[3G – 4G – 5G Microcells / Small Cells Phased Array Antennas Directed Beams – Bluetooth LE – Brain Tumors – Brillouin & Sommerfeld Precursors – Cell Phones – Cell Towers – Children – Collective Action Quebec – DNA – EHS / ES – Doctor Anthony B. Miller – ElectroSmog – EMR – Environment Quality Act – FCC – GWEN Towers – Health Canada Safety Code 6 – Hydro-Québec – IEI Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance – ISDE 5G Appeal by Agostino Di Ciaula – ISED – Liability – Marcel Durand & Evelyn and Myles Mahon Quebec EMF Pollution Class Action Lawsuit (Case No:500-06-000760-153, Charles O’Brien) – Mark Dowie – Mark Hertsgaard – Military – Near Field – Norm Ryder Letters to Health Canada, Don Davies, Elizabeth May, Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Marilyn Gladu re Safety Code 6 – NTP – Precautionary Principle – Ramazzini Institute – RFR – Samsung Router – Smart Meters – StingRay (IMSI-catcher) – Studies – Verizon – Wi-Fi in Schools – Wireless Devices | Montreal, Quebec – Canada – China – EU – India – Bologna, Italy – Russia – Sacramento, California, USA]
1) Health Canada apparently is working for industry now, admittedly and openly, rather than fulfilling its mandate which is to protect our health. Please see the correspondence below in Letters and the attachment [https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/5G-Americas-White-Paper-on-5G-Spectrum-Recommendations-April-2017.pdf] which was sent by Health Canada. For your information, 5G America is industry’s organization promoting 5G “and beyond”.
(click on photos to enlarge)
2) More about the class action lawsuit in Quebec.
EMFs and RFRs Finally Taken To Court, In Canada That Is
“A Class Action was filed in Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal, Canada, Case No. 500-06-000760-153 against 50 Respondents including the Attorneys General of Quebec and Canada, the City of Sainte-Anne-Des-Lacs, Hydro-Quebec, and approximately 40 corporations involved in the manufacture, production, servicing and transmission of Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMFs) and Radiofrequencies (RFRs), for their contributory roles in the transmissions, products and services that emit…”
3) The Telegraph UK Publishes Article, “Mobile Phone Cancer Warning as Malignant Brain Tumours Double.” D’uh.
“There have been fierce debates for several decades despite government, independent, industry, and military research that has already proven that exposure to cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation as well other sources of Electrical Pollution (Electrosmog) cause harm.
Charities and scientists have called on the Government to heed longstanding warnings about the dangers of radiation after a fresh analysis revealed a more “alarming” trend in cancers than previously thought. However, the new study, published in the Journal of Public Health and Environment, has stoked controversy among scientists, with some experts saying the disease could be caused by other factors.”
4) Samsung has just been given approval by the FCC in the USA for a new 5G router that uses milliwave frequencies. In its application, it states that it must be at least 8 inches from anyone in order to meet FCC guidelines which allow 1000 microwatts per centimeter squared – which is the same allowed by Safety Code 6. Looking more closely at the tests that were provided with the application, the router’s power density is outrageously high – crazy high. It is likely that any user would have to read well into the manual to discover that the router must be kept at least 8 inches away.
“The SFG-D0100 is shown on the left side of the photo above. Samsung’s FCC grant of approval confirms that the device includes 64 antennas across a beamforming 2×2 MIMO array, including 27.5GHz to 28.35GHz millimeter wave support, plus Bluetooth LE — but apparently no integrated 802.11 functionality, suggesting that it will require a separate Wi-Fi router, like some cable modems. Samsung warns users to keep the devices at least eight inches away from people, in compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines.”
Samsung’s test results as reported to the FCC on its application.
#5.2 says 31.3 W/m2 or 3130 microwatts per centimeter squared for one antenna and 29.0 W/m2 or 2900 microwatts per centimeter squared for the other.
When the beams are combined, Power Density Results for Overlapping Beam Conditions (Simultaneous) Table 5-3 Results for Antenna A and Antenna B Configurations with Overlapping Beams the measurements are 42.5 watts/m2 or 4250 microwatts per centimeter squared, far exceeding even the outrageously high uncontrolled limits of 1000 uW/cm2.
How can this possibly be considered safe??
Here is the link to all of the FCC documents, including the “caution label” regarding the 8 inch distance. Link to the FCC Authorization documents:
Please read from the bottom up.
From: Norm Ryder (name given with permission)
To: email@example.com, CPAB_INFO_DGCAP@hc-sc.gc.ca, Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl.gc.ca, Don.Daviesr@parl.gc.ca, Marilyn.Gladu@parl.gc.ca
Date: 04 May 2018 20:49:00
Subject: Safety Code 6
Dear Honourable Minister Taylor
I was shocked when I received this response from your ministry. The attachment “5G Americas White Paper on 5G Spectrum Recommendations – April 2017” is industry propaganda to support the implementation of 5G. [https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/5G-Americas-White-Paper-on-5G-Spectrum-Recommendations-April-2017.pdf]
Had I received the document from your cohorts “across the hall”, ISED, I would have expected no more from an agency that is more interested in promoting business interests than the health and well-being of Canadians.
Promoting the use of 5G and the accompanying radio frequency is a direct attack on the health and well-being of Canadians. The higher frequencies or millimeter wave lengths that 5G will use have had minimal testing to determine whether they will cause biological harm on Canadians and a resulting increase in health care costs. The studies that have been done consistently point to the probability of biological harm to not just humans but all flora and fauna.
Please, for the health and well-being of all, impose a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until it can be proven to be not harmful to Canadians.
Looking to Safety Code 6 is pointless as, even according to the code itself, it is only to protect against thermal effects and worse the code does not apply to most Canadians as anything more than a guideline.
I know your office has received numerous scientific papers submitted by Canadians, papers that consistently show that radiation levels far less than enough to cause thermal reactions are damaging DNA and causing other health issues for living tissues including human. Two recent studies are good examples of such papers: the results of the National Toxicology Program study into radiation and the study from the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy of papers showing biological harm at levels far lower than SC6. Safety Code 6 is in desperate need of a revision. A revision that significantly lowers the allowable limits. A revision that reflects the conditions under which most people now experience radiation. Now, one’s prime source of radiation is a personal communication device and not the classic tower on a mountain top where few people go. Today‘s intensity of radiation is many orders of magnitude greater than the levels we evolved with. It is polarized, modulated, pulsed and digital. None of which are found in nature. We are also frequently exposed to near field radiation where the radiation does not follow the normal rules, such as the inverse square law, to express how radiation reduces at a distance from the source. In the near field, one can experience spectacular spikes and peaks of radiation which, according to some researchers, are as much as 100 times the predicted amount.
Conditions related to the Brillouin precursor and Sommerfeld precursor, which can drive the effects of the radiation much deeper than the skin layers, are not accounted for in the code. The code is woefully inadequate and not reflective of the science related to microwave radiation. An immediate implementation of what is referred to as the Precautionary Standards or reduction to the allowable limits in countries like Russia, China and India would be a good proactive move to protect the health of Canadians while the Safety Code is rewritten and no maximum allowable limits are set. Limits that, when recent scientific studies are considered, will be even lower or more protective than the limits imposed in some third world countries.
When can Canadians look forward to a meaningful revision of Safety Code 6? Canadians’ health deserves to be protected as much as the health of residents in the third world.
= = =
Subject: Safety Code 6
Thank you for contacting Health Canada.
Your recent enquiry has been redirected to the appropriate area for a response.
Health Canada | Santé Canada
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0K9
Telephone | Téléphone 613-957-2991 / Toll free | Sans frais 1 866-225-0709 /
Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-941-5366 / Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur 1 800-267-1245
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
= = =
Subject: Safety Code 6
When SC6 is upgraded, please make a special effort to look at the effects of radiation that will be transmitted by devices configured to use 5G, especially the effect of pulsed radiation and the Brillouin and Sommerfeld precursor effect and the special conditions that occur within the near field zones (even ISED acknowledges special measurement protocols are needed in these zones).
In addition to the concerns mentioned in the attached paper “International Society of Doctors for Environment 5G networks in European Countries: appeal for a standstill in the respect of the precautionary principle” is a collection of references supporting their concerns (see http://www.isde.org/5G_appeal.pdf in Update 2018-05-02).
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
~ George Orwell