1) The FCC in the US has approved a plan by SpaceX to fast track satellites for 5G. It is highly likely that competitors will expect similar exemptions, meaning more satellites, sooner.
SpaceX to Adjust Starlink Orbit Plans for Faster Deployment
“Grant of this application will allow SpaceX to accelerate the deployment of its satellite constellation to deliver broadband service throughout the United States, especially to those who live in areas underserved or unserved by terrestrial systems. ” said the FCC on Dec. 19….
SpaceX already has 120 satellites in orbit, and while they are already greenlit for 12,000 satellites, they still have plans to have 30,000 satellites more, much to the dismay of astronomers throughout the globe.”
2) A petition is circulating which you might consider signing and sharing. Experts, like Dr. Hardell, have been pushing WHO to have this classification changed and to have independent panel members to review scientific evidence instead of military/telecom people with known biases. Unless IARC, ICNIRP, WHO acknowledge the evidence that has been produced within the last 5 years or so, nothing will change. Health Canada hides behind WHO, and our provincial authorities hide behind Health Canada. An example is below in Letters — the letter from Tim Lambert on behalf of Health Minister Dix. There are no experts in EMR, or biological effects from such exposure, in BC — so they hide behind Health Canada which cherry picks studies to review and people to review them, and hide behind WHO.
IARC, WHO: Move Radio Frequency Radiation from Class 2b to Class 1
3) A member suggested that people with EHS apply to be in this film, as a disabled person. Given the sponsors include many telecoms, we know what the answer will be, but getting a clear “NO” would be interesting.
Kelowna film company is looking for people with disabilities to star in an outdoor adventure TV series
4) There are parts of this video which are too conspiratorial for my liking, but there are many points being made that ring so true — especially about the loss of control of our personal data via the IoT. As the 5G grid is developed and implemented, everything we do, own and use could be “smart”, meaning it will be monitored/reported via devices like the smeters we were forced to have, to the microcell outside our homes, to the Cloud.
Warning: The Truth May Shock You
https://youtu.be/jkOpiABIokQ (10:41 min.)
Please read from the bottom up.
From: Sharon Noble
To: “hlth minister” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: “hlth pph” <email@example.com>
Sent: December 28, 2019
Subject: Cellphones, children and schools
Dear Hon. Adrian Dix,
Below is a response from Mr. Lambert — the same response that I have received over the years that has so much mis-information in it that it insults my intelligence. Through many communications I have provided Mr. Lambert with abundant evidence to dispute his statement that cell phones and wireless devices are safe, all to no avail. He has his talking points and that is what I keep getting. The only conclusion I can reach is that no one in your department has any interest in pursuing this issue even though many other countries are taking serious precautionary measures.
You, Sir, know that neither the Provincial Health Officer nor anyone at the BC Centre for Disease Control has any expertise in fields relevant to microwave radiation. It truly is disingenuous for Mr. Lambert to state otherwise. As for Health Canada, you and Mr. Lambert should know while Health Canada has the mandate to carry out research, they don’t. And while Health Canada professes that Safety Code 6 establishes safe levels of exposure to EMR fields, it doesn’t. Dr. James McNamee, head of the department given the responsibility for establishing exposure guidelines, has admitted that Safety Code 6 does not apply to non-ionizing radiation, the type emitted by cell phones. It is applicable only to ionizing radiation, like that emitted by x-rays. In fact there is no guideline for exposure to wireless radiation from devices such as cell towers, cell phones, smart meters and Wi-Fi.
Many British Columbians apparently know more about the current science than anyone in the Ministry of Health, and I would hope that you undertake to correct this situation. Statements such as those made by Mr. Lambert in the email below are misleading and give the public, for whose health you were appointed to protect, a false sense of security about the safety of wireless devices. Our health and that of future generations are at stake.
From: “Population and Public Health HLTH:EX” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Sharon Noble
Sent: December 23, 2019
Subject: Ministry Response – 1149306
Ms. Sharon Noble
Dear Ms. Noble:
Thank you for your email of November 25, 2019, to the Honourable Adrian Dix, Minister of Health, regarding your concerns with electromagnetic radiation and cellphones. I appreciate that you took the time to write and I am responding on the Minister’s 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, the Provincial Health Officer, and Health Canada to determine acceptable levels of electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless devices.
Health Canada, administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which governs the sale, lease and importation of radiation emitting devices. Additionally, all installed broadcast and telecommunication antennas and transmitters are subject to Industry Canada requirements regarding techniques to evaluate radiofrequency exposure and compliance.
Health Canada, has a mandate to carry out research into possible human effects, monitor scientific literature, and develop recommended human health exposure guidelines. Safety Code 6, as set out by Health Canada, establishes safety limits for human exposure to electromagnetic fields. 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 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 that studies with a given result are not selected out from the published literature to support or suppress a preconceived idea of an adverse health effect.
Safety Code 6 is designed to protect all age groups, including children and the elderly on a continuous basis, and considers cumulative exposure to electromagnetic fields. Safety margins have been incorporated into the exposure limits to ensure that worst-case exposures remain far below the threshold for harm, even if exposure occurs daily over a lifetime. The exposure limits in Safety Code 6 also consider total exposure from all sources of energy in the radiofrequency (RF) spectrum. More information about how Safety Code 6 protects the health and safety of Canadians can be found at Fact Sheet – What is Safety Code 6. While Safety Code 6 is a guideline, its application is a legislated requirement of several regulatory frameworks including the Canada Labour Code, Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, Radiocommunication Act, and WorkSafeBC Policy.
The RF energy emitted by cellphones is a type of non-ionizing radiation, some of which can be absorbed by the body. The amount of RF absorbed depends on how close the body is to the device and the strength of the signal. Generally, as technology improves and more antennas are installed, the RF energy emitted by cellphones decreases and less energy is required to connect to the network, both of which lower exposure to RF emitted by cellphones.
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This indicates the evidence is far from conclusive and more research is needed to clarify the possible link to cancer. Current scientific evidence supports the assertion that if RF electromagnetic field levels remain below the exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6, there is no danger to the public.
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 to inform decision making. The evidence currently concludes that the RF radiation emitted from cellphones does not pose a risk to public health.
I appreciate the amount of time you have spent researching this topic. I thank you again for your letter and 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: Sharon Noble
To: “hlth minister” <email@example.com>
Sent: November 25, 2019
Subject: Cellphones, children and schools
Dear Mr. Dix,
I would like to inform you about a topic which, I am sure, will concern you. Cellphones. Especially cellphones used by children and cellphones used by children in schools.
A recent study done in France was performed on 450 of the most common and popular cellphones and found that 90% of them emitted higher levels of microwave radiation than is allowed by guidelines such a Safety Code 6. https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/press-release-the-flaws-in-the-control-of-mobile-phones-by-european-and-international-authorities
Dr. Om Gandhi, a professor and world renowned electrical engineer, confirmed the results and reported that some exceeded the allowed limits of the US and Canada by as much as 11 times when placed next to the head or placed in a pocket. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8688629
The Chicago Tribune, upon learning of this, ran its own tests on a small sample of cellphones popular in the US and the result was the same. https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cell-phone-radiation-testing-20190821-72qgu4nzlfda5kyuhteiieh4da-story.html
Unfortunately when I asked for their stance regarding this new information, Health Canada and ISED responded that they are satisfied with the standards set by industry and have no intention of recalling phones or even advising the public.
Children are allowed to carry and use cellphones in schools. Not only do teachers report them to distract from learning, but many studies over the last 20 years have shown that microwave radiation can cause serious biological effects, especially for children due to their smaller size and developing bodies. Some of these effects can cause harm for the rest of their lives. Recent studies have shown that radiation even at very low levels, mere fractions of those allowed by Health Canada, can result in serious damages, e.g. to DNA and neurological systems (among others).
Many places from France to Ontario to California (see https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-school-classroom-cellphone-ban-1.5052564) are banning cellphones both to enhance learning and to protect the health of children.
We cannot wait for Health Canada to do what is needed — more importantly our children and grandchildren must not have to. On behalf of many concerned British Columbians I am asking you, as the person with ultimate authority over provincial health, to take action now. Telecoms, who are self-monitoring, are disregarding guidelines. Cellphones are not needed in the classroom, teachers should be allowed to teach without this distraction, and our children deserve to learn without their health being jeopardized. Please pass policies which remove cellphones from Canadian schools.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. George Orwell