Author: cindyleerussell

Landlines may be considered by some to be old fashioned, expensive and unnecessary in this day and age of wireless technology with cell towers proliferating on every corner, however, they are considered by many to be critical infrastructure. AT&T has applied to remove its obligation to provide landline service or Carrier of Last Resort (COLR), as they move to wireless telecommunications or fiberoptic, and to discontinue its federal Lifeline program to subsidize telecommunications support for low-income and rurally-located individuals in California. It appeared their application would be rejected and indeed on June 20, 2024 it was.

Read More “Saving Landlines: A Critical Infrastructure for All”

Some physicians state that wireless radiation is the tobacco of our current generation. Have you wondered about environmental illness due to radiation emitted from wireless technologies such as cellphones, Wi Fi or cell towers? Have your patients described unusual symptoms that you cannot attribute to a well-established disease or nutritional deficiencies? What is electrosensitivity and is it a real medical diagnosis? Do cell phones cause brain cancer?  Could infertility sometimes be related to wireless devices? As the scientific evidence mounts on health effects due to wireless radiation physicians are asked more and more about the safety of wireless devices, yet are unable to discuss this with their patients. Physicians now have access to educational video presentations of more than 30 expert speakers to learn the science behind the biological effects, as well as clinical presentations and diagnosis from the EMF Medical Conference of 2021. This four-day symposium has been to date the largest gathering of EMF experts, physicians and scientists convened to address this issue directly to healthcare providers. It is now easily viewed.

Read More “Medical Conference for Physicians on Wireless Electromagnetic Radiation: The Science and the Evidence of Harm”

In many states, like California, there has been a relentless push over the last several years to blanket 5G cell towers over broad and beautiful landscapes. Telecom’s promise of connecting everyone to their toasters, webcams, and self-driving cars anywhere at any time, as well as a promise to close the digital divide, appears to have allured and aligned California legislators into passing laws that promote the Telecom agenda. In California 2 telecom bills predominate in 2023. The first, AB 965 (Carrillo) removes more local authority and thoughtful permitting for cities by allowing unlimited batched permits for cell tower placement within a shot clock or they will be deemed approved. This would spell a massive and rapid increase in cell towers throughout California. The second bill,  AB 1065 (Patterson). allows for California funds previously designated for fiberoptic to be used for wireless infrastructure. 

Read More “California and Federal Wireless Telecom Bills 2023:  Big Tech Fast Tracking AB 965 and AB 1065, H.R. 3557”

“ICBE-EMF’s primary purpose is to make recommendations, based on the best peer-reviewed scientific research publications, that include, and go beyond establishing numerical exposure guidelines [for wireless radiation[. We are dedicated to ensuring the protection of humans and other species from the harmful effects of non-ionizing radiation.” ICBE-EMF

Updated 3/15/25

ICBE-EMF

The ICBE-EMF was formed in 2022 as an independent scientific authority with goals similar to the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation protection (ICNIRP), but with a different perspective on the science. Both address the science and key issues of safety and exposure standards of non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation from burgeoning wireless devices and infrastructure.  The powerful 12 member ICNIRP that has strong collaborative ties with the World Health Organization (WHO), however, is criticized by the ICBE-EMF, among others, for using outdated and flawed criteria, creating exposure standards that are 1) based only on heat 2) Do not consider long term exposure 3) do not take into account sensitive populations 4) do not consider new research into health effects and biological harm at levels that are far below current standards. ICNIRP is also criticized for its lack of independence, close industry ties and self-referencing authorship. The ICBE-EMF is dedicated to evaluating the scientific literature on RFR and providing unbiased insights into the methodology of the research, in addition to translating this for scientists, physicians, engineers and the public who may not be familiar with this complex topic.

October 2022- ICBE-EMF First Published Paper. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) published their first paper Scientific Evidence Invalidates Health Assumptions Underlying the FCC and ICNIRP Exposure Limit Determinations for Radiofrequency Radiation: Implications for 5G, in Oct , 2022 in Environmental Health. The authors highlight the urgent need for health based protective exposure limits for humans and the environment stating, “These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.” Adverse effects identified and supported with robust scientific studies include cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, neurological effects and sperm damage. The paper is a comprehensive and well written review detailing the 14 flawed assumptions of the safety of wireless radiofrequency radiation.

Read More “ICBE-EMF Challenges ICNIRP Standards: New Published Paper on Safety Exposure Standards and Engineering Solutions for Wireless Radiation”

In Pittsfield, Massachusetts, where author Herman Melville penned Moby Dick while peacefully contemplating the pristine rolling Berkshire Hills, residents have been fighting an imposing cell tower affecting residents health for over 3 years. They argue the cell tower was not permitted properly and has caused severe health symptoms in 17 nearby residents in the town. After careful deliberation the Pittsfield Board of Health agreed with the later and unanimously voted on February 2, 2022 to send to Verizon a Cease and Desist Order to resolve the issue of RF emissions from the large 116-foot monopole antenna complex which abuts a residential neighborhood. The Board of Health order was rescinded June, 2022, after Verizon filed a lawsuit against the city. The Verizon lawsuit was immediately cancelled after that vote. On July 29, 2022 residents filed a lawsuit asking the judge to review the Board of Health removal of the cease and desist order against Verizon. In June 2023 the Berkshire County Superior Court judge granted the Pittsfield Board of Health the right to weigh in on the issue of the cell tower placement and health effects. The tower is still in operation causing residents to leave or try to sell their homes, and the fight continues. This story has taken many turns and twists. It is still not over. As of November 2025 the Massachusetts Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine if the Massachusetts local Boards of Health have some authority to regulate cell towers to the protect health of its citizens. This could set a national precedent. The summary begins after the dated events.

Read More “Update: Board of Health Issues then Removes Emergency Order for Verizon to Cease and Desist in Pittsfield Massachusetts Cell Tower Battle”

In the biggest telecom power grab so far to remove local authority in zoning for broadband expansion, California legislators have authored a stack of telecom bills, many of which are poised to benefit industry while overlooking health, safety and environmental consequences, as well as democracy. Big Telecom isn’t messing around anymore. Under the guise of “closing the digital divide” in underserved and rural areas after the pandemic, many of the 20 bills are give aways to industry and do not focus attention on safer and more equitable solutions, such as fiberoptic to premises, to expand much needed broadband to all. The Big FourTelecom bills include SB 556 (Dodd), SB 378 (Gonzalez), AB 537 (Quirk), and AB 955 (Quirk). As of Sept 10, 2021 these bills are now on the Governor’s desk and he has until Oct 10th to sign them. Governor Newsom is likely being heavily lobbied by industry and some legislators. The California League of Cities continues to be opposed to at least SB 556 and states, “Despite securing amendments that narrow aspects of the bill to conform with federal law, the measure still undermines local authority and makes no meaningful progress towards closing the digital divide.”

Firefighter Exemptions For Cell Towers

In addition, AB 537 (Quirk) has an exemption for firefighters for placing cell towers on their facilities. Firefighters developed neurologic effects (headaches, fatigue, memory impairment, insomnia) when cell towers were placed on their fire stations thus an exemption was inserted in California bills on cell towers. AB 57 (Quirk 2015) has an exemption on the grounds of health effects. AB 537 (Quirk 2021) also has this exemption and reads, “Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities. SB 649 (Hueso, Quirk and Dodd 2018) is a bill similar to currently proposed SB 556 (Dodd 2021) also had a health exemption for firefighters and was vetoed by Governor Brown.   

Updated 11/13/21

UPDATE 10/4/21 Governor Newsom Vetoes SB 556 and signs AB 537, SB 378 and AB 955

Governor Newsom Vetoed SB 556 (Dodd) and signed into law AB 537 (Quirk) . Here is a list of bills signed and vetoed on Oct 4, 2021 with the Governor’s veto message. Here is an Analysis of SB 556 by Best, Best, & Krieger, Attorneys at Law. The California Senate Floor Analysis of SB 556 states,

“Opponents raise a variety of concerns associated with this bill. Opponents claim that this bill could have negative consequences for public health, safety, and cybersecurity due to the technologies deployed. Opponents also argue that this bill conflicts with the FCC’s regulations, creates ambiguities about local fees for utility attachments, and limits local governments’ ability to regulate access to public rights of way without enabling local governments to effectively enforce consumer protections. In opposition, the League of California Cities states, “SB 556 directly conflicts with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) adopted regulations on wireless services deployment, which cities and counties across the nation are actively implementing. This measure requires local governments to make space available to telecommunications providers without recognizing local authority to manage the public right of way preserved in federal law. FCC regulations explicitly enable local governments to ensure that such installations meet appearance and design standards, maintain traffic safety, protect historical resources’ integrity, and safeguard citizens’ quality of life. To protect the public’s investment, the control of the public rights of way must remain local.”

Read More “California Telecom Bills Crushing Local Government Control”