1) Recently, a member asked me for something to send to a well-educated person who was not convinced about the dangers of EMR and “trusted”, to some degree, Health Canada. I suggested he watch this video which was circulated a couple of years ago. We have many new members who might not have heard of it. Well worth the time.
Resonance: Beings of Frequency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFR5EtO_zdM (1:45 hr.) or
2) Despite all of the information provided by Dr. Arazi regarding cell phones that are in violation of France’s emission guidelines, which were confirmed by the Chicago Tribune’s independent testing and by Dr. Om Gandhi, Health Canada has been silent. As you saw in an update last week, our Chief Public Health Officer of Canada Dr. Tam said it was not her responsibility to do anything but was Health Canada’s.
Below you will see a stream of emails between me and Brian Ahier of Health Canada. Please be aware that I chose not to debate many of his erroneous assertions about Safety Code 6, etc. I am trying to make a point that no agency is ensuring that the cell phones in Canada meet even SC 6 standards, as bad as they are. This is pure negligence and dereliction of duty by the Federal government. Whether it is ISED or Health Canada or the Public Health Officer, the wireless devices sold to Canadian consumers are not tested — there are no enforceable standards. Whatever the manufacturer says appears to be taken for granted. So please read these letters below and do not chide me for not attacking Safety Code 6 or the many incorrect statements made by Ahier. I am aware of them but am attempting to make another point.
3) The battle about the proliferation of more cell towers and microcells, as required to build the 5G grid, is being fought in many countries. Some areas have some legal decisions which can help give local Councils and residents grounds for refusal. Many refer to NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, which would require full consideration of the environmental impact of the EMR. Below is a sample letter from a group in the US. There is a court decision re. the FCC to which it refers. All of the FCC failures the court found would apply to ISED as well. Perhaps someone in Canada will be able to bring ISED to court and argue similarly for us.
(click on photos to enlarge)
https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/rfr_studies & https://stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/5G-The-Largest-Biological-Experiment-Ever.png
Sample Letters To Stop 5G Using NEPA Court Ruling
“In case 18-1129, the judges said that “the FCC failed to justify its determination that it is not in the public interest to require review of [sWTF] deployments” and ruled that “the Order’s deregulation of [sWTFs] is arbitrary and capricious.”
The DC Circuit judges published the following reasons for their 8/9/19 Ruling, concluding:
– The FCC failed to address that it was speeding densification “without completing its investigation of . . . health effects of low-intensity radiofrequency [microwave] radiation”
– The FCC did not adequately address the harms of deregulation
– The FCC did not justify its portrayal of those harms as negligible
– The FCC’s characterization of the Order as consistent with its longstanding policy was not “logical and rational.” . . . because the FCC mischaracterized the size, scale and footprint of the anticipated nationwide deployment of 800,000-unit network of sWTFs
Such sWTFs are “crucially different from the consumer signal boosters and Wi-Fi routers to which the FCC compares them”
“It is impossible on this record to credit the claim that [sWTF] deregulation will ‘leave little to no environmental footprint.’”
– The FCC fails to justify its conclusion that sWTFs “as a class” and by their “nature” are “inherently unlikely” to trigger potential significant environmental impacts.”
https://citizensforaradiationfreecommunity.org/sample-letter-to-stop-5g-using-nepa-court-ruling/
Letters:
Please read from the bottom up.
From: Sharon Noble
To: “brian ahier” <brian.ahier@canada.ca>, “hc rpb-brp sc” <hc.rpb-brp.sc@canada.ca>
Cc: “Office of the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, Bureau de l’administratrice en chef de la santé publique (PHAC/ASPC)” <nfa1575541451400130@canada.ca>
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 1:56:10 PM
Subject: Radiation Emitting Devices Act
Dear Mr. Ahier,
Thank you for your response of July 29. I did not write about and neither do I wish to discuss Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 at this time. The purpose of my letter is to focus on the fact that nothing is being done about the sale and use of cell phones that violate Safety Code 6 guidelines. I would ask that you address this significant issue.
As stated in your Mission Statement, Health Canada is the federal department responsible for helping the people of Canada maintain and improve their health…. with the objectives of preventing and reducing risks to individual health and the overall environment, and promoting healthier lifestyles by providing credible information, reliable advice and quality services. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/activities-responsibilities/mission-values-activities.html
The fact that you state that Health Canada has nothing to do with ensuring that the cell phones being used by and sold to Canadians is both disturbing and confusing given your mandate. Just as concerning is the fact that the Canadian public is allowed to believe that Health Canada has safety standards and is enforcing them to “prevent and reduce risks” to their health and well-being.
Health Canada’s website states:
1)” The limits set out in Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 are designed to protect people, of all ages and sizes, from all forms of exposure to RF energy, including continuous exposure (24 hours a day,seven days a week).” (emphasis is mine)
2) “Cell phones in Canada must meet regulatory requirements that limit human exposure to RF energy.”
https://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2011/13548a-eng.php
Given the above would you not agree that it is Health Canada’s responsibility to provide the public with “credible information, reliable advice” regarding the cell phones found to be in violation by 3 different sources: Dr. Arazi, Dr. Om Gandhi, and the Chicago Tribune? Can you please tell me if Health Canada intends to do so and, if so, in what format?
Given that one of Health Canada’s objectives is to “prevent and reduce risks to individual health”, would you not agree that it is Health Canada’s responsibility to ensure the testing of off-the-shelf cell phones of the various models identified as being in violation of France’s guidelines (SAR 2.0 W/kg), which is higher than Canada’s (SAR 1.6W/kg)? Many of the phones tested exceeded the guidelines by many times and this failure has escaped ISED’s “audits”.
Given that Health Canada admits that it has no safety standards, regulations or policies regarding cell phones, your department merely sets standards, e.g. Safety Code 6, and then hands them off to ISED. It does nothing to ensure that these guidelines are met and has no responsibility to ensure the safety of Canadians regarding any wireless consumer product. Would you agree that at the very least Health Canada has the responsibility to alert ISED to the fact that cell phones that have been found by others to be defective are being used by and sold to trusting Canadians, even children, who have been told there is no risk if used 24/7/365?
ISED’s mandate is very different from Health Canada’s. Its mission is to promote and support business: “to foster a growing, competitive and knowledge-based Canadian economy.” Nowhere in its mission statement is there anything about protecting the public’s health.
Frankly, Mr. Ahier, this seems a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Why would ISED wish to negatively affect the most profitable business in the world, one which through licensing and purchases of sections of the RF spectrum puts billions of dollars each year into the Federal bank account?
Until you, Health Canada and ISED take action, cell phones that emit radiation many times more than “allowed’ under SC 6 are being used by and sold to a public who believes Health Canada is protecting them. You are failing to fulfill your mandate of providing “credible information and reliable advice.” Parents who search your website for information are being misled to believe that Health Canada is ensuring that cell phones, as well as all wireless devices, are safe — even for their children to use.
ISED is safeguarding the telecoms. Who is watching out for us? According to your response, Mr. Ahier, it appears no one is.
I do look forward to receiving your response.
Sincerely,
Sharon Noble
**********
From: “rpb / brp (HC/SC)” <hc.rpb-brp.sc@canada.ca>
To: Sharon Noble
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 12:49:01 PM
Subject: RE: Radiation Emitting Devices Act
Dear. Ms. Noble
Thank you for your email of July 18, 2020 concerning the safety of cell phones in Canada, and Health Canada’s Radiation Emitting Devices Act.
Health Canada’s mandate regarding human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) is to carry out research into possible health effects, monitor the scientific literature related to such effects and to develop recommended exposure guidelines, known as Safety Code 6. Health Canada also administers the Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA), which governs the sale, lease and importation of radiation emitting devices in Canada. The Radiation Emitting Device Regulations set out radiation safety standards for labelling, construction and performance for certain classes of radiation emitting devices; these are the prescribed “standards” referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Act, which deals with prohibitions.
Please note there are no standards applicable to cell phones or other wireless communication devices under the Radiation Emitting Devices Regulations. In Canada, the regulation of cell phones and other wireless communication devices 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. ISED conducts regular audits to help ensure that devices on the market and antenna installations are compliant. Any questions regarding testing and compliance of cell phones should be directed to ISED: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_07026.html.
When developing the exposure limits in Safety Code 6, Health Canada scientists consider all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employ a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks. There have been thousands of scientific studies carried out to evaluate the safety of radiofrequency EMF. The evidence from these studies establishes two adverse health effects from exposure to intense radiofrequency EMF: tissue heating (like the warming of your skin) and nerve stimulation (a tingling sensation in your skin). To protect the public, the limits in Safety Code 6 are set far below the thresholds for the occurrence of these health effects.
As with most scientific conclusions, it is possible to find differing scientific opinions. There are scientific studies that have reported biological effects of radiofrequency EMF exposures 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.
The exposure limits and the conclusions of Health Canada 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. Large safety margins have been incorporated to provide a significant level of protection for the general public and personnel working near radiofrequency EMF sources. Internationally, while a few jurisdictions have applied more restrictive limits for radiofrequency EMF exposures, scientific evidence does not support the need for limits that are more restrictive than Safety Code 6.
It is Health Canada’s position that the health of Canadians is protected from radiofrequency 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. If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure from wireless technologies, including cell phones, below the Canadian limits is a health concern, the Government of Canada would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.
For reliable information about radiofrequency EMF and your health, please consult the following websites:
Radiofrequency energy and safety
Cell phones, cell phone towers and other antenna installations
Thank you for writing
Brian Ahier
A/Director General | Directeur général par intérim
Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate |
Direction des sciences de la santé environnementale et de la radioprotection
Health Canada | Santé Canada
*****
From: Sharon Noble
Sent: 2020-07-18 5:14 PM
To: Ahier, Brian (HC/SC) <brian.ahier@canada.ca>
Subject: Radiation Emitting Devices Act
Dear Mr. Ahier,
Health Canada, and specifically the Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate of which you are the Acting Director, governs the sale, lease and importation of radiation emitting devices in Canada via the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.
Under the Prohibitions in the Act, no device can be imported or sold in Canada if that device fails to comply with established standards. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-1/page-1.html#h-420039
In 2016, Dr. Marc Arazi announced to the world that in testing nearly 100 of the most popular cell phones sold in France, nearly 90% were found to have radiation emissions in excess of France’s standard. France’s SAR limit of 2 W/kg is higher than Canada’s Safety Code 6, 1.6 W/kg. Since that time, France has banned the sale of and recalled several cell phones that were on Dr. Arazi’s Phonegate list. (https://www.phonegatealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Dossier-de-presse-liste-des-mod%C3%A9les-%C3%A0-risques-28-juin-2018.pdf).
Independent testing of several cell phones sold in North America was done by the Chicago Tribune https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cell-phone-radiation-testing-methodology–20190821-whddrljk6fbmxoqh25u5t7lkb4-story.html. and results were consistent with those reported by Dr. Arazi. Dr. Om Gandhi reported that hundreds of cell phones in common use exceed US emission standards of 1.6 W/kg by as much as 11 times. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8688629
Apparently these are the only cell phone emission tests done in either the US or Canada.
In May, 2020, France banned a “top-of-the-line” and popular gaming phone, the Razer Phone 2 after finding, under controlled testing, that its SAR was 3.29 w/kg when held 5 mm from the skin. The SAR, of course, increases dramatically when the distance is reduced, exceeding 10 W/kg when in direct contact with skin. https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/press-release-withdrawal-of-the-razer-phone-2-not-seeing-the-forest-for-the-trees When being used or carried, it is common for cell phones to be in touch with the body.
Many of the cell phones which have been found by agencies other than Health Canada to have exceeded the standards established by Safety Code 6, for example the Razer Phone 2, are still being used and sold in Canada. Can you please explain why the Radiation Emitting Devices Act has not been enforced by Health Canada with regard to these devices?
I look forward to receiving your response at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Sharon Noble
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.” Dale Carnegie