1) As a result of Dr. Arazi’s work identifying many popular cell phones that exceed allowable SAR limits, another lawsuit has been filed. Phonegate and France are leading the way — with several phones forced out of the marketplace (many still in use). In Canada and the USA, no testing has been done, no effort has been made to inform the public that the phones being used, especially by children, are even more dangerous that we thought.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Phonegate: 60 plaintiffs file class action against Xiaomi
“The French law firm Beaubourg avocats represented by attorney Elias Bourran filed a class action suit against the Chinese smartphone manufacturer Xiaomi with the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office on Friday, July 17, 2020.
This class action, which brings together some sixty plaintiffs, follows the criminal complaint filed on April 15, 2019, by the Phonegate Alert NGO and has since been monitored by the Public Health Unit of the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office….
“By marketing non-compliant mobile phones, Xiaomi is accused of three offences: deception on the one hand, a deceptive commercial practice on the other hand and finally endangering the lives of others. The victims have joined together to file a complaint and are seeking, in addition to reimbursement of the telephone, damages and interest.””
Phonegate: criminal complaint against Chinese smartphone manufacturer Xiaomi
“On behalf of “Phonegate Alert”, Me Elias Bourran, a lawyer at the Paris Bar, filed a criminal complaint with the Paris Public Prosecutor against the Chinese mobile phone manufacturer Xiaomi on Monday 15 April 2019.
The Xiaomi Redmi Note 5 and Mi Mix 2S, sold in France through its stores, numerous distributors (FNAC, Darty, Boulanger,…) and the four mobile telephone operators (Orange, Free, SFR, Bouygues Telecom), have been controlled by the French National Frequencies Agency (ANFR) and the specific absorption rate (SAR) has been observed to exceed the regulatory levels for the head and trunk respectively.”
Phonegate: criminal complaint against Chinese smartphone manufacturer Xiaomi
2) A member recommended this YouTube of a discussion re. 5G, etc. with a Building Biologist, someone trained in taking measurements, identifying problems, etc. and a mother who, after her son died of brain cancer after being exposed to radiation from cell towers at university, investigated telecoms, the governments, corruption, etc. I have not watched this.
Roundtable 10 Featuring Building Biologist Eric Windheim & Environmental Advocate Virginia Farver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK2CsOArGOA (1:54 hour)
3) The telecoms are attempting to re-litigate the ordinance passed by Berkeley, California requiring consumers be advised, at the point of sale, that their cell phones emit levels that exceed the FCC guidelines when held next to the head or body. They do not want their customers to know that they risk being harmed by use of the device as it was designed. The article is not available to non-subscribers so I’ve pasted below in Letters a copy sent to me. As you read it, think of our government and how Health Canada and ISED are covering up for the telecoms.
CELLPHONES: Government and industry combine to downplay the science on cell phone danger
Letters:
CELLPHONES: Government and industry combine to downplay the science on cell phone danger
By Mark Leno and Ellie Marks
In 2015, the city of Berkeley passed an ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to advise consumers, in a flyer at the point of sale, that keeping a cell phone in their pocket or near their body could expose them to wireless radiation above Federal Communications Commission safety levels. Council members understood that manufacturers deceptively hide this federally mandated information deep within user manuals or in the phone that few ever see. The council also understood that cell phones are allowed to be tested for compliance away from the body— not as used.
A survey of Berkeley residents found overwhelming support for Berkeley’s ordinance. Eight-five percent of residents never saw recommendations from manufacturers about how to best protect against overexposure to cell phone radiation and 82% want this information at the point of sale.
America’s trade association representing the wireless communications industry (CTIA) challenged this ordinance all the way to the United States Supreme Court twice and lost every step of the way. Now this well-funded industry, along with support from the FCC, is again fighting to prevent the public from simple truthful information. Despite losing, the industry has now asked a federal court in California to rehear the case. Industry is repeating its failed argument that the FCC claims cell phones are safe no matter how used. A federal district court hearing is set in San Francisco for Thursday, July 23, on this motion.
FCC regulations mandate consumers be given “conspicuous” information regarding safe use of cell phones. Hiding safe-distance information deep within the phone and their own manuals is hardly conspicuous. We must ask ourselves what other critical information industry and the FCC are hiding from the public.
The FCC’s General Counsel, Thomas Johnson, recently submitted documentation to the court in support of the wireless industry. Johnson, conveniently, formerly worked for Gibson Dunn, the firm representing the wireless industry against Berkeley. The FCC is claiming that the manner in which manufacturers currently disclose the cell phone “safety” information is adequate, thus Berkeley’s ordinance is “over-warning” and therefore federally pre-empted.
This is not so.
Why is a federal agency aggressively defending the billion-dollar industry that it is mandated by Congress to regulate? Why are the FCC and CTIA so adamant about stopping this simple advisory at the point of sale? Berkeley’s ordinance merely alerts consumers that wearing or using a phone in a pocket, or tucked into a bra, may expose them to radiofrequency radiation that could exceed the federal safety limit. Again, this is basic information provided by the industry itself, though in a hidden fashion.
I, Mark Leno, championed a similar bill in the California Senate in 2011, the same year the World Health Organization put wireless radiation in the same category as lead and diesel fuel. They declared this radiation possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk of brain tumors associated with mobile phone use. My bill would have put minimal safety information at the point of sale. I experienced the intense lobbying and mistruths of this industry. This is corporate special interest at its worst.
This intense legal battle is an abuse of our legal system and exhibits the flagrancy of the FCC and the wireless industry in covering up independent science in regard to public health. The $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program released results in 2018 stating “clear evidence,” the highest certainly level, that cellphone radiation causes cancer.
Why should we ignore the science?
This industry and the FCC are putting public health at great risk concerning a device used daily by nearly every American including the most vulnerable — our children and grandchildren. Consumers should have the right to know critical information at the point of sale so that they can make informed decisions as to safe use for themselves and their loved ones.
Mark Leno is a former state senator from San Francisco; Ellie Marks is a co-founder of the California Brain Tumor Association.
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“There’s nothing wrong with a little agitation for what’s right or what’s fair.” John Lewis