1) We keep banging our heads against the wall, wondering why Health Canada and ISED continue to allow wireless devices to be sold to an unsuspecting public when they know they are dangerous. And while we write letters to our MPs and Ministers, the telecom companies are spending huge amounts of money and time with politicians and bureaucrats. We need to figure out how to compete with this. See another great letter below which is a prime example of what we are facing.
(click on photos to enlarge)
BIG TELECOM LOBBIES OTTAWA TWICE A DAY
“Why are Bell and the other big telecom companies seemingly running amok right now? One major contributing factor is the access they have to the halls of power in Ottawa.
At the same time as they are exerting oligopoly power over consumer prices, unnecessarily collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and laying off people by the hundreds, they are also running the table when it comes to lobbying elected officials and government bureaucrats.”
2) Another letter from Katie Singer in which she addresses a basic conundrum we face today: Electricity is a needed commodity but all sources have ecological consequences. All of the letters written by her and Miguel Coma can be found at:
Miguel addresses EMR and 5G while Katie speaks to the general issue of our digital footprint.
Letter #14 – A letter to Greta Thunberg: Basic needs, electrified: What we expect from electricity
“- I do not know how to live for more than a few days without electricity.
– Nearly one billion people do not have electricity (13% of the global population).
– I don’t want to harm the Earth. I also don’t want to live in an illusion about my footprint.
– Every fuel source has ecological consequences. Maybe “clean” living in an electrified society is not possible.
– When something is seen as a necessity, it’s hard to argue against it.”
3) Marg Friesen has shared a presentation (authors Marg and Magda Havas) she gave at a conference in 2019 and speaks to the lack of guidelines for EMF exposure for wildlife, insects and plants. Neither Safety Code 6 nor the Canadian Environmental Protection Act acknowledge that EMF is a potentially toxic agent, and our natural ecosystems are vulnerable. A very interesting read that should be shared widely, especially with groups and individuals concerned about our environment.
Effects of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Pollution on Invertebrates, Including Pollinators such as Honey Bees: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and What We Need to Know
“Abstract – Invertebrates, including pollinators such as honey bees, can be adversely affected by non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Sources contributing to common environmental EMR exposures include antennae (cell phone, broadcast, and radar), communications satellites, and power lines. Adverse biochemical changes and disorientation have been reported for honey bees and other invertebrates. Field studies have reported changes in abundance and composition of “key pollinator groups” (wild bees, hoverflies, bee flies, beetles, and wasps) that have been attributed to emissions from telecommunications towers. We take a close look at the biological effects on invertebrates of EMR reported in the scientific literature and a general look at evidence from studies on plants, birds, humans, and other animals (domestic, laboratory, wild). We discuss possible implications of excessive electromagnetic pollution on ecosystems and identify knowledge gaps and what we need to know before more electromagnetic pollution is added to the environment, especially in the form of 5G.“
From: Marcus Schluschen (name given with permission)
To: “Ries, Bernie (IC)” <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <Rachel.Blaney@parl.gc.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 4:20:45 PM
Subject: Who is in charge? ISED or telecoms?
Dear Mrs. Blaney,
As my MP, I am including you in this email exchange, due to the fact that ISED failed to respond to any questions, of my previous emails.
This is becoming a question of public safety, property value depreciation, and thuggish, unethical behavior of lobbyist.
Dear Mr. Ries and Mr. Krenz,
Thank you for your response, on behalf of Mr. Krenz.
As before, not a single of my questions was answered. Why? Why are ISED managers like Mr. Krenz, and yourself, unable to respond to questions pertaining directly to ISED?
How many times has ISED met with telecom industries representatives, including TELUS?
How many times has ISED met with members of the concerned public, like Mrs. Dow, who oppose to have their homes irradiated by cell towers, in violation of our constitutional rights?
How many industry affiliated staffers are members of ISED?
Has ISED ever met with concerned citizens, who ultimately provide the funding for ISED, in the past?
My previous question to ISED, why TELUS lobbyist, Brian Gregg, is allowed to hand out decades old, outdated science, as much as 3 decades, was not answered by operations manager, Mr. Ries, nor you. Would you please be so kind and do so now?
Why is TELUS’s salesman, Brian Gregg, allowed to grossly mislead the public, as he has done in Gold River in 2019?
TELUS’s lobbyist, Brian Gregg, mailed out an artist’s rendering to the residents, depicting what looks like two Chinese ginger jars, on a slender, unassuming pole. The image of this garden ornament like rendering, presented to the public, does not remotely match the massive, triple level, cell tower monstrosity which TELUS imposed on the public. This immense industrial eyesore was erected right between peoples homes, causing immediate property devaluations of many homes in close vicinity to this hideous structure, as nobody wants to have an industrial structure in their back yard, nor view from their living room window.
The chronic radiation exposure of the homes in the immediate area is massive!
Do you, Mr. Ries and Mr. Krenz, condone such unethical and thuggish behaviour, by the telecom industry?
Are the ISED managers in control, or are the telecom industry lobbyist in charge?
Safety Code 6:
It is disturbing how ISED defends the misleading statements of Health Canada.
The science-based exposure limits referred in Code 6 are based on temperature only, causing heating effects.
This was confirmed by Health Canada’s, James McNamee, under oath, in a Quebec Superior Court.
China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have safety standards 50 times safer than Canada’s for RF radiation exposures from equipment such as cell tower antennas.
There is indisputable scientific evidence of serious health risks from exposure to radiofrequency (RF radiation) from cell towers well below Safety Code 6.
Perhaps you have not heard of the latest, irrevocable court ruling from the High Court of Bremen, Germany, against the former chair of ICNIRP, Prof. Alexander Lerchl, for what amounts to as science fraud. As a native German speaker, I read the original report, from Germany.
German Court Moves To Silence Relentless Critic of RF DNA Studies
In its long-awaited decision, dated December 11, 2020, and released at the end of January, the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Bremen threatened Lerchl with a fine of up to €250,000 (~US$300,000), or six months in prison, if he continues to falsely disparage the Rüdiger papers. The penalties would apply each time Lerchl violates the court order. Lerchl must also pay €20,000 in court costs.
In the US, the Federal Communication Commission – FCC is also before the courts, where two judges asked the FCC lawyers during the first hearing:
“Why should we believe anything you are telling us?” Eleven thousand science documents, were presented against the FCC.
Will you let the hundreds of people of Qualicum Beach down, who do not wish to be chronically irradiated by TELUS cell tower?
Will you tolerate the substantial property value depreciation of their homes they laboured a lifetime for, just as you have done in Gold River?
Will ISED deal with TELUS’s Brian Gregg’s highly unethical and dishonourable conduct? Will you hold him accountable?
Please be so courteous and answer my questions.
From: Ries, Bernie (IC)
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 7:46 AM
To: Marcus Schluschen
Cc: Krenz, Michael (IC) ; Ries, Bernie (IC)
Subject: FW: Who does ISED serve?
Good day Marcus, I am responding to you email on behalf of Michael Krenz.
You have asked a lot of questions in your email below, and unfortunately I do not have an answer for all the industry related questions that you are inquiring about. Our role in the regions is to ensure an orderly development of communications systems in our respective areas, and to ensure the tower siting policies are adhered to. As I am sure you have read and are familiar with our document CPC 2-0-03 you will understand that it describes the process for the proponent (Telus) to work with the land use authority (Town of Qualicum Beach) to come to a mutually agreeable location for any new antenna support structure, and at the same time ensuring the general requirements (radio frequency exposure limits, et al) are met.
As for your questions and concerns regarding frequency exposure limits within Safety Code 6 (SC6), those were developed using a science-based approach consistent with other parts of the world, including the United States, European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. As the responsibility for developing Safety Code 6 lies with Health Canada, concerns or questions regarding its development should be directed to that Department. Any research concerning the effects of RF energy on humans that you would like to share with the Government of Canada should be directed to Health Canada.
Operations Manager, STS-Western Region
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada / Government of Canada
email@example.com / Tel: 250-216-0728
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire