1) The 5G Crisis Summit is not as free as first I was led to believe. The talks are available without charge for a 24 hour period only.
2) Many of you have written to local, provincial or federal politicians as well as to the media, etc about 5G and your concerns about health, privacy issues, etc. Please help Marg in her efforts to bring our concerns to Mr. Goodale <firstname.lastname@example.org> and send copies to her as she requests. She is hoping to prepare a letter to him this weekend. Many thanks for your help.
From: “ElectroSmog Manitoba” <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: She, Telus, Rogers – 5G network sharing
I’m composing an email to federal Minister Ralph Goodale about closing the ISED/IC CPC 20-0-3 loophole.
Exempted from public consultation:
- Non -Tower Structure: antennas on buildings, water towers, lamp posts, etc. may be excluded from consultation provided that the height above ground of the non-tower structure, exclusive of appurtenances, is not increased by more than 25%;
Does anyone have any documented opposition that has been voiced regarding the small cells close to homes, etc. anywhere in Canada? e.g. Mission BC. i know some people opposed the 5G pilot projects in London Ontario (that was passed anyway). These could be in the form of emails to politicians, letters to the editor, etc.
3) As a result of the Chicago Tribune’s investigation and report on cell phones emitting higher radiation levels than allowed by the FCC, a law firm in the US is pursuing additional research into this and whether the telecoms knew about this and the possible health implications. This could help raise awareness dramatically if the lawyers are able to follow through on this.
Fegan Scott Launches Investigation over Troubling Research Showing Radiation Risk from Millions of Cell Phones
“This could be the Chernobyl of the cell phone industry, cover-up and all”
Today the class-action law firm Fegan Scott announced it has launched an investigation regarding recently released research that questions the safety of some of the most popular and widely used cell phones.
Fegan also noted that research strongly suggests that cell phone manufacturers knew – or should have known – that the radiation levels were well above what they were claiming. “The fact that the Chicago Tribune can convene a group of experts and develop such convincing findings shows that the phone manufacturers may be intentionally hiding what they know about radiation output.”
4) A video recommended by a member, which I have skimmed through. Interesting to see how one person denies that wireless radiation is harmful, refutes scientific evidence, and, like so many industry people, compare manmade microwave radiation with natural radiation from the sun. At about the 30 min. point some discussion re IARC.
An Invisible Threat (Radiation) | History Documentary | Reel Truth History
From: “citizensforsafertech” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “mark” <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 5:08:42 PM
Subject: cell phone lawsuit
This lawsuit is long overdue. Cynically the telecoms are ignoring the FCC limits with impunity, as reported by the Chicago Tribune. But 2 years ago, Dr. Arazi in France reported that 9 out of 10 cell phones tested (including many of the most popular models) https://data.anfr.fr/explore/dataset/das-telephonie-mobile/?disjunctive.marque&disjunctive.modele exceed allowed limits. Why has it taken years, and a newspaper, to confirm the phones in North America are also a health issue?
“After months of difficult and restrictive legal and media actions, on June 1, 2017, I finally obtained the ANFR publication of the partial results of the SAR values of 379 mobile phones tested, including the individual makes and models concerned. This initial victory of transparency permitted us to learn that this issue concerned nearly all mobile phones sold in France and in Europe.”
There have been hundreds (if not thousands) of studies by well-respected independent scientists over many years that show that exposure to cell phone radiation can cause serious harm, including brain cancer. The telecom industry has known, just as the tobacco industry did, that its product causes biological effects but has continued (and has been allowed) to promote wireless devices to unsuspecting customers. Even at limits allowed by the FCC (which are among the weakest, least protective limits in the world), cell phones emit levels of microwave radiation that have been proven to be dangerous, e.g. National Toxicology Project by NIH, $25 million over 10 years. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2018/june/publiccomm/phonegatealert_20180612_508.pdf
Why aren’t the cell phone companies required to, at the very least, provide labels on the exterior of the phone with the very same precautions that they are mandated to include in their manuals?
In May 2011 the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified all wireless radiation as a 2b (possible) human carcinogen, the same classification as lead and DDT. Yet there are no requirements that the public should be informed. Since 2011 significant research has resulted in calls for wireless radiation to be classified as a true carcinogen — yet few know this.
Yes, a lawsuit is long overdue, and I am sure that many experts will be willing to provide help if you wish to proceed. Thank you for taking this on.
Victoria, British Columbia
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“But what we need above all is critical citizens, who can spot the difference between technical progress and consumer foolishness: citizens who, as both voters and consumers, remember that democracy once meant rule of the people, not ruling the people.” Dr. Karl Hecht