2019-01-25 – Deliberate attempts to mislead are international

1)  In what seems to be a precautionary action, the Federal Government has given Nokia $40 million to do research on 5G, apparently to provide an option to Huawei. None of the money is ear-marked for research on health effects. 

Huawei rival Nokia strikes $40-million research deal with Ottawa on 5G technology

“The funding comes amid a comprehensive national-security review of the potential involvement of Huawei in Canada’s 5G network”


2)  It is more than coincidence that some other countries’ agencies, that have the responsibility to oversee EMR safety and to establish guidelines similar to Safety Code 6, use the same justification and repeat the same lies to hide the truth from the public they are hired to protect. There is industry bias in Health Canada and in Australia’s Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) which results in statements like the following being provided to anyone asking for help, information or education. Websites are deliberately void of any mention of true independent science and promote only industry funded mis-statements.

“… “Decades of scientific research has found no evidence of any adverse health effects” and that “even studies looking at long-term damage, such as brain cancer, have not found evidence of increased harm.” He then claims that the health hazard debate rages on “fuelled by misinformation, scepticism and a complex psychological phenomenon known as the nocebo effect, it’s little wonder this contentious issue persists, particularly given wireless technologies are so pervasive.”

In relation to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), Verrender claims:

“Despite the countless stories suggesting a link between symptoms and exposure to electromagnetic fields in the media in recent years, the evidence from extensive scientific investigation paints a very different picture.”


3)  A justification for the proliferation of wireless devices – but how to define “good”?  This is an argument we’ve all heard as it applies to microwave radiation.

The greatest good for the greatest number: A doctrine of acceptable losses

“Good” has, however, become associated with “goods,” that is, objects which consumers and businesses buy to further their personal and occupational goals…

What I want to point out is that “the greatest number” implies a doctrine of “acceptable losses.” If the net benefits of any course of action are measured for society as a whole instead of for every individual, then actions which kill many people are justified on the basis of the benefit to those who remain living. Such benefits are presumed to outweigh the loss incurred by those dying and those related to the deceased…

But, because so much of modern society runs on what is operationally the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number principle, we are now faced with multiple categories of “acceptable losses.” Each purveyor of hazardous products or practices tries to play down the losses and ridicule the victims. 


Health Canada’s [HC] guideline for risk assessment has been used to explain why potentially dangerous devices or products (consider cell phones) are not banned. Are the costs of doing something greater, in HC’s consideration, than doing nothing? Wait until the healthcare costs, and the number of people dying, are added into the equation. The guideline for risk assessment and management sounds good (largely) until you include the costs/economic consideration.

Costs to whom? How much is an individual’s health worth compared to the convenience of a cell phone or Wi-Fi?

Health Canada Decision-Making Framework for Identifying, Assessing, and Managing Health Risks – August 1, 2000

“2.2.2 Assess Benefits

The inclusion of benefit assessment (and consequently the comparison of risks and benefits) as part of the decision-making framework, is not intended to imply that benefits (known or potential) must be assessed in every situation, but rather that it should be undertaken in a consistent and systematic manner in situations where it is appropriate to do so….

Technical specialists (in this case, economists) play the lead role in benefit assessment and in making risk/benefit comparisons. However, there is a role for other participants to play, including scientists responsible for the risk assessment, policy makers, and interested and affected parties. Like risk assessments, benefit assessments and risk/benefit comparisons provide a key source of information for risk management decision-making, and consequently play an important role in ensuring that risk management goals are met. Policy makers and interested and affected parties can help to ensure that assessments are focused on the benefits of most relevance, and that appropriate consideration is given to specific populations and equity issues. Other technical specialists, particularly scientists, can provide guidance in the use of risk assessment results in risk/benefit comparisons, and can flag additional risk information needs. The manner and extent of involvement will depend on many factors as noted in the Identify the Issue and Its Context section above…”



Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

Nor, as others have suggested do I make statements that such radiation is safe.  ~ British Columbia Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Perry Kendall

But he does say, The conclusions of them all are that at present levels of exposure, there is no evidence of harm to the populations exposed.

Doesn’t ‘no harm’ = ‘safe’ ?    Good try, Dr. Kendall.


Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation