California health issues advisory for cellphone use

Author: jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for 12 years, and he was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News for eight years, among other positions. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing, swimming, and trout fishing in the Sierra.

89 thoughts on “California health issues advisory for cellphone use”

  1. Somebody ought to post this in the empty comments section of George Boardman’s column from this week. He might learn something. ROFLOL 2.

  2. Do you kinow the back stroy Jeff? That this was released as a result of a California Public records Act request and lawsuit? That Dr. Moskowitz is a psycologist not a cancer researcher? That the CDPH resisted publishing their findings because they did not believe they were appropraitely vetted and that numerous NIH and NICS long range studies were failing to cooborate their prleiminary 2009 statements? That there is not a single long term study showing ANY link at all between cancer and non-ionizing EMR? Yep, might learn something.

    1. I have my own opinions, but am OK when the conventional wisdom comes under scrutiny (AKA “live and let live”). In the case of how to handle your cell phone, it’s a personal decision. On a macro-level, I do not see any evidence that expressing skepticism on this issue is somehow reversing the public policy, especially when you compare this issue to global warming. This was the flaw with the Boardman column. He’s hell bent on blaming one segment, when the blame is all around. And he confuses cell phone towers with fiber optic cable.

      “Although the science is STILL EVOLVING, there are concerns among SOME public health professionals and members of the public regarding long-term, high use exposure to the energy emitted by cell phones,” said CDPH Director and State Public Health Officer Dr. Karen Smith.

    2. I’m floored you have the audacity to state this, Steve. Particularly in light of the over 6,000 studies on the topic and the very recent 10-year, $25 million NTP study. Read BELOW. Read this, you might learn something. Then when done, check out This seminal report continues to influence and change EU policy and law around wireless devices, particularly around children.

      I can’t help to notice once again, you can’t resist attacking character rather than staying on topic. You do this often when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

      I also can’t help but notice how you clearly omit that Dr. Joel Moskowitz is not some schlocky fringe blogger. He holds the distinguished position of the Director and Principal Investigator, Center for Family and Community Health, UC Berkeley Just a sample of his work is below the NTP study, below.

      Funny thing about all the naysays screaming at me; science is actually on my side. I have time. I can sit here and wait. I’ve been here before.

      NTP Study Partial Findings:

      “Cell Phones
      Image of cell phones
      The National Toxicology Program has been conducting experiments in rats and mice on potential health hazards from cell phone radiofrequency radiation. NTP released a report on some important study findings on May 27, 2016. The complete results from all the rat and mice studies will be available for peer review and public comment by early 2018.

      The report, “Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure),” is available at

      The findings in this report were reviewed by expert peer reviewers selected by NTP and the National Institutes of Health. These reviews and responses to comments are included as appendices to this report, and revisions to the current document have incorporated and addressed these comments.

      Here are some key points about the cell phone study:

      The nomination for NTP to study cell phone radiofrequency radiation was made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
      These are the largest, most complex studies ever conducted by NTP.
      For the studies, rats and mice were exposed to frequencies and modulations currently used in cellular communications in the United States. The rodents were exposed for 10-minute on, 10-minute off increments, totaling just over 9 hours a day from before birth through 2 years of age.
      NTP found low incidences of tumors in the brains and hearts of male rats, but not in female rats. Studies in mice are continuing.
      NTP has provided these findings to its federal regulatory partners to enable them to have the latest information for public health guidance about safe ways to use cellular telephones and other radiofrequency radiation emitting devices.
      Previous human, observational data collected in earlier, large-scale population-based studies have found limited evidence of an increased risk for developing cancer from cell phone use.
      The FDA’s website provides a couple of steps people can take to minimize radiation exposure when using cell phones, including reducing the amount of time spent using a cell phone and using speaker mode or a headset to place more distance between one’s head and the cell phone.”



      Postdoctoral Fellow – Evaluation Research and Methodology, Northwestern University
      PhD – Social Psychology, UC Santa Barbara
      MA – Social Psychology, UC Santa Barbara
      BA – Mathematics, Rutgers University
      Research Interests:
      Health promotion and disease prevention
      Tobacco control, smoking prevention and cessation
      Substance abuse prevention
      Evaluation research and behavioral surveillance methods
      Health effects of mobile phone use
      Selected Publications:
      Garg, T., Fradkin, N., Moskowitz, J.M. Adoption of an outdoor residential hall smoking policy in a California public university: A case study. Journal of American College Health. 2011. 59(8):769-771.

      McDonnell DD, Kazinets G, Lee YJ, Moskowitz JM. An internet-based smoking cessation program for Korean Americans: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2011. 13(5):336-343.

      McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Moskowitz JM. Successful strategies for online recruitment of targeted populations: Lessons learned from a smoking cessation study among Korean Americans. Social Marketing Quarterly. 2010. 16(3):2-22.

      Myung, SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Cheng C-T, Moskowitz JM. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009. 27(33):5565-5572.

      Lin MK, Moskowitz JM, Kazinets G, Ivey SL, Kim Y, McDonnell DD. Adherence to Pap test guidelines: Variations among Asians in California. 2009. Ethnicity & Disease. 19(4):425-432.

      Myung SK, McDonnell DD, Kazinets G, Seo HG, Moskowitz JM. Relationships between household smoking restrictions and intention to quit smoking among Korean American male smokers in California. 2010. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 25(2):251-256.

      Myung SK, McDonnell DD, Kazinets G, Seo HG, Moskowitz JM. Effects of Web- and computer-based smoking cessation programs: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2009. 169(10):929-937.

      Ritieni A, Moskowitz J, Tholandi M. HIV/AIDS misconceptions among Latinos: Findings from a population-based survey of California adults. Health Education and Behavior. 2008. 35(2):245-249.

      McDonnell DD, Lee H-J., Kim Y-K., Kazinets G., Moskowitz JM. Cancer coverage in a mainstream and Korean American online newspaper: Lessons for community intervention. Patient Education and Counseling. 2008. 71(3):388-395.

      Moskowitz JM, Kazinets G, Wong JM, Tager IB. “Health is Strength”: A community health education program to improve breast and cervical cancer screening among Korean American women in Alameda County, California. Cancer Detection and Prevention. 2007. 31(2):173-183.

      Xia Q, Moskowitz J, Ritieni A, Facer M, Molitor F. Discordance between sexual behavior and self-reported sexual identity. [letter]. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007. 146(7): 539-540.

      Kim Y, Moskowitz, JM, Lee H, Kazinets Y. Health care access and utilization among Korean American adults! in Alameda County, California: 1994 and 2002. Journal of Korean Society for Health Education and Promotion. 2006. 23(5):29-46.

      Moskowitz JM, Ritieni A, Tholandi M, Xia Q (2006). How do Californians define safe sex? Californian Journal of Health Promotion. 4(1): 109-118.

      Moskowitz JM (2004). Assessment of cigarette smoking and smoking susceptibility among youth: Telephone computer-assisted self-interviews versus computer-assisted telephone interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly. 68(4):565-587.

      Moskowitz JM, Kazinets G, Tager IB, Wong J (2004). Breast and cervical cancer screening among Korean women, Santa Clara County, California, 1994 and 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 53(33):765-767.

      Lew A, Moskowitz JM, Ngo L,Wismer BA, Wong JM, Ahn Y, Tager IB (2003). Effect of provider status on preventive screening among Korean-American women in Alameda County, California. Preventive Medicine. 36(2):142-150.

      D’Onofrio CN, Moskowitz JM, Braverman MT, “Curtailing tobacco use among youth: Evaluation of Project 4-Health”, Health Education and Behavior,29(6):656-682, 2002

      Lew R, Moskowitz JM, Wismer BA, Min K, Kang SH, Chen AM, Tager IB (2001). “Correlates of cigarette smoking among Korean American adults in Alameda County, California. Asian American and Pacific Islander Journal of Health. 9(1):49-60.

      Wismer BA, Moskowitz JM, Min K, Chen AM, Ahn Y, Cho S, Jun S, Lew A, Mi Pak Y,Wong JM, Tager IB (2001). Interim assessment of a community intervention to improve breast and cervical cancer screening among Korean American women. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 7(2):61-70.

      Moskowitz JM, Lin Z, & Hudes ES (2000). The impact of workplace smoking ordinances in California on smoking cessation. American Journal of Public Health. 90(5): 757-761.

      Moskowitz JM, Lin Z, & Hudes ES (1999). The impact of California’s local smoking ordinances on worksite smoking policy and on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace. American Journal of Health Promotion. 13, 278-281.

      Wismer BA, Moskowitz JM, Chen AM, Kang SH, Novotny TE, Min K, Lew R & Tager IB (1998). Pap smear testing and independent correlates for Korean American women in two California counties. American Journal of Public Health. 88, 656-660.

      Wismer BA, Moskowitz JM, Chen AM, Kang SH, Novotny TE, Min K, Lew R & Tager IB (1998). Mammography and clinical breast examination among Korean American women in two California counties. Preventive Medicine. 27, 144-151.

      Murray DM, Moskowitz JM, & Dent C (1996). Design and analysis issues in a community-based drug-use prevention trial. American Behavioral Scientist. 39, 853-867.

      Other interests:
      American Evaluation Association American Public Health Association
      Profile Updated: October 21, 2011

  3. Reading through that vaccination thread I just pulled up to the sidebar is illustrative of the probem I am exposing. Belief in non-science based theories like chemtrails, anti-vax linkages to autism, uniform opposition to GMO’s and EMR cancer links is equally as anti-science as denial of climate change and belief in crises actors.

  4. This is for everyone:

    Just before he died in 1994, Carl Sagan made news by proclaiming, “98% of the American Public is scientifically illiterate.”

    What does that mean to you?

  5. My dad was a scientist. He encouraged me to take science and math classes at Cal — and I did. Our son is a STEM student, thanks to my encouragement. So I have a good respect for science. One of the problems, however, is the science people lording “science” over the rest of us. I have my opinions on these issues, but I don’t find it constructive to call others “illiterate.”

      1. He has a real “potty mouth” too. We’re down in Silicon Valley this afternoon for a volleyball tournament, and that squeaky little voice seems light years away. lol.

  6. Reinette- I admire your enthusiasm, but your time worn chicken little/cry wolf behavior has not a few of us ignoring you, which is a shame should you ever actually have something credible to promote buried within all of your fantastical claims.

    1. Jon Smith, again, try to stick to evidence and skip the character bashing. I know that’s difficult for many but try to restrain.

  7. “I can’t help to notice once again, you can’t resist attacking character rather than staying on topic. You do this often when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.” PLEASE REFERENCE SPECIFICALLY WHERE I ATTACK CHARACTER.

  8. “A request to all: It’s OK to disagree, but let’s be respectful.”

    Here is a request to you Jeff, can you please tell the group that claiming someone is attacking charcater when they have not even specifically referenced any specific individial, is itself a character attack.

  9. Is this statement over on the Generation Zapped thread what you are referring to Reinette? If so I am really disappointed that you would consider such a statement to be a character attack. It is not an attack on character to say that someone might be spectacularly wrong.

    “Respectfully, one can ‘be’ more than one thing; they can be incrediby community oriented and wonderful about one set of things, and simultaneously spectacularly wrong about another set.

    Unfortunately Mr. Boardman is correct, research and science show that, 1) vaccines are safe and save lives, 2) there is no substantiated evidence that foods from genetically engineered crops are less safe than foods from non-genetically engineered crops, and 3) there is no proven or even rationally suspected link between electromagnetic radiation and cancer (or any of the hundred other maladys from impotence to interrupting the harmonic resonance of the universe.)

    The problem with being pro-science is that one has to hold even people they admire to the same standards they would people they might not at first believe. That is what rationalism is all about.”

  10. “Funny thing about all the naysays screaming at me…..” Funny thing Reinette, there were no naysayers screaming at you here. What specific naysayers screaming at you are you referring to?

  11. OMG. You’re taking George Boardman’s cue? Like Boardman you are BOTH ignoring the science. Did you even LOOK at the NTP study? The BioInitiative Report? Did you? This IS science. Science that you continue to ignore so as to fit your myopic and profit-driven motives at the expense of “environmental quality, social fairness” as your SBC website claims that you are supposedly increasing.

    Again, did you LOOK at the study? Can you bear to look at anything that doesn’t already fit your belief system? I did! That’s actually how I came to the conclusion as a former cell phone store owner (1990) that there are obvious health and environmental health risks associated with EMFs.


    Let me help you out AGAIN:

    Partial List of Studies Showing Cell Tower Health Impacts:

    Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure)

    In May 2016 the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, released partial results of a $25,000,000 study on laboratory animals which showed a link between the RF (wireless) radiation and two types of cancer, prompting the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer to note that the results “mark a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk.’’ The NTP study also found DNA breakage in brain cells, confirming multiples studies dating back to 1994. The NTP study follows the 2011 classification by IARC, the World Health Organization’s cancer committee, of radiofrequency
    electromagnetic fields — including cell tower radiation — as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This puts RF radiation in the same category as DDT.

    Khurana, Hardell et al., Int. J Occup. Envir Health, Vol 16(3):263-267, 2010
    “Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations”
    –Analysis of 4 studies were from Germany, and 1 each from Austria, Egypt, France, Israel, Poland, Spain
    –7 studies showed altered neurobehavioral effects near cell towers
    –3 studies showed increased cancer incidence
    –Effects occurred 4x risk of cancer after 3-7 yrs exposure 1000m 3.212/1000

    Santina R et al, (September 2003), Symptoms experienced by people in the vicinity of bas stations: II/Incidences of age, duration of exposure, location of subject in relation to the antennas and other electromagnetic factors”, Pathol Biol (Paris). 2003 Sep;51(7):412-5

    Santini R et al, (July 2002), Investigation on the health of people living near mobile telephone relays stations: I/Incidence according to distance and sex ”, Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002 Jul;50(6):369-73
    Santini et al found significant health effects on people living within 300 meters of mobile phone base stations. Fatigue, sleep disturbance, headaches, concentration problems, depression, memory problems, irritability, cardiovascular problems, hearing disruption, skin problems, dizziness, etc.

    Eskander EF et al, (November 2011) “How does long term exposure to base stations and mobile phones affect human hormone profiles?”, Clin Biochem. 2011 Nov 27. [Epub ahead of print]
    –Showed significant decrease in volunteers’ ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels from RF exposures from both mobiles and cell towers.

    Levitt & Lai, “Biological Effects from Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted by Cell Tower Base Stations and Other Antenna Arrays” Environmental Reviews, 2010
    –Over 100 citations, approximately 80% of which showed biological effects near towers
    –Built case for ‘setbacks’ and need for new exposure guidelines reflecting multiple and cumulative exposures.

    Sage & Pall, January 2014, Presentation to Washington State – Symptoms and RF levels in Various Cell Tower Studies

    Carpenter, D. O. “Human disease resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields”, Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 159-172. Summarizes excessive RF radiation increases risk for cancer, male infertility and neurobehavioral abnormalities.

    Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Study for the Netherlands Ministries of Economic Affairs, Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and Health, Welfare and Sport, “Effects of Global Communications System Radio-Frequency Fields On Well Being and Cognitive Function of Human Subjects With and Without Subjective Complaints”, (September 2003)

    Notes by Grahame Blackwell: Found significant effects on wellbeing, according to a number of internationally-recognized criteria (including headaches, muscle fatigue/pain, dizziness etc) from 3G mast emissions well below accepted ‘safety’ levels (less than 1/25,000th of ICNIRP guidelines). Those who had previously been noted as ‘electrosensitive’ under a scheme in that country were shown to have more pronounced ill-effects, though others were also shown to experience significant effects.

    Oberfeld, Portoles, Navarro et al, “The Microwave Syndrome—Further Aspects of a Spanish Study”,_ _Public Health Department Salzburg, Austria, University Hospital La Fe. Valencia, Spain, Department of Applied Physics, University Valencia, Spain, Foundation European Bioelectromagnetism (FEB) Madrid, Spain, Presented at an International Conference in Kos (Greece), 2004

    Notes by Grahame Blackwell: Notes by Grahame Blackwell: This study found significant ill-health effects in those living in the vicinity of two GSM mobile phone base stations. They observed that: “The strongest five associations found are depressive tendency, fatigue, sleeping disorder, difficulty in concentration and cardiovascular problems.” As their conclusion the research team wrote: “Based on the data of this study the advice would be to strive for levels not higher than 0.02 V/m for the sum total, which is equal to a power density of 0.0001 μW/cni2 or 1 μW_/m2, which is the indoor exposure value for GSM base stations proposed on empirical evidence by the Public Health Office of the Government of Salzburg in 2002.”

    Usfie, Israel (as shown in Documentary “Full Signal)”. Cancer cases only found in vicinity of new cell towers with very few exceptions. See the film to hear about the study which was conducted by a local doctor who noticed increasing cancers following installation of cell towers on a ridge line in the city.

    Naila Study, Germany (November 2004, Naila Study, Germany (November 2004), Report by researchers (five medical doctors) Following the call by Wolfram König, , President of the Bundesamt für trahlenschutz (Federal Agency for radiation protection), to all doctors of medicine to collaborate actively in the assessment of the risk posed by cellular radiation, the aim of our study was to examine whether people living close to cellular transmitter antennas were exposed to a heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumors. The basis of the data used for the survey were PC files of the case histories of patients between the years 1994 and 2004. While adhering to data protection, the personal data of almost 1,000 patients were evaluated for this study, which was completed without any external financial support. It is intended to continue the project in the form of a register.

    The result of the study shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 meters from the cellular transmitter site, which bas been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. In the years 1999-2004, i.e. after five years’ operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila outside the area.”

  12. Reinette- you hang your specious argument on statements made by Dr. Moskowitz. Moskowitz is in the same loony bin as Dr. Merkola and Dr. Oz. No less than the prestigious American Council on Health and Science calls out Moskowitz as a “cell phone truther” who has never seen a conspiracy he can’t embrace

    In response to Moskowitz and his sheeple The National Cancer Institute devotes an entire page to safety of cell phones and why it is inconceivable that the EMR emitted by cell phones can cause cancer. Two separate cohort studies following over a million people have found zero connection between cell phones or wi-fi use and cancer, erectile disfunction, binge eating (or anything else you might care to name).

    We play this May pole game every time you provide “proof” that chem trails have killed our forests (not drought), that smart meters have reduced the number of birds in your yard (and your cats have nothing to do with it), that vaccines are responsible for myriad diseases, and . . . we could go on. Your “proof” is ALWAYS from quack sources “peer reviewed” by other quacks (follow some of the links to your reviewers and cringe).

    Steve is well within reasonable limits when he questions your capacity to make critical observations. It is not character bashing, it is part of being logical when questioning your half baked conclusions.

  13. So let’s cover two things first.

    1) I am not “takeing George Boardmans cue…” I explicitly said on the ‘Generation Zapped’ thread that his position was unteneable and the headline unwarranted. If you are going to critique at least get the actual facts correct.

    2) Could you please identify the statement that you stated was ‘a character attack.’

    I really don’t want to just let that hand out there because your pattern seems to be to claim that people are attacking you personally when they are actually just questioning the veracity of the information you post.

  14. And of course I looked at the NTP study and the BioInitiative Report. Implying a critic is not reading the info is just another diversioary debating tactic.

  15. Reinette- I am using your own links, so unlike Steve (:-)) I am not being “myopic or profit driven.” I can only wonder if you actually read your own supportive evidence.

    Here is an unbiased analysis of the rat survey you wanted us to read: “The number of cancer cases was small, meaning they are likely statistical blips rather than genuine products of radiation exposure. Moreover, the fact that EXPOSED RATS LIVED LONGER THAN THE CONTROL (my emphasis), on average, undermines the reliability of the results.”

    One must wonder why you never include the complete findings with your fact-filled diatribes.

  16. Careful jon, if you diagree you are by deifnition mypopic and profit driven, regardless of the evidence you post to rebut the case.

  17. Gentlemen, do me a favor. Keep your cell phones to your head and in your pocket. No loss to me. If you can’t take the State of California’s warning then so be it. Lots of people are heeding the warning and they are becoming much more selective in how they use their phone and carry it. Amazing how this state warning is goading you.

    Steve, you have been personally attacking mr for years now. Read your old comments. Stop pretending as if you don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s getting old and you are a sell out to Big Industry. SBC is the perfect definition of an astroturf organization. And when quoting your sources. I would suggest you follow the money first. The warnings are being sound by scientists from around the world:

    A letter released today, signed by 195 scientists from 39 countries, calls on the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and national governments to develop stricter controls on these and other products that create electromagnetic fields (EMF).

    “Based on peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices,” reads the letter, whose signatories have collectively published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject. “The various agencies setting safety standards have failed to impose sufficient guidelines to protect the general public, particularly children who are more vulnerable to the effects of EMF.”

  18. Okay, I’ll drop the editorial comment and simply point out that Reinette throws out links that she apparently doesn’t expect anybody to read since her argument becomes so transparent because her quotes are so assiduously cherry picked. From her Mother Jones link (which leans heavily on the discredited Dr. Muskowitz) I can argue equally effectively against her :

    “Timothy Moynihan, a doctor with the respected Mayo Clinic, concluded that “there’s no consensus about the degree of cancer risk—if any—posed by cell phone use.”

  19. Reviewing my comment on this thread and on the associated “Generation Zapped” thread it is apparent that nowhere did I directly address Ms. Senum, nor did I indirectly critique her personally. The person who directly addressed Ms. Senum’s position on this issue was Jeff, and I went out of my way to praise Ms. Senum, albeit obliquely in the vain hope of avoiding a ‘personal’ exchange, for the positive net effect she has had on the community.

    My comments on both threads focused on the validity of the ‘science’ behind the claim of verified negative health effects of electromagnetic radiation.

    The fact that Ms. Senum insists on making this some sort of ‘questioning her character’ issue speaks for itself. In a rational world questioning the position an individual holds or the validity of the information upon which they base their positions, is not a ‘character attack,’ it is rational debate.

    Furthermore, nowhere did I question or critique Ms. Senum’s professional or business relationships as a means of devaluing her position on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. She chose to do so with mine. I would call that a lack of character and thin skinnedness that is breathtaking in someone who is so agressively public in their pronouncements and beliefs.

    I will get to the ‘science’ here; but to do so while Ms. Senum feels compelled to personally and professionally attack people who hold a different view and not point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of that position would be wrong.

    1. Steve,
      What you’re reading was not Jon’s original comment. This was Jon’s original comment, which is decidedly nasty and deserved a “redo”: “Reinette- Do you read your own links, or does any critical rebuttal to them even get past your ear wax?”

  20. I think jon nails it with this:

    “We play this May pole game every time you provide “proof” that chem trails have killed our forests (not drought), that smart meters have reduced the number of birds in your yard (and your cats have nothing to do with it), that vaccines are responsible for myriad diseases, and . . . we could go on. Your “proof” is ALWAYS from quack sources “peer reviewed” by other quacks (follow some of the links to your reviewers and cringe).”

    Reinette’s sources, just like the sources of climate denialists, are cherry picked, incomplete, often misquoted, self referencing, and presented in an intellectually dishonest way.

    The reason the State of California refused to release the 2009 statement on EMR is that although it was an internal working document that went through 26 subsequent drafts they did not have confidence in the conclusions, and the preponerance of evidence did not support the original draft. Dr. Moskowitz seized on an early internal draft and using the California Public Records Act forced its release in court, and now he, and by proxy Reinette, and BTW Jeff you, in the quote earlier in thsi thread,

    “Although the science is STILL EVOLVING, there are concerns among SOME public health professionals and members of the public regarding long-term, high use exposure to the energy emitted by cell phones,” said CDPH Director and State Public Health Officer Dr. Karen Smith.”

    …are presenting it as a valid statement by the state Department of Public Health. Neither you nor Reinette provided any of that context, allowing readers to believe that this is an official position by the CDPH. It is not. That is the very definition on intellectual dishonesty.

  21. “Overall, the epidemiological studies on mobile phone RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumours. Furthermore, they do not indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck region. Some studies raised questions regarding an increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma in heavy users of mobile phones. The results of cohort and incidence time trend studies do not support an increased risk for glioma while the possibility of an association with acoustic neuroma remains open. Epidemiological studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer.”

    Click to access scenihr_o_041.pdf

  22. In the war of releasing a wave of links to overwhelm the opposition in data and then calim that they must not know anything because they did not read all of them I give you this list of 30 studies variously debunking the links between brain cancer (and numerour of ther negative health effects) and electromagnetic radiation:

    Selected References

    SCENIHR. 2015. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF): Disclaimer, accessed August 15, 2015.
    Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, et al. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA 2011; 305(8):808–813. [PubMed Abstract]
    Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kännälä S, et al. GSM mobile phone radiation suppresses brain glucose metabolism. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 2011; 31(12):2293-301. [PubMed Abstract]
    Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kännälä S, et al. No effects of short-term GSM mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow measured using positron emission tomography. Bioelectromagnetics 2012; 33(3):247-56. [PubMed Abstract]
    International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic FieldsExit Disclaimer. Lyon, France: IARC; 2013. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, Volume 102.
    Hirose H, Suhara T, Kaji N, et al. Mobile phone base station radiation does not affect neoplastic transformation in BALB/3T3 cells. Bioelectromagnetics 2008; 29(1):55–64. [PubMed Abstract]
    Oberto G, Rolfo K, Yu P, et al. Carcinogenicity study of 217 Hz pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields in Pim1 transgenic mice. Radiation Research 2007; 168(3):316–326. [PubMed Abstract]
    Zook BC, Simmens SJ. The effects of pulsed 860 MHz radiofrequency radiation on the promotion of neurogenic tumors in rats. Radiation Research 2006; 165(5):608–615. [PubMed Abstract]
    Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, et al. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 2004; 112(17):1741–1754. [PubMed Abstract]
    Cardis E, Richardson L, Deltour I, et al. The INTERPHONE study: design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study population. European Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 22(9):647–664. [PubMed Abstract]
    The INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 39(3):675–694. [PubMed Abstract]
    Larjavaara S, Schüz J, Swerdlow A, et al. Location of gliomas in relation to mobile telephone use: a case-case and case-specular analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 174(1):2–11. [PubMed Abstract]
    Johansen C, Boice J Jr, McLaughlin J, Olsen J. Cellular telephones and cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001; 93(3):203–207. [PubMed Abstract]
    Schüz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006; 98(23):1707–1713. [PubMed Abstract]
    Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al. Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. British Medical Journal 2011; 343:d6387. [PubMed Abstract]
    Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: Prospective study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2013; 42(3): 792-802. [PubMed Abstract]
    Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, et al. Authors’ response to: the case of acoustic neuroma: comment on mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers. International Journal of Epidemiology 2014; 43(1):275. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt186Exit Disclaimer.
    Muscat JE, Malkin MG, Thompson S, et al. Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer. JAMA 2000; 284(23):3001–3007. [PubMed Abstract]
    Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et al. Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344(2):79-86. [PubMed Abstract]
    Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2014; 71(7):514-522. [PubMed Abstract]
    Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects. International Journal of Oncology 2011; 38(5):1465–1474. [PubMed Abstract]
    Lönn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, et al. Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 161(6):526–535. [PubMed Abstract]
    Aydin D, Feychting M, Schüz J, et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2011; 103(16):1264–1276. [PubMed Abstract]
    Inskip PD, Hoover RN, Devesa SS. Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. Neuro-Oncology 2010; 12(11):1147–1151. [PubMed Abstract]
    Deltour I, Johansen C, Auvinen A, et al. Time trends in brain tumor incidence rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974–2003. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(24):1721–1724. [PubMed Abstract]
    Deltour I, Auvinen A, Feychting M, et al. Mobile phone use and incidence of glioma in the Nordic countries 1979–2008: consistency check. Epidemiology 2012; 23(2):301–307. [PubMed Abstract]
    Little MP, Rajaraman P, Curtis RE, et al. Mobile phone use and glioma risk: comparison of epidemiological study results with incidence trends in the United States. British Medical Journal 2012; 344:e1147. [PubMed Abstract]
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Radiation-Emitting Products: Reducing Exposure: Hands-free Kits and Other Accessories. Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved June 18, 2012.
    U.S. Federal Communications Commission. (n.d.). FCC Encyclopedia: Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Retrieved June 18, 2012.
    Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2012, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Retrieved January 11, 2016.

    1. I see all the links didn’t come up so the enterprising reader may need to search for them individually 🙂

  23. Steve and Jon,
    Let’s bring this discussion down to earth. I know Steve is a big cell phone user. I don’t know about Jon. Do you follow these practical guidelines, now on the CDPH website?
    (This is what prompted the discussion).

    The new CDPH guidance includes practical steps both adults and children could take to reduce exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. That includes:

    Keeping the phone away from the body
    Reducing cell phone use when the signal is weak
    Reducing the use of cell phones to stream audio or video, or to download or upload large files
    Keeping the phone away from the bed at night
    Removing headsets when not on a call
    Avoiding products that claim to block radio frequency energy. These products may actually increase your exposure.

    1. I do most of those things because 1) I don’t like carrying stuff on my body, 2) I don’t like dropped calls, 3) why use my cell phone to stream when I can use my laptop or Ipad, 4) I can’t figure out how to turn off all of my lights and vibrating notifications when messages come in from all my social media feeds, 5) I use a car speaker to listen to music and books on tape, 6) why would I but such trash, EMR doesn’t cause brain cancer. 🙂

  24. Let’s get to the nub of the matter.

    When elected officials hold positions that are so clearly unsupported in science it has consequences.

    I recently read through the comments to the Nevada City Planning Commission on the siting of cell phone towers in the city. Although a good case could be made that the design of the towers might be in conflict with Nevada City’s historic preservation ordinance, an issue that could be addressed with design changes, the preponderance of the comment was focused on the percived negative health effects of EMR. This is a direct result of people in the community buying into scientifically unsupported claims about the health effects, encouraged by an elected official, and bringing those concerns to a public policy debate. Although I agree the public can say whatever they want in a public debate, [insert God Bless America here], acting on such concerns is irrational.

    In the recent debate over approval of cell towers in Nevada County, according to The Union:

    “Jaqueline Janssen read a letter she said was penned by Nevada City Councilwoman Reinette Senum, who didn’t attend the meeting. In that letter Senum states that some insurers now refuse to cover claims of injury from radiofrequency emissions. Senum also argues that any money gained from the project would be lost in future lawsuits.”

    Indeed, according to Business Insurance that is true, but not because of potential health risks, rather the extended duration and cost of lawsuits that could drag on for years and cost insurance companies thousands of hours of time,

    “Regardless of the legitimacy of the alleged harmful affects of EMR/EMF, it still is costly for an insurer to defend cases that may last years, he said.

    The EMR/EMF issue has waxed and waned over the years because of the difference in scientific opinion. If there were a scientific consensus, “you’d have a different insurance picture,” Mr. Passannante said.

    That uncertainty is anathema to insurers, generating an unpredictable marketplace.”

    And of course what is left out of this discourse is that fact that, “To date, lawsuits alleging harm caused by EMF or RF exposure have had little success. For the most part, this is because scientific evidence has failed to establish a definite link between exposure to electromagnetic fields and health problems like cancer.”

    From the paper EMF and RF Exposure: Toxic Tort Litigation by Kathleen Michon J.D.

    Are you beginning to see how this works–make a sceintifically unsupported claim, convince enough people that the claim is true, convince them to litigate (or imply) over the claim, use the litigation or potential for litigation as a rationale for denying a project–it is a strategy as old as the hills.

    I could make a similar irrationality case about vaccinations. All of the science points to the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, the claims of their negative effects have been regularly disproven, yet Nevada County has the lowest vaccination rate in California, and the county has seen contained minor outrbreaks of infectious disease that could have been avoided had we had a higher vaccination rate.

    Junk science driving public policy debates is a bad precendent–whether it be about climate change from Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke, or about EMR by Reinette Senum–and the public should demand more from their elected and appointed officials.

  25. I follow the guidelines and more . . . but not out of an irrational fear of my phone. The iPhone lives in the truck (Google Maps is my co pilot) and I rarely unplug it to carry it on my person. Only a very few people have my cell number (our primary numbers are landlines at the house and the office). Its use is limited to outgoing calls, maps and the camera. The truck itself, with (gasp) satellite radio, On-Star tracking, and wireless connections between various components of the vehicle is without doubt a much stronger source of EMR than the telephone.

    After reading, via Renette’s link, that rats raised with cell phones live longer than those without the benefit of irradiation, maybe I should keep it under my pillow.

      1. My wife and I are down in Silicon Valley today for a volleyball tournament with our son. I’m starting to wonder if we should have brought Todd along to combat his loneliness.

    1. Rats raised with cell phones live longer because they can call 911 in a medical emergency.
      Time is critical in events such as heart attack or stroke, so having an i-phone handy has saved many a rat life.
      The phones also make great flat screens for rat man-caves.

      1. I’m sorry Jeff, I don;t understand why you are emphasisizing my employment or the organization I work for. Can you explain that to me in plain English please?

      2. I stand with Steve as he understands the Scientific Method and logic. I posed the Carl Sagan statement earlier and I still ask if anyone understands what he was talking about.

      3. Chris,
        We know what it means, but we also are humble to acknowledge “the science is still evolving” on this issue. And more important we know the Golden Rule, which should apply to “doers” like Reinette.

      4. Sorry, but the science constantly evolves. The question is when do you have enough information to make rational decisions. The answer should be when the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence from trusted sources points in one direction. Does that mean we stop science? No. Does it mean some group of people claiming cell towers cause cancer without evidence should be able to stop access to communications for an entire community because they think witches sink when you throw them in a pond tied to a rock? If we accept nonsense like this we may as well just reverse the entire fu@#ing Enlightenment. Evidence based decision making. Science based. Weren’t you just busting the Trump administration for rejecting that Jeff? Do you recognize the inconsistency of rejecting that from someone you don’t like but being an apologist for it for one you do?

      5. Steve,
        No one is disputing that the evidence points to skepticism. Having said that, you have to acknowledge that CDPH now issues guidelines on how to reduce exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. That’s newsworthy and worth acknowledging. As for inconsistency, you are always one to promote free speech, so my approach to this group of protestors is just that. They are not stopping access to communications; no final decision has been made. They are expressing their view as part of the democratic process. And if they lose, I doubt they will try to saw down the cell phone towers. I’m not worried about that. As for Reinette, she has contributed much to our community and won several well-deserved community service awards. That’s not being an apologist, that’s being a pragmatist (recognizing the value of work that helps the community, even if you don’t agree on all points). I would argue just the opposite: You don’t like Reinette for her criticism of the SBC as an “astroturf” organization, and already have a predisposed opinion based on her anti-vax views. That’s OK, but it is leading to an overly rigid view on the specific issue at hand.

  26. I. Here’s to Reinette Senum and her community service awards!

    II. And here’s to some practical guidelines for cell phones, now on the CDPH website?

    III. And here’s to being able to agree or disagree on this issue as neighbors who seek the best for Nevada City CA.

  27. Steve,

    I am teasing you “$ierra,” as in “money,” just as you teased me when you wrote “Perhaps you should rename you blog 95959Report 🙂”

    I know you are well meaning and well informed, and I’ve said all along I am a skeptic of much of this. However, I do find the CDPH guidelines to be sensible. They certainly do not endorse any view.

    I also am grateful for what Reinette has done for our community, as evidenced by her community service awards. Some of this actually falls into the category of “economic development.” Our Farmers Market is an “economic engine,” Reinette also was instrumental in bringing some new businesses to town, and our bi-annual town cleanup is good for business.

    I would encourage you to come down and break bread with Reinette again someday. Perhaps you can find some points of agreement with her besides this subject. After all, this subject is not going to be settled in our community. I take Reinette’s outspoken views in the context of our community at large (which tolerates a wide diversity of views).

    I have never known Reinette to be a dictator of public policy; she believes in the democratic process. And this includes cell phone towers. She certainly is not responsible for the poor execution of some of our local technology or economic development initiatives, though some try to make her a scapegoat for their own incompetence.

    In the years I’ve lived here, I have been astounded how she’s been vilified — often if a very ugly way by people with their own self-serving agendas. It is unacceptable for someone who is a “doer.”

  28. Hey I was responding to your rediculously parochial point that it was a Nevada City issue, thus the Zip Code. I am sure you got that.

    I am not sure how you are ‘teasing’ by equating ‘Sierra’ with ‘money.’ If by that you mean that the Sierra Business Council has been sucessful bringing tens of millions of dollars of investment to the Sierra that it otherwise would not have seen, I wear that as an honor.

    1. No, I was teasing you that you are too assured of an issue “where the science is still evolving.” But thanks for the economic development that the SBC has supported including “smart housing,” energy efficiency programs and geotourism. Like Reinette, SBC has made our region a better place.

  29. Okay, I tried to lighten things up, so here.
    In about ten to twenty years this earth will be nothing more than a floating crematorium and our discussions will be moot since we will all be dead, roasted to a turn.
    Why not just be nice to each other until it’s over?

  30. Oh, look, Mr. Science (“Greg Goodknight”) is puffing his feathers, this time belittling the science of oil exploration. ( or managing a multi-million-dollar oil exploration budget. Heck, if it weren’t for those discoveries, Greg couldn’t drive to Costco for his “artisan cheese.” As for Mr. Science, Greg’s illustrious career (AKA,” independent software engineer at my place”) is here: An EE master’s graduate from Loyola Marymount University? Nowhere to be found on this list: Small towns are a hoot!

  31. Here we go again: Greg still doesn’t understand the difference in calculus curriculum for Cal students: There’s calculus “intended for majors in engineering and the physical sciences” and there’s calculus “intended for majors in the life and social sciences”
    I don’t think he could be hired as a math teacher at Sierra College.

    1. I read Mr. Science’s (Greg “independent software engineer at my place” Goodknight’s) long-winded rebuttal to this on Rebane’s blog and he’s either more dense than I thought or purposely deceptive — or both.
      One example: He claims Cal does not offer “engineering calculus,” but the course guide clearly states (I guess I have to link to it again) that one calculus course is “intended for majors in ENGINEERING and the physical sciences” while another is “intended for majors in life and social sciences.”

      Mr. Science concedes that Loyola Marymount is not a top grad school for EE, but his fallback is that it’s within “stumbling distance” from his office at Hughes Aircraft. Of course, he fails to mention that other top-notch schools for EE (Cal Tech, USC, UCLA, etc.) also are in the same area.

      What’s “sad” (to use his words) is that Greg (drumroll, please) the renowned “independent software engineer at my place” honestly thinks he is Mr. Science. He really does. Small towns are a hoot! And Greg plays a leading role in this one!

  32. Seasoned journalists like myself have an instinct called the “smell test.” It’s a term that has been around far longer than the term “fake news.” Like many others, I sniffed out Greg “global warming denier/independent software engineer at my place” Goodnight long ago. Unfortunately, he embodies all too many of the self-professed “experts” in our little community (AKA “small towns are a hoot”). Greg would be a major character in my book “The State of Jefferson.” People like Greg are a real downside to living in our community, undermining its effort to be as respected intellectually as Coastal California, including Silicon Valley. (Barry Pruett, Russ Steele, George Rebane, Todd Juvinall and others, are you listening? I doubt it, because you also belong in this category.) But for the rest of us — the VAST MAJORITY — here’s an example of Goodnight BS:
    Greg Goodnight: “The course you just can’t name correctly (at Cal) is called… Calculus 1A/1B, not “engineering calculus”. The majors that could be taking it are math (imagine that), chemistry, chemical biology, physics, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, economics and architecture. Astrophysics, economics.”
    WTF? The Cal Berkeley course catalog directly contradicts Googknight (as would a counselor), pointing to another calculus class, Math 16A/B: It states: “. The sequence Math 16A, 16B is intended for students OUTSIDE the physical sciences and engineering …” Memo to Mr. Science: That would include majors like architecture and economics. For example, note the major for economics requires EITHER calculus 1A/1B OR Math 16A/B.
    As for Calculus 1A/1B the course catalog states: This course is “intended for majors in ENGINEERING and the physical sciences” Got it Greg? What about this don’t you understand, or are you too insecure to say “I was wrong.”
    So in fact, Mr. Science got it wrong — again. But instead of a mea culpa, Mr. Science turns nasty, insulting my dad, whose experience includes being an oil exploration geologist (you know, the scientists who discover oil; in his case, major finds on the California coast and Alaska using sophisticated computers and other tools) as well as being a senior manager of a multimillion-dollar oil exploration budget of two Fortune top 10 companies.
    What a twerp Greg! Small towns are a hoot, and nobody embodies “podunk”
    more than Goodknight. I wonder how many locals he has BS’ed over the years with his endless stream of bull s***. But not here. We know better, and we’re happy to call him out and shine a bright light on it.
    I should lighten up, though, because I’m hardly alone in calling out Mr. Science’s BS. Others have figured out his MO. The latest example:
    Greg wrote a lame rebuttal but the crux of what this letter writer said was accurate: “In his piece (Goodnight) stated “there hadn’t been a U.S. hurricane landfall in the past decade before the current season” (
    WTF? The letter writer called him out on this stupid remark, writing: “Well, I’m sure that the residents of New York City will be relieved to hear that hurricane ‘Sandy’ really didn’t come ashore in 2012 and for that matter, I guess the other nine ‘landfalls’ that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has recorded between 2007 and 2016 must not have happened either.”
    OMG, where is The Union’s content editor to save us from Greg’s
    BS. But all Greg could muster as a response was: “…I did err in leaving out the qualifier ‘major’ (meaning Category 3, 4 or 5) in my claim of no U.S. hurricane landfalls in the previous decade …”
    Err? You “f***ed up” Greg. Big time.
    So Greg (AKA “independent software engineer at my place”), crawl back under a rock in our little community. You are safe there and it’s also where you belong. ROFLOL.

    1. Check out this laughable explanation from Goodknight: “my only error (yep, I left off the word “major” while editing to meet the length limit at The Union, big time), that Hurricane Sandy wasn’t a hurricane when it made landfall, which is why it’s also called Superstorm or even Frankenstorm Sandy.”
      So now Goodknight blames The Union’s “length limit” for his patently false claim that “there hadn’t been a U.S. hurricane landfall in the past decade before the current season.” As the reader points out, it wasn’t just Sandy “but NINE OTHER ‘landfalls’ that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has recorded between 2007 and 2016 must not have happened either.”
      You can’t make this stuff up! Greg might as well add Clown College to his curriculum vitae!

  33. Talk about empty lives! A comment on Todd’s blog was posted at 3:30 a.m. Even if the post was from Europe (AKA, 11:30 a.m.), you'd have to wonder: aren't you supposed to be on vacation? lol.

      1. Now the misogynism is showing up on Rebane’s blog, this time led by “fish.” I rarely, if ever, read a comment on that blog from a woman. Just the same few white males who could be interchangeable. Go figure!

  34. Oh look. Mr. Science’s vocabulary has deteriorated to “f**k” and “s**t” What an intellect! Small towns are a hoot!

      1. So Greg claims his house is within 5 miles of Cal State L.A. but he won’t provide a link.

  35. One of the fools on Todd’s blog claims we’re having a “meltdown” over here. Huh? We’re just having a lot of fun. More to come!

      1. And last but not least, Todd Juvinall weighs in. My weekend trip to Silicon Valley has been a stark reminder that our community still has a long ways to go to be taken seriously. We have a preponderance of class clowns.

  36. Greg claims he graduated with a bachelor’s’ from Harvey Mudd with a master’s from LMU. Either way, I suspect we won’t know for sure unless he posts images of his degrees and his transcripts.

  37. Goodnight writes: “I’ve also been told by someone who should know that Jeff just can’t get enough Chateau Cash Flow… white Zinfandel, in a bottle with the ever popular screw top.” No Greg, I have never had a bottle of white Zinfandel, let alone a glass. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Best you cut your losses and go to bed. lol.

  38. Greg writes: “Oh, but you typically hide the BA Rhetoric, don’t you, Jeff? Another lie! ” My LinkedIn profile clearly states: “University of California, Berkeley; Bachelor’s Rhetoric.” When you go head-to-head with this clown, you realize that he routinely lies to score points. Greg, crawl back under a rock where you belong. Small towns are a hoot!

  39. Five of the last six comments on Rebane’s blog are from Gregory Goodnight, who is talking to himself. What a hoot!
    Gregory on Sandbox – 19dec17
    Gregory on Sandbox – 19dec17
    Gregory on Sandbox – 19dec17
    Gregory on Sandbox – 19dec17
    Don Bessee on Sandbox – 19dec17
    Gregory on Sandbox – 19dec17

  40. God Bless western Nevada County. It has so much potential but is dragged down by a hard right contingent that is out of step with California, an intellectual mecca and economic engine for our nation. This outlandish behavior makes it hard for the rest of the state to take our community seriously. But until community leaders stand up to this group, we will forever be labeled “backwater.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s