The age-old adage First Do No Harm should be the tempering goal of not only medicine, but government and industry, especially when they team up to deploy new technologies, set policies and serve the people.

This blog exists to reveal and analyze areas in which these powerful groups are failing to "first do no harm."

Friday, February 17, 2012

One simple question exposes the ugly truth about 1996 Telecommunications Act

WHY does the 1996 Telecommunications Act include language that prohibits state and local officials from protecting against "the environmental effects of the radiofrequency radiation" of wireless facilities? (this has been interpreted to mean no one may oppose a siting of a cell tower or other transmittor due to health concerns.) If there was no evidence of health effects, such language would have been unnecessary, now, wouldn't it?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Friday, February 17, 2012

One simple question exposes the ugly truth about 1996 Telecommunications Act

WHY does the 1996 Telecommunications Act include language that prohibits state and local officials from protecting against "the environmental effects of the radiofrequency radiation" of wireless facilities? (this has been interpreted to mean no one may oppose a siting of a cell tower or other transmittor due to health concerns.) If there was no evidence of health effects, such language would have been unnecessary, now, wouldn't it?
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)