1) Dr. Pall and Dr. Schoechle in Duncan, July 2, 7:00 pm at the United Church, 246 Ingram.
Contact: dorotheasiegler _at_ gmail.com
2) Scientists are warning that 5G will threaten our health and well-being and others are warning that we shouldn’t forget that it is intended to threaten our privacy and security like never before.
“…But another, even more neglected aspect of the 5G dark reality is that in a world where all objects are wired and constantly communicating data to one another through a 5G network—an “Internet of Things” (IoT), in other words—privacy and security would be next to impossible. Even the mainstream is now admitting that the unprecedented amounts of data flowing through the 5G network—from appliance usage to personal communications to transaction information—is a treasure trove that, if it were to fall into the wrong hands, would be a formidable weapon….
The implication of these mainstream pundits’ pontifications is that 5G only represents a threat in the hands of the Russians or the Chinese or other supposed “enemies of America.” But what about the companies that are manufacturing these products? Why are the Big Tech giants, who have so signally abused the public’s misplaced trust for decades, now to be trusted with creating Big Databases of sensitive personal information on every imaginable aspect of our daily lives? And why are the governments of the US and its allies around the globe—governments that have been caught time and again illegally spying on their own populations and violently suppressing dissent—suddenly to be trusted as stewards of such a system?…
But now the 5G network is promising to deliver us not an internet of phones and computers but an internet of things, from cars and watches to fridges and hats to milk jugs and floor tiles. When every manufactured object is broadcasting information about you and your activities to the world at large by default, and when it is discovered that opting out of this surveillance grid is not an option, the true nature of this 5G panopticon will finally begin to dawn on the public. But by that point it will already be too late.”
3) Addiction, autism, attention deficit, EHS, now physical deformities due to “screen time”.
(click on photo to enlarge)
Younger generations are growing horns in the back of their head
“Up to half of all young people could be developing horn-like growths in the backs of their heads, startling Australian research suggests.
“Younger generations seem to be developing horns in the back of their skulls due to the extended use of technology like smartphones and tablets.
Two Australian researchers made the bizarre discovery while examining hundreds of X-rays of people aged between 18 and 30, finding almost half had developed bone growths.
They’re the kind of spurs normally seen in hunched-over elderly people who’ve subjected their bodies to long-term poor posture and significant stress loads on their bones.”
4) Non-EMR. Site C is still being argued. The Clean Energy Act needs to be scrapped — both Site C and the smeter program are dangerous and will cost BC without end.
Conversations that Matter: Site C revisited
Opponents continue to argue scrapping Site C would be cheaper than finishing it.
“If you thought the fight over Site C was over, you’d be wrong. The people opposed to the building of the dam say it isn’t needed and are watching closely as the megaproject continues to claws its way into the banks of the Peace Canyon.”
Please read from the bottom up. Lambert’s assertions that the NTP and Ramazzini studies are faulty and carry no weight run counter to opinions expressed by independent experts. This warrants an investigation into his sources.
From: Population and Public Health HLTH:EX <email@example.com>
Date: 6 May 2019
Subject: Ministry of Health Response – 1133267
To: petrina gregson (name given with permission)
Dear Ms. Gregson:
Thank you for your email of April 27, 2019, expressing your concerns regarding current scientific evidence on health effects from exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF). I appreciate that you took the time to write to Mr. Guerrero and I am responding on his behalf.
Safe technology for Canadians is of high importance to federal and provincial health agencies. The Ministry of Health relies on the expertise of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), the Provincial Health Officer, and Health Canada when determining acceptable levels of non-ionizing radiation emitted by wireless devices.
Health Canada administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which governs the sale, lease, and importation of radiation emitting devices. Health Canada has a mandate to carry out research into possible human health effects, monitor scientific literature, and develop recommended exposure guidelines. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 sets out recommended limits for safe human exposure to RF produced by wireless devices. The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 are in accord with the recommendations of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which have been adopted by the United Kingdom, Europe, and most other countries outside of Canada and the United States.
The exposure limits to RF specified in Safety Code 6 have been established by a thorough evaluation of the scientific literature, using a weight-of-evidence approach. This approach involves examination of all the evidence on a topic in a systematic manner, where the study design and methods are critically reviewed to assess if and how chance, bias, and confounding issues may have affected the results. This approach attributes more weight to high quality studies (using a ranking system) and ensures the studies with a given result are not selected out from the published literature to support or suppress a preconceived idea of a health effect.
In your email, you mentioned recent studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute. It is this type of research that is reviewed using the weight-of-evidence approach. I encourage you to read the Government of British Columbia’s review of the National Toxicology Program’s partial findings online, which outlines the limitations of that research. Research conducted by the Ramazzini Institute has also been criticized for a lack of quality control, results that are not statistically significant, confounding issues, and results that do not support the conclusions. Additionally, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has “decided not to rely on RI [Ramazzini Institute] data on lymphomas and leukemias in IRIS [Integrated Risk Information System] assessments”. The US EPA has warned risk assessors about problems with the cancer bioassays conducted by the Ramazzini Institute.
Review of recent studies, such as those you described using the weight-of-evidence approach, supports the assertion that RF energy emission from wireless devices in current use are not harmful as long as RF energy levels remain below the exposure limits in Safety Code 6.
Protection of public health is a priority for this government and the Ministry of Health. We aim to apply the most up-to-date research evidence to inform decision making. The evidence at this time concludes that RF emitting devices do not pose a public health risk.
I thank you again for your email and for providing me with an opportunity to respond with the above information.
Tim Lambert, PhD
Health Protection Branch
Population and Public Health Division
Ministry of Health
From: Petrina Gregson
Sent: April 27, 2019
To: HLTH HSD HLTH:EX
Cc: OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX
Subject: re “Ministry of Health response” to Janis Hofffman
A quote from you, Mr. Guerrero, in response to one of many letters of concern:
“In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as ‘Class 2b – Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans’. This indicates that the evidence is far from conclusive and more research is needed to clarify the possible link to cancer. Furthermore, all sources of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in all areas accessible to the general public in Canada (including public schools) are required to meet the exposure limits in Safety Code 6. Current scientific evidence supports the assertion that, as long as radiofrequency electromagnetic field levels remain below the exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6, there is no danger to the public.”
“Current scientific evidence”, my foot! What rock are you living under?! And “Safety Code 6”, a misnomer if ever there was one, is wildly out of date. In addition, Safety Code 6 does not apply to non-ionizing radiation. James McNamee, head of the division at health Canada admitted this in a hearing in Quebec. There is no protective guidelines for wireless radiation. The 2011 classification from IARC (8 years out of date) as “possibly Carcinogenic to humans” would indicate to most caring parents, if seen on a food label, not to feed it to their kids; yet wifi is being fed to school children 5 days a week!
If you really were interested in the science you would know that recent studies, such as the 10 year, multimillion dollar National Toxicology Program (U.S. National Institute of Health) https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf and the Ramazzini Institute (world-renowned Italian research institute) https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/ both determined that exposure to wireless radiation is carcinogenic. The Ramazzini study found that exposure at mere fractions of that allowed by Safety Code 6 results in serious, often irreversible, harm. When you say “current scientific research” you are excluding independent, credible and alarming research that shows our children are in danger in schools.
With all due respect, I dare you to read these reports and tell me that you believe what you said above, that there is no current evidence to support the assertion that microwave radiation is a danger to the public.
I await your reply and hope it’s not a form letter. Please update your research!
In heartfelt sincerity,
Sharon Noble. Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” – A. Einstein