Markey’s Sunrise & the Devil in Wireless

After examining Senator Ed Markey’s wireless and tech stances, I think he’s just failing to regulate for safety.

Markey has known for 15 or 20 years that wireless accelerates cancer, and yet just continues pushing wireless.

Environmental organizations do just the same, from Sunrise to Sierra.

Is there something I’ve missed? Or is it just the trillions in profits?

Whether or not legislators believe, all legislators have a responsibility to listen and investigate when (1) constituents report notable pain and concerns from technologies or (2) experts raise dire warnings. Both (1) and (2) are true for electromagnetic radiation, including wireless. The issue, in fact, is not just wireless – that is the simple version. New technologies are also contaminating our electrical lines, and this is a conundrum for health if we continue conventional “progress.”

If Markey were oblivious, okay. He’s not. I’ve listed a few examples below showing Markey has been informed, not least that he admits he commissioned a study 15+ years ago that found wireless accelerates cancer. He and other legislators have been informed and have failed to act.

What I want to focus on first is that, despite knowing of health impacts, Markey has failed to act – he’s known since circa 2000, by his own admission. He’s on the Senate telecommunications committee and could advance a relevant bill for safety. Instead, in May of 2020, he advanced wireless funding for schools, instead of hard-wired connectivity. For emphasis, this funding can only serve wireless connectivity. He inserted school bus WiFi (section 31341 E-rate support) into the Moving Forward bill, meant to address Covid19, with wording to insure that Pre-K buses are included, and which passed the House July of 2020.

WiFi on school buses is a nightmare of high exposures for children who are more sensitive than adults – is he clueless? Has he somehow not followed through on the warnings sent to him? Has he sought reputable advice? Even if you were uncertain about health effects, why not fund scientific investigation?

If Markey thinks kids need school connectivity so badly, why not also advance an investigation of how to limit health impacts? Why not advance any advice or warning to limit exposures? Why not seek the advice of experts? Why not allow funding for hard-wired connectivity?

Why not use Covid-19 as an excuse to demand corporations explain the failure to provide decent, hard-wired connectivity or address health impacts? Why not use Covid-19 as a reason to tax Big Tech to secure safer telecommunications and broadband infrastructure?

Many legislators are sponsoring bills to pay Big Tech to provide more wireless, instead of asking anything about safety or consumer costs,

Like most of the political universe, Markey may lack the gumption and integrity to fight the monopolies he created – or DARPA.

Markey sponsored the Telecommunications Act of 1996, ushering in a media and telecommunications monopoly with devastating and systematic impacts on science, democracy, and truth – and simultaneous local loss of media control and the right to consider wireless health impacts – section 704 of the act prohibits municipalities from considering “environmental effects” in wireless zoning or applications. All kinds of money and marketing backed the act: the act passed 414 in favor and 16 against. Despite sharp criticism of the act since, Markey continues to say he is “proud” of the act, and can be found on youtube promoting the act to the Broadband Coalition in 2014 when consequences were clear (see 43:14 – circa 44) – and citing Adam Smith and “ruthless Darwinian competition,” in a nod to free market laissez-faire capitalism. Ed Markey today claims the “landmark” bill ended the AT&T monopoly, cherry-picking words that neglect the advance of more sinister, behemoth tech and media monopolies – and cites the Broadband Coalition speech and his loyalty to a “competitive mantra.” Yet, through this act, Markey promoted that which nearly all political stripes oppose, monopoly, without words or actions to the contrary since.

We need to be critical of legislators when deserved, and demand course corrections. Instead of prestige for a powerful position, Markey and the 413 other legislators ought to be shamed for the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And Markey and all legislators, political party be damned, ought to be shamed for failing to act on warnings that wireless is harmful.

Criticism isn’t just negativity: criticism is a force for change, for redirection.

Yes, Markey’s Republican opponent for the 2020 federal election is silent on monopolies and technology safety.

Yet Markey, riding on Alexandria Ortiz-Ocasio’s coattails, has gotten a pass on everything as the “Green New Dealmaker.” Why are there double standards on promoting monopoly when a candidate is a Democrat? Why isn’t this criticism being lobbed more forcefully in the media or by the public?

Just as abortion is a one-off for some, the Green New Deal – which in fact is only a vision, not a concrete plan – is a one-off for others.

The Green New Deal promises to reverse climate change, but with the smart grid has a Trojan Horse.

The smart grid, marketed as providing digital billing and analysis necessary for energy savings, is the opposite of what we need to conserve energy, resources, health, and our democracy. Instead of the smart grid or technology for climate change, we need a slow economy which would undergird jobs and chip away at inequality.

The Massachusetts Department of Utilities just closed a docket on the smart grid. When you look at the docket (enter 20-69 in this search box) – you can find some submissions stating the smart grid is harming personal health, such as from the Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured – and a brief statement from Dr. Beatrice Golomb that smart utility meters often precede electromagnetic sensitivity, a critical statement from Dr. Nagy, and other critical statements from professionals and organizations. In a reply comment I included health, environmental, and privacy concerns – adding references such as:

  • The Power of the Wireless Cloud.[Points out wireless systems use 15-23 times more energy than wired systems] Centre for Energy-Efficient Telecommuncations. Bell Labs and University of Melbourne. Available online at https://ceet.unimelb.edu.au/publications/ceet-white-paper-wireless-cloud.pdf.
  • 2016 Najmi et al in Radio Science “Simulations of ionospheric turbulence produced by HF heating near the upper hybrid layer,” which reported radiofrequencies produce ionospheric turbulence and electron heating.

Concerns such as ecological, energy, health, privacy, and economic harm are being ignored – why isn’t there more independent research in these areas? Attention to electromagnetic sensitivity? Nothing is worth causing others pain and loss of health and liberty. We need to stop supporting bills and “progress” for one-off reasons. Too many youth and the “Sunrise Movement,” which should know, are lost in the technology and “progress” MATRIX.

Smart meters have caused myself and others harm, and we know and say so – but environmental organizations look away and instead to greener dollars that reimagine climate solutions as a business opportunity. These environmental organizations market paradigms harmful to the children of today and tomorrow. For the same business opportunities, our legislators fail to show a spine. This is a story as old as time that has torn apart our community and environmental health.

We need to demand bills that end monopolies, prove product and pharmaceutical safety, protect the environment, and insure fair elections and campaigns. Sound bills, instead of technology bills marketed with neon frosting, are what we need.

When Was Markey Informed?

This is a short list of examples.

  1. August 2017 – Karen Favazza Spencer hand-delivered to his office the International EMF Appeal; a July 28, 2017 letter to the editor on the topic in the Gloucester Times by Patricia Burke, an Environmental Health Trust press release that wireless should be a Group 1 carcinogen according to a WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer advisor, Dr. Anthony Miller; a flyer on wireless health impacts; a review “Wireless communication technologies: New study findings confirm risks of nonionizing radiation” by Peter Hensinger and Isabel Wilke. The same was provided to Senator Warren and other US state representatives of Massachusetts.
  2. Pre-2018, unknown date – I handwrote a letter and mailed a letter informing Markey I was electromagnetic sensitive, extremely ill, suffering, and which explained and listed research pertaining to opening of the blood-brain barrier as evidence that my condition could have a biological basis. The same was copied to Senator Warren.
  3. Summer 2019- In person, at the 2019 Democratic MA Convention, I provided Markey a card referencing wireless as a threat, citing a study finding industry played down health impacts, and watched him read the card and frown.
  4. Summer 2019 – At the Democratic MA Convention I received confirmation from an organizer for the smart grid and Green New Deal meeting that my concerns with the smart grid inclusion in the Green New Deal were of concern to him and would be shared during the meeting with Markey and all participants.
  5. Circa August 2019 – Sent Markey (and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Neal, Rep McGovern) an open letter signed by myself and experts on the health impacts of wireless – that the FCC’s failure to act on concerns from respectable physicians, scientists, and organizations that current wireless exposures lack proof of safety; that the FCC irrationally ignores findings of soil and mammal infertility and findings 5G could cause physical pain; that the FCC is increasing exposures in a deregulatory environment; and that other countries have banned 5G or reduced exposures.
  6. August 21, 2019 – At the Framingham Town Hall on the Green New Deal with U.S. state representative Katherine Clark, Markey and Clark are informed by Cece Doucette that Markey’s Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits on consideration of health impacts in relation to wireless infrastructure; a recent U.S. National Toxicological Program study concluded clear evidence of cancer risk from wireless exposures; the recent study by the Ramazzini Insititute confirmed the cancer risk; Brussels set a moratorium on 5G; a text “Reinventing Wires” maps solutions; safer hard-wired technology is possible – she asks him to work on section 704 of the Telecommunications Act. Markey responds he commissioned a National Cancer Institute study 15/20 years ago which concluded that wireless accelerates cancer. [And what did he do since then? Nothing as far as the eyes can see . . . ] Note Cece has posted this conversation to youtube. [Aside: I post this link since good, but with the caveat that I am often at odds with Cece regarding legislation, and the article Lemmings for Bad Bills reflects some of those arguments. I’ve spoken with Cece on this topic, and we both plan to caveat each other. I hope these differences quit, but I need to make sure that my or other decent legislation gets positive publicity and passed instead of focusing on repairing bills promoted without limitation and advancing against my advice. For updates on current legislation, please see Last Tree Laws MA legislation.]
  7. September 18, 2019 – As dated, Markey replied by email that health considerations can be balanced with continued technology, as follows: “With technology expanding into nearly every facet of our lives, we need to ensure all Americans– whether urban or rural, rich or poor-remain connected and competitive in this global economy. We can and must balance this need for connectivity with important health considerations.”
  8. September 2019 – Karen Favazza Spencer sent a letter of her opposition to the smart grid and her concerns that smart utility meters caused her to experience cardiac irregularities, especially since the cardiac issues ended upon removal of the smart meters. This was also copied to Senator Warren.
  9. Circa August 2020 – Irritated by my research findings on Markey v. Kennedy on technology, I join Twitter just to send the comparison to Senator Ed Markey’s opponent Rep. Joe Kennedy and some of his followers – then do the same to Senator Ed Markey and some of his followers. Kennedy supporters liked the article and shared. Markey supporters were mute.

 

Reposting articles:

Please link to articles or, if wishing to repost in full, ask permission.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

− 2 = 1

Kirstin Beatty