. . . a grievance over an application for a so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) to be installed in front of her home

Adapted from an article by Daniel Pineda, Oct 7, 2022 | Original Beachcomber article here.

On Sept. 7, Moira Hahn, a resident of Long Beach, filed a complaint with the Long Beach Citywide Accessibility Coordinator, stating that the city had misused the protections of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Hahn is a 66-year-old, disabled, retired college professor, who has been medically diagnosed to have Electromagnetic Magnetic Sensitivity (EMS): a medical condition caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.

Hahn told the Beachcomber:

“Electromagnetic sensitivity causes me regular migraine headaches, cluster headaches and ear pain when I’m exposed to Wi-Fi or other sources of electromagnetic radiation, including prolonged proximity to transmitting cell towers. I recently experienced insomnia, heart palpitations and jitters, when we had to stay at a hotel with a Wi-Fi access point near our bed. I could not sleep. It felt like I was having a heart attack all night.”

Hahn’s grievances with the city began when the Long Beach City Council approved for the telecommunications company, AT&T, to replace a light post near Hahn’s home with one that would include a new cell tower; something that would cause continuous injury to Hahn, and potentially others with EMS.

In response, Hahn, as well as her husband Mark Hotchkiss, went to the Long Beach Department of Public Works, this past March, to appeal the approval of the new cell tower. Hahn talked to the Beachcomber about the appeal she made to the Department of Public Works, as well as shared letters containing some of the arguments made in said appeal.

One of the arguments she made was that Long Beach’s decision to add the new AT&T cell tower was in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in which “the city failed to consider cumulative impacts of the one thousand pending cell tower installations, as CEQA requires cumulative impacts to be taken into consideration.”

Hahn also argued that the city had avoided an environmental review, by calling the new cell towers “streetlights,” another violation in the CEQA. Hahn said.

“They claim that over 1,000 cell towers being installed are substantially the same as the streetlights they replace. That is not true. Cell towers produce negative environmental impacts not limited to health, safety and flammability, that the original streetlights do not.”

Hahn’s appeal also included a letter from her physician, Dr. Richard Wexler, which included details on how symptoms of EMS can cause serious migraines for Hahn and were even the reason she had to retire from teaching.

Dr. Wexler wrote:

“Certain people are more sensitive to wireless radiation than others and those electromagnetic sensitive people often experience an exacerbation of their underlying medical problems when they are exposed to continuous doses of wireless radiation. “In my medical opinion, if a wireless telecommunications facility is located in close proximity to Ms. Hahn’s house and transmits wireless radiation continuously – even at levels within the existing FCC guidelines – Ms. Hahn may be physically harmed by the wireless radiation.”

Hahn had hoped her arguments to the Department of Public Works would be more than enough for their appeal to be accepted. However, the city clerk notified the appellants in April, that her appeal was denied.

The final conclusion made by Administrative Hearing Officer Larry Minsky stated:

“Hence, while issues of cumulative harm caused or potentially caused to appellants and the community appear to be a real danger, for the reasons noted supra such matters do not and cannot serve, in this instance, as a viable argument to overturn the City’s approval of the AT&T’s Permit application.”

To Moira Hahn, this was not the outcome she was looking for. However, the story doesn’t end there.

According to a letter written by Hahn’s attorney, Kathryn Pettit, the city also stated their interpretation of the ADA, in which it would only acknowledge individuals with disabilities requiring wheelchairs; something Pettit describes as discriminatory to those with other disabilities that fall under the protection of the ADA, like EMS, which has been a recognized condition that leads to impairment of one or more life functions by the Federal Access Board.

Pettit said in the memorandum.

“Yet the city did not even attempt to comply with the ADA because it argues it is ‘preempted’ from doing so. The city explicitly stated at the hearing that it did not consider Ms. Hahn’s disability in approving the Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) permit.”

Hahn also believes that the city’s interpretation of the ADA is highly unreasonable, as it excludes all disabilities that don’t require the use of a wheelchair and is not consistent with legal precedent from the April, 2019 California Supreme Court ruling T-Mobile v San Franciso that states:

From p. 8-9 of the 2019 CA Supreme Court ruling in T-Mobile v San Franciso:

. . . the City has inherent local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction. That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use . . . We also disagree with plaintiffs’ contention that section 7901’s incommode clause limits their right to construct [telephone] lines only if the installed lines and equipment would obstruct the path of travel. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the incommode clause need not be read so narrowly.

As the Court of Appeal noted, the word “ ‘incommode’ ” means “ ‘to give inconvenience or distress to: disturb.’ ” (T-Mobile West, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 351, citing Merriam-Webster Online Dict., available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incommode [as of April 3, 2019].)8 The Court of Appeal also quoted the definition of “incommode” from the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary. Under that definition, “incommode” means “ ‘[t]o give inconvenience to; to give trouble to; to disturb or molest in the quiet enjoyment of something, or in the facility of acquisition.’ ” (T-Mobile West, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 351, citing Webster’s Dict. 1828—online ed., available at http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/incommod [as of April 3, 2019].)

For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the meaning of incommode has not changed meaningfully since section 7901’s enactment. Obstructing the path of travel is one way that telephone lines could disturb or give inconvenience to public road use. But travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel. (T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356.) For example, lines or equipment might

• generate noise,
• cause negative health consequences, or
• create safety concerns.

All these impacts could disturb public road use, or disturb its quiet enjoyment.

Hahn said about this:

“The city’s interpretation of the ADA is illogical and wrong. It is not just unfair to me, but to all Long Beach residents with legitimate disabilities not requiring the use of a wheelchair, including the sight-iimpaired, hearing-impaired, the neurologically-impaired and those with cancer.”

According to ruling in similar recent case in the District of Columbia Circuit, the judges wrote:

“a regulation can no more preempt a federal statute than a federal statute could preempt a provision in the Constitution.”

In other words, a city cannot rely on a chapter of its local zoning code to preempt something like the ADA. And yet, that seems to be what is happening here in Long Beach.

Moira Hahn and her husband are not giving up. The two have an opportunity to present their appeal once more, at a Long Beach City Council meeting on Oct. 18. To add insult to injury, according to an email written by Moira Hahn and shared with Beachcomber, Daniel Ramirez of the Long Beach Department of Public Works submitted an invoice to Hahn, stating that she must pay a $400 fee, to have their hearing with the City Council not be canceled, something that Hahn questions.

Hahn told the Beachcomber she could find no statute or ordinance in the city that supports this fee. She’s is demanding that the fee be waived.

[Note: During the writing of this article, Hahn had informed the Beachcomber, that she’s been notified that the $400 fee would be refunded to her by the City, according to an email she received from Daniel Ramirez].

Hahn hopes that, during the council meeting in October, the city will follow all CEQA regulations, as well follow the of the all ADA regulations and ADA federal laws because the City is required to do by their own city code. Hahn said:

“We hope that the city will follow CEQA, which also requires the City to address the project’s impacts on cumulative impacts of such a large planned installation of 1,000+ additional cell towers in Long Beach. The City has an obligation to follow the ADA, without limiting its responsibility to only the disabled requiring wheelchair access, as they were instructed to do in the 2019 ruling in T-Mobile v San Francisco.”

The ADA defines a disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such an individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.” For more information about the ADA, you can visit the official website at ADA.gov.

August 31, 2022 Update: On the last day of the legislative session, we are thrilled to share with you that SB 866 is DEAD! Senator Wiener’s bill that would have allowed minors to consent to vaccines, Earlier today he put out a statement saying that he did not have the votes and was putting the bill in the Inactive file, see the statement below:

The CA legislature is at the end of a two year session, so if this bill were to come back next year it would have to go through the full legislative process again, but for now we can take a moment and celebrate what has been accomplished this legislative session! 4 out of the 7 bills introduced by the CA Legislative Vaccine Work Group (spearheaded by Senator Pan) died, and others have been heavily amended.

These bills were an overreach and an infringement on constitutional and parental rights, as well as bodily autonomy. The other three bills, SB 1479 (School COVID testing bill), AB 2098 (COVID Physician misinformation bill) and AB 1797 (Vaccine Immunization Registry requirement), are headed to the Governor’s desk, along with SB 1419 (Minor medical records). While A Voice for Choice Advocacy’s Legislative team and lobbyists reach out to the Governor’s office, Governor Newsom also needs to hear from you.

So this week, please send a postcard and call Governor Newsom. TAKE ACTION THIS WEEK… 1) SEND A POSTCARD TO GOVERNOR NEWSOM: https://avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org/avfca-governor-postcard-campaign/

We have 3000+ postcards on the way to Governor Newsom already, but we want that to be 10,000. It is super easy, quick and doesn’t cost you a penny. You can see how easy here: https://www.instagram.com/p/ChuuaywJJaa/ Go to: https://avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org/avfca-governor-postcard-campaign/

Complete the form, including uploading an image for the front of your postcard (if desired) and a message for the back of your postcard Repeat for any other family members (children included) who want the Governor to Veto these bills

2) CALL GOVERNOR NEWSOM: Call Governor Newsom’s office and leave a message (916) 445-2841 Sample Script: “I am a CA resident. I am calling to ask the you to VETO AB 1797, Assembly Weber’s Immunization Registry bill, AB 2098, Assembly Member Low’s COVID misinformation/disinformation bill, SB 1479, Senator Pan’s School COVID testing bill And SB 1419, Senator Becker’s medical privacy bill when they are voted on on the Assembly Floor.”

3) SHARE! SHARE! SHARE! GET YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO CALL AND SEND POSTCARDS:Please share this email with friends and family, as well as on social media so we can get as many people as possible to call and send postcards. If every person gets just 10 other people to take action we would have tens of thousands of postcards. We can’t do this without you! In Solidarity,Stand for Health Freedom.

. . . Above 5 Year-Average in Australia

---

Critics Say Plan Doesn’t Address ‘Unholy Alliance’ With Big Pharma

Adapted from an Aug 18, 2022 article by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The original The Defender™ article is here.

The Centers for Disease Control Wednesday announced a “drastic” overhaul of the agency after admitting to failures in its management of the [alleged] COVID-19 pandemic. But some critics said the plan isn’t adequate and suggested replacing the agency with a public health model that operates independently from Big Pharma.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Wednesday announced a “drastic” overhaul of the agency aimed at modernizing it and rescuing its reputation after widespread criticism of its COVID-19 response and, more recently, the monkeypox outbreak.

“For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for COVID-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said in an email to the agency’s 11,000-person staff.

Walensky said the overhaul will focus on making the agency more nimble and responsive to needs that arise in health emergencies. The CDC in a statement said it has never in its 75-year history “had to make decisions so quickly, based on limited and evolving science,” and that the agency’s traditional scientific and communication processes were “not adequate to effectively respond to a crisis the size and scope of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

According to CBS News, Walensky’s proposed internal changes include:

• Expand the CDC staff focused on public health emergencies.
• Require officials to stay in those jobs for at least six months.
• Establish an office of intergovernmental affairs to facilitate partnerships with other agencies.
• Create a health equity office.
• Increase use of preprint scientific reports for issuing public health guidance, rather than waiting for research to be reviewed by peers and published by the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a summary provided to The Hill, the CDC said it is considering restructuring its website and producing “plain language guidance” because its “guidance documents are confusing and overwhelming; the website is not easy to navigate.”

To implement the internal reforms, Walensky appointed Mary Wakefield, who served as acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the Obama administration, to lead the effort. She also proposed external changes that will require congressional action, such as requiring states to report their disease outbreak data to the CDC.

“My goal is a new, public health action-oriented culture at CDC that emphasizes accountability, collaboration, communication, and timeliness,” Walensky said.

However, plans about how the CDC will be held accountable — and by whom — remain unclear as of yet.

Did an ‘external’ review of the CDC prompt overhaul plans?

Walensky’s announcement — which CDC leaders called a “reset” — came as no surprise since she took over the agency at the beginning of President Biden’s term with promises of a “reinvigorated US response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” Bloomberg reported.

In April, she initiated a review to evaluate the CDC’s structure, systems and processes, commissioning Jim Macrae, a senior HHS official, to lead the review.

• From mid-April to early June, Macrae interviewed 120 CDC staffers and individuals outside the agency, a senior CDC official on Wednesday told The Washington Post.
• CDC Chief of Staff Sherri Berger also conducted a review during this time, according to Politico.
• Walensky so far has received only an “oral briefing” on Macrae’s findings.

However, Walensky worked “over the last few months” with a “small group of internal and external advisers” to “evaluate the review’s findings and plan the overhaul.”

As of Wednesday, a full report of the review’s findings had not been released to the public.

However, according to a CDC statement provided to Politico, the reviews concluded that the “traditional scientific and communication processes were not adequate to effectively respond to a crisis the size and scope of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The CDC’s [insufficient] ‘reset’ lowers standards of evidence used to make regulatory decisions

Critics of the CDC plan questioned whether the overhaul will effectively address the governmental agency’s problems.

“The CDC, frankly, hasn’t been transparent or accountable,” Dr. Daniel Pollock, an epidemiologist who worked at the agency for 37 years before retiring in November, in part due to frustrations with its pandemic response, told Bloomberg.

• Pollock, who led the CDC unit responsible for national surveillance of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use from 2004-2021, wasn’t consulted as part of the review and said he was “not expecting that it’s going to change things.”
• Jason Schwartz, a health policy researcher at the Yale School of Public Health, pointed out that the federal failings go beyond the CDC because the White House and other agencies were heavily involved. Schwartz told the New York Post he thinks the CDC’s reorganization is a positive step but “I hope it’s not the end of the story.”
• James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., research scientist and author, said the changes are just an escalation of the deeper problem of governmental agencies colluding with pharmaceutical companies to lower scientific testing standards.

Commenting on the CDC’s plan to restructure its communications office and websites to make the agency’s guidance for the public clearer, Lyons-Weiler wrote on Substack:

“We’ve been hearing this for decades. ‘If only our messaging was clearer.’

No. Try ‘Make our messaging more independent of Pharma’s agendas, reduce the role of considerations of profitability, and try to make sure that what we see actually reflects empirical reality.”

Lyons-Weiler, president and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, an advocacy group that pushes for accuracy and integrity in science and for biomedical researchers to put people’s health before profits, also said:

“Among the changes is lowering the standards of the level of evidence used to make regulatory decisions. Sigh. Please tell your Senators about #PLANB. THAT [original emphasis] is a #Reset.”

Plan B refers to “Plan B Public Health Infrastructure and Operations Oversight Reform for America,” a document Lyons-Weiler authored that outlines a complete “public health infrastructure and operations oversight reform” for the U.S. The document, Lyons-Weiler said, provides “a blueprint for a bona fide public health infrastructure based on independence of freedom from corporatism.”

According to Lyons-Weiler, the CDC claims to work for the “greater good” when, in fact, it serves for-profit corporate interests.

As he stated in “Plan B”:

“Since the US CDC was founded, an unholy alliance has infiltrated public health in the US — euphemistically referred to as ‘industry/government partnerships’ and ‘Not-for-Profit’ government entities — the wicked marriage has infused profit motives into US government agencies charged with regulating medical and pharmaceutical industries.

Those involved view themselves as agents working toward a ‘greater good’ — notwithstanding, the trappings of perverse incentives and presumed moral dictates, agencies designed by past generations to protect the US population from harm from corporatist tendencies have been completely captured and subverted.”

Rather than overhauling the CDC, which — as Schwartz noted, would fail to address the problems in the other federal agencies — Lyons-Weiler argued that a new public health system needs to be adopted that is decentralized and depoliticized.

As he wrote in “Plan B”:

‘In our mission to return objectivity to science and to the media, we are reminded of the wisdom of Buckminster Fuller: ‘You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

From August, 2022 . . .

Part One: Electromagnetic Sensitivity: EMS and Wireless Radiation

---

Part Two: Electromagnetic Sensitivity: EMS and Wireless Radiation

---

From November, 2019 . . .

August 5, 2022

Hi, Scott.

I listened to and featured yours and Susan Foster’s two-part interview on Green Street radio here:

Electromagnetic Sensitivity and Wireless Radiation

In part one of the interview, you both discussed the problems with so-called “Smart meters”

Apparently, SoundCloud does not allow one to scrub through the audio unless you set up an account, so I can’t give you the exact time code, but about half-way through Susan Foster said something like the Electro-mechanical electric meter — a metal and glass, analog meter with no internal electronics — “had a fuse” and such a fuse protects the occupants in the home from an electrical spike on the electrical distribution lines (she cited an incident in Stockton, CA).

That sounded wrong to me. I then called PG&E and was called back by a PG&E Engineer and we talked things over for about 30 minutes.

There are now an array of meters made available to PG&E Customers, that fall into three categories:

A. Digital SmartMeter™ with (flammable) internal electronics and plastic cover, RF microwave radiation emitting antennas and a switched mode power supply

B. Digital Time-of-Use Meter with (flammable) internal electronics and plastic cover, and a switched mode power supply, but no RF microwave radiation emitting antennas

C. Electro-mechanical meter: a metal and glass, analog meter that has dials and no internal electronics or switched mode power supply

He confirmed to me that C does not have a fuse and is not grounded. The spike (if it gets past the cut out at the pole) goes through the meter to the electrical panel and then is hopefully grounded. C is built with non-flammable materials and is tougher, as it can withstand an electrical spike on the electrical distribution lines better than A or B, which are made from flammable materials.

Many times people are given B, when they really should get C, as both A and B contribute a good deal of conducted emissions/dirty electricity.

You may want to better inform Susan Foster and Doug & Patti at Greenstreet so opt out customers successfully request and get the correct meter, C – Electro-mechanical meter.

---

Pacific Gas & Electric Meter Choices

Adapted from this PG&E web page here:

With PG&E, you can choose the type of meter that you want for your home. You can choose a between

• Digital SmartMeter™ with internal electronics, RF microwave radiation emitting antennas and a switched mode power supply or
  
• Electro-mechanical meter: a metal and glass, analog meter that has dials and no internal electronics or switched mode power supply. The following table compares both meters.

PLEASE NOTE: The electro-mechanical, analog meter comes with a monthly fee. The monthly fee ends after 36 consecutive months. Fees are set by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

Feature	So-Called SmartMeter™	Electro-mechanical meter
Emits RF Micowave radiation 24/7 †	Yes	No
Includes Switched Mode Power Supply‡	Yes	No
Flammable	Yes	No
Collects usage data to sell to third parties	Yes	No
Energy alerts	Yes	No
View your daily energy alerts	Yes	No
Outage detection	Yes	No
Setup charge	Free	$75 or less
Monthly charge	Free	$10 or less

• ^† Per PG&E testimony, PG&E’s Digital SmartMeter™ sends between 10,000 and 190,000 RF Microwave transmissions per day from your home; each transmission is designed to travels nearly two miles.
• ^‡ A switched mode power supply converts AC to DC (for the internal electronics) and does not filter out the resulting conducted emissions/electrical waste which is dumped onto your electric lines, creating Dirty Electricity and a turning one’s plastic Romex wiring into a 24/7 emitter of 100 kHz+ RF microwave radiation. Learn more here.

If you qualify for financial assistance, the setup charge for an analog meter is $10 and the monthly charge is $5. Learn about financial assistance requirements.

Link to Helping Customers Save Energy & Money.

You Can Opt Out of SmartMeter™ Use

You can opt out of SmartMeter™ participation with one of the following methods:

• Link to SmartMeter™ Opt-Out Form.
• Link to Office Locations by Area (PDF, 221 KB). Find your local PG&E office.
• Submit a request in-person at your local PG&E office.
• Call the PG&E SmartMeter™ line at 1-866-743-0263.

CPUC Rules for SmartMeter™ Opt-Out Fees

If you opt out, your monthly fees and meter readings are affected in the following ways.

• Your monthly charges are discontinued after 36 consecutive months.
• Your meter readings take place every other month, starting in 2015.

The CPUC decision on opt-out rules was issued in December 2014.


• Read the CPUC decision. Link to CPUC Decision 14-12-078 December 18, 2014 (PDF, 980 KB)
• Read the tariff and rate changes related to the decision by the CPUC. Link to SUBJECT: Implementation of SmartMeter™ Opt Out Phase 2 Decision 14-12-078: Revise the SmartMeter™ Opt-Out Program Balancing Accounts, Electric and Gas Rate Schedules E-SOP and G-SOP, and Electric and Gas Rule 9 (PDF, 1.49 MB)PDF.

By Meg Britton-Mehlisch, July 29, 2020 | The Berkshire Eagle article here.

Note: WTF = ‘Wireless Telecommunications Facility’, aka ‘Cell Tower’

An aerial view of the 115-foot monopole Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) that Verizon Wireless erected in a south Pittsfield neighborhood in 2020.

PITTSFIELD — A group of residents filed legal action Thursday asking the Berkshire Superior Court to review whether the Board of Health improperly ended its opposition to a cell tower in south Pittsfield.

The residents claim the board dropped a cease-and-desist order against Verizon Wireless due to what they allege was an illegal and unethical handling of the situation by Mayor Linda Tyer and City Solicitor Stephen Pagnotta.

Scott McCollough, one of the attorneys representing residents, said in an interview.

“We are really just trying to get the outside interference of the Mayor and the City Solicitor, who has conflicts of interest … out of the way and let the board exercise its independent authority to do what it thinks is the best. The goal here is to let the board make that decision with the resources that it needs, including independent counsel, a lawyer that can give them fair and objective advice and does not have a conflict.”

The residents are making use of a Massachusetts state law that allows the court to review the administrative decisions of other bodies, like the Board of Health, and “correct errors in proceedings which are not according to the course of the common law.” The law gives the residents 60 days to challenge the Board of Health’s actions — a window that was quickly closing.

To make the challenge, residents had to name as a defendant the Board of Health, a body they view as their advocate through this process.

The filing says:

[the the board is named ] “because it is their coerced action rescinding the Emergency Order that has harmed the Plaintiffs by continuing the nuisance, adverse health consequences and the ongoing constructive eviction of some of the Plaintiffs . . . Plaintiffs emphasize, however, that in many respects the Board is as much a victim as the Plaintiffs.”

Plaintiffs in the action are Courtney Gilardi, Charlie Herzig, Judy Herzig, Mark Markham, Angelika Markham and Elaine Ireland.

By Bill Buley June 27, 2022 | Original Coeur d’Alene Press article here.

DALTON GARDENS, ID — The Dalton Gardens City Council will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. Thursday on an ordinance to regulate installation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — that most think of as cell towers — within city limits.

Councilman Tyler Drechsel said the “Telecom Ordinance” has been two years in the making.

“This ordinance will protect the rural feel and lifestyle that the citizens of Dalton Gardens love and help to provide safeguards for all the residents,” he said. “This has been a long process and we are all excited for this ordinance to finally come to fruition.”

According to a draft of the ordinance, its purpose is to “promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Dalton Gardens; to protect property rights; and to protect the important environmental features and scenic, historical, natural and man-made character and appearance of the City.”

It goes on to say that the city is seeking to minimize adverse impacts caused by the siting, placement, physical size and/or unnecessary proliferation of personal wireless service facilities.”

The proposed law says the installation, construction, erection, relocation, substantial expansion or material alteration of any personal wireless service facility within the City will require a special use permit.

The ordinance says that each installation at each proposed location will be reviewed and considered independently for its own characteristics and potential impacts, “irrespective of whether the proposed facility is designed and intended to operate independently or whether the installation is designed and/or intended to operate jointly as part of a distributed antenna system.”

The public is welcome to attend the meeting and offer comment.

Adapted from a Children’s Health Defense article here.

The Pittsfield Board of Health last week voted behind closed doors to rescind its cease-and-desist order against the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) located near 877 South Street.

The vote is an unfortunate step in a months-long standoff between Pittsfield residents, who identified the tower as the source of multiple illnesses, and Verizon affiliate Pittsfield Cellular Telephone, which last month sued the city and board of health in a bid to overturn the cease-and-desist order.

Attorney W. Scott McCollough represented four of the affected families and was prepared to defend their interests and the board of health’s cease-and-desist order against Verizon in federal court.

McCollough and Massachusetts environmental attorney Paul Revere III were prepared to defend against a claim of “express preemption” by Verizon, he said. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents local zoning authorities from regulating the placement or construction of cell towers based on environmental effects of RF microwave radiation pollution from Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs).

US Code Title 47§332(c)(7)(B)(iv):

“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

McCollough said that the Pittsfield Board of Health is not a zoning authority and it was not regulating placement or construction. Instead, “It found injury and causation and then exercised its state health and sanitation authority to require removal of the offending facility,” he said.

A telecommunications attorney with decades of trial experience, McCollough said he knows how telecom operates. According to McCollough, the withdrawal of the cease-and-desist order does not diminish their

“considerable findings against Verizon Wireless for causation of a host of documented medical problems beginning with the activation of the tower. People are being harmed, and it is the responsibility of the board of health to represent their interests. Some of these corporations act with impunity when they perceive a threat to a case that could adversely affect their bottom line. It is hard for a smaller town to withstand the political and other resources Verizon wields. I had hoped Pittsfield was an exception. They caved. I deal with their kind every day. They view my clients as collateral damage, and I am personally and professionally offended by that. This is not over.”

The board’s move to rescind the order, though not entirely unexpected, came as a blow to 17 residents who said the Verizon tower that was activated in the midst of their neighborhood in March 2020 caused them to become sick.

Lawyers representing six of the city’s affected residents filed an intervention on May 25 to defend the board’s order — the first such cease-and-desist order against a major wireless carrier ever issued in the U.S.

Pittsfield Board of Health Chair Bobbie Orsi said during last week’s meeting the board wanted to help the residents, but that litigation was not the process that was going to help them resolve the “issues” at the present time. Orsi, however, did not elaborate on what the board thought would help resolve the illnesses — some of them classified as significant diseases — experienced by neighbors who live as close as 300 feet from the cell tower.

Once the tower was activated residents reported difficulties sleeping through the night if they could get to sleep at all. They said they were plagued with headaches, vertigo, nausea, brain fog and skin rashes. Within the next 18 months came two diagnoses of cancer and one recurrence of cancer in the town Family pets died, and even the moles did not return to family gardens as the ground started to thaw, some residents said.

Original post from Children’s Health Defense here.

California’s SB.866 was scheduled for a vote on Monday, June 6.

• The good news: the bill was not brought to the Assembly floor for a vote.
• The bad news: as early as Thursday, June 9, the Assembly could bring the bill to a vote on the floor.

The California state government should not strip away parents’ rights to make important health decisions for their children and potentially place minors in danger.

If SB.866 passes, it will permit minors 12 years of age or older to consent to any vaccine approved by the FDA and recommended by the CDC without parental knowledge or consent. A similar bill in Washington, D.C., was struck down by a federal judge. The California bill is already being targeted for litigation if it passes. Make sure that the assembly members know this fact.

Reports from Sacramento suggest legislators may be feeling pressure from actions taken by constituents concerned about government overreach. The Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids (PERK) action alert generated 420,000 emails in less than 48 hours.

We must continue to flood assembly members’ inboxes and voicemails and tell them what we think. Now is the time to take action and let your voices be heard!

A. Send Email, Edit From This Sample; Go here to do so.

Email Text:

SB.866 is an extreme, anti-parent, anti-family bill that allows minors 12 years and older to consent to all vaccinations, including the new Emergency Use Authorized COVID vaccines, without parental consent. Children are not capable of making sound risk/benefit decisions without being influenced by peer pressure and coercion.

This bill allows for vaccination at home, without parental consent, and opens a pandora’s box on privacy issues, medical history oversight, and the potential for medical errors. It is not about expanding the health rights that minors already have. Instead, it leaves millions of children vulnerable to unnecessary risk, coercion, and harm by removing vital and protective parental consent.

Yet, parents know their children’s medical history, allergies, and health information best. A minor can’t even comprehend the complex nature of their medical history.

The COVID vaccine is still an experimental, investigational, and unlicensed product that should not be forced on children, who are underage, to make important health care decisions.

A similar bill in Washington, D.C., The DC Minor Consent for Vaccination,” was struck down by a federal judge. The CA bill is already being targeted for litigation if SB.866 passes.

As adults, we need to protect the children of California by keeping crucial parental rights in place.

B. Call These 28 Key Members of the State Assembly Today

. . . to express your opposition to SB.866, the bill that would allow minors as young as 12 years old to consent to vaccination without parental consent or knowledge.

1. Joaquin Arambula of Fresno County 916-319-2031 and 559-445-5532
2. Tasha Boerner-Horvath of north San Diego County 916-319-2076 and 760-434-7605
3. Ken Cooley of Sacramento County 916-319-2008 and 916-464-1910
4. Jim Cooper of Sacramento County 916-319-2009 and 916-670-7888
5. Tom Daly of central Orange County 916-319-2069 and 714-939-8469
6. Mike Fong of Monterey Park to Arcadia in L.A. County 916-319-2049 and 323-264-4949 — Monterey Park 91754
7. Eduardo Garcia of Imperial and Riverside counties 916-319-2056 and 760-347-2360 — Coachella, CA 92236
8. Mike Gipson of South-Central Los Angeles 916-319-2064 and 310-324-6408 — Gardena, CA 90248
9. Adam Gray is running for the new Central Valley congressional seat that includes West Modesto, Ceres, Patterson and Newman among other central and eastern Stanislaus County communities 916-319-2021 and 209-726-5465 — Modesto, CA 95354
10. Timothy Grayson of northeast Contra Costa County 916-319-2014 and 925-521-1511 — Vallejo, CA 94590
11. Jacqui Irwin of southwest Ventura County 916-319-2044 and 805-482-1904 — Oxnard, CA 93030
12. Brian Maienschein of north San Diego 916-319-2077 and 858-675-0077 — San Diego, CA 92128
13. Chad Mayes (independent) of Palm Springs/Yucca Valley/Yucaipa 916-319-2042 and 760-346-6342 — Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
14. Adrin Nazarian of Van Nuys 916-319-2046 and 818-376-4246 — Van Nuys, CA 91401
15. Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach 916-319-2070 and 562-429-0470 — Long Beach, CA 90815
16. Cottie Petrie-Norris of coastal Orange County 916-319-2074 and 949-251-0074 — Irvine, CA 92612
17. Sharon Quirk-Silva of Fullerton/Buena Park/Anaheim 916-319-2065 and 714-525-6515 — Fullerton, CA 92835
18. James Ramos of Redlands/Loma Linda/Highland/north San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga 916-319-2040 and 909-476-5023 — Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
19. Eloise Reyes of San Bernardino/Rialto/Fontana 916-319-2047 and 909-381-3238 — San Bernardino, CA 92401
20. Luz Rivas of northeast San Fernando Valley — 916-319-2039 and 818-504-3911 — Arleta, CA 91331
21. Robert Rivas of Monterey, San Benito, and San Cruz counties and Gilroy 916-319-2030 and 831-759-8676 — Morgan Hill, CA 95037
22. Freddie Rodriguez of Ontario/Chino/Pomona — 916-319-2052 and 909-902-9606 — Chino, CA 91710
23. Blanca Rubio of Azusa/Glendora/Covina and other east L.A. County communities 916-319-2048 and 626-960-4457 — West Covina, CA 91791
24. Miguel Santiago of downtown Los Angeles — 916-319-2053 and 213-620-4646 — Los Angeles, CA 90013
25. Rudy Salas is running for a new congressional seat covering parts of Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare counties — 916-319-2032 and 661-335-0302 — Bakersfield, CA 93301
26. Carlos Villapudua of Stockton and Tracy 916-319-2013 and 209-948-7479 — Stockton, CA 95202
27. Lori Wilson of Fairfield/Vacaville/Rio Vista/Antioch/Brentwood 916-319-2011 — Fairfield, CA 94533

Appendix A: SB.866 Text

From https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB866

Amended in Senate March 09, 2022

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE — 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill No. 866

**Introduced by Senators Wiener and Pan (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Wicks) (Coauthor: Senator Newman) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Aguiar-Curry, Friedman, Low, Ting, and Akilah Weber) ** | January 20, 2022

An act to add Section 6931 to the Family Code, relating to minors.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 866, as amended, Wiener. Minors: vaccine consent.

Existing law prescribes various circumstances under which a minor may consent to their medical care and treatment without the consent of a parent or guardian. These circumstances include, among others, authorizing a minor 12 years of age or older who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease or condition is one that is required by law or regulation to be reported to the local health officer, or is a related sexually transmitted disease, as may be determined by the State Public Health Officer. This bill would additionally authorize a minor 12 years of age or older to consent to vaccines that meet specified federal agency criteria. The bill would authorize a vaccine provider, as defined, to administer a vaccine pursuant to the bill, but would not authorize the vaccine provider to provide any service that is otherwise outside the vaccine provider’s scope of practice.

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

Section 6931 is added to the Family Code, to read:

6931.

(a) A minor 12 years of age or older may consent to a vaccine that is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and meets the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (ACIP) without the consent of the parent or guardian of the minor.

(b) An authorized vaccine provider may administer a vaccine pursuant to subdivision (a). For purposes of this section, “authorized vaccine provider” means a person licensed pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code or a clinic or health facility licensed pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 1200 of the Health and Safety Code), or any other provider authorized by the state.

(c) This section does not authorize a vaccine provider to provide any a service that is otherwise outside the vaccine provider’s scope of practice.

---

---

From Align act page here.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is declaring war on our children and it’s on each of us to be unrelenting as we defend the next generation from Big Pharma and its allies.

We must stop the FDA’s attack, beginning with a campaign to end unethical and unsubstantiated Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) that will subject younger and our most vulnerable children to the unnecessary risks of COVID shots.Tell the FDA to get their #HandsOffOurChildren and let regulatory authorities know that #ParentsAreWatching.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) is scheduled to meet on four separate occasions in June to discuss additional EUAs that would provide cradle-to-grave COVID shots and consider a “Future Framework” that will permanently lower the bar for safety and efficacy going forward.

Their itinerary is as follows:

• June 7 — Emergency Use Authorization for Novavax’s COVID shot for adults.
• June 14 — Amendment to Moderna’s EUA to include primary series for children and adolescents 6 years through 17 years of age.
• June 15 — Amendment to Moderna’s EUA to include primary series for children 6 months to 5 years and amendment to Pfizer’s EUA to include the primary series to children 6 months through 4 years of age.
• June 28 — Proposed “Future Framework” for COVID shots.

Dr. Toby Rogers aptly calls the June meetings a “blitzkrieg” because it is an overwhelming all-out attack (on informed consent) designed to create psychological shock and demoralizing chaos. But we can change the outcome by arming up with real data and creating a blitzkrieg of our own.We need Defenders like YOU to hold the line and stop the approval of EUA amendments that profoundly impact the health and safety of our kids.

Tell VRBPAC members:

1. THERE IS NO COVID EMERGENCY FOR CHILDREN: Children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death. They have a 99.995% recovery rate and the vast majority of children have minimal symptoms. A study published in Nature described how children between 3 and 11 years of age mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses to COVID. The CDC’s own data show that at least 75.2% of children ages 0 to 11 years and 74.2% of adolescents ages 12 to 17 years already have superior natural immunity.
2. mRNA SHOTS OFFER LITTLE IN THE WAY OF PROTECTION: There is no clinically significant health benefit from the mRNA vaccines. Moderna’s own press release acknowledges that “the absence of any severe disease, hospitalization or death in the study precludes the assessment of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints.” Preliminary data showed the shots were only about 44% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in children 6 months to 2 years old, and 37% effective in children ages 2 to 5 — both below the 50% level that regulators had generally called the minimum level for EUA approval in 2020. In New York, officials observed that Pfizer’s efficacy against Omicron plummeted from 68% to 12% after 7 weeks in children ages 5 to 11.
3. INJURIES FROM COVID SHOTS IN CHILDREN ARE CATASTROPHIC: Vaccinated children face a substantial risk of myocarditis. Moderna’s EUA application, originally filed in June 2021, has already been held up because of a clear safety signal for myocarditis, which has prompted a number of European countries to prohibit its use in young people. Additionally, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has over 48,500 reports of adverse events in children, including 112 deaths (as of May 20, 2022) and a growing number of reports of encephalopathies, clotting issues, diabetes and neurological issues in children following COVID shots.

The FDA is poised to make decisions regarding our children and the future of this country that may have a devastating impact on children’s health.

Please use go to this page and click the button at the top of the page to send a message to FDA and CDC officials, VRBPAC members and elected representatives demanding that they reject the Pfizer and Moderna EUAs for children and ensure our government agencies are following the science.