2019-04-05 An important letter re. BCCDC report (2013)

1)    “Paul Heroux, professor of toxicology and health effects of electromagnetism at Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Canada, speaks with Down To Earth about adoption of 5G will be detrimental towards people’s health.”  Fiber optic cable is so much better, faster and safer, so why is industry pushing wireless?  Because it’s cheaper. And if they admit that wireless is dangerous, they will face lawsuits for decades.

‘Telecom industry did no research on health impacts of 5G’

“Q: Can the health impacts be reduced without affecting implementation of 5G?

It is perfectly possible to design the fastest telecommunication systems while minimising health impacts. First, give the highest priority to deployment of optical fibre networks to home and businesses, which can, ultimately, be two crore times faster than 5G. Second, capitalise on wired connections, which, like cable, can bring speeds of 10 gb/second to homes. Third, recognise cell phones for what they are: a radiating device. Redesign them to minimise user exposures, which can result in reduction by factors of 100. And, use them sparingly, rather than letting them become a substitute to workstations, and the home of eye candy.”

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/science-technology/-telecom-industry-did-no-research-on-health-impacts-of-5g–63723

 2)  Another very popular phone is found to exceed the exposure guidelines, becomes “outed” thanks to Dr. Arazi and Phonegate.

New smartphone in SAR excess, the Nokia 5 

“… on 5 April 2019, the French National Frequency Agency (ANFR) announced that, as part of its monitoring of the radio equipment market and the control of public exposure to electromagnetic waves, it had sanctioned the Nokia 5 telephone for exceeding the trunk Specific Absorption Rate (SAR).”

https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/last-minute-new-smartphone-in-sar-excess-the-nokia-5

 3)   In BC, BC Hydro and FortisBC refuse to allow people to have smeter transmitters to be deactivated unless they were included in the group of people who agreed to pay extortion fees beginning Dec. 1, 2013. Why this is so has never been explained thoroughly and honestly. BC Hydro has made various excuses, one of which is that the grid won’t work efficiently if too many people opt out. How is it that so many other utilities allow analogs or allow people to have transmitters turned off at any time, and BC Hydro can’t?  Is BC Hydro that much less efficient or technically competent? Look on our opt out chart (www.stopsmartmetersbc.com  under “MISC”) [http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/metersgrid/smart-meter-opt-out-options-and-fees/] and you will see that many other utilities are far more flexible. I just found another that has not been added to the chart:  Portland General Electric which charges $17 a month “fee” and allows customers to request the disabling of the transmitter at any time.

Here is another example, from Australia.

NSW, QLD, SA, Tas and ACT electricity customers allowed to have communications on ALREADY-INSTALLED smart meters TURNED OFF

“In response, the AEMC concurred that there was a need for a process to deactivate remote communications at the lowest cost. This was in recognition of the fact that “a small cohort of customers holds strong views regarding the use of advanced meter communication at their premises, as stated in AGL and EnergyAustralia’s submissions”.”

https://stopsmartmeters.com.au/2019/04/05/nsw-qld-sa-tas-and-act-electricity-customers-allowed-to-have-communications-on-already-installed-smart-meters-turned-off/ 

4) One of the letters below has an important letter that summarized the BCCDC report that several of us read and summarized. This is an important summary of a report that many of us had to prod Dr. Perry Kendall to obtain. We stood outside his office and submitted 150 studies to his receptionist (he would not meet with us). And it took us 6 months of nagging to get him to respond — he sent them to the BCCDC saying he would accept their recommendations. When the BCCDC reported serious concerns, Kendall said he didn’t agree and ignored their findings (which, we were told, had been watered down).  Please read this letter and consider reading the entire report.

From the letter below:

“In 2013, almost 6 years ago, the BC Center for Disease Control, cautioned in their 400 page report on RF/EMR that their findings are consistent with many international experts who continue to warn that prolonged exposure to low levels of microwave radio frequency radiation from wireless devices that include wi-fi, ipads, cell phones, cordless phones and smart meters, can lead to serious health effects such as infertility and cancer, children especially at risk.   https://drive.google.com/open?id=1I6PMTOkSZL-OcdXmU0Q-M35IdU6vAqmn

Letters:

Excellent letter responding to suggestion to install Wi-Fi for visitors and patients in hospitals.

Wi-Fi dangerous to health and should not be installed at seniors facility

“What would be safer would be to install a wired computer for general use in the facility.”

https://www.cowichanvalleycitizen.com/opinion/wi-fi-dangerous-to-health-and-should-not-be-installed-at-seniors-facility/

_______________________________________________________________________

April 4, 2019

Re: WiFi in Schools and 5G Rollout in Communities

Dear Dr. Deena Hinshaw (Chief Medical Officer of Health) and Dr. Kristin Klein (Deputy Medical Officer of Health):  (of Alberta) [https://www.alberta.ca/office-of-the-chief-medical-officer-of-health.aspx]

My name is Gina Shimoda and I am a mother of 3 children in Edmonton Public Schools. I am concerned regarding the use of wireless technologies in terms of the associated health risk. I first became aware of this issue in 2010 when WiFi was installed in my children’s school. I have been following the research and it has me concerned. Now with the 5G rollout on the horizon, I am hopeful that decision makers are also becoming aware of the risks.

There are many, many peer-reviewed studies, providing proof of cancer, DNA damage, protein synthesis, stress response, and detrimental biological and health effects in humans that occur at radiation levels far below the existing Safety Code 6 Guideline.

As far as I am aware, there is not one peer reviewed study by a scientist or medical expert stating exposure to microwave radiation is safe for children and the unborn.

In 2013, almost 6 years ago, the BC Center for Disease Control, cautioned in their 400 page report on RF/EMR that their findings are consistent with many international experts who continue to warn that prolonged exposure to low levels of microwave radio frequency radiation from wireless devices that include wi-fi, ipads, cell phones, cordless phones and smart meters, can lead to serious health effects such as infertility and cancer, children especially at risk. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1I6PMTOkSZL-OcdXmU0Q-M35IdU6vAqmn

I believe that Health Canada administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act which governs the sale, lease, and importation of radiation emitting devices but does NOT have any regulations in place to protect the public from long-term exposure to the biological effects of the non-thermal levels of microwave radiation.  In 2013, in the Superior Court of Quebec, James McNamee, scientist for Health Canada, admitted that the Safety Code 6 guideline for microwave radiation emitting from wireless technology is based ONLY on thermal effects, heating of the skin.

On page 3, inside the Safety Code 6 document it states, “These guidelines apply to all individuals working at, or visiting, federally regulated sites and may also be adopted by the provinces, industry or other interested parties.” Schools are not federally regulated sites and, therefore, SC 6 does not apply to WiFi in schools. The fact that the provinces may Adopt SC 6 means that the provinces are free to set their own guidelines.

http://www.radiationsafety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Safety-Code-6.pdf

Although it may be recommended to people make personal choices to reduce their exposure, this is impossible when microwave radiation exposure is mandatory 6 hours a day, 5 days a week in all our public schools and 24/7 in hospitals.

The US National Toxicology Program and the supporting Ramazzini Institute Study along with over 27,000 peer reviewed studies have confirmed the link to cancer from microwave radiation exposure.

Canada agreed the Precautionary Principle would be implemented when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof, insisting that those responsible for an activity must vouch for its harmlessness and be held responsible if damage occurs.

https://www.sehn.org/sehn/wingspread-conference-on-the-precautionary-principle?rq=wingspread%20conference%20on%20the%20precautionary%20principle

Health is a Provincial Jurisdiction. I know your office is eager to protect our children by taking the reasonable steps to reduce wireless radiation in our schools and also to avoid the 5G roll out in our communities given the overwhelming amount of evidence of harm.

Thank you so much for the work you do and for taking the time to read this letter.

Sincerely,

Gina Shimoda       (name shared with permission)

 

 

Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”      Albert Einstein

www.stopsmartmetersbc.com