2019-05-15 Conflicts of Interest/Bias in ICNIRP, WHO

1)  A major launch for the new group E.P.I.C. in Toronto, May 30 Experts, like Dr. Rhiina Bray and Dr. Meg Sears, will speak. If you have friends or family in Toronto, please share this opportunity to learn more about EHS and to support this major effort.

3-2-1- Launch!  IT’s EPIC  !   Electrosmog Awareness

 https://iexistworld.org/epic-launch-invitation/

2)  Australia is having its federal election and one party, only one party, the Health Australia Party, has an EMR policy that others should emulate. I’ve included only a few of the points:

Health Australia Party policy on EMR

““The HAP supports the following initiatives which are needed due to the changing electromagnetic environment in which we live.

(a) Adopting the precautionary approach regarding exposure to electromagnetic fields;

(b) Designing, building and wiring buildings so as to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields;

(c) Requiring new radiation-emitting technologies, including 5G, to be demonstrated to be safe for all members of society before their introduction to the market/rollout across Australia;…”

https://stopsmartmeters.com.au/2019/05/15/health-australia-party-policy-on-emr/

3)  It has become painfully obvious over the years that the various panels that decide whether RF is safe, how much we can be exposed to, the validity of studies, etc. are, to a large extent, biased and loaded with industry-“friendly” bent scientists. This bias at the highest agencies, ICNIRP and WHO, are mirrored in Health Canada. Even if there is no bias but rather laziness or lack of ability, other agencies like our provincial health offices, like BC Centre for Disease Control, the Cancer Societies, and our Health Officers, are influenced by these captured agencies. How many times have these people responded to our letters sending studies and reports with the mantra “Health Canada says there is no evidence of harm” or “if the emission levels are below Safety Code 6 there is no reason for concern.”

Dr. Don Maisch charged this in a major thesis many years ago (https://www.emfacts.com/papers/  scan to  Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees), and the situation has not improved. Until these corrupt, bent, malleable panel members are replaced with independent experts, we are subject to their biased decisions. Perhaps you’ll consider saving this article and using it in letters to the various officials. Let them know where they are getting their information….

Conflicts of Interest and Misleading Statements in Official Reports about the Health Consequences of Radiofrequency Radiation and Some New Measurements of Exposure Levels 

“A group of investigative journalists known as Investigate Europe allege the existence of an ‘ICNIRP cartel’: a group of 14 core scientists plus a couple of dozen supporters who act to promote and defend the ICNIRP dogma that the only confirmed harms caused by RF are acute thermal effects [44]. This cartel is alleged to preserve the EMF exposure guidelines favored by industry by conducting biased reviews of the literature, which minimize health risks from exposure to EMF power densities lower than those which cause thermal harm.”

https://www.mdpi.com/2312-7481/5/2/31/htm

Letters:

From: “Paul LeMay”  (name given with permission)
To: noamchomsky
Sent: May 14, 2019
Subject: Hoping you might consider issuing a public comment on a N.Y.T. article that came out May 12

Dear Dr. Chomsky,

I am an independent science writer based in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. As it turns out, I am also somewhat familiar with your work from my time as an undergraduate psychology student back in the mid-1970s, as well as your later well-researched thesis on “Manufacturing Consent”.

It is within this latter context that I write to you today. Two days ago, I was sent a link to a New York Times article entitled: “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise.” 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html

The reason for my e-mail today is to ask you to consider issuing a public statement on the foregoing matter, if you are so inclined.

Personally, I don’t know IF I have ever read any article or opinion piece in any mainstream newspaper, let alone the New York Times, that so revolted me for the measure of blatant scientific inaccuracies it sought to pass off as scientific truth. Given your own past experiences, I am sure you can relate.

Out of curiosity, I today determined how much the New York Times receives for a single full page color ad. For a Sunday nationally distributed edition, it is just shy of $200,000. For a Sunday internationally distributed edition, it is just shy of $250,000.

On April 21st, Sprint and T-Mobile joined forces for just such an ad to advertise the future that awaits us all with the coming of the glorious 5G revolution. Today I also learned that Verizon, another major 5G wireless provider, has entered into a form of partnership with the New York Times.

Most concerning is that this entire so-called “5G revolution” will effectively introduce a technology for which no public safety testing has been conducted, let alone completed. Key wireless industry players admitted as much on the record in response to a question asked by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal during a US Senate hearing earlier this year.

As it turns out, there are actually two studies that have been done. Both in the former Soviet Union, and now in the public sphere as declassified CIA documents. Both show a range of problematic effects.

No wonder the industry wants everyone to pretend that everything is just fine.

If you do decide to issue a public statement, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Paul H. LeMay, BA (Psych), Dipl. S.A.,
co-author of Primal Mind, Primal Games

 

 

Sharon Noble,  Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,”     Dr.  Annie Sasco

www.stopsmartmetersbc.com