2017-09-03 A new study shows DNA damage from frequency used by smeters at very low exposure levels.

[5G (Roger Wicker, Brian Schatz) – 1996 Telecommunications Act – AIRWAVES Act (Maggie Hassan, Cory Gardner) for Internet Access – Antennas – Arthur Compton – BioInitiative 2012 – Cancer (Brain & Breast) – Cardiac / Heart – Cell Phones – Cell Towers – Doctor Joseph M. Mercola Interviews Martin L. Pall – EHS – EMRABC – EPA – Excess Calcium – FCC & Industry Lobbyists – Franz Adlkofer – Health Canada Safety Code 6 – IARC – Infertility – ISED – Itron Smart Meters – Jack Etkins Interviews Walter McGinnis re Telus Fibre Optics & Microcells / Small Cells – Jane Philpott – Neuropsychiatric (Alzheimer’s, Anxiety, Autism, Depression) – Letters to / from Tim Singer – NIH National Institutes of Health – Nobel  Prize – Nrf2 (Mediterranean & Okinawan Diets) – Peroxynitrite Free Radicals – Radiation Emitting Devices Act – Radiocommunication Act – Reduce Harmful Effects of EMFs Class 2B – RF Damages DNA – RSC – Studies – UBCM – US Office of Naval Research – VGCCs – WHO – Wi-Fi – Wireless Devices Use Pulsation – X-rays | Canada – Australia – China – EU – France – Germany – India – Iran – Japan – New Zealand – Russia – Turkey – New Hampshire, USA] & (videos)

**More family visits, so if the Updates are not as regular as they usually are, I hope you will understand.**

= = =

1)    A fascinating interview of Dr. Martin Pall by Dr. Mercola.

 

The Harmful Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Explained

“Some of the best evidence comes from a German study (headed by professor Franz Adlkofer), in which the effects of ionizing radiation equivalent to 1,600 chest X-rays were compared to 24 hours on a cellphone. Surprisingly, they found both produced roughly equivalent amounts of DNA breaks in in-vitro assays. According to Pall, this actually vastly underestimates the effects of cellphones, because they used a continuous wave EMF, not pulsed.

There’s extensive evidence showing pulsed EMFs are far more damaging than continuous wave EMFs. That’s important for a number of reasons, including the fact that all wireless communication devices communicate by pulsations. In another paper, the group showed that when you use pulsations designed to be similar to the pulsation from a real cellphone, damage occurred at far lower intensities.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/03/electromagnetic-fields-harmful-effects.aspx

(video 03:14) Preview: Dr. Mercola and Martin Pall Discuss the Damaging Effects of EMFs by Mercola – YouTube – August 30, 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz8RwFbdxRs
&
(video 58:50) Dr. Mercola Interviews Martin Pall on EMFs by Mercola – YouTube – August 30, 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAqmT9KJBC8

 

2)    A Citizen’s Forum discussion about microcells. Please consider sending this to your Councillors and Mayors, asking them to watch this 10 minute video before the UBCM meeting at the end of this month.

(click on photos to enlarge)

Here is a summary of the discussion points, provided by a member, that might help writing to your Council members:

– Unfair, deceptive practices. Their fibre optics are being used for their cellphone network which can cause ill health.

– Telus declined the offer to come on the show to explain/share what they are doing.

– This technology is not safe.

– Lack of regulations allow this to happen.

– Telus gets a higher speed wireless product.  The signals travel along the fibre optics and then wirelessly into homes.

– Cheaper to install, easier to modify, etc. by using wireless technologies.

– A health hazard similar to smoking.

– Is there someone in the government we can go to?  No one. The Provincial Health Officer says there’s not enough evidence, which is not true.  We’ve given him evidence.

– EMR Alliance website for information (http://emrabc.ca/ – Small Cells – eNodeB 4G/5G)

– BioInitiative 2012 for evidence (http://www.bioinitiative.org/)

– We should have the right to decide if we want our neighbourhoods to be irradiated or not.  It’s a fundamental right.

(video 57:52) Citizen’s Forum August 16 2017 by CanadaCitizensForum – YouTube – August 31, 2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHWySPJr0dU (first 10 minutes)

3)    In the USA, Senators are supporting the spread of 5G saying it’s vital for the increase to internet access, especially in rural areas.  It would be interesting to know how much money these politicians get from telecom lobbyists.

Yesterday, Senator Hassan and Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) also introduced the AIRWAVES Act, which will help lay the groundwork for 5G technologies by ensuring the future spectrum needs of wireless carriers are met. The AIRWAVES Act also designates a percentage of spectrum auction proceeds to go toward broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas, like rural parts of New Hampshire and other states.
 
“Access to the internet is vital in today’s 21st century economy,” Senator Hassan said of the bipartisan 5G Resolution. “As the importance of internet access increases, the digital divide between urban and rural areas is widening, putting those living in rural areas at a disadvantage. This bipartisan resolution emphasizes the importance of making life-changing technology more accessible and fostering the spirit of innovation in hard-working Granite Staters and Americans.””

 

https://www.hassan.senate.gov/news/press-releases/following-introduction-of-the-airwaves-act-senator-hassan-joins-bipartisan-resolution-in-support-of-5g-technology

4)    Another study showing exposure to levels of RF can cause damage to DNA. This study exposed quail embryos to 900 MHz (the same used by smeters) at a very low level 0.25 microwatts per square centimeter.  Safety Code 6 allows levels of 274 microwatts per centimeter squared. ITRON reported that the average  level of their smeters was in the range of 237 microwatts per centimeter squared.  The research has shown this over and over again yet none of the authorities in the WHO, Health Canada or our Provincial Health Authorities pay any attention.  This is beyond incompetence and negligence.   I hope some of you will send this study to Tim Singer – see letters below.  Mr. Singer needs some education about smeters as well as SC 6.

Please read the DISCUSSION at the end if nothing else.

http://www.ejmanager.com/fulltextpdf.php?mno=240459

Dr. Hardell has this on his blog:
https://lennarthardellenglish.wordpress.com/2017/08/30/oxidative-effect-of-low-intensity-microwave-radiation-in-the-model-of-developing-quail-embryos/

Letters:

From: “Singer, Tim (HC/SC)” <tim.singer@canada.ca>
Date: September 1, 2017
To: X

Subject: Re: Electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and human health

Dear X

Thank you for your further correspondence of August 23, 2017, addressed to the Honourable Jane Philpott concerning electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and human health. The Minister’s office has asked me to provide a detailed response.

Health Canada administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which governs the sale, lease, and importation of radiation emitting devices in Canada. In addition, the Department’s mandate regarding human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy from wireless devices includes carrying out research into possible health effects, monitoring the scientific literature related to such effects on an ongoing basis, and developing RF exposure guidelines, commonly referred to as Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 sets recommended limits for safe human exposure to EMFs in federally regulated industries and workplaces.

Health Canada acknowledges that some people have reported an array of health symptoms that they attribute to exposure to EMF. At present, the symptoms attributed to EMF exposure have been termed idiopathic environmental intolerance by the World Health Organization (WHO), where “idiopathic” refers to unknown causes. While the symptoms attributed by some persons to electromagnetic hypersensitivity are real, the scientific evidence provides strong support that these health effects are not associated with EMF exposure.  Health Canada, other leading health agencies, and the WHO, have concluded that, to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence linking adverse symptoms to levels below existing RF exposure limits. More information about electromagnetic hypersensitivity is available on our website at:

Health Canada – Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/radiation/consumer-radiation/electric-magnetic-fields/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-consumer-radiation.html

With respect to smart meters, based on the extremely low intensity of the emissions during bursts and the short amount of time during the day that they actually occur, it is Health Canada’s assessment that no adverse health effects are expected from smart meters.  In cases where multiple smart meters are installed together, as in some townhouses or high-rise buildings, the total exposure level from multiple smart meters will still be far below Health Canada’s RF energy exposure limits, due to the infrequent nature of transmissions. More information about smart meters is available on our website at:

Health Canada – It’s Your Health – Smart Meters
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/healthy-living/your-health/products/smart-meters.html

As decisions regarding the placement and installation of smart meters are not within Health Canada’s mandate, we recommend that you consult your provincial authority to discuss your concerns.

Thank you again for taking the time to write about this important issue. I hope my comments are helpful.

Tim Singer
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Health Canada / Government of Canada
tim.singer@canada.ca /

Directeur général, Direction des sciences de la santé environnementale et de la radioprotection
Santé Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
tim.singer@canada.ca /

__________________________________________________________________________

From: XX
Sent: September 2, 2017
To: Singer, Tim (HC/SC) <tim.singer@canada.ca>
Cc: Sharon Noble

Subject: Re: Safety Code 6

Mr. Singer,

I thank you for your email, albeit a late one, in response to my email of July 11 to Health Minister Philpott. From it I see that although you may have reassured the Health Minister that Canada’s radiation levels are safe, you have done nothing to assure myself and all those who wish to educate themselves as to the dangers of Safety Code 6.

People who care enough to do a little research know that the vast majority of studies which gave us the new and improved Safety Code 6 are industry funded in over 70% of the cases. Over 25,000 peer-reviewed independent, and I stress independent, studies show biological harm at levels that endanger health – cardiac, neurological, even at the DNA level, as well as reduced and damaged sperm, etc.

How can you call the Royal Society of Canada an independent, expert body when there are members including the Chairman, I believe, who are employed by the electronics industry? Apparently you haven’t done any research of your own. One thing I want to know, are Health Canada’s “weight-of evidence” studies industry funded? Perhaps you don’t know the answer, yourself.

My information is that Health Canada has had evidence for many years of harm at levels below SC 6, even the new, revised version, and continues to do nothing about this situation.

You say that “a few” countries have applied greater safety limits for RF exposure. Do you mean places such as Germany, India, China, Russia and France? If so, you have trivialized and insulted the RF safety measures of some of the most developed nations of the world. And I have no confidence in the World Health Organization as well as the other groups you mentioned until or unless you can prove to me that they contain no employees of the electronics industry.

By the time you obtain such proof, I’m sure that I shall have waited even longer than a month and a half for your next email to appear.

XX

= = =

From: Singer, Tim (HC/SC) <tim.singer@canada.ca>
To: XX
Sent: 01 Sep 2017

Subject: Re: Safety Code 6

Dear XX

Thank you for your correspondence of July 11, 2017, addressed to the Honourable Jane Philpott concerning Safety Code 6. The Minister’s office has asked me to provide a detailed response.

Health Canada administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which governs the sale, lease, and importation of radiation emitting devices in Canada. In addition, the Department’s mandate regarding human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy from wireless devices includes carrying out research into possible health effects, monitoring the scientific literature related to such effects on an ongoing basis, and developing RF exposure guidelines, commonly referred to as Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 sets recommended limits for safe human exposure to EMFs in federally regulated industries and workplaces.

Wireless communications equipment (e.g., cell phones, cell towers, smart meters, routers) is regulated by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) under the Radiocommunication Act. To ensure that public exposures fall within acceptable guidelines, ISED has developed regulatory standards that require compliance with the human exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6.

In 2015, Health Canada updated Safety Code 6 to take into account recent scientific data from studies carried out worldwide.

In the establishment of acceptable limits, departmental scientists considered all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employed a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks from exposure to RF energy. The weight-of-evidence approach takes into account both the quantity of studies on a particular endpoint (whether adverse or no effect), and more importantly, the quality of those studies. Poorly conducted studies (e.g., an inadequate exposure evaluation, a lack of appropriate control samples or an inadequate statistical analysis) receive relatively little weight, while properly conducted studies (e.g., with all controls included, appropriate statistics and a complete exposure evaluation) receive more weight.

The 2015 update to Safety Code 6 was reviewed by an independent Expert Panel of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC).  The Expert Panel concluded in spring 2014 that there were no established adverse human health effects at exposure levels below the proposed limits. The RSC has detailed conflict of interest guidelines to support decision-making with respect to participation on expert panels.

As with most scientific conclusions, it is possible to find differing scientific opinions. There are scientific studies that have reported biological effects of RF fields that are below the limits in Safety Code 6. These studies are in the minority, are very far from conclusive, and do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence in this area.  Health Canada continues to monitor the scientific research in this area.

If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure to RF energy below levels found in Safety Code 6 from wireless technologies is a concern, Health Canada would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.

The RF exposure limits and the conclusions of Health Canada are similar to those arrived at by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, and the World Health Organization.

These limits are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Large safety margins have been incorporated into these limits to provide a significant level of protection for the general public and personnel working near RF sources. Internationally, while a few jurisdictions have applied more restrictive limits for RF field exposures from cell towers, scientific evidence does not support the need for limits that are more restrictive than Safety Code 6.

Based on the latest scientific evidence, the Department has determined that exposure to RF energy below the levels in Safety Code 6 does not pose a health risk to the public.

I hope that you will understand the Department’s position on this matter and that my comments are helpful.

Tim Singer
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Health Canada / Government of Canada
tim.singer@canada.ca /

 

Sharon Noble
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