Scratches to Sketches
Thursday, 21 November 2013
Al Gore: World is on brink of “carbon bubble” | Grist
Measure the distance between oil rich Texas / Bush and Al Gore....
Vulnerable people and living creatures go totally totally unprotected from harmful levels of invisible radiation. Can that be moral? Or, is it Murder?
Many experts, who are the best qualified to know, find the attitude of radiation regulatory and health authorities extremely upsetting!
Cities of Boston & Philadelphia City Solicitors' comments to FCC re Radiofrequency Exposure Limits/Fields
Changes that occur to protect the vulnerable people or those creatures sharing life 's DNA, frequently come too late. It is a flaw of human nature not to make good decisions and yet ignore the consequences of bad ones. Obviously, when the entire population is ignorant of a hidden danger, or risk to a minority in a community, and needed self examination may never happen or can come very very slowly.
In the 1950s, if you were to state what is the obvious now to a group of smokers, that they would probably die of cancer that would knock twenty to thirty years off their lives, you could be spat on, austracized, told to f... off.
People infrequently listen to 'sages' thinking that they are puffed up prophets or worse inferior beings unwilling to adopt the latest and greatest. So the teen age smoker of the 1960's dies in the 1980's missing a quarter of a century. They leave families and generations grieving for decades. Peer pressure grows stronger....
"It's too little to say sorry that you died, but you were a woman, with estrogen sensitive breasts and vulnerability, and you thought vitamin e was somehow magic and you did stop smoking in your early forties. We can't help it that your insensitive husband 'Mike' kept on smoking and lives on unchanged in his murderous habit to an indefinite age. Poor female you. Why did you not protest about secondary smoke? You idiot. You almost de...... to die."
Such is society's commentary to its antagonists trying to life healthy longer lives, but fighting the government and society's conventional wisdom.
Today, society is an addict to wireless and the same message results in an empty vague look, quite blank really. But, if you present them with a sufferer, they go all defensive, sometimes abusive, occasionally acting strongly out of character. You won't take wireless away from me. Are you mad?
Don't despair, but take satisfaction in knowing that such ignorants are probably the population of the future diminished. At least, some can move towards safer places because they realise they are in some way keys to the future.
Law and good health practice catches up like an elastic stretched almost to its breaking point and suddenly released.
However, by then it's too late because of the dead. If you did not understand the above, it's because you have not really thought about the issues deeply enough.
Subject: Cities of Boston & Philadelphia City Solicitors' comments to FCC re Radiofrequency Exposure Limits/Fields
All I can say is Holy Cow!!! This is so fantastic that the City of Boston and their solicitors have made the below statements in their submission to the FCC!!! If you need any clarification on the FCC and their present reviewing of their cell phone regulations, please just ask. At the bottom is Joel Moskowitz's press release and article. Joel works for the UC Berkeley School of Public Health. I have no idea where he finds the time to do all that he does.
All might not be lost. :)
Their 8-page new (November 18, 2013) pdf is an excellent summary of the current state of affairs. Please skim through the whole thing. Also, below my signature is an excellent press release, and the overview document that the press release links to, and then the FCC link that the overview document leads to.
Also, in it there's an excellent point that I think we're probably usually forgetting to frame:
Also, in it there's an excellent point that I think we're probably usually forgetting to frame:
"Unlike early cell tower deployment, today's newer repeater network technologies are deployed in closer proximity to users. As such, potential exposure comes not from the receiving device – the phone – but rather the transmission device."
And look at this, which is their closing section (and you'll see the signatories at the end)!!! beginning on page 7 and continuing on page 8 — THIS I AM SENDING IN RIGHT NOW AS A WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND WILL READ IT TOMORROW!!!: (she's referring to Toronto City Council and what is going on their with regards to all the wireless issues being brought forth)
----------
The 1999-2000 judicial challenge to the FCC's 1996 rules never reached the issue of "electrosensitivity" as a cognizable disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ("ADA") Here again, an agency responsible for ADA implementation acknowledges that the impairment may be disabling but has promised merely further inquiry. After more than a decade, that investigation remains unopened. The dockets here have been updated with massive additional evidence of the crippling effects of RF radiation on an admitted minority – but a suffering minority – of U.S. citizens. The FCC and its sister regulatory agencies share responsibility for adherence to the ADA and should replace promises with serious attention to a serious medical problem. This is one area where the FCC could lead in advice to electrosensitive persons about prudent avoidance.
Respectfully submitted,
William F. Sinnott
Corporation Counsel
CITY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPT.
Shelley R. Smith, City Solicitor
Michael C. Athay, Chief Deputy
Robert Sutton, Divisional Deputy
City of Philadelphia Law Department
1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1595
(215) 683-5062
[signature is here]
James R. Hobson
Gerard Lavery Lederer
BEST BEST & KRIEGER
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 4300
Washington, DC 20006
Counsel for the Cities of Boston, Massachusetts
and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;jsessionid=nvJqSNTQ5ztjfbDr1LpLH4TXL52l2QM12VMGbLGQ8Nvb2WDvvQ8F!-739454830!608620108?id=7520958706
----------
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Reassessment of Federal Communications
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and
Policies
ET Docket No. 13-84
Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules
Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields
ET Docket No. 03-137
----------
Or see pdf attached.
Press release:
http://www.prlog.org/12245111-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-cell-phone-radiation.html
Overview document:
http://www.saferemr.com/2013/11/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about.html
IMPORTANT NOTE TO SHARE WHEN YOU PASS THIS ALONG: If you end up at an FCC page that is only a one-page document, look above the document where you'll see "View 8" and click on that in order to arrive at an 8-page document.
Best,
Barb Payne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)