All posts by Office

NY4WHALES/NY4WILDLIFE LETTER TO NYS SENATE LEADERSHIP – OPPOSING 13-E WHICH EXEMPTS UTILITY COMPANIES FROM LOCAL ZONING AND GOVERNANCE LAW FOR 5G SMALL CELL NETWORK SITE DEPLOYMENT

I/We oppose any weakening of the HOME RULE; I/We OPPOSE the addition of Article 13-E, SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT to the General Municipal Law.

Removing Home Rule for this issue will set a precedent that other corporations and entities will use to exempt themselves from LOCAL INPUT and LOCAL GOVERNANCE. THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

EMF has been labeled by the World Health Organization as a Class 2B carcinogen along side asbestos, lead, DDT, and more. EMF is the only Class 2B Carcinogen that is allowed to blanket our environment with no oversight or regulation – for the sake of the “convenience” of wifi devices. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE and UNACCEPTABLE. The Public is becoming more informed of this public health assault – despite what the industry claims.

WIFI Radiation from 5G is magnitudes worse than existing wifi. WE DON’T NEED IT, WE DON’T WANT IT, WE KNOW IT IS DESTRUCTIVE TO BIOLOGICAL TISSUES, insects, birds, reptiles, amphibians, even PLANTS and trees. Putting a cell phone next to a bee hive kills all the bees. (http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/primers/wildlife/wireless-devices-wildlife/). Killing our bees and insects means NO CROPS WILL GROW.
We will end up in a world without insects. We already have almost no insects – the primary food of much of our bird species. What will this 5G do? Let’s not wait and find out!

5G and the RF EMF HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN SAFE TO HUMANITY, WILDLIFE, INSECT LIFE! Radiation affects children more than adults; the FCC’s standards of safety are an industry-insider JOKE.

RF EMF Radiation is the next DDT, Asbestos, Lead, Thalidimide, Smoking…
Shall we go on? Shall we wait for the clusters of cancers to appear on every street? Then who will be to blame? How about the LEGISLATORS that allowed this to happen.

The Small Cell Towers, and smart meters are not safe, and the industry knows it. NO TO WEAKENING HOME RULE. NO to Article 13-E in the General Municipal Law.

***
180 SCIENTISTS CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON THE 5G ROLLOUT

Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G. 5G Appeal. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G
September 13, 2017

We the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. (Note: Blue links below are references.)

5G leads to massive increase of mandatory exposure to wireless radiation

5G technology is effective only over short distance. It is poorly transmitted through solid material. Many new antennas will be required and full-scale implementation will result in antennas every 10 to 12 houses in urban areas, thus massively increasing mandatory exposure.

With ”the ever more extensive use of wireless technologies,” nobody can avoid to be exposed. Because on top of the increased number of 5G-transmitters (even within housing, shops and in hospitals) according to estimates, ”10 to 20 billion connections” (to refrigerators, washing machines, surveillance cameras, self-driving cars and buses, etc.) will be parts of the Internet of Things. All these together can cause a substantial increase in the total, long term RF-EMF exposure to all EU citizens.

Harmful effects of RF-EMF exposure are already proven

More than 230 scientists from 41 countries have expressed their “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices already before the additional 5G roll-out. They refer to the fact that ”numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.

After the scientists’ appeal was written in 2015 additional research has convincingly confirmed serious health risks from RF-EMF fields from wireless technology. The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs of frequencies 30 KHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). However, new studies like the NTP study mentioned above and several epidemiological investigations including the latest studies on mobile phone use and brain cancer risks confirm that RF-EMF radiation is carcinogenic to humans.

The EUROPA EM-EMF Guideline 2016 states that ”there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility…Common EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.”

An increasing part of the European population is affected by ill health symptoms that have for many years been linked to exposure to EMF and wireless radiation in the scientific literature. The International Scientific Declaration on EHS & multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), Brussels 2015, declares that: “In view of our present scientific knowledge, we thereby stress all national and international bodies and institutions…to recognize EHS and MCS as true medical conditions which acting as sentinel diseases may create a major public health concern in years to come worldwide i.e. in all the countries implementing unrestricted use of electromagnetic field-based wireless technologies and marketed chemical substances… Inaction is a cost to society and is not an option anymore… we unanimously acknowledge this serious hazard to public health…that major primary prevention measures are adopted and prioritized, to face this worldwide pan-epidemic in perspective.”

Precautions
The Precautionary Principle (UNESCO) was adopted by EU 2005: ”When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”

Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011): ”Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours…Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the socalled thermal effects and the athermic [non-thermal] or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation” and to ”improve risk-assessment standards and quality”.

The Nuremberg code (1949) applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the roll-out of 5G with new, higher RF-EMF exposure. All such experiments: ”should be based on previous knowledge (e.g., an expectation derived from animal experiments) that justifies the experiment. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.” (Nuremberg code pts 3-5). Already published scientific studies show that there is ”a priori reason to believe” in real health hazards.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is warning for ”Radiation risk from everyday devices” in spite of the radiation being below the WHO/ICNIRP standards. EEA also concludes: ”There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments…harmful exposures can be widespread before there is both ‘convincing’ evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding [mechanism] of how that harm is caused.”

“Safety guidelines” protect industry – not health

The current ICNIRP ”safety guidelines” are obsolete. All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. Therefore new safety standards are necessary. The reason for the misleading guidelines is that “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation…To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology.”

The current ICNIRP/WHO guidelines for EMF are based on the obsolete hypothesis that ”The critical effect of RF-EMF exposure relevant to human health and safety is heating of exposed tissue.” However, scientists have proven that many different kinds of illnesses and harms are caused without heating (”nonthermal effect”) at radiation levels well below ICNIRP guidelines.

Taffy Williams
NY4Whales.org/NY4Wildlife.org
Yonkers, NY 10707 USA
914-793-9186
A 501(c)(3) non-profit for whales and wildlife
Follow/Tweet @ny4whales

Member, Board of Directors
Cetacean Society International

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Licensed Wildlife Rehabilitator
FAA Certified Remote Pilot
ny4whales@optonline.net
914-793-9186

Dane Wigington and Paul Beckwith DEBATE WBAI Thursday 3/15/18 3-5 pm

Don’t miss the debate on all things APOCALYPTIC!

Both scientists state and agree that the earth is in its dying throes, catastrophic abrupt climate change is wreaking havoc on a compromised earth, caused by numerous anthropogenic assaults on the “life support systems” that keep us alive.

The worst? Many believe it’s CLIMATE ENGINEERING, aka, Solar Radiation Management, or GEOENGINEERING (geoengineeringwatch.org).
DON’T MISS THIS DEBATE!
Thursday, March 15, 3-5 pm on WBAI, 99.5 FM, NY, live streaming (and archived) at WBAI.org.
THE EARTH IS AT STAKE!
Be Awake, Be informed, Be Proactive!

STAY TUNED TO THIS SITE FOR MORE NEWS.

SAVING THE MARSH: NY4WILDLIFE’S COMMENT TO THE DEC TO STOP THE APPLICATION OF GLYPHOSATE IN THE PIERMONT MARSH

This comment was submitted to the NYS DEC as part of an Environmental Assessment process for the ongoing application of Glyphosate (the cative ingredient in the herbicide Roundup) over a 40 acre parcel of the Piermont Marsh, south of the Tappan Zee Bridge on the Hudson River in Rockland County, NY.

February 28, 2018

NYS DEC
PO Box 315
Slaatsburg, NY 12580
hrnerr@dec.ny.gov

To Whom It May Concern:

We at NY4Whales are writing as representative of the staff, volunteers and membership of NY4Whales/NY4Wildlife, a 501(c)(3) cetacean and wildlife-advocacy organization operating out of Yonkers, NY. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed application of Glyphosate on a parcel of the Piermont Marsh in Rockland County, NY. We are requesting that procedures under NEPA and the SEQRA process be followed and a full Environmental Impact Statement be provided for the public, to facilitate a proper and competent analysis of the proposed activities. We find the Draft Plan is inadequate and fails to provide basic information needed to assess the project’s value.

OMISSIONS

What is the exact formulation of the Glyphosate solution to be used in the Piermont Marsh? Why was this left out of the Draft Plan?

What is the specific amount of tonnage of the Glyphosate solution that will be applied? Why was this left out of the Draft Plan?

What is the amount of tonnage that will be applied annually for the “long term maintenance” plan after the approximately 10 year initial applications?

What is the cumulative effect of years of Glyphosate application and long term maintenance on the Piermont Marsh and its community? Why was this omitted from the Draft Plan?

How does the DEC compute the length of “long term maintenance”; given the proclivity of the plant and its robust growth? The DEC hints at annual application essentially forever, which cannot be justified.

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXIN, CARCINOGENIC

Remarkably, the DEC stands by an unsupportable assertion that Glyphosate does little or no harm to humans or the environment. The chemical is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, no stranger to controversy over its toxicity. However, in light of the fact that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have determined that Glyphosate is “potentially carcinogenic”, this chemical, in any of its dangerous formulations, does not belong in the Piermont Marsh.

On Friday, March 20, [2015,] the IARC released a statement that glyphosate, malathion and diazinon (also an insecticide) are classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”…
Glyphosate, on the other hand, is one of the key ingredients in the herbicide Roundup, which is produced by Monsanto, the largest seed company in the world. The chemical is widely used to get rid of unwanted weeds across the world. The IARC reported that it may be carcinogenic to humans.
“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals,” stated the IARC. (Passary, Sumit. “Malathion Can Kill Insects And Glyphosate Can Kill Weeds But They Can Also Give You Cancer: WHO.” TECH TIMES, March, 2015. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/41293/20150321/malathion-can-kill-insects-and-glyphosate-can-kill-weeds-but-they-can-also-give-you-cancer-who.htm)

INERT INGREDIENTS NOT REVEALED WILL EXACERBATE TOXICITY

A French research team of molecular biologists from the University of Caen has discovered that the toxic effects of Glyphosate-based pesticides, including Roundup, are dependent and multiplied by compounds included in the formulas.

The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency….
The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages….
Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. (Crystal Gammon. Weed –Whacking Herbicide Deadly to Human Cells. Scientific American. June, 2009. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/)

            It doesn’t take much to understand that Glyphosate formulations are a detriment to marine organisms, insect life, birds, fish, small mammals and those that feed on them. Given the at risk species (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable) cited by the DEC as present in the marsh, Glyphosate formulations, especially ones that the NYS DEC has not clarified, should be adjudicated illegal and barred from use at the Piermont Marsh as they can not be proven to “do no harm”.

PESTICIDE DRIFT

However, given the community concerns about potential herbicide exposure, DEC and OPRHP will establish an herbicide monitoring and data sharing program to evaluate and document herbicide use and evaluate whether herbicide moves beyond the treatment areas. The program will be developed in close consultation with local representatives, marsh managers, and pesticide regulators. The monitoring will evaluate herbicide levels prior to, during, and after treatment using best available techniques. Information will be posted on a publicly accessible website as soon as analyses are completed. (DEC. DRAFT PIERMONT MARSH RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN December 2017. https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/hrnerrpiermontplan.pdf)

In other words, AFTER the pesticide has inevitably and predictably drifted out of the target area, the public will be given that information and the amount of drift analyzed. That may be well and good, but how does learning about the drift after the fact help ecosystems, the wildlife and people in the community? During intense weather events, and even through normal tidal and wave action, drift can be extensive; contamination of non-target areas by this product and the unknown pesticide adjuvants which have been shown to be as deadly or worse than the Glyphosate itself will occur. Posting drift information of this potentially carcinogenic formula will be no comfort, and is no solution. This statement shows that it lacks common sense reasoning from a government agency that should not have the power to apply a detrimental chemical to this sensitive and beloved marsh area.

LONG TERM EFFECTS

Cumulative effects of the years of application is not addressed in the Draft Plan, nor is it certain just how many years the Glyphosate application will take place. Because of the plant’s robust growth and potential for the development of Glyphosate-resistance, it is most likely that eradication efforts will continue annually in perpetuity, or until sea level rise overcomes even the ability of Phragmites to survive.

Although the plan’s horizon is ten years, it establishes a monitoring and adaptive management approach to support marsh resilience and conservation over the long term. (https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/hrnerrpiermontplan.pdf)

Exposing the community to an endless cycle of Glyphosate application is not acceptable, and is an admission that the DEC doesn’t expect the Glyphosate to work!

SECRET FORMULATION

There is no exact data showing the formulation of the planned Glyphosate. It is critical to examine the exact ingredients in light of recent studies connecting the Glyphosate’s inert ingredients with the death of human tissue, adverse effects on amphibians, marine organisms and more. In fact, in some studies, the inert ingredients are being found more harmful than the actual chemical. Without an analysis of the actual ingredients it is impossible to predict harm or no harm to the environment or the nearby village and residents.

Phragmites will be controlled with a combination of three techniques: 1) a limited ground-based application of a registered herbicide (an aquatic glyphosate formulation) and non-ionic surfactant (an additive that helps the herbicide coat and penetrate the leaf surface);… The herbicide, applied at a dilute concentration, is absorbed and carried into underground plant parts, and disrupts a specific pathway for amino acid synthesis that is unique to plants and not present in animals. (Ibid.)

The NYS DEC [EPA] states it is conducting reviews periodically to reevaluate the safety of Glyphosate. If the EPA is admitting it is not sure that Glyphosate is safe, how can the NYS DEC assume that Glyphosate is safe, in unknown formulation and tonnage amounts, being applied to an environmentally sensitive tidal marsh of the Hudson River?

The Phragmites stands have replaced native plants in the marsh, but also now, as in other areas where Phragmites have established, support their own ecosystem. The Draft Plan does not consider the established ecosystem and what is thriving there, only to say that native species have been replaced.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY PHRAGMITES

One researcher, Erik Kiviat, found important ecosystem services in stands of Phragmites, in 13 states; the study area included the Hudson River marshes. Results were published by the National Institutes of Health.

Many ecologists and wetland managers in the USA and Canada have considered P. australis as a weed with little value to the native biota or human society (Meyerson et al. 20002002Kiviat 2010). Occasionally, ecologists have expressed the contrary view that reedbeds provide important habitat and other ecosystem services (e.g. Kane 2001bWeis and Weis 2003). Here I show that Phragmites provides important ecosystem services, among which is support for common and rare elements of biodiversity including many species of native plants and animals. These habitat functions of Phragmites are linked to distinctive characteristics of the plant and are generally similar to habitat functions of Phragmites in the Old World. I also propose a new approach to managing Phragmites to optimize its habitat functions, potential harvest for products and other ecosystem services. It is important to present a detailed summary of habitat functions to create an accurate context for further research and management decisions. (Kiviat, Erik. Ecosystem services of Phragmites in North America with emphasis on habitat functions. Annals of Botany Company. February, 2013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104640/)

Kiviat describes in detail the remarkable number of habitat and non-habitat ecosystem services provided by Phragmites. For food, Phragmites can provide seed and sugar; for fuel, fuel pellets and potentially fuel bricks, methane and other fuels; building materials including roof thatch, fencing, and even insulation. They are used for dried flower arrangements, decorations, fishing poles, building and stabilizing soils, carbon sequestration, evapotranspirative “air conditioning” and important removal of contaminants from water or soil. They can dewater sewage sludge, and removal harmful nitrogen and phosphorus from partially treated sewage, and provide stabilization and habitat development on inactive coal slurry impoundments. Phragmites stands are nest sites for bees, areas rich in primary production, nutrient processing, and provide a maintenance-free spontaneous vegetation cover on urban and derelict lands. Phragmites act as a screen between industrial and residential areas and as a ceremonial prop, Phragmites were used by Native Americans, including the Navajo and other southwerstern states, as well as during the Jewish festival of Sukkot. (Ibid. Table 1.)

Kiviat echoes knowledge that Pragmites provide beneficial ecosystem service to marsh soils, in addition to facilitating waste treatment, even as a food source for wildlife:

Phragmites builds and stabilizes tidal marsh soils, and stores carbon in litter and soils more effectively than Spartina spp. (Windham and Lathrop 1999Rooth and Stevenson 2000; K. V. R. Schäfer, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, pers. comm.). Thus Phragmites may protect tidal marshes from erosion associated with sea-level rise, as well as helping to mitigate global climate change. Soil building by Phragmites in tidal marshes appears to reduce micro-relief of the marsh surface and eliminate small pools used as a refuge at low tide by Fundulus (killifish) and other small nekton (Dibble and Meyerson 2012)…. (Ibid.)

WASTE TREATMENT
Clearly, the most important direct use of Phragmites in North America is in constructed systems for dewatering sludge from sewage treatment plants (e.g. Burgoon et al. 1997), and less frequently for removing nutrients from partially treated sewage (e.g. Gersberg et al. 1986). There are probably thousands of sludge-drying beds of variable size in the USA, and these are cost-effective and conserve energy that would otherwise be used in heat-drying of sludge. The high rates of transpiration of Phragmites and its ability to tolerate salt, metals and other pollutants make Phragmites suitable for drying sludge, and the efficient uptake of nutrients makes it suitable for polishing partially treated wastewater. Phragmites has also been used experimentally to dewater dredged material (Stout 1977)….

PHRAGMITES AS FOOD
Various insects feed on Phragmites (Balme 2000Tewksbury et al., 2002Lambert 2005; E. Kiviat, unpubl. data); many of these are believed to be non-native (Balme 2000). However, most studies of Phragmites insects have been in the eastern states and there are probably many insects associated with western Phragmites that remain to be documented. Insects include endophagous stem-feeders, leaf chewers, sap suckers, gall makers and a rhizome feeder. Usually, insect feeding does not cause significant damage; Balme (2000) found the greater wainscot moth Rhizedra lutosa causing minor damage in Rhode Island. On one occasion I found larvae of Simyra insularis (Noctuidae; Henry’s marsh moth), a native, generalist feeder, heavily grazing Phragmites leaf blades where it grew sparsely among Calamagrostis canadensis (bluejoint grass), but not in the adjoining dense Phragmites stands (Fig. ​(Fig.77)….

The non-native sap-feeding Chaetococcus phragmitis (reed scale) that is sessile beneath lower leaf sheaths may be widespread and abundant, at least in Old World PhragmitesKrause et al. (1997) found late-winter biomass of adults as high as 1 g dw m−2 in a freshwater tidal marsh on the Hudson River. I have frequently seen songbirds opening leaf sheaths and consuming the scale insects, especially in winter, in the northeastern states. Birds also commonly peck holes in Phragmites internodes and eat insects living within.

Hyalopterus pruni (mealy plum aphid) is widespread and abundant in North America (Balme 2000Lambert 2005). This aphid alternates generations between Phragmites in summer and Prunus spp. (cherries, etc.) in winter; it is a pest of prune (Prunus domestica) orchards in California (Latham and Mills 2012). Although birds apparently do not feed on mealy plum aphid, Coccinellidae (lady beetles) are often present and presumably feed on the aphids.

Ondatra zibethicus (common muskrat) is the most important native vertebrate consumer of Phragmites. Muskrats feed on young shoots and rhizomes, and also cut mature culms for lodge construction. Several studies in different regions of North America have found Phragmites ranking from high to low among other plant species in the muskrat diet (Bellrose 1950Paradiso 1969). Muskrats may use Phragmites intensively, depending on the availability of more ‘preferred’ foods such as Typha (cattail) and Scirpus (bulrush; Butler 1940McCabe 1982). For example, Butler (1940) listed Phragmites as the fourth of 13 plant taxa in the muskrat diet in Manitoba; McCabe (1982) found Phragmites a close second to Scirpus in Utah; Phragmites was an important summer food in the north-central states (Errington 1941); in Maryland tidal marshes Typha and Scirpus were most important but Phragmites was ‘a favourite food, grows in beds of limited distribution, in which muskrats are always found’ (Smith 1938);…

Muskrats may be abundant in habitats where Phragmites is highly dominant, as at times and places in the New Jersey Meadowlands (E. Kiviat, unpubl. data). Castor canadensis (American beaver) also uses Phragmites for construction and perhaps eats it as well, but possibly less so than the muskrat.

Sylvilagus spp. (cottontail rabbits) at times cut many Phragmites shoots for food (Balme 2000; E. Kiviat, unpubl. data). Balme (2000) found extensive clipping of culms by Sylvilagus floridanus (eastern cottontail) in experimental Phragmites plots in Rhode Island. I found extensive clipping by S. floridanus at a lakeside wet meadow in Rockland County, New York, in 2011. In 2006 I observed much use of Phragmites stands (clipping of culms, shelter) by S. cf. audubonii (desert cottontail) in the Southwest. Domestic livestock (horses, cattle, goats, sheep) graze Phragmites, especially young shoots in spring, and have caused Phragmites declines in some cases (Kiviat and Hamilton 2001). Spatial patterns of reedbeds in relation to fences of livestock pastures in New York suggest that livestock inhibition of Phragmites is common. Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) may graze Phragmites in Louisiana but it is not a major food (Self et al. 1975). Branta canadensis (Canada goose) grazes Phragmites leaf blades, especially in urban marshes of the New York City area, but does not seem to do much damage (E. Kiviat, unpubl. data). Chen caerulescens (snow goose) feeds on Phragmites rhizomes in Gulf Coast marshes (Glazener 1946)….

Dead Phragmites material (litter, detritus) provides food as well. Fungi and other microbes growing on decomposing wetland plants support detritivorous invertebrates (Gulis et al. 2006) and provide the basis for wetland food webs that are often more important than those based on herbivory. Most of the macroinvertebrates found in reedbed litter and soil (see Table ​Table3)3) are probably deriving nutrition from dead Phragmites and associated microbes. Food webs based on Phragmites detritus, alone or as a significant portion of mixtures with other carbon sources, can support important fish populations (Wainwright et al.2000Weinstein et al. 2000) and therefore higher-order consumers that presumably include certain invertebrates, turtles, snakes, many kinds of birds, and mammals. [Emphasis added.] (Ibid.)

Kiviat disputes claims that Phragmites stands crowd out or smother all other plants within the centers:

Frequent associates in reedbed interiors include Peltandra virginica (arrow arum) and Impatiens capensis (orange jewelweed) in fresh water, and Atriplex prostrata (A. patula var. hastata; orache) in brackish water. Occasional individuals of larger woody or suffrutescent species such as Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis (common elderberry), Ailanthus altissima (tree-of-heaven), or Hibiscus moscheutos (swamp rose mallow) may also occur; in some cases these plants may have been present before reedbed development….

[INSERT PHOTO HERE]

Other plants associated with reedbeds. Left: Hibiscus moscheutos (swamp rose mallow), a common large suffrutescent associate of Old World P. australis in East Coast tidal marshes and formerly tidal marshes. Upper right: mosses beneath sparse Old World P. australis on freshwater tidal shore, Hudson River. Lower right: Cardamine longii (Long’s bittercress), a rare plant, beneath sparse Old World P. australison the freshwater tidal shore, Hudson River. Photographs by Erik Kiviat. (ibid.)

Reedbeds can be dense, with Phragmites highly dominant, or sparse with other species admixed. For example, in September 2000, I found 18 species of associated vascular plants (three herbaceous and one woody vines, two shrubs, two suffrutescent herbs, two ferns, and eight other herbs) in the interior of a reedbed that had been harvested annually and occasionally burned in the New Jersey Meadowlands (E. Kiviat, unpubl. data). These associated species were sparse and occurred just outside the most recently harvested area. Reedbeds that are sparse, deeply flooded, or subject to high hydrodynamic energy (e.g. shorelines of open tidal waters) may support a greater diversity of vascular plants in edges. The occurrence of rare vascular plants and mosses in the interiors or edges of reedbeds under some circumstances suggests that Phragmites is facilitating the associated species by ameliorating harsh environmental conditions. [Emphasis added.] Some of the cases I have observed are in relatively high-energy (wave-washed) tidal shores where sparse reedbeds appeared to be physically sheltering smaller plants of other species or maintaining favourable substrates against wave erosion. At Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City, Platanthera lacera (ragged fringed orchid), a regionally rare species, was found beneath mixed upland stands of Phragmites and Betula populifolia (grey birch), and nowhere else (D. Taft, U.S. National Park Service, New York, NY, pers. comm.). On the Hudson River, three rare native species, Limosella subulata (mudwort) and Lilaeopsis chinensis (eastern lilaeopsis) in brackish tidal wetlands, and Cardamine longii (Long’s bittercress) in fresh-tidal wetlands, occur in reedbed edges where the Phragmites may be facilitating these small plants by providing physical shelter, stabilizing the sediments, or oxygenating the soil (the last phenomenon was suggested as a process by which Phragmites facilitated plants less tolerant to soil hypoxia; Callaway 1995). [Emphasis added.]

Vines, both woody and herbaceous species, use Phragmites for support. Vines are especially frequent and sometimes constitute considerable phytomass at the upland edges of reedbeds and on channel banks where the substrate may be slightly higher. Cuscuta (dodder) occasionally parasitizes Phragmites; all other vines are non-parasitic. Certain robust woody vines that ordinarily use woody plants or permanent structures such as fences for support evidently are able to reach from old overwintered Phragmites culms to new shoots of the current year. I have documented >30 species of vines, half native and half non-native, using Phragmites as the host (E. Kiviat, unpubl. data). Vines modify reedbed architecture and provide additional food resources for animals.

Diverse mosses and a few liverworts occur beneath reedbed edges and interiors on soil or culm bases (Barbour and Kiviat 2007; G. Stevens, Hudsonia, Annandale, NY, pers. comm.; E. Kiviat, unpubl. data). Bryophytes appear to be more abundant and diverse beneath Phragmites where it grows sparsely and the substrate is wet but not long-flooded. A rare species in New York, the moss Philonotis muhlenbergii, was found beneath Phragmites on a Hudson River island (Barbour and Kiviat 2007). Algae colonize the lower portions of culms. Epiphyton (algae, particularly diatoms) was similar in Phragmites and Typha in an Ohio marsh (Back 2010). (Ibid.)

Like the marshes in this study, the Piermont Marsh likely hold all these and more. The dazzling number of species and the manner of their coexistence in the marsh, amidst Phragmites betrays the human sensibility as bereft and lacking understanding. These stands should not be destroyed at all, as they provide so much, and we have yet to understand. Kiviat continues with even more ecosystem services provided by Phragmites.

Reedbeds may retain ice and remain cooler than their surroundings in spring (Meyerson et al.2000). The resulting cool microclimate may inhibit some biota. Possibly some of these cool reedbeds shelter species near their southern range limits that require cool habitats.

The greater height of Phragmites compared with other wetland herbs is a resource for certain species. Although the nests of Ammodramus maritimus (seaside sparrow) were placed low in native graminoids in Massachusetts, the birds most often sang from Phragmites or a shrub [Iva frutescens (marsh-elder); Marshall and Reinert 1990]. Phragmites located at higher substrate elevations in or near marshes, and perhaps the robust nature of the reedbed itself, can provide shelter from higher than normal tides or floods, as evidenced by nesting Larus atricilla (laughing gull) in New Jersey (Burger and Shisler 1980).

Particular features of reedbeds attract birds in many instances. Anatinae (dabbling ducks) loafed on cattle-trampled reedbeds at the Delta Marshes, Manitoba (Sowls 1955). Small, reed-bordered channels were used by ducks during bad weather in the New Jersey Meadowlands [R. Kane, New Jersey Audubon Society (retired), Bernardsville, NJ, pers. comm.]. Reedbeds, especially those with standing water, attract large numbers of roosting songbirds, as reported in published studies and qualitative observations (Table ​(Table2);2); in one example, there was a peak of 40 000 Dolichonyx oryzivorus (bobolink; Iliff and Lovitch 2007). In the Delta Marshes of Manitoba, where native Phragmites is a dominant species, Circus cyaneus (northern harrier) nested in the edges between Phragmites and Scholochloa festucacea (whitetop grass). Phragmites was the most abundant plant in the vicinity of five nests (Hecht 1951).

Few data are available regarding Phragmites support of amphibians and reptiles, although various species have been found in reedbeds (Table ​(Table2).2). Under certain circumstances, reptiles appear to be using reedbeds for overwintering or thermoregulation (E. Kiviat, unpubl. data). Storeria dekayi dekayi (northern brown snake) individuals have been found beneath small piles of recently cut Phragmites culms in a non-tidal marsh restoration site in New York City (V. Ruzicka, Randall’s Island Park Alliance, New York, NY, pers. comm.).

Notable are findings that Phragmites provide nesting materials for small mammals, including the muskrat and beaver. Phragmites also provide a buffer between human activities and the ecosystem wildlife; mitigating noise and visual disturbances.

PHRAGMITES AS NEST MATERIAL
Many birds use Phragmites culm, leaf, or inflorescence material in their nests. Common muskrat and American beaver use culm and rhizome material in lodge construction.

PHRAGMITES AS A BUFFER
The tall, dense, resilient masses of Phragmites often provide a buffer between human activities or cattle grazing and wetland wildlife (Ward 1942Buchsbaum 1991). Phragmites screens out some of the noise and visual disturbances. Dense woody thickets can provide the same function, although reedbeds often occur at marsh edges in urban areas and other places that lack dense shrubs or trees. Reedbeds also buffer other organisms from winds. (Ibid.)

Some birds actually seek out Phragmites for nesting:

Relatively much is known about bird use of Phragmites, although this information is distributed unevenly by taxon, season, geographic region, and habitat (Table ​(Table5).5). In some cases, birds appear to actively select Phragmites habitat. Examples include Sterna hirundo (common tern) nesting in offshore reedbeds in Lake Poygan, Wisconsin (L. Bodensteiner, Western Washington University, USA, unpubl. data), Oxyura jamaicensis (ruddy duck) and Fulica americana (American coot) nesting only in reedbeds in New Jersey (Kane 2001ab), and flocks of Hirundinidae (swallows), Icteridae (blackbirds), and other songbirds roosting in reedbeds in a freshwater tidal marsh on the Hudson River (Kiviat and Talmage 2006). (Ibid.)

This study showed how many species will use the reedbeds for one function, such as insect foraging, and an adjacent habitat for another type of activity, such as nesting. Removing one habitat, the Phragmites, will place these species at risk.

HABITAT COMBINATIONS
Mobile animals, such as birds, many mammals, and strongly flying insects, commonly use combinations of habitats to acquire all the resources they need. A reedbed can support one type of activity by a species while an adjacent or nearby alternate habitat can support another type of activity. In Marshlands Sanctuary (New York), Rallus longirostris (clapper rail) nested in a narrow fringe of Phragmites at the upland edge of a brackish tidal marsh, and foraged in the adjacent S. alterniflora at a slightly lower elevation in the marsh (A. Beal, Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation (retired), Ardsley, NY, pers. comm.). In marshes of the Hudson River and the New Jersey Meadowlands, larvae of Poanes viator (broad-winged skipper, a butterfly) feed on Phragmites leaves in the reedbeds, and the adults fly out of the reedbeds to feed on flower nectar of L. salicaria (purple loosestrife), Nepeta cataria (catnip), and other plants. (Ibid.)

Kiviat found that more than 75 native species of birds were breeding in dense Phragmites; such findings begs restraint when planning the destruction of Phragmites. More study is sorely needed.

Of 17 studies of breeding birds in reedbeds compared with an alternate habitat (Table (Table5),5), there were about 16 instances of species that were more abundant in Phragmites, and about 36 instances of species more abundant in the alternate habitat (these tallies include some duplication of species among studies). Of six studies of non-breeding birds, there were about 13 instances of species that were more abundant in reedbeds and three instances of species more abundant in the alternate habitat. These numbers suggest that reedbeds offer more functions to non-breeding birds (e.g. cover for roosting and escape from predators), but the fact that >75 species of North American birds have been reported to be breeding in Phragmites-dominated habitat (some examples in Table Table2)2) indicates the need for a broader range of studies. Meyer’s (2003) study of birds in PhragmitesTypha, and marsh meadow at a Lake Erie site in Ontario indicated the complexity of Phragmites–bird relationships, which varied by habitat, stand edge compared with interior, season, and bird species. At a large and longstanding rookery on Pea Patch Island in Delaware Bay (Parsons 2003), two species of long-legged wading birds nested only in upland shrubs and trees, four species nested in that woody vegetation as well as in Phragmites marsh, and one species nested only in reedbeds. Of the four species that nested in both habitats, one had greater egg and nestling productivity in the reedbeds and one had greater productivity in the woody vegetation. Although alternate habitats may be better for more species, there are many cases where reedbeds are better for a particular species.

No bird that breeds in the U.S. or Canada is known to depend wholly on Phragmites, although certain birds breed only in Phragmites marshes in particular regions (e.g. Fulica americana and Oxyura jamaicensis in New Jersey (Kane 2001ab). (Ibid.)

Phragmites stands in the Piermont Marsh no doubt provide examples of the richness of biodiversity that is evident through these studies. Removing the Phragmites will adversely impact the wildlife – everything from arthropods and marine organisms to the large predator birds and ungulates that calls it their home.

Kiviat further photo-documented a variety of flora-biota within the Phragmites reedbeds in our area:

[INSERT PHOTO HERE]

“Variation in the reedbed habitat. Upper left: interspersion of Typha and Old World Phragmites in a brackish tidal marsh, Hudson River. Upper right: Old World Phragmites stand with the vines Mikania scandens (climbing hempweed) and Ampelopsis brevipedunculata(porcelainberry), New Jersey Meadowlands. Lower right: dense Old World Phragmites with small pool, New Jersey Meadowlands. Lower left: native Phragmites stand with an admixture of other plants, a marsh on Lake Ontario, New York. Photographs by Erik Kiviat.” (Ibid.)

Kiviat explains how so many species are driven to Phragmites for their survival:

REEDBED CHARACTERISTICS AND HABITAT FUNCTIONS
What makes a reedbed attractive to other organisms? The tall, dense masses of leafy culms where Phragmites is more highly dominant provide shelter from weather and predators to arthropods, small birds, and other small organisms, but may be too dense or shady for small plants or larger animals. However, large birds such as Circus cyaneus (northern harrier), Ardeidae (herons) and Threskiornithidae (ibises) can roost or nest on top of reedbeds with some degree of culm lodging. Large animals, such as O. virginianus(white-tailed deer), are sometimes able to break trails through dense reedbeds. Other Phragmitescharacteristics that shape its habitat functions include mats of lodged culms that animals rest on or under, hollow internodes of broken dead culms that shelter spiders, and the soil-stabilizing ability that apparently attracts Castor canadensis and O. zibethicus to build lodges. Some organisms are associated with high-biomass reedbeds whereas others are associated with low-biomass (sparse, short or fragmented) reedbeds.

The more we learn about how reedbed characteristics are beneficial or detrimental to particular species, the better we can manage Phragmites for particular biodiversity goals. (Ibid.)

NESTING BOXES
Now that we understand the diversity of species that make use of Phragmites as a function of their survival, for the prey insects the stands harbor, as nesting sites, as shelter or security from predators, we should appreciate ecosystem and wildlife adaptations made to accommodate and use the species.

Where is the logic in providing nesting boxes to lure birds to a site that will be rife with toxic poisons? Wildlife don’t recognize boundaries as off limits. They will continue to use the Phragmites as they have in the past, and pay with their lives. The use of Glyphosate in this rich conglomerate of life is unacceptable.

For many bird species, the availability of nesting sites is a limiting factor. Where natural nesting sites are in short supply, artificial nest boxes and platforms can provide birds with an alternative. While they cannot fully replace natural nesting sites, artificial nesting structures can enhance wildlife habitat and increase bird densities and diversity. To that end, an osprey nesting platform and nest boxes for purple martins (Progne subis) and tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) will be erected at various locations within the Reserve. Nest boxes will be mapped and monitored to ensure their use by target species. Monitoring is a critical part of a nest box program to avoid promoting the proliferation of non-native species and ensure that boxes are maintained in good condition. (DEC)

In an area being doused with Glyphosate – which will impact the prey insects, fish, amphibians, and small mammals of raptors and songbirds – why erect nest boxes? We know that most species make use of the various ecosystems for specific functions, for ex., finches may pick off insects and gather nesting material from the Phragmites stands, then nesting in adjacent trees. Luring these birds to the area with boxes near the poisoned Phragmites is simply leading them to their deaths.

Where Phragmites is mixed with native vegetation, herbicide will be applied by a certified pesticide applicator, or someone working under their direct supervision, using a low-volume spot treatment method (e.g., backpack spraying, stem injection, etc.). In areas where Phragmites is dominant, herbicide will be applied by a certified pesticide applicator, or someone working under their direct supervision, using a sprayer on a small amphibious vehicle that is capable of driving across the marsh surface. The treatment area will be mowed during the winter following herbicide application to mulch the dead plant material and accelerate the establishment and growth of native plant species. In the years following the initial treatment, low-level maintenance spraying will likely be necessary to address any remaining Phragmites or incipient invasions. (Ibid.)

If herbicide is applied selectively in mixed native and non-native communities, it is certain that native plants will be destroyed as well. In fact, it is unlikely that the entire 40 acres of marsh ecosystem and beyond will not be severely impacted, as the non-proven-safe Glyphosate formula can not be analyzed given the data by the DEC.

In addition to providing habitat for rare plants and animals, Piermont Marsh performs many critical ecosystem services, including production and transport of nutrients and organic matter, removal of nutrients and contaminants, reduction of wave energy during storms, storage of flood water, and trapping of sediment.

Instead of killing Phragmites, the DEC could just as effectively facilitate the use of these Phragmites as waste treatment, for example, providing an annual crop to specific Hudson River towns to treat sewage sludge, or to the industry that can manufacture building products or ornamental materials. Instead of maiming the habitat of the marsh with unnatural chemicals of dubious safety, why not plant the vine Cuscuta (dodder), which parasitizes Phragmites?

The NYS DEC has a long history of undertaking projects that don’t meet the approval or wishes of taxpayers. Why ignore the Piermont community, those most impacted, removing from them the democratic processes that allow them to determine the fate of their community and its resources?

More discussion, and a full Environmental Impact Statement process under SEQRA must be undertaken to answer these questions, to provide the public with the warranted information needed to better address this plan, and to alleviate very real concerns that reckless and hyper-vigilant actions to destroy Phragmites stands will destroy the Marsh itself. To do less would be irresponsible and a denial of the “Precautionary Principle”.

In fact, the project portends to be an exercise in futility with a perpetual annual application of “likely carcinogen” to the marsh to beat down a plant that will not be the loser; a procedure that will add to the detriment of the marsh, generate the ire of residents and call into question the reasoning and ability of the NYS DEC to act competently during any “management” procedure. When a cancer cluster is created in Piermont, the DEC will be the first to take the blame. This is all unnecessary. Let’s face it: Phragmites are here to stay. The wildlife of the marsh have accepted it, and are happily using the plant for survival. Leaving well enough alone, and forbidding any application of Glyphosate is the best way to proceed.

Sincerely,
Taffy Williams, President

Berkeley Cell Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance

WIFI / SMART METER / 5G NEWS

Berkeley Cell Phone “Right to Know” Ordinance

Major Legal Victory for Berkeley’s Cellphone “Right to Know” Ordinance

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, April 21, 2017

Today the city of Berkeley won a major decision in a federal appeals court. The court denied a request by the CTIA-The Wireless Association to block Berkeley’s landmark cell phone “right to know” ordinance.

Berkeley’s ordinance which has been in effect since March 21 of last year requires cellphone retailers in the city to provide consumers with the following notification:

“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”

More information about the law and the lawsuit including the court’s ruling is available at:

http://bit.ly/berkeleycellordinance

SUSSMAN PREPARES FOR YET ANOTHER CIVIL RIGHTS BATTLE IN YONKERS

In the 1980’s, Michael Sussman led the legal team that defeated the City of Yonkers in the discrimination case on behalf of the NAACP and 40,000 plaintiffs.

This time it’s a matter that is predicted to become the next “lead paint”, “thalidimide” or “DDT” issue facing the public: RF EMF (Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Frequency), aka wifi microwave radiation.

The case is the forced installation of “smart” water meters that the City of Yonkers began imposing on property owners in 2015. Notices went out that the new meters would be installed in the city’s approximately 30,000 homes.

In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization at the United Nations, added RF EMF to its list of possible class 2B carcinogens that includes DDT, lead, and many chemicals and pesticides. That means that cell towers and smart meters carry the same risk as dumping DDT into the walls of your house.

According to smart meter holdouts, including Yonkers resident Taffy Williams, RF EMF is emitted from smart meters 24/7, creating invisible but “dirty” energy, basically turning the house into a cell tower. The technology has not been proven safe; in fact the scientific community has been issuing dire warnings about RF EMF exposure. 180 concerned scientists from 35 countries – including the US – are calling for a moratorium on the 5g rollout*. The RF EMF emitted by smart phones, smart meters, cell towers and other wifi devices of our “internet of things”-“smart” world is the only class 2B carcinogen that is allowed to permeate unimpeded throughout our environment, our homes, our schools. After decades of struggle, parents are still saying “No!” to cell towers on or near school property to protect their children for decades, but are failing to see the “elephant in the room” – the smart meters and wifi transmitting devices that operate 24/7 within the schools and on the walls of their homes.

Electrohypersensitivity, or EHS, is an emerging health problem that more and more people are recognizing, taking steps to minimize exposure. But when you have a cell tower nearby, and several smart meters on or in your home, there’s little you can do to protect yourself and your family.

Not everyone agreed to allow the new meters on their properties. Thanks to the policies of Mayor Mick Spano, who has failed to uphold the constitutional rights of Yonkers taxpayers to protect their health, privacy and well being, homeowner hold outs have been charged with civil code violations, facing outrageous charges and fines of up to $250.00 per day. After several smart meter hearings with Williams, in April, 2017, Yonkers removed this fine from the city code, but is now imposing a $500 fine every six months to anyone who refuses to accept a smart water meter.

“This is nothing less than extortion,” Williams says. “I have to pay the City of Yonkers $500 every six months to stop them from hurting me? We all know wifi radiation, either from a cell phone, a tower or your smart meter, is hurting us. It is all the same. If someone is dealing with Electrohypersensitivity, they should not be forced to endure increased exposure to the things that make them sick.”

Renowned civil rights attorney Sussman supports Williams. The trial is Tuesday March 13, in the Yonkers City Court.

Williams, a Yonkers resident since 1993, says people are too willing to accept the mandates of government agencies that pose a potential health risk. They acquiesce, instead of, as in this case, examining the technology and the plethora of peer-reviewed studies showing clear risk to their health, children, and even wildlife (and insects). Like the effects of pesticides or chemicals, the invisible problem is dismissed. It’s “unseen” and of no consequence – until a child or spouse comes down with brain cancer or leukemia or when a cancer cluster is discovered in the neighborhood. Typically, when the tragedy strikes, then officials like Mayor Spano take action, and jump to the side of those injured. Will it be too late after the 5G wireless “internet of all things” is up and running, with small cell towers on every other telephone pole?

***

*Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G.
5G Appeal.

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

September 13, 2017

We the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. (Note: Blue links below are references.)

5G leads to massive increase of mandatory exposure to wireless radiation

5G technology is effective only over short distance. It is poorly transmitted through solid material. Many new antennas will be required and full-scale implementation will result in antennas every 10 to 12 houses in urban areas, thus massively increasing mandatory exposure.

With ”the ever more extensive use of wireless technologies,” nobody can avoid to be exposed. Because on top of the increased number of 5G-transmitters (even within housing, shops and in hospitals) according to estimates, ”10 to 20 billion connections” (to refrigerators, washing machines, surveillance cameras, self-driving cars and buses, etc.) will be parts of the Internet of Things. All these together can cause a substantial increase in the total, long term RF-EMF exposure to all EU citizens.

Harmful effects of RF-EMF exposure are already proven

More than 230 scientists from 41 countries have expressed their “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices already before the additional 5G roll-out. They refer to the fact that ”numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.

After the scientists’ appeal was written in 2015 additional research has convincingly confirmed serious health risks from RF-EMF fields from wireless technology. The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2011 concluded that EMFs of frequencies 30 KHz – 300 GHz are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). However, new studies like the NTP study mentioned above and several epidemiological investigations including the latest studies on mobile phone use and brain cancer risks confirm that RF-EMF radiation is carcinogenic to humans.

The EUROPA EM-EMF Guideline 2016 states that ”there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility…Common EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.”

An increasing part of the European population is affected by ill health symptoms that have for many years been linked to exposure to EMF and wireless radiation in the scientific literature. The International Scientific Declaration on EHS & multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), Brussels 2015, declares that: “In view of our present scientific knowledge, we thereby stress all national and international bodies and institutions…to recognize EHS and MCS as true medical conditions which acting as sentinel diseases may create a major public health concern in years to come worldwide i.e. in all the countries implementing unrestricted use of electromagnetic field-based wireless technologies and marketed chemical substances… Inaction is a cost to society and is not an option anymore… we unanimously acknowledge this serious hazard to public health…that major primary prevention measures are adopted and prioritized, to face this worldwide pan-epidemic in perspective.”

Precautions

The Precautionary Principle (UNESCO) was adopted by EU 2005: ”When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”

Resolution 1815 (Council of Europe, 2011): ”Take all reasonable measures to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to radio frequencies from mobile phones, and particularly the exposure to children and young people who seem to be most at risk from head tumours…Assembly strongly recommends that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is applied, covering both the socalled thermal effects and the athermic [non-thermal] or biological effects of electromagnetic emissions or radiation” and to ”improve risk-assessment standards and quality”

The Nuremberg code (1949) applies to all experiments on humans, thus including the roll-out of 5G with new, higher RF-EMF exposure. All such experiments: ”should be based on previous knowledge (e.g., an expectation derived from animal experiments) that justifies the experiment. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.” (Nuremberg code pts 3-5). Already published scientific studies show that there is ”a priori reason to believe” in real health hazards.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is warning for ”Radiation risk from everyday devices” in spite of the radiation being below the WHO/ICNIRP standards. EEA also concludes: ”There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments…harmful exposures can be widespread before there is both ‘convincing’ evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding [mechanism] of how that harm is caused.”

“Safety guidelines” protect industry – not health

The current ICNIRP ”safety guidelines” are obsolete. All proofs of harm mentioned above arise although the radiation is below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. Therefore new safety standards are necessary. The reason for the misleading guidelines is that “conflict of interest of ICNIRP members due to their relationships with telecommunications or electric companies undermine the impartiality that should govern the regulation of Public Exposure Standards for non-ionizing radiation…To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology.”

The current ICNIRP/WHO guidelines for EMF are based on the obsolete hypothesis that ”The critical effect of RF-EMF exposure relevant to human health and safety is heating of exposed tissue.” However, scientists have proven that many different kinds of illnesses and harms are caused without heating (”nonthermal effect”) at radiation levels well below ICNIRP guidelines.

We urge the EU:

1) To take all reasonable measures to halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G and the total radiation levels caused by RF-EMF (5G together with 2G, 3G, 4G, and WiFi) will not be harmful for EU-citizens, especially infants, children and pregnant women, as well as the environment.

2) To recommend that all EU countries, especially their radiation safety agencies, follow Resolution 1815 and inform citizens, including, teachers and physicians, about health risks from RF-EMF radiation, how and why to avoid wireless communication, particularly in/near e.g., daycare centers, schools, homes, workplaces, hospitals and elderly care.

3) To appoint immediately, without industry influence, an EU task force of independent, truly impartial EMF-and-health scientists with no conflicts of interest1 to re-evaluate the health risks and:
a) To decide about new, safe “maximum total exposure standards” for all wireless communication within EU.
b) To study the total and cumulative exposure affecting EU-citizens.
c) To create rules that will be prescribed/enforced within the EU about how to avoid exposure exceeding new EU ”maximum total exposure standards” concerning all kinds of EMFs in order to protect citizens, especially infants, children and pregnant women.

4) To prevent the wireless/telecom industry through its lobbying organizations from persuading EU officials to make decisions about further propagation of RF radiation including 5G in Europe.

5) To favor and implement wired digital telecommunication instead of wireless.

We expect an answer from you no later than October 31, 2017 to the two first mentioned signatories about what measures you will take to protect the EU-inhabitants against RF-EMF and especially 5G radiation. This appeal and your response will be publicly available.

Respectfully submitted, Rainer Nyberg, EdD, Professor Emeritus (Åbo Akademi), Vasa, Finland (NRNyberg@abo.fi)
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Professor (assoc) Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden (lennart.hardell@regionorebrolan.se)

WE will add signatories to the following list through the end of 2017. The updated list of signatories and the appeal can be found later HERE. 1 Avoid similar mistakes as when the Commission (2008/721/EC) appointed industry supportive members for SCENIHR, who submitted to EU a misleading SCENIHR report on health risks, giving telecom industry a clean bill to irradiate EU-citizens. The report is now quoted by radiation safety agencies in EU.

To access the links in this document visit:

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

HR 3133 – TEAM TRUMP’S ATTACK ON THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

Dismantling landmark environmental laws has been one of the hallmarks of the Trump Administration. The environmental villany now extends to the vital MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT (MMPA). Established in 1972, the law provides a layer of protection from harassment or harm to whales, dolphins, porpoises, polar bears, seals, walrus, sea lions, otters, manatees and every other marine mammal now struggling to swim freely as an inherent part of the marine landscape.

Protection from excessive noise due to sonar, seismic exploration, fossil fuel extraction processes and drilling, even wind farm operational noise, as well as overall habitat destruction from military exercises, decimation to prey species, overfishing and so much more are being cast aside to facilitate a quick and feckless exploitation of the marine environment. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS IN THEIR WASHINGTON DC OFFICES and tell them to vote NO to HR 3133; let them know that it will decimate hard won marine mammal protections!

Read the FACT SHEET below from some of the groups (including our parent Cetacean Society International) that are working to stop HR 3133, and speak up today for marine mammals!

To call your Member of Congress: 
US Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121

To locate your Member on-line: 
U.S. House of Representatives: www.house.gov 
U.S. Senate: www.senate.gov

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

FACT SHEET

EVISCERATION OF IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS
FOR MARINE MAMMALS

Bill Summary

Fact Sheet on H.R. 3133

H.R. 3133, the Streamlining Environmental Approvals (SEA Act), would gut core provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to fast-track seismic airgun surveys and other activities in the ocean that can harm marine mammals. The bill would gravely weaken the legal standards for issuing Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs), prevent the regulatory agency from requiring almost any kind of mitigation, and require automatic approval of IHAs if the agency misses a series of tight deadlines. Since “harassment” is defined in the MMPA to include permanent injury and disruption of vital functions, the negative consequences of these changes for marine mammal conservation would be profound.

The bill clearly reflects the wish list of companies seeking to conduct seismic air gun surveys for oil and gas deposits in the Atlantic. It favors the oil and gas industry, and other industrial activities in the ocean, over protecting whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals. Fishing activities are not affected by this bill.

What would H.R. 3133 do?

 Allow harm to huge numbers of whales and dolphins. The bill would remove important safeguards, including the requirement that harassment of marine mammals is limited to “small numbers” of specific species or population stocks. This expansion removes an important check on NOAA’s authority to issue IHAs, which was put in place to account for the gaps in scientific data on some marine mammal stocks. It would also drop the condition that the activities allowed by the permits have the “least practicable impact” on marine mammals—putting these animals at much greater risk.

 Allow harm to marine mammals in much larger areas of the ocean. H.R. 3133 would delete the requirement that IHAs can only be issued within a “specific geographic region.” The current requirement limiting permits to specific geographic regions allows for better application of the best available science and tailoring of measures to mitigate the impacts of the activity allowed by the permit.

 Permit harassment without mitigation. The bill would sharply curtail NOAA’s authority to require mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of activities that harass marine mammals.

 Cover up cumulative impacts. The bill would limit any requirements for monitoring of the impacts on marine mammals to the period in which the activity—such as a seismic airgun survey—is taking place. The bill would not allow the agency to require monitoring of long-term or cumulative impacts after the activity has ended, thereby missing significant, but not immediately evident, effects on marine mammals.

 Rush permitting process/automatically approve permits. H.R. 3133 would lay out a highly unrealistic timeline for agency scientists to review permit applications, determine whether sufficient information has been submitted, and evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on marine mammals. For example, the bill would give agency scientists only 15 calendar days to determine whether the information in the lengthy and complex permit application is sufficient—and would allow only one request for additional information. After that, the application would be deemed complete, and scientists would have only 120 days to analyze it. If the review is not completed in 120 days, the Incidental Harassment Authorization would automatically be granted, regardless of the potential harm to marine mammals, and without any of the mitigation that may be necessary to eliminate or minimize that harm.

 Automatically extend permits. For an existing IHA, which has a one-year term, the bill would require the agency to grant a one-year extension of the permit, and would give agency scientists only 14 days to determine whether an extension is appropriate. The agency would only be able to withhold the extension if there has been a substantial change in the activity for which the permit was originally granted, or in the status of the affected marine mammal species or stock.

 Create a dangerous loophole in Endangered Species Act protections. H.R. 3133 would exempt IHA permit holders from complying with the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition on the take of threatened and endangered species. It would substitute the bill’s abbreviated approval process for the obligation the Endangered Species Act puts on federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species.

Contact Information

Lara Levison, Senior Director, Federal Policy, Oceana: llevison@oceana.org
Nora Apter, Legislative Advocate, Natural Resources Defense Council: napter@nrdc.org
CT Harry, Marine Campaigner, International Fund for Animal Welfare: charry@ifaw.org Keisha Sedlacek, Senior Regulatory Specialist, Humane Society Legislative Fund: ksedlacek@hlsf.org Naomi Rose, Marine Mammal Scientist, Animal Welfare Institute: naomi@awionline.org

SAVING THE MARSH: NYS DEC Plans to Apply GLYPHOSATE (Roundup’s Active Ingredient) to 40 Acres of the Hudson River Piermont Marsh

March 1, 2018 is the deadline to submit comments to the NYS DEC to stop the assault on 40 acres of the biologically productive marsh of Tallman Mountain State Park just south of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Plans to apply glyphosate to kill Phragmites (an “invasive” reed that has grown into a prominent storm and tidal wave buffer along the shore) include several years of glyphospate application (the active ingredient in Roundup), without an assessment of hazards to residents, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.  Futher, pollution of Sparkill Creek, an 8-mile tributary of the Hudson River Estuary, has not been considered.

JOIN the PIERMONT MARSH ALLIANCE, NY4WHALES/ NY4WILDLIFE, and other concerned groups and citizens as we combat this major threat to aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna (including insects!) of this important region. Send your comments today! More info below from the flyers by THE PIERMONT MARSH ALLIANCE:

URGENT REMINDER FROM
The Piermont Marsh Alliance

PLEASE SEND WRITTEN COMMENTS on the DEC’s Draft Plan
before March 1, 2018 deadline

DEC is accepting written comments on its Draft Piermont Marsh Reserve Management Plan are being accepted until this coming Thursday, March 1, 2018.

To stop this plan, It is CRITICAL that we all send in our comments, even if we attended the 2/5 meeting.

Choose one of three ways to do this:

1) Submit your comment by e-mail to hrnerr@dec.ny.gov.

2) Submit your comment by mail to NYS DEC, PO Box 315, Staatsburg, NY 12580.

3) For those who are pressed for time, we have a one-page ad in this week’s Our Town News, which you can sign and mail to DEC. If you’d like us to send you a PDF of this page, just email us back.

*** VERY IMPORTANT: Please also send your comment to Governor Cuomo. Mailing address: The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor, NYS State Capitol Building, Albany, NY 12224. You can also call the Governor’s office: 518-474-8390.

If you would like to cc us, please feel free to do so:(piermontmarshalliance@verizon.net)
________________

If you could use some talking points, here they are:
The DEC Plan disregards the community’s clearly expressed opposition to the use of herbicide (Glyphosate) in the Piermont Marsh.
The size of the project remains considerable – 40 acres, i.e. approximately 30 football fields.
The Plan does not address the destruction of habitat and harm to existing wildlife that would result.
The Plan in no way addresses the severe pollution of the Sparkill Creek.
The prediction that sea level rise will wipe out the Marsh makes it likely that the Plan will turn out to be an expensive, futile endeavor.
The Plan, should it go forward, will result in a ten-year eyesore.

Thank you for all that you do!

Marthe for the PMA Steering Committee

Brief overview of the issues raised by DEC’s
Draft Piermont Marsh Reserve Management Plan
being presented this Monday night in Village Hall

“FIRST DO NO HARM.”

The DEC has reduced the scope of the eradication of Phragmites from the Marsh, and now acknowledges that Phragmites provides valuable ecological services, including – most importantly for Piermont – serving as a buffer that reduces the destruction from storm surges. DEC has also instituted a number of monitoring and research protocols. However, DEC’s plan remains seriously flawed.

While the overall project size has been reduced to 40 acres to be done in three phases, DEC reserves the right to expand at some future date. 40 acres is approximately equivalent to 30 football fields. This is not a small area.

The treatment area would be mowed, then treated with glyphosate-based herbicide, then mowed again. This would be repeated on a yearly basis for at least several years. Additionally, black plastic would be used along any land boundaries.

DEC quotes a recent (12/2017) EPA determination that “…glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” But this only gives one side of the argument, in what remains a hotly debated issue in the scientific community. Last year, California EPA determined that glyphosate should be listed as a known carcinogen. A number of European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, and France either have in place or are instituting bans on the use of this chemical.

DEC purports to protect human populations from exposure to the herbicide by selecting a treatment area that is approximately half a mile from both Piermont and Palisades, but does not address the impact of the herbicide on the living ecosystem of the Marsh and specifically the wildlife – turtles, birds, fish, etc. – that lives in or depends on the Marsh.

The DEC’s goal of re-establishing a marsh of the past remains fundamentally futile. Phragmites is uniquely well adapted to the present polluted conditions of the water and will re-invade, absent an indefinite cycle of chemical treatment. Phragmites’ unique ability to accrete soil makes it potentially more viable than other plants as water levels rise due to the effects of climate change. However, sea level rise, if sufficiently pronounced, may well increase salinity levels to the point at which even Phragmites could not survive. The only certainty in the Plan is that an already fragile ecosystem would be further poisoned by the addition of herbicide.

Aesthetic consequences of eradication remain a concern, as the treatment area is likely to be an eyesore for several years, disrupting the visual sweep of the Marsh.

Marthe for the PMA Steering Committee

The Piermont Marsh Alliance
Piermont Landing
Piermont, New York 10968

Whatever They Told You About Homework Help Is Dead Wrong…And Here’s Why

Problems in crafting missions a number of college pupils via throughout the entire globe aren’t knowledgeable about the way to compose a mission which is well-structured and well-organized. You have to get the job done with shifting up your mentality on your assignments broadly discussing. It’s pretty simple to eventually become diverted on your own phone or tablet computer once you need to be studying.

Yet another element to take into consideration when it’s to accomplish with presence, is the very simple truth that your professor will be aware when you’re regularly bypassing classes. As an alternative to attempting to cram all you want to comprehend into an instant time period, research your program as possible go. To get only a couple dollars you’ll have the ability to hire a prep solver which is very likely to produce quick work of this z/n within simply a handful minutes or a few hours, based on the workload.

essaywriter.org/essay-on-the-color/

The History of Homework Help Refuted

If you are thinking about homeschool for your own child but fret about the caliber of instruction you are prepared to furnish virtual faculty may possibly be for you personally. Someone can opt tutoring for a parttime occupation too. Some college pupils simply search for internet math tutors who will help them in doing dwelling functions or distinctive assignments although some others start searching for coaches who supply comprehensive training for the total calendar year.

Before beginning compose a thesis, you should think about the problem. Idea of odds and permutations and combinations really are a few of the topics out of the topic. Each topic at an interest can be critical for pupils in the greater degree and experts focus with it.

The Dirty Truth on Homework Help

All you could want to do is set a purchase on our site, along with the writers will soon finish up. You will find various English assignment help providers you could readily find online. Students will need to perform research and specify the exact origins of discovering info.

From the proper execution on our internet website you need to indicate that the selection of webpages you will require, the sort of paper, your deadline and also extra data if necessary. Therefore think about a couple of things just before picking the web site you will require assistance from. Contacting us by utilizing the ask questions’ sort, you’re definitely going to have the ability to learn more about any topic and subject you want to understand more about.

Mentors of some trusted assignment assistance are all quite active and responsible. All the Statistics home-work issues which have already been bothering you will likely end up taken care of in totality. Chemical-engineering missions aren’t quite uncomplicated.

Groundwork Center involvement is limited to a single session each day. So if you should be stuck along with your Language Grammar Assignment Help On-line subsequently you’re in the most suitable location. In the event that you also feel precisely the very same way then you’ve got to catch Civil Engineering Assignment Help punctually.

In the event the issue is you never know where to begin with, then you could always contact your buddies and understand how which they’ve begun. With the mind and breathing, there exists a tremendously possibility of discovering alternatives and may knock-out stressful thoughts. With modest personal work and through English grammar homework help online, there’s nothing which may block you from excelling in merely an matter of time.

The moment you’ve accomplished some simple research in regards to the composing assignment help you’re likely to be obtaining, it’s time for you to actually consider what type of groundwork assistance you’ll want. The goal of prep isn’t merely to get a child find out more about the topics taught in school, but it is a single method to instil an atmosphere of accountability in them. Physics homework help is probably going to be sure you stay static in contact with all the subject and acquire adequate understanding.

The War Against Homework Help

It’s critical that pupils acquire assistance from assignments in order that they are able to use the accessible resources in the ideal manner for developing their own career. Through prep assistance it will be potential to modify the entire life span of pupils and could be the tool to victory. Thus, analyzing without internet business statistics prep assistance is exceptionally hard.

The homework must clearly incorporate appropriate content according to the structure of the course and the particular project. In a few instances, students feel it is tough to accomplish that their mission in the aftermath of alluding to mission illustrations. They may find it troublesome to understand the mathematical portion of an interest, and there is a demand for robust small business statistics methods that will help in scoring high grades.

Homework Help Help!

When there exists a massive opportunity online, someone should make use of exactly the majority of it. That is an full set of expert writers from a selection of subjects awaiting a student who needs their support and assistance. If you don’t need assistance with assignments frequently, or you also need some common advice, the perfect choice will be to make the most of all free tools and spare your own money.

Financial management homework help on the web is accessible throughout the clock and so it may certainly help one to accomplish the same in any moment. A specialist service providercan permit a pupil inselecting the suitable topic retaining the above mentioned matters in mind. In the event you need assistance with homework and desire to steer clear of sleepless nights, hunting for important resources and analyzing a tremendous number of advice and also spending some time with your pals or family members, contacting us will be a ideal choice!

The Hidden Treasure of Homework Help

Like a way to learn the craft of calling the future financial incidents it truly is always preferable to choose online Company Economics research assistance from a reputable company. They would rarely request help since they do not know where to go and talk about their true trouble. They should chose the appropriate research goes around the right position, based on their advantage.

Therefore, once you believe you really don’t understand the issue, pick a trustworthy project direction assignment help online and realize the difference in your own results. The very best assignment writing services will supply you having an outcome which may also find yourself being decisively superior compared to yours! Create your review pleasure Avoiding tasks cannot be an alternative, despite the fact that it may possibly seem to become boring for you!

Even for people with an desperate undertaking or are residing in a different time zone, we’ll be able to every request without a flaws. Make the payment should you prefer to verify your buy. The service price is only Mini Mal.

Reputed online instructional organizations like Courseworktutors could offer dissertation-writing assistance for those college students who should submit exactly the very same in confined moment. Any commerce or finance student has to address numerous cost accounting troubles. Students may hunt over the net to find assistance from almost any classes and receive the most effective possible assistance and help from the services.

WIFI RADIATION: WANT TO SAVE BEES? SAY NO TO CELL TOWERS, SMART METERS…

WIFI RADIATION:
FOR BEES, BIRDS AND ALL OF US,
A VERY PRESENT DANGER

by Taffy Williams

A recent Soundview (and Yonkers) Rising article, “Make America Sweet Again,” failed to note the bee-killing “Elephant In The Room” – Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF EMF) which are known to confuse (and even kill) bees, birds, bats, frogs and more via their magnetite navigation. The source: cell towers, smart meters, wifi radiation on all the “smart” devices saturating our daily landscape. The FCC has set exposure levels 10,000 times higher than any other country including Canada, Italy and France. I haven’t seen a bee or butterfly in my yard for several years, since two smart meters were installed outside; no other factor could explain the utter annihilation of insect life here. 

If we really want to help bees, we need to stop the 5G rollout, which is being forced upon unwitting Americans while the FCC and its agencies have done NO STUDIES to prove these are not harmful to we the people, or the environment. The FCC is pushing S19 and S88, bills that will facilitate a connection with 500,000,000,000 internet devices and remove any local zoning rules or regulations that will “inhibit” facilitating small cell infrastructure. I.e., those hard won protections established when cell towers were being erected near schools, hospitals, and residences in the 1980’s. While cell towers are causing neurological problems, brain cancers and more, the plethora of mesmerizing wifi devices and the desire for them are “normalizing” the harmful emissions. The public is failing to respond to known and reported dangers and as the FCC completely ignores the adverse health effects of RF EMF, our insect life is decimated. Now the industry-led FCC is pushing through the S19 and S88 bills, to put thousands of mini cell tower on “just about every telephone pole.” For those who believe the same microwave energy that goes through concrete walls, metal and glass is not penetrating our bodies and disrupting the flight of insects and birds, take note:

From http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/primers/wildlife/wireless-devices-wildlife/:

“In Bees, Birds and Mankind: Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies (Kentum, 2009), German scientist Ulrich Warnke states, ‘Bees and other insects, just as birds, use the Earth’s magnetic field and high frequency electromagnetic energy such as light. They accomplish orientation and navigation by means of free radicals as well as a simultaneously reacting magnetite conglomerate….’ In his book, Warnke quotes Ferdinand Ruzicka, a scientist and beekeeper who reported, in 2003, after several transmitters (cellular antennas) were erected in the immediate vicinity of his hives: ‘I observed a pronounced restlessness in my bee colonies (initially about forty) and a greatly increased urge to swarm. As a frame-hive beekeeper, I use a so-called high floor. The bees did not build their combs in the manner prescribed by the frames, but in random fashion. In the summer, bee colonies collapsed without obvious cause. In the winter, I observed that the bees went foraging despite snow and temperatures below zero, and they died of cold next to the hive. Colonies that exhibited this behavior collapsed, even though they were strong, healthy colonies with active queens before winter. They were provided with adequate additional food and the available pollen was more than adequate in autumn.’
Ruzicka then organized a survey of beekeepers through the magazine Der Bienen Vater. All twenty of the beekeepers who replied to his questionnaire had a transmitter [cell tower or smart meter] within 300 meters of their beehives. Compared to the bees’ behavior before and after the transmitters were in operation, 37.5% observed increased aggression from their bees.
25% found that their bees had a greater tendency to swarm.
65% reported that their colonies were inexplicably collapsing since the transmitters became operational.
Warnke says that monocultures, pesticides, the Varroa mite, migratory beekeeping, dressed seed, severe winters, and genetically modified seeds could also explain the bee colonies’ collapse. However, none of these convincingly explains ‘the fairly sudden and country-spanning appearance two to three years ago of the dying bees phenomenon. Should the bees simply be too weak or ill, they should also die in or near the hive. But no ill bees were found in research into this phenomenon.'”

Today, 3-15% of human populations are being diagnosed as Electro HyperSensitive (EHS), yet the FCC is calling outrageous levels of RF EMF exposure “safe”. Migraine headaches, stroke, insomnia, COPD, heart irregularities, tinnitus and much more are cited effects in literally thousands of studies. The World Health Organization and US National Toxicology Program have classified RF EMF wifi radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen, along with lead and asbestos. Yet the FCC is ignoring these findings, and failing to protect public health.

Meanwhile municipalities like Yonkers are committing “unconscionable trade practices” (from their own municipal code) by forcing tens of thousands of residents to install “smart” digital transmitting meters, while the public remains ignorant of the health hazards and privacy intrusions involved. One activist has been charged with two misdemeanors for failing to purchase and install yet another smart meter (for water) despite health and right to privacy objections and that the corporation (City of Yonkers) is profiting from the unauthorized use of property and air space. This is a battle that actiivists and the affected public and environment cannot afford to lose.

We must stop the 5G rollout, stop S19 and S88, or we will, like our bees and wildlife, all be victims of the “electronic” Silent Spring. Will we allow the 5G rollout to “put the nail in the coffin”? Just because we have the ability and technology, does not mean the activity is morally acceptable. Will we stand up for ourselves, insects, birds and wildlife, who will have no defense against the invisible high energy landscape saturation of RF EMF and the 5G rollout? Call your state and federal officials and say “NO” to 5G, S19 and S88. CALL THEM TODAY! Learn more: visit http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/?page_id=128 and stopsmartmeters.org.