1) Health Canada has decided that the current ICNIRP standards for RF exposure as applied to milliwave frequencies are acceptable, based upon a “a systematic analysis to identify adverse health outcomes from millimeter-wave RFEMF”. This is the report with that analysis. Over and over, Health Canada confirms its allegiance to ICNIRP’s conclusion that heat is the only adverse effect. The report itself is 97 pages out of the total 243. I must admit I skimmed much of this report but it seems that most of the studies they reviewed supported their belief that heating is the cause of any adverse effect.
Analysis of recommended localized human exposure limits for radiofrequency fields in the frequency range, 6 GHz to 300 GHZ
“Based upon a systematic review approach, Health Canada has identified two adverse health outcomes that are relevant to localized exposure to millimeter-wave RFEMF. These are a heat-pain sensation, which demonstrates an absolute threshold temperature of ~42-43 oC, and tissue damage which can occur when skin or cornea are heated and maintained at temperatures at or above 43 oC. Other adverse health effects are theoretically possible if localized exposure to millimeter wave RFEMF heats the core body temperature by more than 1 oC, however such effects are unlikely to occur from millimeter-wave RFEMF without first exceeding the heat-pain sensation temperature threshold in Type 1 tissues as most energy will be deposited in superficial tissues due to the limited penetration depth of millimeter wave RFEMF. Therefore, Health Canada is in agreement with ICNIRP that the primary adverse health effects to be avoided as millimeter-wave RFEMF intensity increases are a heat-pain sensation and thermal tissue damage to Type 1 tissues (e.g. skin/cornea).
These temperature increases are well below the threshold for all known adverse health effects from millimeter-wave RFEMF’ pg. 3/243
“At frequencies above 6 GHz, power density is used (as opposed to SAR) because the RFEMF is mainly absorbed in the superficial tissues (e.g. skin) given that the penetration depth is shallow for higher frequencies. Through the application of a 50-fold safety margin, the whole-body average power density limits in Safety Code 6 for frequencies above 6 GHz have been established at 10 W/m2 up to 150 GHz and then progressively increase up to 20 W/m2 at 300 GHz.” (pg. 11/243)
Click to access Analysis-of-recommended-localized-human-exposure-limits-for-RF-fields-in-the-frequency-range-6-GHz-to-300-GHz-by-Consumer-Clinical-Radiation-Protection-Bureau-Health-Canada-January-2021.pdf
- or https://tinyurl.com/238djc7x
ICNIRP’s recommendation for milliwave limit of 2000 uW/cm2 for frequencies 6 HHz – 300 GHz (pg. 5/243)
2) A few days ago, Children’s Health Defense hosted a webinar about litigation related to cell phone usage and glioblastomas. Here is a video of that webinar. Well worth the hour to listen to the hurdles that the lawyers have had to go through and what seem to be incomprehensible decisions made by the court that appear to advantage the telecoms. The battle is ongoing….
(click on photos to enlarge)
WEBINAR: Cell Phone Brain Tumor Litigation — Legislation, Barriers and Opportunities
“Attorneys Dafna Tachover, Children’s Health Defense, and Hunter Lundy, of Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South, will present an overview of litigation in the U.S. related to cell phones and brain cancer on April 28 at 2 p.m. ET / 11 a.m. PT.”
or https://tinyurl.com/a9n484rx (1:08 hours)
I hope others will follow this example and write to the Minister of Education, and perhaps the Minister of Health, about this issue. The question has been asked so many times — no response. Only after hearing from large numbers of people will they ever pay attention.
From: Lavonne Garnett (name given with permission)
To: “educ minister” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: May 1, 2021
Subject: Re: For $20 per month you can make schools safe???? Why aren’t you?
Dear Minister Whiteside:
As the writer below this letter expresses, I am equally concerned about the unnecessary exposure of our children and staff to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in our schools. When parents bring these concerns to you, it is not to burden you, but to let you know how serious this issue is. There are far too many cases of children developing cancer. It is logical to think that the cause is something in our environment, scientific studies support and attest to the effects of toxins in our environment, including EMR.
Two primers for educating ourselves about the effects of EMR are: “The Invisible Rainbow” by Arthur Firstenberg, and “Overpowered” by Dr. Martin Blank. Perhaps, your ministry would see this as good reading material for all of your schools. Your Ministry needs to form a committee to study this issue, before more parents have to deal with the health impacts on their children.
Would you please tell me what steps you will take to address this issue and, in particular, the need to address Health Canada Safety Code 6, which is outdated, yet dictates to all of Canada that Wi-Fi, cell phones, cordless phones, electrical appliances and other forms of exposure to electricity are harmless.
Now that you know how concerned aware citizens are, it is on your watch to do all you can to protect, especially, our children from electromagnetic radiation.
Dear BC Minister of Education, Jennifer Whiteside,
Did you know Dr. Richard Stanwick, our Vancouver Island School Health Officer, has endorsed the installation of microwave radiation, a known 2B carcinogen listed next to lead, DDT, methyl mercury, chloroform, and car exhaust as an acceptable risk in our schools?
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Buddha