1) A very thought-provoking article which describes how the author of the article in Psychology Today was intending to manipulate his readers into believing that anyone claiming to have been harmed by EMF (to be sensitive) is psychotic, a liar, part of a conspiracy, etc. This is how the industries like tobacco, pesticides, and telecommunication teach people to ignore science and even their own experiences. An educated, well-informed customer is bad for business.
EMF/RF/5G & Psychology Today: Humanity Must Take A Stand Against Ridiculing, Patriarchal, Discriminatory ‘HealthCare’
“The mass culture is being manipulated to address its discomfort by attacking the canaries, whistleblowers, and activists who are identifying areas where society is out of alignment with reality, instead of doing the deep, critical analysis to confront the lies….
Instead, the industry-controlled mass media is activating and directing the discomfort. The Psychology Today article is but one representation of a deliberate, concerted, insidious effort to scramble the critical thinking skills of readers….
One approach utilized in the Psychology Today article is to promote the qualities of the perpetrator, victim, accuser, abuser, and rescuer in an attempt to misguide the conclusions of the reader.”
2) In an area with high levels of microwave radiation, there is a high rate of ocular melanoma. A lot of significant information. It is technical in areas, but several sections are highly relevant to our increasing RF exposure via densification of antennae. See pg. 11 where the power density reading was done before the radar station was working. It was basically zero.
On pg. 20 it addresses multiple cell towers overlapping and multiple sources of “radiated power”; for example: cell towers, microcells, smart meters, Wi-Fi modems. Accumulated exposure must be considered and measured. ISED never even measures the RF from a single cell antenna — they let the company do it using computer models. And what about cell towers near airports, navy bases, shipping yards, where radar installations exist?
Areas of High Levels of 5.6 GHz Microwave Radiation Pollution in Huntersville, North Carolina
“An environmental microwave radiation study was performed in the Huntersville, NC area. The study was performed to aid other researchers and the public investigating the high rate of ocular melanoma in the region. The study included both radiation modeling and an electromagnetic radiation (EMR) field survey of the area.”
Full report is available at:
“FAA safety guideline documents suggest that a site survey be performed when multiple microwave towers are sighted in the same area  due to overlapping and increased power densities in the area. “Since radiated power is proportional to squared electric and magnetic field strengths, field measurements should be made periodically, when the operating parameters of radars have been changed, or when new equipment is installed, to confirm compliance with recommended NIR safety guidelines. For exposure from multiple sources, the exposure (power density of field squared) should be measured at each source frequency and divided by the corresponding MPE to obtain the fractional contribution from each NIR source. The basic limit is that the sum of fractional MPE’s for the multiple sources should not exceed unity.””
“Current FCC microwave radiation guidelines primarily deal with heating effects of microwave radiation although electric shock hazards are also well known when high power, higher frequency radiation comes into contact with a conductor. The eyes contain a conductive saline solution and GHz frequency radiation has been linked with increased cataracts . The higher frequency GHz radiation tends to increase “skin effects” and can trigger electrical currents on conductive surfaces. IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible . Recent research has also pointed to long term exposure to radars and mobile communications as “provoking cancer growth” .”
3) Advance notice for all the talented artists who get my updates. An online party, 6 pm UK time, 10:00 am PT time, Oct. 2.
Celebrating Local Successes and Actions Around the World
“The role of the artist is to make the revolution irresistible.” Toni Cade Bambara
“Join us for an online gathering of music and storytelling as we share and inspire one another with local EMF success stories and actions from around the world. In addition to sharing local success stories, we’re inviting people to compose and/or share music and poetry. Art can awaken our collective conscience to the concerns and challenges facing humanity, rather than leaving us susceptible to the current centralized corporate model being foisted on us, and enabled by technology.”
(click on photo to enlarge)
Re. cell tower “invited” by Gold River City Council (read from the bottom up)
From: Marcus Schluschen
Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Gold River Cell Tower
To: Luke Charlton <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, Wendy He / McGee <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Fire Chief Gold River John McPherson <email@example.com>,
Hello Mr. Charlton,
Gold River’s administration appears to project an astounding level of blind faith in telecom industry lobbyist, Brian Gregg.
I am quoting your correspondence, you sent to a deeply concerned citizen:
“The preferred method for voicing any comments or concerns is via written correspondence to Brian Gregg of SitePath Consulting. This consultant has been hired to help facilitate questions and to respond to any reasonable concerns the public may have regarding the tower. SitePath / Rogers are the ones running this stage of the public consultation process so the Village is not in a position to receive delegations about the cell tower as it would be difficult to pass all of those concerns back to SitePath / Rogers for them to respond to”.
1. When did Gold River sign the contract with Brian Gregg/Site Path Consulting?
2. Who signed this contract with Brian Gregg/Site Path Consulting, on behalf of the municipality?
3. What is the dollar amount, of this contract with Brian Gregg/Site Path Consulting?
The purpose of our delegation, as requested for Sept. 6, is not to seek Mr. Gregg’s opinion, nor approval.
Mr. Gregg should have never been hired as a “consultant” by Gold River, as he exclusively presents the interests of the telecom industry.
Scientists refer to people like Brian Gregg as industries’ hired guns or, if you prefer, the proverbial Fox in the henhouse.
When Gold River administrators refer to him as “consultant” when replying to people’s e-mails, who express great concern for the health of their families and loved ones, as well as substantial property devaluation of their home they worked a life time for, you are overstepping your position as impartial administrators.
Calling him “consultant”, implies impartiality, which Brian Gregg certainly is not.
Gregg earned a dismal reputation across Vancouver Island, from Qualicum Beach to the Cowichan Valley, for his dubious and misleading methods in dealing with the public.
He is not interested in TODAY’S medical science on cell tower radiation, nor is he interested in long-term public health.
I attended Brian Gregg’s “public consultation” hosted by TELUS, in Gold River, which was nothing more than a professional “hit job” on the unsuspecting and largely uninformed public.
There was no microphone available, where people could ask tough questions or voice their concerns, for everyone to hear. This allowed Mr. Gregg, and his gaggle of telecom industry employees, not to be put on the spot with questions they could not, or were simply unwilling to answer.
Instead, the format was strategically designed to disperse the people throughout the room, with an island of tables in the center holding large propaganda signs. Gregg’s sales band swarmed the room, speaking individually with the public, which allowed no rebuttal, even when the information they provided was plainly false and scientifically outdated by decades.
No mention was made of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies, which included the recent double peer-reviewed, US Government-funded 10 year NTP study, nor the independently funded 10 year Ramazzini Study, on cell tower radiation, which caused a huge international uproar among scientists.
Incidentally, since I personally handed him the printed information, therefore, he cannot claim ignorance.
Please ask Mr. Gregg why he feels entitled to withhold this important information from the public, which showed serious health affects at levels far below Canada’s outdated Code 6?
The residents of Gold River deserve better than this! A meaningful public consultation hearing must be independent of Brian Gregg, and the influence of the telecom industry. People must be given the opportunity to be informed of the latest developments in peer-reviewed science.
Where there is no informed consent, there is no consent!
We respectfully repeat our request that our delegation, comprised of Gold River taxpayers and citizens, is granted to speak to our town Council on September 6.
We request that the allowable time to speak to Council be extended to 10 minutes, at the discretion of Council, considering we are not a single person but a delegation. In the spirit of fairness, we trust this will not present a problem.
To illustrate, the importance that our delegation is heard by Council, I invite the administration to peruse the 5G Space Appeal, which is not exclusively about 5G, but also 1, 2, 3 and 4 G.
Why is Mr. Gregg withholding this important information from you and Council?
4,459 Medical Doctors.
302,142 Signatures in all
Cert. EMF Radiation Consultant
From: Luke Charlton
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 3:28 PM
To: Marcus Schluschen
Cc: Brian Gregg ; Michael Roy
Subject: RE: Gold River Cell Tower
I’m CC-ing your email to Brian Gregg of SitePath consulting who is overseeing this public consultation process.
I will confirm that the site is currently not zoned for commercial / industrial use at this time. The goal of this public consultation process is to meet federal requirements for approval. Before Rogers is given permission by the Village to build on the proposed site they will need to ensure they are compliant with local bylaws. We just aren’t at that stage of the process yet.
I will ask to see if Brian can respond to your comments regarding cell towers as he may be more familiar with the ‘cumulative nature of permanent’ cell towers.
I will also note that Council isn’t approving or denying the cell tower from happening in the community at this time. The public consultation that is taking place now will be compiled into a report for Council to consider when it is time for them to approve / deny the tower. That stage of the process can only happen after the public engagement process closes on September 16 and reports are written from SitePath and from Village Staff to consider the tower. So for now I recommend engaging with Brian as your comments will be included in his report and when Council gets the opportunity to approve/deny this tower Council will revisit the issue as to whether or not they will be receiving delegations.
Luke Charlton, MPA
Deputy Corporate Officer
Village of Gold River
From: Marcus Schluschen
Sent: August 29, 2022 2:33 PM
To: Luke Charlton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Wendy He / McGee <email@example.com>; Gold River Fire Chief <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Subject: EXTERNAL: Delegation
Re: Rogers Cell Tower
Hello Mr. Charlton,
Many residents of Gold River, strongly object to the construction of yet another cell tower, this time by Rogers, very close and even directly beside their homes.
This location is not zoned for commercial use, which would make Rogers proposed industrial compound, permanent electrical equipment storage, and a massive 40 meter industrial cell tower structure, illegal.
Not long ago, a long list signatures were collected by Mrs. Julie Schimunek and others, opposing the TELUS cell tower, which most unfortunately was ignored by this present Council. It appears that Council did not understand the serious cumulative nature of permanent, 24/7, cell tower radiation exposure, which penetrates homes, and all living organisms with ease.
No informed consent: is a breach of human rights and the Nuremberg Code (see: http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/ signed by 422 medical doctors and EMF scientists, by March 18, 2022).
The population of Canada, including Gold River Council, have never been informed of the 1000s of peer-reviewed published scientific papers demonstrating biological damage at non-thermal levels, far below Canada’s outdated ‘Safety Code 6’.
Why is the public and Council, not entitled to this important information?
Perhaps this is because advisory groups tasked specifically to inform the public have conflicts of interests and their published information is usually out of date, by decades.
Government agencies, such as ISED, collect BILLIONS of DOLLARS through airwave auctions. No conflict of interests?
Why has telecom lobbyist Brian Gregg, TELUS or Rogers failed to provide the public, as well as Council, with today’s peer-reviewed science?
As taxpayers and residents of Gold River, we formally request to speak as a delegation at the next Council meeting, Tuesday, September 6
Please be so kind and acknowledge receipt of this email.
Certified, EMF Radiation Consultant
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters/ Citizens for Safer Tech
“It’s no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society” Jiddu Krishnamurti