1) A C4ST General Meeting, with Theodora Scarato as guest speaker, the third in the series about cell phones.
When is holding a cellphone close to your body too close?
Update on cell phone safety issues in the USA
C4ST Community Meeting – All welcome. Please distribute.
Tuesday, April 11, 2023
7:30 pm EDT
2) 41 phones were found to be non-compliant in France since 2018. In Canada, only 8 since 2015/16 and our Safety Code 6 level is lower (1.6W/kg) than France’s. How can this be? Few phones are tested in Canada. If they aren’t tested, they can’t be found to be non-compliant.
List of cell phones withdrawn or updated for deception and endangering users
“There are now 41 models of mobile phones, identified as dangerous for the health of users, which have either been withdrawn from the French market, or have had their Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) subject to a software update. The latest: the Essential Clap 20+ (Boulanger), the Xiaomi Poco X3 and the Logicom Le Swipe
Be careful if you have an Essential Clap 20+, you have until June 30, 2023 to bring it back to Boulanger!”
3) What an amazing idea: one German town is responding to complaints from sensitive people, at least in the town center, apparently on a trial basis. It is possible that other towns will follow, which could raise the issue about lack of access. This will be interesting to follow.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Electrosensitivity: WLAN remains switched off at night in Wangen
“A few residents of the tranquil town of Wangen apparently have physical complaints due to the public WLAN hotspot. To address the electrosensitivity of those affected, the town is now turning off its WLAN overnight. And apparently the next town is already planning a very similar approach.”
Another letter regarding the situation re. Rogers planned cell tower on Salt Spring Island, BC. The links below include the ones from Friday’s update.
From: Oona McOuat (name given with permission)
Date: Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 11:57 AM
Subject: Please use these Attachments Re: Why was our 2001 Protocol ignored?
To: Directorssi <email@example.com>, Laura Patrick <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Timothy Peterson <email@example.com>, Jamie Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ken.Pungente@ised-isde.gc.ca <Ken.Pungente@ised-isde.gc.ca>, Gail Sjuberg <email@example.com>
Further to last night’s message, I have re-attached the supporting documents to include the date sent and parties the messages were sent to. I have also added correspondence with ISED in Ottawa and Trust staff in Victoria, along with the 2015 letter from Linda Adams of ISED which revoked the Trust’s 1996 Antenna Siting Letter of Understanding. (It did not revoke the SSI 2001 Antenna Siting Guideline.)
It is clear to me that if ISED supports that Trust staff/elected officials could decide to render the Salt Spring 2001 antenna siting protocol null and void without a resolution passed by the SSLTC to revoke or replace that 2001 policy, then ISED could also support Trust staff/elected officials in using the new Trust-wide Siting Protocol before a resolution was passed to approve it/replace the 2001 policy with it.
I note that the Galiano Trust – which adopted our 2001 protocol by resolution in 2002 – acknowledged the existence of the 2001 Salt Spring protocol in a Staff report of 2016, and used it in a Rogers tower siting in 2015. Also, CREST referred to the 2001 policy and followed its requirements in its 2019 Blain Road, Salt Spring Island tower application.
For your convenience, last night’s message is below,
All the Best,
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters/Citizens for Safer Tech
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. Practice Safe Tech.