Search news: View news by countries View all news

News for Canada

Page 1 of 32   Next›  Last»

Weep News of 090313
Canada	Created: 10 Mar 2013
Los Angeles Teacher’s Resolution / Masts cause cancer / EMF TV / Limit use / EHS increase / UK Insomnia / McDonalds / Ground current / Shocker / Letter to the Royal Society The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution. Los Angeles Teacher’s Union Passes Resolution to Ensure Safety from Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) in Schools including EMF Emissions from Wireless Technology United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), representing over 40,000 teachers and other workers in LAUSD, passed the following motion by a sweeping majority last night at 9 PM The motion can be read at Joel Moskowitz’s blog and facebook pages: http://saferemr.blogspot.ca/ https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR More info at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=42UMWFV0MwE Barb Note - The School Board made a very poor decision last week, when they ignored all the scientific evidence showing that wireless radiation can badly harm children. It appears from this motion that the Los Angeles teachers intend to keep their classrooms safe from microwave radiation. Lets all hope that they are successful. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific studies reveal that phone masts cause cancer http://www.expreso.com.pe/noticia/2013/02/28/estudios-cientificos-revelan-que-las-antenas-de-telefonia-causan-cancer Submitted by Editor on Thu, 28/02/2013 - 02:00. Wireless technologies cause adverse health consequences if exposures are prolonged or chronic, international reports warn. CRICKET BY EMILIO Given the proliferation of cell phone antennas in residential areas of Lima, as located on the corner of Sardinia Blas and Santa Margarita in San Isidro, the outstanding physician Sacha Barrios said yesterday Healey said there are abundant studies by scientists and health professionals that said the towers that emit microwaves cause cancer cell among close neighbors, and recommended the withdrawal of these structures to avoid endangering the public. "Abundant studies show the health risks of electromagnetic fields and wireless technologies. One of the latest is the BioInitiative Report 2012, prepared by 29 scientists and independent health experts around the world, about the possible risks of wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields, "said the renowned doctor. Indeed, the working group concluded that BioInitiative 2012 evidence of health risks from electromagnetic fields and wireless technologies (radio frequency radiation) has increased substantially since 2007. 1.800 The report reviews new scientific studies reported biological effects and adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields and wireless technologies (mobile and cordless phones, phone masts, WI-FI, wireless laptops, etc). It also states that chronic exposure levels telephony base stations may cause disease. "It is reasonably foreseeable that the observed bioeffects cause health consequences if exposures are prolonged or chronic, because they interfere with the body's normal physiological processes, prevent the body to repair damaged DNA, causing imbalances in the immune system, metabolic disorders and lower resistance to disease through multiple pathways, "says the report. He remarks that "at least five new studies on mobile phone masts have reported biological effects in the range of 0.003 to 0.05 μW/cm2 at levels lower than those reported in 2007 (0.05 to 0.1 uW / cm2) was the range below which no effects were observed in 2007). " Researchers refer headaches, concentration difficulties and behavioral problems in children and adolescents, and sleep disorders, headaches and concentration problems in adults. The report concludes that "there is much more evidence of health risks that affect billions of people around the world. Maintaining the status quo is not acceptable in the light of evidence of actual harm. Scientific evidence shown by the new studies channeled coincides with an increase in illnesses and diseases directly related, registered in the population. " Given this evidence, Sacha Barrios recommended that mobile phone masts are located at least 600 meters in urban areas. "The Government should create a rule that takes into account new scientific findings on this issue and warn the public about the consequences of such antennas emit microwave," he said. He advised people living near these towers that target municipal authorities. "They should talk with their mayors and municipal officials, talk to neighbors and demand that are located in residential areas," he said. "Telefónica aims to distract illegality of the antenna" In a notarized letter addressed to the mayor of San Isidro, Raúl Cantella, citizens Letts Fernando Bustamante states that "Telefónica aims to divert illegal antenna arguing that the removal of the antenna hurt the residents of San Isidro and Miraflores it would be out of service cellular phone and internet ". Refer to "accept a kind of this nature as a valid argument for Telefónica to agree with in the framework of Exp No. 297797-2012 first instance where the Management Audit has ordered the withdrawal of the antenna, it would be totally disastrous for the rule of law that prevails in our country. " Neoplasm mortality statistics Belo Horizonte with 2.5 million inhabitants, is the third largest city in Brazil, has the best health system nationwide, the best education in the country with a standard of living well above the national average. According to the UN, is the metropolis with the best quality of life in Latin America. However, it has the highest incidence of cancer nationally, which is difficult to explain. Belo Horizonte has the highest concentration of cellular base stations in the country. The natural question was whether there is any correspondence. In evaluating mortality statistics neoplasia, as measured by the distance of a cell tower microwave to the residence of the deceased, the following results were obtained: At 100 meters from the nearest cell 3.569 deaths At 200 meters 1.408 deaths At 300 meters 973 deaths At 400 meters 482 deaths At 500 meters 292 deaths Beyond 1,000 meters 147 deaths Of the total of dead people with cancer, 81.37% occurred within 500 meters away from the antenna, indicating a highly significant correlation. In 2008, Lima had 1.414 mobile phone base stations, while the rest of the country had 1.358, with a total of 2.772 nationwide basis. The data "Some people rent their home to an antenna, receive $ 1.500 per month and then move, leaving pollution for all the neighbors," warned Sacha Barrios. Sylvie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EMF Community TV We have a great Community TV program here on Kaua'i where anyone can show up and get ten minutes in front of the camera. I didn't waste any time in getting the message out about wireless exposures. I'm on for the first ten minutes. http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T01393&video=145551 Angela ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Australia - Parents urged to limit children's use of mobiles, cordless phone under new health warnings The ARPANSA fact sheet states that wireless technology is so new that "it's impossible to be completely sure there isn't some risk.'' "This is particularly true for children where there is little research evidence,'' it says. ARPANSA says baby monitors, Wi-Fi computer networks and wireless security cameras also emit radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/parents-urged-to-limit-childrens-use-of-mobiles-cordless-phone-under-new-health-warnings/story-fn7bfu22-1226589473040 Sylvie ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spain - Experts warn about the increase of Electro Hyper-Sensitive persons It is a body's response to chronic exposure to radiation from mobile telephony, wifi and electromagnetic waves Madrid. (EFE). - The number of people with non-specific symptoms such as headache, sleep disorders, nervousness, difficulty concentrating or skin problems, declaring convinced that environmental electromagnetic fields are the cause of their problems is growing unabated. http://www.lavanguardia.com/salud/20130226/54367775659/expertos-advierten-aumento-personas-electrohipersensibles.html Sylvie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.K. - We're all tired, but what lies behind our national self-diagnosis of insomnia? Modern Britain feels tired and somehow lacking. Instead we buy Nytol, whine and feel permanently knackered http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/sleep-not-new-sex-insomnia Try going without wireless! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another reason to avoid McDonald's They seem to go from bad to worse. http://www.phonearena.com/news/Euro-McDonalds-testing-wireless-charging-for-customers_id40413 Sylvie ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Preventing Ground Current Electricity from entering your house on your plumbing You may be suffering adverse health effects because of ground current electricity (carrying high frequency pollution) entering your home. This video may help you to solve the problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuqzglm8GO4&feature=channel_page More Information about the dangers of ground current: A Real Shocker http://www.buergerwelle.de/assets/files/real2151.htm Joseph --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Letter to the Royal Society of Canada We plan to send the following letter to officials of the Royal Society of Canada concerning the recently announced expert panel charged with reviewing Health Canada's Safety Code 6. This letter will be copied to Health Canada, the Health minister and the Health critics from the other political parties. (We will ensure that the formatting is improved after all the forwarding is done.) Will you add your signature? If you would like to do so, please reply as soon as possible with your name as you would like it to appear, as well as your city, town or regional municipality and province. If you are involved with any other "safe technology" groups you candistribute it to your members as well. Please forward their signatures as soon as possible. I hope to send a copy of the letter out by early Friday, but don't worry if your reply is late; we can send another copy out with added signatures next week sometime. My email is: lorraine.penner@gmail.com Lori_______________________________ Dear Sir/Madam, With every respect for the Royal Society of Canada's reputation for professionalism and integrity, we are concerned about the constitution of your expert panel for the 'Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices.' There is at least the appearance of significant potential for bias and/or conflict of interest among some of its members, and we urge strongly that the Royal Society reconstitute the panel (even if it means beginning the study afresh) solely of members with (i) no appreciably material link, past or present, in their personal or professional lives to the wireless telecommunications industry and (ii) who have not staked an academic or otherwise public reputation on a specific view of the adequacy of Health Canada's Safety Code 6 or the potential health effects, or lack thereof, of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunications devices. It would be regrettable for the impartiality of any of your reports to be called into question, or for the authority and reputation of the Royal Society to be compromised in any way, and we are sure you would agree that those experts with such links and/or existing positions ought to be removed from the panel. While it is right and laudable for the Royal Society to have, as it appears to have done, attempted to staff this panel with members from diverse personal, professional and (somewhat diverse) geographical backgrounds, only those individuals capable of approaching an expert panel study with no potential for prejudice respecting the subject of that study, and no appearance of potential for such prejudice, ought to participate in that expert panel if it is designed to be "independent, comprehensive and evidence-based input into the public policy development process of Canada," as the Royal Society website describes its work. We therefore, and without any wish to impugn the credibility of these individuals generally, question the inclusion in this particular panel of, for example, Dr. Daniel Krewski, who has been involved in studies partially funded by the Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association; Dr. Louise Lemyre, a close colleague of Dr. Krewski and whose credentials in social psychology in any event would appear ill-suited to a study of the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation; Dr. Kenneth Foster, who has made an academic position clear in a set of book reviews recently published in the journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, in which he expresses scepticism of claims of radiofrequency radiation health effects; Dr. John Moulder, who is alleged to have "earned hundreds of thousands of dollars disputing the existence of adverse EMF health effects, even those accepted by most other members of the EMF community" (Microwave News - http://microwavenews.com/RR.html); and Dr. Frank Prato, who has made public statements questioning the wisdom of precautionary measures by public authorities against potential health effects from radiofrequency radiation, and thus holds an existing and publicly stated position on the policy question. The matter of health effects from radiofrequency radiation and the use of wireless communication devices is one of the great looming public policy concerns of our time, touching, because of the extensive proliferation of wireless technologies, the health of nearly every Canadian (including our susceptibility to cancer and neurological and cardiac disorders, and our fertility and the integrity of our genetic heritage), touching the politics and philosophy of precaution in public policy, the question of corporate influence in public policy, and both current and future health-care costs of all Canadian taxpayers. Before a senior, respected and authoritative body like the Royal Society issues serious and influential policy advice on a matter of such broad public import, surely it would behoove the body to gather for that purpose a panel of not only capable, qualified and knowledge-seeking but also completely neutral-minded scientists whose sole purposes are to discover the truth of the matter and make reasoned recommendations based on their honest findings, untainted by bias or conflict of interest, the potential for bias or conflict of interest or even the perception of same. Any other course would be a profound disservice to Canadians, an abdication of societal responsibility whose dangerous consequences could resonate for generations to come. We trust the Royal Society will take its moral position seriously, take every appropriate measure to maintain the integrity of this expert panel report and in so doing retain the deserved trust of right-thinking Canadians. Yours faithfully, Web site www.weepinitiative.org e-mail contactweep@weepinitiative.org blog http://www.weepnews.blogspot.ca/ To sign up for WEEP News: newssignup@weepinitiative.org (provide name and e-mail address) W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop: Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution Message 8 of 2727
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir/ Martin Weatherall

Health Canada admits Safety Code 6 guideline for microwave radiation is based ONLY on thermal effects!
Canada	Created: 25 Feb 2013
I just returned from a hearing in Montreal in front of the Superior Court of Quebec where Health Canada scientist, James McNamee, admitted that the Safety Code 6 guideline for microwave radiation (which includes radiation from most of the devices we are concerned about like mobile phones, cell phone antennas, Wi-Fi, wireless toys and baby monitors, smart meters etc.) is based ONLY on preventing a heating effect! Let me state that again. Health Canada admits that Safety Code 6 for frequencies between 100 kHz and 300 GHz are based ONLY on heating. Why is this so important? For years Health Canada has stated that Safety Code 6 takes into consideration and protects the public from both thermal and non-thermal effects. They made this statement to groups concerned about Wi-Fi in schools and to those concerned about smart meters and cell towers coming into their neighborhoods. While they are technically correct in their statement, they mislead the public by what they failed to mention. What Health Canada failed to mention is that the “non-thermal” effects are considered ONLY for frequencies between 3 and 100 kHz. For frequencies between 100 kHz and 300 GHz ONLY thermal effects are considered and cell towers fall within this “thermal range.” That is not the only thing that was novel and refreshing at this hearing. Superior Court of Quebec LOGO This is the first time a provincial court (Superior Court of Quebec) has challenged the right of municipal governments to address health concerns expressed by citizens regarding federally regulated radio frequency radiation. Let me explain what this hearing is about. It is a story concerning Rogers and the City of Chateauguay. Rogers wanted to erect a monopole tower (35 meters tall) with multiple antennas in a residential section of the City of Chateauguay in Quebec within 15 meters of the nearest property line. We have regulations in Canada that for towers taller than 15 meters, the wireless provider has to hold a public meeting. The meeting was held and those who lived nearby expressed their concerns about health effects associated with the radiation from this proposed tower. Mayor Chateauguay, Nathalie SimonThe Mayor of Chateauguay, Nathalie Simon, took these concerns seriously and asked city planners to find an alternative site for the tower. They did and they contacted Industry Canada, who needs to approve the tower location as they provide the license to operator, and Industry Canada accepted the new location. City planners also contacted Rogers who agreed this location would work but it was not their first choice. In order to facilitate the erection of this tower, the City of Chateauguay expropriated the land so the tower could be built. But then things began to fall apart. Rogers decided they did not want to go ahead with this new location and the case ended up in court, in front of the Superior Court of Quebec. I was called as an expert witness for the City of Chateauguay and the hearing was scheduled for November 2011. Just prior to the hearing, Rogers tried to get my testimony and anything to do with “health” thrown out of court because health of radio frequency radiation comes under federal jurisdiction (Health Canada & Industry Canada) and neither a municipality nor a province may question Health Canada’s jurisdiction in this matter. [More about this later.] Up until now, each court has agreed with Rogers and health could not be discussed when it came to the siting of cell phone base stations. Or, if it was discussed, it did not influence the final decision made by Industry Canada. Justice Perrault, Quebec JudgeBut Quebec is different. The judge, Madam Justice Perrault, stated that she would allow health to be discussed because it was health that the citizens were concerned about and she wanted to know if their concerns had any scientific merit. Nikolas Blanchette, lawyer for Rogers The law firm representing Rogers Communications Inc. and their attorney, Nikolas Blanchette, suddenly found themselves in an awkward position. Rogers’ attorneys were so certain the court would rule in their favor that they neglected to invite an expert witness to testify on Rogers’ behalf! The hearing was moved to February 2012 and Roger’s Subpoenaed, James McNamee, a Health Canada scientist to testify. Dr. McNamee, came to court with three massive binders of documents. This was unusual as Dr. McNamee was sworn in as a witness, and not as an “expert” witness. The major difference between an “expert witness” and a “witness” is that the expert witness may provide his/her opinion on issues related to their expertise. In other words they are able to interpret the facts, while a witness can only provide facts. Patrice Gladu, lawyer for ChateauguayPatrice Gladu (from the law firm Dunton Rainville S.E.N.C.R.L.), the lawyer representing the City of Chateauguay, objected and argued that the information in those binders should be inadmissible as Dr. McNamee was not being considered as an expert witness in front of this court. After both sides presented their arguments, Justice Perrault took a short recess to consider her decision. She returned siding with Mr. Gladu and said that according to law, as Dr. McNamee was not sworn in as an expert witness he could testify only to those documents that were Health Canada documents and he was unable to express his opinion about the other documents except as they pertained to Health Canada’s decision regarding Safety Code 6. Fasken Martineau, the law firm representing Rogers, objected to this ruling and asked to take their case to the Court of Appeal. Justice Perrault granted that appeal. Months later the ruling came out that upheld Justice Perrault’s decision and the hearing resumed. It is now February 2013. Dr McNamee returned to present his testimony and to be cross examined. He went through every document in the 3 binders and was asked the same question each time by his lawyer. “What is this document and what role did it play in establishing Safety Code 6?” Each time Dr. McNamee gave a short answer. For documents that Health Canada did NOT consider Dr. McNamee’s response was . . . “Does not support non-specific health symptoms, not considered in Safety Code 6 2009.” “Non-support for conclusions, did not review document for Safety Code 6.” “Levitt and Lai, was not considered in 2009. Their opinion is contrary to Health Canada’s opinion and they don’t take same approach of health agencies.” For documents that Health Canada DID consider, Dr. McNamee stated . . . “Helped to reinforce our own assessment of the literature.” [This was a] “reference document that supports our conclusions.” “‘Document supported Health Canada’s decision.” Dr. McNamee went further and stated that most studies dealing with non-thermal effects were poorly conducted and were rejected by Health Canada. McNamee states that a large number of studies show an adverse effect; a large number of studies don’t show effects, and that the better studies are the ones that show “no effect.” I have two points to make here. The first is that Health Canada is cherry picking the studies they include for the Safety Code 6 decisions. They include ONLY studies that support their own conclusions. This is NOT how science is conducted. Obviously, Dr. McNamee and his fellow scientists at Health Canada are unfamiliar with the work of Dr. Karl Popper on falsification. Popper, who was one of the preeminent 20th century philosophers of science stated that one does not test an hypothesis by pointing out each time an observation supports it. The proper scientific method to test an hypothesis is through falsification, by trying to find a situation where it is not supported by observation. The example Popper gives is the statement that, “all swans are white.” You may count as many white swans as you like but that does not prove that all swans are white. What you need to do is look for a black swan. Once you find a black swan you may state that, “not all swans are white” and as such you have falsified your original hypothesis. This is the proper scientific method. What the Health Canada scientists are doing is “cherry picking” or counting white swans and as such are not conducting science properly. Click here for video on this topic. The second point is that Dr. McNamee is demonstrating bias when he states that better studies are the ones that show “no effect.” What is that statement based on? Where is the document that identifies which studies Health Canada considered and which ones were ignored? Where is the document identifying flaws in peer-reviewed scientific studies? Whenever IARC or any other agency evaluates the scientific literature for the purpose of policy setting, it is customary for them to provide a monograph documenting the studies that were included and how they were weighed, and the studies not included with justification for their omission. Health Canada, to my knowledge, has NOT produced such a document for non-ionizing radiation. There is no disclosure about the processes Health Canada uses to assess scientific studies. When Dr. McNamee was asked how Health Canada conducts the “weight of evidence” he was unable to provide a clear, comprehensive answer and referred instead to references from other organizations. In the 1999 version of Health Canada Safety Code a very important statement on page 11 of that report that was omitted from the 2009 version of SC6. That statements reads as follows: “Certain members of the general public may be more susceptible to harm from RF and microwave exposure.“ According to Dr. McNamee, what this statement referred to is that among the public there is “a wide range of body sizes, health status, and different thermal regulation properties” and that Health Canada is acknowledging ONLY a thermal effect by the term “susceptible” and that “Health Canada does not acknowledge electroshypersensitivity.” What does a country do when the leading federal health authority, Health Canada, is not doing its job properly? What role do provincial and municipal governments play in this regard? Do these governments not also have the ability to protect the health of their citizens? Isn’t that why we have provincial Ministries of Health and Municipal Health Authorities. Weren’t municipal governments responsible for bringing bylaws forward about toxic chemicals used in lawn care despite the fact that Health Canada has federal jurisdiction over the toxic chemicals that were involved? One very interesting statement in the Preface of Safety Code 6 (2009) is the following (page 3): The purpose of this code is to establish safety limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The safety limits in this code apply to all individuals working at, or visiting, federally regulated sites. These guidelines may also be adopted by the provinces, industry or other interested parties. If I understand this correctly, Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 does NOT automatically apply to provinces, industry, or other interested parties. So the much reduced guideline proposed by the Board of Health for the City of Toronto originally in 1999 (Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Sheela Basrur) and reaffirmed in 2007 can be applied to the City of Toronto! At that time, Toronto wanted the federal guidelines reduced to 1/100th of the current guidelines to be more in line with Russia and other countries with much more protective guidelines. In the 2007 document from Toronto Board of Health (click here for this document), the Federal guidelines were correctly identified as being based on an “acute thermal effect” with “acute” referring to short-term, high exposure. Since the guidelines have not changed and with Dr. McNamee finally admitting that the guidelines in question regarding cell towers are based ONLY on preventing a thermal effect, it is accurate to say that Canada does not have a guideline to protect Canadians from long-term exposure to “non-thermal” levels of microwave radiation! Justice Perrault has six months (end of August 2013) to complete her deliberations regarding where this tower will be erected. The outcome could be precedent setting in Quebec and in Canada. Dr. Magda Havas February 20, 2013.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Robert Riedlinger/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

W.E.E.P. News. The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution. 22 February 2013
Canada	Created: 24 Feb 2013
Are 4G/LTE Mobile Internet and WiFi, Causing the Largest Pandemic Ever? “Meanwhile in the practices of doctors and other physicians there is a continuous increase in the number of people with chronic and seemingly inexplainable complaints. From measurements using new medical devices, blood measures or saliva examinations it appears that the cause in 2012 in one out of three patients is radiation overload. Unfortunately this fact is not widely realized by the medical profession. In 2002 about one in 30 patients were radiation stressed. In the meantime that has become one in three. Amoung 300 patients with chronic complaints, research showed that in 138 cases the major cause was radiation. Shocking news. Since the large scale introduction of 3G and Wi-Fi/hotspots the problem has become considerablely larger. We should be asking ourselves what will happen after the introduction of the fourth generation 4G/LTE mobile network.” “In experiments where plankton has been exposed to WIFI and/or 3G/4G radiation the plankton dies or is deformed within several days. With WIFI it takes about 96 hours, with 3G about 72 hours and with 4G it occurs within 48 hours. What is it then doing with our cells?” http://www.faim.org/wifisafety/4g-lte-mobile-internet-wifi-largest-pandemic-ever.html David Smart Meters May Emit Radiation More Frequently than Pepco Admits http://www.wusa9.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=2176584039001 Many people responded to the initial story, here is the second one: Several Pepco customers say they're experiencing irregular heartbeats, headaches, and dizziness after wireless smart meters were installed at their homes. http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=242905 Jeromy Naperville - Here are the facts: The council has systematically disregarded any options for compromise...ANY. http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=nxlaqkgab&v=001VJlu5GGZPDThqqfb-RaJqakYMkkMp2sYbTRiFYpOb32IDNaO1AAGwiazrjtra2e3QX85LcwdfNWvmcD5Qx-fI3eVMPBlK0s5_HnEU9M7olc%3D More on Rubin (the False EHS Study) James Rubin is a member of AGNIR, the group that was led by ICNIRP's Anthony Swerdlow to write the 300 pages report of no risk from cell phones, for the UK's HPA. http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/RadiationAdvisoryGroups/AdvisoryGroupOnNonIonisingRadiation/agnir_Rubin/ Comment from Alasdair Philips: ----- Original Message ----- You are absolutely correct, Amir! No only did the phone have lower frequency EMFs, but it was much worse! When in "sham" mode it was still transmitting full power - into a dummy load inside the handset! The fields around the handset / head were still over 1 V/m at microwave frequencies. Our comments are on pages 4 & 5 in: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/library/update.asp?articleID=82 I also raised this matter with Rubin and Chadwick- at the EC DGSANCO Conference in Brussels in November 2011 and they openly admitted this issue and said that ES people should be able to tell the difference between full power and just a few V/m. The have no idea at all about what EHS sensitivities are like. Alasdair Philips UK Powerwatch. For those who missed this great article by Andrew Marino http://andrewamarino.com/blog/?s=ehs Excerpt: James Rubin, King’s College London published a blindingly biased paper in which he argued that there was no such thing as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (no robust evidence <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19681059> ). His numerous studies on electromagnetic hypersensitivity are all negative, but that negativity was manufactured by employing experimental designs and statistical analysis that were virtually guaranteed to produce negative results. By means of jaundiced analyses he comes to the conclusion that EHS sufferers have a purely psychosomatic disease, a viewpoint that has untold benefits for his clients and funders, particularly the cell-phone companies. His work is a scientific Ponzi scheme in which he gets money from the phone industry effectively by promising negative results, creates and publishes such results, and is then rewarded by the industry with even more funds, like petting a trained dog. The natural consequence of his work is to stigmatize EHS sufferers as neurotics who need the care of a psychiatrist, not an internist or allergist. Rubin is almost a perfect example of a scandalous scientist in a scandalous system that consists of cell-phone companies having enough money to buy any results they want, dependable trained dogs who produce the desired results, and scientific journals such as Bioelectromagneticsthat publish the results without properly vetting them, and without insistence on simultaneous publication of conflict-of-interest statements. Mast Sanity Visual display terminal work and sick building syndrome Men and women who spent more time in front of a computer were more likely to suffer from 'sick building syndrome'. Could this actually be Electro Hyper-Sensitivity?. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16612039# Anca Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 The report is based on case studies. The authors of the case studies, all experts in their particular field of environmental, occupational and consumer hazards, were asked to identify the dates of early warnings, to analyse how this information was used, or not used, in reducing hazards, and to describe the resulting costs, benefits and lessons http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22 Shan Cellphone use may soon be allowed on U.S. Flights Cellphones may soon be allowed on U.S. flights and with that could come possible health risks.” http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/special-report-cellphone-use-may-soon-be-allowed/vqzdj/ Ellen Wi-Fi woes for South Surrey parent "My goal is to make as many parents aware of this as possible because there's strength in numbers," he said. "If the district is willing to bend over backwards for students suffering from peanut allergies, they should be doing the same for kids who are theoretically allergic to wireless." http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/woes+South+Surrey+parent/7981756/story.html How Mobile Phones Affect Sleep "A 2008 study funded by major mobile phone makers themselves showed that people exposed to mobile radiation took longer to fall asleep and spent less time in deep sleep. 'The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected,' the study concluded." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/phones-sleep-mobile-_n_2680805.html Barb Texting teens as addicted as heroin addicts (from 2010) "It clearly fits the definition of an addiction," said Dr. Gary Small. http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=142967 Catherine Georgia to put games ahead of people's health The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Don Parsons, says there’s a need for towers as people use their cell phones for everything from games to Web-surfing to apps -- much more than calls http://www.gpb.org/news/2013/02/18/cell-phone-tower-bill-eyed Robert German Priest Tortured to Suicide by 4G Wireless Radiation Such shocking acts of desperation touch loved ones, relatives, friends and neighbors – but from the perspective of political leaders and the operators ‘disappears’ the suffering on a diabolical way from the surface of this world and the business can continue as usual! They are secured by this senseless official limits that demonstrably are not protecting us.. http://microondes.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/germany-reverend-carsten-haublein-dead-lte-4g/ Michael The priest Haeublein is dead. He (born in August 1957) committed suicide in February 2013 because of the torture by 4G (LTE). The priest Haeublein moved from Southern Germany, Bavaria, to the North, at the seaside, as he suffered too much from the exposure in Oberammergau (sleeplessness, pains, at last he lived in the forest). He had a good time in his new environment, until July 2012. Then 4G started and he felt intolerable symptoms, burning sensations of his skin, noise in his head, vibration of the whole body. He felt that he was unable to think and to do his normal intellectual and spiritual activities. Our powerlessness was hard to bear for us. Shielding did not help sufficiently. How desperate must he have been- to see no possibility of finding relief. How much courage is needed to commit such a desperate action? After the courage to continue his life and his pain was taken away from him. We are shocked and sad and feel with his partner and friends. He wished that the symptoms of 4G were brought to the public to stop this last inhuman insanity. In accordance with his partner and his friends, this should be done without any aggressive overexaggeration. We -his friends- were asked if it is good to inform people about such a suicide. Because some people might be moved to follow his example. However, in the view of politicians and mobile phone operators the suffering "disappears" in such a diabolic way from the surface of this world and business can go on as usually. The absurd limits that do not protect us - this is proven- they are securing the business! The priest did not end his own life voluntarily. He did not have a choice, it was left only a single way of escape from the intolerable torture. You can find the chronology of the last years of his life in the attachments, unfortunately only in German (by Dr. Waldmann-Selsam) Depressed and concerned, Christine Aschermann (Iris) Attached: Olle Johansson submission to the LA School Board RATP, l’Oréal, Banque de France: les entreprises s’inquiètent des ondes électromagnétiques Paris - Unionists from forty companies warn about wireless dangers. http://actuwiki.fr/actu/15014 Andrew Response to the recently released (false) report by badsciencewatch.ca Nabhraj From: Camelot [mailto:info@camelot-connection.com] Sent: February-20-13 11:23 AM To: mkruse@badsciencewatch.ca; badsciencewatch (info@badsciencewatch.ca) Dear Sir, I read your document regarding your project on wi-fi and EHS. I have a few comments: 1. Your conclusions are based on data provided by corporate-funded research which is clearly flawed, biased and serving the vested interests of the telecommunication industry. 2. You ignore reports and warnings by hundreds of renowned scientists from all over the world including experts from the academic world, doctors and professors with decades of dedicated work on the subject. 3. You ignore the fact that Canada’s exposure limits are amongst the highest (most permissive) in the world. Do you think the rest of the world is wrong in taking a precautionary approach and considering non-thermal effects? 4. You ignore the fact that in Europe more and more public places are uninstalling wi-fi because of health concerns. Do you believe that Europeans are all fools and/or lobbied by unscrupulous activists? 5. You have the gall to denounce conflicts of interest within the anti wi-fi movement, while at the same time ignoring the most obvious one (see point 1). 6. With all due respect, I think that your committee members are not qualified to judge and critique the professional work of the renowned scientists of point 2. 7. You totally ignore the fact that humans developed and evolved in a natural environment which did not include electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range at this level of intensities which are millions of times stronger than the natural background.. 8. You totally ignore the fact that all wireless technologies use pulsed signals which do not exist in nature and therefore are even more dangerous than continuous waves. 9. You ignore the fact that wireless connections are notoriously slower, less stable and less secure than wired ones. 10. You ignore the fact that in most places wired connections are already in existence and therefore there is no cost involved in reversing technologies. 11. Your claim that students will “suffer” without wireless connection is ridiculous. You don’t need to be “connected” 24/7 and wherever you are to be able to access all available knowledge. 12. The proliferation of new “wireless only” gadgets cannot be an excuse to carelessly use them and ignore the precautionary principle and common sense. 13. Finally and most importantly, there is no scientific consensus that this technology is safe and therefore it should not be forced on a massive scale on the unsuspecting citizens. A long term experiment is being conducted on a huge scale using the people, including our children, as guinea pigs. This is unethical, immoral and irresponsible. For all the above reasons, I suggest that your document is misleading the public and does nothing but serve the corporate interests at the expense of the people, our children and our future generations. Yours faithfully, Prof. Nabhraj R. Spogliarich, Associate Professor of General and Inorganic Chemistry (retired) Saanich, B.C. Non EMF Dolphin rescue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCXx2bNk6UA Web site www.weepinitiative.org e-mail contactweep@weepinitiative.org blog http://www.weepnews.blogspot.ca/ To sign up for WEEP News: newssignup@weepinitiative.org (provide name and e-mail address) W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop: Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Martin Weatherall/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Petition on EMF Safety Regulations
Canada	Created: 18 Feb 2013
Please sign! ICNRP needs to revise environmental and health standards surrounding EMF exposure. Bee populations are highly affected and have dropped by up to 70% worldwide, 35 Species of Australian shore-bird population decreased to up to 75%, all European grassland butterflies declined 50%. Bees pollinate over 90% of the world’s plants! Cellphones could end up costing us civilization itself. http://www.change.org/petitions/icnrp-international-commission-on-non-ionizing-radiation-protection-revise-environmental-and-health-standards-surrounding-emf-exposure?share_id=QDxrEXBOjH&utm_campaign=friend_inviter_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_true&v=chat&x=%7Efacebook_chat_experiment
Click here to view the source article.

See the devastating effect of cell phone radiation on your sperm.
Canada	Created: 15 Feb 2013
Protect Your Junk... Keep Your Cell Phone Away See the devastating effect of cell phone radiation on your sperm. After watching this video, you won't carry your phone in your pants pocket again! Today, C4ST is launching a Valentine’s Day campaign entitled “Don’t Kill the Love” that highlights the damage done to sperm mobility when keeping cell phones in pants pocket. As part of this campaign we are running a contest that encourages participants to tell us a story when a cell phone “Killed the Moment”. We hope you will watch and share this video with your friends and families, and encourage them to sign up as a Citizen of Safe Technology. Please enter our contest! On YouTube (http://youtu.be/bHP2IJC2_ko) and the website athttp://www.c4st.org/dontkillthelove Frank Clegg - frank@c4st.org] Help us reach out to 1,000,000 Canadians http://www.c4st.org http://www.facebook.com/c4st.org
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Olle Johansen/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Microsoft Canada’s former president compares wireless to tobacco
Canada	Created: 18 Nov 2012
Urges one million Canadians to demand stricter safety standards. From Frank Clegg, former president of Microsoft Canada: Introducing C4ST Citizens For Safe Technology As many of you are aware, I have been investing my time understanding the potential health effects associated with electromagnetic radiation. Issues such as emissions from cell towers, Wi-Fi in schools and smart meters. I have spoken to several experts, read numerous studies, attended presentations by Health Canada and Industry Canada and become involved in situations in Oakville, Grand Bend, Barrie and Uxbridge. I have concluded that Health Canada’s methods are out of date and safety limits are too weak to protect Canadians. China has limits that are 100 times stricter than ours. I worry we have a situation comparable to tobacco where Health Canada will be many years too late to take the appropriate action. I have signed on to lead and build a national organization to raise public awareness of this issue. Our objective is to convince Industry Canada and Health Canada to change the process of distributing this technology and update their safety standards to acceptable levels. Please open the attached document to learn about this new national organization, C4ST – Citizens For Safe Technology. Join us in our goal of reaching 1 million Canadians to influence Industry Canada and Health Canada and help insure the health of all Canadians…. Frank Clegg CEO C4ST http://www.c4st.org http://www.facebook.com/c4st.org
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EMFacts, Don Maisch / Sent in by Martin Weatherall & André Fauteux, 18 Nov 2012

A letter from Professor Olle Johansen to the Canadian Board of Education regarding the safety of Wi-Fi in schools.
Canada	Created: 26 Oct 2012
A letter from Professor Olle Johansen at the Karolinska Institut in Sweden Stockholm, October 5, 2012 To: Karen Walters-Edgar, Senior Management Assistant at kedgar@sd61.bc.ca and SD 61 Trustee bhorsman@sd61.bc.ca; calpha@sd61.bc.ca; dmcnally@sd61.bc.ca; dnohr@sd61.bc.ca; eleonard@sd61.bc.ca; eloring@sd61.bc.ca; jgaiptman@sd61.bc.ca; mmcevoy@sd61.bc.ca; pduncan@sd61.bc.ca; porcherton@sd61.bc.ca; tferris@sd61.bc.ca cc. Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Richard Stanwick (assistant’s email) Carollyne.Evans@viha.ca and Provincial Health Minister, Dr. Margaret McDiarmid margaret.macdiarmid.mla@leg.bc.ca Board of Education, Greater Victoria School District 61, 556 Boleskine Road, Victoria, BC V8Z 1E8, Canada [please, allow this letter to be officially entered as ‘Correspondence’ on the Board of Education Meeting agenda]: Dear Board of Education Trustees: I understand your Board will very soon make a public announcement regarding the safety of Wi-Fi and it use in SD 61 schools. As a neuroscientist who has been studying the biophysical and epidemiological effects of electromagnetic fields for over 30 years, I believe children are placed at great risk with this type of exposure. Wireless communication is now being implemented in our daily life in a very fast way. At the same time, it is becoming more and more obvious that the exposure to electromagnetic fields not only may induce acute thermal effects to living organisms, but also non-thermal effects, the latter often after longer exposures. This has been demonstrated in a very large number of studies and includes cellular DNA-damage, disruptions and alterations of cellular functions like increases in intracellular stimulatory pathways and calcium handling, disruption of tissue structures like the blood-brain barrier, impact on vessel and immune functions, and loss of fertility. Whereas scientists can observe and reproduce these effects in controlled laboratory experiments, epidemiological and ecological data derived from long-term exposures in well-designed case-control studies reflect this link all the way from molecular and cellular effects to the living organism up to the induction and proliferation of diseases observed in humans. It should be noted that we are not the only species at jeopardy; practically all animals and plants may be at stake. Although epidemiological and ecological investigations as such never demonstrate causative effects, due to the vast number of confounders, they confirm the relevance of the controlled observations in the laboratories. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE Because the effects are reproducibly observed and links to pathology cannot be excluded, the precautionary principle should be in force in the implementation of this new technology within the society. This will inevitably be the only method to support the sustainability of these innovative wireless communication technologies. The February 2, 2000 European Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle notes: "The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU". Therefore, policy makers immediately should strictly control exposure by defining biologically-based maximal exposure guidelines also taking into account long-term, non-thermal effects, and including especially vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, the ill, the genetically and/or immunologically challenged, children and fetuses, and persons with the functional impairment, electrohypersensitivity. SELETUN SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT, 2010 In November, 2009, I was involved in a Scientific Panel comprised of international experts on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, which met in Seletun, Norway, for three days of intensive discussion on existing scientific evidence and public health implications of the unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF) from telecommunications and electric power technologies. This meeting was a direct consequence of on-going discussions already from the mid-nineties, when cellular communications infrastructure began to rapidly proliferate, and stretching through, among many, the Benevento (2006), Venice (2008) and London (2009) Resolutions from this decade. It further involved important conclusions drawn from the 600-page Bioinitiative Report published August 31, 2007, which was a review of over 2,000 studies showing biological effects from electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal levels of exposure, which partly was published subsequently in the journal Pathophysiology (Volume 16, 2009). The Seletun Scientific Statement (2010) recommends that lower limits be established for electromagnetic fields and wireless exposures, based on scientific studies reporting health impacts at much lower exposure levels. Many researchers now believe the existing safety limits are inadequate to protect public health because they do not consider prolonged exposure to lower emission levels that are now widespread. The body of evidence on electromagnetic fields requires a new approach to protection of public health; the growth and development of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon prior scientific and public health reports documenting the following: 1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly below existing exposure standards. 2) ICNIRP/WHO and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inadequate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-intensity exposures. 3) New, biologically-based public exposure standards are urgently needed to protect public health world-wide. 4) It is not in the public interest to wait. Accordingly, EMR exposures should be reduced now rather than waiting for proof of harm before acting. This is in keeping with traditional public health principles, and is justified now given abundant evidence that biological effects and adverse health effects are occurring at exposure levels hundreds to thousands of times below existing public safety standards around the world. • The Seletun Panel (2011) recommends wired internet access in schools, and strongly recommends that schools do not install wireless internet connections that create pervasive and prolonged EMF exposures for children. • The Seletun Panel (2010) recommends preservation of existing land-line connections and public telephone networks. • The Seletun Panel recommends against the use of cordless phones (DECT phones) and other wireless devices, toys and baby monitors, wireless internet, wireless security systems, and wireless power transmitters in SmartGrid-type connections that may produce unnecessary and potentially harmful EMF exposures. • The Seletun Panel recognizes that wired internet access (cable modem, wired Ethernet connections, etc) is available as a substitute. “NO PROOF OF HEALTH EFFECTS” One often hears about "safe levels" of exposure and that there is "no proof of health effects", but my personal response to these seemingly reassuring statements is that it is very important to realize, from a consumer's point of view, that "no accepted proof for health effects" is not the same as "no risk". Too many times, 'experts' have claimed to be experts in fields where actually the only expert comment should have been: "I/we just do not know". Such fields were e.g. the DDT, X-ray, radioactivity, smoking, asbestos, BSE, heavy metal exposure, depleted uranium, etc., etc., etc., where the "no risk"-flag was raised before true knowledge came around. Later on, the same flag had to be quickly lowered, many times after enormous economic costs and suffering of many human beings. In the case of "protection from exposure to electromagnetic fields", it is thus of paramount importance to act from a prudence avoidance/precautionary principle point of view. Anything else would be highly hazardous. Total transparency of information is the key sentence here, as I believe the public does not appreciate having the complete truth revealed years after a certain catastrophe already has taken place. For instance, it shall be noted, that today's recommended values for wireless systems, such as the SAR-values, are just recommendations, and not safety levels. Since scientists observe biological effects at as low as 20 microWatts/kg, can it truly be stated that it is safe to allow irradiation of humans at SAR 2 W/kg, or at 100,000 times stronger levels of radiation? IMBALANCED REPORTING Another misunderstanding is the use of scientific publications (as the tobacco industry did for many years) as 'weights' to balance each other. But one can NEVER balance a report showing a negative health effect with one showing no effect. This is a misunderstanding which, unfortunately, is very often used both by the industrial representatives as well as official authorities to the detriment of the general public. True balance would be reports showing negative health effects against exact replications showing positive effects. However, this is not what the public has been led to believe. NEED FOR INDEPENDENT RESEARCH In many commentaries, debate articles and public lectures - for the last 20-30 years – I have urged that completely independent research projects must be inaugurated immediately to ensure our public health. These projects must be entirely independent of all types of commercial interests; public health cannot have a price-tag! It is also of paramount importance that scientists involved in such projects must be free of any carrier considerations and that the funding needed is covered to 100%, not 99% or less. This is the clear responsibility of the democratically elected body of every country. WHO/INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER (IARC), 2011 Very recently (in Lyon, France, May 31, 2011) the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer. This should be added to the previous (2001) 2B classification of power-frequent (ELF) electromagnetic fields – emitted at high levels from handheld gadgets, such as eReaders and mobile phones – as a risk factor for childhood leukemia. Given the 2001 very close votes (9 to 11) for moving it to 2A and all the new knowledge that has accumulated since 2001, today the association between childhood leukemia and power-frequent (ELF) electromagnetic fields would definitely be signed into the much more serious 2A (“probably carcinogenic”) category. So, the ‘red flag’ is – unfortunately – flying very high. INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE According to Article 24 of the UNICEF’s Child Convention “children have the right to … a clean and safe environment, and information to help them stay healthy”. We must all ensure that this article never is violated. This is about our social responsibility, and is very much a public health issue. Many WiFi systems are close to beds, kitchens, playrooms, schoolrooms, and similar locations. These wireless systems are never off, and the exposure is not voluntary. They are being forced on citizens and their children everywhere. Based on this, the inauguration of wireless systems with grudging and involuntary exposure of millions to billions of human beings to pulsed microwave radiation should immediately be prohibited until ’the red flag’ can be hauled down once and for all. There has been insufficient public debate about whether children actually need these wireless applications in their school work or if there are pedagogic rationales supported by professional teachers behind these ‘modernizations’. There should be debate rather than decision-making over parents’ heads. It is the children (and their staff!) who will suffer the potential health consequences of living every minute in all these exposures from Wi-Fi, and similar wireless installations, and they have no choice in the matter. Approved man-made microwave exposures are one million billion times – or more – larger than natural evolutionary background levels, the latter being as low as 0.00000000001 µW/m2. CONCLUSION In conclusion, wireless systems, such as Wi-Fi routers, cannot be regarded as safe in schools, but must be deemed highly hazardous and unsafe for the children as well as for the staff. I encourage governments and local health and educational bodies to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle. As noted, the Precautionary Principle states when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it — as some nations have already done. Precautionary strategies should be based on design and performance standards and may not necessarily define numerical thresholds because such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below which no adverse effect can occur. Some 100 years back, we learned the hard lessons of ionizing radiation and the need for strict health protections – now we must openly face the possibility that we must take a seat in life’s school and learn again. This time it is about non-ionizing radiation. Based on all of the above, I strongly urge you to consider your public stance on the safety of Wi-Fi in schools. Yours sincerely, Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden
Source: Olle Johansen/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

Airline pilot has nowhere to escape from wireless radiation
Canada	Created: 17 Oct 2012
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: The Star, Richard J. Brennan, 17 Oct 2012

Gov't should tell Canadians about wireless safety: Former Microsoft president tells Canada press
Canada	Created: 12 Oct 2012
OTTAWA — The former president of Microsoft Canada says the federal government has a duty to inform Canadians about safety concerns related to wireless technology. "We have a responsibility as adults, as parents, as legislators to inform people so they can make intelligent decisions," Frank Clegg said in an interview with QMI Agency. Clegg, who is regarded as a pioneer in the development of Canada's technology sector, is now on an awareness mission. He's building a new organization — Citizens for Safe Technology — along with a team of partners. Clegg's organization plans to provide consumer safety tips and scientific information about technology including cell towers, cellular phones and wireless Internet. He says the government doesn't share this information effectively enough, despite a growing body of scientific evidence of safety issues. In 2011, the World Health Organization classified the radiation from all wireless devices, including cellphones, as possibly carcinogenic and called for more research. Health Canada has acknowledged this ruling but maintains there is no cause for immediate concern or policy change. "There is and will always be a use for technology in our lives, period. At the same time, I think we are learning more and more and more that you have to be careful...you have to use it safely," Clegg said. Cellphone manufacturers BlackBerry and Apple both feature fine print warnings in user manuals that advise users to keep all devices at least 15 mm away from the body during use. But Clegg says the feds should put obvious warning labels on wireless devices because most people don't read the fine print. On Thursday, Clegg will attend an event in Oakville, Ont., to shine a light on one woman's campaign to raise awareness about wireless safety. Wendy Hoy, 57, is currently walking from London, Ont., to Ottawa to rally the government to review industry guidelines on radiation exposure in Canada. "The whole thing has been quite an adventure," said Hoy, who walks about 25 km a day. Hoy is unsure when she will arrive in Ottawa, but she is hoping for a face-to-face meeting with officials after her lengthy trek. Tory MP Terence Young has spoken in the House of Commons about Bell cell towers in his riding of Oakville and their proximity to residential homes. KRISTY KIRKUP | QMI AGENCY http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/10/20121011-102450.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_498951953455819_5892202_499133963437618#f4e98063e799db
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Velma Lyrae/Agnes Ingvarsdottir.

Physician group adds weight to Wi-Fi warnings
Canada	Created: 6 Oct 2012
OTTAWA - Schools should not install wireless Internet systems because the technology is linked to learning disabilities, headaches and immune system deficiencies, according to an international association of physicians. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which is holding a conference on the brain and nervous system this week in Florida, says safer alternatives should be used instead of Wi-Fi. "Adverse health effects from wireless radio frequency fields, such as learning disabilities, altered immune responses, and headaches, clearly exist and are well documented in the scientific literature," the academy said in a statement on its website. "Safer technology, such as use of hard-wiring, is strongly recommended in schools." The American Academy of Pediatrics has also called for a review of government safety limits for electromagnetic radiation because of the growing number of wireless devices that are part of children's lives. In 2011, the World Health Organization classified radiation emitted by wireless devices, including cellphones and wireless Internet, as possibly carcinogenic. Despite this classification, Health Canada still says Wi-Fi is safe. Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, an Ottawa-based doctor who works an environmental health clinic and former president of AAEM, says it is important to practise precaution, especially with kids. "They're more vulnerable. Their skulls are smaller, their brains are still developing. We don't want to start treating any permanent damage in these kids," Armstrong said. "If they're going to have trouble learning while at school or if they're developing immune system problems ... we don't need to contribute more to it with something we can prevent." Tory MP Terence Young has called for a review of Safety Code 6, the framework for industry guidelines on radiation exposure in Canada. "My constituents believe that Safety Code 6 is outdated, and there are a number of studies that have come out in the last year that they haven't taken into consideration," Young said in an interview with QMI Agency.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CHealth / Parliamentary Bureau, Kristy Kirkup, 05 Oct 2012

Page 1 of 32   Next›  Last»

News item: