1). Re. the Vancouver School Board wanting comments re school environment in last night’s update, I just checked and found several that I bet came from some of you.
2) In Australia it appears that there is a strong contingent of the public raising concerns about 5G, and wish to have their voices heard. Yet the pro-5G corporations are being given preference. But at least the government is holding hearings. Has anyone heard of one being held in Canada? And notification (albeit it poor) is being given to homeowners regarding installation of transmitters, as per submission # 530 I strongly recommend reading some of the submissions which can be found at:
Inquiry into 5G in Australia: Misinformation by whom?
“Australia’s parliamentary inquiry into 5G, which was announced in September 2019 with submissions due at the beginning of November 2019, continues to trundle on.
Over 500 of the responses have now been published on the parliamentary website. An overwhelming majority of these have raised concerns about the deployment of 5G technology….
(click on photos to enlarge)
Analysis of time allocated at hearings shows that telecommunications companies and other supporters of 5G have been granted a staggering 91% of timeslots. To add insult to injury, witnesses who have refused to jump on the 5G bandwagon were shunted into giving evidence at public hearings located in cities other than their own, even when there was a nearby hearing scheduled. This is grossly unfair – obviously being able to present in person beats having to participate by teleconference….
In light of this groundswell of awareness, how much longer can the Australian Government continue to aid and abet wireless industry interests?”
This important information from submission # 530. BTW, Australia’s exposure guideline was very similar, if not the same, as Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 prior to the arbitrary and unexplained reduction in 2015 — and is one of the least protective in the world.
“5G technology is based on military technology – phased array and beam steering technology. When photons are sent in a collimated beam this is called a laser. Lasers have strict safety guidelines that must be adhered to because there are potential health hazards. The same principle needs to be applied with 5G technology because the intensity of a collimated RF beam does not drop off by the inverse square law (at least in the nearfield) like RF emissions from older generation radio transmitters. What is even more concerning is that Australia’s RF Standard is seriously out of date, and ignores a large evidence base that shows RF exposures at levels a fraction of currently permitted public limits, cause biological effects with a real potential to damage health in the long term.”
Another significant submission is #42, by Dr. Don Maisch.
3) Over the years, the many significant studies about telecoms/EMR have been ignored consistently by North American news media. Years ago, the initial BioInitiative Report was publicized in Europe and resulted in causing reviews and reductions of some of the exposure guidelines. I did not see one word published in Canada. And recently, no news reports on Phonegate, the NTP or the Ramazzini studies, all of which are major and about which the public should be informed.
Below is correspondence to and from the CBC regarding an article re. 5G. Personally, I believe there is bias that is preventing sharing of information that could be detrimental to the wireless industry. Ownership of the media? Profit?
From: Paul LeMay (name given with permission)
To: PAUL HAMBLETON <email@example.com>
Cc: Brodie Fenlon <firstname.lastname@example.org>; CBC Ombudsman <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020, 04:02:28 p.m. PDT
Subject: Re: CBC Response
Thank you for your thoughtful response Mr. Hambleton.
Yes, I well recognize and appreciate that not every story can possibly mention every background detail or issue that may be related to it, otherwise it becomes a much more lengthy and cumbersome piece. But I am also familiar with the inverted pyramid style of journalistic writing, where headline grabbing information arises at the top of the story, with more granular details being added to widen the contextual base of the story afterwards so readers/viewers/listeners can better understand how all the pieces interconnect.
I recall seeing an older news scrum clip of former Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale when the Huawei news story first arose. During that clip he said that the Government of Canada would be undertaking a very thorough national security and health review of 5G technology. Of course, many of us are aware of both national security concerns and privacy concerns, but I find it odd that health concerns are rarely if ever mentioned, when they are clearly just as important as the previous two.
My principal concern is simply this: Up until now, insufficient journalistic attention seems to be given to the health-related dimensions of the 5G topic, let alone any of the good science supporting the reasons why we need to be concerned. Sometimes, even within the context of a more narrowly focused story, all that is required is a single sentence that mentions the growing concerns about the health implications connected with the deployment of this technology, so the reader/viewer or listener never loses complete sight of this critically important dimension of this issue. The old adage: No news is good news, speaks to this concern. When the vast majority of 5G stories only seem to cover the business angles or national security concerns or privacy concerns, it only follows that audiences might begin to form an impression that because health concerns relating to 5G don’t even hit the news radar, if such concerns do exist, our news providers would have told us about them by now.
Of course the truth is in fact very different to anyone familiar with the many years of non-industry sponsored peer-reviewed literature on the health impacts of non-ionizing radio-frequency radiation.
Among the many articles that are to be found on PubMed on this topic, one in particular stands out as a watershed paper that received virtually no news coverage, namely the 2018 paper in Environment Research by Anthony B. Miller et. al. on the need to upgrade the W.H.O. cancer risk warning guidelines for wireless exposure from cell phones from a Group 2B (possible) carcinogen to a Group 1 carcinogen. When we look back at this issue in five years, we may ask ourselves how is it that members of the news media completely missed this study, if only for the reason that when their findings are finally “sanctified” by W.H.O., that major personal injury lawsuits will begin to change our whole mistaken assumption that this wireless technology comes without significant risk to health.
I thank you for taking the time to consider the seriousness of this matter, and your willingness to bring it to the attention of CBC’s senior health editors.
Paul H. LeMay
On Monday, March 9, 2020, 05:21:51 a.m. PDT, PAUL HAMBLETON <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Dear Paul LeMay:
Thank you for your emails of February 14 and 17 addressed to Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman, chiefly concerning a CBCNews.ca story posted on February 13 under the headline, “Telus plans rollout of 5G network using Huawei technology.” The story omits any mention of the health risks associated with 5G technology, you wrote, adding you feel “CBC has an ethical obligation to report all such pertinent facts.”
As the Director of Journalistic Standards, I have been asked to reply.
As a writer, I expect you more than most appreciate the importance of focus in a story. The short CBC News Business page story you wrote about focused on a statement by Telus CFO Doug French that his company was moving ahead with its 5G network plans and would use some Huawei components. That was the new information. The rest of the story added the background and context readers need to understand its significance.
The story explained that the use of Huawei equipment in 5G networks has been a source of controversy over the past few years with the United States, Australia, Japan and other countries banning the Chinese equipment over fears of spying. The Canadian government has yet to make a decision, it said. Adding that Telus’s rival telecommunications companies are building their 5G networks using components from other manufacturers.
Of course, there’s much more to be said about 5G networks – their effect on the way we live and work, security concerns, business development, and even the health risks some see. I expect it’s a story we will be covering for some time to come.
But those multiple aspects won’t be in every story. News stories are iterative, each successive story adding new information to what is already known. With the often limited space available, even complex events and their significance must be conveyed quickly and clearly and, of course, fairly. Inevitably, some things are left out, but that does not mean the story is inaccurate or biased or, as you fear, a “coy form of censorship.” We cannot reasonably be expected to include all the information available – particularly on an issue as complex and controversial as this one – in one relatively brief story.
In your second email, you wrote about several instances over the past year in which you had sent CBC News announcements of speeches to be delivered by Dr. Martin Pall about the health hazards he sees associated with 5G networks and other wireless radiation devices, announcements that did not result in news stories. You suggested it was a matter of “bias.”
I can assure you it was not. Regrettably, we can’t cover all the stories that happen every day, we can’t even cover many of them. Deciding what stories to cover in a particular news broadcast or on a particular day is a matter of judgment. That judgment hinges on what editors see as the most interesting and significant stories to Canadians, other stories that day and the resources available.
Acknowledging your concern about the health hazards associated with wireless technology, I have sent a copy of our correspondence to our senior health editors and drawn their attention to the matter.
Thank you again for your emails. I hope my reply has reassured you of the continuing integrity of our news service.
Director of Journalistic Standards
Cc. Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman
Brodie Fenlon, Editor in Chief, CBC News
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.” Albert Einstein