[5G – A Framework for the Application of Precaution in Science-based Decision Making about Risk & the Precautionary Principle – Amy O’Hair – Andrew Goldsworthy – Animals, Bees – Antibiotic Resistance – ARPS Australasian Radiation Protection Society – Brain Tumours – Cancer – Cell Phones & Rouleaux Formation (Blood Clumping) – DECT Cordless Phones – DNA Damage – Doctor Eric Braverman – EHS / Microwave Sickness Syndrome – EHT – ElectroSmog – EMFs – Environmental Risk Factors – FCC – Gemma A. Figtree – Ginette Petitpas Taylor – Health Canada Safety Code 6 – Heart Attacks & CVD Cardiovascular Disease – IARC – ICNIRP – ISED Radiocommunication Act – James S. Turner – Jeromy Johnson – Jerry Day – Jonathan Landsman – Live Blood Analysis – Lloyd Burrell, ElectricSense – Mae-Wan Ho – Magda Havas – NTP – OS Oxidative Stress from RF EMR – Priyanka Bandara & Steven Weller, ORSAA Studies – SAR – SCENIHR – Smart Meters & Privacy – TCA Telecommunications Act 1996 – Tim Singer Reply Letters – WAPF Diet – WHO – William Rea – Wireless Broadband Alliance – Wireless Devices | BC – Canada – Sydney, Australia – EU – Japan – New Zealand – USA] & (videos)
1) Major report links increase in RF exposure to significant increase in heart disease over the last 30 years.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Can your favorite wireless devices increase your risk of heart disease?
“This paper was prompted by a new Australian study that found an increasing proportion of heart attack patients without the established risk factors: high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes and smoking. Cardiology researchers led by Prof. Gemma Figtree investigated patients reporting with a first-time heart attack at the Royal North Shore Hospital (RNSH), a major Australian tertiary hospital of the University of Sydney. Their research found a clear increase in the percentage of patients from 2006 to 2014 whose heart attacks were poorly explained by the standard risk factors. Based on their own data and complementary data from elsewhere, they emphasised the need to identify new risk factors. The link to RNSH study: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2047487317720287”
2) A study on live blood samples shows that blood is affected by short-term exposure to cell phones. It is logical to assume that prolonged exposure to microwave radiation from smeters, microcells, Wi-Fi, etc. would have the same, or worse, effect. This clumping of blood cells is call the “rouleaux effect” which is unhealthy and can lead to problems such as clots.
Does short-term exposure to cell phone radiation affect the blood?
“Results show substantial changes in the blood from short-term cell phone radiation exposure in nine out of ten human subjects. RBC aggregation and stickiness were mainly observed following 45 minutes of exposure to a smart phone in receiving mode worn by subjects in a backpack. By contrast, RBC morphological (shape) changes including the formation of echinocytes (spiky cells) were dominant after subjects actively used the phone for an additional 45 minutes. It appears that RBC stickiness with clumping is the first stage of the cell phone radiation effect. Subsequently, the RBC aggregates tend to break apart, and then cell shape changes occur, in which echinocytes and other misshapen cells are observed…
Such blood morphologies—RBC clumping and misshapen cells—are frequently observed in ill persons or those eating less-than-optimal diets.6,7 Echinocyte formation has been associated with aging RBCs and diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver.8 In a study exposing mice to cell phones, clumped RBCs were found after short- term exposure, and abnormal RBC shapes were observed over longer exposure times,9 which is similar to the results observed in this study.”
3) Information and concerns about RF and the plans to implement 5G technology is reaching non-technical journals, helping to spread the word to those unaware of the science and dangers. Everyone is being exposed to electrosmog, without being aware and without choice.
Wireless dangers: The health hazards of microwave radiation
“Geneticist Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, who identified pollution from wireless technologies as a major health issue of modern life, has likened the omnipresence of the technology to being immersed in a “sea of microwaves” – and she maintains that the health risks are more severe than the risks from smoking…
Of course, the damage from wireless networks is not limited to humans. Wide-ranging oxidative and free radical damage, pre-diabetic and pre-cancerous changes and reductions in growth and thyroid hormones have been documented in animals after exposure to WiFi. Other studies have shown that exposure to wireless systems can trigger racing heartbeat and aggression in animals.
Research has shown that cordless phones can slow the growth of plant roots, alter gene expression, and even harm beehives. In a particularly chilling Swiss study, bees responded to cell phone signals with high-pitched piping – a cue to desert the hive.”
Why wireless radiation is dangerous and why the safety guidelines urgently need updating
In truth this guideline does very little to protect us because it fails to take into account that most people today are exposed to multiple wireless radiation exposures.
Let’s get real: Many people now have wireless connectivity with not only their phone but also their laptop, watch and tablet, to name a few. In addition, many people live in proximity to a very large number of actively transmitting WiFi routers, smart meters and other wireless devices.
So, in reality, accumulated radiation exposure levels may be more than 100 times higher than official exposure limits – particularly in places like schools and offices.
4) Below is a response from Tim Singer to a letter of concern from a member to the Minister of Health. Every letter we get from Mr. Singer contains factually incorrect statements, such as the ones I highlighted. Not only is there no evidence that shows exposure to RF at levels allowed by SC 6 is safe (which equates to not causing harm), there are 1,000s of studies showing exposure is harmful. Further, he is disregarding the Precautionary Principle and applying a business assessment to it. The economic “risk” is considered, not just the risk to health. That is part of what is considered by the term “risk assessment”.
I believe we need to continue to write to both the Health Minister and Mr. Singer in an effort to educate them. I do not know Mr. Singer’s qualifications for his position as Director of Radiation Health Science, but it is clear that he is either poorly informed, most likely by those with industry ties at Health Canada, or else is just learning. Please consider writing, sharing some of the many reports I’ve sent over the last few years. Some are in this update, and others are on our website:
From: Singer, Tim (HC/SC)
To: Marcus, (name given with permission)
Sent: October 11, 2017
Subject: Re: Radiofrequency (RF) energy exposure from fifth generation (5G) technologies
Thank you for your further correspondence of September 25, 2017 addressed to the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Minister of Health, concerning radiofrequency (RF) energy exposure from fifth generation (5G) technologies. The Minister has asked me to provide a response on her behalf.
As mentioned in earlier correspondence, Health Canada’s mandate regarding human exposure to RF electromagnetic energy from wireless devices includes the development of RF exposure guidelines, commonly referred to as Safety Code 6.
Regulation of wireless communication technology, including the deployment of 5G technologies, is the responsibility of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) under the Radiocommunication Act.
To ensure that public exposures fall within acceptable guidelines, ISED has developed regulatory standards that require compliance with the human exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6. While the science in this area continues to evolve, please rest assured that the current exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6 already cover the frequency range used by devices employing 5G technology. Any queries regarding regulatory compliance with Safety Code 6 should be directed to ISED.
The RF exposure limits and the conclusions of Health Canada are similar to those arrived at by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks and the World Health Organization. Canada’s Safety Code 6 limits are consistent with, if not more stringent than, the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Large safety margins have been incorporated into these limits to provide a significant level of protection for the general public and personnel working near RF sources.
Health Canada, as with other federal departments and several regulatory agencies worldwide, applies the precautionary principle as a public policy approach for risk management of possible, but unproven, risks to health. A precautionary approach to decision-making emphasizes the need to take timely and appropriately preventative action, even in the absence of a full scientific demonstration of cause and effect. However, the precautionary principle is not a tool for risk assessment. Risk assessments consider all data available in the scientific literature and focus on effects which scientists consider most relevant for human health. Based on such an evaluation, the Department will take action as required. In the case of electromagnetic fields, there is sufficient evidence, supported internationally, to show that adherence to the recommended levels of exposure in Safety Code 6 will not cause harm to health.
I hope that my comments are helpful.
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Health Canada / Government of Canada
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The absence of evidence of hazard is not proof of safety”
— says Dr. Devra Davis