Key Scientific Question
Potential Health Effects of Our Wireless Age?
“Do long-term, low-level emissions from cell phones, Wi-Fi in schools, cell towers and smart meters cause adverse health effects?”
Clearly, they cause many biological effects.
THE BIOINITIATIVE REPORT 2012
A Rationale for Biologically-based Public Exposure Standards for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
Please read the
The RF Color Charts summarize many studies that report biological effects and adverse health effects relevant for cell towers, WI-FI, ‘smart’ wireless utility meters, wireless laptops, baby monitors, cell phones and cordless phones.
SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX) — Super Bowl 50 is expected to draw a million visitors to San Francisco and they’ll all be packing cellphones. Wireless providers are racing to beef up service but that’s coming at the expense of some unhappy residents.
Unless Ludwig Chincarini can convince the city to block the plan, Verizon will soon be installing a mini cell tower right outside his living-room window.
“I mean, the antenna is on the pole ten feet in front of my house,” said Chincarini.
Wireless carriers like Verizon are putting up thousands of the so-called distributed antenna systems in the Bay Area because they say demand for data has nearly doubled in the past year. The industry says these towers are safe. But Chincarini is not convinced.
“There are people who believe there could be effects, like cancer,” he said.
The Federal Communication Act of 1996 says cities and states can’t consider health concerns when regulating the placement of these devices, as long as wireless companies follow FCC radiation guidelines — guidelines that are based on science from the mid-1990s, when we all were still talking on brick-size mobile phones.
“The federal regulations are obsolete,” said Joel Moskowitz, who heads the Center for Family and Community Health at U.C. Berkeley’s School of Public Health.
Moskowitz is among 215 scientists from 40 countries calling on the United Nations and the World Health Organization to develop stronger guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposures.
“Many researchers that signed the appeal say it’s probably carcinogenic. My feeling is that it’s highly probable that it’s carcinogenic,” Moskowitz told KPIX 5.
But that doesn’t matter to the Feds. Due to that 20-year-old law, the only way residents can legally protest one of these RF-emitting cellphone antennas outside their window is to ignore health concerns and focus on the way they look.
“It’s really based on aesthetics,” said Omar Masry, the wireless planner for the city of San Francisco. But Masry says aesthetics doesn’t refer merely to the view from your window.
The city can only deny a permit if it obstructs the “public view” of a historic landmark or a park.
That’s thanks to yet another dated law — this one passed by the state when horse and buggies still lined the streets — that gave telegraph companies the right to put up telegraph lines.
We asked Masry if the city has ever sided with residents and revoked the permit for one of these wireless towers. His response: “Well, a recent example was a site at Central and Page streets in the Haight Ashbury district. Residents raised concern about how the antennas would detract from a historic building.”
We asked, “So is it safe to say, once?” He replied: “Once, yes.”
That’s out of 249 protests over the past two years.
After Ludwig Chincarini lost his protest, he kept fighting, taking it to the San Francisco Appeals Board where (for $300) you have the right to fight the cell tower installers in person.
Ludwig presented slides that showed how the proposed tower would obstruct views of Golden Gate Park. He even brought up the subject of health, comparing safety assurances by the wireless industry to cigarette advertising from the 1950s, showing an ad that reads “more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”
“Today we laugh at things like that,” said Chincarini.
But an attorney for Crown Castle, the company installing Verizon’s cell sites, was quick to remind commissioners they can’t consider health concerns.
“As you have heard many times now that is simply not a matter that you are allowed to take into account,” said Martin Fineman.
Just when Ludwig figured he’d wasted $300 dollars, a surprise twist! Coincidentally, with our cameras rolling, the commissioners upheld an appeal for the second time ever, citing a technicality with the permit.
Verizon is now appealing that appeal. In a statement to KPIX 5 the company said:
“The demand for mobile data services in the U.S. has nearly doubled over the last year, and is expected to grow 650 percent between 2013 and 2018.* With San Francisco’s population continuing to rise at a record pace, and thousands of people coming to the city every day for work and to visit, adding capacity to our network is critical to keep the city connected. To meet the growing demand, Verizon Wireless is working to deploy a variety of solutions throughout San Francisco, including distributed antenna systems (DAS), small cells and traditional macro cell sites, all of which comply with FCC safety standards. These solutions will add capacity and improve in-building coverage, voice quality, reliability and data speeds for San Francisco residents, businesses, first responders and visitors using the Verizon Wireless Network.”
Crown Castle called KPIX 5 with the following statement:
“Crown Castle takes numerous factors into consideration during the design, engineering and construction of our network in order to most effectively provide the community with enhanced broadband service. Crown Castle believes the carefully engineered poles and route locations selected represent the best option for its network to benefit the community.”
The FCC said it is considering re-examining electromagnetic exposure limits.
And the World Health Organization said that, so far, there is no evidence of health effects from the distributed antenna systems.
See all details = BC Conference FINAL OCT 28-1
This items was lifted from an email sent from EMF Refugee
see http://www.emfrefugee.co for more information
First US Public School District Limits Wi-Fi Radiation Exposure to Students and Staff
Ashland, Massachusetts Public Schools have implemented Wi-Fi Device “Best Practices” which include turning the Wi-Fi off when not in use and keeping devices on a table.
Ashland, MA — (SBWIRE) — 09/28/2015 — Based on its own review of the matter, the Ashland Public School District is reducing wireless radiation exposures to children by instituting district wide “best practices for mobile devices”. Spurred by parent Cecelia Doucette’s concerns about the lack of safety data on Wi-Fi and children, the district investigated the issue and developed a policy to substantially reduce wireless exposures to students and staff. Doucette not only brought the issue to the district’s attention, but then also worked with state legislatures who introduced two bills concerning electromagnetic radiation this session. The Environmental Health Trust submitted written testimony on MA Senate Bill 1222 after expert scientists presented information on wireless health risks at a briefing at the Massachusetts State House in June 2015.
Since wireless devices are constantly emitting radiation even when the user is not using the Internet, the instruction to “turn it off when not in use ” stops the Wi-Fi antennas from continuously emitting radiation and is one simple way to reduce the radiation dose and exposure time for children and staff.
Instructions for “Best Practices” are posted in every classroom and include:
– Turn off the device when not in use
– Turn Wi-Fi on only when needed
– Always place the mobile device on a solid surface
– Viewing distance should be a minimum of 12 inches from the screen
– Specific product information guides are available through the IT department
– We ask that staff members regularly remind and instruct students in using best practices in regards to mobile devices
Ashland’s Best Practice of “keeping the device on a table” and no closer than a 12 inch viewing distance is critically important. Laptops and tablets have fine print warnings buried in their manuals specifically stating that the laptop should be at least 8 inches away from the user so that the user is not exposed to radiation levels that exceed as-tested FCC levels. If a device is used on a lap, as is common practice, the student could receive radiation levels far exceeding FCC limits. FCC limits are set to prevent the radiation from heating the brain and body but are not set to avoid chronic impacts on the developing nervous system or reproductive organs.
Many are unaware of FCC fine print advisories in the manuals of every wireless device confirming as-tested distances set to avoid heating. Cell phones, laptops and even baby monitors have these specific instructions in their product information guides. By referring to the product information guides, Ashland Public Schools are informing people about the need to keep a distance between the device and our bodies. As a public service, Environmental Health Trust (EHT) has compiled these fine print warnings on their website Showthefineprint.org.
It is important to note that even if users comply with these FCC recommended distances as stated in the device manual, accumulating research shows that biological damage can occur from wireless radiation levels far lower than these FCC levels. FCC limits are only set to protect people from heating harm and do not address non-thermal effects.
This ground breaking policy action by the Massachusetts school district is indicative of the wave of parents raising concerns about Wi-Fi across the country. Ashland, Massachusetts parent Cecelia Doucette wrote an article in Ashland Local Town Pages about these new best practices. Significant news and print media have picked the issue up after Massachusetts parents filed a lawsuit against a private boarding school alleging the school did not accommodate their 12-year-old child’s diagnosed debilitating sensitivity to the school’s WiFi system.
Ashland is the first US public school to create such policy on wireless transmitting devices. However, this US Massachusetts school district now joins dozens of schools and governments that have already implemented even more stringent measures to reduce wireless exposure to children. For example, Israel and France have banned Wi-Fi in kindergarten. The European Union recommends wired Internet rather than wireless in schools.
“Right To Know” efforts by local governments are also moving across the United States. A judge just upheld Berkeley’s new Cell Phone Right To Know Ordinance which requires cell phone sellers to tell customers about these FCC radio frequency radiation distances.
Suffolk County in New York voted to label wireless routers in all public buildings including schools. The US United Federation of Teachers Union now hosts a webpage on how to reduce exposures to protect pregnant women, other staff members and students.
The Environmental Health Trust maintains a regularly updated database of these worldwide precautionary policies on wireless related to children and schools.
About Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Health Trust (EHT) educates individuals, health professionals and communities about controllable environmental health risks and policy changes needed to reduce those risks. Currently EHT is raising health concerns about wireless in schools and recommending safer hardwired internet connection installations. The foundation’s website is the go-to place for clear, science-based information to prevent disease.
http://www.emfrefugee.co“Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.”
– Dalai Lama
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” – George Orwell “The Autonomic system is affected by microwaves of the centimeter wave length band. These waves affect circulation, respiration, temperature control, water balance, albumin and sugar concentration in the cerebro-spinal fluid, hydrogen ion concentration, EEG, GSR, sleep, conscious awareness, etc.” – W. Bergman (The Effect of Microwaves on the Central Nervous System)
Embryos, newborn babies, children of all ages, the sick and the elderly are especially being harmed today because Health Canada, Industry Canada and B.C.’s Provincial Health Officer are NOT telling us the truth about the very real – KNOWN – harm humans and all living things experience when constantly exposed to the kind of microwave radiation emitted by today’s wireless devices – including baby monitors and Smart Meters!
The only PEOPLE who say this radiation is safe are those profiting from the sale of wireless products. The only STUDIES showing that this radiation is safe are those paid for by Industry!
Informed people everywhere know the following are verifiable facts:
1) July 2014, 53 scientists from 18 countries openly condemned Canada’s radiation ‘guidelines’ and urged Health Canada “to intervene to prevent an emerging health crisis”!
2) In July 2014, 22 Canadian doctors openly condemned Canada’s so-called ‘safe’ radiation Exposure Limits and urged Health Canada “to protect Canadians from today’s wireless radiation”;
3) In June 2015, more than 200 world-class scientists from 40 countries signed the International Scientists’ Appeal which was specifically addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations, to all U.N. member-countries and to the Director General of the World Health Organization calling on all parties to “protect humans and wildlife from the dangers of wireless technology.”
4) Insurance companies will not insure any wireless device against lawsuits alleging health-related illnesses attributed to wireless radiation! Disgracefully, Canada’s own federal government and the wireless and electric power industries have successfully convinced municipal governments that wireless is safe — and extremely profitable!
Mankind’s only salvation today is women: when mothers and grandmothers finally learn the truth, their united voices will stop this genocide and force all governments to restore decency and democracy to Canada!
James G. (“Jerry”) Flynn, Captain (Retired)
The aim of this study was to investigate whether a 15-minute placement of a 3G dialing mobile phone causes direct changes in EEG activity compared to the placement of a sham phone. Furthermore, it was investigated whether placement of the mobile phone on the ear or the heart would result in different outcomes. Thirty-one healthy females participated. All subjects were measured twice: on one of the two days the mobile phone was attached to the ear, the other day to the chest. In this single-blind, cross-over design, assessments in the sham phone condition were conducted directly preceding and following the mobile phone exposure. During each assessment, EEG activity and radiofrequency radiation were recorded jointly. Delta, theta, alpha, slow beta, fast beta, and gamma activity was computed. The association between radiation exposure and the EEG was tested using multilevel random regression analyses with radiation as predictor of main interest. Significant radiation effects were found for the alpha, slow beta, fast beta, and gamma bands. When analyzed separately, ear location of the phone was associated with significant results, while chest placement was not. The results support the notion that EEG alterations are associated with mobile phone usage and that the effect is dependent on site of placement. Further studies are required to demonstrate the physiological relevance of these findings.”
The likelihood of developing a non-malignant brain tumor has increased in recent years in the U.S.
According to newly-released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the overall age-adjusted incidence (per 100,000 persons) of non-malignant brain tumors significantly increased from 2004 through 2012.
The increase was observed among
children 0-19 years of age (1.7 in 2004; 2.3 in 2012)
adults 20 years and older (15.9 in 2004; 19.7 in 2012).
“After ten years of wireless phone use (i.e., cell phone plus cordless phone use), the risk of glioma doubles and after 25 years, the risk triples (Hardell et al, 2013).”
What this tells me is that if the RF Radiation from Smart Meters is similar to that of wireless phones then anyone living or sleeping close to a Smart Meter will also suffer an increased rate of glioma. (Ted)
A letter from Jerry Flynn to BC Municipal and Regional Governments
June 17, 2015
Dear Municipal/Regional District Governments and UBCM,
Contrary to what Health Canada, the BC Government and BC’s Provincial Health Officer (PHO) , Dr. Perry Kendall tell us all, the unvarnished truth about today’s wireless radio products e.g., baby monitors, Smart Meters, Wi-Fi routers, cell phones, cell towers, cordless phones, tablet and laptop computers, GPS, AM and FM transmitting towers etc. can be seen below. The attachment is self-explanatory:
- On May 11, 2015, the International EMF Scientists Appeal, signed by more than 200 world-class scientists from 39 countries and sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations, to all UN member countries, and to the WHO appealed to all of them to protect humans and wild life from the dangers of EMF and wireless technology! http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/11/ny-emfscientistorg-idUSnBw115200a+100+BSW20150511
- Insurance companies WILL NOT INSURE against any health-related claim attributed to the radio / microwave frequency radiation emitted by today’s wireless radio devices!
- No President and Chief Executive Officer of any wireless or telecom company or any electric utility – anywhere – will state unequivocally that their wireless products are SAFE, i.e., they can be safely used by, on or around people of all ages and sizes, regardless of any illnesses and/or diseases they might already be suffering from, on a continuous basis all day, every day, in perpetuity — as Smart Meters, cell phone towers, Wi-Fi routers, AM and FM towers, cordless phones etc. do. These devices all emit pulsed, NON-thermal radiation 24/7/365 in perpetuity, and only Wi-Fi routers are capable of being shut off.
- But the above CEOs all do say that their products COMPLY with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6! It is critical that you fully understand the importance of this difference! Health Canada, the BC Government and BC’s PHO all allow the wireless and telecom industry and both electric utilities to sell and install their purportedly ‘safe’ wireless products simply because they COMPLY with Safety Code 6!
- Today’s Safety Code 6 dates back to 1979 and, sadly, has changed very little since then (which was almost 10 years before cell phones appeared en masse in Canada, and today there are in excess of 7-Billion cell phones world-wife!). Safety Code 6 is and always has been the root cause of what non-industry scientists consider is a crime against humanity! Because of Safety Code 6, innocent, unsuspecting and utterly defenseless people (including government members themselves and their families) are being literally forced – by law – to endure what has become, over these past 25 or so years, a dense, ever-thickening, yet invisible cloud of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR), which the World Health Organization has coined: “Electro-Smog.” Non-industry scientists the world-over consider this EMR to be the biggest single threat to human health in our planet’s entire history! Originally, Safety Code 6 was established to provide up to six (6) minutes’ protection to federal workers weighing, on average, 200 pounds, who needed to maintain or service high voltage transmission lines, power sub-stations etc. Yet, somehow, over these past 35-or so years, Health Canada has managed things such that the general population are now told that Safety Code 6 protects them from ALL sources of radiation – simultaneously, regardless of how many microwave-emitting devices may impact on a person, a family or an entire community! This is not right! This is knowingly dishonest! This is criminal! Imagine for a moment a Motor Vehicle Highways Department that sets the highway speed limit at, say, 300 MPH, knowing full well that automobiles cannot go that fast! Consequently, no vehicle can ever exceed the ‘legal’ speed limit! The same applies to wireless radio devices: because Safety Code 6 radiation Exposure Limits are so egregiously high, Health Canada and Industry artfully tell us all that their products are in compliance, and therefore they must be safe! Now perhaps the reader can understand why Safety Code 6 is, and always has been, vilified around the world by non-industry scientists and informed people everywhere!
- None of today’s wireless products has had to undergo independent, pre-market Safety tests to ensure they are safe to be used by, on and around people on a continuous 24/7/365 day basis in perpetuity! Eminent non-industry scientists say that no level of radiation is safe for people! Examples include: Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Dr. Neil Cherry of New Zealand (now deceased), two-time Nobel nominee Dr. Robert O. Becker (now deceased), Dr. Olle Johansson of the Karolinskaa Institute in Sweden. Others say: “If there is a SAFE level, we haven’t discovered it yet.”
- Even the cell phone industry’s own studies, in both the U.S. and Germany, showed their products are harmful to people – – and might lead to cancer!
- Most if not all major cell phone manufacturers have taken out global patents in which they themselves acknowledge their products are harmful and can cause or may lead to cancer!
- Every cell phone manufacturer includes in their Owner’s Manual specific instructions not to hold the device within a specific distance from any part of the body – not just the head!
- It is no accident that the so-called ‘safe radiation Exposure Limits reflected in Safety Code 6 are virtually identical to those of the USA. The specific group of scientists who determine the ‘Exposure Limits’ for the U.S. includes members of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel-Lucent and Bell. All Canadians – governments and public alike – should note that the Co-Chairman of that very committee is Health Canada’s own Dr. Art Thansandote! A position he has held since at least 2008! Dr. James McNamee is also on it (and it was he who was the principle scientist responsible for the latest iteration of Safety Code 6-2015!) Other members include representatives from Health Canada, Industry Canada – – and Exponent Inc., the product-defense scientists who so effectively defended both BC Hydro and Fortis BC with respect to the ‘safety’ of their proposed wireless Smart Meters!
Readers needing more evidence should note the Federal Government of Canada’s own recent Parliamentary Health Committee (HESA) report on Safety Code 6, in April 2015. (See below).
Parliamentary Health Committee (HESA) Investigation into Safety Code 6, 2015.
(for the full version go to http://www.c4st.org/HESA2015). Highlights:
- Health Canada admits studies show harm at levels below Safety Code 6;
- Health Canada ignores the scientific research: its review is subject to bias and incorrect conclusions;
- Health Canada and Industry Canada ignore recommendations from the 2010 Health Committee “offer to provide information, including awareness sessions on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation.”
- In its “fact sheet”, comparing Canada vs other countries, Health Canada omits countries representing 1.2 billion people with safety levels below Safety Code 6;
- Health Canada’s statements to the committee conflict with statements made under oath in Quebec Superior Court on Feb. 13th, 2013 (Dr. James McNamee had admitted to the judge in 2013 that Safety Code 6 applied only to THERMAL radiation!).
- Health Canada admits there are no studies regarding the cumulative effects of several devices from wireless radiation.
- Health Canada ignores the 2010 Health Committee recommendation to “ensure that it has a process in place to receive and respond to reports of adverse reactions to electromagnetic radiation emitting devices.”
- Health Canada resists the request to have a database that physicians may be asked to look at any kind of possible cause and effect on new cancers among people?
- Scientific expert calls for a special category for pregnant women.
- Health Canada advises that 36 of the 140 Studies submitted by C4ST WERE included in the 2015 Safety Code 6 – BUT WHERE?
Read HESA’s report concerning:
- Evidence of links to brain cancer;
- Evidence of links to breast cancers;
- Evidence that children are more at risk;
- Canadians feel deceived by product manufacturers and the government;
- Evidence of damage to sperm;
- Experts call for public education;
- Evidence for recognition of, and treatment for, electro-hypersensitivity (EHS).
Readers should recall that in 2010, British Columbia’s Bill 17 (the “Clean Energy Act”) was passed by Gordon Campbell’s government, which mandated that Smart Meters be installed on all dwellings and occupied buildings in B.C. Tragically, the Government of BC permitted B.C. Hydro to utilize wireless radio Smart Meters, which emit pulsed, NON-thermal microwave frequency radiation (called electro-magnetic radiation or “EMR”). One year later, in 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified EMR – ALL EMR – a Class 2B or “Possible” carcinogen. Any reasonable person would have expected, given the WHO’s re-classification of EMR to that of a Possible Carcinogen, that BC’s Government would have repealed wireless radio Smart Meters and immediately ordered that wireless Smart Meters already installed be replaced with harmless, non-irradiating analogue meters. But that never happened! This is the government British Columbians have today. Consequently it falls to Municipal and Regional governments and to UBCM to wake up and stand up – – for every person, flora and fauna living in British Columbia! If you won’t protect us, who can?
Those requiring or wanting more information, please feel free to contact me.
James G. (“Jerry) Flynn, Captain (retired)
5181 Gainsberg Road
Bowser, B.C., V0R 1G0