1) Surprisingly, FOX News in the US addresses 5G’s health concerns (sort of). The debate always is whether the health risk is more important than the corporate benefits. Dr. Marc Siegel on Tucker Carlson.
Are 5G networks a danger to our health and safety?
2) There is going to be a “drop in” information meeting re. the new tower on Thetis Island Wednesday, May 29. This from a concerned resident. Please share this with people you know in the area, including on nearby Vancouver Island.
(click on photo to enlarge)
Subject: The Tower
Hello All — Hope you are enjoying the fine weather. Yesterday I spent many hours searching the web and talking to people about the proposed tower. Some of these people —
Islands Trust — Doug Fenton, Marnie Eggen, left message for Peter Luckham
CVRD Area G Director – Lynne Smith
TELUS Rep — Chad Marlatt — He actually works for a real estate company called Cypress Land Services located in downtown Vancouver with the slogan on their website: “Acumen, Diligence and Persistence define us”. I spoke to Chad this morning he said the construction of this much larger tower is being driven by the results of the public meeting held on Thetis about the former smaller tower that was to be built on the TELUS site near Capernwray, i.e no wireless service on North Pilkey Pt. Rd. and improvement of emergency contact with the CVRD for Thetis, Penelakut and water ways and will provide backup if the submarine cable should get damaged in an emergency — which has apparently happened in the past. TELUS will not consider the fiber optic option to the residents on Pilkey Pt. Rd. due to costs to install and maintain. The tower infrastructure is 4G, to be upgraded to 5G when that becomes more available down the road.
The home owner where the tower is to be located is driven by a desire to help improve emergency services to Thetis Islanders — he will be paid but not a huge amount and this is not his driving force.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING — PROPOSED TOWER
WEDNESDAY, MAY 29TH — 5:30 – 7:00 PM (DROP IN FORMAT)
THETIS ISLAND PUB MARINA – 46 HARBOUR RD., THETIS ISLAND
3) As happened to me a couple of years ago, Telus is expanding its fiber optic cable in Alberta as well as BC while offering what seems to be “pure fiber” which actually has wireless connections. This infrastructure actually is the backbone for the 5G grid, bringing strong transmitters outside your bedroom window without telling you or getting your approval. And remember, Telus will disconnect the copper phone landline and replace it with a digital phone that has a short-time battery as backup during outages.
TELUS investing $100 million to connect St. Albert and parts of Sturgeon County directly to advanced fibre optic network
“The gigabit-enabled TELUS PureFibre network is among the most advanced communications infrastructure available in the world today, enabling residents to immediately take advantage of dramatically fast Internet speeds up to a gigabit, while businesses, schools, healthcare providers and other institutions can access even more speed and capacity. The TELUS PureFibre network offers equally fast upload and download speeds, which provides significant benefits for applications like video conferencing, gaming, and home security. Supported by the TELUS PureFibre network, TELUS Smart Home Security offers 24/7 real-time monitoring and smart controls to manage cameras, lock and unlock doors, indoor and outdoor lighting, and even the thermostat. This new fibre optic infrastructure will also be the backbone of TELUS’ wireless network, enabling more wireless capacity and faster speeds throughout the region, and lays the groundwork for 5G technologies in the years ahead….
A direct connection to the TELUS PureFibre network comes at no cost to taxpayers or residents. Residents can expect to see TELUS trucks throughout the community as construction begins, and TELUS representatives out knocking on their door to receive permission to connect their home to the network. Once homes are connected, residents can immediately begin taking advantage of dramatically faster and symmetrical Internet speeds.
TELUS is bringing this critical network infrastructure to more communities in 2019, and as customer demand and connected devices and platforms evolve in the coming years, the TELUS PureFibre network will continuously offer faster speeds and more capacity. In the immediate term, local healthcare providers, educators and technology companies will be able to draw upon the technology to reimagine how they deliver existing services and develop entirely new solutions.”
4) Below is a series of very good letters written in an effort to raise awareness of provincial and federal health officials about the issues and dangers associated with EMR/5G, etc. From experience with these people, we know they are guilty of ignoring independent science and attempting to minimize risks that many thousands of studies document. These people, IMHO, are guilty of failing to do their jobs, which is to protect the public.
Please read from the bottom up.
From: “Paul LeMay” (name given with permission)
To: “HLTH Minister” <HLTH.Minister@gov.bc.ca>
Cc: “adrian dix mla” <adrian.dix.MLA@leg.bc.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 12:11:57 PM
Subject: Dangers of 5G and existing WiFi in hospitals + associated Ministry of Health Response – 1132593 to my April 11 letter
Dear Minister Dix,
Pursuant to my joint letter to both you and the Minister of Health for Canada dated April 11, 2019, and the scientifically spurious reply I received from what I assume is a representative of your department’s communications staff (Mr. Lambert) dated Monday, May 6, I thought it would be prudent to formally advise your office about a 2015 Canadian Medical Association Journal article entitled “Scientists decry Canada’s outdated Wi-Fi safety rules”.
As few articles can, it does a credible job identifying where the real problem exists in the current Catch-22 situation where a provincial health ministry can contend that is fulfilling its constitutionally appointed mission to provide medical care by referring to a federal regulatory standard that actually undermines or makes a mockery of its ability to do so. You may find the legal implications of this matter edifying.
Given the foregoing CMAJ article from 2015, there appear to be sufficient grounds to consider the current exposure standards within Safety Code 6 to be scientifically invalid. As such, any further unwillingness by the provincial government to openly question or oppose such a standard effectively represents an abrogation of its legal duty of care obligation to protect the health of those who depend on the BC Ministry of Health to do so.
If the federal government’s Safety Code 6 is scientifically out-dated, as many scientists contend, and there is reasonable scientific grounds for stating as much, then the BC Minister of Health has both a moral and legal obligation to officially advise the federal Minister of Health of his views on the matter. Moreover, the BC Minister of Health has a responsibility to make those views known to the public by issuing a public statement to this effect.
If more provinces took this scientifically defensible position, and the federal government refused to amend its regulation to make it safer, then in the course of time provinces could make a legal claim against the federal government, as well as the manufacturers of wireless radio-frequency products and the providers of wireless services, to reimburse the affected provincial treasuries for additional health care expenses attributable to regular and prolonged periods of exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Such conditions could include certain cancers, heart arrhythmias and increases in diabetes (to name only three health conditions) which can be aggravated by regular and prolonged periods of radio-frequency radiation exposures.
Officially serving notice now will help set the legal stage for potential action for harms later.
I will regard any failure by the BC Minister of Health to take such publicly recorded action within a reasonable period of time to represent an abrogation of its legal obligations to exercise a duty of care to its residents, thus rendering it liable for legal action in due course.
Paul H. LeMay, BA (Psych), Dipl. S.A.,
PS – Please see the new peer-reviewed article pertaining to the dangers associated with Wi-Fi exposures by Martin Pall, PhD.
Thank you for your extensive reply below Mr. Lambert.
To address your first concern: Yes, I have indeed received appropriate medical attention to address my heart arrhythmia condition. Thanks to an EMF assessment of my living quarters in 2014, I learned that my 24/7 exposure to otherwise presumed safe levels of EMF radio-frequencies, was the probable cause of a dramatic numeric increase in arrhythmia episodes I experienced that same year.
The exposures in question came from various legally sanctioned microwave and millimeter wave emitting devices (WiFi, cordless phone and cell phone) both in my home and from adjoining apartments, and from a cell phone tower about 300 meters from my place of residence.
As a matter of record, it is noteworthy that these “legal” levels of EMF exposure resulted in me being hospitalized for 8 days at St. Paul’s hospital in July of 2014, where I underwent an ablation. Yet despite ridding myself of WiFi, cordless phones and the presence of any cell phones in the apartment where I live, I still had to undergo a second ablation in February 2015 for essentially the same reasons. Why? Because adjoining apartments and a nearby cell tower continued to wreak havoc on my biological well-being, and that of my neighbours of course. Finally, after sufficient abatement measures were however taken in the summer of 2015, such as EM conductive paint, reflective foil under carpets and reflective film on my apartment’s windows), paid for not by the Telecom industry, nor the federal government, but by my compassionate landlord, which cost in the order of $20,000, my condition began to improve.
Incidentally, the mechanism of action for why EMF radio-frequency radiation can affect heart rhythm is due to the disruption of Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels. It permits a greater influx of Calcium ions into cells.
Sadly, the taxpayers of British Columbia had to pay much more than $20,000 for the two ablation procedures I am genuinely grateful for having received. And this is part of the sad tale, since British Columbia bore these health care costs, not the federal government. In other words, it is the provinces who are left with paying the health care tab, while the federal government gets to pretend it is facilitating a much “needed” service that is actually contributing to those very costs.
What many people in government, be it federal or provincial, fail to act upon is the substantive body of non-industry funded research that has demonstrated a long list health harms associated with our current levels of exposure to radio-frequency EMFs. Without wishing to list the thousands (n = ~5,700) of research studies here, suffice it to say that microwave radio-frequency exposures can be either direct causal agents or cumulative causal co-factors in the development of several forms of cancer, heart arrhythmias, diabetes, cognitive decline disorders, including Alzheimer’s Disease, endocrine disruption, as well as learning impairment, sleep disruption (via undercutting Melatonin production), and general conditions of agitation and general loss of the ability to mentally focus, some of which you obliquely alluded to in your response.
As a professional science writer for over 14 years now, I recently made it my citizen business to familiarize myself with a substantive cross-section of the more current research on radio-frequency EMF exposure effects. Your response today did not inspire much confidence in how the Ministry is choosing to address the matter. As a former administrator who worked in the federal government, I recognize a letter that aims to deflect rather than address the issue head on when I read one. In between the lines, I read, our hands are tied and we are powerless to do anything constructive, a view I frankly reject incidentally.
Diminishing the importance of the most current scientific facts by deferring to the “authority” of what many still dare to call “Safety Code 6” (which honestly has less to do with safety and more to do with protecting industry interests), represents an abdication of the Ministry of Population and Public Health’s legal “duty of care” obligations to safeguard the health and lives of people of British Columbia.
Let’s be clear: Many qualified research experts within the scientific community, among them, Martin Pall, Paul Héroux, Magda Havas, and Henry Lai, view Safety Code 6’s metric of tissue heating, and few other biological effects, as a completely scientifically obsolete “safety” standard.
While the federal Minister of Health and her department officials may claim Safety Code 6 received an appropriate scientific update in 2015 when it was reviewed by the Standing Commons Committee on Health, a majority of safety-minded scientists would likely suggest otherwise. This so-called “update” simply remains woefully inadequate, and as suggested earlier, more likely reflects placing industry-inspired lobbying concerns ahead of the public good. This latter claim is not without merit.
As one who once worked for the Health & Safety Directorate of HRDC-Labour in the federal government in Ottawa, I became acquainted with the cost-benefit analytic methods used to gauge whether something is deemed an acceptable public risk as compared to the social and personal costs that will come from the implementation of any new technology or legislative reform. Indeed, in that capacity, I was on occasion asked to prepare briefing notes for the minister at the time. From this perspective alone, I can tell you that it is not uncommon for government institutions to remain mired in a serious bit of cultural lag when it comes to updating anything scientifically, including Safety Code 6. Even for good reasons, the knowledge inertia within any bureaucracy is resistive to change, and it is even more so when one’s “superiors” in the bureaucratic pecking order, are supplicants to the will of political masters who seek to placate vested corporate interests. And when it comes to the very lucrative telecom industry, where so much money is on-the-line, there is little good reason to assume this is not the case.
As for the supposed “safety margins” built within our existing Safety Code 6 that you raised in your response, might I also point out that these very same standards are in near lock-step, goose-step with the safety standards issued by the FCC in the United States. The FCC is widely regarded to be an industry-captured regulatory institution. Moreover, I should also point out that the supposedly safe emission standards currently in effect in both Canada and the United States are 100 times higher than those that exist in Switzerland, Italy, Russia, China and eastern Europe. 100 times higher! Let that sink in for a moment.
So what is it that those several jurisdictions know that we simply choose to ignore? Should we simply regard their emission standards to be overly restrictive? Or are ours, overly permissive? Knowing what I now know, I would suggest the latter. If this were not so, then I would not likely have experienced a dramatic increase in my own annual arrhythmia incident rate from two-three incidents per year, to four-five incidents per week. Unlike so many of my fellow citizens, I am thankfully now a much more informed, which is why I made this effort to communicate my concerns to BC’s Minister of Population and Public Health, despite the likelihood that nothing would be done.
As for the IARC standards you cite below, which only identifies RF exposure as a class 2b possible carcinogen, if you become more acquainted with their own adjudication process, you will know that their process too is not beyond the push-back influence of industry interests, which is why many within the scientific community continue to push for a far more stringent risk classification standard than what currently exists.
So why is that? As we are now learning, human and animal biology is proving to be far more sensitive and disease prone to these forms of radiation than once thought, even at relatively minor exposure levels. Given these rapidly emerging understandings, one would think that the precautionary principle would naturally prevail in Canada, yet it does not. Despite the best emergent scientific evidence, we still allow WiFi in our hospitals and schools.
If individuals wish to irradiate themselves in the privacy of their own homes, that is entirely their choice. However, to impose irradiation in the public space on uninformed parties without their prior explicit informed consent is not only unethical, it is illegal under the criminal law in relation to assault, it is illegal under the charter of rights in relation to the security of the person provision, and it is illegal under public international law within the Nuremberg Convention of 1947. So for the government of British Columbia to continue to rely on a Canadian federal standard that is in effect one that is without scientific question, an unreasonable source of harm, is, as I stated earlier, a failing by the Ministry, in its legal duty-of-care obligation.
Please regard this response to your e-mail as a formal notification of this failure as a matter of written record.
While the Minister and his department may currently believe they are fulfilling their obligation to protect the residents of British Columbia to the best of their knowledge and ability, I have provided at least a few compelling arguments that would suggest the status of this knowledge and its reliance on a scientifically dubious federal standard known as Safety Code 6, falls well short of this mark of due care and diligence.
I would like to think our government officials still have more than a few fibers of moral conscience and concern, I would ask that you summon the courage to, like Switzerland and other national jurisdictions, call on the federal government to institute far more rigourous safety standards than what now exist. I would also like to request that it insist on more scientifically accurate public education and information on this topic, as the Commons Standing Committee on Health recommended in its 2015 report (see attached)[http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Radiofrequency-Electromagnetic-Radiation-and-the-Health-of-Canadians-Report-of-the-Standing-Committee-on-Health-Ben-Lobb-Chair-June-2015.pdf or https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/HESA/report-13/]
particularly in view of the non-safety tested 5G millimeter technology that the wireless industry is so keen to see our society adopt without sufficient question or scrutiny.
Paul H. LeMay, BA (Psych), Dipl. S.A.,
On Monday, May 6, 2019, 9:17:10 a.m. PDT, Population and Public Health HLTH:EX <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Mr. Paul H. LeMay
Dear Mr. LeMay:
Thank you for your email and letter of April 11, 2019, sent to the Honorable Adrian Dix, Minister of Health, expressing your concerns regarding long-term exposure to wireless technology. I appreciate that you took the time to write and I am responding on the Minister’s behalf. I am sorry to learn of your health concerns and I urge you to contact your physician if you are experiencing ongoing issues.
Safe technology for Canadians is of high importance to federal and provincial health agencies. The Ministry of Health relies on the expertise of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), the Provincial Health Officer, and Health Canada when determining acceptable levels of radiation emitted by equipment such as Wi-Fi and cellular phones.
Health Canada administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which governs the sale, lease, and importation of radiation emitting devices. Health Canada has a mandate to carry out research into possible human health effects, monitor scientific literature, and develop recommended exposure guidelines. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 sets out recommended limits for safe human exposure to radiofrequency fields (RF) produced by wireless devices. The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 are in accord with the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which have been adopted by the United Kingdom, Europe, and most other countries outside of Canada and the United States.
While Safety Code 6 is a guideline, its application is a legislated requirement of several regulatory frameworks including the Canada Labour Code, Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, Radiocommunication Act, and WorkSafeBC Policy. Additionally, all installed broadcast and telecommunication antennas and transmitters are subject to Industry Canada requirements regarding techniques to evaluate radio frequency exposure compliance.
The exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6 have been established by a thorough evaluation of the scientific literature, using a weight-of-evidence approach. This approach involves examination of all the evidence on a topic in a systematic manner, where the study design and methods are critically reviewed to assess if and how chance, bias, and confounding issues may have affected the results. This approach attributes more weight to high quality studies (using a ranking system) and ensures that studies with a given result are not selected out from the published literature to support or suppress a preconceived idea of an adverse health effect.
Safety Code 6 is designed to protect all age groups, including children and the elderly on a continuous basis, and considers cumulative exposure to RF. Safety margins have been incorporated into the exposure limits to ensure that worst-case exposures remain far below the threshold for harm, even if exposure occurs daily over a lifetime. The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 also consider total (aggregate) exposure from all sources of RF. More information about how Safety Code 6 protects the health and safety of Canadians can be found at Fact Sheet – What is Safety Code 6.
Cellular phones and their antennas, Wi-Fi networks, and radios of all types (e.g., AM/FM radios) operate using RF in the electromagnetic frequency (EMF) spectrum, with wave frequencies between 3 kilohertz (KHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). The RF energy emitted is a type of non-ionizing radiation, some of which can be absorbed by the body. The amount of RF energy absorbed depends on how close the body is to a RF device and the strength of the signal. For more information, a 2016 review on RF and health is available from the BCCDC.
Modern day cellular phones have maximal power outputs of 0.25 watts (W). The amount of energy absorbed from a cellular phone is highly dependent on the distance the phone is held from the body while operating. As cellular phone networks grow, additional antennas are installed, and cellular phones require less power to connect to the network, resulting in lower exposure to RF. Cellular phone base stations have been found to emit RF energy 3,000 to 1,00,000 times lower than Safety Code 6 exposure limits.
Wi-Fi networks, such as 4G wireless, are RF-based communication systems that incorporate one or more routers and several Wi-Fi enabled computer systems. Wi-Fi systems are categorized as low-power devices, and in general, the exposure to RF from Wi-Fi systems is much lower than exposure to RF from cellular phones. This is due to several factors such as the low power of routers (less than 0.1 W) and laptops (less than 0.03 W), the small fraction of time RF is transmitted from Wi-Fi systems, and the greater distance of people from those RF sources compared to cellular phones.
The levels of RF that a smart meter can transmit must comply with Industry Canada standards and they have a maximal power output of 1 W. Radio frequency signals emitted by smart meters are intermittent and similar to the RF signals emitted by AM/FM radio broadcast signals. Since RF measurements from smart meter testing were far below the exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6 (i.e., 0.001% of the exposure limit), it was determined that there is no public health risk from exposure to smart meters.
One of the concerns around RF exposure is the development of cancer. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF EMF as ‘Class 2b – Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans’. This indicates that the evidence is far from conclusive and more research is needed to clarify the possible link to cancer. Furthermore, there is no currently accepted biological mechanism for RF to cause cancer or any other disease process. Despite ongoing research, the current weight-of-evidence indicates that the link to cancer is only possible, not probable.
Other potential health effects from exposure to RF fields include: reproductive and developmental effects, and symptoms such as insomnia, headaches, tinnitus, fatigue, and dizziness. The research conducted to date on these health endpoints have had methodological limitations and inconsistent results, thus more research is needed.
Current scientific evidence supports the assertion that RF energy emissions from wireless devices in current use are not harmful as long as RF energy levels remain below the exposure limits in Safety Code 6. Studies investigating the overall exposure to multiple RF emitting devices have found that the Safety Code 6 exposure levels are not exceeded.
Protection of public health is a priority for this government and the Ministry of Health. We aim to apply the most up-to-date research evidence to inform decision making. The evidence at this time concludes that RF emitting devices (including Wi-Fi and cellular phones) do not pose a public health risk.
I appreciate the amount of time you have spent researching this topic. I thank you again for your email and letter, and for providing me with an opportunity to respond with the above information.
Dear Ministers Petitpas Taylor and Dix,
I write each of you today to lodge a serious science-based evidence concern about the on-going longterm exposure hazards from current microwave wireless technology, and to suggest three reasonably attainable public policy initiatives that could help diminish the associated risks to health.
I am an independent science writer based in Vancouver, B.C. Several months ago, the landlord of the building in which I reside came to me with a professional request owing to her concerns related to exposure hazards from both existing and newly proposed wireless technology to human health. She asked me to dig into the topic on her behalf.
As it so happened, I was already somewhat familiar with some issues related to this technology owing to a pre-existing, yet relatively stable heart arrhythmia condition first diagnosed in 1983, well before the introduction of cell phone technology into our society. In the spring and summer of 2014, this arrhythmia condition worsened from 2-3 incidents per year to multiple incidents per week.
Eventually, I undertook to have an EMF assessment done of my living quarters. Upon doing so, I learned that my deteriorating condition was very likely exacerbated after multiple years of residing in an environment contaminated with an excess of microwave energy (i.e. 700-1,100 microwatts per square meter). This was owing to several factors: (1) our building’s proximity to three nearby cell phone antenna arrays, the closest of which was only about 250 meters from our apartment building; (2) the ubiquitous presence of EMF fields generated by WiFi routers and cordless telephones both in my own residence and adjoining apartment residences; and (3) the introduction of wireless electricity meters, dubiously called “Smart Meters”, by B.C. Hydro in 2012.
Yet what I have learned even since January has genuinely shocked me.
For example, after reviewing a series of peer-reviewed studies by Martin Pall, a professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, it would appear that Canada’s current Safety Code 6 fails to take sufficient account of the negative health impacts of microwave field of on-going daily and cumulative exposures from existing WiFi sources. Among the findings from his non-industry funded research (and that of many others I might add), prolonged exposures to microwave levels were found to cause oxidative stress to all manner of bio-molecule, including DNA bases and their strands, as well as proteins. This one oxidative stress mechanism alone is implicated in amplifying the progression of cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s Disease progression, possible protein misfolding and cancer. Microwave exposures are also implicated in disrupting proper Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) function, which in turn is implicated in exacerbating certain heart arrhythmia conditions. Similarly, skull-proximate use of cell phones over 10 years has already shown to cause a fourfold increase in risk in developing certain forms of brain cancer.
Currently assumed “safety” standards, it must be remembered, were largely defined by physicists and electrical engineers based on the “heating of tissue” standard many years ago. Yet the bar of good scientific evidence has since moved considerably. The criteria upon which these standards were based, are simply no longer scientifically credible. This represents a state of affairs that no government can or should continue to endorse.
Akin to research several decades ago which showed a clear link between exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke and the incidence of various types of cancer, findings that were long-disputed by the tobacco industry if you recall, today we find ourselves in a rather similar situation when it comes to our near ubiquitous exposures to wireless technology, especially in more densely populated urban environments. Like the tobacco industry of yesteryear who literally banked on the ignorance of the population, the wireless industry of today engages in a very similar strategy of denial, claiming the risks are negligible. Yet as a 2017 international news release by 230 scientists from 41 countries makes clear (see attached), literally thousands of non-industry funded research studies into our existing exposures to microwave-based emissions from various devices clearly show otherwise.
Indeed, the very fact that an estimated 84% of all Canadians own and operate a mobile phone means that over the measure of time, we can expect a significant increase in direct health care spending by provincial governments to keep up. This is in addition to the loss of productivity cost burdens that will accrue to the economy overall, and to individual families in particular.
While I might wish to suggest to each of you that our society needs to: (a) scale back our deployment of existing 4G technology; (b) remove all wireless smart meters as a failed corporate-inspired devoid of seeking the consent of the overall population (which remains contrary to the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and as such likely represents a crime against humanity, I might add); and (c) impose a mandatory moratorium on any deployment of the next generation of 5G millimetre wave wireless technology; having once worked on Parliament Hill as well as in the federal government in HRDC-Labour’s Health and Safety Directorate, I am also a realist. I well know that neither of you will likely take any one of these aforementioned steps, if only for the measure of political courage that they would require.
So with this Real Politik in mind, please allow me this opportunity to suggest a couple of other modest steps that I believe are well within your current purview which you can directly take as ministers of the Crown.
First to the Minister of Health for Canada: Given the cumulative health hazards associated with exposure to microwave emissions, especially within the homes of Canadians, I would like to propose that your office first draft and then issue regulations that require that ALL WiFi emitting devices used in the home, in the workplace and in residences for the elderly, should be required to have automatic shut-off or non-emitting sleep modes that kick-in after 30 minutes if they are not receiving active input signals from any wireless user. This same requisite should also exist for cordless telephones. This measure should exist to help ensure that the subtle biological mechanisms within the human body receive an extended opportunity to regenerate without the interference of microwave fields. Under this new regulation, all current internet service providers in Canada would be required to either retrofit, replace or dispose of existing non-sleep mode WiFi technologies within one year of the regulation being announced in the Canada Gazette.
For the Minister of Health of British Columbia: Many hospitals across the province now have WiFi emitters in their buildings. I would like to suggest that a regulation be similarly drafted and then issued that prohibits the presence of these kinds of devices in: (1) any facility providing care to people who are suffering from cognitive decline disorders, since such exposures can only worsen these conditions; and in (2) any hospital care unit where people are suffering from or who are being treated for cancer, or any heart arrhythmia condition. In hospital facilities where such technology currently exists, any ward admitting patients with either cancer or heart arrhythmia conditions should be shielded from all such microwave emitting devices, and the presence of any active wireless devices by any persons working or visiting said facilities would be required to turn said devices completely off.
I would also like to suggest to the Minister of Health of British Columbia, as well as the Minister of Education for British Columbia, that every primary and secondary school in the province should no longer be permitted to use wireless technology owing to the exposure hazards to both students and teachers. All access to the internet can be more reliably be obtained through wired connections.
These three suggestions represent modest attainable first steps that would demonstrate each government’s recognition of sound evidence-based findings, and represent their discharge of their respective duties of care to the Canadian population.
I look forward to receiving your considered response to this correspondence.
Paul H. LeMay, BA (Psych), Dipl. S.A.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Public apathy is more powerful than public opinion. There’s more of it.” ~ Dr. Jim Boren