Action Steps Reposted from Massachusetts
Senator Moore sponsored legislation offering Massachusetts residents the option to choose a non-transmitting utility meter, with no punitive surcharges.
Bill S.2204 192nd An Act relative to smart meters
The deadline for the Joint Committees to issue their decisions on bills submitted this session is Tuesday Feb. 2, 2022; although the fate of the smart meter bill could be decided before that.
The hearing for the bills regarding smart meters was in July, so it has been 6 months since the Committee heard from the public. Since that time, the court issued its decision against the FCC for its inadequate scrutiny of RF exposure limits.
Groups are asking interested parties to send emails to the committee chairs in the next week in favor of the bill. (Please excuse my informally reaching out to you about the pending legislative decision, as Cece is not available.
Although templates are helpful, we have also received feedback that personal letters are very impactful.
Here are two options, below;
ADDRESSING YOUR EMAIL:
Address to: Mike.Barrett@masenate.gov, Jeffrey.Roy@mahouse.gov, Michael.Moore@masenate.gov, ma4safetech@gmail.com
(Suggested Action: also cc your own Legislators and ask them to advocate on your behalf, especially if that person is on the Telecom Committee,https://malegislature.gov/Search/FindMyLegislator)
Title of Email; Joint TUE Committee: Please Advance S. 2204 Smart Meter Choice (TUE is the abbreviation for Telecom, Utilities and Energy)
SHORT VERSION
To: Esteemed Members, Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
Re: Please Support S. 2204: An Act Relative to Smart Meters By Mr. Moore, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 2204) of Michael O. Moore, Diana DiZoglio, Bruce E. Tarr, Tricia Farley-Bouvier and other members of the General Court for legislation relative to utility meters and the rights of utility ratepayers. We urge you again to report this bill out of Committee favorably, as you did last session.
Then if desired, add one or two short sentences about why this matters to you.
Example: The technology poses avoidable risks to health, including the frail, elderly and electrically sensitive, as noted by experts at the International EMF medical conferences. Massachusetts residents deserve the right to a safe environment in their own homes.
I am personally adversely affected by radio frequencies and/or powerline meter technologies.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Full Name
Title (if applicable)
Address
LONG VERSION and/or, OTHER POSSIBLE TALKING POINTS
FCC decision
Following the committee hearing for this bill in July of 2021, the Court ruled that the FCC’s decision not to review its radio frequency exposure guidelines was arbitrary, capricious, and not evidence-based.
The opening brief filed with the Court specifically refers to issues associated with smart meters.
The August 2021 court decision against the FCC correctly identified the scope of FCC limits as excluding non-thermal impacts. The court noted, “The factual premise—the non-existence of non-thermal biological effects— underlying the current RF guidelines may no longer be accurate.”
Therefore, FCC guidelines cannot be reference to justify claims of smart meter safety, and MA DPU assumptions regarding safety are inaccurate and outdated.
Another Option: In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the FCC. The Court ruled that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that current FCC guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. The Court found “the Commission’s order arbitrary and capricious in its failure to respond to record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer” …and also “arbitrary and capricious in its complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The Court’s decision means that the current FCC guidelines, which have been remanded to the FCC, have not been shown to protect the public or the environment from harm from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. In the past, Massachusetts legislators and the D.P.U. have relied on these same FCC guidelines to assume safety of the smart meter program. They can no longer do so. The full text of the Court’s decision is here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FB976465BF00F8BD85258730004EFDF7/$file/20-1025-1910111.pdf
New Hampshire Report
We should not be exposing the public, plants, or pollinators to radiofrequency radiation. NH is the first legislature in the nation to do an independent investigation into the health and environmental impact of today’s wireless technology. Their final commission report documents conflicts of interest between industry and our federal agencies, reveals the peer-reviewed solid science showing extensive harm, and recommends hard-wired technology.
Environmental/Sustainability/Climate Concerns
If we are serious about climate change, Massachusetts must transition away from wireless technology which consumes 10x more energy than the safer, sustainable solution of running signal through high speed cable, upgraded copper lines, or high speed fiber-optics to and through the premises — not through wireless smart meters on properties or small cells at the curb. A Greenpeace analyst examined wireless consumption, and noted if the wireless industry were a country, it would be the fifth or sixth largest consumer of energy in the world.
Increasing Exposures
With the roll-out of 5G infrastructure, exposures are increasing, resulting in increased numbers of individuals reporting symptom onset and requiring accommodation.
As taught by doctors at the international EMF Medical Conference 2021, the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) of radiation pulsed by utility “smart meters” are one of the leading causes of rapidly increasing electromagnetic illnesses. Allowing an opt-out is a good short-term solution to immediately give Massachusetts residents the right to be safe in their own homes.
