2017-12-28 BC Hydro’s problems attracting attention in the USA

[BC Hydro (Co-ops, Deferral Accounts, FortisBC, General Electric, Privatization, Thomas Cheney) – Sean Arthur Joyce Letter re Editorial (Class 1 Carcinogen, Doctor Anthony B. Miller, EHT, Health Effects, Kaiser Permenente Study, Miscarriage, Power Lines, RF, Telecoms, WHO, Wireless Devices) – Smartphones (Behaviour, Children, Delaney Ruston, Documentary “Screenagers”, Matthew Burnham, Mental Health, Schools Ban Cell Phones, Social Media, Survey) – Thank you for Smoking Movie (Alcohol, Firearms & Tobacco Lobbyists) – Write to Popular Science re Sara Chodosh Article (Brain Tumours, Cancer, Devra Davis, DNA, EMR, FDA, Fertility, Health Risks, Heart, IARC Guidelines, Karen Smith CDPH, Lennart Hardell, Lloyds of London Insurance, Microwave Radiation, Military Studies, Misinformation, NCI, NTP, Safety, Sharon Noble Letter, Wi-Fi) | Chilliwack & Grand Forks & Nelson & New Westminster, BC – Canada – France – Sweden – UK – El Cerrito, California & Jackson Hole, Wyoming, USA] & Documentary & Movie & (video)

1)    An opinion piece in a Chilliwack paper has made it into the industry newsletter in the USA.  It sure looks as if the push to privatize is building. Just a great plan by the Liberals. Build dams, spend billions on various projects, hand the debt over to the taxpayers of BC and let private corporations pay cents on the dollar to take over “our” investments.  What a deal.

(click on photos to enlarge)

Political interference dims BC Hydro

“Based on the gross mismanagement by governments of all stripes, privatization or splitting BC Hydro in to smaller companies not owned by the provincial government is a matter of urgent importance. The problems with BC Hydro are not simply a list of bad deeds done by the BC Liberals. The NDP’s freezing of rates (in the 1990s and now) and sweetheart deal with Union bosses at Site C shows that they cannot be trusted either.”

http://www.energycentral.com/news/political-interference-dims-bc-hydro

2)    A mother and physician concerned about cell phones in schools but not a mention of concerns about EMR.  Whatever the reasons, let’s hope she encourages some parents to get cell phones away from kids at least for part of the day.

Smartphones aren’t a smart choice in middle school

Despite searching, I have never seen a study on the impact of access to phones on middle schoolers’ academic achievement, but a 2012 study, published by the Communication Education journal, on college students is discouraging. Students who interact with their cell phones in class perform worse on tests — often a full letter grade or more. In fact, just having phones within reach, can cause academic performance to decline, whether they’re used or not.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/opinions/smartphones-middle-school-opinion-ruston/index.html

3)    From a member, a recommendation for a movie “Thank you for smoking”.

Sharon: with regard to your latest bulletin of yet another entertainer dying of glioblastoma, I was reminded of the movie Thank You For Smoking. In it, lobbyists for tobacco, alcohol and firearms meet for drinks at what they call the MOD Club (meaning ‘Merchants of Death’) to discuss who has the highest body count this week. It’s a wicked yet subtle satire. And in fact, the lobbyists allude to the fact that cell phones will be the next tobacco, the next death inducing product they’ll have to push. This a full 11 years ago now.”

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/thank-you-for-smoking-2006

4)    Anyone who subscribes to, or who reads, Popular Science should be outraged with this article in which the writer says that there is absolutely no reason to worry about cancer from using cellphones and even says “you could duct-tape it to your face if you so choose. Just put it down when you get in the car, and you’ll be fine.”  Not only is this person providing “false facts” about the safety of cell phones when she says there is no evidence of harm, but she is being irresponsibly dangerous by encouraging people to hold phones to their heads. Popular Science should reprimand her and provide an article rebutting what she said and publishing science, whether it is “popular” or not.

Email for the Editor <letters@popsci.com>   and

for the writer, Sara Chodosh <sara@popsci.com>

My letter is below.

Cell phones aren’t a public health risk, no matter what California says

https://www.popsci.com/cell-phone-cancer-public-health-california#page-3

Letters:

Letter to San Francisco Chronicle
by Sean Arthur Joyce  (name given with permission)

Re: editorial advising Smartphone users to minimize their exposure

I wanted to thank you for voicing what too much media is afraid to say: that we are playing Russian roulette with our health as regards cell phones and wireless devices. Your editorial advising Smartphone users to minimize risk was right on. However, you err in stating the often touted industry mantra that “the research… hasn’t turned up definitive results so far.” In fact, “The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored,” stated Dr. Anthony B. Miller at a July 31, 2017 lecture in Jackson Hole, Wyoming sponsored by the Environmental Health Trust where international experts presented the best available science on cell phone and wireless radiation. Dr. Miller and many other international scientists have been advising the World Health Organization to reclassify microwave frequency radiation as a Class 1 known carcinogen for some years now. We are at a state similar to the 1950s when the science had already proven tobacco was linked to lung cancer. Industry lobbying kept that off-label for another three decades. Our regulatory agencies in Canada and the US need to stop pandering to the telecom industry and finally start protecting the public.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-Smartphone-users-should-minimize-risk-12453815.php

_________________________________________________________________________

From: Sharon Noble
Sent: December 28, 2017
To: letters@popsci.com; sara@popsci.com

Subject: Misinformation regarding the safety of cell phones by Sara Chodosh

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re:  https://www.popsci.com/cell-phone-cancer-public-health-california  by Sara Chodosh

The recent article in “Popular Science” was shockingly misleading, misinformed and outright dangerous. According to the information I can find on Ms. Chodosh, she has some science in her background education but obviously she has not studied microwave radiation, its biological effects or read any of the 23,000 thousands of independent studies that have been done since the 1940s, many by the US military, which have reported serious health effects from exposure to even low levels of non-thermal radiation.

I have a question: Is Ms. Chodosh affiliated with the telecommunication industry? Was she paid by the industry to write this article?  It certainly resembles articles written by the industry or those commissioned by the industry.

Obviously Ms. Chodosh has not read the report by the National Institute of Health, National Toxicology Program (2016) https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/interviews/cellphones/index.cfm .  This study was done over 10 years, cost $25 million, and found direct correlation between brain cancer and tumors of the heart and exposure to cell phone radiation.

It is dangerous and irresponsible, when experts like Dr. Lennart Hardell of Sweden warn that microwave radiation like that emitted by cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi modems, smart meters, etc. should be classified as a true carcinogen, for Ms. Chodosh to tell people that they could tape a phone to their faces and it would be safe.

Even the telecoms, in every manual, advise that cell phones, smart phones, iPhones, should be held at some distance (usually close to 1 inch) from the body, all parts of the body. Does Ms. Chodosh believe that the telecoms are wrong?

Is Ms. Chodosh aware that major insurers, like Lloyds of London, will not cover claims related to wireless devices, like cell phones?

The industry provides misleading information because their products are “popular”, but for your journal to follow their lead, disregarding/ignoring/not even knowing independent science is unconscionable.

The responsible thing for “Popular Science” to do would be to allow a rebuttal of this article by a real scientist. May I suggest Dr. Devra Davis <devra.davis@gmail.com> or Dr. Lennart Hardell <lennart_hardell@hotmail.com>.  Your readers deserve to know the truth about the devices which they are using and, worse, are giving to their children to use. “Popular” should not mean saying what your readers want to hear. It can mean simplified, perhaps, but never incorrect or irresponsible.

Sincerely,
Sharon Noble

[https://ehtrust.org/science/facts-national-toxicology-program-cellphone-rat-cancer-study/]

 

 

Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

The absence of evidence of hazard is not proof of safety”
~ says Dr. Devra Davis

www.facebook.com/Coalitiontostopsmartmeters