1) Below in Letters is a letter from Health Canada in response to a serious letter (also in Letters). As usual, it contains the false, inaccurate and deliberately misleading statements and ignores the information provided. This person even goes so far as to suggest the BioInitiative Report is “unbalanced”, rather than evidence against the assertions by Health Canada, WHO, ICNIRP and industry that there are no credible studies showing harm.
2) When children attend school in person, they are exposed to high levels of radiation from the Wi-Fi modems and other wireless devices that are used in most school rooms, without informing parents, teachers or children about the potential risks. According to Health Canada in the letter below, concerns about Wi-Fi in school is not in its mandate — go to the school board. All school boards need to be educated and pressured by many parents. 5G Crisis has prepared a template that would be suitable, with minor changes, to be applicable to Canadian schools. We need to organize letter writing campaigns to the trustees and to other parents.
3) Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s group is helping to educate its members about the dangers of 5G as well as the dangers of cell towers both “small” and large. The hundreds of thousands of micro and macro cell towers needed to support the 5G will increase the amount of EMR in our environment exponentially, resulting in incalculable health problems for generations to come.
Easton CT is Saying NO THANKS to 5G, and We Can Too!
“Costa Mesa, CA just approved “small” cell towers to be built 30 feet from home daycares. Within days residents are reporting headaches, nose bleeds, fatigue, behavioral issues, and tinnitus. These symptoms are just the beginning. Studies from different countries show up to a 200% increase in cancer within 1500 feet from a cell tower. In Ripon, CA four students and three teachers got cancer after a cell tower was installed on school premises. A cancer cluster around cell towers on college campus has been known to exist for over ten years. More towers are being constructed on schoolyards right now. Studies show that radio frequency radiation weakens the immune system as well, putting our citizens at greater risk of severe COVID effects. This must stop.”
There are several studies referred to in the article:
CELL TOWERS & ANTENNAS—HOW CLOSE IS TOO CLOSE?
(click on photos to enlarge)
One of the cancer clusters referenced in the article:
San Diego State Univ. Brain Cancer from Cell Tower EMF’s to Students
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjBWiAOVnTo&feature=emb_title (3:51 min.)
4) Due to pressure from the USA and about security, UK has given telecoms until 2027 to remove Huawei equipment that has already been installed in the 5G grid. But Huawei 4G equipment can remain.
UK bans Huawei from its 5G network in rapid about-face
Letters:
Please read from the bottom up.
From: Ahier, Brian (HC/SC) <brian.ahier@canada.ca>
Date: Jul 8, 2020
Subject: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF EMF)
To: X
Dear X
Thank you for your correspondence of February 21, 2020 to the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Health, concerning possible health risks from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF). The Minister has asked me to provide a detailed response on her behalf.
Health Canada administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which governs the sale, lease and importation of radiation emitting devices in Canada. The Department’s mandate regarding human exposure to RF EMF from wireless devices includes carrying out research into possible health effects, monitoring the scientific literature related to such effects on an ongoing basis, and developing recommended human exposure guidelines (Safety Code 6). Safety Code 6 sets recommended limits for safe human exposure to RF EMF in federally regulated industries and workplaces, and covers both the frequencies used by existing communications devices and those that may be used by devices employing 5G technology.
Regulation of wireless communication equipment (e.g., cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi routers), is the responsibility of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) under the Radiocommunication Act. To ensure that public exposures fall within acceptable guidelines, ISED has developed regulatory standards that require compliance with the human exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6. Any queries regarding the deployment of 5G wireless technology should be directed to ISED.
Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 takes into account recent scientific data from studies carried out worldwide. When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, departmental scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employ a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks. The weight-of-evidence approach takes into account both the quantity of studies on a particular endpoint (whether adverse or no effect), and more importantly, the quality of those studies. Poorly conducted studies (e.g., an inadequate exposure evaluation, a lack of appropriate control samples or an inadequate statistical analysis) receive relatively little weight, while properly conducted studies (e.g., with all controls included, appropriate statistics and a complete exposure evaluation) receive more weight. The limits in Safety Code 6 are among the most stringent science-based limits in the world and protect our most vulnerable. Safety Code 6 human exposure limits are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including infants and children, on a continuous basis (24 hours a day/seven days a week).
As with most scientific conclusions, it is possible to find differing scientific opinions. There are scientific studies that have reported biological effects of RF EMF fields that are below the limits in Safety Code 6. However, these studies are in the minority, are very far from conclusive, and do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence in this area. It is important to note that a biological response, as reported in some studies, does not necessarily translate to an adverse health outcome in humans.
Health Canada scientists are familiar with the BioInitiative Report which was referred to in your correspondence. This report is considered to be an advocacy document that does not contain any new scientific data and regrettably presents an unbalanced review of the scientific literature as it excludes numerous studies that are not supportive of the Report’s conclusions. A detailed review of the document furthermore shows a number of weaknesses including internal inconsistencies amongst the various chapters.
The exposure limits and the conclusions of Health Canada are similar to those arrived at by 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 (WHO). These limits 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 RF EMF exposures from cell towers, scientific evidence does not support the need for limits that are more restrictive than Safety Code 6.
As mentioned in your letter, in 2011 an Expert Panel was convened by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to review the scientific evidence pertaining to the possible cancer causing ability of RF EMF. A Health Canada scientist was among the experts conducting the review. Upon considering the available evidence, the Panel classified RF EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Class 2B), based on limited evidence of an increased risk for glioma (a type of brain cancer) associated with long-term heavy cell phone use in some studies, for some statistical comparisons. However, the vast majority of studies have not found similar results. The IARC classification reflects the fact that this limited evidence exists.
Health Canada, as with other federal departments and several regulatory agencies worldwide, does apply the precautionary principle as a public policy approach for risk management of possible, but unproven, risks to health. A precautionary approach to decision-making emphasizes the need to take timely and appropriately preventative action, even in the absence of a full scientific demonstration of cause and effect. However, the precautionary principle is not a tool for risk assessment. Risk assessments consider all data available in the scientific literature and focus on effects which scientists consider most relevant for human health. Based on such an evaluation, the Department will take action as required. In the case of RF EMF, there is sufficient evidence, supported internationally, to show that adherence to the recommended levels of exposure in Safety Code 6 will not cause harm to health.
Please know that while Health Canada is aware of concerns related to Wi-Fi in schools, such decisions are not within Health Canada’s mandate; we recommend that you consult your local school board or provincial authority to discuss your concerns. More information is available on our website at:
Health Canada – Wi-Fi equipment
It is Health Canada’s position that the health of Canadians is protected from RF EMF when the human exposure limits recommended by Safety Code 6 are respected. Safety Code 6 has always established and maintained a human exposure limit that is far below the threshold for potential adverse health effects. Health Canada continues to monitor the scientific research. If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure below levels found in Safety Code 6 was a concern, Health Canada would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.
Thank you for writing, and I hope my comments are helpful.
Brian Ahier
Acting Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Health Canada / Government of Canada/
Directeur général intérimaire, Direction des sciences de la santé environnementale et de la radioprotection
Santé Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
*******
Dear Legislators, February 21, 2020
The new hype (pro and con) about Smart Meters and the much promoted world-wide 5G roll-out has prompted us to delve into the subject of ElectroMagnetic Fields (EMF) and RadioFrequency Radiation (RF) much further than we ever anticipated.
The info is confusing. Even the scientific community is not united about the possible health hazards of non-thermal radiation, as in routers, cell phones and everything wireless. At the same time, cell-phones and i-Pads come with very specific warnings (that users usually ignore or never read). Increasingly, very credible research is emerging that document possible health and developmental risks – especially on young brains and bodies. (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did NOT allow their young children to use these gadgets!) As more wireless towers and gadgets are deployed in our environment, more and more people show up with health issues, and that even before the full 5G roll-out. Many life forms depend on the earth’s magnetic field for navigation, breeding, food, and survival. Artificial radiation is disrupting natural processes, including our own.
Pro-tech people will say there is no “scientific” proof for any ill-effects. Well, there is also no proof what-so-ever that it is safe, and other jurisdictions take that to heart. The WHO declared non-thermal radiation as a possible cancer risk, France already banned the use of wi-fi in day-cares and elementary schools. Other countries are in the process of doing so. Surely, the Bioinitiative Report authored by top authorities like Dr. Martin Blank, Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University and Prof. Olle Johansson, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; as well as the very convincing research by Dr. Devra Davies (amongst many others) must have played a role in these decisions.
There is also the appeal to the European Union by more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries who warn about the danger of 5G, which will lead to a massive increase in involuntary exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Their plea:
“We, the undersigned scientists, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.”
With a few simple measures, we can eliminate or at least reduce the exposure to wi-fi radiation at home. Yet, with Smart Meters and then 5G installations,especially in cities, we are exposed to more and more radiation all the time. Wireless, especially 5G, consumes much more power than wired technology. The addition of millions of new antennas and thousands of satellites to connect every event, thing, and location will astronomically increase our energy footprint. Personal privacy and safety is also a big concern with the new technology.
Extraordinary action must be taken to identify and set the route to Safe G. Please, pay attention to personal accounts of harm and scientific warnings, and develop solutions that respect health, science, democracy, humanity, the natural world, resources, and our climate.
Therefore, we are asking for a moratorium on further development of wireless technology in Nova Scotia and Canada until Safe G can be identified. We are also asking for a province-wide ban of wi-fi in day-cares, nurseries, and schools, and the means to re-wire.
Government has a responsibility towards the health and safety of its citizens, the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE should prevail.
Sincerely,
X
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” Henry David Thoreau