+menu-


  • Category Archives Electronic Warfare
  • Kilmer’s 2015 “Wild” Disabling Act

    Kilmer’s 2015 “Wild” Disabling Act

    Representative Kilmer has introduced legislation.

    WILD OLYMPICS: Senator Murray and Representative Kilmer Renew Push to Designate Wilderness, Protect Rivers on Olympic Peninsula

    Jun 4, 2015 Press Release

    (WASHINGTON, D.C.)—Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Representative Derek Kilmer (WA-06) introduced the Wild Olympics Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2015 to protect environmentally sensitive parts of the Olympic Peninsula, support outdoor recreation opportunities, and preserve and grow jobs on the Olympic Peninsula. 

    ——————————————————————————————

    Senator Murray and Representative Kilmer Renew Push….

    True to form, Just like as not they’ll be coming back one of these days, when they are least wanted. Bad penny’s are sure to return.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WE SHALL CALL IT THE KILMER-MURRAY 2015  “WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS” DISABLING ACT.

    The Bills are S 1510 and HR 2665, but the bills have not been made available publicly yet?

     S 1510 was assigned to the Senate committee Energy and Natural Resources and HR 2665 House committee Natural Resources for consideration.

    95% OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IS  ALREADY “WILD OLYMPICS” WILDERNESS

    KILMER AND MURRAY WANT MORE “WILD OLYMPICS” WILDERNESS

    ————————————————————————————

    Olympic Peninsula JOBS DON’T GROW IN THE “WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS”

    Olympic Peninsula  OUR JOBS GROW ON TREES

    Olympic Peninsula  OUR ECONOMY GROWS ON TREES

    Olympic Peninsula  OUR MONEY GROWS ON TREES

    Working forests for working families

    ————————————————————————————–

    The Olympic Peninsula ECONOMY DOES NOT GROW ON WILDERNESS

    The Olympic Peninsula ECONOMY GROWS ON TREES

    The trees that grow in “Wild Olympics’ Wilderness don’t WORK for the ECONOMY

    And, they don’t WORK for Olympic Peninsula WORKING FAMILIES

    —————————————————————–

    The economy is a sensitive part of the OLYMPIC PENINSULA

    Unemployment is a sensitive part of the OLYMPIC PENINSULA

    Poverty is a sensitive part of the OLYMPIC PENINSULA

    ——————————————————————————

    “WE THE PEOPLE” ARE THE MOST “VULNERABLE” THINGS ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA

    Hello KILMER AND MURRAY…

    “We The People” on the Olympic Peninsula are in need of special care support and protection by our Federal elected representatives.

    KILMER AND MURRAY PLEASE STOP Your “Wild Olympics WILDERNESS ACT”

    We shall be hurt, and our lives devastated  by your misrepresentation AND neglect. you are making us susceptible to , physical or emotional attack or $$$$ harm.

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    KILMER AND MURRAY WANT MORE “WILD OLYMPICS” WILDERNESS

    WILDERNESS SUPPORTS WILDFIRES

    WILDFIRES GROW IN WILDERNESS

    WILDERNESS WILDFIRES GROW PROPERTY LOSS

    ————————————————-

    IS THERE ANYTHING WORSE THAN A WILDERNESS WILDFIRE IN A DROUGHT?

    YES, TWO THINGS..

    KILMER AND MURRAY, OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES,  GOING WILD AND NOT SUPPORTING OUR LOCAL PEOPLE, JOBS AND ECONOMY.

    AND BEHIND GREEN DOOR NUMBER TWO

    THE NAVY’S PLAN TO TURN  THE PENINSULA INTO AN ELECTRONIC WARFARE RANGE.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    Green Door’s  2015

    Green door’s, what’s that secret you’re keepin’?
    Within the American intelligence community, “green door” is a slang verb and adjective, relating to the restriction of an individual’s or organization’s access to information and/or locations: “We green doored them,” or “The situation has been highlighted by the ‘Green Door’ compartmentation and exclusion”

    —————————————————————————————————-

    The US Government, CONGRESS  is BOUND AND DETERMINED to take our Public Land, OUR PUBLIC TRUST LAND  and access to our PUBLIC  LAND, OLYMPIC  NATIONAL  PARK away from “WE THE PEOPLE” one way or the other.

    THESE ARE THE NEW DEALS….

    Liberally speaking?  UNTRAMMLED WILD WILDERNESS

    Conservatively speaking?  MILITARY WAR ACTIONS

    GOVERNMENT TAKING FOR  WILD WILDERNESS ACTS OR FOR MILITARY WAR ACTIONS?

    ——————————————————-

    Is Congress  oblivious to  the intent of the ENABLING ACT, WA STATE TRUST LAND

    Is Congress oblivious the intent of Congress in THE CREATION OF  THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

    Or has Congress just become oblivious?   To we the people?

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED MORE JOBS NOT MORE THAN 95% WILDERNESS

    WE SHALL CALL IT THE KILMER-MURRAY 2015 “WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS ” DISABLING ACT.

    KILMER AND MURRAY CAN’T SEE THE WORKING FORESTS FOR THE WILDERNESS TREES.

    —————————————————————-

    WE SHALL HAVE AN “OPPORTUNITY” TO VOTE KILMER AND MURRAY OUT OF OFFICE

    For their misrepresentation and neglect of we the people on the Olympic Peninsula, that shall be hurt, and our lives devastated by

    THE KILMER-MURRAY 2015  “WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS” DISABLING ACT.

    ———————————————————————

    HAS CONGRESS MADE THEIR VALUE JUDGMENT?

    “WILDERNESS OR WAR OVER THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT”

    ———————————————————

    True to form, Just like as not they’ll be coming back one of these days, when they are least wanted. Bad penny’s are sure to return.

    “ Representative Kilmer has introduced legislation to protect some of the most environmentally VULNERABLE areas of the peninsula and has supported funding for the Legacy Roads and Trails program, the Land and Water Conservation fund, the National Park Service, and a variety of other programs that work to protect and provide access our natural treasures.

    The bill was built off of legislation introduced by  Senator Murray and former Representative Norm Dicks that was a result of nearly three years of public engagement with residents, business owners, organizations, and Native American tribes.

     


  • Navy Bombing-Explosives-Sonar?

    Don’t you just love how it started?

    OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT

    FACT IS  He said, “Just a couple of roads for a couple of pick-up trucks”

    ——————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE  JAN. 1, 2015 “HAPPY NEW YEAR”

    FACT IS  In January, THE NAVY RELEASED A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY OF TRAINING EXERCISES AND USE OF SONAR AND EXPLOSIVES in the training zone that includes areas off the North Olympic Peninsula’s Pacific Coast — including the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary — off Indian Island and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

    —————————————
    FACT IS  EXPLOSIVES In the area also are part of the draft document, although the Navy has said that BOMBING exercises take place outside the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which consists of 2,408 square nautical miles off the Olympic Peninsula coastline.

    FACT IS  WHALES AND OTHER SEA MAMMALS DON’T HAVE A CLUE where the BOUNDARIES of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary are located.

     FACT IS  BOMBING, EXPLOSIVES AND SONAR WOULD HARM ENDANGERED SPECIES WHALES AND OTHER SEA MAMMALS.

     FACT IS  THE 1,818-PAGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY, WHICH IS TO SUPPORT THE NAVY’S REQUEST FOR THE RENEWAL OF ITS FIVE-YEAR MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT PERMIT, IS AT http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2.

    ——————————————

    FACT IS  SURTASS LFA Sonar & Issuance of MMPA Letters of …

    www.nmfs.noaa.gov/…/surtass_lfa_2014….

    National Marine Fisheries Service

    Aug 15, 2014 – Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion … authorization for the U.S. Navy to “take” marine mammals …

     FACT IS  a 386 PAGE DOCUMENT Biological Opinion on SURTASS LFA Sonar & Issuance of MMPA Letters of Authorization for 2014-2015 FPR-2014-9082

    These Letters of Authorization would be effective for one year from 15 August 2014 to 14 August 2015.

    FACT IS  LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE U.S. NAVY TO “TAKE” MARINE MAMMALS incidental to those SURTASS LFA sonar activities.

     FACT IS  The purpose of the Navy’s proposed action is to meet the United States’ need for an improved ability to detect quieter and harder-to-find foreign submarines at long range to provide U.S. forces with adequate time to respond to potential submarine threats (Navy, 2012a)

    FACT IS  THIS APPROACH IS CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESS’ INTENT that we coordinate and integrate the decision-making process under MMPA and ESA to the maximum extent practicable, so this opinion ANALYZES THE TRAINING, TESTING AND OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING THE TIME AND IN THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA COVERED by the MMPA regulations, which are limited to “PERIODS OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS.” 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)(i)

    FACT IS  Further, NMFS has determined to structure this consultation in this way to ensure that THE EFFECTS OF REASONABLY ANTICIPATED TRAINING, TESTING AND OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES MAY BE ANALYZED CLOSE IN TIME TO THEIR OCCURRENCE.

    FACT IS  THE STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA  ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS. The international boundary  between Canada and the United States  runs down the center of the Strait. Question is? Has the CANADIAN, British Columbia government been notified by the US government?

     FACT IS  The SONOBUOYS  contract has been  already been signed, sealed and the SONOBUOYS are waiting to be delivered.

    —————————————————

    FACT IS  US Navy to receive passive and active sonobuoys from …

    www.naval-technology.com/…/newsus-erapsco-p…

    Naval‑technology.com

    Sep 2, 2013 – ERAPSCO, a joint venture between Sparton and Ultra Electronics (ULE) subsidiary USSI, has been awarded subcontracts to supply sonobuoys …

    ———————————————————-

    FACT IS  In the draft document released in January, the preferred alternative would increase the tempo of new buoy testing activities from 54 activities with 510 buoys, to 59 activities with 561 buoys.

    FACT IS  The draft environmental impact study and supplement for the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area are separate from a controversial electronic warfare training project in the Olympic Military Operations Area

     FACT IS THE NAVY IS ACCEPTING COMMENTS THROUGH FEB. 2, 2015.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————

    Peninsula Daily News Last modified: December 23. 2014 7:22PM

    NAVY SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON SONAR USE IN TRAINING with supplement to environmental impact statement

    The U.S. Navy has completed a supplement to an environmental impact statement that examines the proposed INCREASED USE OF SONAR IN THE NORTHWEST TRAINING AND TESTING AREA.

    The Northwest Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement is available for public review and comment online at http://tinyurl.com/PDN-eissonar.

    THE NAVY IS ACCEPTING COMMENTS THROUGH FEB. 2, 2015.

    The draft environmental impact study and supplement for the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area are separate from a controversial electronic warfare training project in the Olympic Military Operations Area for which the Navy is seeking U.S. Forest Service permits.

    In January, the Navy released a draft environmental impact study of training exercises and use of sonar and explosives in the training zone that includes areas off the North Olympic Peninsula’s Pacific Coast — including the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary — off Indian Island and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

    Explosives in the area also are part of the draft document, although the Navy has said that bombing exercises take place outside the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which consists of 2,408 square nautical miles off the Olympic Peninsula coastline.

    Following publication of the draft, the Navy determined that updated training requirements would result in changes to the proposed action.

    This supplement presents these changes and “significant new information relevant to environmental concerns,” the Navy said.

    The changes presented in the supplement include an updated requirement for increased use of sonobuoys during training in the Northwest Training Range Complex.

    The supplement also addresses additional analysis related to assessing impacts of ongoing maritime security operations.

    CRITICS HAVE WORRIED THAT SONAR COULD HARM WHALES AND OTHER SEA MAMMALS.

    Sonobuoys are both active, meaning they emit sonar, or inactive, meaning that they only collect sounds. They collect and transmit information about the marine environment and potential threats and targets.

    ————————————————————————————————————–

    US Navy to receive passive and active sonobuoys from …

    www.naval-technology.com/…/newsus-erapsco-p…

    Naval‑technology.com

    Sep 2, 2013 – ERAPSCO, a joint venture between Sparton and Ultra Electronics (ULE) subsidiary USSI, has been awarded subcontracts to supply sonobuoys …

    ——————————————————————–

    Navy orders new supplies of anti-submarine sonobuoys for …

    www.militaryaerospace.com › Home › Sea Technology

    Jul 17, 2014 – Sonobuoys enable Navy ASW forces to detect, track, and pinpoint potentially hostile submarines operating in the open ocean that could be …

    ————————————————————————–
    In the draft document released in January, the preferred alternative would increase the tempo of new buoy testing activities from 54 activities with 510 buoys, to 59 activities with 561 buoys.

    ——————————————————————————————

    Navy Consolidated Sonobuoys

    fas.org/man/dod…/ntsp-Sonobuoy.pdf

    Federation of American Scientists

    NAVY CONSOLIDATED SONOBUOYS i. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. This Navy Training System Plan addresses the continuing development and forthcoming.

    —————————————————————————————–

    All comments on the supplement must be postmarked or received online by the February deadline to be considered in the final document.

    THE 1,818-PAGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY, WHICH IS TO SUPPORT THE NAVY’S REQUEST FOR THE RENEWAL OF ITS FIVE-YEAR MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT PERMIT, IS AThttp://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2.

    Comments on the original draft study were accepted between Jan. 24-April 15 and will be considered in the development of the final statement, the Navy said.

    The supplement can be reviewed at the following locations:

    ■ Jefferson County Library, 620 Cedar Ave., Port Hadlock.

    ■ Port Angeles Library, 2210 S. Peabody St.

    ■ Port Townsend Library, 1220 Lawrence St.

    Public meetings are planned Jan. 12 in Poulsbo, Jan. 13 in Aberdeen, Jan. 14 in Newport, Ore., and Jan. 16 in Eureka, Calif.

    NONE ARE PLANNED ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

    The Navy gave no time line for the process, but said that it planned to adjust training and testing activities “to the level needed to support Navy requirements beginning October 2015.”

    The final environmental impact statement will be released for a 30-day wait period before the Nary makes a decision and releases a record of decision.

    Written comments on the supplement may be submitted via the project website, in person at a public meeting or by mail to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Attn: Ms. Kimberly Kler — NWTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager, 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale, WA 98315-1101.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    The bottom line FACT IS

     NO PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE PLANNED ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

     

     


  • We Need a New Public Notice Act

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    CASES IN POINT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

    1. THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    3.The Pacific Coast Drone project

    4. The Navy residential training that terrorized Port Angeles WA

    5. The West End Broad Band meetings

    6. WA STATE PARKS BLUE RIBBON PANEL

    Best known as, what we don’t notify  American citizens about “CAN” hurt them,

    BUT… it will all be over before American people find out what the hell is going on, so no worries.

    American people won’t feel a thing until after the comment period has expired.

    Then American people can read all about it in the local newspaper, after it’s been passed, to find out what’s in it, what it is and what it was all about.

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    WOW… READ ALL ABOUT IT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    —————————————————————————————–

    HERE AND NOW? IN THE REAL WORLD of “We the People”

    WHAT IS THE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    IF YOU ARE HAVING A LOCAL, HUGE MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SALE, RUMMAGE SALE OR FLEA MARKET?

    AND YOU REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME?

    You advertise in advance. YOU POST BIG SIGNS WITH THE WHERE AND WHEN every couple of blocks with BIG ARROWS TO KEEP REMINDING AND  INVITING  THE PUBLIC.

    LOCALLY YOU SEE A BIG RUMMAGE SALE BANNER ACROSS FRONT STREET

    AND OUR RADIO STATION KONP GOES ON AND ON ABOUT LOCAL GARAGE SALES

    AND GUYS WEARING SANDWICH BOARDS, DOING THE HAPPY DANCE IN FRONT OF LES SCHWABS, FOR A FLEA MARKET.

    The BIG BANNER across front street even notified THE HOMELESS to come on down to the Vern Burton center and  sign up for local HOMELESS programs and benefits.

    —————————————————————–

    I have mentioned the Real World phenomena  of advertising at Planning Commission Meetings.

    A private (government) response was? “This is not the real world”

    —————————————————————————————-

    OH..BUT… IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO  ADVERTISE AND NOTIFY THE AFFECTED LOCAL’S?

    As FOX NEWS,  Judge Jeanine would say….REALLY?

    —————————————————————————

    After the of the Navy’s PUBLIC FORUM FIASCO in PA,  on Electronic Warfare on  the Olympic Peninsula.

    FIASCO? by definition,  a total failure, especially a humiliating or ludicrous one

    —————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  WHAT CAN”WE THE PEOPLE DO”?

    Expose them, every time there is a  fatal error in Due Process

    Remind them of WA State Law RCW 42.56.030

    THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW. etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Use Clallam County Home Rule to create a more stringent  public notification and participation process by the county and for the residents of Clallam County, including COUNTY FUNDING for REAL WORLD  advertising.

    Great minds think alike

    HERE IS THE LOCAL SOLUTION

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    Contents

    THREE MINUTES AT THE MICROPHONE

    HOW OUTDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION LAWS ARE CORRODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    POLICY OPTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

    A MODEL MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE

    A MODEL STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

    AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

    ACT AND GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

    THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT FOR VOICE

    RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

    ………………………………………………………………

    From the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

    Tired of tense, unproductive public meetings? Want to embed better online and face-to-face processes in the way governments work? Making Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League, includes a set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The publication is now available for free. Download here. 

    Most of the laws that govern public participation in the United States are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they predate the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public officials and staff are wondering whether the best practices in participation are in fact supported – or even allowed – by the law.

    Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has produced new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. The Working Group has been coordinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

    Making Public Participation Legal is a publication of the National Civic League, with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. The Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar AssociationInternational Municipal Lawyers AssociationNational League of CitiesPolicy Consensus InitiativeInternational Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

    Communities that want to move forward with new public engagement processes and policies can also turn to an array of new resources being offered through ICMA’s Center for Management Strategies. CMS has assembled a team of leading engagement practitioners, research specialists, and subject matter experts who can help local governments develop and implement effective civic engagement programs.

    —————————————————————————

    WOW AND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER

    AND 15 NEW CHARTER MEMBERS

    AND THREE CONSERVATIVE COMMISSIONERS

    HOT DAMN… LET’S GO FOR IT..

     

     


  • A Comment on Electronic Warfare

    She was there..
    This is her comment
    —————————-
    Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:27 AM
    Subject: Olympic peninsula electronic warfare
    —————————————————————–

    Hey Gang

    Great turn out in Pacific Beach. I’d say a good 90% were no more convinced by the meetings end, that the health and safety for human, wildlife or the natural environment, the NAVY EA claims to be safe, really AREN’T proven to be. But who are we to question the Navy?

    Or is it even the Navy we should be questioning?
    Two highly qualified guests on both National Defense and the Environment were present speaking on behalf of the Public concerns as well as opinions of their own.

    PB was happy to welcome Craig B Hulet who has 35 years experience in International Relations,

    Military, Terrorism, Business and Security under his belt. He has been a consultant to Federal law enforcement DEA, ATF&E on Justice and Homeland Security for over 25 years and has written many books on the Geopolitical climate in these areas.

    Karen Sullivan biologist and environmental Science professional was also welcomed and shared the suspected/known dangers of this type of EW technology on ALL life itself.

    The technology that has never been proven safe but only assumed safe and

    still not properly tested. I can’t thank them enough for the informative comments and questions addressed to the Navy. You can view the 139 page PDF of Mr. Hulets scope 

    on the Navy’s 228 page EW Warfare PDF on his website. Just google Craig B Hulet or Karen Sullivan for websites and information pertaining to EW warfare on the Olympic Peninsula. READ these informative PDF’s.

    These contain points from some of the issues discussed at the meeting. I tried to forward the PDF’s but ran into All kinds

    of problems and a clogged up mail box that I can’t delete the sending process from.

    I hope I didn’t pass the mail problem on to all you too.

    Nothing in my outbox, no mail, but it just keeps sending and failing and sending and failing????????? geesh!

    Any way. The outcome of this meeting? I can only give my opinion.

    DOG and PONY SHOW by the Navy? YES. They did what they were

    sent out to do. Read from parts of the 228 page EA assessment and try to verify it’s solidity.
    The Navy stated,  they are up in the skies now! They have been there since the 1940’s. (what’s new?).  They’ve increased their air traffic and flight patterns since 2008 when they started talking about implementing these War plans here,

    with the USFS and the Committee of Armed Forces (that would be Ex-Dicks and

    currently Kilmer?). Yep mister wild lands man himself under the “green mask” was

    here to take land for the federal government in more ways then one, apparently 

    The green groups who secured his position in the House (for his push on Federal

    takeover of PUBLIC lands for locked up wilderness), got their wish. 2 days or so

    after the elections WILD OLYMPICS RE-surfaced.

    Waste no time Kilmer did his part! just days before the Navy’s Warfare Plans

    surfaced, with little to no public knowledge of it’s existence. Has the green party’s

    spiritual environmental plans been crushed?

     WOAH…. Nellie! Right in the thick of it! Gordon and his tam wearing team were

    there just like little statues in a row, as always.  Lining up with panic stricken faces.

    We warned green parties this was not about wilderness or the future of our forests,

    our natural resources or our children and grandchildren.

    It was about occupation and federal control to do ANYTHING and everything

    they deem fit. I think some are catching the clue.

    They must have forgotten  Wa. State has an “Obama Congress”.

    Starry eyed, the green parties believed they were the “chosen ones”. SURPRISE?

    Look who’s pushed them off their table? Their own congressman? 

    What? Never mentioning PUBLICLY EW warfare was already in the making long

    before choking out the worthless, Wild Olympics debacle? Does it matter in which way

    the Federal Government takes our PUBLIC, PRIVATE or RESOURCE lands away? I’m sure they will be very curious to ask congressman Wild Kid bilkhawk what the deal is. Never know when things will come back to kick ones ass (heehaw).
    By the end of the meeting. It was pretty much written in plain black and white.
    Done Deal – To Bad – We’re already here AND DON’T PLAN ON GOING ELSEWHERE

    nor did they give the impression they would be forced to. The Military will

    basically trump the wilderness laws and up their flight activity a said 10%.
    Since 2008 we’ve seen it take a 10% or more leap in air activity already.

    The Military would not discuss the current chemtrailing.

    Their response to that was “we’re here to address the EW only”.

    They were not qualified to speak on anything but the EW presentation.

    They brushed that off their shoulders quite easily. So perhaps another day,

    with another dollar we’ll have to ask for PUBLIC transparency on the military activity

    that is currently spraying our skies and manipulating the natural environment

    in our atmosphere.
    The Military reasoning for moving here was, to save government costs and

    to bring military families closer together with their servicemen.
    (REALLY? I thought that was part of what a military family was geared to compensate for? 

    The possibility of a family serviceman or woman being called upon at any time

    to go preform their duties? That’s what they sign up for. Has the military become

    whiners now too under Obama-man? 

    Perhaps obama feels our military should be

    equal to the same room and board the foreign invaders are receiving with every illegals,

    father, brothers, sons, mothers, daughters cousins and their strings of children

    are now getting for busting over our borders. Closer family accommodations.

    450 Jose’s a day? Pick your family we will pay)

    Sorry everybody I couldn’t help myself).

    Saving on Government costs?

     
    FYI – One growler jet burns up to 1000 gal of fuel per hour. 8 hours of exercises

    (cut down from their original 12) per day and estimated 11 exercises per week.

    88,000 Gal. of fuel per week? HELLO EMISSIONS!

    The Olympic pristine environment?

    MOVE IT ON OVER!

    Human carbon emissions? Stop breathing or pay a higher price for your airspace!

    The US Navy is here.
    Violations were found by the USFS failures

    to go through necessary approval processes including Nepa assessment. 

    The Navy had the Nepa EA permit processing guidelines approved only.

    No sound testing for using this technology just guidelines they must follow.

    Of coruse they said they would follow. But no proof can be presented, without production,

    so to speak.
    Last but not least a question asked to the Navy: What are the health and safety

    concerns you have taken to protect the officers that will be operating inside of

    these emitter trucks at very close range and doesn’t this present a greater danger

    to them?

    The Navy stated under the their strict frequency guidelines and airspace,

    where these mobile emitters will be directing these waves (away from the truck),

    they foresee no problem or danger. Now here’s the “Tell all”.
    Also these won’t be Navy officers, they will be CIVILIANS who will be inside

     

     

    the emitter trucks!!!!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT DIANNE????

    I heard C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S.

    Correct me if I’m wrong
    So in other words,  if there are any guinea pigs out there, will you please raise your hands?

    Put the young boys on the front lines and civilians in the electromagnetic emitter trucks.

    Sound about right? What difference does it make? They are just numbers on paper,

    no special significance, just numbers similar to the young Viet-Nam war casualties.


    Lots of Reading to do on this highly controversial Warfare training.

    Both Craig B Hulet’s PDF and Karen Sullivens PDF are well worth your time

    in understanding the issues on all sides of the spectrum.
    A BIG thanks to Grays Harbor Commissioner Wes Cormier

    for arranging the Meeting in Grays Harbor County that Congressman Kilmer

    had no time for and felt it insignificant.

    Very poor representation on Kilmers part, our fine member on the board of

    The Committee Of Armed Forces. Ever hear him mention EW during his

    “visiting the naval base” back patting appearances?
    Lots of Quinault Residents showed up! NICE TO SEE.
    Only so much can be accomplished at an “informational” public meeting.

    From my observation this “informational” meeting proved only, that much

    more discussion needs to take place, more knowledge brought forward from all

    sides and many undocumented legal processes need to be thoroughly applied for

    and also studied before this plan should be allowed to move forward and be fully

    implemented. The comment period needs to be extended through next year I feel.

    BIG issues should not be allowed to offer the general public only a LITTLE time frame

    in order to bring all the necessary agencies and proper channels together to provide

    honest factual representation of this “proposed action. If you catch the scent of dead fish

    in the air you’ll know where it’s coming from.

    I personally see a Military coupe over U.S. Citizens coming in and taking the coast

    and half of Washington State with it. As Craig Hulet said (in so many words) he has never

    known the Military to stop in growth, once boots are on the ground.

    Move it on over the big bad dogs moving in. Remember,  the Military takes it’s orders

    from who ????????
    I believe this goes far deeper than Dean the Bean Millett.

    He’s the stoolie. I do believe most all of the Peninsula and half the Seattle and Tacoma

    and beyond have big issues with Dean.
    FYI – The USFS was not their to represent their case on their permit proposal.

    Dodging tomatoes can be exhilarating. Dean must be hiding under Mother May I’s apron strings.


    Who controls the USFS?
    Who controls the DEPT of INTERIOR and DEFENSE.

    Do we even know anymore? for sure?

    This has all the signs pointing to Agenda 21 full speed ahead and I do believe

    the military is here to begin it’s UN implementation. The Navy is extending their

    presence here to do this under orders, to do the job they are assigned to do. 

    I can respect that. But BY WHO’S IRON FIST? and for WHO’S real purpose.

    Does the military even know anymore?

    I guess it’s not their job to know. They are our Armed Forces and take

    the orders from the (choke) commander in chief by way of DHS/DOD, when the commander

    himself is out at a golf game and unavailable to take responsibility for action on anything. 

    No questions are supposed to be asked, they just serve.


    I love our Military and do genuinely thank them for their service and dedication. What would

    we have done in the past without them? I myself haven’t enough guts that come anywhere

    near the courage and dedication it takes to put their lives on the line everyday during

    training or actual combat missions. I appreciate what they do but I don’t feel this is the

    place to do it.

    Who can we trust anymore during a time when the American people seem to be under siege

    by their own U.S. President? to be turned over into hands of the United Nations warlord

    banking cartel?

    My instincts tell me to DUCK! cause we are under fire

    Well Doug and Dianne were there and may have absorbed things a bit differently.

    I know Dianne’s not shy so if I’ve crossed my wires, she will correct me.

    So Dianne please share how you comprehended what was revealed from this meeting and where you foresee this all going.
    My next Digest will follow the Grays Harbor SMP  Dec 17 also at Pacific Beach.
    Cheers!

     


  • WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    PLUS….  Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit  to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training in the Olympic National Forest?

    How in the world are Rep Kilmer and Senator Patty Murray going to pull this one off?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Dear elected public representatives and appointed administrative rulers, Federal, state, county and city (AKA Public Servants)

    This is the best OBJECTION, by Karen Sullivan, I have every read on the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project

    Described to me by District Ranger Dean Millett as no big deal…

    “JUST A COUPLE OF ROADS FOR A COUPLE OF PICKUPS”

    PS – Just so you know, SHE is only one person, SIMPLY A CONCERNED CITIZEN who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. HER email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and SHE cannot always answer every one, but SHE WILL  try. If we all lend our
    voices to Karen Sullivan  AND speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!
    ————————————————————————————–

    Complete  text by Karen Sullivan  November 14, 2014

    Below is a clear proposal from a former employee who maps out why the
    proposed activity is not legal.  From the document:

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    Dear Friends and Colleagues,

    Attached both as a PDF file and pasted into the body of this message,
    please find a summary of the ways in which I believe federal law has been
    violated by the Navy and the Forest Service, in the so-called public
    process and documentation associated with the Navy’s proposed
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training program for the Olympic
    National Forest.

    The reason for this lengthy document ( nearly 6000 words) is that neither unanimous public
    opposition nor the 2,000+ public comments submitted to the Forest Service
    so far have been found by the decision-maker, District Ranger Dean Millett,
    to be “substantive.”  Evidently, emotional pleas, descriptions of probable
    harm to small businesses and simple principled objections are discounted.
    Therefore, in order to rectify that lack as perceived by the Forest
    Service, I have attempted to give more substantive reasons why the Navy’s
    Environmental Assessment is defective and deficient and should be withdrawn
    or completely revised, and the Special Use Permit refused.

    I hope we can bring the total to 3,000 comments or more. Please feel free
    to use the information in here, share it and encourage more people to
    comment. You can comment more than once. Just go to:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759
    and submit them.
    Best,
    Karen Sullivan

    PS – Just so you know, I’m only one person, simply a concerned citizen who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. My email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and I cannot always answer every one, but I’ll try. If we all lend our
    voices to speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    *Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit *
    *to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training *
    *in the Olympic National Forest*
    *Contents:*
    *1. Summary*
    *2. Violations of Federal NEPA Law*
    *3. Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan *
    *4. Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*
    *5. Fraudulent Noise Measurements*
    *6. No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*
    *7. Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*
    *8. Conclusion*

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    *Part 1*

    *Summary*
    The US Navy is proposing to take large swathes of Washington’s Olympic
    National Forest plus a large amount of airspace over Olympic National Park
    and the communities in the area, to run electronic warfare attack and
    detection testing and training, for 260 days per year, permanently, using
    at least 36 new supersonic attack jets and radiation emitters on the
    ground, in 15 locations. The Navy has refused to hold true public hearings
    in affected communities on the Olympic Peninsula, citing not enough money
    in their $11.5 million dollar budget. Each new jet costs between $68
    million and $77 million, depending on which figure is used, so the total
    equipment budget is approximately $2,785,500,000. No public notices were
    printed in any newspapers that directly serve the affected communities.

    *The issue boils down to:* Should the Forest Service issue a Special Use
    Permit to the Navy to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to run their
    electronic radiation-emitting truck-and-trailer combinations, which would
    entail numerous unannounced forest closures and other problems? In a
    Machivellian twist, Dean Millett, the Forest Service District Ranger who
    will be making the decision on whether or not to issue the permit, has been
    limited to a very narrow scope, considering only the impacts and effects
    from the truck-and-trailer rigs and nothing else. No jet noise, no jet
    emissions or fuel dumps, no hazards from air-based electronic attack
    weapons, no chronic radiation, no fire danger, or other concerns brought up
    by the public are being considered in issuing this permit. These other
    concerns have been labeled by Mr Millett as being “outside of his decision
    space.” Yet if he issues the permit for road use by the Navy’s emitters, it
    will trigger all of the other testing and training actions and their
    impacts, none of which were evaluated in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment of September 2014.  The Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement of
    2010 is unavailable for public comment because the Navy removed it from
    their web site.

    *A military program of electronic warfare on public land* qualifies as a
    major federal action and is thus subject to a public process under the
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. This process includes
    hearings in affected communities whenever there is environmental
    controversy. These hearings must be in accordance with NEPA guidelines,
    which safeguard the public’s right to be heard.  In addition, the
    scientific evidence to back up statements must be thorough, accurate, and
    available for public scrutiny. In this case, the public’s right to know and
    participate has been severely abridged and the Navy’s “science” and legal
    maneuverings for justifying all of these impacts to our communities are
    shakier than the San Andreas Fault.
    *If the permit is issued,* it will likely affect other National Forest
    lands as well, all of which have long been considered appropriate for
    “…military training when compatible with other uses and in conformity with
    applicable Forest Plans,” in a Memorandum of Understanding between the
    Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. In the Ocala
    National Forest in Florida, for example, the Navy maintains a live bombing
    range located half a mile from one campground and two miles from another.
    This is probably not what Theodore Roosevelt had in mind when he moved the
    Forest Service from the Department of the Interior to the Department of
    Agriculture.

    District Ranger Millett is expected to sign the permit despite almost
    unanimous public opposition, *unless the Forest Service receives formally
    and in writing what he called “substantive” comments by the end of the
    comment period on November 28*, *2014*. Mr Millett declined to define
    “substantive” when asked at a public informational meeting. Therefore, it
    is the aim of this document to provide readers with the best examples of
    substantive comments possible, short of legal advice from an attorney.

    *Public comments can be sent* to: dmillett@fs.fed.us, gtwahl@fs.fed.us, and
    inputted directly online at:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759

    *Part 2*

    *Violations of Federal NEPA Law*

    *1. Failure to notify the public:* The Navy has violated the National
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to adequately notify the
    public. One 8”X11” poster stuck on bulletin boards at a couple of post
    offices, combined with tiny notices placed in a few newspapers many miles
    away from those that directly serve affected communities, are a ludicrous
    excuse for notifying the entire population of the Olympic Peninsula.
    Congressman Derek Kilmer’s office sent the Navy a packet with contact
    information for all the local newspapers in affected communities, along
    with a request to prominently post public notices in those papers. Neither
    the Navy nor the Forest Service placed a single notice in any local papers
    serving Olympic Peninsula communities. This is a clear violation of the
    spirit and intent of NEPA as well, and a bad faith gesture to residents of
    the Olympic Peninsula.

    *Why did the Navy discard requests from a congressman and deliberately
    violate federal law in their public notification process?*

    *2.  Failure to record public comments: *Due to the high volume of
    complaints received, Rep. Kilmer asked the Navy to hold public meetings.
    Since then the Navy has made it repeatedly clear that were it not for
    Congressman Kilmer’s request for public meetings, there would be none on
    the Olympic Peninsula. Instead of holding hearings under NEPA, however, the
    Navy and Forest Service held “Informational Meetings.” The fact that none
    of the public’s comments were officially recorded at any of the meetings in
    Forks, Port Angeles and Pacific Beach has further upset people’s confidence
    in government and muddied the understanding of the NEPA process. Most are
    wondering why they aren’t getting a fair shake under normal NEPA procedure.
    CEQ regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the
    public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR
    1506.6(a)). “Informational meetings” fulfill neither NEPA requirements nor
    the public’s desire to comment, ask questions, and receive answers,
    especially when people are given one minute to speak and then interrupted
    frequently. The Navy has failed to conduct a proper NEPA process.

    *Why does the Navy refuse to hold hearings and record public comments?*

    * 3. Commenters are given no legal “standing:”* Since none of the hundreds
    of people who have attended the Navy’s informational meetings have had
    their comments recorded, none have any legal standing in the NEPA process,
    unless they submitted their comments again through other avenues that
    require knowing the email addresses of certain officials, or knowing where
    the Forest Service’s web-based NEPA page is. Had these been true public
    hearings, all of those people would now have legal standing, because many
    also held printed comments in their hands, ready to submit after they
    finished speaking. In the Port Angeles meeting, both the Navy and Forest
    Service dismissed the idea of recording comments despite being repeatedly
    challenged to by attendees. The public’s right to a full hearing is
    codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR, and in the State of
    Washington Revised Code, at RCW 42.30.

    *Why were commenters at public meetings given no legal standing in the NEPA
    process?*

    *4. What legal standing means:* Any grievances the public has about
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training MUST be addressed in public
    comments first, in order to have legal standing, which means we are giving
    the Forest Service and the Navy notice that we, the public, think these
    grievances should be addressed. If those grievances are not rectified, any
    legal actions on behalf of the public that follow would have more
    authority, because the Navy had been aware of the grievances yet chose not
    to address them. Without legal standing, those legal actions on behalf of
    the public would likely have less authority due to the implication of no
    notice of grievance being given in public comments. This is a denial of due
    process as stipulated in NEPA, and a distortion of the true amount of
    public concern. On page 1-8 of the Environmental Assessment, the Navy
    states, “No comments were received on the draft EA.” That is *exactly* the
    fear of people who attended those meetings, that their comments would not
    be acknowledged and that the absence of their comments will be reflected
    similarly by the Navy as it did in the EA, thus implying less public
    interest than there really is.

    *5. When hearings are required:* Public meetings or hearings “…are required
    when there may be substantial environmental controversy concerning the
    environmental effects of the proposed action, a substantial interest in
    holding the meeting, or a request for a meeting by another agency with
    jurisdiction over the action.” (40 CFR 1506.6 (c)).  Proper hearings under
    NEPA have not been held in affected communities, and the usual citizen’s
    right to register comments at public hearings has been denied. Therefore
    the Navy and the Forest Service have violated NEPA in this regard, too.

    *Why are the Navy and Forest Service discounting the extreme level of
    public sentiment that is being amply demonstrated in other ways besides
    formal written comments? *

    *6. Written comments are also being discounted:* Despite the level of
    public concern remaining extremely high, District Ranger Dean Millett was
    recorded on videotape during the meeting in Port Angeles saying that as of
    November 6, with regard to formal written public comments, the Forest
    Service had received “nothing substantive” that would stop him from signing
    the permit. He is looking exclusively for defects in the Environmental
    Assessment, and insists that public opinion doesn’t count if people simply
    express their objections. He also has said that 2,000 written comments are
    “not a lot” and have had no effect on him. The comment period has been
    extended twice, yet the public is still struggling to wade through the
    nearly 5,000 pages of scientific and technical documentation, much of which
    remains unavailable to them. By not allowing the public sufficient time to
    catch up with a process they entered late, through no fault of their own,
    and by not allowing them time to develop substantive comments, the Forest
    Service is compromising NEPA law.

    *What is the point of a public comment process if the Forest Service
    ignores public opinion?*

    *This is why the Forest Service needs to extend the comment period to the
    end of January, so that the public has enough time to understand the issues
    well enough to make “substantive” comments, and so that the holidays won’t
    interfere with that. *

    *7. Other agencies not consulted:*  Neither Olympic National Park nor the
    State DNR, whose lands will be affected by the mobile emitters, were
    consulted during the drafting of the Environmental Assessment. If they were
    consulted afterward, then where is the public record of those
    consultations? This is another failure on the part of the Navy in its NEPA
    procedure.  Also, neither DNR nor the Park Service were represented at any
    of the informational meetings. Why not?  Failure to consult with other
    affected agencies is a violation of federal law.

    *Part 3*

    *Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan*

    *8. Public interest is paramount: *By signing the permit, the Forest
    Service places itself in violation of its own Forest Management Plan, and
    the National Forest Management Act. No outside agency, including the
    Department of Defense, has the right to override the Forest Service’s own
    Forest Management Plans and conduct activities that place their priorities
    over those of the public. The Forest Service’s own regulations state that
    military use of public lands is not permissible if the military has other
    “suitable and available” lands for their Proposed Action, and Forest
    Service management policy states that when considering issuing such a
    permit, “…the interests and needs of the general public shall be given
    priority over those of the applicant.”  The Navy has not adequately
    demonstrated that it has not investigated the use of private or other
    lands, and its reasons for wanting to move the entire electronic warfare
    program from Mountain Home, Idaho to the Olympic National Forest are not
    enough: fuel savings and ease of scheduling for training are insufficient
    justification to override the overwhelming socioeconomic and environmental
    interests of the public.

    *Why are the needs and desires of the public not being given priority over
    the desires of the Navy?*

    *9. Special Use Permit screening checklist*:  Among its 14 requirements,
    the Forest Service’s own checklist for considering applications says, “Use
    will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or safety AND
    Use will not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy AND
    Use will not unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use by
    the Forest Service, other scheduled or authorized existing uses on or
    adjacent to non-National Forest System lands.”

    (36CFR 251.54; FSH 2709.11 12.2 & 12.3; FSM 2703)

    *Part 4*

    *Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*

    *10. Documents still unavailable:* Though the Forest Service’s NEPA home
    page links to the Navy’s Environmental Assessment and its decision
    documents, neither it nor the Navy web pages contain links to the 2010 EIS,
    which was removed from public access by the Navy, or the previous EIS’s
    going back to 1989 that have been cited by the Navy in meetings, or the
    Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2010 Biological Opinion, which is not posted
    anywhere, or to the temporary permit that was issued by the Forest Service
    to the Navy three years ago, or to the Memorandum of Understanding that
    declared military training to be an “appropriate use” of national forest
    lands, or to supporting documents referenced in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment, such as Joint Publication 3-13.1, which describes the methods
    and intent of electronic attack weapons on the Growler jets that will be
    training in the Olympic National Forest.

    This is a violation of NEPA, which says such pertinent documents shall be
    made available to the public for scrutiny.  (18CFR 380.9).  Moreover, an
    explanation of the Forest Service’s own updated NEPA handbook says, “…NEPA
    procedures regulations [sic] are intended to let interested parties become
    more effectively engaged in the decision making process rather than merely
    as reviewer of proposals and final documents. Specifically, the regulations
    include an option for responsible officials to incrementally develop,
    modify, and document proposed actions and alternatives through an open and
    transparent process.”

    *If District Ranger Dean Millett is the responsible official who has the
    power to make the public review process more open and transparent, then why
    does he not do it?*

    *11. Navy dismisses entire categories of impacts:*  On page ES-2 of the
    Environmental Assessment the Navy states, “Cumulative impacts of the
    Proposed Action, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
    foreseeable future impacts, were analyzed. Based on the analysis, cumulative
    impacts within the EW Range Study Area would not be significant.” On page
    4-1 the Navy says, “The cumulative impacts analysis in this EA focused on
    impacts that are “truly meaningful,” in accordance with CEQ guidance
    (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The level of analysis for each
    resource was commensurate with the intensity of the impacts.” Also, “…this
    EA dismissed from further analysis the actions and environmental
    considerations that were considered not reasonably forseeable.” *The Navy
    is not allowed to dismiss environmental considerations* it considers not
    meaningful or foreseeable during a NEPA process; this is a violation of
    NEPA, which does not allow an agency such leeway. In November 2009, a
    federal court judge ruled that a faulty impacts analysis in a NEPA process
    may subject the government to financial liability later. In early 2010, the
    Obama administration announced plans to require analysis of the proposed
    action’s relation to climate change, along with impacts on land use,
    biological diversity, and air and water quality. While analysis of
    cumulative impacts has been the subject of disagreement among agencies, *the
    Navy has provided in its EA neither peer-reviewed citations nor detailed
    analysis on any of the following topics, all of which would be in the
    public’s interest:*

    a. Socioeconomic impacts to communities from increased jet noise and air
    pollution;

    b. Impacts to wilderness values in Olympic National Park;

    c. Cultural factors, including traditional uses of land;

    d. Analysis of multiple stressors on humans, endangered species, and other
    wildlife;

    e. Analysis of chronic radiation effects on humans, wildlife and habitats,
    including aquatic; (There was no mention in the EA of the U.S. Department
    of Interior’s February 7, 2014 critique of the FCC’s outdated dismissal of
    radiation concerns, see

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf  )

    f. Evaluation of the protection of children, environmental justice, water,
    land use, and geology;

    g. Analyses on population effects on threatened bird species, particularly
    the cumulative effects of noise and electromagnetic radiation on the
    northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, in whose critical habitat areas
    most of the Navy’s emitter sites will be located;

    h. Analysis of the effects of electromagnetic radiation and loud sounds on
    migrating shorebirds, geese, ducks, and other non-listed birds;

    Additionally, there were none of these:

    9. Cost analysis for jet fuel savings from not flying an extra 400 miles,
    versus effects on the environment.

    i. Analysis of other sites as alternatives to the Olympic MOA, including
    private lands.

    j. Analysis of the increased fire danger posed by jet and drone crashes,
    sparks from vehicle transmitters or operators’ cigarettes, or misdirected
    electromagnetic beams from either the transmitters or from jets, hitting
    tinder-dry vegetation;

    k. Analysis of the interaction and effects of climate change as a potential
    magnifier of impacts.

    *Why did the Navy not do its homework?*

    *Did the Forest Service assess each segment of the Olympic National Forest
    to be used by the Navy with an initial focus on identifying and evaluating
    the wide variety of impacts and potential risks to resources?  Were these
    risks rated as high, medium or low? Did the Forest Service assess impacts
    from jet emissions, jet and drone crashes, possible fires caused by said
    activities, along with other impacts, including but not limited to:  Loss
    of National Forest public revenue, loss of use by the public, the scope and
    number of acres needed for use by the Navy, the scope of the habit in that
    area, etc.  If there is potential damage, how will Navy restore these
    areas?  *

    *Were the above factors, if investigated by the U.S. Forest Service,
    reviewed by the Forest Botany and Wildlife Team? During their review, did
    they specifically consider the influence of electronic and electromagnetic
    affects to species such as fragmentation, disturbance, and potential loss
    of habitat quality?*

    *Part 5*

    *Fraudulent Noise Measurements*

    *12. Jet noise not accurately measured for assessing impacts:*  At a
    meeting with residents in Coupeville on the topic of jet noise, a Navy
    representative described the process of sound measurement as that of
    placing a GE engine on a test platform on the ground, turning it on and
    recording its noise. That data is fed into noise mapping software that
    considers land contour data. The processed data was then averaged with
    quiet time over the length of a year to produce a “Day-Night Average,” as
    is done at commercial airports by the FAA. No live jet takeoffs or landings
    were measured in establishing the Day-Night Average, according to the Navy
    official, nor was the frequent use of afterburners ever factored into those
    sound levels, nor was the significant extra noise from extended flaps,
    landing gear and speed brakes included.

    The Navy developed a decibel average of 65, which is under the limit for
    hearing damage but over the limit, according to the Navy’s own figures, for
    residential development. 65 decibels does not, however, account for the
    times when the decibel level *inside* some residential homes is above 100,
    which is more than enough to cause hearing loss, or the fact that at some
    homes at Admiral’s Cove the decibel level has been measured by an
    independent sound professional, at 134.2.  Growler jets are louder than the
    Prowlers they are replacing, and the Navy has promised that the minimum
    altitude they will be flying over land is 1200 feet. That has been
    frequently contradicted by hikers on mountainous forest trails, who have
    reported seeing jets fly past beneath them. According to the Navy’s own
    figures, a Growler jet flying at 1000 feet produces a “Single Event Level”
    of 113 decibels, which is enough to damage hearing and cause medical
    problems in people subjected to it. In the Roosevelt-Okanogan Military
    Training Area the Navy is authorized to fly at 300 feet above ground level.
    It is not clear what would prevent them from authorizing that lower
    altitude in the Olympic National Forest.

    A recent study called Community Aircraft Noise: A Public Health Issue
    identified serious health effects in Coupeville, WA, caused by chronic and
    acute noise episodes:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/Files/Community%20Aircraft%20Noise_A%20Public%20Health%20Issue.pdf

    *With regard to jet noise and emissions,* the “Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve”
    on Whidbey Island have created a web page which includes this Links and
    Files section, full of valuable information:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/LinksAndFiles.html

    *As a result of the Navy’s apparent underestimation of sound levels* caused
    by jets, the effects of loud noise on threatened and endangered species in
    the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Navy, which was
    begun in 2009 and issued in 2010, may be based on inaccurate or misleading
    information from the Navy. If this is indeed the case, that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service was given inaccurate or misleading information on which to
    base its evaluation of biological impacts, then the Biological Opinion
    should be considered invalid and formal consultation re-initiated under
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, using actual sound measurements
    from real jets. Providing deliberately misleading information to a federal
    agency is also considered a form of fraud or false statement under US Code,
    Chapter 47. There may be other applicable laws that were violated.

    *What is the real level of sound produced by Navy jets, and why was this
    information not incorporated into impact studies, and shouldn’t the Navy be
    required to change its measurement system to the full spectrum of noise
    generated by actual aircraft?*

    *Part 6*

    *No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*

    *13. The Forest Service conducted no independent research:* At the Port
    Angeles meeting, District Ranger Dean Millett acknowledged and is recorded
    on videotape saying that *the Forest Service did not conduct any
    independent investigation to verify the Navy’s claims of no significant
    impacts*. This violates the Forest Service’s own policies as well as the
    law. For example, the Environmental Assessment dismisses potential impacts
    on everything that does not fall into its category of “observable
    wildlife.” It inaccurately states that amphibians and reptiles only exist
    around marshes and meadows. On page 3.2-6 it says, “The proposed activities
    do not occur on marshes or in meadows; therefore, it is highly unlikely
    that amphibians or reptiles would occur in the project area.”

    A similar statement dismisses the possibility of amphibians or reptiles
    occurring on “disturbed areas” such as roadside pull-outs where mobile
    transmitters would operate.  The Forest Service is presumably aware that
    the Olympic National Forest is designated a temperate rainforest, which
    means it is damp and wet during much of the year, and is prime habitat for
    amphibians such as frogs, newts, and salamanders throughout, which can be
    quite far from “marshes and meadows.” Furthermore, both amphibians and
    reptiles (e.g., snakes and lizards) often frequent cleared or “disturbed”
    areas. Dismissing amphibians and reptiles from consideration is misleading
    and unlawful, because amphibians are especially sensitive to
    electromagnetic radiation, particularly in their larval stages. Along with
    omissions of important analyses and data previously discussed, such blatant
    misstatements of fact *preclude informed public comment*, raise serious
    questions about the integrity of the preparers, and renders the entire
    Environmental Assessment and the permit that is intended to be based on it,
    suspect. *The US Forest Service has a duty to conduct its own independent
    scientific review* of the impacts of activities that it allows or condones.
    An agency cannot simply adopt the conclusions of another agency.

    *If the Forest Service questions the Navy’s data, then why has it not done
    its own independent investigations?  And if it does not question the Navy’s
    data, why not?*

    *14. The Courts have spoken:*  The above comments amply demonstrate the
    need for the Forest Service to conduct its own scientific review.  In Save
    Our Ecosystems V. P Clark E Merrell, http://openjurist.org/747/f2d/1240 the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The Forest Service must do research
    if no adequate data exists.” In Foundation for North American Wild Sheep V.
    US Department of Agriculture, the Ninth Circuit Court said, “the very
    purpose of NEPA’s requirement that an EIS be prepared for all actions that
    may significantly affect the environment is to obviate the need for such
    speculation by insuring that available data is gathered and analyzed prior
    to the implementation of the proposed action.” 681 F.2d at 1179. In Warm
    Springs Dam Task Force V. Gribble, the Court held that an agency cured the
    defect in its EIS by commissioning a study about the effects of a newly
    discovered fault system on that dam. 621 F.2d at 1025-26.

    *15. Other courts have imposed similar requirements on agencies*. See,
    e.g., Rankin v. Coleman, 394 F.Supp. 647, 658 (highway project enjoined for
    inadequate EIS on effects and alternatives; alternatives must be
    “affirmatively studied”), mod. 401 F.Supp. 664 (E.D.N.C.1975); Montgomery
    v. Ellis, 364 F.Supp. 517, 528 (N.D.Ala.1973) (“NEPA requires each agency
    to undertake research needed adequately to expose environmental harms and,
    hence, to appraise available alternatives”) (project enjoined pending
    preparation of an adequate EIS); Brooks v. Volpe, 350 F.Supp. 269, 279
    (“NEPA requires each agency to indicate the research needed to adequately
    expose environmental harms”), supplemented, 350 F.Supp. 287
    (W.D.Wash.1972), aff’d, *487 F.2d 1344*
    <http://openjurist.org/487/f2d/1344> (9th
    Cir.1973); Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401, 1403
    (D.D.C.1971) (interpreting section 102(2)(A) as making “the completion of
    an adequate research program a prerequisite to agency action …. The Act
    envisions that program formulation will be directed by research results
    rather than that research programs will be designed to substantiate
    programs already decided upon”) If the information relevant to adverse
    impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not
    known, and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the
    agency *shall
    *include the information in the environmental impact statement.

    *Part 7*

    *Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*

    *16. Chronic radiation effects not addressed:* In Section 2.1.1.4, the
    claim that the noise and RF radiation from mobile emitters will not impact
    what the Environmental Assessment calls Biological Resources is entirely
    based on the premise that the mobile emitters are moving around the forest,
    so exposure at any one site is limited. This despite the fact that 3 mobile
    units will be in operation from 8 – 16 hours per day, 260 days per year,
    among 15 different sites on the Olympic Peninsula. According to the EA,
    each mobile emitter site will average 11.15 training events per day, which
    also includes electronic detection and attack weapons from jets. This works
    out to an average of 468 hours of electromagnetic radiation per site per
    year, or 195, 24-hour days per decade. The Department of the Interior has
    criticized the FCC’s standards for cellphone radiation to be outmoded and
    no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife:
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

    *Where is the peer-reviewed research to back up the Navy’s claim of no
    significant impacts?*

    *17. Potential loss of human lives:*  Page 2-7 of the environmental
    assessment says the following: “The activities of the Proposed Action
    center on two divisions of EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES) and
    electronic attack (EA).” Then it goes on to provide this short explanation:
    “Sailors aboard Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft conduct ES and EA
    training as they search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize
    sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy
    for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and
    conduct of future operations. “(EA 2-7)  This sounds pretty benign.

    The environmental assessment references Joint Publication 3-13.1,
    Electronic Warfare, 08 February 2012 as a source document, and if you look
    at this publication the short explanation above is, verbatim, the
    definition of electronic support but  the environmental assessment leaves
    out any explanation of electronic attack (EA). Joint Publication 3-13.1
    defines Electronic Attack as follow: “EA refers to the division of EW
    involving the use of EM energy, DE (directed energy), or antiradiation
    weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of
    degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability…”

    Directed energy is defined as:  “An umbrella term covering technologies
    that relate to the production of a beam of concentrated electromagnetic
    energy or atomic or subatomic particles. ” (GL6) “Examples include lasers,
    electro-optical (EO), infrared (IR), and radio frequency (RF) weapons such
    as high-power microwave (HPM) or those employing an EMP.  (I-4)  Now it’s
    getting serious. Additionally, Joint Publication 3-13-1 also speaks to
    unintended consequences of EW:  “Unintended Consequences. EW planners must
    coordinate EW efforts … to minimize unintended consequences, collateral
    damage, and collateral effects. Friendly EA could potentially deny
    essential services to a local population that, in turn, could result in
    loss of life and/or political ramifications.”  (III-5)

    The Environmental Assessment, which only deals with the ground operations
    (the emitters), is addressing just a part of the impact and is totally
    silent on what may be the bigger concern, which is impact caused by the
    aircraft, ships and submarines engaging in EW training, and particularly
    electronic attack training.

    *What types of electronic attack will be practiced, and what are the
    potential impacts, intended or otherwise, on the local population and the
    environment?*

    *How can a Special Use Permit include the use of Electronic Attack weapons
    if they weren’t even discussed in the Environmental Assessment? *

    *Part 8*

    *Conclusion*

    The U.S. Navy is demonstrably unable to perceive or assess impacts in our
    forests, and is evidently unwilling to assess or disclose impacts to
    humans, wildlife and habitats from a variety of sources that concern the
    public. Because none of these direct, indirect and cumulative impacts have
    been analyzed, and because there have been so many violations of NEPA
    procedure, and because case law has shown again and again that one agency
    cannot rely exclusively on the data from another agency, this Special Use
    Permit should not be issued. For the above reasons, the Navy’s self-serving
    Environmental Assessment should be withdrawn and an honest, independent
    assessment of impacts should be made by the Forest Service, in a valid
    Environmental Impact Statement that places no applicant’s priority above
    the interests of the public, and that allows the public to have a say in
    the management of its public lands.

    It is ironic in the extreme that the Navy forces other agencies to consider
    vast amounts of area when evaluating impacts, such as to endangered species
    in the entire northwestern region of Washington, or on a training range
    that stretches from California to Alaska, yet it forces public commenters
    to restrict themselves to one item on their menu of impacts when foisting a
    program of such potentially immense consequence upon the public.

    As of December 2014, the Navy will also be expanding its sonar and
    explosive activity (http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2) into waters off
    Indian Island near Port Townsend, in the Strait of Juan De Fuca, and in the
    2,408 square mile Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary, where the Navy says it is
    exempt from prohibitions. It has, however, said that bombing exercises will
    take place outside the Sanctuary. At the same time, the Navy is developing
    plans for two Carrier Strike Groups to train in the Gulf of Alaska just
    south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, using new
    extremely loud weapons systems and sinking two ships per year, in exercises
    that the Navy admits will kill or injure 182,000 whales, dolphins,
    porpoises, sea lions, seals, sea otters and other marine mammals in one
    five-year period. This is less than the original prediction of 425,000
    marine mammals, but still so astonishing it makes one wonder what parts of
    our biologically rich coasts will not become war zones with high casualty
    counts, if the Navy gets its way.

    s/  Karen Sullivan, November 14, 2014


  • Electronic Warfare Public Forums

    Electronic Warfare Public Forums

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned THE FORUM was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process.

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM…YOU ARE GIVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, PROTECTION YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE  LOUD, AND EVEN THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IS WELCOMED, FREE SPEAKING, EVEN SHOUTING THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS DOWN IS ALLOWED.

    ————————————————-

    The bottom line

    ARE THE FEDS JUST ALLOWING US TO BLOW OFF STEAM AT A LOCAL PUBLIC FORUM?

    OR ARE THE FEDS JUST BLOWING US OFF?

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE….. What difference does it make?

    Electronic Warfare is FEDERAL.  Don’t waste your time sending comments through the formal comment process.

    SEND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO YOUR FEDERAL ELECTED CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES,

    (1) THEY ARE NOT PROTECTING US

    (2)  THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTING OUR BEST INTERESTS

     (3)  AND, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO US  FOR THE NAVY ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    I have three, Rep. Kilmer, Senators Murray and Cantwell.

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DO THEY  MAKE?

    ———————————————————————————-

    ARE LOCAL PUBLIC FORUMS? PUBLIC MEETING? EFFECTIVE?

    PUBLIC FORUM

     Public forum doctrine relies heavily on history and tradition. A location is deemed a “traditional public forum” or a “general public forum” and given THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION when it has “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Strict scrutiny applies to any content-based speech restriction in these locations.

    PUBLIC MEETINGS

     Public meetings shouldn’t be marred by insults, unruly behavior 
    The U.S. Forest Service organizes open meetings to answer questions and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the use of our public lands. WHEN PEOPLE ARE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE, they are effectively DENIED ACCESS TO A PUBLIC FORUM.

    —————————————————————————————

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE

    ARE YOU ONE OF THE IGNORANT, DISRUPTIVE, PUBLIC THAT ATTENDS PUBLIC FORUMS OR PUBLIC MEETINGS?

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING? DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC ATTENDEES have to sit down and shut up… or they will KICK YOU OUT

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM…YOU ARE GIVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, PROTECTION YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE  LOUD, AND EVEN THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IS WELCOMED,  WOW FREE SPEAKING, EVEN SHOUTING THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS DOWN IS ALLOWED.

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHAT’S  “NEW”  (2006) LISTENING SESSIONS?

    An increasing trend in PUBLIC PARTICIPATION is for agencies, elected officials, and non-governmental organizations to hold listening sessions. While there is a wide degree of variation depending on the issue and the host, LISTENING SESSIONS generally are an opportunity for citizens to exchange ideas and provide recommendations on programs and policies. SIMILAR TO PUBLIC MEETINGS, many listening sessions begin with the agency or official giving a brief presentation on the issue and then allowing time for citizens to offer comments or recommendations.

     (after the 2014 election results?) HELLO CONGRESS…  CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?

    ————————————————————————————————

    WHAT ELSE IS   “NEW” WITH PUBLIC MEETINGS?  WITH PUBLIC OBSERVERS? WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS?

    OBSERVER by definition

     (1) A PERSON WHO FOLLOWS EVENTS, ESPECIALLY POLITICAL ONES, CLOSELY

     AND COMMENTS PUBLICLY ON THEM.

    (2) A  person who watches or notices something.

    (3) A fly on the wall

    (4) A fly on the wall who watches or notices something.

    WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ALLOWED.

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION

    “Once a government is committed to the principle of SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  ENFORCED SILENCE

    If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE.”

    ————————————————————————————-

    FEDERAL PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    WHAT THE DIFFERENCE? PUBLIC FORUM? PUBLIC MEETING?

    Meeting Face to Face: Public Meetings, Hearings, and Open …

    rlch.org/…/meeting-face-face-public-meetings-hearings-open-houses-and…

    Apr 8, 2010 – A public meeting is a gathering where people come together to share … are intimidated into silence, they are effectively denied access to a public forum. ….. of the differences between public hearings and public meetings, …

    In addition to providing notice and requesting written comments, part of the federal public participation process often involves public meetings, hearings, and/or open houses as another way for agencies to obtain public input on an issue. But there are other opportunities to meet face-to-face with decision-makers at all levels of government, from the U.S. Congress to your local planning commission. In this edition of the Problem-Solving Tools Series, we highlight some of the various opportunities to voice your comments and concerns, describe what you can expect, and provide links to other resources and “how-to guides” for more information.

    What are the Forums?  What Should I Expect?

    PUBLIC MEETINGS

    A public meeting is a gathering where people come together to share information, exchange ideas, introduce new services and ways of working, or to develop relationships and contacts.  The purpose of a public meeting is to discuss issues, not to make decisions.  By allowing for a two-way flow of information, meetings provide an opportunity for people to share their concerns, hear other points of view, and identify areas of conflict.  The term “public meeting” is used rather loosely to describe anything from community members gathering to informally discuss an issue to more formal events used to obtain comment on an agency decision or action.

    PUBLIC FORUM

    Public forum doctrine relies heavily on history and tradition. A location is deemed a “traditional public forum” or a “general public forum” and given the highest level of First Amendment protection when it has “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”[8] Strict scrutiny applies to any content-based speech restriction in these locations.[9]

    Public meetings shouldn’t be marred by insults, unruly behavior 
    The U.S. Forest Service organizes open meetings to answer questions and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the use of our public lands. When people are intimidated into silence, they are effectively denied access to a public forum.

    ———————————————————-

    Documented Research “behindmyback.org”

    WA. STATE PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    Posted on May 28, 2014 11:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    SOMEONE? AT MRC APPROVED AND ALLOWED this OFFENSIVE 14 PAGE power point presentation,  under  PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS?

    ———————————————————————-

    JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    The Public Meeting “Observer”

    Posted on May 29, 2014 9:14 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

    THE “NEW” PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA FOR OBSERVER PUBLIC COMMENTS

    ————————————————————————-

    FEDERAL PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    Posted on July 6, 2014 9:40 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)

    For purposes of this section—

    (3) (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    OPEN TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE  Public Meeting?

    Where did Jefferson County WA come up with their PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER?

    AKA the  A FLY ON THE WALL?

    ——————————————————

    The bottom line

    ARE THE FEDS JUST ALLOWING US TO BLOW OFF STEAM AT A LOCAL PUBLIC FORUM?

    OR ARE THE FEDS JUST BLOWING US OFF?

     

     


  • To Rep. Kilmer Electronic Warfare

    To Rep. Kilmer Electronic Warfare

    The following information has been submitted:

    Name: ms Pearl Rains Hewett

    Address: 235 W. 5th St.,
    City/State/Zip: Port Angeles, WA 98362 2811

    E-mail: phew@wavecable.com
    Telephone: (360) 417-9452

    Issue: ENV

    Message Subject:

    Protesting the Navy’s plans for electromagnetic warfare

    ——————————————————————–
    Message Text:

    Derek,

    These are your people in your home town.

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned the forum was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process.

    Are the Feds just allowing them to blow off steam?

    Last night in Port Angeles, WA. KOMO news was there…

    http://vimeo.com/111189009

    ———————————————————–

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    —————————————————-

    I sent this comment to friends…

    Good job FOR A LOCAL PROTEST.

    HOWEVER….This is a FEDERAL OFFENSE.

    CITIZENS MUST GO TO THEIR FEDERALLY ELECTED TO BE EFFECTIVE.

    I did not attend….

    I am Pearl Revere… NOT JOAN OF ARC.

    Thanks for the update.

    Pearl

    —————————————————————–

    November 7th, 2014 – 6:15am

    (Port Angeles) – More than a hundred people crammed the Port Angeles city council chambers last night, most protesting the Navy’s plans for electromagnetic warfare training over the west end of the Olympic Peninsula.

    The US Forest Service is considering a permit that would allow the Navy to place radio frequency emitters on mobile trucks in the Olympic National Forest. Forest Service and Navy officials held a public forum on the plan last night. But most of the those attending were strongly opposed, often interrupting the presenters. Every person asking questions was against the idea, echoing previous concerns about the effect of RF in the forest areas.

    The U.S. Pacific Fleet’s Northwest environmental program manager John Mosher says his agency’s environmental assessment for the permit shows it’s safe.

    But many of those asking questions disagreed and asked if current data was used in the study. Questions also covered the amount of noise expected by the increased training. Navy officials say the planes will fly at altitudes higher than 10-thousand feet and there will be no more than a 10 percent increase in activity. Some asked why the Navy doesn’t use an established training area. Navy officials say that would be costly and they area already doing training in this area.

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned the forum was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process. The Forest Service is keeping that comment period open until November 28th.

    ————————————————————————

    Please don’t allow your people to protest in vein…

    Protest definition, an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid:

    Still just, a Concerned American Grandmother

    Would you like a response? Y

     


  • Health Impacts of Electromagnetic Pollution?

    Health Impacts of Electromagnetic Pollution?

    It is imperative the U.S. Congress focus on the connection between unchecked growth in electromagnetic fields and the Electrosensivity of  all living things on earth.

    Three U.S. Governors HAVE Acknowledge Health Impacts of Electromagnetic Pollution from Wireless Technologies.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. ­ twice nominated for the Nobel Prize, one of the foremost experts on EMR. “I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time,

    THE GREATEST POLLUTING ELEMENT IN THE EARTH’S ENVIRONMENT IS THE PROLIFERATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS.

    I consider that to be far greater on a global scale, than warming, and the increase in chemical elements in the environment.”

    —————————————————————————————

    Telecommunications Act of 1996?

    Posted as  “Against the Law to try to Protect One’s Health?”

    and its unexpected consequences, offer vivid lessons in……

    WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PUBLIC POLICY IS MADE LARGELY WITHOUT EITHER INFORMING OR CONSULTING THE PUBLIC?

     ELECTROSENSIVITY  IN PEOPLE

    Headache, Sleep disturbances (Insomnia), Dizziness, Nausea, Heart Palpitations, Heart Pain, Concentration Problems, Fatigue, Listlessness, Indigestion, Reddening of Skin, Tingling Sensations, Anxiety Attacks, Memory Problems, Swollen Lymph Nodes, Excessive Thirst, Frequent Urination, Vision Problems, Tinnitus (Ringing in the Ears), Increase in allergies/sensitivities, etc.

     ——————————————————————————-

    SOME DO NOT attribute these symptoms to something that they cannot perceive with their five senses ­ sight, smell, touch, hearing, or taste ­ and end up misattributing them to something else. 

    ——————————————————————————————————–

     “Today, unprecedented exposure levels and intensities of magnetic, electric, and electromagnetic fields from numerous wireless technologies interfere with the natural information system and functioning OF HUMANS, animals, and plants. The consequences of this development, which have already been predicted by critics for many decades, cannot be ignored anymore. Bees and other insects vanish; birds avoid certain places and become disorientated at others. Humans suffer from functional impairments and diseases. And insofar as the latter are hereditary, they will be passed on to next generations as pre-existing defects”.

    —————————————————————————-

    Are EMFs Killing Insects, Frogs, Birds And US? – Rense

    www.rense.com/general81/emfs.htm

    Are Microwaves Killing The Insects, Frogs, And Birds? And Are We Next? 3-20-8 … If all the insects, amphibians, and birds are disappearing, how much longer …

    ————————————————————————————

    New U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Reports on EMF and …

    electromagnetichealth.org/…/emf-and-warnke-report-on-beesbirds-and-

    May 18, 2009 – Ulrich Warnke, PhD, “Bees, Birds and Mankind”, is also attached below. … /BeesBirdsMankindDestroying-Nature-by-Electrosmog-Ulrich- …

    ————————————————————————————–

    18.05.2009 by Camilla Category Electromagnetic Health Blog

    ———————————————————————————

    Critique of National Association for Independent Schools Statement

    08.09.2014 by emily Category Electromagnetic Health Blog

    ——————————————————————–

    Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

    www.saferemr.com/

    Mobilize, a feature-length documentary about cell phone radiation, premiered on September 12, 2014.

    The film explores the potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation and examines recent scientific research and the challenges politicians face trying to adopt precautionary legislation. Featuring interviews with experts, wireless industry representatives and prominent politicians, THE FILM ILLUMINATES HOW INDUSTRY’S ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE CAN UNDERMINE PUBLIC HEALTH.  Including

    Oct 17, 2014 Health effects of electromagnetic radiation exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, and Smart Meters.


  • Against the Law to try to Protect One’s Health?

    Against the Law to try to Protect One’s Health?

    ON THE BASIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IF THE FACILITIES MEET FCC STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS?

    ————————————————————————————

    The Telecommunications Act of 1996?

    and its consequences?

    The Act denigrates health concerns by assuming that FCC standards for electromagnetic emissions will protect the public health.

    Denigrates by definition, to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate. to treat? or represent? as lacking in value? or importance? belittle; disparage: PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS?

    —————————————————————————

    read the full document http://rense.com/general81/emfs.htm 

    Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D.

    At present, in the so-called “democratic” USA, the “Telecommunications Act of 1996” ­ an undemocratic and unconstitutional US law on the books ­

    Prohibits communities to legally object to the erection of cell phone towers on the basis of health or environmental concerns.

    This hence MAKES IT AGAINST THE LAW TO TRY TO PROTECT ONE’S HEALTH OR THE HEALTH OF THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE FOUND IT MORE IMPORTANT TO PROTECT THE MOBILE-PHONE INDUSTRY’S PROFITS. 

    The Act also specifically prohibits states and local governments from regulating the placement and construction of communications facilities, like antennas and towers,

    ON THE BASIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IF THE FACILITIES MEET FCC STANDARDS FOR EMISSIONS.

    The Act pays lip service to the importance of local zoning regulation, sufficient to encourage litigation, but without any genuine recognition of the importance of a homeowner’s property values, peace of mind, and, particularly, health concerns.

    THE ACT DENIGRATES HEALTH CONCERNS by assuming that FCC standards for electromagnetic emissions will protect the public health. That assumption [was] premature, given the large amount of ongoing scientific research on the subject and the lack of clear conclusions.

    The Congressional Conference Report indicates that the Act preempts state and local regulation of the environmental effects of electromagnetic emissions when it has requirements beyond those of FCC rules.

    This preemption discourages states from doing their own research on the health effects of these emissions because they cannot rely on the results in formulating regulations. That result does a disservice to the public.

    THE FCC, IN PROMULGATING ITS RULES SETTING A SPECIFIC ABSORPTION RATE LIMIT FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS AT FOUR WATTS PER KILOGRAM,

    Noted that  research in this area related to human health and safety is ongoing and that changes to recommended exposure limits are possible in the future.

    With that admitted uncertainty, it is unreasonable to limit what states and local governments may do to protect their residents. (Martin)

    This extremely undemocratic law is outright morally wrong ­ and moreover is not only a clear violation of the right of every American to protect themselves, but also a clear violation of laws meant to protect our precious animals: (1) the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, (2) the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and (3) the Endangered Species Act. Hence, on these grounds, it should be immediately and unconditionally rescinded. The evidence collected at this point that this technology is extremely harmful to both human and animal life on this planet is completely and utterly overwhelming ­ and this is in spite of the mobile-phone industry’s attempt to control the government and to manipulate both the science and the media. To protect life on this planet ­ regardless of any economic concerns ­ these towers must be taken down now!

    read the full document http://rense.com/general81/emfs.htm

    Are Microwaves Killing The  Insects, Frogs, And Birds? And Are We Next?
    3-20-8

    A vivid lesson in……

     WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PUBLIC POLICY IS MADE LARGELY WITHOUT EITHER INFORMING OR CONSULTING THE PUBLIC?


  • International Wars on Electronic Warfare?

    International War on Electronic Warfare?

    As a Canadian (she said, he said) “That was unneighborly”   I object!!

    Has the Canadian government been informed about this exercise?

    Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament… I live in Victoria… living in Saanich British Columbia…. As a resident of West Vancouver, BC, Canada…. We write to express our extreme disagreement……

    Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental …

    citizensforsafetechnology.org/Pacific-Northwest-ElectronicWarfare-Ran…

    Oct 8, 2014 – Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament, The US Navy plans to do testing of powerful RF devices along the shores of northern Olympic …

    ————————————————————————————–

    Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Excellent Letters written re US Navy testing of in Pacific Northwest

    Below are just some of the excellent letters written today that some of you might find useful in writing your own. Please, take a few minutes and write by the new deadline of Friday, October 31.  If you do so, then there will be the opportunity to have further input in the future.

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us

    We are a family of six living in Saanich, British Columbia. We write to express our extreme disagreement with the US Navy’s intention to test RF devices along the shores of the northern Olympic Peninsula.

    Both U.S. residents and residents of Canada, not to mention wildlife in an ecologically sensitive area, will be exposed to high frequencies and high levels of radiation. There is absolutely no evidence that such testing is safe for humans, wildlife, or important plant ecosystems. This is an an enormous and foolhardy risk. It brings to mind the nuclear testing conducted in the southwest United States that contaminated much of the United States with radioactive fallout for many years.

    The dangers of EMF radiation are many and real. The prestigious and respected American Academy of Environmental Medicine has made this an area of concern, and recently gave their highest award to Dr. Martin Pall of Washington State University for his research in this area. Dr. Pall has explored how EMFs act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels, and how EMF exposures can cause physiological effects including cancer, oxidative stress and EHS. In addition many physicians are discovering that their patients are experiencing difficulties because of EMF exposure, and Women’s College Hospital in Toronto has recently established a program to educate doctors about this threat, which some public health professionals call the greatest challenge to human health in the twenty-first century.

    Our family does not give our permission for the US Navy to subject our children to this serious health threat. Both the United States and Canada should look to other countries whose standards regarding EMF exposures are much more demanding, and whose forward thinking should lead the way on this issue. We insist that the residents of this area be considered, and that the US Navy be prevented from such testing.

    Forwarded to : Popham.MLA, Lana ; john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca; premier@gov.bc.ca; elizabeth.may@greenparty.ca; leader@greenparty.bc.ca; Randall.Garrison@parl.gc.ca; editor@thetyee.ca; Edward Hill ; contact@straight.com

    ____________________________

    To each BC MP:

    Dear Members of the Canadian Parliament,

    The US Navy plans to do testing of powerful RF devices along the shores of northern Olympic Peninsula (Clallum county faces Victoria and BC). The frequencies are high, 4-8 GHz, and signals using these frequencies travel great distances. We very likely will be exposed to high levels of radiation that the military will be testing.

    Comments are being accepted from the public at comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us until Oct. 10. Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA) must be on the subject line.

    The Navy is saying there is no evidence of harm to animals or humans. Independent scientific evidence proves this statement to be incorrect. Inadvertently, but without doubt, the US Navy will be experimenting on Canadians, on our families and on our wildlife.

    Has the Canadian government been informed about this exercise? If so, what was the reaction? If not, there should be a strong objection to such an exercise from taking place in an area where Canadians will be exposed. There is no way to limit exposure to such emissions which have been shown to have dangerous effects, especially on children and fetuses, those with compromised immune systems, and the elderly.

    This must be stopped. This trespass into our environment must not be allowed. I implore you to ask your leaders to contact the US government and demand that our sovereignty and safety be respected.

    Sincerely,

    Sharon Noble

    ______________________

    I am writing in utmost concern for your intention to permit the Olympic National Forest to be used as an electronic warfare testing ground by the US Navy. If passed, this decision will undoubtedly cause irreversible harm to the plants, birds, animals, ecosystems, and humans directly in, and in areas within a several hundred-mile radius of this site.

    Studies conducted by world-class, non-industry-funded scientists show there is NO SAFE level of radiation, and that radiation from all sources is cumulative. Furthermore, a peer-reviewed study published May 7, 2014 in Nature, International Weekly Journal of Science proves the negative effect of EMF on migratory birds. ” So far, no putative effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise at intensities below the guidelines adopted by the World Health Organization 1, 2 has withstood the test of independent replication under truly blinded experimental conditions. No effect has therefore been widely accepted as scientifically proven.  Here we show that migratory birds are unable to use their magnetic compass in the presence of urban electromagnetic noise. These fully double-blinded tests document a reproducible effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise on the behaviour of an intact vertebrate.”

    In regards to your comment that “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation, last August the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine published a paper by Washington State University Professor Emeritus of biochemistry Martin Pall, which documents how EMF affects the flow of voltage-gated calcium channels in our cells. Pall links this change in cellular activity to a plethora of physical ailments. Basing his conclusions on 24 studies, he has this to say about short high-intensity pulses of microwave radiation: ” We know from the nanosecond pulse studies[that these pulses] can be very damaging and act via VGCC activation, with activation continuing long after the pulse has ceased (7). It has been known for over 30 years that short microwave pulses can cause massive cellular damage (57).” EMF has been recognized as a potential carcinogen by the WHO in 2011 (alongside lead and DDT), and scientifically linked to autism (which is up by 33%), skyrocketing ADHD, the disappearing honeybee, and more. Read the literature, and it becomes clear that the potentially harmful effects of EMF exposure are much greater than the thermal (heating) risks current exposure standards attribute to it. In 2011, the Council of Europe (47 countries, 800-million people) urged all of its member nations to “reconsider” their relationship with ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) whose radiation Exposure Limits are almost universally adopted and, instead, observe the limits recommended in the BioInitiative 2007 Report. This report, if adopted, would require Canada and the USA to reduce their radiation Exposure Limits 10,000 times. In section 7 (Technological progress and economic growth at the expense of environment and health protection ) subsection 29 of their 2011 parliamentary report on the potential danger of EMF, the Council of Europe states:

    “…it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.”

    Lastly, neither Lloyds of London nor Swiss Re Insurance will insure against health-related claims attributed to devices emitting non-thermal microwave radiation.

    In light of all of the above, I sincerely hope that reason and prudence will prevail, that you do not permit the testing of these weapons to proceed, but keep the Olympic National Forest as a pristine refuge, a haven for wildlife and for future generations, a place that promotes not destruction and illness, but health, balance, and well being, _______________________________________________________________________

    Dear Mr. Greg Wahl,

    See below my concerns with the future testing of weapons and RF exposure. Please keep me informed of any and all decisions made in this regard and please ensure that my concerns are included in the decision making, as it impacts my life directly. I appreciate your time and effort in ensuring that people’s quality life is protected at all times, never at the expansion of technology or security.

    Sent: October 8, 2014 9:02 PM

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Importance: High

    My name is XXX , I live in Victoria and suffer the daily effect of RF radiation emanating from cell phone, WIFI, cell tower and every devices like microwave etc… and computer in my work place. No one can convince those suffering from these effects that they don’t exist, cause we know the facts and we know they exist. RF radiation is a challenge on our health as we experience them daily. I’ve acquired an RF device to help protect me by making adequate adjustment to my home as to prevent further damage while resting at home. There is a time when as a customer we need to out-way, speed/efficiency against our quality of health and life.

    I do not support anyone bringing danger to my close environment, myself and family, which RF is a danger. WE have a right to protect ourselves. These RF effects are proven scientifically to cause cancer; and I personally don’t need anyone to prove or convince me otherwise, since I experience lots of side effect at first hand, such as the effect of headaches, nausea, sleep deprivation, ringing in the ear, racy heart, chest pressure, sneezing/allergies, my vision having drop way too quickly as they increased Wi-Fi service in my workplace and feeling completely helpless to protect myself, as it’s costing me a fortune in compensating to protect my health and shielding myself from the RF. Meanwhile no one listens, yet those same individuals bringing this new technology are starting to show the same signs I describe but no one bothers to connect the dots, as to work together in stopping this dreadful expenditure for profit and profit only and full harm to your health and quality of life.

    I ask that you reconsider this testing and please do not bring in anymore radiation to our home and environment. All this technology and yet we have less and less freedom and quality of life, the only one seeming to benefit is big business for profits. What’s the use of looking after our health if these test are going to continue destroying us. Contradictory in term, and costly to our Healthcare. I work harder than I ever did when I was younger, and no matter how healthy I try to maintain, there isn’t a day when I’m not having to fight to protect myself not only against RF but against the ignorance perpetuated in our population by our government agency by not providing the truth to the populace and keeping our world inform and safe. Unless you’re planning on killing us, then please take those testing somewhere safe and controlled so that our environment or self aren’t affected. We’ve been working real hard at cultivating bees back at a very slow pace. Everything is linked together. Any damage caused has ripple effect to the masses. Those intelligent enough to understand that, and who are in a role of authority need to protect the planet, and certainly not test to see how far they can go and learn from those testing’s. There has been enough research done already and sufficient proofs have been provided and yet ignored by convenience by those in authority and paid to protect those who pay their services. Who decide who has the authority. Scientists are scientists and too many have spoken and been ignored and continue to be ignored. There is no need for more testing. What more do we need in this world to live happy and peaceful. We don’t need more scientist to do what has been already done and proven and ignored. You do not do research until it fits your bill, you do research to find what action need be taken as to maintain life and quality of life. Refuse to do military or otherwise testing in regard to RF as the risk is already too much. Time to listen and pay attention and protect the planet and every living cellular being on it. I look forward to hear that this project is canceled and look forward to your confirmation of such in support to life in general.

    Thank you for hearing me out and please don’t allow the testing to take place, for everyone’s best interest.

    Best regards,

    ___________________________

    To: ‘comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: ‘gtwahl@fs.fed.us
    Subject: FW: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Importance: High

    From: edgar murdock (name left at request of author)

    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca ; greg.kyllo.mla@leg.bc.ca ; john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca ; una@citizensforsafetechnology.org ; director@stopsmartmetersbc.ca ; billvanderzalm1@gmail.com ; adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca ; info@oipc.bc.ca ; patrick.wruck@bcuc.com

    Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:56 PM

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    As a Canadian, but more importantly as a human being and one of millions of innocent victims of whatever protocol the world’s dominant governments & corporations wish to force on the global population, I take great umbrage at the suggestion that this initiative by the US Navy will have no impact on humans. The information offered also points out that the impact to small animals is unknown at this time. There is no mention of the impact on avian or marine wildlife or that of insects, beneficial or otherwise.

    The impact on humans is quite well-known. This denial, in the light of a mountain of evidence to the contrary by respected, independent medical personnel and research scientists world-wide with absolutely nothing to gain career-wise or financially, is a downright abrogation of responsibility by the American military and its cohorts.

    There is world-wide concern that the biologic effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic low-frequency radiation such as wi-fi and microwave cellular radiation and that emitted by the so-called smart meter and smart grid protocols, is cumulative and considered to be carcinogenic by the WHO and many other health organizations, although not recognized as such by the ridiculously inadequate standards set by Health Canada and the United States FCC, EPA and FDA agencies.

    The politicians, military personnel and corporate entities who, for whatever iniquitous reasons, are attempting to apply Guinea pig status to the population of all living creatures in this geographical quadrant and to use the Pacific Northwest habitat as a testing ground for EMF warfare is an unconscionable, egregious and reprehensible act of aggression to the Nth degree. My mind boggles and my entire psyche reels at the thought.

    MK-ULTRA and the CIA’s Project Pandora and other such nefarious programs by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act are well-known efforts of the US Military to control mankind and it seems to me that this Environmental Assessment is another step in the directed energy experiment designed to bring ordinary people to their knees.

    Please, please when coming to a decision in this matter consider the humanitarian issues at stake here. Apply the Precautionary Principle diligently and with respect to the unwary citizens of both the United States and Canada and remember that accountability goes with the position and if the results are adverse and pernicious to any degree, those promoting the program must all also bear the guilt of the consequences.

    Respectfully submitted,
    _________________________

    Sent: October 8, 2014 10:17 PM
    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Subject: Weapons testing off the Olympic Peninsula

    I object!! Not only does RF destroy marine life, it destroys all life. I am already electrosensitive and don’t need or want any more electromagnetic pollution affecting my body. The USAF have known since WW2 that this stuff is deadly; the Russians proved it by irradiating the US embassy in Moscow, remember? What more do you need to know?

    Stop the psychopathic behaviour before you kill the entire planet.

    __________________________

    Sent: October 8, 2014 9:21 PM
    To: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us
    Cc: Jerry Flynn; ralph.sultan.mla@leg.bc.ca; weston.J@parl.gc.ca

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Ladies and gentlemen;

    As a resident of West Vancouver, BC, Canada I am alarmed at the proposed RF tests by the US military on the Olympic Peninsula.

    I have a medically diagnosed condition of electro hyper sensitivity to all electromagnetic radiation, even at very low frequencies, well within what Canada and the US claim to be harmless.

    Today several thousand independent scientific studies call for lowering the allowable levels currently part of standards and emitted by cell towers, and other wireless technologies.

    While these tests may be facing away from American cities,you seem to forget that most of BC’s population lives precisely along the border. This is, as i understand it, the precise direction in which the radiation will be fired.

    Please remember: We are also human, and do not deserve to be showered with military strength radiation!

    I strongly object to having my family and myself treated as collateral damage to the US military experiments! Or should that be experimental rats?

    I hope the US Navy can find a different location for their tests, or better still abandon them altogether. Surely enough is known about the damaging effects of this technology after decades of testing it. . . .

    For your information I am enclosing a powerpoint presentation by Captain (ret.) Jerry Flynn of the Canadian navy, who worked for 22 years in radiological warfare.
    __________________________

    From: Dennis and Sharon Noble dsnoble@shaw.ca
    Sent: October 9, 2014 11:33 AM
    To: ‘comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us’
    Cc: ‘gtwahl@fs.fed.us‘; Christy Clark (premier@gov.bc.ca); John Horgan. Leader NDP; ‘Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca‘; randall.garrison@parl.gc.ca; Alex – Riding 1 Atamanenko

    Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I am writing with regard to the US Navy plan to establish a training facility in Northern Washington dedicated to Electronic Warfare. According to information provided, the environmental assessment says:

    “The purpose is to train to deny the enemy “all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. electromagnetic energy) for use in such applications as communication systems, navigation systems and defense related systems and components,” and

    “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation.

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time”. While it might be argued that there is no “conclusive” evidence of direct hazard to human health, there is a multitude of independent peer-reviewed studies and reports by world renowned scientists that show that prolonged exposure to even low levels of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is extremely harmful, especially to those most vulnerable: fetuses and children, those with impaired immune systems, and the elderly, and wildlife.

    Even 60 years ago the US military knew the significant danger associated with EMR, recognizing its potential as a military weapon. It therefore is confusing that the US military today denies this science. Further it is of interest that in their documents they admit this radiation “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” living creatures.

    The public deserves to have access to information explaining the effects. An effect is either harmful or beneficial. Is the US Navy saying that exposure to manmade, unnatural radiation is beneficial?

    With regard to the transmitters which will be on the northern tip of the Olympic Peninsula, these transmitters plus the associated military equipment (satellites, planes, mobile transmitters) are within a few miles of a major Canadian city, Victoria, British Columbia. Were the Federal and Provincial governments advised of the plans to build a permanent training facility with weapons grade transmitters? Did they agree to allow military weapons to be pointed at a friendly country? Why was Northern Washington selected, rather than an inhospitable location like Death Valley?

    I wish to express my deepest concern about this plan, and ask to be granted standing in order to provide additional information during future considerations.

    Sincerely
    Sharon Noble

    Read On

    read more at, http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/Pacific-Northwest-Electronic-Warfare-Range-Environmental-Assessment-EA,95,4035

    —————————————————————————————————-

    I submit this as an additional objection and comment on the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

    UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A  2014 UPDATED ASSESSMENT ON THE  BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC  RADIATION (RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES) IS DOCUMENTED AND FULL DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE AMERICAN AND CANADIAN  PUBLIC.

     Pearl Rains Hewett