1) An interesting article sent in by a member with predictions about changes in energy production over the next 10-15 years.
“This is a technology-based disruption reminiscent of how the cell phone, Internet, and personal computer swept away industries such as landline telephony, publishing, and mainframe computers. Just like those technology disruptions flipped the architecture of information and brought abundant, cheap and participatory information, the clean disruption will flip the architecture of energy and bring abundant, cheap and participatory energy. Just like those previous technology disruptions, the clean disruption is inevitable and it will be swift.”
2) An interview with Dr. Martin Blank speaking about the physical effects from exposure to RF radiation.
3) Statistics show that the number of children suffering things like attention deficit and hyperactivity is increasing steadily. Many link this to their exposure to wireless gadgets from conception and the increase of use in schools. There is no evidence at all that this technology, which is said by industry to be required for a “21st Century” education, helps in teaching – in fact, quite the contrary seems to be true.
Education technology is estimated to become a $60 billion industry by 2018. With the advent of the Common Core in 2010, which nationalized curriculum and textbooks standards, the multi-billion-dollar textbook industry became very attractive for educational gunslingers looking to capitalize on the new Wild West of education technology. A tablet with educational software no longer needed state-by-state curricular customization. It could now be sold to the entire country.
4) The ICC is prepared to hold CEOs responsible for decisions that end up harming people or the environment.
5) California court has blocked permits for microcells based on “inconvenience, discomfort and disturbance”. I would hope that “discomfort and disturbance” would apply to health and concern for health effects.
California cities have the right to block small cell permits based on aesthetic concerns, according to a state appeals court. Plaintiffs T-Mobile US, Crown Castle and ExteNet argued state law gives them the right to install equipment “in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway,” meaning infrastructure should be permitted as long as it does not block traffic. The court disagreed and ruled in favor of San Francisco, which argued that the definition of “incommode” includes “inconvenience, discomfort and disturbance beyond mere blockage.”
San Francisco argued it needs to be able to block permits for aesthetic reasons because the city’s physical beauty is one of its most valuable assets. The city pointed out its property values and tourism industry are both directly impacted by the city’s physical appearance.
Sent: September 17, 2016
Subject: Letter in response to Editorials
Re: Transmitters prompt health worries for Chemainus couple (Sept 14th).
Indeed it should. The growing minority who recognize and understand the health ramifications of wireless exposure are justifiably concerned. Untold millions suffer from EMF sensitivity, including Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Director General of the World Health Organization; also Nokia’s former CTO, Matti Niemelä.
There is plenty of research material available for anyone interested in learning about the bio-effects of EMF. The health ramifications of EMF are accumulative, compromising cell function, at low level exposure. Lloyd’s of London, one of the largest insurers in the world, exempt coverage of claims caused by exposure to non-ionizing radiation: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”
European countries are removing Wi-Fi in schools; meanwhile in Canada, we are increasing wireless components and buying more wireless devices for our children. Telus states “All electronic emissions in Canada are governed by Safety Code 6, one of the strictest codes in the developed world”. China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have exposure limits 100 times safer than Canada. (http://c4st.org/safety-code-6) It may be that “all wireless sites [individually] emit a RF signal that falls below safe levels …. “according to Telus spokesman Mr. Gilhooley. Rather, they emit continually and collectively with other sites, which increases harmful exposure together with cell towers, smart meters, cell phones, internet, wireless appliances, etc. Industry Canada / Safety Code 6 does not measure for the multi-hour, multi-day exposure of today’s environment; nor the cumulative layered effects from multiple devices.
Mr. Gilhooley also states: “Most Telus wireless sites come hundreds, if not thousands, of times below safe levels.” What is safe? Bodies of scientists and doctors call for stricter safety standards for EMF because the existing ones are obsolete… and RF sources should be reduced as low as possible because it is not possible to establish a safe limit under which no biological effects can be observed. Lastly, the Municipality of North Cowichan states they have no such antenna-consultation policy. If I understand correctly from the Government of Canada website: “Innovation, Science and Economic Development” (Facts about Towers), yes they do. It’s time to get involved before an antenna comes to a rooftop near you.
Letter to editor, Cowichan Valley Citizen:
New transmitters prompt health worries for Chemainus family Telus’s statement “the electronic emissions from the transmitters are well within safety limits” is misleading. There are no safety limits for electromagnetic radiation for the Canadian public. There are very lax guidelines refered to as Safety Code 6 that do not apply to the public. Worse, these very lax standards are regularly exceeded.
In a recent test, I put my home router on Wi-Fi and measured the radiation coming from it. It exceeded the current guidelines by a substantial margin and probably exceeded the guidelines when it was made. The manufacturer does include a warning in their manual that the unit must be operated more than 20 cm from the body to comply with Health Canada/Industry Canada guidelines.
Almost certainly the Telus transmitters are radiating at a level significantly greater than my home router, which I do not use on Wi-Fi.
There is an advantage beyond the health concerns to operating electronic devices on hardwire connections. The connection is not regularly dropped, the speed is faster and there is less chance my system will be hacked into. The recent paper “Exacerbation of demyelinating syndrome after exposure to wireless modem with public hotspot” authored by Redmayne M, Johansson O. [http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DemyelinationWiFiHotSpot.pdf] examines one person’s experience with similar units.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse”
~ Edmund Burke
Sent from my reliable, fast and safe hard wired laptop.