Category Archives: EMF

Cell Phone Radiation Leads to Cancer – NTP Final Report

Cell Phone Radiation Leads to Cancer,
Says U.S. NTP in Final Report

Rats Developed Rare Heart Tumor
Cancer Link Was Once Thought Impossible

November 1, 2018

“We believe that the link between radiofrequency (RF) radiation and tumors in male rats is real,” says John Bucher, the former associate director of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP).

The announcement accompanies this morning’s release of the NTP final reports of studies on cancer in rats and mice exposed to cell phone radiation. Bucher’s project, the largest in NTP history, cost $30 million and took more than ten years to complete.

See more details at      https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-final-rf-report

The meaning of this is that the probability of a person getting cancer increases with the total lifetime exposure to RFRadiation.  Exposure is a function of the intensity of the RFR and the duration.  So, 10 years of heavy cellphone usage (phone against the head) will dramatically increase the chances of brain cancer.  A user may be lucky or may not be lucky in this gamble.

And Health Canada and the FCC maintain that RFR has no adverse health effects, especially cancer.  Does this mean that these organizations are derelict in their duties to protect public heath or does it mean that they have been influenced or taken over by industry or military agencies?

INTERNATIONAL APPEAL – Stop 5G on Earth and in Space

To the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations

5G will result in a massive increase in inescapable, involuntary exposure to wireless radiation

Harmful effects of radio frequency radiation are already proven

The deployment of 5G satellites must be prohibited

5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different from 4G

Regulators have deliberately excluded the scientific evidence of harm

The thermal hypothesis is obsolete—new safety standards are needed

RF radiation has both acute and chronic effects

World governments are failing in their duty of care to the populations they govern

International agreements are being violated

World governments are playing dice with life on Earth

We call upon the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations

Please respond before 1 December 2018

See full text here

 

Collaborative on Health and the Environment – 2018 OCT 19

See this very informative site for those of you that are inquisitive and wish to understand what is going on in this precious world of ours
see https://www.healthandenvironment.org

CHE has a section on the health problems related to RF Radiation see https://www.healthandenvironment.org/environmental-health/environmental-risks/technology-environment/radiation-environment

Here is the latest email from Joel MOSKOWITZ at CHE

————————————

For the U.S. version of this story see the following reports:

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. “The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones.” The Guardian, July 14, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths

Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. “How big wireless made us think that cell phones are safe: A special investigation.” The Nation, March 29, 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

Alster, Norm. Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Cambridge, MA:  Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.  2015. http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured

Note: The International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection will soon issue an inaccurate summary of the science to reaffirm its obsolete safety guidelines for wireless radiation exposure. See  ICNIRP’s Exposure Guidelines for Radio Frequency Fields.

Mobile Phone Cover-up? Gov’t advisory body disbanded – inaccurate and misleading conclusions remain

Annelie Fitzgerald, TruePublica (United Kingdom), Oct 17, 2018

TruePublica recently ran a piece highlighting the most censored stories in Britain. One story that never made it into the mainstream media or even any independent media outlets in the UK at the time was the disbanding of the UK Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) in May 2017. This followed the revelation in December 2016 that AGNIR’s latest assessment of the science on the health impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs)—the type emitted by modern wireless technologies—was inaccurate and subject to conflicts of interest, a story that elicited no media interest in the UK either.

AGNIR’s role was to provide Public Health England with objective, science-based recommendations and advice on safe public exposure levels to man-made RF-EMFs. PHE is the agency from which the devolved UK nations take their advice, and other public health agencies from around the world also referred to AGNIR’s recommendations.

In 2012 AGNIR published what turned out to be its last report: Health Effects from Electromagnetic Fields (RCE-20).

The report’s executive summary included the following definitive-sounding statement on RF-EMF safety: ‘Taken together, these studies provide no evidence of health effects of RF field exposures below internationally accepted guideline levels.’

While this conclusion might appear to justify the dissolution last year of AGNIR, close examination reveals that the final AGNIR report was a partial one—in every sense of the word.

In December 2016 UK neuroscientist Dr Sarah J. Starkey published a peer-reviewed paper, ‘Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation’, roundly criticising the AGNIR report.

Accuracy, Starkey pointed out, ‘is vital when most people only read the executive summary and overall conclusions from a 348-page report and national and international public health decisions and exposure levels are based on them’ (p. 494).

In reality, as Starkey demonstrates, the conclusions drawn by AGNIR did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available: the report contained ‘incorrect and misleading statements’ and omitted significant quantities of relevant research.

For some reason, AGNIR set the cut-off date for research to be considered in its report as December 2010. This meant that it excluded reference to the classification in May 2011 of RF-EMFs as a 2B possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and to a paper by the IARC Monograph Working Group published in The Lancet in July 2011.

It is clear, however, that AGNIR’s official cut-off date was not always adhered to: for example, a paper co-authored by one of its members (Maria Feychting) and published in 2011 was included in the report. This paper concluded that there was no causal association between mobile phone use and brain tumours in children and adolescents. Including this ‘no-effect’ paper while excluding reference to the IARC classification might be considered an instance of ‘cherry-picking’.

Indeed, in her study Starkey notes that the executive summary and overall conclusions of the AGNIR report disregarded or excluded much of the evidence of harm to health from RF-EMFs (p. 493).

For example, although 78% of the studies cited on male fertility described significant adverse effects on sperm, male reproductive organs or changes in male testosterone concentrations, AGNIR’s conclusion was that there was ‘no convincing evidence that low-level exposure results in any adverse outcomes on testicular function’ (p. 495).

Starkey’s painstaking analysis of the way AGNIR’s review of the science had been conducted made clear that the report was unsuitable for determining safe public exposure levels, and her conclusion didn’t mince words: ‘Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up’ (p. 500).

Starkey’s criticism of the accuracy of the AGNIR report was echoed by Dariusz Leszczynski, an expert on RF-EMFs from the University of Helsinki and a member of the IARC panel that classified RF-EMFs as a 2B possible human carcinogen. Describing reading the report as ‘surreal’, Leszczynski wrote that it appeared that ‘the authors would either not understand the studies they read or had pre-written conclusions. It was like reading a wish list written by someone claiming that there [are] not and will never be any problems related to cell phone exposures.’ He condemned the report as misleading, pointing out that it is ‘not a comprehensive review [as it claimed to be] but it is a biased review.’

According to the British Medical Journal’s website, biases in reviewing science and in conclusions reached can be considered scientific misconduct: the definition of falsification of data ranges from ‘fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.’

Could AGNIR’s partial assessment of the evidence be considered scientific misconduct? Might the omissions and inaccuracies in the report having been brought to light by Starkey’s paper account—at least in part—for AGNIR’s sudden demise, just six months later?

AGNIR’s conflict of interest

As Starkey points out, the AGNIR report also was subject to conflict of interest: AGNIR’s chair, Anthony Swerdlow, and two of its members—Maria Feychting and Zenon Sienkiewicz—were also members of the controversial International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), whose contested RF-EMF exposure guidelines have been adopted by most of the western world, including the UK. In fact, in 2012 Swerdlow was chair of AGNIR and simultaneously chair of the ICNIRP standing committee on epidemiology.

There is an obvious conflict of interest in allowing scientists who are members of the body pronouncing on safe exposure guidelines to sit also on panels tasked with evaluating the science relating to the adequacy of the guidelines.

As Starkey asks:

‘How can AGNIR report that the scientific literature contains evidence of harmful effects below the current guidelines when several of them are responsible for those guidelines?’ (p. 493).

In a recent article George Monbiot pointed out that governments determine the conclusions of reviews in advance through the appointments they make to panels. Although AGNIR was represented as an ‘independent’ advisory body, Starkey revealed that 43% of its members were from the Health Protection Agency (now Public Health England), the government health agency which commissioned the report, and from the Department of Health. AGNIR could therefore hardly be thought of as ‘independent’.

Furthermore, ICNIRP and AGNIR’s Swerdlow and Feychting are both recognised as ‘leading sceptics’ about the existence of adverse health effects from RF-EMFs, while another member of AGNIR, psychiatrist James Rubin, has published a number of studies all concluding that RF-EMFs cause no adverse health effects.

Swerdlow and his wife also hold shares in wireless and telecommunications companies, an interest he declared in a 2011 paper downplaying brain tumour risks from mobile phone use, but such a disclosure did not feature in the AGNIR report. (The BMJ considers ‘failures of transparency to be forms of misconduct’.)

In 2012, the Union of Concerned Scientists published an important report called Heads They Win, Tails We Lose. How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense. Noting that ‘Government agencies rely on independent scientific advisory panels to provide objective advice’, the report revealed that ‘panel members often have undisclosed financial conflicts of interest: ties to companies that stand to win or lose based on the findings of these advisory committees.’ Surely having a personal financial stake in a company while being responsible for assessing the safety of the technology developed and commercialised by that company constitutes a serious conflict of interest requiring disclosure.

Accumulating evidence

Any queries addressed to governments or public health bodies in the UK about the safety of wireless technologies continue to be dismissed through reference to the ‘authoritative’ AGNIR report from 2012. Recent research, however, has strengthened IARC’s 2011 classification of RF-EMFs as a 2B carcinogen.

In 2015 the replication of a German animal study from 2010 confirmed that the incidence of carcinogen-induced tumours (lung and liver) in mice was significantly higher with RF-EMF exposure. Lead author Alexander Lerchl (Jacobs University, Bremen) stated in a press release:

Our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumours.’ Lymphomas, he observed, were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure. In the study, the authors noted: ‘The fact that both studies found basically the same tumour-promoting effects at levels below the accepted (and in most countries legally defined) exposure limits for humans is worrying.’

This conclusion was given added salience by the fact that Alexander Lerchl had previously been an outspoken sceptic regarding the existence of health effects from RF-EMFs.

Earlier this year, a $25m animal study on RF-EMFs—one of the world’s biggest to date—by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) underwent peer-review. The peer-review panel concluded that the case-control study showed ‘clear evidence of carcinogenic activity’ (exposed rats developed rare heart tumours), and confirmed ‘some evidence’ of a link between RF-EMFs and brain cancer.

The findings made by the Bremen team and the NTP should contribute to a revision of permitted public RF-EMF exposure limits. The formulation of adequately protective public health policies requires the existence of an expert panel such as AGNIR—albeit with radically reformed membership and true scientific independence.

Following the disbanding of AGNIR, the assessment of health risks from RF-EMFs is now the responsibility of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), another expert committee which is supposed to provide ‘independent’ advice about the health impacts of both ionising and non-ionising radiation.

The UK government website states that COMARE has a watching brief on non-ionising radiation and that Public Health England ‘remains committed to delivering expert review reports on non-ionising radiation topics as and when sufficient new evidence has accumulated.’ No review of research on non-ionising RF-EMFs appears to be on the horizon in COMARE’s work programme for 2018-19, the main focus of which remains ionising radiation.

In a lecture given at the National Education Union Conference in Northern Ireland, in May 2018, Starkey pointed out that the conflict of interest associated with membership of ICNIRP also exists for COMARE. The person responsible for deciding whether to advise COMARE to look at any new evidence of health impacts was an author of the inaccurate AGNIR report and is also a member of ICNIRP’s Scientific Expert Group.

There needs to be an expert advisory group independent of AGNIR, ICNIRP, the wireless communications industry and UK governments. Starkey is calling for the inaccurate 2012 AGNIR report (and government advice based on it) to be retracted and for there to be mechanisms put in place whereby incorrect government information can be corrected or removed, as can occur for peer-reviewed published scientific papers.

While evidence of adverse health effects from RF-EMF exposure below guideline levels continues to accumulate, chronic public exposure to RF-EMFs is also increasing: smart meters are being installed across the UK at the moment and the government is forging ahead with the development and deployment of 5G. Last year it awarded £16m to the universities of Surrey and Bristol and to Kings College, London, to develop and test new 5G networks. (These experimental test-beds appear to include no provision for assessing risks to public health, though ‘commercial risks’ are considered.)

As a scientific appeal of September 2017 made clear, 5G deployment will lead to a massive increase in mandatory exposure to RF-EMFs. Over 180 scientists from 35 countries called for a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G technology in the EU until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.

A similar appeal was addressed this year to the new Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres (an electrical engineer and former university professor of systems theory and telecommunications signals). Both appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

In this context of increasing public exposure to RF-EMFs, it seems strange indeed to decide that it is ‘no longer viable to support a dedicated standing advisory group to address non-ionising radiation.’

With 5G on the horizon, surely a dedicated, truly independent expert advisory group on RF-EMFs is now more necessary than ever.

Perhaps disbanding ANGIR can be understood as a clumsy bid to pre-empt any discredit or further criticism of AGNIR after the publication of Starkey’s study, despite the latter’s being ignored by the UK media.

Yet closing down AGNIR on the grounds that it had ‘completed its work’ also suggests that the UK government considers—or, more likely, wants—the case to be closed as far as RF-EMFs and health effects are concerned, something that clears the way for the planned deployment of 5G and other so-called ‘smart’ wireless technologies.

George Monbiot recently pointed out that ‘Agencies of the state, newspapers and broadcasters, campaign groups and charities that claim to restrain corporate power fall under its spell.’ Consequently, he noted, their ‘mission becomes confused and their purpose dissipates.’

Far from holding the government and public health agencies to account as they like to claim, the vast majority of the UK media—including outlets that think of themselves as independent—appears to be complicit in turning a blind eye to this vital public health and environmental issue by failing to cover stories such as AGNIR’s dissolution and its inaccurate assessment of the safety of RF-EMF exposures. As a result, the UK public remains largely ignorant of the real health risks that come with the convenience of wireless.

Annelie Fitzgerald is a member of the Safe Schools Information Technology Alliance. SSITA recently sent an open letter to Education Secretary Damian Hinds on the subject of AGNIR’s inaccurate conclusions about the safety of RF-EMF exposure, particularly as they relate to children’s health and well-being.

http://bit.ly/TruePublicWireless

——————————-

Recent Posts on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Scientific Evidence of Harm from Cell Phone Radiation: Two Years of Research
An annotated bibliography which contains 92 papers published in scientific journals during the last two years that report evidence of harm from cell phone radiation exposure.

5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
 “Both oncologic and non-cancerous chronic effects have been suggested.”

5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype
 News stories debunk exaggerated benefits of 5G cellular technology.

Research on Smart Phone and Internet Addiction
Recent studies on dependence or addiction to mobile devices, gaming, or the internet.

Hybrid & Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

  Modern automobiles increasingly incorporate EMF-emitting devices that pose a risk to human health.

———————————

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:          https://www.saferemr.com

Facebook:        https://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
Twitter:            @berkeleyprc

 

47 Smart Meter Fires – BC Government Still Silent. Sharon Noble – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – April 17, 2018

(audio 30:10) 47 Smart Meter Fires – BC Government Still Silent. Sharon Noble – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – April 17, 2018 by talkdigitalnetwork – YouTube – April 17, 2018:
(Report finds 47 fires caused by Smart Meters, no government reaction)

Guest’s website: http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/

&
(podcast 29:59) April 17, 2018 | 47 Smart Meter Fires – BC Government Still Silent – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – HoweStreet.com – April 17, 2018:

 

= = =

BC Hydro Underground Substationhttp://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-04-16-5g-will-be-much-worse-stronger-than-weve-been-told/ (1)

Brain Tumour Cancer Cluster (Glioblastomas) – http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-04-08-erin-brockovich-interested-in-multiple-glioblastomas-in-florida/ (2)

Childrenhttp://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-04-14-children-suffering-psychologically-due-to-wireless-gadgets/ (1 & 2)

NTP – http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-04-09-inside-info-about-the-peer-review-of-the-ntp-report/ (1 & 2)

Ramazzinihttp://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/z/2017-02-15-world-renowned-italian-institute-confirms-results-of-national-toxicology-program/ (4 & Letters)

See BCUC & Smart Meter Fires Report (July 2017): http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/bcuc-smart-meter-fires-the-failure-to-protect/)

The Goddard Report Video Archives of Interviews with Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters re Smart Meters and Health Issues from Wireless Technologies:

 

EHS = Electro-Hypersensitivity – South Africa Report

Here is a short video of the status of EHS in South Africa.  ( 8 minutes)

This is also called EFIS Electromagnetic Field Intolerance Syndrome.

EHS / EFIS is becoming a serious health issue around the world.

Most people are quite dismissive or ignorant of the health impacts of EHS.  Please review and know what may be harming your health and that of your family.   This is a VERY  SERIOUS  SITUATION.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity by carte blanche – February 26, 2018:  https://carteblanche.dstv.com/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity/

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Constructing an EMF Radiation Hygeia Framework and Model to Demonstrate a Public Interest Override by James Chrystopher LechDecember 2017 http://www.emfsa.co.za/research-and-studies/constructing-emf-radiation-hygeia-framework-model-demonstrate-public-interest-override/

EMF SA – http://www.emfsa.co.za/

Call for British Columbia to Investigate Smart Meters. Sharon Noble – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – December 15, 2017

(audio 22:13) Call for British Columbia to Investigate Smart Meters. Sharon Noble – December 15, 2017 – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – by talkdigitalnetwork – YouTube – December 15, 2017:
(Workers and Children exposed to WiFi – Guest’s website: http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/
&
(podcast 21:53) December 15, 2017 | Call for British Columbia to Investigate Smart Meters – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – HoweStreet.com – December 15, 2017:

= = =

See BCUC & Smart Meter Fires Report (July 2017): http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/bcuc-smart-meter-fires-the-failure-to-protect/)

The Goddard Report Video Archives of Interviews with Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters re Smart Meters and Health Issues from Wireless Technologies:

Could BC Gov be Sued for Ignoring Smart Meter Fire Report? Sharon Noble – October 17, 2017 – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard

(audio 21:55) Could BC Gov be Sued for Ignoring Smart Meter Fire Report? Sharon Noble – October 17, 2017 – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard by talkdigitalnetwork – YouTube – October 17, 2017:
(North Korea very capable of destroying our power grid
&

 

See BCUC & Smart Meter Fires Report (July 2017): http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/bcuc-smart-meter-fires-the-failure-to-protect/)

= = =

The Goddard Report Video Archives of Interviews with Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters re Smart Meters and Health Issues from Wireless Technologies:

UBCM Votes Yes to Having a Say in Microcell Placement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
Contact Oona McOuat
oonasong@yahoo.com
250-537-2088
 
SALT SPRING, September 28 – At the UBCM this morning, the province’s local governments voted to support a resolution on giving them a say when microcells are placed within 100 meters of homes, schools and hospitals in their communities.

Enjoy this 1-minute animation on the Resolution:

Why This Resolution Matters
 
Despite a substantial body of evidence showing wireless technology is harmful to humans and the environment, Innovation Canada allows microcells to be placed on lampposts and utility poles by our homes without our consent or often knowledge.
 
Aesthetics, property value, liability, industry control-for-profit over the public right of way, cyber-security, public safety, health, and well-being – there are many reasons why local governments are concerned about microcells.

The Resolution That Was Passed:

MOTION of Grand Forks City Council
:
 
WHEREAS public consultation on the placement of cell towers is mandated; and
WHEREAS new technology is moving away from these large towers to microtransmitters which do not require local government or public consultation;
 
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED  that the AKBLG request the UBCM petition relevant provincial and federal governments to mandate consultation with the land use authorities and the public regarding microcell transmitter siting within 100 meters of residences, schools and hospitals.

What’s a Microcell?
 
Microcells are small cellular transmitters that broadcast wireless radiation 24 -7.  Anywhere from 3 to 10 of them are being placed on one residential street. Wireless radiation is linked to an increased risk of cancer, as well reproductive and neurological problems – like disturbed sleep. It is conservatively defined as a 2b carcinogen, which means it is in the same category as DDT.
 
Out of Sight, Out of Mind?
 
Industry is coming up with some sneaky ways of designing – or is that hiding – small cell transmitters. But that doesn’t mean their effects will not be felt.
 
The wireless industry would like us to believe the jury’s still out on whether wireless radiation has harmful health impacts. However, thousands of peer-reviewed studies show evidence of harm. Over 180 scientists and physicians just sent out a plea for a halt to the rollout of 5G transmitters in Europe. To protect their health, California firefighters won an exemption from having small cells placed on their fire halls. The question is, don’t the rest of us deserve this same protection? 
 
Safe Connectivity is an Option
 
Connectivity does not have to be primarily EMF-based and does not have to continue to escalate the amount of this scientifically deemed hazardous substance to which we are all exposed. 
 

Direct fiber optic connections, G-Fast technology which connects fiber optic cables to existing copper wires, strategically placed low-EMF emitting public transmitters like those piloted in Paris, France  – why are telecoms choosing to put the well-being of all of us, including wildlife and plants at risk, when safe options are available?

UBCM: Local Control over Pot but not Radiation?

UBCM: Local Control over Pot but not Radiation?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Oona McOuat
250-537-2088

Give me a Minute & I’ll Give you News

SALT SPRING, September 25 – The big story out of the UBCM so far this week is the BC government’s announcement that they are seeking public and municipal input on the legalization of marijuana. But there is another burning issue on the conference agenda that deserves your attention – Resolution B100 on the lack of public and local government input on the placement of microcells within 100 meters of homes, schools, and hospitals.

Please take a minute to watch this easy to digest animated short on the vote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzUBK2AFyLI&feature=youtu.be

Follow the lead of California’s major media who recently made a similar statewide vote on small cell placement on their streets a major news story (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/california-bill-to-ease-permits-for-cellular-antennas-could-impact-health/).

Grand Forks councillor Beverley Tripp will be giving a presentation on Resolution B100 and microcells at 9:30am on Tuesday at the UBCM’s Small Talk Forum.

Recognize that connectivity does not have to be primarily EMF-based and does not have to continue to escalate the amount of this scientifically deemed hazardous substance to which we are all exposed. (To see why over 180 European scientists and physicians have just announced they are opposed to mass microcell placement in preparation for 5G deployment click here (https://tinyurl.com/ycx5ngnx)

Direct fiber optic connections, G-Fast technology which connects fiber optic cables to existing copper wires, strategically placed low-EMF emitting public transmitters like those piloted in Paris, France (http://www.lexnet.fr/fileadmin/user/communication/LEXNET-Press_Release_1.pdf) – why are we permitting telecoms to choose to put the well being of all of us, including wildlife and plants at risk, when safe options are available?

For more facts click here: http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Microcell-Flyer-for-UBCM-revised.pdf

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Getting Buzzed in the Bedroom?
Municipalities Vote on Small Cells & the Right to Choose

SALT SPRING, September 16 – At the September 25-29 Union of BC Municipalities Convention in Vancouver, local governments will be voting on a resolution aimed at giving them a say in microcell placement in their communities.

Despite a substantial body of evidence (http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Over-60-Studies-from-2015-Apr.2016-Reporting-Bioeffects-below-Safety-Code-6-by-C4ST-Apr.18-2016.pdf) showing wireless technology is harmful to humans and the environment, Innovation Canada is allowing microcells to be placed on neighbourhood lampposts and utility poles, and yes – even by our bedrooms – without our consent or often knowledge.

Aesthetics, property value, industry control-for-profit over the public right of way, cyber-security, safety, health, and well-being – there are many reasons for local governments and all of us to be concerned about microcells.

The Resolution:

MOTION of Grand Forks City Council:

WHEREAS public consultation on the placement of cell towers is mandated; and

WHEREAS new technology is moving away from these large towers to microtransmitters which do not require local government or public consultation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the AKBLG request the UBCM petition relevant provincial and federal governments to mandate consultation with the land use authorities and the public regarding microcell transmitter siting within 100 meters of residences, schools and hospitals.

What’s all the Fuss About? (And what’s a microcell?)

Microcells are small cellular transmitters that broadcast wireless radiation 24 -7. Anywhere from 3 to 10 of them are being placed on one residential street. Wireless radiation is linked to an increased risk of cancer, as well reproductive and neurological problems – like disturbed sleep. It is conservatively defined as a 2b carcinogen, which means it is in the same category as DDT.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind?

Industry is coming up with some sneaky ways of designing (http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/american-tower-philips-lighting-team-up-to-hide-small-cells-inside-street-lights) – or is that hiding – small cell transmitters. But that doesn’t mean their effects will not be felt.

The wireless industry would like us to believe the jury’s still out on whether wireless radiation has harmful health impacts. But thousands of peer-reviewed studies show evidence of harm. Over 180 scientists and physicians just sent out a plea for a halt to the rollout of 5G transmitters in Europe (http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/9390/2017-09-13/scientists-35-countries-rap-proposed-calif-5g-radiation-rollout.html). To protect their health, California firefighters won an exemption from having small cells placed on their fire halls. It seems then, that the “smart” choice would be to adopt the precautionary principal for all, and not allow microcells to become permanent fixtures in our communities and our lives.

What’s the Game Plan?

The end game is no landlines and “smart” everything for all of us, and big bucks through data mining for the telecoms. Don’t be fooled into thinking these technologies are green. The “Cloud” is a huge energy guzzler, while tech production and waste is anything but eco-friendly.

There are safe ways of sharing high-speed data, like using wired fiber optic connections. New paradigms in non-harm inducing connectivity are waiting to be discovered, but industry must be urged by consumers and regulators to develop and promote them.

In the News

While concerns about the effects of wireless technologies and the need for more protective EMF exposure guidelines have made recent headlines in Brussels (http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/9390/2017-09-13/scientists-35-countries-rap-proposed-calif-5g-radiation-rollout.html), Massachusetts (https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/SD1462.Html), Paris, France (https://www.goodplanet.info/actualite/2017/03/02/paris-va-reduire-de-30-lexposition-aux-ondes-electromagnetiques/), Romania (https://ehtrust.org/recommendations-consumers-protection-association-romania-cell-phones-wireless/) and more, government and media here at home remain eerily silent on what may very well be the most pressing health issue of our time.

This summer, 300 California cities have voiced strong opposition to a California microcell placement bill, SB 649. This bill would essentially create the same situation there that we have here – telecoms being given free rein to use the public right of way for profit, disturbing the sanctity of our streets, and maybe even preventing us from getting that proverbial good night’s sleep.

Relevant EMF-Related Resources

A short fact sheet on microcells:
http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Microcell-Flyer-for-UBCM-revised.pdf

A fun, animated short on small cells:
https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/NMRaNaDjA8/fi-d58fa059-680d-42ab-afac-8c77118e62b9/fv-5cb41ae6-c3b2-4713-8509-391557bcd2cd/No%20On%20649!.mov

An article on small cells & local authority:
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/handcuffing-cities-to-help-telecom-giants/

An environmental perspective:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988266/wireless_pollution_out_of_control_as_corporate_race_for_5g_gears_up.html

A great overview of wireless technology and health:
http://manhattanneighbors.org/wireless-elephant/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact Oona McOuat