1) Below is a response from Health Canada with what appears to have become a form letter re. cell phones that are violating Safety Code 6. As has happened so often, people take considerable time and expend so much effort to write excellent letters which get no relevant response. And notice the disdain — not even a name.
2) In a US group, one member has discovered that, after years of trying to teach her children (in university now), if they have no choice, to use wireless devices wisely, to turn off them when not in use, etc. Today, after one of them asked if someone forgot to turn a cell phone off because she woke with a horrible headache, the member found that her daughter’s ‘smart’ phone emitted high levels of RF when in airplane mode. This is not supposed to happen. Be careful and don’t assume laptops, cell phones, Wi-Fi are turned off or that the wireless aspect is disabled.
(click on photos to enlarge)
3) A couple of months ago, R. Kostoff was kind enough to share a draft of this recent paper, advising that there would be changes before it was submitted for publication. He has now shared the final version. This is a very important read, only 5 pages. I’ve provided just a few snippets In this explanation of why 5G must be halted until independent research can determine the full extent of health effects.
Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions
- “This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.” (pg. 1)
- “There is significant evidence indicating that the effects of telecommunication EMFs on living organisms are mainly due to the included ELFs…. While ∼50 % of the studies employing simulated exposures do not find any effects, studies employing real-life exposures from commercially available devices display an almost 100 % consistency in showing adverse effects” (Panagopoulos, 2019). These effects may be exacerbated further with 5 G: “with every new generation of telecommunication devices…..the amount of information transmitted each moment…..is increased, resulting in higher variability and complexity of the signals with the living cells/ organisms even more unable to adapt” (Panogopoulos, 2019).” (pg. 2)
- “For those combinations that include wireless radiation, combined exposure to toxic stimuli and wireless radiation translates into much lower levels of tolerance for each toxic stimulus in the combination relative to its exposure levels that produce adverse effects in isolation. Accordingly, the exposure limits for wireless radiation when examined in combination with other potentially toxic stimuli would be far lower for safety purposes than those derived from wireless radiation exposures in isolation…
Thus, almost all of the wireless radiation laboratory experiments that have been performed to date are flawed/limited with respect to showing the full adverse impact of the wireless radiation that would be expected under real-life conditions….
Thus, the results reported in the biomedical literature should be viewed as 1) extremely conservative and 2) the very low ‘floor’ of the seriousness of the adverse effects from wireless radiation, not the ‘ceiling’.” pg. (3)
- “The common ‘wisdom’ presented in the literature and media is that, if there are adverse impacts resulting from high-band 5 G, the main impacts will be focused on near-surface phenomena, such as skin cancer, cataracts, and other skin conditions. However, there is evidence that biological responses to millimeter-wave irradiation can be initiated within the skin, and the subsequent systemic signaling in the skin can result in physiological effects on the nervous system, heart, and immune system.” (pp. 4-5)
- “… the article by Zalyubovskaya addresses biological effects of millimeter radiowaves. Zalyubovskaya ran experiments using power fluxes of 10,000,000 μW/ square meter (the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) guideline limit for the general public today in the USA), and frequencies on the order of 60 GHz. Not only was skin impacted adversely, but also heart, liver, kidney, spleen tissue as well, and blood and bone marrow properties. These results reinforce the conclusion of Russel (quoted above) that systemic results may occur from millimeter-wave radiation….
Other papers on this topic with similar findings were published in the USSR (and the USA) at that time, or even earlier, but many never saw the light of day, both in the USSR and the USA. It appears that the potentially damaging effects of millimeter-wave radiation on the skin (and other major systems in the body) have been recognized for well over forty years, yet today’s discourse only revolves around the possibility of modest potential effects on the skin and perhaps cataracts from millimeter-wave wireless radiation.” (pg 4)
- “Studies in disciplines other than wireless radiation have shown that, for products of high military, commercial, and political sensitivity, ‘researchers’/ organizations are hired to publish articles that conflict with the credible science, and therefore create doubt as to whether the product of interest is harmful (Michaels, 2008; Oreskes and Conway, 2011). Unfortunately, given the strong dependence of the civilian and military economies on wireless radiation, incentives for identifying adverse health effects from wireless radiation are minimal and disincentives are many. These perverse incentives apply not only to the sponsors of research and development, but to the performers as well.” (pg. 4)
- “Superimposing 5G radiation on an already imbedded toxic wireless radiation environment will exacerbate the adverse health effects shown to exist. Far more research and testing of potential 5G health effects under real-life conditions is required before further rollout can be justified.” (pg. 5)
Subject: RE: Why is Health Canada not doing anything about cell phones that exceed the Safety Code 6 guidelines for radiation exposure?
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 12:01:22 +0000
From: ccrpb / pcrpcc (HC/SC) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Janis Hoffmann (name given with permission)
Good morning Ms. Hoffman,
This is in response to your email to Brian Ahier, Director Radiation Protection Bureau 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:
For more information about radiofrequency EMF, please consult the following websites:
Thank you for writing
Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau (CCRPB)
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Health Canada / Government of Canada
From: Janis Hoffmann
Sent: 2020-07-29 11:40 PM
To: Ahier, Brian (HC/SC) <email@example.com>
Subject: Why is Health Canada not doing anything about cell phones that exceed the Safety Code 6 guidelines for radiation exposure?
Dear Brian Ahier, Director, Radiation Protection Bureau,
We want to know why Health Canada, which administers, under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the sale, lease and importation of radiation emitting devices has neglected to do its due diligence by allowing cell phones to be brought onto the market without any independent, practical/realistic-use safety testing?
We want to know why the manufacturers of cell phones are allowed to self report and only have to submit a sample of a one new phone, sent directly from the factory, to comply with exposure standards that has been set by the industry?
We want to know why the federally mandated warnings and safety disclaimers are not made available to the public on the outside of the packaging at the point of sale and on the Health Canada website?
We want to know why Health Canada is not educating thousands of innocent children on the safe use of cell phones and allowing them to press these cell phones against their heads, holding them against their reproductive organs and other vital organs, and storing them in their pockets when we know these devices are emitting 4 – 11 times over the current Safety Code 6 guidelines?
The Chicago Tribune recently did an independent investigation into the cell phone scandal (Phonegate) and confirmed the findings that iPhone 7 and other smart phones exceeded the Safety Code 6 guidelines for radiation exposure (SAR at 1.6 W/kg at 5mm). Apple and Samsung are knowingly selling products that exceed allowable radiation limits and have failed to warn its consumers regarding radiation risks and the need to keep the phone at a safe distance away from the body.
“The Chicago investigation confirms what the French National Agency has warned about for some time now that 90% of all the major cellphones tested (more than 450) emitted significantly higher levels of radiation exceeding the safety compliance standards, up to 5 times the current guidelines when phones are tested as they are used in real life. The current guidelines for the manufacturers is based on the 1990’s when people wore their standard flip phone on their hip in a holster about 1“ away from your body.
In a recent study by Professor Om Gandhi, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, he examined data from 450 cell phones and also confirmed that the phone can exceed the guidelines and emitted up to 11 times over the US FCC limit when used under realistic conditions.
France has asked the European Commission to strengthen the regulations and guidelines for new mobile phones placed on the market. As recommended by ANSES, the Government has requested that the certification tests be carried out in regards to the contact with the device, and not at 5 mm as is currently the case, so that they are more representative of the real exposure of users. France also asked for an information campaign to encourage changes in ways of use, especially among children.
The Italian court ordered the government (Ministries of the Environment and Education) to launch a campaign to advise the public of the health risks from mobile and cordless phones.
Why is Health Canada, a department of the Government of Canada that is responsible for the country’s federal health policies, aggressively defending a billion-dollar industry and allowing the sale of products on the market that exceed the federal guidelines?
Looking forward to your response to our concerning questions.
Parents for Safe Schools
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Most of us, swimming against the tides of trouble the world knows nothing about, need only a bit of praise or encouragement – and we will make the goal.” Robert Collier