WHO World Health Organization – Setting the standard for a wireless world of harm – A Call for Action and Accountability by Olga Sheean – January 30, 2017:
– http://olgasheean.com/who-harm/ [http://olgasheean.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/WHO-setting-the-standard-for-a-wireless-world-of-harm.pdf]
• WHO regional offices, government agencies, MPs, investigative journalists, relevant organizations, advocacy groups and scientists worldwide
A different petition. This one aimed at the WHO and the head of the EMF Project [http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/en/] who has long been affiliated with the industry, prepared by Olga Sheean. Olga once worked in the UN and this petition will be presented to some significant officials. The WHO has shown itself to not be science based when it comes to EMF/EMR – and it’s time this changed. Please sign and help get as many signatures as possible from friends and family all over the world.
– Your e-mail address will NOT be shared with WHO or anyone else. It will be kept on file for use only if I’m challenged by WHO on the legitimacy of the names provided.
– Your name/e-mail address will not be added to my mailing list, but you may sign up separately if you wish to receive updates from me on the vote and other EMR/EHS-related info.
– The call to action is on my website and is not connected to any other social change/petition platform, so you will not receive any other requests to support a cause or sign a petition.
– This is a chance for us to collectively have an impact, letting the World Health Organization know that we no longer recognize its authority or respect its unscientific, industry-driven decisions regarding the worldwide harm being caused by wireless radiation.
Feedback and comments are welcome.
If anyone would like to submit a comment about their personal situation (one short paragraph), they are welcome to e-mail it to me and I will include it in the WHO document, using their initials or whatever ID they wish to provide.
This has been an ongoing debate for decades, but whenever someone asks this question, it’s usually met with scepticism and the debate is shunned. I used to react the same way. But once I started digging into the evidence, it became clear to me that the answer was much more complex than I had imagined.
There are over 6 billion mobile phone subscriptions worldwide, many of them smart phones, with Wi-Fi functionality. Since the widespread use of mobile phones, overall brain cancer rates have not increased and this is often used as proof that mobile phones are safe. But this is short sighted, mainly because brain cancer can take decades to develop and being also rare, it’s unlikely to show up easily in data from the general population. In fact, US statistics do show an increase in brain tumours in younger people.
Nowadays, it’s not just mobile phones that have a growing number of scientists concerned. There are also Wi-Fi enabled devices like laptops, tablets, even watches and other wireless gadgets, like baby monitors and game consoles. We place them close to our bodies or we give them to children to play with, not realising that these devices also emit the same type of radiation as mobile phones. On top of that, there are Wi-Fi networks, which blanket our homes, our schools and our cities with an artificial electrosmog.
Intensive mobile phone users at higher risk of brain cancers, says study
We now exist in a sea of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, never before seen in human history. The levels of artificial electromagnetic radiation have reportedly reached a quintillion (1018) times higher than the natural background levels.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF electromagnetic fields as a “possible human carcinogen”. Much of the evidence was based on studies showing an association between the development of glioma (a malignant brain tumour) and the longest use of wireless phones.
US cancer epidemiologist, Dr Devra Davis says, “We’ve gone from the equivalent of the horse and buggy to the jet in about 10 years.”
Dr Davis is highly credentialed. She was a senior scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, and a presidential appointee of the Clinton Administration and a member of the team awarded a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007. She has been campaigning for the safer use of Wi-Fi technology, especially in children.
Case in point. The Rudd Government’s (Australia) “education revolution” has led to the roll out of Wi-Fi in public schools across the country. Yet there’s never been a single study looking at people’s long-term health risks of Wi-Fi exposure.
“Millions of children are being exposed to something that has never been fully tested,” says Dr Davis. “We’re treating our children like lab rats in an experiment with no controls.”
More and more parents are concerned about their children’s cumulative exposure to Wi-Fi, especially because children’s brains absorb twice as much radiation than adults.
“It’s almost a case of involuntary consent. Parents are sending their children to school to sit in a ‘possible’ human carcinogen,” one parent told me.
We have a federal agency responsible for protecting us against the harmful effects of radiation – the Australian Radiation Protection Nuclear and Safety Authority (ARPANSA). They rarely grant TV interviews, but on this occasion, they agreed to take part in my program.
“There is no established evidence that RF radiation from tablets and phones and Wi-Fi causes health effects,” says Dr Ken Karipidis, a spokesperson for ARPANSA.
It’s also the same position held by reputable authorities like the UK Royal College of Physicians, the Cancer Council of Australia as well as the industry body, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA).
To my mind, “no evidence of established health risk,” is not the same as saying it’s safe. Sadly, guaranteeing safety is something not even our safety authority is willing to do.
A petition to the WHO and UN has been signed by over 200 scientists in a bid to draw attention to what they perceive as a looming public health crisis. They say current safety standards aren’t protective enough. Some countries like Switzerland, Russia and China have 100 times more stringent standards than Australia.
Former CEO of Microsoft Canada, Mr Frank Clegg says we’ve been misled about the evidence. He has rare insight into the machinations of the technology industry.
“My industry is on a campaign to bury the science and to confuse the message on the harmful effects of wireless devices,” says Mr Clegg. “I’ve seen the tremendous benefits that technology can provide. My concern is nobody can say that it’s safe.”
Mr Clegg sets the scene, reminiscent of Big Tobacco in the 90s when the CEOs of major tobacco companies went in front of US congress and swore under oath that tobacco was not addictive.
The robust position of the Australia’s safety agency reminded me of the scene in the film Thank You For Not Smoking where the smooth talking character of Nick Naylor tells Telco executives: “Gentlemen, practise these words in front of the mirror. ‘Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone usage to brain cancer.’”
Dr Davis says she has seen this before where industry is able to influence or delay the scientific evidence. Early in her career, she worked to ban smoking on planes. Her team showed that after an 8-hour flight, the smoking and non-smoking sections of the plane had the same amount of fine particulate pollution.
“We did that research in about 3 months. But it took 4 years to get a report out. The reason it took 4 years had nothing to do with the science at all. It was [the politics] and I’ve seen that repeated here,” says Dr Davis.
No-one is saying we shouldn’t use these devices. They have revolutionised our day-to-day life and we’ve become to depend on them. I’ve explored ways to use this technology more safely.
Dr Davis says we need to take a precautionary approach with Wi-Fi technology.
“What are we debating here?” says Dr Davis. “Do you really want to see proof that we’ve got millions of people with cancer, like we did with tobacco and asbestos? Is there any question we should have acted sooner?”
I still have these devices but I’ve changed the way I use them based on the evidence that I’ve uncovered. I’d rather take precautions in the absence of all the evidence rather than sticking my head in the sand.
Maryanne Demasi presents Wi-Fried? a Catalyst special that airs Tuesday 16 February at 8pm on ABC1.
Item posted on FaceBook by Robert Riedlinger
Article originally posted on
Contact author @Maryanne Demasi
Monday 15 February 2016 23.00 GMT
Last modified on Monday 15 February 2016 23.17 GMT
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.
“We therefore ask all national and international bodies and institutions to be aware of this critical environmental health issue and to take urgently their responsibility, more specifically WHO, updating its 2005 and 2014 statement on EHS and recognizing EHS and MCS as part of the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD). EHS and MCS should be represented by separate codes under the WHO ICD in order to increase awareness by the medical community and the general public; to foster research on the population that acquires these pathological syndromes; and, to train medical doctors on effective medical prevention measures and treatments.”
Read the full declaration here