1) In case you wish to write to Health Minister Jane Philpott, in response to her “report” justifying her ignoring the science that is calling for caution in the way wireless devices are being used and the proliferation of them in our homes, schools and general environment, here is an excellent report by Marg Friesen of Electrosmog Manitoba. This should also be given to every teacher, principal and school board member. BTW, my letter to Minister Philpott is below.
2) A letter in a New Hampshire newspaper applies to BC as well as to most utilities. We need to take control over the decision-making, and not allow industry-driven decisions to affect our environment and costs.
“Regardless of the energy source, when a small number of corporations control what, where, and how that energy is extracted, produced, and distributed, the effects can be devastating to real people and the natural environments they depend upon for survival. Industry decides energy prices, which communities will host their projects, and the method of extracting, producing, and transporting that energy — often against the express wishes of the community.”
3) Many people are concerned about dirty electricity that is associated with any electrical meter. I don’t know if I shared this site before – but it’s so good I am taking the chance of doing it a second time.
4) A member sent me this letter that Adrian Dix wrote to the Chair of BCUC, Len Kelsey, just days before he was dismissed. Dix shows the corruption at BC Hydro and, possibly, the ineptness of BCUC. Every program that BC Hydro has going should be reviewed with the same care. The smeter program, for example, has no oversight. What would be found if there were an audit? BC Hydro is out of control.
And the same member found the compensation packages for the highest paid execs at BCUC:
5) A member has suggested that a blog be created that is devoted to collecting and sharing the many lies, twists, misleading statements we been told about the smeters and the grid. This member is willing to help but doesn’t have the computer skills needed to get it going. I think this would be a great PR thing to have.
If there is anyone out there would like to work with the other member on this, please email me at: email@example.com with “Blog” on the subject line.
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: October 18, 2016
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ ; ‘email@example.com’
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca; email@example.com; Ramez.Ayoub@parl.gc.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org; Doug.Eyolfson@parl.gc.ca; Rachael.Harder@parl.gc.ca; Darshan.Kang@parl.gc.ca; John.Oliver@parl.gc.ca; ‘Sonia.Sidhu@parl.gc.ca; email@example.com
Subject: Government Response to the Standing Committee on health ignores science
Dear Minister Philpott,
It was astonishing to read your explanation for disregarding the recommendations of the HESA committee regarding RF (microwave) radiation. Not only are you taking a position that is diametrically opposed to that taken during the election, a promise to make science-based decisions, but you are reaffirming that industry influence is paramount. As an intelligent woman, a doctor who has demonstrated great care for others, you above all others should be expected to respect truth and real, honest science.
I am offended by your report. Those to whom you are writing are volunteers who have devoted years to research and education in an effort to protect our families and future generations who are being used as unwitting genie [guinea] pigs for a technology that was never exposed to rigorous investigation before being allowed to proliferate throughout our homes, schools and workplaces. Your report repeats the falsehoods and misrepresentations which we have received for years from Health Canada and industry. We are well aware of the thousands of studies done by independent world-renowned scientists and deserve better than the repeated insults to our intelligence which comprise your “report”. How can you possibly tell us that there is no evidence of harm? To be generous, I must ask, have you read any of the reports yourself, or are you merely accepting the word of an agency which has proven to be biased and riddled with conflicts of interests?
To demonstrate how erroneous your report is I will comment on the first few paragraphs only. [Sharon’s comments]
1) “Canada is recognized worldwide for the rigour with which it gathers, assesses, and incorporates scientific information into its decision making and standards.”
This isn’t true. Scientists from around the world have advised that Safety Code 6 (SC 6) is completely inadequate because it is out of date, and does not apply to non-thermal radiation. Even James McNamee, of Health Canada, admitted in testimony that SC 6 applies only to thermal radiation and the health effects caused by heating.
2) “In the case of electromagnetic radiation Health Canada carefully tracks developments in the scientific literature, in particular studies in relation to adverse health impacts. Health Canada uses a “weight of evidence” approach in evaluating scientific studies, which takes into account both the quantity and quality of studies, and gives more weight to studies which have been reproduced and which meet the highest standards of rigor and control.”
Health Canada, in the most recent review of SC 6, selected panel members who had known biases toward wireless devices and who had long-standing affiliation with wireless companies. There was no transparency, with Health Canada refusing to provide the basis for the selection of the panel members. The studies that were selected for review were cherry-picked and hidden from public scrutiny. Eventually it was confirmed that 150 of the most recent, and most significant, studies had been excluded from the review. It is apparent that more weight is given to studies that support the status quo than those which recommend implementation of the precautionary principle.
3) “Canada also recognizes the importance of leveraging scientific expertise from around the world and as such, works closely with organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), which includes the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Canada’s approach ensures the protection of the health and safety of Canadians, including our most vulnerable.”
Independent scientists have advised Health Canada for years that SC 6 is not protective of the most vulnerable because it applies to thermal radiation only. Nowhere has Health Canada advised that prolonged exposure to even low levels of RF could affect children exposed to wifi modems or disabled people who are exposed to radiation from smart meters on their homes. Neither of these wireless devices are covered by SC 6 because they are not installed on federally regulated sites – our homes and schools.
Health Canada’s website is woefully erroneous and misleading, with wording that implies that exposure to RF/microwave radiation is safe. The public who searches for accurate information in order to protect themselves and their families are given inaccurate information that could lead to long term health problems.
Don’t you consider IARC’s classification of RF as a 2b carcinogen significant? This is the same classification as lead and DDT. You would not support forcing people to use lead-based paint or to spray DDT on their yards, but you, via Health Canada, support exposing the public to emissions from cell towers, wifi modems, cell phones, and smart meters without their being informed or having a choice. As a Minister of Health, this is irresponsible and incomprehensible.
4) “Some researchers and advocates question the safety of radiofrequency (RF) energy and the approach applied by Health Canada in assessing the scientific evidence related to developing human exposure limits. While some studies have reported health effects below Canadian and international safety limits the totality of the scientific evidence does not support the link between radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) and health effects.”
There are nearly 24,000 independent, peer-reviewed studies done over many years that show that RF /EMF fields can cause harm. The vast majority of studies showing no harm are done or funded by the industry. According to evidence garnered by independent sources, even the industry has produced hundreds of studies showing that RF exposure can cause harm. (e.g. 70% of industry studies show no harm, leaving 30% that do.)
You acknowledge that some studies show harm. If a device or substance were truly safe, there would be no quality studies showing harm. This alone should make you stop and ponder the situation. The “totality” of the evidence is biased due to the fact that independent scientists do not have the funding to do the studies that industries have. Numbers alone should not be the deciding factor – but for Health Canada they are. As admitted above, if more studies show no harm (regardless of the funding bias) than studies showing harm, then the fact that good, solid studies show harm can be ignored. Science doesn’t work that way.
How can you, as Minister of Health, ignore the most recent study, a 10 year, $25 million one done by the National Toxicology Program, a branch of the US Dept of Health and Human Services? In that study, which the American Cancer Society called “good science”, direct links were found between RF radiation from cell phones and brain cancer and tumors of the heart.
5) “To date, thousands of scientific studies have been carried out globally to evaluate the safety of RF EMF. The results from these and ongoing studies have informed the development of Canadian and international human exposure limits. Human exposure limits to RF EMF have existed in Canada and internationally for over 30 years. These exposure limits have taken into account the latest scientific information on established health effects of RF EMF and have incorporated large safety margins for the avoidance of such health effects. Health Canada’s recommended human exposure limits are outlined in a document entitled “Safety Code 6 Limits of human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 3 kHz to 300 GHz” (Safety Code 6). While the human exposure limits in Safety Code 6 were initially developed for, and applied by, federally-regulated employers, some of the exposure limits in the Code have since been referenced by other federal departments and non-federal jurisdictions. In particular, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC) requires compliance with Safety Code 6 as part of its technical standards for radio apparatus. Furthermore, compliance with the relevant Safety Code 6 limits, by all operators of antennas, is required through licensing requirements under the Radiocommunications Act . The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 have been updated periodically since they were first developed in 1979, with updates occurring in 1991, 1999, 2009 and, most recently, in 2015.”
Many other countries have looked at the scientific evidence to which Health Canada has access and have arrived at much different conclusions, establishing exposure limits that are fractions of even the recently revised SC 6. Safety Code 6 has followed ICNIRP’s lead over the years. ICNIRP is an industry-based group which has encouraged limits that benefit the industry, ignoring the scientific concerns that have been raised for decades.
Are you aware that in the most recent review of SC 6 the panel recommended no changes be made? It was only after pressure from the public and a review by HESA of the methods used in the review process that Health Canada arbitrarily reduced the limits dramatically, without explanation. Based on the information shared by the panel, there was no reason for the reductions, so it can be assumed that the levels were reduced as a sop to an outraged public. This is not responsible governing.
Are you aware, Madam, that Industry Canada does not monitor to ensure that exposures from antennae are within Industry Canada’s limits? This responsibility has been handed over to the companies themselves.
The Parliamentary Committee on Health (HESA) has taken the issue of the dangers of public exposure to this technology seriously ever since 2010. Then, as in the recent review, recommendations were made that would lead to more transparency of the issue and to a better assessment of the available evidence. All of these have been ignored, first by Mr. Harper’s Ministers of Health, Health Canada, and now by you. As the public is becoming more educated on the topic, it will not be easy for you or Health Canada to maintain the status quo. It is time for a change. I challenge you to live up to the promise made by the Liberals to do better than the prior government, to honour science. As a physician, as well as an elected official, you have the duty to do your job which is to protect the health of Canadians.
Sincerely and with respect,
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“An activist is someone who cannot help but fight for something. That person is not usually motivated by a need for power, or money, or fame, but in fact driven slightly mad by some injustice, some cruelty, some unfairness – So much so that he or she is compelled by some moral engine to act to make it better.”
~ Eve Ensler