Help re: How to Improve 5G-Crisis/ART’s 2021 CA-Specific Web Pages & Toolkit

Note on today’s 5G Crisis/ART letter: SB.378 is not worth opposing? Is ART/5G-Crisis mail-merging this letter to individually address it to all 40 Senators and 77 current Assembly members. I can do that for them. I have this all teed up. Which letter do you prefer? The one below or this one?

Wire California Suggested Edit For June 23, 2021 Medical Letter

June 30, 2021

Dear Honorable Members of the California State Legislature:

As health professionals engaged in a wide range of disciplines and practices, we write to express our strong opposition to California Senate Bill SB-556, Assembly Bill AB-537 and Senate Bill SB-378 — three bills which aim to deploy primarily wireless broadband infrastructure for just the “last little bit.” Please understand that 98% of any so-called “wireless” network is actually wired because the packets of data flow nearly all the way on the shared fiber optic backbone. Telecoms, instead of extending these fiber optic cables all the way to homes and businesses, are attempting to deploy hazardous, overpowered antennas next to homes and businesses to send data packets through the air for this last 2% — just so the Telecoms can charge consumers higher prices. Wireless broadband, with its limiting data caps and ever-present hiccups is the highest-priced, lowest performing broadband that exists.

Wireless broadband is the most energy-inefficient, insecure and unreliable way to attempt to close the Digital Divide. Wired broadband, by contrast, is far superior — it provides the safest, fastest, most reliable, most secure, and most energy-efficient information service. For the safety of families, schoolchildren and even home-business operations, wired broadband is much more protective against privacy invasion and warrantless surveillance, than densified 4G/5G wireless antennas — which would comprise a 24/7 wireless surveillance and crowd control grid.

Please recognize that the Digital Divide is as much about affordability as it is about technology. Title II-regulated “just and reasonable” pricing (about $15-25 per month for symmetric 100 Mbps down/100 Mbps up wired broadband) can be offered by Title II-regulated entities — the same State Public Telecommunications Utilities (SPTUs) that actually installed the fiber optic backbone of the internet over the last 30 years. By ending the rampant cross-subsidies from SPTUs to their Wireless brethren and forcing all broadband providers to pay market rates to the SPTUs for use of the shared fiber optic backbone, California would recover $Billions that could be used to actually close the Digital Divide.

A close reading of SB-556, AB-537 and SB-378 reveals that they do nothing to provide reliable and affordable broadband for underserved communities. By severely limiting the ability of local governments to oversee and adequately regulate the deployment of wireless infrastructure in their communities, the bills would produce substantial harm to public safety, privacy, security and property values. Per the 2019 CA Supreme Court ruling in T-Mobile v San Francisco, localities retain their police powers to mitigate nuisances of wireless infrastructure — noise of all kinds, negative health consequences and public safety hazards — in order to preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets.

The science regarding the adverse biological effects of Radio-frequency (RF) microwave radiation is established — backed by thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies published since the 1920’s. More evidence was added to the scientific literature in 2018 when the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), completed its $30 million study of RF Microwave radiation at levels that would not heat tissue. The NTP study concluded “clear evidence” (the highest category of evidence) that exposure to RF microwave radiation, as deployed from wireless infrastructure and devices causes brain cancer, heart cancer and DNA damage — a conclusion debunking the Wireless industry’s assertion that RF microwave radiation could only cause harm from the heating of tissue. A subsequent study conducted by the renowned Ramazzini Institute in Italy, and funded in part by the NIH, replicated essentially the same results. Both studies prove that the RF microwave radiation from the wireless infrastructure promoted by SB-556, AB-537 and SB-378 are hazardous.

These two important studies, along with thousands of other academic peer-reviewed independent studies that precede them, clearly demonstrate that current Federal Communications Commission’s RF microwave radiation human exposure guidelines, which were selected in 1996 from existing IEEE, ANSI and NCRP guidelines, are insufficient to protect the health of humans and other living organisms.

Scientifically documented harm from exposure to RF microwave radiation includes neurological problems, melatonin suppression, learning and memory difficulties, cardiovascular impairments including blood clotting and heart irregularities, reproductive harm such as birth defects and infertility, immune system suppression, DNA damage and cancer. Acute symptoms of microwave radiation sickness include a wide range of debilitating symptoms including headaches, seizures, tinnitus, insomnia and fatigue, difficulty concentrating, agitation, heart palpitations, and nausea.

Instead of fast-tracking an unnecessary deployment of wireless infrastructure in close proximity to homes, schools and care facilities, we urge the CA legislature to support the expansion of broadband via fiber optics to the premises (FTTP). Fiber-optic connections are superior to wireless in every way and provide more affordable internet access. So-called “small cell” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) installed in residential areas subject people to high levels of RF microwave radiation exposure in their homes, 24/7, week-after-week, year-after-year. These sWTFs, without sufficient power output limits, are certain to substantially increase adverse health effects.

In conclusion, the established body of peer-reviewed, independent scientific research concludes significant biological harms and direct injuries from both short-term and long-term exposure to RF microwave radiation from wireless infrastructure. Therefore, streamlining the construction of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities with overpowered wireless antennas next to homes, schools and parks — the very aim of SB-556, AB-537 and SB-378 — is a predictable disaster that can be prevented by VOTING NO on all three bills and retaining local control over wireless infrastructure.


Preamble: How one chooses to spend one’s time and money is completely indicative of one’s values. That is true for both individuals and organizations. Words shift all over the place. Actions are the reliable evidence of one’s values. Sometimes the words and the actions of individuals or organizations don’t align, which is clear sign of a problem. Keep that in mind.

These are values in successful advocacy efforts:

  • Teamwork : : work done by several associates with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole
  • Reciprocity : : mutual dependence, action, or influence; a mutual exchange of privileges
  • Battling Hearsay : : evidence based not on a witness’s personal knowledge but on another’s statement not made under oath
  • Accountability :: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions

I. Background

A. The Following Three Wix websites/advocacy/fund-raising efforts are managed by the same three people . . .

  1. Americans for Responsible Technology (ART — link) . . . “The ART Store. All of the proceeds from the sale of these items goes directly to support our advocacy efforts across the country.”
  2. 5G-Crisis (link) . . . “Contribute: please make all checks payable to: Grassroots Communications, Inc. (a New York-based non-profit organization)””
  3. Telecom Power Grab (link) . . . “Your contribution to Telecom Power Grab will help us fight for your rights in Sacramento” (wait, these folks are in Long Island, NY . . . what’s the funding for? ) This site is managed by Grassroots Communications, a non-profit organization.

. . . these web sites are managed by a married couple in their early 70’s (part-time) and one 25-year old employee (full-time) at Grassroots Communications, Inc., a non-profit organization. 184 Main Street, Port Washington, New York, 516-883-0887.

From their web site: “Grassroots Environmental Education” or Grassroots Communications, Inc. (they use both names) “is a New York-based non-profit organization founded in 2000 with a mission to educate the public about the links between common environmental exposures and human health, and to empower individuals to act as catalysts for change within their own communities. The work of Grassroots is made possible primarily through generous donations from individual supporters . . . and from

  • the Park Foundation,
  • the Westchester and Long Island Community Foundations,
  • the Rauch Foundation
  • Whole Foods Markets (Amazon, Inc.)
  • the Community Chest of Port Washington and
  • the Flow Fund”

B. What Is the Focus of Grassroots Environmental Education?

According to their website, these are their main issues:

  • Fluoride
  • Fracking
  • Fracking Waste
  • Gas infrastructure
  • GMOs
  • Long Island Water
  • Synthetic Turf
  • Wireless and Cell Phones

C. When did these Grassroots’ Telecom-related activities start? August, 2018.

We know. We were there for the first conference call; we called in from our protest in Napa, CA. We also know that Telecom issues are complicated and lots of people get things wrong — see “Beware of Some Groups that Purport to Oppose 5Ghere.

Inaccuracy hurts all advocacy efforts. We learned this first-hand because we had been working on Telecom issues full-time for five years at that point (eight years now). Did this three-person 5G-Crisis/ART team have expertise in the Telecom area in 2018? Do they now?

Well, no. They can make nice-looking web sites and informative videos. They are good at that. They also know how to manage a mailing list and ask for donations.

But, when it comes to Telecom expertise and understanding the tricks played by the Wireless industry and exactly what counties, cities, towns and villages can specifically do to protect themselves from the unjust Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) invasion into residential zones, this three-person team falls short, which is somewhat understandable since there is a long learning curve one has to navigate to know how cut through the Wireless industry propaganda, to adopt precise language and to deploy effectives strategies. In short, experience in this field matters to

  • figure out on which chessboard one should play,
  • understand how to best combat the think-tank control of both sides of the propaganda narrative
  • separate the wheat from the chaff, when communicating to elected representatives.

We really tried to get through to the 5G-Crisis/ART three-person team and bring them down the learning curve . . .

II. Nearly 50 Emails to 5G-Crisis/ART, Most Went Unanswered

  1. 10/16/19 re: We got a decent outcome in Napa, last night
  2. 10/22/19 re: Wish me luck! — SF Dept of Health meeting today
  3. 10/23/19 re: Oct 22., 2018 SF Dept of Health Meeting Was An Important One
  4. 10/24/19 re: FCC guidelines for public exposure is Chessboard A; Choose Chessboard B, instead
  5. 10/24/19 re: SF Appeals Board July 3, 2019 Letter asked the SF-DPH to update its regulations of the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs)
  6. 10/24/19 re: NEPA and RF Assessment for Aaron and Hanna McMahon’s home in Sacramento
  7. 11/13/19 re: ARGUMENT GRANTED AND SET FOR 1/17/2020 (19-1085 Irregulators, et al v. FCC, et al “Order Filed (CLERK)” (FCC-84FR4351)) AND Nevada City tonight
  8. 11/18/19 re: Here is the latest reL NEPA EA/EIS Requirement
  9. 11/18/19 re: A subsequent response to Einar Olsen in Iowa (shorter than Rola’s)
  10. 11/18/19 re: Retract Cease/Desist recommendation? Go for INJUNCTION instead?
  11. 11/19/19 re: Take Action Tuesday re: NEPA
  12. 11/21/19 re: Retraction of Take Action Tuesday re: NEPA???
  13. 11/25/19 re: Revised Cease/Desist recommendation
  14. 11/26/19 re: Revised NEPA recommendation
  15. 11/26/19 re: Why Amazon Wins: Preparation and Participation — not Bullet Points
  16. 11/29/19 re: Immediate Next Steps
  17. 12/01/19 re: Clarification
  18. 12/10/19 re: Clarifications re: Directions for Cities in the Wake of a Dec 5, 2019 Change to 47 C.F.R. regulations re: small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs)
  19. 12/12/19 re: Confirming Conference Call on Monday Dec 16, 2019
  20. 12/13/19 re: Please cool you jets, Doug. There are new developments. I would think you would be curious and open-minded about these new developments.
  21. 12/15/19 re: Dec 5, 2019 NEPA Compliance changes for sWTFs
  22. 12/15/19 re: Tomorrow is an important day. Being on the same page would make us all more effective, so I hope all, including Doug, remain open-minded.
  23. 12/19/19 re: Environmental Effects do not equal health effects in the vast majority of the USA
  24. 12/19/19 re: You should be aware of the disaster in Sebastopol
  25. 01/08/20 re: NEPA Compliance — it worked in IL
  26. 01/10/20 re: Thanks for the compliment, Doug and Zoe.
  27. 01/23/20 re: Getting Americans with Responsible Technology and Environmental Health Trust on the same page as the rest of us re: NEPA strategies is extremely important right now.
  28. 01/28/20 re: Title 47 CFR § 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
  29. 02/05/20 re: The following is also the opposite of throwing fluffy white pieces of bread . . . NEPA Strategies are working. When are you guys going to get on board?
  30. 02/05/20 re: Just heard back from Lawrence Hughes; he is presenting to District Manager of Cathy Gardener Cal-OSHA at 9:30 am.
  31. 02/11/20 re: Why would you offer up all of the residential zones in your model code?
  32. 02/11/20 re: If a locality has not regulated all three for wireless antennas (Vertical, Horizontal and Power), then it has accomplished nothing!
  33. 02/14/20 re: Misinforming Residents Across America
  34. 02/16/20 re: The Need for Two Versions of Model Code, Going Forward
  35. 02/18/20 re: Illinois State House debate on now — Will you please return my calls?
  36. 02/19/20 re: Will you please return my calls?
  37. 02/19/20 re: I am taking the high road, here. You and Doug should stop hiding and re-engage, asap.
  38. 02/25/20 re: The following from the NRDC seems more relevant than a re-tread of the BabySafe Project
  39. 03/06/20 re: Radio Silence from 5G Crisis / Americans for Responsible Technology? Are you going to seize an opportunity, right now?
  40. 03/12/20 re: Lin Marie deVincent official announcement
  41. 03/19/20 re: Thank you, finally, for a thoughtful response.
  42. 03/24/20 re: I would appreciate a thorough and reasoned response.
  43. 04/01/20 re: W. Scott McCollough filed a motion to force the FCC’s hand.
  44. 04/14/20 re: Clarification of Densified 4G/5G Roll Out — On Steroids — During COVID-19 Community Spread
  45. 04/15/20 re: There can be no effective one size fits all model code. We have at least two groups of states with different needs

After trying very hard to work with this three-person team from Aug 2018 through August, 2020 (because they do have impressive reach) we had to eventually remove our groups’ names from both 5G-Crisis and Americans for Responsible Technology web sites due to ART’s inexplicable refusal to update their WTF model code which, was unnecessarily putting the residential zones on the chopping block. In 2021, the model code on their web site. . . still does the same.

III. 5G-Crisis/ART Current “Model” WTF Code


4.1 Siting Guidelines. The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines to applicants and the reviewing authority regarding the preferred locations and configurations for small cell installations in the Town, provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a small cell installation in any location that is otherwise prohibited by this ordinance or any other section of the Town code.

4.2. Order of preference—Location. The order of preference for the location of small cell installations in the Town, from most preferred to least preferred, is:

  1. Industrial zone
  2. Commercial zone
  3. Mixed commercial and residential zone
  4. Residential zone [There is simply no need for this]

This is particularly relevant to states without ALEC-written State Streamline Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) bills. Note: ALEC = The American Legislative Exchange Council.

The simple fix was to offer two versions of model code:

  1. Version A: for states without ALEC-written WTF bills (20 or so states) — see above
  2. Version B: for states with ALEC-written WTF bills (30 or so states)

We had to part ways because the 5G-Crisis/ART team would not listen to reason, were unwilling to tighten their content and would not share their reach for any messaging other than their own. In short, their actions showed they were more interested in growing larger than in being accurate.

This is a real and continuing problem because 5G-Crisis/ART presents themselves as Telecom experts and gives the public the false impression that this one-size fits all model code is appropriate for any community in the US. It is not. In fact the model code stops far short from more forward-looking WTF Ordinances and other strategies being pitched and voted in right now:


Mistakes remain throughout the 5G Crisis/ART web sites. Some stuff is good. Other stuff, not so much. Can one safely copy and paste content or use toolkits from their web sites without careful vetting and significant rewrites? No.

For example, the three quotes selected for the dark blue carousel on the home page of  are disadvantageous, please do not copy/paste share or repeat them . . . the Wireless industry wants our side to use these quotes. We are engaged in information warfare . . . far too often, unwitting people are doing the bidding of the other side because they don’t understand these tricks. That is just one example of the lack of expertise of the three-person team at 5G-Crisis/ART.

Did revealing these problems to certain 5G Crisis/ART funders amount to any better collaboration from or substantive changes at 5G-Crisis/ART? No.

This leads to one rational conclusion: readers beware of the content at 5G Crisis/ART web sites. It is somewhat like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates: you will never know what you will get. Not very confidence-inspiring is it? . . . but Californians need to know and now they do.

IV. How to Improve ART’s 2021 CA-Specific Web Pages and Tools

There seem to be four CA-specific pages on the Americans for Responsible Technology web site.

  1. — an intro page with a pitch to fund ART, even though we know a Californian paid for the professional lobbyist, Mark Smith from the Smith Policy Group, a firm with no previous Telecom experience. We have not seen or heard from Mark Smith once and we are fully engaged in Sacramento. The lobbyists from the Communications Workers from America (CWA) and the League of California Cities have spoken along side us at these various hearings, but there has not a single siting of Mark Smith. Why is that? Lobbyists are paid professional spokespeople who can show up in person in Sacramento and speak in Committee hearings . . . it is always smart to use the best person available — in person, staring into the eyes (and souls) of these legislators . . . so . . . don’t settle for anyone testifying by phone! This matters, folks. We cannot settle for just “good enough” because we are defending our lives, our freedom, our property values and the quiet enjoyment of our streets (and homes). We need to give it our best effort.
  2. — there are some problems here: see below.
  3. — This page basically says “learn about the issues by reading our talking points and viewing our videos. Then talk to your neighbors, give us your name, and, of course, contribute $ to ART” . . . but there is not a single mention of doing what is actually effective: show up at the State Capitol in Sacramento, walk the halls and make appointments to talk to anyone you can. The State Capitol opened up on June 15; in just five hours on June 15, we knocked on 40 or so doors, distributed 7-pages of expert legal analysis by Attorney Gary Widman, and talked directly to 5-6 Assembly Members and many more of their staff. We directly asked for NO VOTES on all three bills: SB.556, AB.537, and SB.378. Anyone in California can do the same. Please spend the limited time we have from June 21 to July 15 wisely . . . we have only Mon-Thu × four weeks = 16 days to change history. DO WHAT ACTUALLY COUNTS!
  4. — this page is titled “Activist Tool Kit – California” — please understand you do not want to call yourself activists or say you are engaged in activism, which is dangerous in 2021. Instead, say you are advocates and you are engaged in advocacy. This is important. 5G-Crisis/ART should know better.

V. Selected Email Correspondence

>>> Email response was sent on 6/13; the 6/7 email was sent to the wrong account, so it was not read until 6/13

Wire-CA: We are more than willing to coordinate and share speaking opportunities at the CA Legislature. I believe a variety of voices shows broad support against SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378 (and other bills) and that would be valuable. Have Doug W. call me at [redacted], if he would like to coordinate.

>>> [redacted] wrote to Wire-CA on 6/7/21 9:04 PM:

Doug W. is making a good point.

Wire-CA: What Doug W. discussed did not happen, so I guess there was no problem. We did not have this email before we made our decisions.

Please consider that this is not the time to invoke the argument,

Wire-CA: Why is this not the time to invoke this or any other argument? We have very limited time.

as good as it is in the right setting,

Wire-CA: ??? I am not sure what you mean here. What is the “right setting”. Is such a setting available to us in the time available?

about the what the FCC did.

Wire-CA: The FCC did what they did. An “as-applied” challenge, according to [redacted] will be the way to establish legality. I spoke to [redacted] for about 30 minutes on June 10.

We need to allow the court to determine that in a factual decision

Wire-CA: Certainly, we should take advantage of all relevant court rulings in our messaging.

before we use the those arguments.

Wire-CA: We are interested in using the strongest arguments right now.

Please refrain at this time form those specific arguments.

Wire-CA: It looks like we did. Take a look for yourself →

——– Forwarded Message ——–
Subject: [redacted] and the committee
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 19:56:27 -0400
From: Doug W.
To: [redacted]

Hi [redacted],

We have made excellent progress in meeting with many of the members of the California legislature, especially the members of the local government committee. We’ve gotten a few commitments to oppose.

Wire-CA: Does this mean meetings with staff or meetings with the elected members themselves? I find Doug W. glosses over such details. Those facts matter. There were no votes against SB.556 on June 9, so I guess whatever “commitments” Doug W. reported were not really commitments at all.

There will be a hearing of the Committee on Wednesday to vote on SB 556, and we have a chance to defeat the legislation by building on our relationships and the arguments we’ve established. However, it appears that [redacted] and [redacted] have already contacted the committee and scheduled themselves as the speakers for the opposition.

Wire-CA: As is our right to do, and we did so; I had not seen this message until today, 6/13.

This could really hurt our chances of defeating the bill,

Wire-CA: In what way? What is the basis for that statement?

and could undo much of the work we have done (and paid for)

Wire-CA: In what way? What is the basis for that statement? Just because Doug W. types something, [redacted], it doesn’t make it true or accurate. If there is one thing that I have learned about lobbying, it is that no one can accurately predict the future.

if [redacted] insists on making the argument that [redacted]

Wire-CA: We did not make that argument, so mission accomplished. We made our decision of what to discuss strategically and in response to what was being said in the June 9 Local Govt. hearing. Take a look for yourself → . . . So . . . where was Mark Smith on June 9? The two parties with which we coordinated ahead of time (CWA and League of CA Cities showed, but I believe Mark Smith was a no show). If Doug W. would like to coordinate, he is free to call me at [redacted] at any time. I would welcome his call. I will speak truthfully and will focus on strategy, not personalities . . . but it seems to me that Doug W. lacks the integrity or courage to do so. Doug W. is attempting to influence [redacted]. I don’t believe [redacted] is buying what Doug W. is attempting to sell to him.

[redacted] claims that “We can cut out the foundation from under these bills.”

Wire-CA: I believe we can. What evidence/rationale does Doug W. offer to refute that statement?

If that’s his message, our chances of success are zero.

Wire-CA: OMG. In what way would any person’s remarks render “our chances of success to zero”? What is the basis for that hyperbole? Do you believe any of this stuff that Doug W. has typed?

The legislators are not going to be convinced to challenge the FCC in a committee meeting.

Wire-CA: No one was planning to ask the legislators to challenge the FCC. What is Doug W. thinking? In what kind of dysfunctional telephone game are we participating?

I am asking you to contact [redacted] and ask [redacted] to stand down from his speaking position and allow someone from our statewide coalition to take his place,

Wire-CA: They had every chance to get a speaking spot. Lobbying is a competition of ideas and participants. If Doug W. would like to coordinate better in the future, then have him call me at [redacted] and we can evaluate the strength of the messages they plan to deliver and we can make decisions, accordingly.

so that we can build on the momentum we’ve established

Wire-CA: What momentum? Is the momentum documented anywhere? Is there any evidence in the votes? I see no evidence of momentum. Do you?

and possibly stall or defeat this bill on Wednesday.

Wire-CA: Well, that didn’t happen. The votes tell you the story.

>>> Wire California wrote to Doug W @ 10:24 am on June 18

We confirmed with the SEUC Committee that they accepted Attorney Gary Widman as replacement speaker for Reinette Senum this morning. Who is ART’s confirmed speaker, Doug? You would have to know that by now, right?

Wire-CA: There was no communication from Doug W on June 18, as if hiding this information would benefit anyone. We found out from the SEUC Committee that the Americans for Responsible Technology speaker Opposing AB-537 was confirmed as Ellen Marks, Executive Director of the California Brain Tumor Association (link) — Is Ellen Marks even currently active in opposing Wireless Infrastructure? Her web site’s videos here are from 2009 to 2015 and seem to be cell phone safety-focused. AB.537 and its sister bills, SB.556 and SB.378, are about demolishing local control over and streamlining the construction of Wireless infrastructure, specifically so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in the public rights-of-way, throughout California.

California Brain Tumor Association Videos

  • Nov 18, 2009 — Tumor Risk
  • Sep 14, 2009 — CNN
  • Sep 9, 2010 — Ellen Marks on Cell Phones and Their Risks
  • Jul 20, 2010 — SF Cell Phone Radiation Right to Know Ordinance
  • Jul 8, 2010 — Coffee Talk: Cell Phone Radiation Dangers
  • Oct 11, 2010 — Cellphone Casualties – Pt. 3 of Cellphones & Health
  • Oct 9, 2010 — Cellphone Cancer Survivors Picket CTIA
  • May 31, 2011 — Radiation from Cell Phones may cause cancer (CNN News)
  • Sept 16, 2011 — PA Cell Phone Safety Hearing
  • Feb 25, 2012 — USF Symposium
  • Nov 1, 2014 — Berkeley to Approve Cell Phone Right To Know
  • Nov 1, 2014 — Berkeley Council Debates the Cell Phone Ordinance
  • Apr 22, 2014 — Labeling a Hazardous Product: Health Advocates Hit SF Verizon Store
  • Apr 8, 2014 — Cancer Calling
  • Dec 13, 2014 — Jimmy Gonzalez “Cell Phones Cause Cancer”
  • May 1, 2015 — Lawrence Lessig testifies to Berkeley Council
  • May 1, 2015 — Alan Marks on his brain tumor and cell phones
  • May 1, 2015 — Traci Frantz’ letter on daughter’s breast cancer from a cell phone in her bra

Wire-CA: What about the lobbyist Mark Smith, from the Smith Policy Group, the lobbyist that Californians hired to lobby against AB.537, SB.556 and SB.378? He is the one with the best legislator relationships, right? Isn’t Smith the best choice to speak on June 21? If not, why not?

Now, this item is the one that we were cut off from speaking about yesterday re: AB.537:

ART fact sheet:

“Both the FCC (and the 9th Circuit Federal Court) agreed that if an application is not approved in time the telecom corporation should be required to get court approval before construction. This bill transfers the financial burden of going to court to cities and counties to stop construction.”

Wire-CA: The “transfer of financial burden” is not the important point. The way the bill is written (with deemed approved remedies) it cuts off nearly any federal court case by the city, because the bill requires a trip to state court that will merely enforce the “deemed approved remedy” in state law.

This effectively renders the following language of the bill moot and without any teeth. That’s the real problem.

“(B) Within 30 days of the notice provided pursuant to subparagraph (A), the city or county may seek judicial review of the operation of this section on the application.”

I covered this point with Mark G last night, and that has affected his previous blanket endorsement of ART’s AB.537 one-page fact sheet.

Also, the following are the real world problems we are facing daily — with medical diagnoses to back them up. This evidence is worth talking about in lobbying and Committee testimony.

There is significantly excessive power output in areas accessible to people (vs. what power levels would provide 5-bars telecommunications service). See the measurements, below.

This amount of electromagnetic power-through-the air killed all the bees in Hank Allen’s beehive on his two acre farm in Eagle, ID. This much electromagnetic power-through-the air also sent him to the hospital five times with heart arrythmia within three weeks of powering on the cell tower near his home in April, 2021. We have video and other evidence to back this up.

Read and learn from this the following links and consider adding power output limits as talking points/amendments.

  • (see below)
  • — Sacramento home was professionally metered at 25-30 million times higher than needed for 5-bars telecommunications service (which sickened two little girls within three weeks of powering on the sWTF that is 60 feet from their bedroom).
  • — San Francisco home; woman had bloody mass removed from her head within three months of powering on so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facility (sWTF) in front of her home.

——– Forwarded Message ——–
Subject: Re: Updated Table
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 06:56:06 -0700
To: Hank Allen

Hi, Hank.

Please call Trevor Marshall, PhD (805-492-3693) once you arrive at your retired professor’s home so Trevor can cover the limitations of all spectrum analyzers and how to relate these measurements to biological effects. Trevor thinks you can add 20 dB to every measurement you made to get a more accurate answer. The following is Trevor’s best idea of what is really going on at your house

Verizon Frequencies/Channels/Bands At Your Home in Eagle, ID

Band DL Freq
Channel Peak RSSI
Num. Block Area Excess
700 MHz-13 751 746-757 -28 9 C REA 100,000x
Cellular-5 885 880-890 -29 494 B CMA 100,000x
PCS-2 1967.5 1965-1970 -32 153 E BTA 100,000x
AWS-4 2115 2110-2120 -40 310 A CMA 10,000x
AWS-4 2132.5 2130-2135 -44 59 C BEA 10,000x

Excess of what is needed for telecommunications services (-80 dBm to -125 dBm in areas accessible to people)


Title 47 U.S. Code §324 – Use of Minimum Power:

“In all circumstances . . . all radio stations. . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.””

In any area accessible to the general population, if any carrier-specific frequency/band/channel achieves a grade of ‘A’ or ‘B’ for Signal Strength, then there is NO NEED for any additional carrier-specific WTFs.

Grade Signal Strength Status
A — Excellent -90 dBm to -125 dBm OK
B — Good -80 dBm to -89 dBm OK
C — Fair -70 dBm to -79 dBm Excessive
D — Poor -60 dBm to -69 dBm Excessive
F — Failing Exceeds -60 dBm Excessive

ART California Talking Points (link)

Content Suggestions/Improvement, Side-By-Side

Side-By-Side, When viewed on a wide enough computer monitor.

5G Crisis/ART Content

Content changes were shared by email.

Wire California Suggestions

Effort Cancelled: Due to Lack of interest. Once again, we tried. There are bigger fish to fry.

ART California Tool Kit (link)

Original CA-Toolkit source page: . . . features the following links:

  • Letters to the Editor Sample 1 and Sample 2
  • How to Give Testimony at Local Meetings: Sample Script 1, Sample Script 2 and Sample Script 3 (which is missing its link)
  • Link to Lobbying Primer
  • Link to General Interest Flyer: This flyer was designed to be used by any group in California fighting against these bad telecom bills. Add your own logo and call to action, or contact us and we can do it for you.