1) Please see below a couple of letters with some important information and helpful insights.
2) Those who are in control of education are responsible for the push for wireless devices in schools, literally replacing teachers and books with computers. Some corporations even “give” laptops to children, making parents believe that children must get a 21st Century education where wireless technology rules, despite evidence of physical and social harm that result.
The Dangerous Push For More Technology In Schools
“If there ever were a Trojan Horse of public education, it is stabled with technologists now generously giving away Virtual Reality and other fun tech toys. Verizon, Google, and others have donated hundreds of millions in educational resources with no recognition that microwave wireless radiation should not be used close to the brains of young children. Betsy Devos, the current Secretary of Education, leads national efforts to sell local school districts on the capacity of charter schools to innovate in the use of laptops for students from preschool through primary school and high school….
So where are we now? The “free” gifts of Virtual Reality cardboard holders for smartphones targeting Title I schools and the offer of 5G networks come with many invisible strings that should give us all pause. First and foremost, 5G remains a work in progress. At its best, the proposed new network relies on superfast millimeter-wave frequencies for faster downloads of videos, movies, and games. When the BBC famously featured a 5G broadcast, it ran out of bandwidth that failed to live up to its promised speed within a few minutes. So far most tech experts find the actual network unable to perform up to its assurances regarding hype in speed or access, according to Larry Desjardin, a seasoned industry specialist.
Beware those who advocate for virtual education. There’s a harsher reality that lies beneath.”
https://www.ibtimes.com/dangerous-push-more-technology-schools-2849550
3) With Goodale losing his seat, will the investigation into Huawei and possibly banning the Chinese company partnering with Telus in the 5G grid, making the microcell transmitters, continue? Let’s hope so. During the campaign, we saw nothing about the health and safety associated with wireless technology, especially cell phones and 5G technology. It’s time to get to the newly elected MPs to refresh their memories about these issues — although, if history is repeated, now that they got elected, our letters and concerns will be ignored.
New public safety minister, wireless prices on agenda in Liberal minority
“With the Liberal Party’s victory in the federal election Monday, its innovation, heritage, and rural economic development ministers are all set to return to the House of Commons — but there will be changes ahead on the Huawei file, and wireless prices are set for increased scrutiny….
Should the Liberals decide to go ahead with some kind of a Huawei ban, they may find support on that from the Conservatives, whose leader Andrew Scheer has in the past said he is in favour of an unspecified form of ban.”
Letters:
On Oct 20, 2019, at 6:28 PM, Arthur Firstenberg (name given with permission) wrote:
What everyone is still missing, including building biologists who measure RF radiation for a living, is that the harm does NOT depend on the exposure level. There is NOT a dose response. Not even for symptoms. I am sorry to have to keep repeating it.
Just as an example, the 1973 Symposium …… (“Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation“) [https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/WHO-1974-report.pdf & https://www.globalresearch.ca/5g-health-hazards-factual-microwave-radiation-research-people-need-to-know-before-embracing-5g/5643604] contains a clinical study by Sadchikova of 1180 workers occupationally exposed to RF radiation. Workers exposed to lower intensities had more frequent symptoms than workers exposed to higher intensities. This was a consistent finding in the old Soviet literature.
The reason is that the toxicity model is the wrong model. Allan Frey pointed this out a long time ago. EMFs are not a foreign, toxic substance. The proper model is radio frequency interference. As Ross Adey also pointed out a long time ago, our cells “whisper” to each other in the radio frequency range. The closer an artificial signal matches the tiny power levels at which our cells communicate, the more interference it causes with bodily functions. The matter is highly complex, but conceptually, you can think of it this way: the higher the exposure level, the greater the thermal damage; the lower the exposure level, the greater the informational damage. Besides those two types of effects, there are many other types of effects, including a direct effect on electron transport in mitochondria, which leads directly to cancer, heart disease and diabetes, and which may well have a dose response (i.e. the greater the power the greater the effect). And there are other effects, such as calcium influx and efflux in brain cells, which have power “windows” of maximal effect, i.e. increasing the power decreases the effect and also decreasing the power decreases the effect.
When concerned people measure power levels only, or when building biologists measure power levels only, that is a big mistake, because power alone tells you nothing. What you want to know is whether the signal is continuous or pulsed, the shape of the pulsations, the rise time, fall time and duration of the pulsations, the type and depth of modulation, the frequencies, the bandwidth, and the degree of coherence, among other properties. Exposure level is often a proxy for coherence: the further you are from the source, the more interference there is from reflected and refracted signals, and the less coherent is the radiation that you experience.
I also caution that shielding is a two-edged sword. Most shielding materials reflect RF radiation, and they reflect it from both sides. If you paint an external wall with reflective paint, for example, it will keep out radiation coming from one direction, but it will amplify radiation coming into your house from other direction. If you wear a reflective hat, it will keep out radiation that comes from above, but it will amplify radiation that reflects off the ground and gets under the hat. The only way to prevent this is to wear a full-body suit, i.e. walk around in a Faraday cage. Or sleep in a Faraday cage.
The other problem with shielding is that, again, it is ignoring the electronic nature of the human body. Any reflective material will not only reflect incoming radiation, but will also reflect your body’s own electric and RF fields back at you, i.e. it will distort your own body’s electromagnetic fields. This is why living in a Faraday cage is not healthy.
Arthur
________________
From: Norm Ryder (name given with permission.
To: “citizensforsafertech” <citizensforsafertech@shaw.ca>
Sent: October 23, 2019
Subject: Re: Update 2019-10-22 NTP study suggests RFR –> DNA damage
Don’t think I have seen this document [https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/39107/9241540761_eng.pdf] before. Just glanced at the summary so far.
“However, close to microwave and RF sources with longer wavelengths, the values of both the electric (V /m) and magnetic (A/m) field strengths provide a more appropriate description of the radiation.” raises a point I have been trying to make. Measuring power density in the near field is virtually meaningless and most (all) people’s meters can not measure PD in the near field (the near field is a variable depending on frequency and antenna size as well as a more difficult to get information on antenna design). Most meters only measure the v/m and assume the measurement is in the far field where the rest can be calculated – in the near field the PD can not be calculated from just the V/m. If people paid attention to the near field argument, they would find many more instances where the level of exposure exceeds SC6.
When this document was written it was relatively rare for many people to be in the near field zone. Now, with so many more personal devices, etc. a relatively common occurrence, and to make sense of exposure readings, people MUST use the V/m readings on their meters (should also include an Amps/m reading but as no consumer meter reads this value (if it is displayed on the meter) it is a calculated value assuming far field conditions occur. There are varying definitions even with ISED on how to calculate the boundary between the near and far fields.
One can assume the boundary for a laptop is in the 2 m range and for cell towers is in the 100’s of meter range. With 5G, these concerns will become even more of an issue.
Norm
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“You will observe with concern how long a useful truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally received and acted on.” Ben Franklin
Sent from my safe, secure, wired laptop with no Wi-Fi enabled.