Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0643.052 2018-2020 From: Sherilvn Wells 1.,,f . 4 t i f To: Council Testimony Subject: Amendment to previous commentary re: Sprint,the Hawaii Stat�ccaa w`n ution,aid Resolttti`pny1, 5 re the proliferation of 5G technology LJi titt 1 Date: Monday,December 02,2019 4:32:47 AM The initial page(s) of my commentary were inadvertently omitted when I copied my testimony into the previous email (see below). Here is the beginning: The Council is facing a dual responsibility in the case of this resolution. One issue has to do with locating infrastructure, based on a prior agreement when Oceanic Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications were given state approval to transfer certain business aspects from one provider to the other. The other responsibility - the overriding one, if one looks at "foundational" governmental responsibilities, as.per Law Professor Laurence O. Grotin's excerpted article below- is to ensure public health and safety under ALL conditions. Those two responsibilities merge in the contractual mandate to increase public access to the internet in such a way that also recognizes the need for easily accessed areas that are NOT blanketed in EMF sources. Ergo, I propose that all "natural areas" be EXCLUDED from the locations for citing additional wifi infrastructure, as well as excluding them from proximity to sites like schools and hospitals,where people's health is already compromised and/or where children's development is still underway (protecting their DNA, as per the epigenetic discovery that environment has a powerful effect on "gene expression"). THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: And we would be foolish to imagine that, once the wifi infrastructure is in place, there will be no further transition of that infrastructure to incorporate other technology, such as 5G. Thus, what is currently a heightened sensitivity to EMF amongst a certain percentage of our population (would we call them the "canaries" for the rest of us?)would very likely eventually expand to a technology that puts virtually everyone at serious risk(I speak of 5G). This is the point at which the responsibility of the corporations to proceed with their contractual responsibilities in a way that does not violate the Hawaii State Constitution, an argument I enumerated in my previous email (below), must be stated in their work agreement (siting infrastructure). The original state order made it clear that it could be amended and such a "more protective" amendment is warranted (ensuring 5G will not be installed in the future on the wifi towers being sited through this agreement/order). Given that there is no standardized human reaction to the EMFs emitted by wifi, cellphones, etc., and that an estimated 5% of the population is highly sensitive to such frequencies, with a greater percentage experiencing a variety of less immediately "dramatic" effects (but which, in the long term, may prove to be just as serious), there should be easily accessed areas of our island that are NOT blanketed in will, areas especially inclusive of those more natural setting:.- parks, beaches, etc. -where people can experience recovery from the inundation of EMF exposure in other settings. This is an excerpt from a website addressing EMF sensitivity (https://emfinfo.org/emf- yy�� Comm. NBv): (010 Ref.To: r 1 P Ref. note tJEC:'-3 2Qt sensitivity.html) . Definition of Electromagnetic Sensitivity: Generally it is assumed that if the symptoms can be relieved by simply turning off the EMF source for a while, or getting away from the EMFs for a long enough time, then the individual 'is probably sensitive to electromagnetic fields. One way to check for sensitivity is to spend enough time in an environment with much lower EMFs, or turn off all the electricity in the house for an entire day and night, and see if the symptoms decrease. For example, some people will notice a big improvement when out in nature or at a remote beach, or with their wireless router turned off and all cordless phones unplugged, or when staying overnight at a different home, etc. But remember that most sensitive people (depending on their health) will experience a significant delay in time before their nervous system will recover and their symptoms lessen — often from several hours to several days. Another verification is that the symptoms return again whenever the EMF exposures are reintroduced. • Safe Location: Unfortunately, today it can be difficult to find a truly safe location with few electrical and/or wireless sources nearby, because there is so much electromagnetic pollution in the modern world. In extreme cases, some individuals have needed to move to very remote locations and live with little or no electricity. In other cases, the wiring, lights and appliances can be shielded, or turned off, to reduce the levels adequately. In almost all cases, it is extremely important that all wireless RF devices are removed from the home, including cordless phones and wireless routers. It is surprising how many electronic devices have wireless emissions, even unexpected sources like stereo equipment and TVs. On 11/30/2019 9:17 AM, Sherilyn Wells wrote: I append through reference all the testimony presented to the Council regarding studies showing harm from the implementation of 50 technology (including, at a minimum, doubts about its safety). Above and beyond the responsibilities of the State in regards to protection of public health and safety, it appears that (emphasis added below throughout the testimony, but printed article language and statutory language unaltered): Spectrum is in violation of Article 1, Section 2, of the Hawaii State Bill'of Rights, by tailing to recognize its corresponding "obligations and responsibilities." See also Article IX, the Public Health and Welfare sections of the Hawaii State Constitution, and commentary by Law Professor Laurence Gostin, below. For so long as Citizens United is a part of U.S. law, the inclusion of a corporation in the definition of a "person" (see "the people" in Section 2 below) is relevant to proposed Hawaii County Resolution 425 thusly: ARTICLE I BILL OF RIGHTS ARTICLE IX of the Hawaii State Constitution - PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE PUBLIC HEALTH Section 1. The State shall provide for the protection and promotion of the public health. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978] MANAGEMENT OF STATE POPULATION GROWTH Section 6. The State and its political subdivisions, as provided by general law, shall plan and manage the growth of the population.to protect and preserve the public health and welfare; except that each political subdivision, as provided by general law, may plan and manage the growth of its population in a more restrictive manner than the State. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978] PRESERVATION OF A HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT Section 8. The State shall have the power to promote and maintain a healthful environment, including the prevention of any excessive • demands upon the environment and the State's resources. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978] PUBLIC SAFETY Section 10. The law of the splintered paddle, mamala-hoe kanawai, decreed by Karnehameha I--Let every elderly person, woman and child lie by the roadside in safety--shall be a unique and living symbol of the State's concern for public safety. The State shall have the power to provide for the safety of the people from crimes against persons and property. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978] Consider the ample testimony before this Council from many citizens and experts regarding the scientific evidence of harm, as well as uncertainty as to safety (assembled from studies in several different countries). These facts and information certainly meet the criterion of "substantial evidence" when considered by a "reasonable" person. Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971).). But our Council is mandated to be more than merely reasonable, it MUST be proactively and pre-emptively protective above all. RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS Section 2. All persons are free by nature and are equal in their inherent and inalienable rights. Among these rights are the enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the acquiring and possessing of property. These rights cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding obligations and responsibilities. [Am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 19Th] Those "rights and responsibilities" include the mandate to collectively protect public health and safety. (Regarding "collective responsibility/action," see Law Professor Laurence O. Gostin's article excerpt below.) The "State" derives its authority to take ANY action solely from the power inherent in the governed (the entire public, not just corporate entities). ARTICLE I BILL OF RIGHTS POLITICAL POWER Section 1. All political power of this State is inherent in the people and the responsibility for the exercise thereof rests with the - people. All government is founded on this authority. [Am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978] • The protection of public health and safety is founded on principles similar to the Hippocratic oath - e.g., First, Do No Harm. It is NOT founded on "allow potentially dangerous substances or technologies into the public arena and then observe the effects over time to see what happens," which is "the public is allowed to be a corporate guinea pig" philosophy, inconsistent with our state constitution., The constitutional language of protection is presented as a "shall," not a "may," therefore it is a legal mandate, not an option. And it explicitly allows political subdivisions, such as the County Council, to be MORE restrictive than the State. Let's examine the premise behind the protection of public health and safety from a legal standpoint (ergo, what would constitute a "crime against persons" as per Section 10 of Article IX). See the following excerpt, authored by Law Professor Laurence 0. Gostin of Georgetown University Law Center in his January 2010 article: A Theory and Definition of Public Health Law 10 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 1-12 (2007). Note that "salient" (in the first sentence below) is defined as - "adj. STRIKINGLY CONSPICUOUS, PROMINENT" - as per The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition) Why should health, as opposed to other communal goods, be a salient value?Health is foundationally important because of its intrinsic value and singular contribution to human functioning. Health has a special meaning and importance to individuals and the community as a whole. 3 Every person understands, at least intuitively, why health is vital to well-being. Health is necessary for much of the joy, creativity, and productivity that a person derives from life. Perhaps not as obvious, however, health is also essential for the functioning of populations. Without minimum levels of health,people cannot fully engage in social interactions,participate in the political process, exercise rights. of citizenship, generate wealth, create art, and provide for the common security. A safe and healthy population builds strong roots for a country's governmental structures, social organizations, cultural endowment, economicros err , and national defense. P P tJPopulation health becomes' .f a transcendent value because a certain level of human functioning is a prerequisite for activities that are critical to the public's welfare-social, political, and economic. Why does government have an enduring obligation to protect and promote the public's health? Theories of democracy help to explain the government's role in matters of population health. People form governments for their common defense, security, and welfare-goods that can be achieved only through collective action. The first thing that public officials owe to their constituents is protection against natural and man-made hazards.4 A political community stresses a shared bond among members; organized society safeguards the common goods of health, welfare, and security, while members subordinate themselves to the welfare of the community as a whole. 5 Public health can be achieved only through collective action, not through individual endeavors. Acting alone, individuals cannot assure even minimum levels of health. Meaningful protection and assurance of the population's health require communal effort. The community as a whole'has a stake in environmental protection, hygiene and sanitation, clean air and surface water, uncontaminated food and drinking water, safe roads and products, and control of infectious disease. These collective goods, and many more, are essential conditions for health. Yet these benefits can be secured only through organized action on behalf of the people. Thank you for your serious consideration of my testimony. I. look forward to seeing you uphold your responsibility to protect the public via the power you acquire through our consent to act in our collective stead. Sherilyn Wells 68-1921 Lina Poepoe. St Waikoloa, Hawaii 96738