- In 2008 the inadequacies of the current US guidelines were identified, especially with regard to the proliferation of new wireless devices and multiple antennae base stations. Given these gaps in knowledge and the admission that the public, especially children, are being exposed to levels never tested and never determined to be safe, shouldn’t the precautionary principle be followed? If you read nothing else, I recommend you read page 24 of the report (pg. 37 counting intro pages).
“The task of the 2008 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report, Identification of Research Needs Relating to Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communication, was to identify any inadequacies in the research upon which the current US Radiofrequency radiation (RF) safety guidelines are based. The NAS Report did indeed find numerous inadequacies in that research record. An inadequate research record results in safety regulations that fail to address all exposures encountered by the public. Based on the 2008 NAS findings it cannot be asserted that US RF safety policy protects all members of the public from all mechanisms of harm in all exposure scenarios.”
Her written testimony included the list of twenty inadequacies of exposure limits outlined by the National Academies, of which the MA DPU was made aware:
- a) Exposure of juveniles, children, pregnant women, and fetuses both for personal wireless devices (e.g., cell phones, wireless personal computers [PCs] and for RF fields from base station antennas.)
- b) Variability of exposures to the actual use of the device, the environment in which it is used, and exposures from other sources.
- c) Multilateral exposures.
- d) Multiple frequency exposures.
- e) Exposure to pulsed radiofrequency radiation.
- f) Location of use (both geographic location and whether a device is primarily used indoors or outdoors).
- g) Models for men and women of various heights and for children of various ages.
- h) Exposure to others sources of RF radiation such as cordless phones, wireless computer communications, and other communications systems.
- i) Exposure to the eyes, hand or the human lap or parts of the body close to the device.
- j) RF exposure in close proximity to metallic adornments and implanted medical devices (IMDs) including metal rim glasses, earrings, and various prostheses (e.g., hearing aids, cochlear implants, cardiac pacemakers, insulin pumps, Deep Brain Stimulators).
- k) Sufficiently long exposure and follow‐up to allow for detection of effects that occur with a latency of several years.
- l) Lack of information concerning the health effects associated with living in close proximity to base stations.
- m) Research that includes children, the elderly, and people with underlying diseases.
- n) Research on possible adverse RF effects identified by changes in EEG (electroencephalogram) activity.”
- From Berkeley, a short letter to the editor is below in the “letters” section. The author suggested that it could be sent to media. I think it could also be sent to MPs, Kendall, etc. If you can make it your own, all the better. This really is a start to a campaign here in Canada to allow the wording that is in the manuals to be put where people will see it.
- Warnings continue about the vulnerability of the grid, this from EMP attack.
“Canada and the United States are currently vulnerable to an imminent threat that could “topple the pillars of civilization”, says the executive director of the EMP Task Force on National Homeland Security, a U.S. Congressional advisory board.”
- GE. will stop selling CFL lightbulbs in the US. There were many problems with these things: they irradiated people, they flickered triggering migraines, and they contained mercury which is outlawed in many countries. Now only if they’d bring back the incandescent bulb.
Dear Smart Activists,
I sent this letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee today. Feel free to copy and send it to your local newspaper (or any). It is 150 words long. If your newspaper allows more words you might want to add a sentence about the peer reviewed scientific research on the adverse health impacts of wireless radiation including cell phone radiation. You might also want to suggest that your city do what Berkeley did and pass a similar ordinance.
P.S. Here it is
Title: Berkeley’s radiation notice to cell phone buyers is back!
On January 27 U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen dissolved the preliminary injunction delaying the implementation of the City of Berkeley’s new Ordinance that requires retailers to distribute a notice to cell phone buyers about health risks from cell phone radiation.
Berkeley’s point of sale notice states:
“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”
The Court required the City to strike seven words from the notice: “This potential risk is greater for children.”
The case is Case No. 15-cv-02529-EMC.
(Your name and contact information)
Newsletter prepared by Sharon Noble
Walk with the dreamers, the believers, the courageous, the cheerful, the planners, the doers, the successful people with their heads in the clouds and their feet on the ground.” ~ Wilferd A. Peterson