International Outcry about Oregon Health Authority’s Report on Senate Bill 283 – A Must Read from an Ashland Expert on the Subject

Public Testimony for SB 283 Hearing on September 22, 2021

Dear Ms. Gezelter and Members of the Oregon Senate Education Committee,

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.

I’m a native Oregonian who has life-long concern for the welfare of my state.  My career as a mechanical engineer included a BSME from Oregon State University, an MSME from San Diego State University, 35 years of federal civil service at a civilian U.S. Navy R&D laboratory in San Diego, and a professional engineering license in the State of California.  With this background, I have an advantage in understanding the science and harmful health effects of man-made pulsed electromagnetic radiation (PEMR) from Wi-Fi and all wireless network technologies that use radio frequency radiation (RFR).  I have been studying the independent PEMR science for more than three years and, as a public service, give presentations on the subject.

I must add my voice to the international outcry about The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) “Wireless technology health risks report” for Senate Bill 283.  If this seriously flawed and inaccurate report is not retracted and revised to acknowledge fact-based science, OHA will lose all credibility and public trust as the agency responsible for the health interests of Oregonians.

Those not aware of the draft preparation, internal review process, and editing of the OHA report can read the lengthy comprehensive investigative article in The Washington Spectator, “Oregon Health Authority Condemned by Scientists For Scrubbing Report on Wireless Hazards in Schools,” May 24, 2021, by Daniel Forbes.  This article had prepublication legal vetting by the law firm Davis Wright Tremain, LLP.  It may be found as an attachment to this email and at https://washingtonspectator.org/oregon-health-authority-forbes/.

Disturbing information presented in the investigative article includes the following details and much more about the preparation of the OHA report.

  • The first draft of the report was written by two Oregon State University graduate-student researchers, who documented much evidence of harm from PEMR exposure.  This draft included the statement, All the studies that investigated the outcomes of general health and symptoms of ill health found that EMF exposure negatively impacted health.  Another statement in the first draft was, “It is found that prenatal exposure of EMF and exposure during childhood could lead to adverse effects of childhood development….”  In subsequent drafts, the report’s lead author removed these statements and inserted language, elsewhere, to cast uncertainty on credible documentation of harmful RFR effects from respected world scientists.
  • OHA received a public records request from a wireless-safety advocate for copies of all drafts of the OHA report.  OHA did not provide a copy of the first draft.  This may be a violation of law.
  • There may be willful misinformation in this sentence in the Executive Summary in the OHA report.  “Overall, the available epidemiology research examining RFR health effects does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that RFR exposure in school settings is associated with adverse health effects.”  School officials and other public officials will read this sentence, stop further reading of the report, and assume that PEMR exposure is safe.  As a result, nearly 600,000 Oregon students could continue to be exposed to PEMR from school Wi-Fi and other wireless network technologies.  (My personal comment: The OHA-report authors don’t seem to know that countries in Europe have already accepted “the evidence of adverse health effects from PEMR exposure” and are removing Wi-Fi from elementary schools.)
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued safety guidelines for public exposure to PEMR but has never conducted research studies to establish RFR safety standards for public exposure.  The FCC does not have the resources or knowledge to prepare these safety standards, and no other U.S. Government health agency has been assigned responsibility to prepare them.

Here is the practical effective way to minimize public RFR exposure: install communication and data networks that use only fiber optic cables and copper wires to buildings.  This approach offers significant advantages over wireless technologies by effectively eliminating outdoor PEMR exposure, reducing energy requirements, providing faster data transfer speeds, and reducing the risk of “data hacking.” Wired networks can be installed in schools with Ethernet cables to student computers set in airplane mode.  Essential wireless technologies can be used inside buildings if they can be shown to be safe.

One may choose to ignore the independent science that identifies harmful effects of man-made pulsed electromagnetic radiation (PEMR); however, even in the absence of symptoms, the science does not grant a choice in how PEMR harms cells in every human and every living thing at extremely low exposure levels.

Please contact me if you have interest in my one-hour in-person presentation on the science and effects of PEMR.  This amount of time is appropriate for a credible overview of the subject, as reported by world experts.   

Respectfully,

Alan D. Rathsam, Founding Member

Oregon for Safer Technology

//inserted by Sharon