EMF Protection Products
Airtube Headsets
1. Nowhere does the Telecom Act of 1996 prohibit speech of any kind, anywhere. That is a First-Amendment-violating lie circulated by the wireless industry to state and local authorities as well as to lawyers generally, starting in the late1990s, per my direct witness at such [dis]'informational', private meetings with them. These meetings usually involved their wining and dining public officials and lawyers, after which the disinfo would hit.
2. In the communities near to Marblehead I always cited - and had my audiences read aloud - the infamous preemption clause, Sec. 702 (subpart iv), which nowhere mentions 'health' or such effects. It prohibits only state and local officials from protecting only against 'the environmental effects of the radiofrequency radiation' of wireless facilities. That was later deemed by some but not all courts to be inclusive of health effects; however, obviously, Congress would never have passed a law intending to prohibit officials from protecting their residents' health from hazards. There are federal Acts that disallow such preemption. Unfortunately, almost all judges are milionaires and have cell phone stocks in their portfolios; so the kangaroos sometimes won.
3. It was Sen. John McCain who shoved through the Telecom Act, disallowing input from the public and even public health scientists! The Bill slid into an Act as if on teflon, despite protestations from EPA and FDA, without members of Congress having opportunity to review its 800+ pages. The non-review was astonishing for the Bill's scope: the Telecom Act has had greater impact on the American landscape and electromagnetic atmospere-scape, not to mention every living cell on this part of the globe, than has any Act in the history of the US Government. No public input allowed...wonder why! Notice that McCain continues in 2008 to defen
