[Army & Navy SEALs – Assault – Birds & Animals – Cancer – Cell Phones – Children – De-Kun Li, Kaiser Permanente – DNA – Doctor Joel Moskowitz – Electronic Warfare – EMFs – Environment – FDA – Fertility – James McNamee, Health Canada – John Bucher, NTP – Marinas – Miscarriage – Misinformation – Nathaniel DeNicola – National Academy of Sciences – NIH – Noise from Electronic Attack EA-18G Growlers – Parks – Plants – Please Comment on EA Environmental Assessment for Special Operations re US Navy EMR RF War Games – Power Lines – Precautionary Principle – Privacy – RF Microwave Radiation – Risk Assessment Data – Rogers – Safety – SEHN Science & Environmental Health Network – Studies – UN – WCAA Newsletter – William Ruckelshaus, EPA – Wingspread Statement – Wireless Devices | BC – Canada – EU – UK – Oakland, California & Puget Sound / Whidbey Island, Olympic Peninsula & Seattle, Washington, USA] & (videos)
1) Below in Letters is the latest from West Coast Action Alliance. Not only are they continuing to fight the US Navy’s EMR war games and Growlers, now they are having to fight further assault on their land, privacy and safety.
(click on photos to enlarge)
http://westcoastactionalliance.org/3106-2
I hope you will consider submitting comments after reading what intrusions are being planned.
2) Exposure to EMFs from wireless devices could be associated with increased risk of miscarriage according to a recent study. Anecdotal – when we built our home (2002-3) across the street from 3 FM transmitters (Rogers), there was a young family in our neighbourhood where the wife had suffered 6 miscarriages. Shortly after we moved in, they left but I heard from neighbours that within a year she had a healthy baby. Coincidence??
A concerning new study links miscarriages to cellphone radiation. How worried should we be?
“There’s emerging evidence that exposure to one type of radiation from cellphones and other devices might be linked to a major adverse health outcome in women: miscarriages.
A new study published in the journal Scientific Reports found a strong link between higher levels of exposure to a type of radiation called magnetic field non-ionizing radiation and higher risk of miscarriage in a group of nearly 1,000 women living in the Bay Area of California…
What they found was quite striking: Women in the top three quartiles — with the higher levels of non-ionizing radiation exposure — were at a nearly three times greater risk of miscarriage compared to women at the lowest quartile of radiation exposure. This finding held even after the researchers controlled for factors that might explain the differences between the groups, like smoking status, history of miscarriages, age, and race.”
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/2/15/17008482/cellphones-cancer-miscarriage-health
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8.pdf – The Study
3) The Wingspread Precautionary Principle was/is one that many nations embraced. Canada was a signatory to it in 1998, but only the EPA has even attempted to implement it. Health Canada [HC] still uses “risk assessment” as its basis for decisions. Years ago when I asked James McNamee to define “risk assessment”, he told me (and, no, I don’t think I still have his letter) that HC had to look at the “entire picture” and one factor that had to be ‘assessed’ was cost. Was it more cost effective to take action or to do nothing? The risk being assessed is not just the risk to health but includes the risk to profit (although, as I recall it, he said it was the risk of cost to the government, hinting this was to save the public money). According to the Wingspread PP, we should not have to prove that microwave radiation is dangerous. Instead, the telecoms should have had to prove their devices were safe before bringing them to market.
“The Wingspread statement reads,
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.
This simple statement contained four fundamental challenges to the dogma of numerical risk assessment:
1. The burden of proof of safety gets shifted onto the proponent of a project or action. In a world where ecosystems and human health are under severe threat, industrial chemicals and other intrusions into the natural world are assumed to be harmful unless shown otherwise.
2. Decisions should not be made by experts behind closed doors. The affected public should be fully informed and engaged in decisions.
3. Decision-makers should not wait for scientific certainty of harm before taking preventive action. Scientific certainty is likely to arrive only after widespread harm has occurred.
4. Decision-makers should consider a full range of alternatives, including the alternative of doing nothing…
Unfortunately, so long as corporate polluters enjoy a nearly-unlimited capacity to inject corrupting money into political decisions — especially in the US – old-style risk assessment will continue to dominate because it serves corporate purposes so well.
Nevertheless, 20 years after Wingspread, it is now crystal clear that a livable future for humanity absolutely requires a precautionary approach. The choice is stark and fateful.”
Letters:
From our friends on the Olympic Peninsula who are fighting the US Navy — even more intrusion!!
= = =
Using unsuspecting civilians as proxy “enemies” in military training is bad for everyone.
Dear Subscribers, Friends and Colleagues,
The Navy has opened for comment an Environmental Assessment (EA) for Special Operations in which Navy SEALs stage covert small team landings via mini-subs and small boats, with up to 20 personnel concealing themselves ashore for up to 72 hours, plus mock gun battles with realistic weapons shooting paintballs, called “direct actions.” Although the Navy owns 46 miles of shoreline in the Pacific Northwest and over 151,000 acres of land here, this combat training will occur in our communities, boat marinas, 65+ state parks, public beaches, and on some private lands in Puget Sound and on the outer coast. We are providing sample comments for you to use or adapt as you see fit: http://westcoastactionalliance.org/3106-2 . Although we and many others are asking for a 30-day extension, as of now the comment period closes Wednesday, February 21.
You can email your comments to: nwnepa@navy.mil
This Navy slide show PDF, provided by a whistleblower, shows 68 sites selected for covert combat training, and the types of activity at each. It was created in 2015, before the public was aware of the additional shoreline being claimed, which now adds up to 265 linear miles in western Puget Sound alone.
At a recent open house, Navy representatives said the public will not be shown boundaries or shut out when the Navy is conducting an exercise on public or private lands, “…so you may wander unawares into a secret military exercise, uninformed that by doing so, you are a participant.”
Another Navy representative said, “…the point is to be able to watch and track whoever comes through—you, the public, “the enemy,” without your awareness, whether you’re walking, fishing, enjoying nature, or otherwise going about your business.” He suggested that people should not be doing anything in the woods for which privacy might be needed, because “…we might be watching you.”
A third confirmed that the public is to be the proxy for the enemy: “That’s the point: for the military to take down enemies without being detected. If the public detects us, then we’ve failed in what we’re trying to do.” He then assured listeners that while naval personnel wouldn’t aim their guns at civilians while tracking and surveilling them, they would be using “…environmentally friendly gentle fake bullets.”
Statements like this are disturbing and do not represent a healthy relationship between the Navy and surrounding communities. Nor is it wise or respectful to hold military combat training in civilian communities who object to it. We urge you to read the example comments and submit your own. If your elected local representatives are unaware of this situation, tell them. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The WCAA
Note: We do not sign our posts or emails due to threats and intimidation we have received in the past, from Navy supporters and retired and a few active-duty Navy personnel. Though we have documented these threats and have written to the Navy about them, no response has ever been received. Therefore, we continue to be cautious.
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“An activist is someone who cannot help but fight for something. That person is not usually motivated by a need for power, or money, or fame, but in fact driven slightly mad by some injustice, some cruelty, some unfairness – So much so that he or she is compelled by some moral engine to act to make it better.”
~ Eve Ensler