1) Canadian government has yet to decide if Huawei is to continue to be a major partner in building the 5G grid, despite US pressure and threats. The question is if all the main telecoms, like Bell and Telus, are refusing to work with Huawei or to use Huawei equipment, hasn’t the decision been made? What about Huawei’s participation in major projects with universities across Canada? We still don’t know what Telus’s change of heart re Huawei means with regard to the infrastructure already in place, that was made and installed with Huawei’s help.
State Department says U.S. will reassess intelligence-sharing with Canada if it lets Huawei into 5G
“The federal government still has not announced its decision on whether the Chinese telecom giant will be allowed to participate in building Canada’s next-generation wireless networks, despite more than a year and a half of assessing the question.
“We in the U.S. government have made it very clear to all of our friends and allies around the world that if Huawei is allowed into a country’s national security systems, we will have to protect our intelligence-sharing relationship,” Morgan Ortagus, spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, told CBC News today.”
2) In 2012 the US government released a Russian report written in 1977 about biological effects in humans and animals exposed to milliwaves. Studies are referenced that were done as long ago as 1969 as showing biological effects to many organisms in the body including the liver, kidneys, adrenal glands, DNA. Why has this information been kept from the public? Does Health Canada not have access to this? Why is this not sufficient to call milliwave radiation dangerous?
(click on photos to enlarge)
BIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF MILLIMETER RADIOWAVES
“Morphological, functional and biochemical studies conducted in humans and animals revealed that millimeter waves caused changes in the body manifested in structural alterations in the. skin and internal organs, qualitative and quantitative changes of the blood and bone marrow composition and changes of the conditioned reflex activity, tissue respiration, activity of enzymes participating in the processes of tissue respiration and nucleic metabolism. The ‘degree of unfavorable effect of millimeter waves depended on the duration of the radiation and individual characteristics of the organism.”
3) A member in Kelowna has shared photos he took of devices that are part of the “smart city” project. Here is info about LiDar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar)
“… the G5 LiDar units are now installed on the NW corner of Bernard Avenue and Water Street and Bernard Avenue and Pandosy Street. The city of Kelowna plans to install 3 more units on Bernard Avenue.”
4) As posted by Dr: Joel Moskowitz:
“My note: Apparently, the FCC is sufficiently threatened by widespread opposition to 5G as well as pending lawsuits involving the FCC, the CTIA, or Apple, Inc. to publish an op-ed in the Washington Post that defends FCC exposure limits and rule-making. Will the Post give equal time to wireless safety organizations trying to protect the public’s health and safety from exposure to radio frequency radiation?”
5G conspiracy theories threaten the U.S. recovery
“Conjectures about 5G’s effect on human health are long on panic and short on science. Paradoxically, such fears are likely to exacerbate suffering during the covid-19 crisis, because the dislocation caused by the coronavirus pandemic requires strong Internet connectivity to facilitate telework, remote learning, as well as staying in touch with friends and family. Investment in 5G is thus central to the United States’ recovery, and it’s important for Americans to know that wireless networks are safe….
The FCC sets its RF emissions limits to reduce exposure to heat, or thermal energy, which can damage human tissue — think putting your hand in the microwave. The FCC’s conservative standards for cellphones and similar devices include a large safety margin, with exposure limits many times below what scientific studies have shown could possibly cause adverse thermal reactions.”
Sadly, this is true; the FCC’s standards do protect against thermal reactions, only thermal reactions. A damning admission.
A stream of emails to and from Health Canada. Please read from the bottom up.
From: Marcus Schluschen (name given with permission)
Sent: : Wednesday, June 3, 2020 6:02 PM
To: ccrpb / pcrpcc (HC/SC)
Subject: Re: public deception
Ladies and Gentlemen of Health Canada,
Your response regarding Health Canada’s deliberate, dangerous, public deception, did not answer a single of my questions.
In light of your unsigned response from one of your clerks, who are instructed to appease the uneducated public, I am requesting a signed reply from a senior manager, addressing my grievances.
If Health Canada is unwilling to accommodate this reasonable request, please be so kind and have your legal department reply to me.
May I remind you, providing false information to the public, with intent to deceive, through your website, is unlawful in Canada?
Health Canada received countless research papers from EMF scientists, including medical EMF Guidelines from medical associations, and deeply concerned citizens, including myself, illustrating serious biological damage to humans, plants, insects and animals.
Today, international EMF research, showing irreversible harm to life, has climbed into the thousands!
It appears that the latest scientific understanding in EMF research must have escaped your agency, either by design or incompetence.
Must I remind you of the recent, 10 year, NTP and Ramazzini Studies, or the European Interphone Study, Reflex Study, Selbitz Study, the Hardell Group Studies, or the French CERENAT Study, which reflect only a tiny portion of today’s available research, proving harm to all life?
If these studies are unfamiliar to you, I would be happy to provide the information to you.
Health Canada must be aware, that the Hardell Group Studies were released after the 2b cancer classification was made by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is one of the studies referenced by scientists arguing that, based on new research, the 2b classification should be re-evaluated as a class 2a (probably carcinogenic) or class 1 carcinogenic.
During the last few years, countless peer reviewed papers have been published, proving harm to life, without a shadow of a doubt!
Such overwhelming scientific evidence, proving harm to all life, has resulted in international science and medical petitions, that this classification must urgently be changed, especially after the alarming results of the NTP and Ramazzini Studies were released.
Has the International Scientists Appeal escaped Health Canada’s attention as well?
As of 2020, 253 EMF scientists from 44 nations signed the appeal, which states:
“It is our opinion that adverse health consequences of chronic and involuntary exposure of people to non-ionizing electromagnetic field sources are being ignored by national and international health organizations despite our repeated inquiries as well as inquiries made by many other concerned scientists, medical doctors and advocates. This constitutes a clear violation of human rights, as defined by the United Nations:
“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education.”
“By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.”
“It is indeed shocking to note that the WHO EMF Project has endorsed the obsolete EMF-exposure guidelines set by a German NGO that provides guidance on EMF-exposure limits, the ICNIRP, and is seeking to influence nations world-wide to “harmonize” EMF exposure standards with these guidelines, even though they are not sufficiently protective of humankind or nature and do not take into account the numerous health effects studies that have been published since the IARC evaluations.”
As Canada’s premier health agency, it is YOUR DUTY to be informed of the brazen conflicts of interests at ICNIRP: http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/escrito_web_icnirp_ingles_final.pdf
How can Health Canada blindly accept anything from ICNIRP members, with established associations to the very industry they are supposed to be monitoring?
According to ICNIRP’s statutes, no member of the Commission may take a job that, in the Commission’s view, might endanger their scientific independence.
Only the most naive would accept their recommendations, but certainly not anyone with a modicum of education and modest intellect.
Unforgivably, even after thousands of published peer reviewed studies, of which some even underwent a second review process, by expert panels in the field of EMF sciences, Health Canada refuses to entertain the probability that their ‘opinions’ of non-ionizing radiation safet, might be woefully obsolete.
Instead of counseling precaution, as other countries like Germany, France, etc. have done, to reduce radiation exposure for children and the frail, Health Canada has become a captured agency of industry, advocating no precaution of any kind, in complete violation of their mandate, which is to protect the health of all Canadians, which includes anyone suffering from electro hypersensitivity (EHS), like my wife and many others.
Your officials seem to be lacking the knowledge that Canada is obligated, through signature, to honour its commitments to the Rio Declaration, which states:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent degradation.”
The Rio Declaration:
Principle 15 – the Precautionary Approach
80 “Principle 15 codified for the first time at the global level the precautionary approach, which indicates that lack of scientific certainty is no reason to postpone action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible harm to the environment. Central to principal 15 is the element of anticipation, reflecting a requirement that effective environmental measures need to be based upon actions which take a long-term approach and which might anticipate changes on the basis of scientific knowledge.”
In 2015, the HESA Committee admonished Health Canada for undue diligence, after 3 days of hearings, and made 12 recommendations.
May I remind you of the admitted, ‘war gaming of science’, by your close friends of the telecom industry?
Your website reads like it was penned by the apostles of the wireless industry, not by credible researchers whose exclusive mandate is to protect public health.
Please be so kind and reply to my email, in a respectful manner, without sounding like lobbyists of the telecom industry.
From: ccrpb / pcrpcc (HC/SC)
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 9:45 AM
To: Marcus Schluschen
Subject: RE: public deception
Hello Mr. Schluschen,
This is in regards to your email of May 28, 2020 regarding your concerns about exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Your email was forwarded to us, the Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau for a response. We appreciate you sharing your concerns with us.
As you may be aware, Health Canada’s mandate regarding human exposure to radiofrequency EMF is to carry out research into possible health effects, monitor the scientific literature related to such effects and to develop recommended human exposure guidelines.
The information available on Canada.ca discussing the adverse health effects of EMF is based on the most recent scientific information on the subject.
As with most scientific issues, it is possible to find differing scientific opinions. Health Canada scientists continually monitor the scientific research on human health effects of EMF and our conclusions are similar to those of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, and the World Health Organization. These conclusions are consistent with the science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Internationally, while a few jurisdictions have applied more restrictive limits for radiofrequency EMF exposure from cell towers, scientific evidence does not support the need for limits that are more restrictive.
It is Health Canada’s position that the health of Canadians is protected from radiofrequency EMF when the Canadian exposure limits are respected. If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure to radiofrequency EMF below the Canadian limits is a concern, Health Canada would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.
Thank you for writing,
Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau (CCRPB)
Bureau de la protection contre les rayonnements des produits cliniques et de consommation (BPCRPCC)
From: Marcus Schluschen
Sent: 2020-05-28 7:00 PM
To: rpb / brp (HC/SC) <email@example.com>
Subject: public deception
Re: Public deception, by government agencies
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to know why the Government of Canada is allowed to provide false information on your radiation information website?
May I remind you, that it is illegal in Canada to provide false, misleading, public information, and that the Government of Canada, nor their agencies and employees, are above the law?
Please be so kind and explain why such grotesque, deliberate public deception, with intent, is condoned by your department, even though it is in violation of Canadian law.
I am well aware of the billions of dollars collected from the telecom industry, through airwave auctions and siting fees, by Canada.
Unfortunately, through my wife’s 12 year, debilitating electro hypersensitivity, I am too aware that man, animals, insects and plants are adversely affected from Canada’s uncontrolled, electromagnetic radiation pollution. This unnatural, pulsed, man-made electro-smog, is engulfing every corner of existence, to which 5G is now being added without rigorous scientific scrutiny. Instead, you rely on outdated science, from a time where none of these technologies existed before.
After 12 years of reading EMF research, I have become very familiar with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that non-ionizing radiation has adverse health effects, on ALL life, resulting in international appeals by doctors and scientists to the WHO and United Nations.
I am also aware of Health Canada’s dismal track record, when Health Canada’s Radiation Protection Department was admonished by the HESA Committee for undue diligence.
My questions are:
1. Has this Liberal government, knowingly, allowed Canada’s Radiation Protection Agency, to provide false, misleading, public information on their website?
2. Which politician has given Canada’s Radiation Protection Agency approval for your illegal actions of public deception, with intent?
3. Is Canada’s Radiation Protection Agency, aware that they are in violation of law by providing misleading and false information to the public?
4. Canada’s Radiation Protection Agency obviously lacks the latest scientific knowledge regarding EMF research. Therefore, would you consider accepting advice from EMF scientists who spent a large part of their careers researching this subject? They could point out the glaring errors on your website and provide you with the latest in independent EMF research you obviously are unfamiliar with. Are Canadians you are supposed to serve not entitled to the truth?
In your response, please be so kind and refrain from quoting Canada’s archaic ‘Safety Code 6’, as the only thing Code 6 is protecting are the financial interests of the telecom industry.
My wife suffered terribly, from the constant, unnatural, pulsed radiation exposure she did not consent to. It was your duty to protect her!
I do hope that you have the decency to reply to my questions in an honest manner.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The media is done, they don’t do journalism anymore, it’s activism, nothing more, right?” Dan Bongino