Control Number : Item Number : 394. Addendum StartPage : 0

Transcription

1 Control Number : Item Number : 394 Addendum StartPage : 0

2 I i q( 20l^ (^ _ _ ---._ , _ _ ; ; _ ^^ ^ ^^ _- --- ^ ^o-^^e-.^-^ a_^.pu^,_,^,^-.- -^d^ - ^^'E^Fts ^ ^. _ r ^ ^ '^-._ ^' ,^ _- _ ^ tk^^_- -- _ -t /V.z - d- --- _ _--- _^ _ eq^ - ^- ----^ i-` ^'^ zry h v"c _----- ^-._ ^- ----, L-e^f/^o ^ ^-,^

3 Doctors' Warning: American Academy of Environmental Medicine Recommends Patients Avoid Smart Meter Radiation Posted on July 14, 2012 by onthelevelblog Avoid smart meters- Doctor's orders!! The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), an "international association of physicians and other professionals interested in the clinical aspects of humans and their environment," today released recommendations for patients with a broad array of illnesses and symptomsto avoid exposure to digital smart meters now being deployed internationally by governments and utilities. The recommendation, which includes reference to 20 peer-reviewed studies showing biological harm from wireless technologies; indicates that patients with neurological, neurodegenerative diseases, genetic defects, cancer, and other conditions would benefit from avoiding pulsed RF radiation from smart meters. The recommendation says: "Physicians of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine recognize that patients are being adversely impacted by electromagnetic frequency (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) fields and are becoming more electromagnetically sensitive. The AAEM recommends: that no Smart Meters be on these patients' homes, that Smart Meters be removed within a reasonable distance of patients' homes depending on the patients' perception and/or symptoms, and that no collection meters be placed near patients' homes depending on patients' perception and/or symptoms." This medical testimony is yet one more arrow in the quiver of those fighting the smart grid on medical disability and accessibility grounds. For those who suffer pain or ill effects from smart meter microwave radiation, the very

4 least accommodation that the utility must provide is a zone of safety around one's home. Any less can constitute forcible eviction and is a clear violation of human rights. There is no "opt out" or "free choice" when the meter on your neighbor's house 10 feet away is blasting you 24/7 and you are in agony in your own home. The AAEM's medical recommendation asserts this basic fact and will now enter into play in state commission proceedings on the smart meter health issue nationally and internationally. Because wireless can also cause illnesses and sensitivities, those who are healthy also have the right to avoid exposure. And of course no one- sick or healthy should have to pay a penalty protection racket fee simply to protect their own safety. The Center for Electrosmog Prevention suggests that people consider filing a discrimination complaint with the federal government if utilities fail to accommodate these medical requirements. For more on the increasing medical consensus around wireless biological harm, debate about smart meters in the Quebecois press, and a statement for MD's to sign on to, see here. For a California briefing that makes a good argument about smart meter opt out fee ADA violations, download this pdf SMARTMETERS- ADA Smart Meter Brief n^ PDFA jl J t: TU/EET THIS FflCE6OOK Posted in AAEM, Cancer, Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity, EMF Mitigation, Environmental Concerns, health effects, Health studies, Physicians, radiofrequency radiation, Safe I Leave a comment Texans Fight Back: March on the Capitol Tomorrow Posted on July 12, 2012 by onthelevelblog

5 USHFC-2012-Resolution Re: Electromagnetic Health Resolution 2B Resolution On Electromagnetic Health 2012 The U.S. Health Freedom Congress Schaumburg, IL, June 14, 2012 Submitted by E lectro magnet ich ealth. org Whereas electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones, cellular antennas, wireless devices, wireless computer equipment, DECT portable phones, wireless `smart boards' in schools, wireless utility `smart meters', etc., have been shown in numerous well documented peer-reviewed studies to lead to biological disregulation, impaired cognitive function, reduced fertility, damaged DNA and increased incidence of acute and chronic conditions, including cancers, heart irregularities, difficulty sleeping, joint pain, dizziness, tinnitus and stress; and Whereas the risk from electromagnetic fields involves the low frequency ELF fields (electric and magnetic fields), intermediate frequencies (dirty electricity) and high frequencies (radiofrequency (RF), including microwaves as emitted by cell phone and consumer wireless technologies), and both ELF and RF fields have been separately classified by the World Health Organization's International Agency.for Research on Can ;; r-(iap.c) as Class 2B `.Possible Carcinogems' and -have been the subject of numerous resolutions warning of the risks from international scientists, physicians, psychologists and government agencies; and Be it acknowledged that: Health, DNA, productivity and the environment are being negatively impacted by the presence of man-made electromagnetic fields in home, work, school, community and natural environments. Non-stop proliferation of electromagnetic fields has continued unabated for two decades, largely unchallenged by public, health and government officials, despite ample evidence of harm. Sensitivity to electromagnetic fields varies between people, due to known and unknown reasons, including past exposures; cumulative exposure; duration and intensity of - exposures; presence of heavy metals, chronic infections, dental amalgams and other stressors; differences in detoxification capacities; opportunity for downtime without exposure to electromagnetic fields, etc. Over time, and with increasing exposure, more people feel the effects of electromagnetic fields, some to the point of functional or cognitive debilitation. It has been estimated that 3-8% of people in developed countries suffer from electromagnetic field exposures, and these numbers are expected to increase. Electrohypersensitive individuals who are otherwise ambitious and qualified are increasingly unable to attend schools, hold jobs or participate in society. Many have left homes due to neighborhood cellular towers and antennas, radiation-emitting utility `smart meters' and neighbors wireless devices, whose radiation easily passes through walls and permeates their personal premises. A fringe class has emerged at the edge of society, 1

6 USHFC-2012-Resolution Re: Electromagnetic Health Resolution 2B unable to comfortably co-exist with current levels of electromagnetic fields. This population is expected to increase as exposures continue to rise. 'Second-hand' unavoidable, involuntary exposure to electromagnetic fields is impairing quality of life, causing illness and making 100% of society ultimately vulnerable to illness, cognitive dysfunction and other acute and chronic illnesses. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Congress should take immediate and effective measures to assure the health of individuals and society is not being unknowingly eroded by excessive exposures to electromagnetic fields, including: 1. Assuring the population is widely educated on the known, as well as potential, risks of electromagnetic field exposures, and on the many different sources of these exposures, including exposures from consumer technologies, residential and occupational settings, and neighborhood telecommunications and utility infrastructure. Efforts might include 1) funding public safety announcements; 2) requiring point of sale educational materials; 3) requiring manufacturer warning labels; 4) a^suringinstitrttional cooperation in an electromagnetic field (EMF) educational campaign (e.g. among employers, educational institutions, hospitals, medical schools, parenting organizations and other community groups, etc.); 5) requiring disclosure of known internal and external electromagnetic field risks in real estate transactions (e.g. antennas on the roof or premises; wireless utility smart meters or relay antennas on buildings; neighborhood cell towers or antennas within distances research shows cancer clusters and symptoms of electrosensitivity occur; wiring errors; high levels of dirty electricity on wiring; etc.), and, importantly, 6) clarifying for the public that the present Federal Communications Commission (FCC) safety guidelines for wireless technologies a) are designed to protect against one form of risk alone, the thermal, or heating, effects, but not the non-thermal effects, nor effects from signal characteristics, both of which are biologically active; b) that the RF/MW guidelines are based on relatively very short exposure periods (minutes), compared to actual exposures common today (hours, or sometimes 24/7); c) that besides a`cause and effect' relationship between exposure and effects, where one would expect the greater the exposure the greater the effect, there are, as well, paradoxical effects, where the lower the exposure the greater certain effects, such as, for example, on the brain; and d) that some scientists believe there is sufficient evidence today suggesting there may not be a safe exposure level from cumulative and chronic exposures to wireless technologies at all, and, that prudent avoidance, and a change to safer, shielded communication technologies, is required; or, finally 7) funding the training of a skilled workforce able to accurately measure electromagnetic fields to enhance people's awareness of this public health issue. The first part of this Resolution is calling for citizens to be educated on the known, and suspected risks, from electromagnetic fields so they may be empowered to make health -promoting decisionsfor themselves and their communities.

7 USHFC-2012-Resolution Re: Electromagnetic Health Resolution 2B 2. Assuring citizens are empowered to `opt-out' from biologically disruptive exposures to electromagnetic fields in their homes, workplaces and communities. This might involve 1) establishing cell phone and wireless-free neighborhoods, transportation options, government buildings, schools and classrooms, employment options and public spaces; 2) removing cellular and wireless technologies near vulnerable populations, such as at or near schools, health care and retirement facilities, as has been recommended by the European Parliament; 3) repealing Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which took away the rights of state and local governments to stop the erection of cell towers and wireless antennas in their communities based on "environmental" grounds (defined by FCC to include "human health" grounds); 4) assuring the safer and more secure land-line telephone network remains an option; 5) assuring citizens in their homes, as well as employees, have the option of a hard-wired internet connection, such as through existing cable, phone line or fiber optics networks; and 6) assuring the right to `opt-out' from radiation-emitting wireless utility `smart meters' whose metering function can be more safely and economically accomplished using existing hard-wire communications networks. -T.T.. _^.,.. ^.tt^s a.est^ uz.^t,r i s thus a' -so ca7htrg for c i tizens -to have the rright-io sqpt o-u;' o;aente and chronic exposures to technologies using electromagnetic fields that have been demonstrated to be potentially harmful, thereby personally taking precautionary and preventive health actions. The Seletun Scientific Statement (January 2011): "Scientists, Led by Karolinska Institute's Olle Johansson, PhD, Recommend Global Governments Adopt New Exposure Guidelines for Electromagnetic Radiation-Pointing to Biological Hazards and Risks to the Genetic Code from Unchecked Proliferation of Wireless Technologies" Video: httn://vimeo.com/18{)18440