Comments on: Urgent: California 6409(a)/Shot Clock Law Floated in Sacramento

By: Chris Felicijan

Chris Felicijan — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:14:55 +0000

If you want to get a message to Holden, use his address and the email will go through. The computer just reads the address.

The people of Pasadena need to make their displeasure known as he supposedly represents them.

By: Jonathan Kramer

Jonathan Kramer — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:10:24 +0000

In reply to Susan Brinchman.

Susan, I will certainly and strongly disagree with you about the FCC EME standards, and the lack of repeatable or reputable science that attempts to dispute the FCC standards, but that is an argument for a different day. We certainly can agree about this bill against the public interest. It virtually assures that the public will no longer participate in the wireless siting discussion for the majority of work being performed by the industry.

Yes, it is Assembly Member Chris Holden sponsoring the bill. As to which wireless carrier or organization is the real sponsor behind the sponsor, we do not yet know.

Jonathan

By: Susan Brinchman

Susan Brinchman — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:46:21 +0000

I would like to express grave concern about Assembly Bill 162 – Cal 6409 (a) & Shot Clock Law. Just as the World Health Organization has moved rf radiation onto a list of carcinogens, and 1800 new peer reviewed studies have been evaluated, showing the terrible health impacts of microwave rf radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMF’s), as seen in the BioInitiative Report 2012, consideration of this assembly bill is placing the entire public health not only at risk but significant and certain harm. We must get this bill withdrawn. Anyone supporting it will be seen as against children, pregnant mothers and their precious unborn children, seniors, medically ill and disabled people, and the general public health. This is an industry-favoring bill that is dangerous. The FCC guidelines have been proven to be far too lax even by the US GAO, and are in the midst of change. They are 3.3 million times higher than levels of rf radiation recommended by scientists. CEP opposes this bill as a major threat to public safety. In addition, it threatens California’s agriculture, as insects are also harmed by this type of radiation.
Susan Brinchman, Director, Center for Electrosmog Prevention http://www.electrosmogprevention.org

————————-
I wrote a version of this for Chris Holden, but it stopped me from sending it as my address is not in his district. Is Assemblymember Holden sponsoring this bill? plse write me at director (at) electrosmogprevention.org to inform about this. Thank you for the heads up.

By: Jonathan Kramer

Jonathan Kramer — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:42:25 +0000

In reply to K Iwata.

Quite simply, the old ‘placeholder’ bill (AB 162) on its face deal with a housing element in a government’s general plan. The March 21 ‘amendment’ was a complete rewrite from the ground up making the same bill number (AB 162) now a wireless collocation gift to the industry.

Jonathan

By: K Iwata

K Iwata — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:11:17 +0000

I’ve just read the Amended Bill. Can you update us on what these changes signify? http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0151-0200/ab_162_bill_20130321_amended_asm_v98.html