- A PowerPoint that explains what “game changers” have occurred since May 2011 when IARC classified RF radiation from all wireless devices as a 2b (possible) carcinogen.
Wireless Radiation and Human Health Policies: How Reliable is the Evidence?
Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc, Adjunct Professor, Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Finland
Presentation at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, Dec 9, 2015
“In my opinion, the currently available scientific evidence is sufficient to upgrade the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation from the possible carcinogen (Group 2B) to the probable carcinogen (Group 2A)”
- New technology such as Telus small cells are using both 3G and 4G technology, one transmitter is 3G and the other is 4G. Dr. Hardell, long time researcher on dangers of cell phone radiation, reported 3G technology, although using lower has increased incidents of brain cancer by 3 times that of 2G. Will the same thing happen with 4G that Telus is putting outside our homes? Below is an email from Lloyd Morgan about 3G and the questions about 4G and the upcoming 5G.
- Friday is the last day of the hearing in Vancouver in which Hydro will be responding to charges that people in BC were not given the choice to refuse something they believe to be potentially dangerous, as is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There has been amazing support for the plaintiffs, with people attending every day. Hopefully the support will continue tomorrow. Supreme Court, 800 Smithe St., Rm. 51. I don’t know if it is scheduled to start at 9:30 or 10: 00 (so sorry)
A Short summary of the proceedings of Day 4, Thursday, Dec. 10, 2015, in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, in Davis vs BC Hydro.
– – –
BC Hydro threw up some obstacles Thursday in the way of its smart meter opponents.
The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms says: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
Plaintiffs at a hearing in B.C. Supreme Court say that Section 7 of the charter gives them the “liberty” to refuse the possible cancer-causing radiation from Hydro’s wireless electrical meter.
But Hydro’s lawyer, Marko Vesely, said the freedom to refuse a smart meter would only amount to a “lifestyle choice”. To claim protection under the charter, you’d have to show physical or psychological harm and that claim would come under “security of the person”.
Madame Justice Elaine Adair will have to sort out whether liberty or security is involved when someone refuses a smart meter, as she decides whether to certify the opponents’ plans for an anti-smart meter class-action lawsuit.
David Aaron, the lawyer for Hydro’s opponents, has said it would be next to impossible to prove harm in court. The class-action lawsuit, instead, must depend on showing the reasonableness of the fundamental right to protect yourself from a possible source of harm.
Hydro’s lawyer also attacked his opponents’ claim for repayment of the $35 a month plus related penalties charged to customers who have refused to accept a smart meter. Hydro is authorized to install the meters, Vesely said. But if a new law changes that, it would not be right to retroactively make those fees illegal. They were paid for the extra resources provided by Hydro to service those anti-smart meter customers.
by Greg McIntyre
In general with each generation of cellphone modulation “be faster, smarter and less power-hungry than” than the previous generation. While less average radiated power can be seen as good, and if everything else compared to the previous generation remained the same it would likely be “good,” this may not be the case.
As I have posted previously when the technology moved from 2G (GSM modulation) to 3G (UMTS) modulation the average radiated power decreased a thousand fold. But when the Swedish team lead by Dr. Lennart Hardell published risks of brain cancer from 2G and 3G cellphones the risk for 3G, UMTS modulated cellphones the risk of brain cancer was more than 3-fold higher. There are several studies which have shown that something about the UMTS modulation damages DNA repair genes which potentially explains why a thousand fold less average radiated power causes more than a tripled risk of brain cancer. [It is important to also understand that radiated UMTS power remains a risk factor when using a G3, UMTS modulate cellphone.] In other words, within a given modulation scheme the radiated power and the cumulative hours of risk are each a risk factor for brain cancer.
G4, LTE modulated cellphone were introduced circa 2013. It is still too soon to determine if the lower average radiated power of G4 phones reduced or increase the risk of brain cancer. [LTE stands for Long Term Evolution which is cosmic joke.]
G5, as yet unnamed modulation, will be release circa 2018-2020.
The nightmare is that each new generation is introduced without regard to potential health problems. I can only imagine this will continue until there is such a tsunami of brain cancers that the public wakes up and demands change.
My personal hypothesis is that there are resonances between the complex set of frequencies created with each modulation scheme and biological process. Resonance is an amplification. In other words, some frequencies are far more dangerous than others. This hypothesis could be tested, but it would require a high priority public health research project because the costs would be substantial. Though substantial, the cost of brain cancer and other resultant diseases will be even higher.
Our job—yours and mine—is to hasten the day when such a high priority public health research project begins.
Best regards to all,
PS: Nothing is a simple as it appears including the message above.
Senior Research Fellow
Environmental Health Trust, http://www.environmentalhealthtrust.org/
Newsletter prepared by Sharon Noble
“If we remain silent, we kill freedom, justice and the possibility that a society armed with information may have power to change the situation that has brought us to this point.” – Anabel Hernández