Flyers and posters that have been shared in updates are maintained on our website under: https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/z/signs/
1) The industry must really be nervous about so many people and municipalities learning about the health concerns associated with 5G technology because hardly a day passes without another article about how EMR is perfectly safe, especially 5G. This is by a known industry supporter and ICNIRP member who, for many years, has promoted ICNIRP’s claim that harm only occurs if the microwave radiation causes heating. And so many experts have written rebuttals and I have yet to see one that has been published.
(click on photos to enlarge)
I’m the scientist who sets the global guidelines on 5G safety. Take it from me: 5G doesn’t cause cancer or spread COVID-19.
“Dr. Eric van Rongen is vice chair at the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the independent scientific body in charge of setting limits on exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
He helped to update the guidelines on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields that also pertain to 5G, the fifth generation technology standard for cellular networks that’s making our smartphones and wireless devices upload and download faster than ever. The new technology has been met with a number of conspiracy theories circulating online, which van Rongen says have no basis in science.”
2) The FCC has asked for comments from both the industry and the public regarding maintaining the current exposure guidelines, which is ICNIRP’s, for both microwaves and milliwaves. The industry is pushing for maintaining the ICNIRP guidelines which are set by industry- and military-affiliated/associated people. 2 industry submissions are attached [links below], both include misleading, false information such as this from the MWF document.
No substantial changes were made to the ICNIRP standard, and neither is ICNIRP free of conflicts of interest. All of this, of course, the FCC knows. This is purely for public consumption.
“Currently, the two major RF exposure standards in use globally — the IEEE Standard and the ICNIRP Standard – are undergoing substantial updates and revisions. The revised IEEE C95.1 Standard, which reaffirms the SAR limits in IEEE 2005 is expected to be released in late 2018; the draft ICNIRP Standard has been fully prepared and released for comment.16 Since 2005, the two standards have been aligned as to SAR limits of 2.0 W/Kg averaged over 10 grams of tissue. This alignment is compelling given the different approaches as to the makeup of the two standards committees: IEEE takes a democratic approach and permits participation by any qualified professional17 while ICNIRP imposes restrictions on participation by requiring that participants not have any employment or other interests that may be seen as an appearance of a conflict of interest with the public good.18 ICNIRP does view public health officials as qualified members, and many, such as Sharon Miller of the FDA, have public health positions.19 Importantly for approval of 5G millimeter-wave devices, both updated standards define suitable exposure metrics and limits for such devices and thus provide meaningful templates for updating FCC requirements.”
The submission by Dr. Devra Davis:
FCC REPLY Comments Environmental Health Trust
“Contrary to industry assertions of safety and contrary to industry comments to the FCC calling for the need to remove barriers to wireless infrastructure roll out, there is sufficient research showing adverse environmental and human health effects of radiation from wireless technology at levels far below the current FCC RF limits to justify the FCC placing a moratorium on the rollout of new wireless infrastructure. Most recently renowned Swedish researchers published an analysis which found that when the current body of evidence was analyzed in according with public health viewpoints, the conclusion was that “RF radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma.”
The submission by more than 400 medical professionals accused the FCC of ignoring science.
Doctors’ Rx for FCC: Tougher RF Standards
Saying it “takes to heart” the FDA’s findings that “the weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems,” the commission voted unanimously–with commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel concurring, which is short of a full-throated “aye,” to retain the current limits, but to adjust the rules” to ensure the health and safety of workers and consumers of wireless technology, while also clarifying and streamlining rules to reduce regulatory burdens on licensees.”
But in the letter to the FCC, dated June 17, the medical professionals said the FCC “completely ignores the documented adverse health effects that can occur at the FCC’s current radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits, much less those that may occur at the expanded range of frequencies contemplated in the proposed rule.”
From: Finlay MacPherson (name given with permission)
To: “gregory taylor2” <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, “citizensforsafertech” <email@example.com>
Sent: June 25, 2020
Subject: 5G misinformation
Dear Dr. Taylor,
Your recent CBC Radio interview (June 23, 2020 “What is 5G”) [https://16523.mc.tritondigital.com/CBC_THE_EYEOPENER_FROM_CBC_RADIO_CALGARY_HIGHLIGHTS_P/media-session/0e6f5e1b-450b-4bd2-a8ca-7e5797882289/calgeyeopener-rW5IwA0m-20200623.mp3] with Angela Knight has created valid concern with those of us apparently more educated as to the technology involved. Had you been familiar with the publications of experts such as Dr. Magda Havas
(https://magdahavas.com/) perhaps your comments would have been more informative and factual.
Firstly, 5G is not expected to provide an exponential improvement to existing 4G capabilities. Perhaps much faster download speeds and reduced latency but certainly not exponential according to the
definition of that term.
Most telecom providers presently serve a saturated consumer market, and without the 5G upgrade market requiring billions of new cell phone purchases they already realize massive future
profits will not be possible. That is their main motivation pushing the
current hype and rushed 5G infrastructure deployment.
Secondly, Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is supposed to protect Canadians from damaging exposures to non-ionizing radiation. IT DOES NOT. All it does is provide protection from thermal effects, completely ignoring the proven biological effects including oxidative stress, cognitive impairment, DNA damage and many others.
Countries more aware of these health hazards, such as Sweden, Israel, Russia and France, have legislated much lower exposure limits, and as the biological damage is cumulative many have seen sense and banned all use of wireless devices in schools completely. Replacement with wired connections is more energy efficient, faster and more protective to health.
Thirdly, concern amongst the public and reputable researchers regarding the 5G technology is not, as you termed it, a conspiracy theory. It is act based on research spanning the past 8 decades. The
25 million dollar 10 year experiment by the US National Toxicology
Program was designed to show the harmless nature of wireless radiation exposure — it showed the exact opposite and concluded “Clear evidence of cancer causation”. Years ago, the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) designated wireless radiation as a 2B risk (probable cause of cancer), and eminent researchers from around the world are now urging WHO to change the 2B to a 1A (highest risk category). Furthermore, the respected Ramazzini Institute confirmed similar findings to the National Toxicology Program study (https://www.saferemr.com/2018/03/RI-study-on-cell-phone.html).
Despite the preponderance of science available on how harmful to all biological life wireless radiation actually is, the powerful wireless industry lobbyists and promoters, using similar tactics to those of the tobacco and asbestos industries in the past, still want to create doubt in the minds of governments and the public as to what the real science has already proven — exposure to wireless radiation can damage your health and that of all biological life.
Absolutely no health safety research has been done for 5G technology, yet the US FCC have given approval for a system of over 40 thousand low earth orbit 5G satellites to bombard all areas on Earth with such radiation, and 5G microcells are being installed every few hundred feet on street poles in populated areas to
ensure everyone has no escape from being subjected to 5G harm.
Governments have been auctioning off specific spectrum bands at great profit.
The current insanity behind the “Race to 5G” is nothing but financially motivated. A much faster and safe technology is to provide optical fibre systems directly to the home or office, in other words light speed. Anything wireless can never achieve that speed or energy efficiency.
I could go on but rather than expend more time on this matter I feel it is up to you to do further research on a subject you appear to know little about.
From: Petrina Gregson (name given with permission)
Cc: “cathy mcleod c1” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: June 25, 2020
Mr. Greg Taylor, Assistant Professor of Communication, Media and Films at University of Calgary, is woefully uninformed about the independent (i.e. free of industry interference) scientific research about wifi and what little is known about 5G. We generally rely on CBC to present a balanced and well-informed source of news; this interview with Mr. Taylor, who is obviously not well-informed about this subject, is misleading and dangerously inaccurate.
France, in January 2015, passed a national law to reduce exposure to wireless radiation and electromagnetic fields, completely banning wifi in nurseries and daycares, and severely restricting its use in schools for children up to 11 years of age. Even India has taken steps to have towers near schools, hospitals and playgrounds removed.
Yet, the U.S.A. and Canada have lagged behind, taking refuge in an outdated “Safety Code 6” which is based on thermal heating only. The telecom industry has trillions of dollars at stake to keep the public uninformed and misinformed about 5G.
Mr. Frank Clegg, the former President of Microsoft Canada and current CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology, (C4st.org) and Dr. MAGDA HAVAS, Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario (https://magdahavas.com) are two true authorities on the subject; I urge you to contact them for a more authoritative report on the actual research regarding EMF, wifi, and 5G.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“If someone is going down the wrong road, he doesn’t need motivation to speed him up. What he needs is education to turn him around.” Jim Rohn