2015-05-03 Cell phone patent with admission of harm

  • Over the last couple of weeks Shaw has been making changes (without telling anyone) that have caused problems for many people. Those of us who send emails to large groups of people should know the new rules.


Information from a Shaw Tech:

a. Remove invalid e-mail addresses.  Shaw keeps track of how many invalid e-mails are sent out by each customer.  If you send too many out, your account will be frozen.

b. With Shaw’s new Spam control (started a few days ago), if you send out to large e-mail lists, you must have a “great” password in Shaw’s system.  A “great” password is :

– no dictionary words (you can use a word with a missing letter so it’s not recognized as a real word)
– at least (1) Capital letter
– at least (1) lower case letter
– at least (1) #
– at least (1) symbol

With a “great” password, you can send to (120) e-mail addresses instead of (20).

c. If my updates are coming through marked as SPAM, it could be because you need to change your SPAM filter to recognize my email address.  I have a “great” password, and am following all these new rules – eliminating all invalid addresses.

d.  Apparently, these new SPAM changes were made a few days ago and the complaints started for Shaw.



  • Michigan Utilities Commission ordered re-open discussion re. opt out fees.



If you recall, in a youtube of a young man who spoke about his experience with cell phones before he died of brain cancer, he said that he had found patents that cell phone companies had submitted which indicated full awareness of the dangers of RF and their products.

  • One patent was submitted in 2004 by SwissCom, the largest cell company in Switzerland. In its patent it acknowledges many health effects including DNA damage and cancer shown to result from exposure to RF radiation.
  • This is evidence that the industry has long known that its product is dangerous.  I wrote to Perry Kendall (letter below) as well as to MPs and Health Canada asking that Bill C 648 be approved – at the minimum labels should be on wireless devices so people can make informed decisions about using them.







From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:dsnoble@shaw.ca]
Sent: May 3, 2015 1:37 PM
To: Dr. Perry Kendall; Minister of Health Terry Lake
Cc: Abderrachid Zitouni, Radiation Specialist, BCCDC; John Horgan. Leader NDP; Health Critic Judy Darcy (judy.darcy.mla@leg.bc.ca)

Subject: Admission of dangers from wireless devices by the industry


Dr. Kendall, Minister Lake,

For years British Columbians have been writing to you, Dr. Kendall, sending scientific articles and pleas to help protect families from the ever-increasing level of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) that is emitted by wireless devices. You have consistently refused to acknowledge any health effects so long as Safety Code 6 is followed, despite mounting and expert evidence to the contrary. You have portrayed yourself to be an expert on the topic of bioengineering and biological effects of radiofrequency emissions, ignoring testimony and studies by researchers who have devoted decades to these topics.


You have hidden behind Safety Code 6, using it to justify doing nothing, even while knowing that it is one of the weakest guidelines in the world. You have refused to restrict exposure to those most vulnerable, children, by allowing wifi to be installed in schools and wireless smart meters in homes. They are exposed from conception, with no refuge available.


The industry has long known that scientific evidence has documented harmful effects. One company, SwissCom, the largest cellular company in Switzerland, has been forthright about admitting such harm in its patents for newer, safer technology. Below is the link to one such patent application from 2004:


https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2004075583 (under “description” ) and here is a direct quote from it:


The influence of electrosmog on the human body is a known problem. The health risk from mobile radio transmitters, handys and DECT telephones has been an explosive subject among the general public at least since the enormous breakthrough in mobile radio technology in the 1990s. To meet the concerns of science from the legislative side, the permissible limit values have thus been lowered several times, and technology has been increasingly focused on this problem. The risk of damage to health through electrosmog has also become better understood as a result of more recent and improved studies.
When, for example, human blood cells are irradiated with electromagnetic fields, clear damage to hereditary material has been demonstrated and there have been indications of an increased cancer risk (Mashevich M., Folkman D., Kesar A., Barbul A., Korenstein R., Jerby E., Avivi L., Department of Human Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel, “Exposure of human peripheral blood lymphocytes to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to chromosomal instability,”
Bioelectromagnetics, 2003 Feb., 24(2): 82-90). In this study, for example, human peripheral lymphocytes were exposed to continuous electromagnetic fields of 830 MHz in order to examine whether this leads to losses or gains in chromosomes (aneuploidy). Bigger changes lead to instability of the genome (= the totality of all genes of a germinal cell) and thereby to cancer. The human peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) were irradiated at different average specific absorption rates (SAR) of 1.6 to 8.8 W/kg over a time period of 72 hours in an exposure system based on a parallel plate resonator in a temperature range of 34.5 to 37.5 °C. The average absorption rate (SAR) and its distribution in the exposed tissue culture flask were determined by combining the measurement results with a numerical analysis based on a finite element simulation code. A linear increase in the chromosome No. 17 — an aneuploidy (=numerical chromosome aberration) – was observed as a function of the SAR, demonstrating that this radiation has a genotoxic effect. The SAR-dependent aneuploidy was accompanied by an abnormal mode of replication of the chromosome 17 region engaged in segregation (repetitive DNA arrays associated with the centromere), suggesting that epigenetic alterations are involved in the SAR dependent genetic toxicity. Control experiments (i.e.
without any radio frequency radiation) carried out in the temperature range of 34.5 to 38.5 °C showed that elevated temperature is not associated with either the genetic or epigenetic alterations observed following RF radiation, these alterations being the increased levels of aneuploidy and the modification in replication of the centromeric DNA arrays.
These findings indicate that the genotoxic effect of electromagnetic radiation is elicited via a non-thermal pathway. Moreover aneuploidy is to be considered as a known phenomenon in the increase of cancer risk.

Thus it has been possible to show that mobile radio radiation can cause damage to genetic material, in particular in human white blood cells, whereby both the DNA itself is damaged and the number of chromosomes changed.
This mutation can consequently lead to increased cancer risk. In particular, it could also be shown that this destruction is not dependent upon temperature increases, i.e. is non-thermal.


If a major cellular company is acknowledging harm and is taking measures to reduce exposure, why aren’t you?

Why aren’t you taking measures to reduce electrosmog in areas under provincial jurisdiction, e.g. homes and school?

Why is the information on your webpages and in your letters both ambiguous and misleading, with your implications that RFR is not dangerous, that wifi is safe?


If you continue to do nothing to raise awareness and to reduce exposures, this will be your legacy: despite having studies and reports warning that grave harm is likely, you did not do your job as a public health doctor. You allowed children to be exposed to serious potential harm. You will be judged and you will be held responsible.



Sharon Noble
cc. all MLAs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *