News for Canada

 Page 1 of 39   Next›  Last» 

Airline pilot has nowhere to escape from wireless radiation (2012)
Canada Created: 19 May 2017
Professional pilot Melissa Chalmers has moved twice in 10 months to escape wireless radiation and worries she’s running out of places to hide.

The commercial pilot of 20 years is on sick leave. She suffers from sensitivity to electromagnetic waves — the invisible waves given off by almost everything electric, in particular, those emitted by communication towers that are popping up across Canada.

Chalmers, who lives near Grand Bend on Lake Huron, may be moving again because of a new a cell tower not far from her forested home.

“They have put a tower up down the road. I’m just waiting for it to be turned on and then I will probably have to leave the home,” she said.

Chalmers first noticed, about two-and-a-half years ago when she lived in London, that the nausea she felt when she was in her apartment subsided when she left.

Cellphones, cellphone towers, wireless internet routers, cordless phones and power lines have all been recognized as possible contributors to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EMS), which is caused by significant exposure from radio waves.

EMS symptoms include poor sleep, fatigue, headache, nausea, dizziness, heart palpitations, memory impairment and skin rashes.

Dr. Riina Bray, medical director, Environmental Health Clinic, Toronto’s Women College Hospital, is a leading physician on EMS and its symptoms.

“I’m just basically seeing more and more folks with electro hypersensitivity . . . there is a small fraction of the population who are hypersensitive and the WHO (World Health Organization) supports that phenomenon as being real,” she told the Star.

“With the continuous onslaught of this stuff in our society it is very hard for these folks . . . to get better faster.”

“If I have to move again,” Chalmers told the Star, “it will be three times since Christmas, so I am getting pretty tired of moving and I really don’t know where I am going to go at this point.”

Critics say if Industry Canada, which has total control over telecommunications, has its way there will be no place for people such as Chalmers to live.

Industry Canada did not respond to a Star request for an interview.

Bray said the public should not have to prove harm. “It should be done by industry and government,” she says.

Municipalities that have tried to control the number and location of cells towers say Industry Canada has told them it would block any attempt to usurp its powers.

The municipality of Lambton Shore near Lake Huron found out where it stood when it mused about creating a community, Port Franks, free of wireless radiation as did Oakville when it introduced its own protocol calling for a 200-metre setback.

“I went to that meeting in Oakville where it was discussed and it became very clear from Industry Canada and Health Canada that they were not going to change, they were not listening. They were there to dictate,” said Frank Klegg, a retired Microsoft Canada president, who is now head of Citizens For Safe Technology (C4ST).

Klegg said C4ST wants to work with the federal government to establish so-called white zones across the country where people who are sensitive to wireless radiation can seek refuge.

Oakville Mayor Rob Burton said the federal government doesn’t even consult the municipality on 95 per cent of the applications to erect cell towers and for the remaining 5 per cent he suggested the consultation is little more than lip service.

“What shocks me is the federal government pretending that we have a say,” Burton said.

“Our protocol is designed to get us out of the line of fire . . . we have turned away seven or eight now (but) then the proponent then goes to Industry Canada (which) gives them the go-ahead,” he said.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Toronto Star, Richard J. Brennan, 17 Oct 2012

Feds Undermine Secret Wireless Warnings, As Evidence of Harm Mounts
Canada Created: 30 Apr 2017
Ottawa – A CBC investigation revealed that cell phones exceed maximum permitted exposures during normal use, and expose Canadians to three to four times more radiofrequency energy than measured during testing per regulations. Since 81% of Canadians are unaware of fine print warnings in the phone or manual, they naturally hold cell phones against ears and carry phones in pockets. Few people distance wireless devices from the body by at least 5 to 20 mm for phones and 20+ cm for tablets.

In response to CBC, the federal government alleges that phones are still “safe” when exposure standards are exceeded.

Claims of outright safety is a departure from Health Canada’s precautionary approaches instituted following the Krever Commission into the tainted blood supply, to acknowledge uncertainties and not to await complete proof of potential harm before taking reasonable action (such as public education). Instead, Health Canada is awaiting consensus that the totality of science shows biological effects that are adverse – a near-impossible bar of proof in a world of industry-sponsored generation of doubt and regulatory capture.

Health Canada refers to a “safety margin.” This is a 10-fold lowering of the exposure limit to extrapolate from laboratory animals to healthy workers, and 5-fold to go from healthy adults to our most vulnerable, including children. “If cell phone radiation was a chemical contaminant, regulators would apply greater “uncertainty” (not “safety”) factors, providing greater protection. If drinking water or air was much more polluted than allowed, we would see action,” said Meg Sears, Chair of Prevent Cancer Now. “Public health needs protective limits and relevant testing. At a minimum we need education to put a distance between devices and our bodies. Instead, the federal government is denying and compounding the problem, by accepting compliance testing that is known to be inadequate, undermining their own standards and encouraging complacency.”

Canada restricts human exposure to microwave/radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to prevent excessive tissue heating, but extensive research reports biological effects at lower (non-thermal) levels. In laboratories, non-thermal effects are seen in biological systems, and in industries chemists exploit non-thermal effects to speed reactionswith low energy input.

In short, industries are commercializing what Health Canada alleges is impossible.

These non-thermal effects include DNA damage and oxidative stress, which can contribute to cancers. In 2011, a Panel of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer found that RFR possibly causes cancer. Research has progressed, and 2017 reviews from India, Sweden, and Polandconclude that cell phone use is probably or certainly linked with increased risk of brain tumours, most notably in long-term cellphone users with more cumulative hours, and in those who started using cell phones at younger ages. In January 2017, renowned Canadian cancer epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Miller, leading an expert scientific group, stated that the evidence that RFR causes cancer has strengthened considerablysince 2011. In the US, brain tumours have overtaken leukemia and lymphoma as the most common cancer in adolescents.

When contacted by Prevent Cancer Now, Edmonton neuro-oncologistDr. Jacob Easawconfirmed, "younger patients with brain tumours are presenting more frequently to my clinics. One possible explanation is the use of cell phones. Younger patients may especially be at risk because of thinner skulls and developing/maturing brains.”

Dr. Easaw is working with Dr. Faith Davis to establish a Canadian brain tumour registry, but making a link with cell phones is difficult – it is hard for people to recall how they used a phone. He wondered if there could be an app for that, “you would think it would be possible to track how a phone is used and where it is stored near the body.”

Tumours are also being seen in locations where phones were habitually stored such as the breast – something that is worth tracking. When asked about reporting ill effects associated with wireless devices, Health Canada merely indicated that problems should be reported online, as for other consumer products. “Surely a tumour mirroring where a cell phone was used or stored should be reported to Health Canada differently from a defunct toaster,” observed Sears. “This important medical information needs to be collected.”

Dr. Easaw concludes, “Importantly, the CBC investigation suggests that there should be an immediate re-examination of safety testing procedures for wireless devices to more clearly reflect how these devices are used.”

For more information, please contact:

Meg Sears PhD,
Chair and Scientific Lead, Prevent Cancer Now
613 297-6042
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Prevent Cancer Now, Meg Sears, 31 Mar 2017

Special Report: The Secret inside your Phone (a MUST WATCH)!
Canada Created: 25 Mar 2017
As new science fuels the debate about cellphone safety, we take a closer look at a little known message inside your cellphone's settings and manual telling you to keep the device 5 to 15 mm away from your body. We ask why this message exists, why it's so hidden, and whether Health Canada is doing enough to protect us.

Watch this special report here (22 min.):
https://youtu.be/Wm69ik_Qdb8
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CBC The National, 24 Mar 2017

Press release: Embargoed until November 28, 2016: The Missing Link
Canada Created: 29 Nov 2016
Why your government isn’t protecting you from Wi–Fi and cell phone radiation when research shows this radiation causes cancer.

The American scientific journal Environmental Pollution reports, in its next issue, that government safety guidelines for microwave radiation emitted by mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and other common wireless devices, are fundamentally flawed and fail to protect the public from this possible carcinogen.

Increasing scientific evidence shows wireless radiation causes cancer and infertility and other health effects, but due to a flawed assumption in safety guidelines, governments in the United States, Canada, and the UK are allowing their citizens to be overexposed to microwave radiation from wireless technology.

Why?

Because governments relied on the wrong model when declaring these devices to be safe. Ionizing radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays are known to cause cancer by detaching the negative ion – the electron – at the heart of human cell structure. Non-ionizing radiation, such as microwaves, do not detach electrons. Therefore when determining whether microwave-emitting devices were safe to be sold to the public, governments formulated their consumer safety guidelines with the understanding that microwave radiation does not directly or
immediately discharge electrons. Despite the growing number of scientific studies documenting that microwave radiation causes cancer, governments have refused to update their guidelines. One critical aspect of non-ionizing radiation has been overlooked.

Ionizing radiation increases free radicals in the body directly. Non-ionizing radiation increases free radicals in the body indirectly, by interfering with repair mechanisms that neutralize free radicals. Free radicals are carcinogenic. Therefore by interfering with the body’s ability to repair free radical damage, microwave radiation is also carcinogenic.

Microwave radiation was used in the 1940s for military radar, and was widely adopted for civilian residential use in the 1970s to cook food. Microwave ovens are shielded because microwaves are known to cause heating. At that time, it was assumed that the only danger from microwave exposure was tissue heating, known as the “thermal effect”. This led to thermal guidelines for microwave radiation.
This paper shines a spotlight on the misguided genesis of government regulations that are based on the thermal effect and documents free-radical damage induced by non-ionizing radiation.

As usage of microwave–emitting devices increases and is marketed to younger consumers without caution, we can expect a societal increase of certain types of cancers including glioblastoma as well as infertility and other health effects associated with free-radical damage. Indeed this is already happening.

Publication:
Havas, M. 2016. When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause
cancer? Environmental Pollution, 219: 000-000. Online release November 28, 2016.
Contact information for the author:
Dr. Magda Havas, BSc. PhD.
Trent School of the Environment, Trent University,
Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 0G2,
email: mhavas {-at-} trentu.ca
phone: 1 705 748-1011 ext 7882
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Magda Havas, 28 Nov 2016

Canadian Safety Code 6 inadequacies highlighted in new report
Canada Created: 19 Aug 2016
Report of the Standing Committee on Health: HESA 2015 Recommendations on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians.

On Tuesday June 9th, 2015 the Standing Committee on Health, whose mandate is to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, and operation of Health Canada, unanimously adopted the final report into their study of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. During three full days of hearings spread over two months, the ten MP member panel heard from both sides of the issue including leading scientists and doctors from around the world, Health Canada and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association. (Full testimony and recaps can be found further down on this page)

On June 17th, 2015, the Chair of the HESA panel MP Ben Lobb read and tabled the below final 12 HESA recommendations into the House of Commons, requesting that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report. As the current Government goes on summer break on June 19th, 2015, followed by the federal election in October, it will be the new Government that is elected that will be responding to this HESA report.

Updates
CMAJ – Scientists Decry Canada’s Outdated Safety Rules
CMAJ – Parliamentary Report Calls For Action on Wi-Fi
Whats Your Tech – Awareness Campaign Needed on Cellphone Use, Wi-Fi Radiation Risks amid Conflicting Government

Reports
HESA Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1
That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the health departments of the provinces and territories, examine existing cancer data collection methods to improve the collection of information relating to wireless device use and cancer.

RECOMMENDATION 2
That Statistics Canada consider including questions related to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in the Canadian Community Health Survey.

RECOMMENDATION 3
That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into electromagnetic hypersensitivity testing, diagnosis and treatment, and its possible impacts on health in the workplace.

RECOMMENDATION 4
That the Canadian Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the World Health Organization consider updating their guidelines and continuing education materials regarding the diagnosis and treatment of electromagnetic hypersensitivity to ensure they are based on the latest scientific evidence and reflect the symptoms of affected Canadians.

RECOMMENDATION 5
That the Government of Canada continue to provide reasonable accommodations for environmental sensitivities, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity, as required under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

RECOMMENDATION 6
That Health Canada ensure the openness and transparency of its processes for the review of Safety Code 6, so that all Canadians have an opportunity to be informed about the evidence considered or excluded in such reviews, that outside experts are provided full information when doing independent reviews, and that the scientific rationale for any change is clearly communicated.

RECOMMENDATION 7
That the Government of Canada establish a system for Canadians to report potential adverse reactions to radiofrequency fields.

RECOMMENDATION 8
That an independent scientific body recognized by Health Canada examine whether measures taken and guidelines provided in other countries, such as France and Israel, to limit the exposure of vulnerable populations, including infants, and young children in the school environment, to radiofrequencies should be adopted in Canada.

RECOMMENDATION 9
That the Government of Canada develop an awareness campaign relating to the safe use of wireless technologies, such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, in key environments such as the school and home to ensure that Canadian families and children are reducing risks related to radiofrequency exposure.

RECOMMENDATION 10
That Health Canada conduct a comprehensive review of all existing literature relating to radiofrequency fields and carcinogenicity based on international best practices.

RECOMMENDATION 11
That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, consider funding research into the link between radiofrequency fields and potential health effects such as cancer, genetic damage, infertility, impairment to development and behaviour, harmful effects to eyes and on the brain, cardiovascular, biological and biochemical effects.

RECOMMENDATION 12
That the Government of Canada and manufacturers consider policy measures regarding the marketing of radiation emitting devices to children under the age of 14, in order to ensure they are aware of the health risks and how they can be avoided.

Full report is 42 pages:
http://www.c4st.org/images/hesa-2015/412_HESA_Rpt13-e.pdf
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EMFacts, Don Maisch PhD, 19 Aug 2016

Medical pioneer writes a history of environmental hypersensitivities
Canada Created: 1 Aug 2016
Errors in diagnosis and treatment of diseases are common in physicians ignoring the principles of environmental medicine - They should be aware that various tests developed since the early 1980s “take the guess work out of the diagnosis” of chemical and electrical and electromagnetic hypersensitivity, writes Dr William J Rea in a new paper published in Reviews on Environmental Health [1]. A practising physician for 53 years, the American allergist, immunologist and thoracic surgeon has performed such tests on more than 30,000 patients in the last 35 years at the Environmental Health Center-Dallas (EHCD) he founded and still heads in Texas. These tests must be performed in controlled environments where the levels of biological, chemical and electromagnetic pollution has been reduced to a minimum using notably air filters, inert construction materials and copper shielding.

While food intolerance was first described by Hippocrates more than 2,000 years ago, microwave illness (known today as electromagnetic hypersensitivity) was only first described in 1932 by Dr Erwin Schliephake who diagnosed patients overexposed to AM radiofrequencies; and American allergist Theron Randolph first described chemical hypersensitivity in 1962 based on tests performed in a controlled environment.

Dr Rea’s article explains principles such as total body pollutant load and masking of sensitivities by the general adaptation syndrome first described by University of Montreal endocrinologist Hans Selye, the first scientist to demonstrate the existence of biological stress. Biochemical individuality, the switch phenomenon (symptom variation), bipolar responses, spreading reactions to other organs, and nerve as well as head injury leading to hypersensitivity are the other principles discussed. Out of up to 3,000 psychological profiles performed by psychologists Butler and Didriksen at the University of North Texas on chemically sensitive patients, about “2,000 showed brain injury, not psychological conditions”.

Buildings and rooms free of offgassing materials and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are key to diagnosing and treating environmental hypersensitivities. “Clean living accounts for 60-75% of treatment”, writes Dr Rea. At a conference on environmental hypersensitivities last year in Brussels, he once saw a patient return to the EHCD two decades after he had successfully treated her: “She got cocky and returned to her old toxic lifestyle.”

He explains in the article abstract: “The clinician has to use less-polluted water and organic food with individual challenges for testing, including dust, mold, pesticide, natural gas, formaldehyde, particulates, and EMF testing, which needs to be performed in less-polluted copper-screened rooms. The challenge tests for proof of chemical sensitivity include inhaled toxics within a clean booth that is chemical- and particulate-free at ambient doses in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb). Individual foods, both organic and commercial (that are contaminated with herbicides and pesticides), are used orally. Water testing and intradermal testing are performed in a less-polluted, controlled environment. These include specific dose injections of molds, dust, and pollen that are preservative-free, individual organic foods, and individual chemicals, i.e. methane, ethane, propane, butane, hexane, formaldehyde, ethanol, car exhaust, jet fuel exhaust, and prosthetic implants (metal plates, pacemakers, mesh, etc.). Normal saline is used as a placebo. EMF testing is performed in a copper-screened room using a frequency generator. In our experience, 80% of the EMF-sensitive patients had chemical sensitivity when studied under less-polluted conditions for particulates, controlled natural gas, pesticides, and chemicals like formaldehyde.”

Besides blood and urine analysis, Dr Rea and other members of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine perform various other tests: brain SPECT scans detecting brain toxicity, heart rate variability and pupillography measuring autonomic nervous system disturbances, infrared thermography, nutrient levels showing abnormal detoxification mechanisms, various immune modulation tests and breath analysis.

This article should be read by all physicians and health care practitioners.

References
1. History of chemical sensitivity and diagnosis, Rev Environ Health 2016, DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0021

Review by André Fauteux, Editor of La Maison du 21e siècle (21st-century Housing) magazine
Click here to view the source article.
Source: La Maison du 21e siecle, André Fauteux, 01 Aug 2016

Coalition québécoise de lutte contre la pollution électromagnétique
Canada Created: 2 May 2016
Protégeons notre santé ! Réduisons l'électrosmog !
Cette coalition a pour but de mobiliser le plus de gens possible
afin de lutter contre toutes les formes de pollution électromagnétique,
dont notamment celle provenant des compteurs 'intelligents' d'Hydro-Québec.

Développements en 2016
Lutte contre les compteurs 'intelligents'
Pour nous contacter et pour vous abonner à notre liste d'envoi : info@cqlpe.ca
Bonne nouvelle ! - Le RAPLIQ aide les électrosensibles
Consultez les bulletins publiés à ce jour
(Le dernier remonte au 23 mai 2015. Ils ont été remplacés depuis par ce fil d'actualité régulièrement mis à jour.)

Hypersensibilité environnementale et accommodements raisonnables
(Les personnes électrohypersensibles et ayant un diagnostic d'EHS peuvent porter plainte auprès de la Commission des droits de la personne du Québec qui reconnaît l'hypersensibilité environnementale comme un handicap donnant droit à des accommodements, ce qui est une obligation légale. À noter que la Commission ne peut intervenir dans le cas des antennes de cellulaires qui sont de juridiction fédérale. Ces plaintes pourront ainsi contribuer à faire progresser la reconnaissance de cette condition par différentes instances publiques ou privées. Voir leur Guide d'accommodement. IMPORTANT DÉVELOPPEMENT : le RAPLIQ (Regroupement des activistes pour l'inclusion au Québec) a décidé d'apporter un soutien aux personnes électrosensibles désireuses de faire une telle démarche auprès de la Commission des droits de la personne. Tel qu'expliqué ICI, cet organisme « a pour objectif l'élimination de la discrimination faite à l'égard des personnes en situation de handicap et des obstacles limitant présentement l'exercice de leurs droits et de leurs libertés. » La procédure à suivre est expliquée ICI. Si vous voulez déterminer si vous êtes devenu-e électrosensible ou si vous êtes en voie de le devenir, consulter cette description des symptômes d'électrosensibilité préparée en 2014 par le Pr Dominique Belpomme, une sommité mondiale en la matière. Plus de détails ICI. Si vous avez obtenu des accommodements chez votre employeur ou dans un commerce ou un lieu offrant des services municipaux ou gouvernementaux, svp en faire part à actionehs@gmail.com, ou au (819) 674 0576. Votre exemple servira à ouvrir des portes pour d'autres. AVIS IMPORTANT : Le 17 février 2016, le RAPLIQ a diffusé le guide Le RAPLIQ et L'ÉLECTROSENSIBILITÉ ainsi qu'un communiqué de presse en 2 versions courte et longue.)

Vous êtes devenu-e électrosensibles ? Des moyens existent pour se protéger.

Quand l'environnement rend malade - Émission La Facture de février 2015 sur un cas d'hypersensibilité environnementale

L’électrosensibilité : Un problème imaginaire ou réel ?
(Voir aussi Le dogme du paradigme thermique - L'électrohypersensibilité : une urgence sanitaire - Syndrome d'hypersensibilité aux ondes électromagnétiques - Voir aussi ces deux sites québécois consacrés aux personnes électrosensibles : Campagne Je porte un coeur blanc et Électrosensibilité Québec)

Bel exemple de zone refuge pour les personnes électrohypersensibles en France Irradiation nucléaire versus antennes-relais

Candidats à l'écoute
(Le groupe Canadiens pour une technologie sécuritaire a demandé à tous les candidats fédéraux, s'ils sont élus, de consentir à appuyer les efforts visant à travailler avec Santé Canada et les autres agences et organisations concernées afin que soient implantées les quatre initiatives énoncées au lien ci-dessus. Aller voir au lien ci-dessus les excellents résultats de cette campagne dont les lettres d'appui de 4 partis politiques - évidemment les Conservateurs leur ont refusé tout appui - et les appuis personnels de plus de 200 candidats de tous les partis. Le temps d'un véritable changement est venu ! À lire ou à relire : Le rapport du Comité permanent de la Santé déposé en juin 2015 et soumettant 12 recommandations afin de mieux protéger la santé des Canadiens contre le rayonnement électromagnétique de radiofréquences.)

Découvrez la menace du WiFi dans les écoles
Non au WiFi à l'école au Québec - page Facebook à suivre!
Comment connecter un iPad à Internet via un branchement filaire

Voici des instructions visuelles pour diminuer la force du WiFi des bornes "Home Hub 1000" de BELL

Selon WIGLE.NET, au 31 janvier 2016, plus de 235 millions de réseaux WiFi et plus de 6 millions d'antennes cellulaires avaient été géolocalisés autour du monde. Les habitats humains deviennent de véritables fours micro-ondes !
ABERRANT!!! Faire un zoom back à ce LIEN pour en voir l'ampleur mondialement...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Robert Riedlinger/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Teachers union wants Wifi banned from schools
Canada Created: 18 Mar 2016
Two local teachers unions are calling on the Limestone School Board to get rid of WI-FI in area schools - The unions say there is growing evidence that the wireless technology may pose health risks. Newswatch’s Darryn Davis has more.

Wireless technology is everywhere and is part of most people’s everyday lives. It’s fairly common in the education system as well. Many high school students say WIFI access is a useful tool.

“If you like have your own lap top or something it’s pretty useful for doing research on your own during a spare or something.”

“Less WIFI routers can be a good thing because it is taking our attention away from classes but it’s also a good thing for classes at the same time.”

But the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation wants a moratorium on WIFI in the Limestone School Board. The Teacher Union’s president says there is a growing mountain of evidence that WIFI can pose health risks. Concerns that Andrea Loken is taking to school trustees.

Andrea Loken/OSSTF District President

“There are thousands of published peer reviewed papers that are indicating adverse health effects from WIFI and we are seeing an increased awareness around this issue worldwide.”

Loken says countries like France, Israel and Italy are all taking steps to ban WIFI in schools and day cares. The World Health Organization has listed WIFI in the same category as other potentially cancer causing substances.

“That’s in the same category as lead, exhaust fumes, DDT.”

The elementary teachers federation supports calls for a WIFI school ban, adding there are also teachers who suffer from electro-hyper sensitivity.

Debi Wells /Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario

“Symptoms are not the same in every person because it’s not an easy diagnosis to get and when you do get a diagnosis you have to go to Toronto to get it.”

“Both teacher union leaders say their fight isn’t with the school board. They want to raise awareness over the need for a WIFI moratorium until further health studies are done, and lawmakers can catch up with new regulations.”

“We’re going to the trustees because they are the only group that can really make the blanket decision for the board.”

No one from the limestone district school board was available for an on camera interview–but they did issue this statement that reads in part.

“…providing safe and appropriate places to learn and work is a priority for the limestone district school board. Trustees understand and are sensitive to the safety concerns some community members have regarding the use of WI-Fi in schools.”

Loken says there are alternatives — like Ethernet to deliver the internet and technology into classrooms.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CKWS Newswatch, Darryn Davis, 10 Mar 2016

Cell Tower Microwave Radiation Presentation by Magda Havas
Canada Created: 27 Jan 2016
Published on Mar 15, 2012
In March 2012, Professor Magda Havas of Trent University gave a one hour presentation to the citizens of Oakville Ontario Canada that demonstrated the amount of microwave emissions that are emitted by cell phone antenna. The audience in attendance were mostly members of the local community of Bronte that were concerned about 6 additional cell phone antenna that were placed on a tower beside their local fire station.

In this video you will be introduced to several cell antenna studies that show the microwave radiation that is emitted by these towers are harmful to human health. You will hear testimony of one person that lived right below a cluster of cell antenna that had been placed on her roof. Using radio frequency meters, Dr. Havas also demonstrated how wireless household appliances such as portable phones, WiFi base stations and DECT baby monitors broadcast constant microwave radiation that are similar in intensity a few hundred meters away from a large cell phone tower.

For links to read about the studies that were mentioned visit http://www.celltowerstudy.com

For information about the Bronte Fire Station protest visit http://www.mybronte.ca

For information about Dr. Magda Havas visit http://www.magdahavas.com

The program was produced by James Spalding for Burlington/Oakville TVCogeco and this segment is an excerpt from the original 2 hour program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEOcB7Svhvw
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Robert Riedlinger/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

PROSTITUTING SCIENCE: The Psychologisation of MCS, CFS and EHS for Political Gain
Canada Created: 16 Jan 2016
Diana Crumpler, whose first book, Chemical Crisis, received widespread critical acclaim, wrote Prostituting Science – The Psychologisation of MCS, CFS and EHS for Political Gain in memory of a friend and fellow sufferer of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). They shared “a wonderful 25 year long, hands-across-the-ocean friendship.” Pam lived in Ontario; Diana lives in Australia where she worked as a teacher and librarian until she retired in 1984 due to ill health.

Taking up from where Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring left off, Prostituting Science delves into the subject of non-communicable diseases plaguing society today. Based on the understanding that illnesses like ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, depression, schizophrenia, MCS, EHS (electromagnetic hyper-sensitivity), and CFS are more than just diseases of our civilization, Crumpler asserts they are by-products of our reliance on chemo- and electro-wizardry, and she presents credible, authoritative evidence to support her claim.

In the introduction, Crumpler writes, “Welcome to the world of alien refugees: the world of the chemically and electrically hypersensitive, aliens within their own civilization, refugees from the realm of twenty-first century chemo- and techno-wizardry. For such people, ‘going green’ is not an ideological or a philosophical choice; rather, it is their only feasible modus vivendi, their only way to wellness, and for some, the only means of survival. It is a world that I, myself, know all too well, having inhabited that hell-hole for the best part of my life.”

In addition to an impressive collection of scientific data, the author shares the story of her own family’s descent into the disabling illness of MCS, CFS, and EHS – all of which were a consequence of exposure to heavy pesticides. Skeptics may be dismayed to learn that these pages contain all the evidence needed to convince even the most hardened among them that all of the above-mentioned diseases are bona fide physiological disorders.

But Crumpler does not stop there. She includes an extensive Glossary, References, Index list, and effective treatment protocols for recovery. She also documents gross abuse of civil and human rights – including the author’s abduction and committal under an involuntary psychiatric treatment order on the grounds that “MCS and EHS do not exist” and that “to believe in their physicality constitutes a delusion and, hence, a manifestation of psychosis.”

Prostituting Science details one family’s battle with MCS, CFS, and EHS. The book also explores the mechanisms behind these diseases and their allied disorders and explains the paradox whereby the more that is known of a cause of any of these three illnesses, the more vehement and widely accepted have become allegations of what is called psychogenesis (the origin of symptoms seen as a result of emotional [versus physiological] causes). Crumpler refutes these allegations and takes the risk of publicly declaring her belief instead in the physicality of MCS and EHS. She writes, “Only by speaking out, by making MCS, CFS, and EHS issues of public concern can we create the climate of awareness necessary to prevent being done to others (possibly with fatal results) what was done to me. To allow oneself to be cowed into silence is to betray the memory of the many friends already dead from these, the most physical of illnesses.”

Writer Pelda B. Hyman called Prostituting Science “A monumental and perhaps the most inclusive work ever on MCS and EHS.” But I think the last word should go to the author, whose dedication includes this tribute: “To Owen, Belle, Jordan, Fraser, April, Emily, and Sebastian, our hopes for the future, in the hope that hard-won awareness will allow your futures to be all that we had once planned our own to be. And in memory of my father, Francis Denis Connellan (1904 – 1979), field naturalist and campaigner for environmental awareness in the days before that term had become a buzz word.”

To purchase a copy of Prostituting Science, send an email to: bernie.crumpler {-at-} gmail.com
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Vitality Magazine, Bonnie Black, 16 Jan 2016

 Page 1 of 39   Next›  Last» 
 News item: