Uncategorized

Kihei Baptist Chapel, in collaboration with Verizon, had applied for a special use permit to build a 50-foot cell tower  in a residential area in Maui, Hawaii. The cell tower was planned to be erected near the church which has pre-school on its property. They planned to hide it as a pine tree. Pastor Jay Amstrong and Debra Green have led a campaign against the planned cell tower and as the advocates wrote: “thankfully sanity prevailed.” On June 30, 2020 the mayor sent an email that the application was denied. 

Please say “Thank You” to the Pastor for doing the right thing: Email your words of gratitude to: Pastor Jay Armstrong jayarmstrong@hawaii.rr.com, or Call the Church and leave a message of appreciation: 808-875-2112

This is the email that was sent from the Mayor’s Office:

From: Mayors Office <Mayors.Office@co.maui.hi.us>
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: NEW 5G CELL TOWER FOR KIHEI!!

,

Aloha,

Verizon and the Kihei Baptist Church have withdrawn their application for a permit in this matter.

Thank you,

Brian Perry
Director of Communications
Office of the Mayor

Professor Tom Butler published another review on the science on RF radiation health effects this review is focusedd on 5G: “Review of the Health Risks of Radiofrequency Radiation Employed in 5G Technology and the Implications for UK Policy-making.” 

Prof. Butker writes that the aim of this review is to provide a critical review of the findings on the health risks posed by 5G technologies. It also provides evidence that the processes by which policy decisions
have been made concerning the protection of public health may be significantly flawed, as the “overwhelming
body of scientific evidence appears to have been ignored by relevant government departments and agencies in
arriving at decisions about the introduction of 5G”. His conclusion is that the UK government  “failed in its duty to identify, assess, and mitigate the risks posed by RFR-based technologies” and in its duty to protect public health. 

Another article was recently published by Prof. Butler – a meta-analysis scientific review “On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Smartphone and WiFi Radio Frequency Radiation“. 

Recently, as a result of Prof. Butler complaint against New-York Times, the Irish Press ombudsman rebuked the Times for its false and misleading reports on 5G safety in violation of Ireland’s Truth and Accuracy in Journalism Standards. Children’s Health Defense submitted a case against the FCC for its failure to regulate guidelines that are protective of public health and especially children – Among the petitioners are parents of children who have been injured by cell phones, wi-fi in schools and cell towers. Read more about Children’s Health Defense v. FCC. Our brief is due in court on July 1st. 

From Margreet van den Berg from Stop5GNL

5G COURT DECISION IN THE NETHERLANDS TODAY
The Dutch State can continue the auction of 5G frequencies.

The judge: “There is difference in opinions whether 5G is safe for health. And you have to realize that a judge in an interim injunction (“kort geding”) cannot weigh the value of the different views in a scientific debate very well. I think that speaks for itself. ” (at 6 minutes into the video)

HIS CONCLUSION:

“On the basis of all the above, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE IS ACTING UNLAWFULLY by auctioning the frequencies in the intended manner. The claims aimed at preventing those auctions will therefore be rejected. “

———————————————————————————

TRANSLATED:

The future and conclusion
4.35.
There is no question that total exposure to electromagnetic fields (the sum of the use of multiple applications) in any location where people are present must remain below the limits which are intended to safeguard public health. Stop5GNL has rightly argued that at present it is not clear exactly how 5G systems and the field strengths they cause will develop.

For that reason, the Netherlands Radiocommunications Agency will continue to monitor the field strengths in various ways, the State explained. Although, according to the State, for various reasons, the exposure guidelines are not expected to be exceeded after the roll-out of 5G, the State has explicitly stated that it can and will intervene if future measurements by the Radiocommunications Agency show that the ICNIRP GUIDELINES are or will be exceeded.

In addition, the State has indicated that it will also INTERVENE IF NEW INSIGHTS SHOW that the exposure limits need to be adjusted; when it therefore appears that there are still health risks in the event of exposure to electromagnetic waves below the LIMITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY CONSIDERED SAFE .

At that time, intervention by the State will also be required and the State has stated that it will be able to do so at all times. In view of this, the roll-out of 5G is not irreversible.
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO REASON FOR INTERVENTION BY THE INTERIM INJUNCTION JUDGE.

4.36.
On the basis of all the above, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE IS ACTING UNLAWFULLY by auctioning the frequencies in the intended manner. The claims aimed at preventing those auctions will therefore be rejected. Stop5GNL, as the unsuccessful party, will be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument…

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/…/Staat-kan-doorgaan-met-de-veil…
———————————————————————-
ICNIRP

The judge trusts the conclusions of ICNIRP.
Translation:

“4.25.

Stop5GNL’s thesis that the ICNIRP guidelines are obsolete has been SUPERSEDED superseded by its update in March 2020. After all, in that update the guidelines were confirmed on the basis of current insights. Stop5GNL’s argument that ICNIRP erroneously limited its research to short-term thermal effects (warm-up damage) of electromagnetic fields is invalidated by the documentation of those guidelines.
Stop5GNL has argued that ICNIRP’s observations about possible health effects other than warming damage are a ‘paper reality’, but it follows from Appendix B of the new guidelines that the guidelines are based on scientific research into all kinds of conceivable health effects of electromagnetic fields, including non-thermal health effects. In the second part of the new guidelines, literature is dealt with thematically, per (possible) disorder.

It can be deduced from this that ICNIRP has ASSESSED ALL the (possible) effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields discussed in the literature, and not just the health risks due to warming.

THE COURT in preliminary relief proceedings CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF SCIENTISTS and has no reason to doubt that the research actually took place. ICNIRP concluded that possible health damage other than that caused by warming (also in the long term) has not been demonstrated. The fact that the limits have been set on the basis of ‘short-term, immediate health effects’ follows logically from this ICNIRP conclusion.”

——————————————————————————
FIELD STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS

4.27

Stop5GNL wrongly assumes that field strength measur

Professor Butler’s meta-analysis scientific review “On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Smartphone and WiFi Radio Frequency Radiation“, leaves no doubt – cell phones and Wi-Fi are very harmful to children. Any doubt is a manufactured doubt by Big-Telecom just as Big Tobacco created doubt about cigarettes and purposely hooked our children. Big Telecom has been knowingly misleading the public to believe wireless is safe and it is able to do it because of its control of regulatory agencies and the media. Recently, as a result of Prof. Butler complaint against New-York Times, the Irish Press ombudsman rebuked the Times for its false and misleading reports on 5G safety in violation of Ireland’s Truth and Accuracy in Journalism Standards. Children’s Health Defense submitted a case against the FCC for its failure to regulate guidelines that are protective of public health and especially children – Among the petitioners are parents of children who have been injured by cell phones, wi-fi in schools and cell towers. Read more about Children’s Health Defense v. FCC. Our brief is due in court on July 1st. 

The Children’s Health Defense recently published a guide on how to hard-wired your devices to prevent harm to you and your children from the Microwave radiation emitted by wireless devices : How to Make Remote Learning Safe for Your Children During COVID-19 Quarantine

On Thursday, May 7, 2020 5G Free California hosted a national webinar “Ask the Lawyers” which featured four attorneys who have been working on the 5G/wireless issue including: Scott McCollough, who together with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is representing the Children’s Health Defense, Dr. David Carpenter and other petitioners in their case against the FCC; he is also the attorney for the Irregulators; Andrew Campanelli, an attorney with telecom background who has been working for years to stopping cell towers installations; Mark Pollock, from Pollock and James, a veteran environmental law attorney and a former environmental prosecutor and Ariel Strauss from Green Fire Law, a municipal and environmental attorney who has been working with communities in CA to negotiate better ordinances. 

The webinar enabled advocates from around the country to get professional answers to their questions regarding legal strategies to stop 5G and related infrastructure in communities and nationally.  

The webinar was very successful and Julie Levine, the Executive Director of 5G Free CA, has received many dozens of grateful emails. 5G Free California realizes that there was a lot of technical legal information that most people couldn’t completely comprehend and remember and requests were also received from those who could not attend. For these reasons, 5G Free California is generously providing video and the Transcript of the 90 minutes Q&A, as well as an Executive Summary. Advocates will find the information to be very informative and helpful to their efforts.  

Watch the Ask The Lawyers Q&A Session 

Read the Executive Summary

Read the Full Transcript

A message from 5G Free California: “While it is our intention to continue to provide this and future webinar transcripts as a service to all of you collaborating in the fight to halt the 5G roll out, we do so at a significant expense to our group, and would welcome any donation you can provide to allow us to continue to host these Webinars and further assist you in your efforts. Should you be able to and choose to make a donation, you can do so here: https://5gfreecalifornia.org/donate/.” 

What people wrote us about the webinar:

“This call was fantastic and for those of us who have been fighting this for awhile now, these are the biggest hitters out there on the legal side. That said, to have the privilege to hear all of them on this call answering questions – I cannot express enough my gratitude for the experience!” 

“Great Job Julie extremely helpful.”

“Great program last night, the first one I succeeded in watching, and I look forward to getting the replay information so I can forward it around myself. “

“I wanted to thank you for organizing that call last night. It was incredibly informative.”

“Great panel last night and you were a terrific moderator.”

“It was filled with actionable steps that we can take advantage of right away.  I look forward to getting the video version so I can share with our village officials.”

“I am wiser, stronger and better equipped as I continue my fight in Ohio – thank you for that!”

“It was a truly wonderful meeting.  I can’t tell you how grateful I am to have the transcript.  It gives hope, besides solid tools.”

“I heard your call last week and was very impressed. I’d like to hear more of your events. The lawyers were especially good, and you organized it very well and kept things moving.”

SUCCESS: The Children’s Health Defense Forced FCC to Publish in the Federal Register, Blocking it from Dismissing Lawsuits

By Dafna Tachover, CHD’s Director of 5G & Wireless Harms Project

On April 1st, 2020, the FCC finally published its December 4, 2019 “RF Order” (FCC 19-126) in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice addresses the FCC’s outrageous refusal to update its RF exposure limits or reconsider whether outer ears should be treated differently than other extremities since users often place cell phones on the ear (Docket 13-84), the final rule amendments making it easier to prove compliance with the outdated rules (Docket 03-137). The publication in the Federal Register   follows Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) motion in its case against the FCC, CHD v FCC, to force the FCC to publish its decision. As a result, the FCC will have no basis to seek dismissal of CHD’s or the Environmental Health Trust’s (EHT) case and will likely prevent the FCC from being able to control venue – where the cases will be heard. The FCC much prefers the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Federal Register is part of the National Archives and Records Administration. It is the official “newspaper” of the federal government. Every decision, order, regulation or law must be published in the Register. The office annually compiles all current regulations into bound volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Most federal agency actions are not effective or final for judicial review purposes until they are published in the Federal Register.

On December 4, 2019 the FCC closed Docket 13-84 and released FCC 19-126. There were 2 relevant actions: a “Resolution of Notice of Inquiry” in ET Docket No. 13-84 regarding “Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits.” The FCC decided there is no evidence of harm from wireless technology and therefore, no need to review the RF safety guidelines. Most appalling was the FCC’s refusal to reconsider the impact on children or take into account that many users still place their cell phones right on their ear, and thereby receive more radiation exposure than the rules contemplate. CHD’s case (Petition for Review) against the FCC, claim the decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence based and an abuse of discretion. The FCC also released a “Second Report and Order” and Memorandum Opinion and Order” in ET Docket No. 03-137. This part amended the existing exposure guidelines to allow industry to even more prodigiously inflict harm on an unsuspecting and vulnerable public.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an injured party can sue the FCC within 60 days of the “date of public notice,” which is usually understood to be the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, 60 days after the FCC released its decision, the decision was not published in the Federal Register. To prevent any FCC argument that the window for review petitions closed on the 60^th day after the December 4, 2019 release Children’s Health Defense filed a case in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 2, 2020. The Environmental Health Trust filed a case as well, 2 days earlier, in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Under federal law, when cases are submitted in different courts against the same government agency’s decision, the cases are transferred to one court. The venue is typically determined by a multi-jurisdictional panel in what is referred to as the “lottery process.”

The FCC, however, devised a nefarious plan that would allow it to control timing and venue and even perhaps block judicial review. It purposefully delayed publication to prevent the lottery and push venue to the court it prefers – the DC Circuit – and potentially even obtain dismissal or a long delay until it finally got around to publishing notice. The FCC’s efforts to get the case out of the Ninth Circuit and before the DC Circuit strongly indicates FCC thinks it will do better there and would have a harder time defending the decision before the Ninth circuit.

On 2/12/2020 the FCC submitted a Motion to Transfer, asking the Ninth Circuit to transfer CHD’s case to the DC Circuit claiming that because EHT’s submitted the case two days before CHD, EHT has won a “race to the courthouse” and the cases should be heard in the DC Circuit Court. EHT submitted an Amicus Brief in support of the FCC motion to transfer our case to the DC circuit based on the same argument. CHD replied that the “race” never started because the “starting gun” (Federal Register publication) had never sounded, and, indeed, there was not supposed to be a race at all.

Scott McCollough, the attorney who leads CHD’s case together with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saw through the FCC’s the FCC’s effort to game the rules, and quickly responded. CHD submitted a “Motion for Affirmative Relief and an Opposition to Motion to Transfer” on 2/18/20. CHD’s motion claimed the FCC was purposely withholding publication in the Federal Register. It further explained that under the courts’ procedural rules and statutes once Federal Register publication happens petitioners have a 10 day window to invoke the lottery process. This means that where the cases should be heard should not be based on a “race to the courthouse.” The Motion states:

“The Motion to Transfer is the FCC’s opening move in a game of “gotcha.” If the FCC prevails on its motion the Commission will promptly reverse course, abandon its apparent contention before this Court that the “Order” is presently reviewable, and tell the D.C. Circuit that since there has been no Federal Register publication both cases are “premature” and must be dismissed. If the D.C. Circuit agrees the FCC will succeed in completely immunizing the “Order” from any review whatsoever until the FCC gets around to publishing notice, if it ever does so.”

The FCC obviously realized its gambit would not work, so it finally stopped trying to delay and went forward with publication. CHD’s efforts won the day. We forced the FCC to publish in the Register; prevented the FCC from being able to dismiss the cases claiming they are premature; and ensured that the proper process to set venue is used: a Multi-Jurisdictional panel lottery process (rather than the FCC) should now decide which court will hear CHD’s & EHT’s cases. The 4/1/20 publication means the two review petitions will soon be able to move forward to consideration on the merits.

To support our efforts, ensure that we continue and do an excellent work on this case, please make a donation. When making a donation, please choose Stop5G).  

On June 27, 2019, some of the leading Senators in Congress submitted a Bill – S. 2012 to restore local control over the deployment of 5G and abolish FCC regulations. 

The Bill S. 2012 – Restoring Local Control Over Public Infrastructure Act of 2019 was submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and is cosponsored by some of the leading Democrat Senators in Congress: Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

The Bill aims to abolish 3 the following regulatory actions adopted by the Federal Communication Commission and declares then as having “no force or effect”. Following a

1. The –  “Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment and Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment’’ adopted by the Commission on August 2, 2018 (FCC 18–111). 
2. The ‘‘Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order in the matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment and Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment’’ adopted by the Commission on September 26, 2018 (FCC 18–133).
3. The rule adopted by the Commission titled ‘‘Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment’’ (83 Fed. Reg. 51867 (October 15, 2018)).

The Bill is The bill is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, American Public Power Association, Communications Workers of America, National Association of Counties, League of California Cities and American Public Works Association.

Rep. Eshoo (D-CA) submitted on January 14, 2019 a House Bill – H.R.  530 Accelerating Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019 which overturns the FCC’s ruling FCC 18–111 & 83 Fed. Reg. 51867 . Hence, the Senate Bill is wider and overturns also the Sept. 26 ruling FCC 18–133

While these bills are very much welcomed they still do not address the most important issue – the health effects of this technology. When will a Congressman will introduce a bill to overturn Section 704 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and or to amend it to clarify that ‘Environmental Considerations’ do not include ‘Health’ considerations. 

IMPORTANT – TO ANYONE WHO WORKS WITH MUNICIPALITIES ON ORDINANCES

Please be aware that according to Next Century Cities analysis of compliance with the Sept. 26 FCC Regulations, titled Summary of Final FCC Small Cell Order municipalities should insert a clause into their agreement with a carrier or infrastructure provider that voids the agreement or requiring  its modification, in the event of a regulatory change (including the overturning of the Order). 

Following is the exact text from the document: 

If a city enters into an agreement with a carrier and then the Order is overturned, is the city stuck with the agreement?
The answer in general is yes. No city is required to enter into any agreement with a
carrier or infrastructure provider. If a city does so voluntarily, it will almost certainly be
held to the terms of the agreement by a court. However, a city might be able to resolve
this problem by including in the agreement a clause voiding the agreement or requiring
its modification, in the event of a regulatory change (including the overturning of the
Order). Many types of telecommunications agreements contain such regulatory change
clauses because parties recognize that the wording or scope of specific provisions in the
agreement has been dictated by the then-existing telecommunications regulatory
scheme, and should be changed if the regulations change.

On June 13, Oregon Senate, in a unanimous vote passed SB 283, school wireless safety bill which directs Oregon’s Health Authority to Review INDEPENDENTLY FUNDED studies (ie – excluding wireless industry funded studies) on the health effects of wireless technology radiaiton and especially of Wi-Fi networks used in schools. The Bill is expected to pass the vote in the House. 

PRESS HERE to watch Sen. Laurie Monnes-Anderson’s speech before the vote (Instructions:click the link and either scroll down to SB 283 or advance the video to 1:45:00
.Senate Chamber Convenes 06/13/2019 04:00 PM – Jun 13th, 2019). 

The effort to pass the bill is led by David Morrison. David has been working to expose the absurdity of using of Wi-Fi in schools since 2011 when he submitted a lawsuit against Portland Public Schools for forcing involuntary exposure to radiation from powerful Wi-Fi in schools. The Press Release regarding the vote is Following. 

PRESS Here for an article “School Wireless Safety Bill Passes State Senate” published June 14. 

Wi-Fi in schools is also my personal soft spot and I was inspired by David’s lawsuit in 2011 and it pushed me to submit my lawsuit in Israel to remove Wi-Fi from schools and to install wired networks instead, a lawsuit that led to the first limitations on Wi-Fi in schools worldwide. I have submitted a testimony in support of the SB 283, Press Here to read the Testimony Submission of Dafna Tachover from We Are The Evidence to the Oregon’s Senate Health Committee in support of SB 283.

Recently, the Oregon Education Association – the union that represents 44,000 teachers across in  published a report about the crisis of out of control behavior of students. Oregon KGW8 followed with an article: Classrooms in Crisis: Verbal, physical, sometimes violent outbursts plaguing Oregon classrooms. Those of us who know the scientific evidence on the adverse effects of wireless have no doubt that the Wi-Fi in the classes and cell towers in/near schools are a major contributor to this problem if not the main cause. 

An  excellent article was published by the Epoch Times about the the adverse health effects of Wi-Fi in Schools  Wi-Fi in Schools: Experimenting With The Next Generation. 

The Press Release of David Morrison: