[5G Microcells / Small Cells Antennas Siting – Big Wireless – Cancer – Cell Phones – Cell Towers – Children – Choice – CTIA – Doctor Leif Salford – EHC Environmental Health Criteria for the RF-EMF (WHO EMF Project) – EHS / ES Microwave Radiation Disabling Injury – Emilie van Deventer – EMR – Evelyne Shuster – George Carlo, WTR Wireless Technology Research – Health Canada Safety Code 6 – Hippocratic Oath – ICNIRP (Eric van Rongen) – ISED – Louis Slesin – Marcus Schluschen Letter to Navdeep Bains re Safety of RF Exposure – Mark Dowie – Mark Hertsgaard – Medical Research Ethics – Motorola (Q. Balzano) – Nazi Doctors’ Trial (General Telford Taylor) – Nuremberg Code (Andrew Ivy, Harold Sebring, Leo Alexander) – Rio Declaration of 1992 – Risk – Smart Meters – Studies – Tom Wheeler – Voluntary Consent – Wi-Fi in Schools & Hospitals – Wireless Devices | Canada – Australia – Aachen & Nuremberg, Germany – Rome, Italy – Long Beach, California, USA]
1) Below, in a letter to Minister Bains, Marcus refers to the Nuremberg Code and he has provided a link to an important article written 20 years ago, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. We are being experimented on without our consent, with the full knowledge of Health Canada, ISED, the World Health Organization, our Provincial Public Health officials and the telecommunications industry. As Dr. Leif Salford [http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/the-work-of-leif-salford/] warned about microwave radiation and wireless technology, it is “the largest human biological experiment ever.”
It is time for Canadians to demand that those responsible for safeguarding our health do their jobs, and for us to hold them responsible for their willful negligence if they allow this travesty to continue. The proliferation of microwave radiation must stop now, before 5G is implemented in every neighbourhood, in front of every home.
(click on photos to enlarge)
The New England Journal of Medicine
Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code
(signed by Canada)
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
2) The discussion about George Carlo continues, with Louis Slesin offering insights about which he has been outspoken for years.
Show Me the Studies!
“The Nation” Resurrects an Old Controversy
A Further Response to Mark Dowie and Mark Hertsgaard (re the Nation’s article)
3) The World Health Organization’s EMF Project has been planning on a complete review of scientific evidence but the people who had been named to the panel were, for the most part, industry-affiliated people who also were on ICNIRP’s panels. The result of their draft document was as predicted, and independent scientists/experts who were allowed to submit comments complained that the evidence considered was cherry-picked and the recommendations were not consistent with the solid evidence showing serious harm. Now, according to this article, the WHO is reconsidering the approach and there is hope that perhaps the resulting report will reflect the actual science. We can only hope that the complaints by very senior experts and many others about WHO’s failure will result in a protective decision.
Emerging possibility for a meticulous, impartial review of the EMF science at the WHO
“As I wrote, there is an emerging possibility for a meticulous, impartial review of the EMF science at the WHO. It all will depend on how the experts will be selected. What criteria will be used. Who will be the persons deciding on the selection.
Let us hope, this emerging possibility will not be wasted and what is being done now at the WHO and at the WHO EMF Project is not only a smoke screen…”
From: Marcus Schluschen (name given with permission)
Sent: May 07, 2018
Subject: Re: Response to concerns regarding the safety of radio frequency exposure
Dear Minister Bains,
Receiving scripted replies from governmental aids is nothing short of an insult, as it implies that we, the public, are ignorant fools.
Over the last 8 years, I have read countless peer reviewed science documents regarding the dangers of non-ionizing radiation in two languages, and can say with certainty that I am far more informed on this subject than Minister Bains and his uninformed aids.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is, indeed, a captured agency where corporate lobbyists set the tone.
I have first-hand experience of the suffering that electrosensitive people have to endure, on a daily basis, as my wife has been struggling with this agonizing man-made affliction for almost 9 years.
I am fully aware that government officials will not acknowledge any biological harm because it would immediately open a floodgate of lawsuits as they were negligent in public health protection by allowing untested technology to be imposed on the unsuspecting public through WiFi, cell towers, and now 5G microcells to be released on the population, without any prior biological testing.
In violation of the Rio Declaration of 1992 and the Nuremberg Code, the Government of Canada is conducting unauthorized human experiments on a monumental scale, in collusion with the wireless industry.
Exposing the uninformed population to biologically active, non-ionizing microwave radiation pollution, through Public WiFi, cell towers, smart meters, and now 5G microcells, is revolting.
Most shockingly, these biological, unauthorized experiments extend to schools and even hospitals where children, severely ill and frail, elderly patients are fighting for their lives!
Not long ago, Health Canada endorsed asbestos, formaldehyde and DDT and considered AIDS a minor event.
Today, this very same incompetent, captured government agency is once again failing Canadians most miserably by endorsing biologically active, untested wireless technology, by relying on the archaic Safety Code 6 which was intensely criticized by international science as “non-protective”.
This absurd reliance on Safety Code 6 [SC6] allows corporations free and uncontrolled reign, irradiating people in their homes, workplaces, schools, hospitals and every public place imaginable with biologically untested technology, absent of meaningful governmental scrutiny.
SC6 was originally intended for short visits of workers to industrial sites and was never intended for chronic, 24/7, radiation exposure of the unborn, mothers and children, the frail and elderly, by a known toxic agent penetrating homes, schools, and hospitals without consent!
When have children’s bedrooms and classrooms become industrial sites?
Twenty three thousand (23.000) peer reviewed studies, proving adverse biological effects, are dismissed by this government!
(Available at the University of Aachen, Germany)
Where is your “science based decision making” as promised during the last election campaign?
Such incomprehensible reckless attitude and supreme arrogance, as exhibited by Health Canada and your department, constitutes a perversion of Hippocratic ethics, a lack of morality and reverence for human life.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The entire earth turns more and more into a huge laboratory in which we, depending on our attitude and profession, observe with eagerness or horror which global impact the mass use of chemicals, electromagnetic fields, genetically manipulated organisms will have – only we cannot clean up this laboratory quite as easily when we realize the experiment went wrong.”
(NEITZKE et al. 1994, p. 319)