The industry is pulling out the stops attacking MP Ron McKinnon for sponsoring the cell tower petition [https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2424]. It seems they are getting nervous and I believe it is due to the resistance building for 5G. I hope that many of you will consider lending your support to Mr. McKinnon. Industry must not be allowed to mute any dissent or attempts to alert the public to the evidence that they and the various health authorities have hidden for decades. Like Tri-City and Press Progress, Globe and Mail has breached its own journalism standards by allowing lies and incorrect information to be published without any substantiation or response from real experts. This is a major media outlet and millions of people will read this, unfortunately. Please see some excellent letters below.
Note: Jonathon Jarry works with/for Lorne Trottier who funds the “skeptics”, debunking anything that might threaten the telecom profits that allowed Trottier to donate huge sums to McGill to “buy” spokespeople. He has a BA (’03) yet works at McGill and calls himself a scientist. That is how it works.
Debunking pseudoscience since 1999
This is what the OSS does. The OSS is a one-of-a-kind institution founded at McGill in 1999 by Chemistry Professors David Harpp, Ariel Fenster and Joe Schwarcz, with the support of then Principal Bernard Shapiro, and Lorne Trottier, (BEng’70, MEng’73), businessman and philanthropist, and the largest donor to the Faculty of Science at McGill.
Liberal Health Committee chair sponsors petition that says cell towers can pose health hazard to children
“He said that while it purported to be a review of microwave radiation exposure in children, it’s not. It’s a series of claims, he said, where the authors have “cherry picked” studies that “they believe support their hypothesis … while ignoring hundreds of studies that contradict their claims.”
Speaking of the petition, he said: “Attacking cell towers in a mistaken belief that they have health consequences is really misguided.”
Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator with McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, said that two of the study authors cited in the petition belong to a U.S. think tank “that believes 5G is toxic.”
5G technology is the next generation of mobile technology, which will require far more small cell sites – smaller versions of cell towers – to provide a dense web of coverage to deliver faster downloads and almost no lag time.
Mr. Jarry said there is a rich body of scientific literature on cellphone radiation and, among all of it, there is no good evidence that microwaves and radio signals harm people.
“When it comes to non-ionizing radiation, which is what we are talking about here, there are numerous major agencies who have looked at this entire literature and have issued position statements. Agencies like the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute,” he said.
“They all have come to the conclusion that there is no good scientific data showing any sort of detrimental health effects on humans from these types of signals.””
An “opinion” piece filled with industry junk. We need to get one by an expert — she says the petition is “poorly timed”. Is this because of the push for 5G, that such a petition might draw attention to or interfere with this push?
Canada’s Health Committee Chair has given junk conspiracy theorists a gift.
“It’s difficult to conceive of a petition that might have been more misguided and more poorly timed on a health-related issue than the one sponsored by Liberal MP Ron McKinnon, who also happens to be the chair of Canada’s Standing Committee on Health.
It’s not quite at the level of, say, calling upon the government to uncover how Bill Gates engineered the novel coronavirus in order to implant the population with vaccine-delivered microchips. Or demanding an investigation into how the world was duped into believing COVID-19 is a real illness, instead of a lie propagated so governments could enforce martial law.”
Cc: “Ron McKinnon” <Ron.McKinnon@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: May 10, 2020
Subject: Globe & Mail Articles re: Ron McKinnon MP written by Steven Chase and Robyn Urback.
Letter to the Editor,
As a scientist who has provided expert testimony to the Canadian Parliamentary Health Committee I am disturbed by Steven Chase’s recent attack on Committee Chair Ron McKinnon for sponsoring a petition to protect children from the documented harmful effects of cell phone antennas erected near schools.
Liberal health-committee chair sponsors petition that says cell towers can pose danger to children, was not journalism, but a targeted attack on one person involved in a decade long information gathering process by Canada’s democratic system through our Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health. The popular term for this is “Gaslighting.”
In fact the Committee (HESA) published two major reports in 2010 and 2015 on the emerging health hazards of radio frequency radiation, and MP McKinnon, as the current Chair of HESA, is simply performing his duty by following through with some of the recommendations made 5 years ago.
These recommendations were adopted unanimously by two consecutive health committees, the first under a majority Conservative government and the second under a majority Liberal government. These Committees held hearings on multiple days and heard from leading scientists and medical doctors who work in this field.
Your opinion writer, Robyn Urback, followed up with a scathing editorial accusing Mr. McKinnon of relying on “Junk Science” which was unfortunately based on the faulty foundation published in Mr. Chase’s poorly researched report days earlier.
“Junk Science” is not a journalistic term. It is the verbal weapon of Industries whose products pose potential harm to public health. It was developed by the tobacco industry and has been adopted by the pesticide, pharmaceutical and, more recently, the wireless technology industry to trick reporters into dismissing independent scientists who do not work for these industries. Your reporters should be informed that actual scientists recognize this as the language of propaganda.
Of the two “experts” Mr Chase interviewed neither does research in this field and both had the same opinion. The “cherry picking” by scientists referred to in his story is what Mr. Chase did with his “experts”.
The petition sponsored by MP McKinnon simply requests a buffer zone around schools and playgrounds from cell phone antennas and towers and is based on dozens of independent studies that document an increase in cancers within 400 m of these structures. It is a prudent reaction to the evidence gathered by HESA, and a responsible action by its Chair.
To ridicule someone who is charged with the responsibility of protecting the health of Canadians, for allowing thousands of us to sign a petition to protect our children from something that has scientifically been proven to be harmful, is more than biased; it is untrue, malicious, and harmful. Your editorial staff will recognize these as the three tenets of libel under Canadian law.
The Globe’s Editorial Code of Conduct explicitly states that, “Unless all employees strive for the highest standards of journalistic integrity, we cannot hope to sustain the trust we have inspired in our readers for generations.”
Mr. Chase and Ms. Urback have failed your Code, and failed not only your readers, but the Canadian children this petition is designed to protect. By your definition, they have eroded the trust in your publication.
Could you please acknowledge receipt and let me know if you intend to publish this letter to the Editor.
Dr. Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D., Professor Emerita
From: Oona McOuat
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 9:14:18 PM
Subject: Re: Beware of Bia
Letter to the Editor, The Globe and Mail
Date: May 10, 2020
Re: Response to Liberal health-committee chair sponsors petition that says cell towers can pose danger to children, May 6, 2020
From: Oona McOuat, Salt Spring, BC
Dear Ms Stead, Mr. Wamsley & Ms. Brousseau,
In his May 6th, 2020 article, reporter Steven Chase manages to shame MP Ron McKinnon for doing his job and representing the concerns of his constituents, shade 5G activists as conspiracy theorists, ignore hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific reports that support the petition McKinnon is presenting, and contextualize this petition with acts committed by violent extremists. All in less than 1000 words.
This article is riddled with omissions. It leads the reader to one conclusion only – 5G and all wireless radiation are safe, and anyone who questions that safety – or dares to represent those who question that safety – is crazed, ill informed and potentially dangerous.
The truth? This article is potentially dangerous, as it violates the rules of ethical journalism, borders on sensationalism, and belittles those who do not share the reporter’s point of view.
Balanced and professional reporting allows a reader to come to their own conclusions based on a well-researched and objective presentation of the facts.
The things not said:
What evidence is there that cell towers cause biological harm?
What recommendations did the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA) – which McKinnon heads – make in its 2010 and 2015 reports in order to protect Canadians from wireless radiation, and why did they make these recommendations if this issue has no merit?
Lastly, if the reporter wanted to interview someone from McGill University, why was it Jonathon Jarry, a non-PhD “Science Communicator”, and not Dr. Paul Heroux, an internationally recognized public health expert on the health effects of electromagnetism? Perhaps because Dr. Heroux would likely have pointed out the ample peer-reviewed science that shows we should all be concerned about exposing our children to cell towers, wireless radiation, and 5G.
And that information would not have fit with the reporter’s confirmation bias,
From someone in Calgary re. the Tri-City news article [https://www.tricitynews.com/news/coquitlam-poco-mp-authorizes-petition-that-says-cell-towers-could-hurt-children-trigger-cancer-1.24131653]
Dear Stefan Labbe,
The article you wrote in the Tri-City news about the e-2424 health petition to restrict the installation of cellular towers/antennas within 305m of all schools and playgrounds is one sided and mis-informed.
The study cited in the petition is just one of the many scientific publications that express concern regarding the long term health effects of radiofrequency (“RF”) radiation, a rapidly increasing exposure in our daily environment. Non-ionizing RF radiation, from both near field and far field exposures, causes many harmful effects to our health such as cancer and DNA damage.
In Canada, the code regulating human exposure to RF radiation does not protect us. Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is based on the assumption that thermal effects (heating) are the only established adverse effects of RF radiation. Meanwhile, hundreds of scientific studies point to harmful biological effects (non-thermal) at well below the regulatory limits. In 2011, the World Health Organization classified RF fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) and today’s research shows this classification does not go far enough.
The media has repeatedly labeled people who discuss the health impacts of electromagnetic fields as “conspiracy theorists”. However, I believe that, had you done more balanced research, you would see that there are many reasons to doubt the current assumptions and take precautions to reduce exposure to RF radiation, especially the exposure of children. Never before in human history have we been so bombarded by the waves given off from our cell phones and wi-fi routers 24/7. Since many of the effects are long term and cumulative, the health impacts of current technology may not be felt for years or even decades.
This particular petition is certainly not the be-all end-all in the journey to safer technology use, but it is a small step in the right direction by acknowledging that RF fields (and proximity to cell towers) may be harmful and that we can take precautionary measures when it comes to our children’s exposure. Mandating a minimum distance of schools from cellular antennas is especially relevant today during the 5G roll out where any lamp post or power pole is a candidate to host a small cell antenna.
Health Canada’s track record has been poor in responding in a timely manner to other harmful agents that include asbestos, Bisphenol-A (BPA), cigarette smoking, dioxins, flame retardants, lead, mercury, thalidomide and urea formaldehyde insulation. As a member of the media, responsible for reporting facts and identifying new perspectives to stories, please take the time to see the other side of this issue: Listen to the 252 EMF scientists that have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, calling for more protective guidelines on EMF exposure, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risks to children and to fetal development.
I would be happy to share my story of becoming aware of this environmental pollutant and the changes I have made to use technology in a safer, more responsible manner.
Adrienn (first name given with permission)
References: (several references were deleted due to the length of the update)
1. “Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018, https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html
2. Falcioni, L., et al. “Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission”, Elsevier, 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118300367
3. “Scientific Research.” Canadians for Safe Technology, 2020, http://c4st.org/category/scientific-research/
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“By a lie, a man… annihilates his dignity as a man.” Immanuel Kant