Category Archives: Environmental Impact

WIRED TO DELIVER – New Site Promotes Community Fiber not Industry-Driven 5G – Press Release by Connected Communities – March 20, 2019

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/WIRED-TO-DELIVER-New-Site-Promotes-Community-Fiber-not-Industry-Driven-5G-Press-Release-by-Connected-Communities-March-20-2019.pdf

WIRED TO DELIVER:

New Site Promotes Community Fiber not Industry-Driven 5G

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – March 20, 2019

Contact:   connected.communities.ca@gmail.com

While last week’s launch of the federal spectrum auction gave the green light to 5G in Canada, many communities across North America are choosing to build and operate their own fiber-to-the-premises networks. An innovative new Canadian website

Connected Communities

explains the many benefits of community-owned fiber, and provides a blueprint for how towns and cities can make it happen.

Why Community-owned Wired Fiber?

  • Wired fiber is faster, safer, cheaper, greener, more reliable, and more data secure than wireless 5G – the 5th generation of cellular technology. This in-depth report explains why.
  • Community owned fiber keeps telecommunications infrastructure in local hands and keeps it responsive to local needs. From improved emergency services and economic opportunities to resource monitoring and distributing locally generated renewable energy – the manifold benefits of community-owned fiber make it the truly smart choice.

A Smarter Choice than Wireless 5G

As Senator Blumenthal uncovered in this Senate hearing, 5G is being unleashed with no pre-market safety testing. Wired fiber can essentially fill the same functions as wireless 5G, without the risks.

  • The Globe and Mail’s European Bureau Chief Eric Reguly discusses the health risks of 5G here
  • In the wake of the Huawei scandal, this article reveals the sinister cyber and national security risks of 5G.

Beneath the marketing hype, it is unlikely wireless 5G will fulfill its promises. (Learn more here.) Rather than heralding the future, 5G is shaping it to telecom’s advantage.

Success Stories

Cities like Chattanooga Tennessee, Portland Oregon, Olds Alberta, San Francisco and Seattle – cities that value data privacy, autonomy, local prosperity and wellbeing – have chosen or are choosing community-owned fiber. The telecommunications highway today fulfills the same function that roads and railways once filled for trade and commerce. It is essential that this infrastructure be not for meeting corporate interests, but for the public good.

To learn more, visit Connected Communities and spread the word – wired networks offer safe, net neutral, fast and reliable connectivity for years to come.

CONTACT:   connected.communities.ca@gmail.com

30

The best way to predict the future is to create it.
Buckminster Fuller

 

= = =

For more info on 5G:  http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/more/5g-enodeb-microcells-small-cells/

or Search this website for “5G”

 

 

A Bad Bargain? Why Today’s Spectrum Auction makes Dollars but not Sense by Citizens for Safe Technology – March 12, 2019

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/A-Bad-Bargain-Why-Today’s-Spectrum-Auction-makes-Dollars-but-not-Sense-by-Citizens-for-Safe-Technology-March-12-2019.pdf

Contact:  CST.CitizensforSafeTechnology@gmail.com

A Bad Bargain? Why Today’s Spectrum
 Auction makes Dollars but not Sense

 

Today the Canadian government is making billions auctioning off new bands of our public airwaves to an industry that has done NO pre-market safety testing of the 5G technology they are unleashing. 

 

As admitted by US telecommunication industry leaders last month to US Senator Richard Blumenthal in this video “we are flying by the seat of our pants”.

 

Don’t be fooled by 5G’s promises of ultrafast video download speeds, smart cities, the internet of things, and autonomous cars.

 

  • This recent Boston Globe article shows that the “non-standalone” 5G model telecoms are introducing in North America will not provide the backbone needed to fulfill these promises.

 

 

  • And in the wake of Canada’s Huawei scandal, this recent article focuses on the sinister cyber-security and national security issues associated with a wireless 5G grid.

Why go wireless when wired fiber to the premises networks are faster, safer, greener and more data secure than 5G will ever be?  

 

This website shows communities how and why the time is ripe to build their own wired fiber networks, keeping the telecommunications infrastructure in local hands.  

The best way to predict the future is to create it.

– Buckminster Fuller

 

= = =

For more info on 5Ghttp://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/more/5g-enodeb-microcells-small-cells/

 

5G Mass Experiment – We are the guinea pigs.

The telecom industry aided by the US FCC and Canadian Health Canada and various European agencies are vigorously  pushing the 5G roll out because there are possibly trillions of dollars to be made over the next 5 years.

And there is NO research that proves that 5G is safe.  In fact, there are many studies that prove that the current 4G is not safe.

20,000 Satellites for 5G to be Launched Sending Focused Beams of Intense Microwave Radiation Over Entire Earth

5G Wireless Internet Service Satellite Signal 3d Illustration

by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News

Public attention about 5G has been focused on the plans of telecom companies to install millions of small cell towers on electric utility poles, on public buildings and schools, on bus stop shelters, in public parks, and anywhere they want in national parks and on federally owned land.

In local urban communities there would be a cell tower approximately every 500 feet along every street.

As bad as these small cell towers might seem from the standpoint of constant exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation in close proximity to the source, perhaps an even more alarming prospect will be the beaming of millimeter length microwaves at the earth from thousands of new communication satellites.

The FCC gave approval to SpaceX on March 29, 2018, to launch 4,425 satellites into low orbit around the Earth. [1]

The total number of satellites that is expected to be put into low and high orbit by several companies will be 20,000 satellites. [1]

5G will use Phased Array Antennas to shoot Beams of Radiation at Cell Phones

See full article at

http://healthimpactnews.com/2019/20000-satellites-for-5g-to-be-launched-sending-focused-beams-of-intense-microwave-radiation-over-entire-earth/

 

Royal Society of Canada – Expert Panel Review of Safety Code 6 & Public Consultation Videos – October 28, 2013

Below are some links and videos re the Expert Panel Review of Safety Code 6 & Public Consultations which took place in October 2013.

Wireless radiation safety hearing criticized – Expert panel from Royal Society of Canada reviewing updates to Health Canada guidelines – CBC News – October 28, 2013:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/wireless-radiation-safety-hearing-criticized-1.2254862

Royal Society of Canada – Review of Safety Code 6 – 2013:

(scroll down)

Safety Code 6 – C4ST:

 

Arlene Dewdney – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 03, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXDED7Js0_M

Andrew Michrowski – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 03, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAWba6CfOrg

Bob McGahey – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 03, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZX7y-yGZPU

Brigitte Blais – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 03, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qXcv3xrpc4

Charlene Acres – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 30, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6yUpx9Ved8

Curtis Bennett – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw7dYR1MZ3c

Dan Welland – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx6duSQy1Kk

Deborah McCutcheon – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 02, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vXQ127xQl8

Frank Clegg – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igWAzWUuZLk

Jean Gagnon – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 03, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu119EpdQD0

Julie Fredette – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 03, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lJj9LuFq1M

Kristin Morrison – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 02, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVSTRQbuSHI

Marcey Kliparchuk – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BDQi2CD-Ao

Margaret Friesen – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5s7s2dOMLw

Martin Blank – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-thcrRUCUU

Michael Meszaros – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHn9kDfOoiA

Norm Ryder – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 03, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Why5FSkRAAI

Rodney Palmer – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 02, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsPBUuwCfaI

Sharon Noble – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-LaSUJ9aU

Todd White – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 02, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeJqR07w_OI

Una St. Clair – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 28, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfBDNumBi9s

Veronica Ciandre – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 02, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG-C-iI2VBw

Veronique Riopel – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – October 30, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZESi8VLUtRY

Wendy Cockburn – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 02, 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N0TBb76Egk

Wendy Perkins – Safety Code 6 – Presentation to the Royal Society of Canada by mmyes7 – YouTube – November 03, 2013:

 

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

 

Exploding Smart Meters Ignored by BC NDP Government. Sharon Noble – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – May 02, 2018

(audio 27:09) Exploding Smart Meters Ignored by BC NDP Government. Sharon NobleMay 2, 2018 – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard by talkdigitalnetwork – YouTube – May 02, 2018:
(Seattle Lawyer sues claiming Smart Meter Defects)

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

&
(podcast 26:48) May 2, 2018 | Exploding Smart Meters Ignored by BC NDP Government – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – HoweStreet.com – May 02, 2018:

 

= = =

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-05-01-is-radar-the-cause-of-the-cancer-cluster-ocular-melanomas/

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-04-30-time-for-prov-health-officer-to-recognize-the-precautionary-principle-its-her-duty/

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-04-28-wireless-charging-is-now-a-reality/

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-04-25-health-risks-associated-with-cfl-and-led-light-bulbs/

http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-04-23-bc-hydro-applying-to-bcuc-to-reduce-net-metering-benefits/

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:

Strong Link Between Microwaves and Cancer. Sharon Noble – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard – February 27, 2018

(audio 27:38) Strong Link Between Microwaves and Cancer. Sharon Noble – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard by talkdigitalnetwork – YouTube – February 27, 2018:
(US Warns on China Company that Supplies Canada Telecommunications)

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

&
(podcast 27:17) February 27, 2018 | Strong Link Between Microwaves and Cancer – The Goddard Report with Jim Goddard by HoweStreet.com – February 27, 2018:

= = =

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

Read – http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/2018-01-22-please-read-5g-is-going-to-be-much-worse-than-we-have-been-told/

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:

Olympic Peninsula US Navy War Games – Please Comment by March 23, 2018

US Navy wants more Seal Training areas in Washington State – Comments due by March 23, 2018

(click on photo to enlarge)

“Save the Olympic Peninsula” is asking for comments to be sent regarding use of the beaches and areas by the US Navy. I hope you will consider lending support to this effort to preserve the environment by writing to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest.

Your comments (due by March 23, 2018), including a demand for a comprehensive environmental impact statement, should be sent to: 

nwnepa@navy.mil

“We urgently need your help. The Navy is proposing special operations warfare training along 265 miles of Washington state shorelines and 65 state parks at launching sites, marinas, and within cities and towns. 

Although the Navy has conducted SEAL training in the Northwest for the past 30 years, it intends to significantly expand operations well beyond what has been conducted in the past without providing a comprehensive environmental impact statement. 

According to the Navy’s Draft Environmental Assessment, “The Proposed Action supports small-unit, intermediate and advanced cold-water maritime and land-based training activities for naval special operations personnel on selected nearshore lands and in the inland waters of Puget Sound, including Hood Canal, as well as the southwestern Washington coast. Training would start in 2018 and occur into the foreseeable future.” 

The specific, long-term environmental consequences of innumerable military assault exercises to each of the public and private shoreline areas is not addressed in the Navy’s assessment.”

http://savetheolympicpeninsula.org/

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

More Information:

(see links)