LoP Guest  Wrote: (06-14-2019 12:52 AM)

I thought the OP described the lawsuit as a lawsuit to find laws are unconstitutional? If that's truly the charge - then WHAT LAWS ARE BEING CHALLENGED?

The 1996 Telecommunications Act, and local and state laws.

Quote:Plaintiffs’ federal claims raise questions under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, and Amendments One, Five, and Fourteen of the United States Constitution.

It's on page 23....part 32.

http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-con...plaint.pdf

Pretty sure he's focusing on:

Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act:

Quote:“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.” Section 704 of The Telecommunications Act of 1996

But I haven't read the while petition yet.

---

There is no such thing as sovereign debt. Reinstate Greenbacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb5OQUElilo
Tax Wallstreet Party
United Front Against Austerity

Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:10 AM)

DontCare  Wrote: (06-14-2019 12:29 AM)

I checked your references. It doesn't mean that it has been accepted as a real condition.

Define accepted.

What's your standard?

As in a consensus in the medical profession. Where a doctor in any random hospital could diagnose you with the crypto-condition without losing their license.

Here's EHS on a list with a six other pseudoscience conditions.

https://www.health.com/lyme-disease/morg...nexplained

56. Together, the new City Ordinances (No. 2016-42 and No. 2017-18), the
new State Act (WCAIIA), and Section 704 remove all public protection from
injurious facilities in the public rights-of-way and deprive injured parties of any
remedy for their injuries. The new FCC regulations compound this denial of
constitutional rights, and the introduced Congressional bills would compound it
even more. Plaintiffs are such injured parties.

The causes of action begin on page 37.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(U.S. Constitution, Amendment Fourteen,
and New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 18)

CHAPTER 27 AS AMENDED, AND WCAIIA, VIOLATE
PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
59. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
60. Under Chapter 27 as amended by Ordinances 2016-42 and 2017-18,
and also under WCAIIA, the construction of wireless telecommunications facilities on private property in all zoning districts is subject to at least notice and comment prior to construction, and an appeals process afterwards, but the construction of most wireless telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way in the same districts are not subject to notice, comment, or an appeals process. Notice and an opportunity to be heard are the minimum requirements for Procedural Due Process.

61. Chapter 27 as amended, and WCAIIA, also violate Substantive Due
Process. The U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution guarantee the
fundamental right of citizens to be free from government actions that harm life, liberty, and property. These inherent and inalienable rights reflect a basic societal contract. The rights to life, liberty, and property have evolved and continue to evolve as technological advances pose new threats to these fundamental rights....
http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-con...plaint.pdf

I'll skip to two....

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(U.S. Constitution, Amendment Fourteen,
and New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 18)

THE MAYOR’S PROCLAMATIONS OF EMERGENCY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS
67. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
68. Under the Mayor’s Proclamations of Emergency, the City suspended
all land use regulations for cell towers on City-owned land for six months,
regardless of height, aesthetics, zoning district, proximity to homes or businesses, or anything else, and regardless of whether they conformed to design standards or not.

Under the Proclamations of Emergency, the City not only suspended land use
regulations but signed a contract with Verizon Wireless for the erection of wireless telecommunications facilities on City-owned land without notice to anyone or an opportunity for anyone to be heard, as required by City zoning regulations and the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions.....

(skipping to three)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(U.S. Constitution, Amendments Five and Fourteen)

CHAPTER 27 AS AMENDED AND WCAIIA
ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING

72. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

73. In enacting Ordinances Nos. 2016-42 and 2017-18, and in enacting
WCAIIA, the City has determined to authorize, and the State has determined to require, the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities anywhere on the streets and sidewalks of Santa Fe without regard to their proximity to homes and businesses.

74. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s members are already refugees from cell towers
and antennas and have already lost previous homes and businesses due to their proximity. The award of franchises by the City, and their exemption from land use regulations by the State, for the placement of wireless telecommunications facilities on the sidewalk directly in front of Plaintiffs’ homes and businesses will render their present homes and businesses similarly uninhabitable and unusable and is an unlawful confiscation of property without compensation....

http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-con...plaint.pdf

I need a break from reformatting the pdf....

DontCare  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:23 AM)

Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:10 AM)

Define accepted.

What's your standard?

As in a consensus in the medical profession. Where a doctor in any random hospital could diagnose you with the crypto-condition without losing their license.

That's not how it works. The Emergency Room isn't going to diagnose this.

A specialist diagnosed my condition.



A board certified specialist isn't accepted by your definition?

How about the World Health Organization? If they accept it.....

Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:36 AM)

DontCare  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:23 AM)

As in a consensus in the medical profession. Where a doctor in any random hospital could diagnose you with the crypto-condition without losing their license.

That's not how it works.

A specialist diagnosed my condition.



A board certified specialist isn't accepted by your definition.

How about the World Health Organization? If they accept it.....

Was this specialist a naturopath? Maybe a white dude with dreadlocks who says namaste a lot?

AI can also fry your brain like a rat in a microwave.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(U.S. Constitution, Amendment One)

CHAPTER 27 AS AMENDED, WCAIIA, AND SECTION 704
VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PETITION

76. All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

77. Section 27 as amended and WCAIIA each deprive people threatened
with injury by RF radiation from wireless telecommunications facilities of the right to protest such facilities, receive notice before such facilities are erected, or exercise their due process rights before such facilities are erected.

78. Section 704 deprives people of the right to testify about such injury,
and deprives their local governments of the power to protect them from the
injurious effects of RF radiation. Section 704 deprives people injured, sickened, and/or killed by such radiation of access to state courts for redress for their injuries, and provides them no substitute federal remedy.

79. Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s members are such injured persons and are
imminently threatened with further injury by the City’s actions.

80. Section 704 is not a bar to Plaintiffs’ claim against the City because the
City may not violate the First Amendment.

81. Separately and collectively, Section 27 as amended, WCAIIA, and
Section 704 violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.

http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-con...plaint.pdf

Page 42.

DontCare  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:37 AM)

Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:36 AM)

That's not how it works.

A specialist diagnosed my condition.



A board certified specialist isn't accepted by your definition.

How about the World Health Organization? If they accept it.....

Was this specialist a naturopath? Maybe a white dude with dreadlocks who says namaste a lot?

Environmental medicine.

Ear Nose and Throat.

Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health
For over 50 years, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has been studying and treating the effects of the environment on human health. In the last 20 years, our physicians began seeing patients who reported that electric power lines, televisions and other electrical devices caused a wide variety of symptoms. By the mid 1990's, it became clear that patients were adversely affected by electromagnetic fields and becoming more electrically sensitive. In the last five years with the advent of wireless devices, there has been a massive increase in radiofrequency (RF) exposure from wireless devices as well as reports of hypersensitivity and diseases related to electromagnetic field and RF exposure. Multiple studies correlate RF exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

The electromagnetic wave spectrum is divided into ionizing radiation such as ultraviolet and X-rays and non-ionizing radiation such as radiofrequency (RF), which includes WiFi, cell phones, and Smart Meter wireless communication. It has long been recognized that ionizing radiation can have a negative impact on health. However, the effects of non-ionizing radiation on human health recently have been seen. Discussions and research of non-ionizing radiation effects centers around thermal and non-thermal effects. According to the FCC and other regulatory agencies, only thermal effects are relevant regarding health implications and consequently, exposure limits are based on thermal effects only.1

While it was practical to regulate thermal bioeffects, it was also stated that non-thermal effects are not well understood and no conclusive scientific evidence points to non-thermal based negative health effects.1 Further arguments are made with respect to RF exposure from WiFi, cell towers and smart meters that due to distance, exposure to these wavelengths are negligible.2 However, many in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF exposure and satisfy Hill's criteria of causality.3 Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Genotoxic effects from RF exposure, including studies of non-thermal levels of exposure, consistently and specifically show chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation and DNA structural breaks.4-11 A statistically significant dose response effect was demonstrated by Maschevich et al. , who reported a linear increase in aneuploidy as a function of the Specific Absorption Rate(SAR) of RF exposure.11 Genotoxic effects are documented to occur in neurons, blood lymphocytes, sperm, red blood cells, epithelial cells, hematopoietic tissue, lung cells and bone marrow. Adverse developmental effects due to non-thermal RF exposure have been shown with decreased litter size in mice from RF exposure well below safety standards.12 The World Health Organization has classified RF emissions as a group 2 B carcinogen.13 Cellular telephone use in rural areas was also shown to be associated with an increased risk for malignant brain tumors. 14

The fact that RF exposure causes neurological damage has been documented repeatedly. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability and oxidative damage, which are associated with brain cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, have been found.4,7,15-17 Nittby et al. demonstrated a statistically significant dose-response effect between non-thermal RF exposure and occurrence of albumin leak across the blood-brain barrier.15 Changes associated with degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) have been reported.4,10 Other neurological and cognitive disorders such as headaches, dizziness, tremors, decreased memory and attention, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased reaction times, sleep disturbances and visual disruption have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies with RF exposure occurring non-locally.18-21

Nephrotoxic effects from RF exposure also have been reported. A dose response effect was observed by Ingole and Ghosh in which RF exposure resulted in mild to extensive degenerative changes in chick embryo kidneys based on duration of RF exposure.24 RF emissions have also been shown to cause isomeric changes in amino acids that can result in nephrotoxicity as well as hepatotoxicity.25

Electromagnetic field (EMF) hypersensitivity has been documented in controlled and double blind studies with exposure to various EMF frequencies. Rea et al. demonstrated that under double blind placebo controlled conditions, 100% of subjects showed reproducible reactions to that frequency to which they were most sensitive.22 Pulsed electromagnetic frequencies were shown to consistently provoke neurological symptoms in a blinded subject while exposure to continuous frequencies did not.23

Although these studies clearly show causality and disprove the claim that health effects from RF exposure are uncertain, there is another mechanism that proves electromagnetic frequencies, including radiofrequencies, can negatively impact human health. Government agencies and industry set safety standards based on the narrow scope of Newtonian or "classical" physics reasoning that the effects of atoms and molecules are confined in space and time. This model supports the theory that a mechanical force acts on a physical object and thus, long-range exposure to EMF and RF cannot have an impact on health if no significant heating occurs. However, this is an incomplete model. A quantum physics model is necessary to fully understand and appreciate how and why EMF and RF fields are harmful to humans.26,27 In quantum physics and quantum field theory, matter can behave as a particle or as a wave with wave-like properties. Matter and electromagnetic fields encompass quantum fields that fluctuate in space and time. These interactions can have long-range effects which cannot be shielded, are non-linear and by their quantum nature have uncertainty. Living systems, including the human body, interact with the magnetic vector potential component of an electromagnetic field such as the field near a toroidal coil.26,28,29 The magnetic vector potential is the coupling pathway between biological systems and electromagnetic fields.26,27 Once a patient's specific threshold of intensity has been exceeded, it is the frequency which triggers the patient's reactions.

Long range EMF or RF forces can act over large distances setting a biological system oscillating in phase with the frequency of the electromagnetic field so it adapts with consequences to other body systems. This also may produce an electromagnetic frequency imprint into the living system that can be long lasting.26,27,30 Research using objective instrumentation has shown that even passive resonant circuits can imprint a frequency into water and biological systems.31 These quantum electrodynamic effects do exist and may explain the adverse health effects seen with EMF and RF exposure. These EMF and RF quantum field effects have not been adequately studied and are not fully understood regarding human health.

Because of the well documented studies showing adverse effects on health and the not fully understood quantum field effect, AAEM calls for exercising precaution with regard to EMF, RF and general frequency exposure. In an era when all society relies on the benefits of electronics, we must find ideas and technologies that do not disturb bodily function. It is clear that the human body uses electricity from the chemical bond to the nerve impulse and obviously this orderly sequence can be disturbed by an individual-specific electromagnetic frequency environment. Neighbors and whole communities are already exercising precaution, demanding abstention from wireless in their homes and businesses.....

https://www.aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.php

DontCare  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:37 AM)

Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:36 AM)

That's not how it works.

A specialist diagnosed my condition.



A board certified specialist isn't accepted by your definition.

How about the World Health Organization? If they accept it.....

Was this specialist a naturopath? Maybe a white dude with dreadlocks who says namaste a lot?

trumpo's doc, remember him !!!!

Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:45 AM)

DontCare  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:37 AM)

Was this specialist a naturopath? Maybe a white dude with dreadlocks who says namaste a lot?

Environmental medicine.

Ear Nose and Throat.

So a ENT diagnosed your "Neurological" disorder....LOLOLOLOLOL

You're sooooo FULLLLLLLL of SHITTTTTTTTT

Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:45 AM)

DontCare  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:37 AM)

Was this specialist a naturopath? Maybe a white dude with dreadlocks who says namaste a lot?

Environmental medicine.

Ear Nose and Throat.

Did this individual have an MD after their name? Do you know where they got their degree? Where was their practice?

Promulgation issues are gonna be tough to prove, and I may be wrong, but I think the standard for review may be arbitrary and capricious.

DontCare  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:47 AM)

Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-14-2019 01:45 AM)

Environmental medicine.

Ear Nose and Throat.

Did this individual have an MD after their name? Do you know where they got their degree? Where was their practice?

MD? as in medical drone?

Look what happens when you try to search for EHS on the Mayo Clinic.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/search/search...ensitivity