamlining 5G infrastructure via legislation
Beginning in 2016, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a Koch brothers-backed group that advocates for industry interests, wrote sample legislation to “streamline” (ease) the buildout of 5G. These bills promote installing fiber optic cables to densely deployed “small” cells on public right-of-ways (i.e. utility poles and school rooftops) and federal and state land. They severely restrict local zoning review requirements for installing “small” cells and distributed antenna systems (DAS). (DAS can provide coverage on campuses, inside large office buildings or in places with large crowds that expect wireless services.)

By January 2019, over half of U.S. states had passed ALEC-inspired legislation to streamline 5G’s buildout.[3] Our federal 2017-2018 Mobile Now Act and the Digit Act also restrict local authority over installation of telecom infrastructure. Further, the FCC has enacted rules that restrict states’ and municipalities’ ability to use the 1970 National Environmental Policy Review Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act in zoning and siting reviews for telecom facilities. The FCC also shortened the time that municipalities must respond to telecom permit applications from 90 to 60 days.

Further, these mandates prohibit municipalities from enacting a moratorium on 5G/small cell site infrastructure. They severely restrict the amount of money that a municipality can charge telecom providers for accessing publicly-owned right-of-ways. They effectively remove zoning requirements like neighborhood notification and public hearings regarding installation of telecom facilities.[4]

Opposition to streamlining 5G infrastructure
A national coalition of nearly 100 municipalities is suing the FCC, arguing that the FCC lacks the statutory authority to issue such regulations.[5]

Congresswomen Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier, both of California, have introduced House Resolution 530, the Accelerating Wireless Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019. This legislation would overturn FCC regulations that limit the ability of local governments to regulate the deployment of 5G wireless infrastructure. HR 530 provides “that certain actions by the Federal Communications Commission shall have no force or effect.”[6]

On February 9, 2019, Sierra Club California adopted a resolution urging the National Conservation Policy Committee “to adopt an oppose position to the FCC’s recent promulgation of a rule that waives environmental review, and limits local control, of the deployment of 5G wireless technology and small cell box installations.”[7]

Questions about cell sites’ compliance with FCC safety standards
Some communities have begun posting providers’ plans to deploy “small” cell sites throughout their neighborhoods. Assuming that “small” cell sites must comply with FCC radiofrequency safety standards, how/will people who live, study and/or work near these cell sites be notified about them?

Assuming that the FCC requires every cell site to have a sign instructing people to stay at least nine feet from the antennas, if the site is on a backyard utility pole, do you prevent children from playing in the yard? If the utility pole is on a sidewalk, how do walkers and mail carriers keep nine feet from it? If the second-story bedroom or classroom of a pregnant woman, child or person with a medical implant is within nine feet of the “small” cell site, what options do they have?

How will birds, insects and plant life be informed and protected?

Assuming that FCC regulations require antennas to be turned off whenever workers perform work on them, how will electricians, rooftop workers or tree pruners learn about the antennas? Who do they contact to shut them off?

Assuming that the FCC requires telecom service providers to re-measure RF emissions if/when they change the antennas’ RF transmissions, who will hire the engineers to conduct these measurements? To whom will engineers report their evaluations? Will reports be posted on municipal websites?

Before acting, know your terms   
Communities seeking (safer, more secure, more reliable) “fiber-to-the- premises” (FTTP) should be aware that the industry may use this term when they actually will only deliver “fiber-to-the-curb” (FTTC), “fiber-to-the-antenna” (FTTA) or “fiber-to- the-wireless” (FTTW). Telecom providers may also use the term “fixed wireless Internet” to describe connecting fiber to small cell sites.

For safer, more secure and more reliable telecommunications, we need wired infrastructure (fiber or copper) delivered to a wired connection in each premises. We need to consider wired services primary. Mobile services should be considered luxury, supplemental services. To begin moving toward these ends, we need to repeal federal Acts that effectively eliminate local authority over telecom facilities.

Before acting, know your laws
Unashamedly, FCC regulations do not safeguard the public or our environment. A Harvard report calls the FCC a “captured agency.”280

Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits municipalities from denying a corporation a permit to install telecom infrastructure (transmitting antennas) based on health or environmental concerns.

Beware that because of recently passed federal Acts, FCC Orders and state laws (which prohibit restrictions on fiber delivered to public right-of-ways and promote wireless service from public right-of-ways to individual users), advocating for municipally-owned fiber-to-the-premises may unintentionally divert public funds to deliver fiber to “small” cells. Such diversions would reduce the industry’s costs to build 5G networks.

The newly introduced Radiofrequency Radiation Site Safety Information Act (House Resolution 7236), would severely limit liability of telecom corporations for injury caused by exposure to radiation emitted by telecom equipment if the corporation complies with FCC-determined RFR emissions.

Concerned citizens can phone their Congressmembers to vote NO on on HR 7236. Tell Congressmembers that we need a moratorium on 5G deployment until we have scientific evidence of its safety. We need legislation that protects local authority, public health and our environment.

Some communities may have grants to install power lines, cables and fiber optics underground. If you access these grants, be sure that the fiber is delivered all the way to each premises.

What’s worthwhile now?
To prevent the telecom industry from hijacking fiber for 5G, we’ll also need to repeal federal legislation (i.e. the 1996 Telecommunications Act) that deregulated wireless services andseparated wireless and wired systems. Telecom laws are also complicated by anti-trust and restraint-of-trade issues as well as 30 years of FCC “bundling” rules for cable and wireless services.

If your state has not yet passed a “streamline” bill, then act quickly to prevent such a bill. If your state has passed a “streamline” bill, repeal it.

Get your municipality to join the National League of Cities’ effort to oppose bills that further decrease local authority over telecom facilities.

Petition Congressmembers to pass HR 530, which would repeal FCC Orders that deny local authority over 5G telecom facilities.#5 At the state and municipal level, HR 530 could serve as a model for repealing local legislation that has streamlined deployment of telecom facilities.

Petition legislators to enact firm precautionary due diligence on 5G’s engineering.

Maintain (or restore) wired services as long as you can. Consider wired phone and Internet primary services.

Consider mobile, wireless phone and Internet luxury, supplemental services.

Wait at least four years to upgrade.

Please invest! to keep this blog going. Annually, web hosting, site and mailing list maintenance cost $4000. Contributions are welcome through PayPal. If you’d like a tax deduction for your investment, please contact Katie Singer by replying to this newsletter.

Thanks to everyone who uses technology as safely as possible, reduces their energy use andEMR emissions.
To healthier ecosystems and safer communities,
Katie Singer
www.electronicsilentspring.com

REFERENCES
[1]. http://www.thefoa.org/tech/ref/appln/FTTA.html
[2]. ibid.
[3]. https://ehtrust.org/list-us-state-bills-streamlining-wireless-small-cellsdasnodes-rights-way/
[4]. https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2019/legal-alerts/01/new-fcc-shot-clocks-and-other-rules-preempting-loc?utm_source=Constant_Contact&utm_medium=read_more&utm_campaign=LA_FCC_10th_Circuit&utm_content+Legal_Alert
[5]. https://www.bna.com/cities-counties-challenge-n57982093269/
[6]. https://mdsafetech.org/2019/01/22/congresswomen-eshoo-and-speier-introduce-hr-530-to-block-fcc-cell-tower-preemption/
[7]. http://bit.ly/SierraClub5Gresolution

Source