1) A gem from Arthur Firstenberg that should be shared widely, perhaps along with some of the info about cellphones I obtained from Health Canada and ISED (shared in my presentation).
as webpage: https://cellphonetaskforce.org/100-consequences-of-owning-a-cell-phone
as pdf: https://cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/100-Consequences.pdf
2) Another amazing report by Dr. Henry Lai and Blake Levitt. This one addresses the science behind effects, confronting the industry-friendly mantra that “there are no known mechanisms” related to EMF causing biological effects.
Cellular and molecular effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields
“For decades, the argument that “there is no known mechanism” has been used to paralyze changes in public health policy by denying any reported biological effects of EMF below certain thresholds. But increasing recognition of EMF as a ‘cellular stress response’ via oxidative stress serves to de-mystify that argument which has been specious all along. Logically, perfect understanding of mechanisms is not required to accept the reality of observed effects. One cannot deny that apples fall from trees to the ground without Isaac Newton’s gravity explanation, nor is the mechanism of Charles Darwin’s ‘natural selection’ necessary for one to understand that living species have formed in many varieties over time….
Moving toward forming a more comprehensive EMF public health policy, from the discussion above, it is clear that the biological effects of EMF involve an extremely complex matrix of interacting factors across all cell lines/functions. These require careful analysis of comprehensive data, as well as the appropriate level and kind of expertise in standards exposure-setting groups such as ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC in order to interpret such information fully and accurately…. There are unfortunate indications that such high standards of appropriate qualification to sit on such committees are not being met today … but to do anything less is highly unethical as this subject will continue to be in the hands of people acting outside of their areas of expertise.”
3) This recall does not entail a water smeter, just a backup battery. In this recall, Health Canada says: “Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form.”
Please report any problems with any wireless device, including smeters, which can cause fires. If you submit an incident, would you please copy and paste your submission and forward to me at:
firstname.lastname@example.org with “incident report” on the subject line.
I am sure many people have encountered problems with various devices but since there is no information readily available about such complaints, Health Canada can say there have been no problems reported.
Where are the recalls of smeters that cause fires, cellphones with emissions that exceed our out-dated Safety Code 6?
(click on photos to enlarge)
Flo Battery Backup for Flo Smart Water Monitors recalled due to fire hazard
“This recall involves the Flo Smart Water Monitor Lithium-Ion Battery Backup (“Battery Backup”) which is an optional add-on to the Flo Smart Water Monitor and Shutoff. The Flo Smart Water Monitor and Shutoff (which is sold separately, has had no safety issues, and is not the subject of this recall) is a smart device that is installed on a home’s water supply line to monitor the temperature and pressure of a home’s water, track water usage, detect leaks and automatically shut off the home’s water before serious leaks occur.”
From: “Oona McOuat” (name given with permission)
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:04:01 AM
Subject: Unbiased Arbitration needed on the Rogers Tower Siting
Judicial Review & Stop Work Request
At today’s Salt Spring Local Trust Committee meeting, CROC asked the LTC to:
1) communicate to ISED that if the federal government refuses to handle the dispute with Rogers by applying the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Salt Spring parties involved plan to file for a judicial review.
2) ask ISED to order Rogers to stop all work at the site until a fair and unbiased decision about the impasse filed (the dispute) has been delivered.
Quick Action You Can Take Today
Comments could be added to the two articles below. (The fellow who says the earth’s electromagnetic field is stronger than the pulsed radiation emitted by a cell tower needs to be set straight : )
And here: https://saltspringexchange.com/2023/04/06/opinion-rogers-falsified-cell-tower-application-should-not-be-acceptable-to-anyone/
Oona for Let’s Connect Salt Spring
Hope you are out enjoying the sunshine!
Here is a brief update on the Channel Ridge Rogers tower situation.
Action on Site
Rogers is forging ahead at the Channel Ridge site. Yesterday, cable was laid in the trenches contractors have dug, uprooting trees and making a mess of the environmentally-sensitive landscape.
ISED (the federal tower siting authority) Continues to Support Rogers
On April 5th, ISED’s coastal Manager Ken Pugente sent an error-filled letter to the Salt Spring Local Trust Committee, saying that Rogers can forge ahead because they fulfilled ISED’s default requirements. Pugente claims these were the requirements that Rogers needed to meet because according to him, Trust staff said repeatedly that Salt Spring did not have an antenna siting policy in place at the time of the application.
Of course we did – our 2001, very protective policy. And this info had been communicated to the Trust and ISED by me several times over the past 2 years. Plus, at the time of this siting, Trust staff asked Rogers and CREST to conform to aspects of the up and coming Trust Wide Model Siting protocol. Rogers and CREST said they had fulfilled these requirements in their application, although they had not, and although that policy had not yet been voted in place to replace that 2001 protocol.
Recent Action Taken
Dispute Process Triggered
Given the material inaccuracies in Rogers’ application, last week, our Salt Spring Trust Committee triggered the dispute process with Rogers through ISED. We have to give them kudos for not backing down.
Letters Sent to ISED, the SSLTC, politicians and the Press
Julian Clark, the representative for Concerned Residents of Channel Ridge (CROC) and I have made it abundantly clear to the Trust, the federal government and media that the Rogers application and ISED’s decision to support it were based on material and procedural errors. A nation-wide press release was sent out by Canadians for Safe Technology on our behalf. So far, nothing has shifted and no journalists have responded that I am aware.
The issue now is – it is unclear if official ISED policy:
a) requires ISED to respond to a dispute, or if ISED staff has the power to decide if this case “merits” arbitration.
b) allows us to ensure that if arbitration occurs it is unbiased – that the same ISED employees that supported Rogers do not settle the dispute.
I have written Elizabeth May for support on the above points (no response yet) and Julian has written a response to Ken Pugente’s April 5th letter as well as a draft letter for the SS LTC to send to ISED asking for unbiased arbitration, which he is presenting at the LTC meeting this morning.
If anything earth-shattering has happened at the meeting today, I will let you know,
All the Best,
Oona for Let’s Connect Salt Spring
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters/Citizens for Safer Tech
“Nature does nothing in vain.” Aristotle
Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. Practice Safe Tech.