HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0986.184 2018-2020 From: Yoav Melamed
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 10:35 AM
To:' Council Testimony
Subject: SUPPORT Resolution 678-20
Re: Support Resolution 678-20
Honorable council members,
Thank you for supporting this resolution. .�
A PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH IS NEEDED FOR NON-IONISING RADIATION.
There is now sufficient evidence on the actual and potential adverse health effects of Radio Frequency (RF)
radiation like mobile phones and Wi-Fi to require the application of the Precautionary Approach to the
management of the health risks.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, a WHO agency) classified radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields as a possible human carcinogen.
There is a broad misconception that RF radiation is not harmful to human health below the thermal effect,
at which point the cells of the body begin to heat up. There is ample independent scientific data showing
harmful effects on the body prior to the thermal effect.
See for example the work of Martin Pall, PhD, compiling EMF medical research Literature:
11,ttps_//www.radiationresearch.org/research/dr-martin-palls-latest-compilation-of-emf medical_research-
literature/
In this overview of scientific studies, Dr. Pall outlines 8 Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by
Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them: "We know that there is a
massive literature, providing a high level of scientific certainty, for each of eight pathophysiological effects
caused by non-thermal microwave frequency EMF exposures."
It is important to emphasize this point because this assumption that non-ionizing RF radiation is safe is
what the current FCCguidelines are based on. These same FCCguidelines that have not been updated since
P
the 199os, informed by data from the 198os! Here is a list of 1,849 testimonies from the FCC website
urging them to update their safety guidelines to reflect concerning research findings:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?limit=25&offset=25&q=1A%5C-
226&sort=date disseminated,DESC
Unfortunately, The FCC which is supposed to regulate the telecom industry and protect public safety acts
more like a cheerleader of the industry. "FCC is a captured agency", says Norm Alster of the Harvard Ethics
Department, in the report, Captured Agency:How the Federal Communications Commission Is
Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates. It is a case of the Fox guarding the Henhouse.
Some local officials are afraid of the FCC and telecoms and think their hands are tied.
However, quite the contrary is true. Congress specifically preserves the power to local governments to
regulate the placement of wireless facilities. I'm going to give you this specific citation for the section of the
Telecommunications Act. It's 47 USC 332 C 7a. It says that basically, the general rule is, local governments
have that power. It is important because, while the FCC has set general population exposure limits,
meaning they set a limit, allegedly, on the maximum level of radiation they can expose members of the
public to, the FCC does virtually nothing to actually apply those limits.As a general rule, the FCC never
ever tests wireless facilities, and never requires the owners to test them. So local governments are the first
and only line of defense against their constituents being exposed to illegally excessive levels of radi ion
emanating from wireless facilities in their jurisdiction. Comm. No. ctUo. 1
Ref.To: plpG
1 Ref.-Dote 'In 0 7 7(17g
What will be a safe alternative is more fiber-optics to all the homes and businesses. Fiber-optics is safer,
both for health and privacy reasons.
The:Telecom industry lobbyists say that we need to be forward-thinking and implement this technology, to
"not get leftbehind".
Is this forward-thinking? To expose all our population to non-stop radiation that can cause devastating
harm and disease? Lets be forward-thinking by keeping our people safe while using technology, following
the precautionary principle.
In conclusion, we must follow the precautionary principle, as there is sufficient reason to assume RF
radiation is:harmful for humans, and so blanketing the island with RF small cell antennas for 5G
infrastructure is putting the public at severe health risk 24/7 without consent.
Thank you for protecting our communities and demanding safety tests before rolling out this technology in
our island's neighborhoods.
With appreciation and honor,
Yoav Melamed, LMT and community organizer.
Kapaau, III
Yoav Melamed
www.wisdombodyhawaii.com
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
�s.ry
- 2