I will be putting “TIPS” for reducing consumption on the bottom of my updates, below Letters.
1) Telus is going around the province with “The Future Home” on display. Everything is “smart” from the looks of it, which will mean high RFR. The locations are not given – I tried for North Saanich and I have to “sign in”. This could be one of the reasons for the microcells – they need to be able to communicate with everything in the home.
2) “The European Ombudsman recognizes for the first time a conflict of interest with telecommunications companies in a European consultative institution, which has compromised prevention and full recognition of electrosensitivity”.
We, the undersigned *, more than 40 European organizations and platforms of advocacy electrohypersensitive people (EHS) and the fight against electromagnetic pollution, we welcome the European Ombudsman (1) recognizes and seeks to remedy the conflict interests and irregularities Authorized by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which prevented the vote and adoption of the planned opinion on electrosensitivity to exposure to electromagnetic fields at the plenary session on 21 January 2015. Following this Emily O’Reilly recommendation, we consider null and void the “counter opinion” negationist approved up the notice not voted at the plenary session of the EESC
(first item “Read Full Article …”)
Sent: November 12, 2016
Subject: Wireless Radiation – Provincial Health Office position conflicts with experts
November 12, 2016
Dr. Helena Swinkels, MD, MHSc, FCFP, FRCPC
Medical Health Officer
Via email: Helena.Swinkels@fraserhealth.ca
Dear Dr. Swinkels:
This letter in its entirety represents my opinions. Please do not take anything personally.
Thank you for your email of August 12th, 2016 clarifying your official position re the potential health effects of ‘wireless’ radiation.
Your response was disappointing as it simply reiterates the undocumented ‘opinion’ of the British Columbia Provincial Health Officer that there is ‘no convincing evidence’ of harm to human health from wireless microwave radiation as generated from cell towers, smart meters, wifi, and similar systems, below the level of Canada’s ‘Safety Code 6’ (‘SC6’).
As any knowledgeable person is aware, the credibility of ‘SC6’ is strongly contested as it’s obviously one of the least protective safety standards in the world, being based on outdated science which permits the wireless industry freedom to deploy dangerous products on an unsuspecting public. The Provincial Health Office’s position directly contradicts the position of hundreds of the top research scientists in the world in this area who are calling urgently for much stricter wireless exposure regulations for health reasons (primarily cancer), and literally tens of thousands of research studies documenting potential harm from chronic low-level exposures below that of ‘SC6’.
This alarming contrast in positions, and the very real potential for massive future damage to public health, is of vital concern to all citizens…although tragically few are aware of the issue.
My request to you was not for a letter or email, but rather to meet informally in person to discuss this contrast in positions. This request was initiated as the Provincial Health Officer refuses to meet the public and engage in dialog on this topic, and had referred a local concerned mother to the local Medical Health Officer (yourself). I suspect that the in-person communications ban on this subject has been extended.
Your response quotes an impressive array of official titles; however the actual identities of the persons involved are not revealed, which is unusual in this type of context.
Can I be direct? I’d hoped that some genuine and honest in-person communication on this topic might be possible with you, but the response you’ve sent makes it clear that no real communication will occur. It makes no serious attempt to address the core issues or to communicate… rather it represents the all too familiar sound of the Provincial Health Office’s ideological door slamming shut. The studies are ‘conflicting’ and ‘inconsistent’ and we’ll have to wait for more research… the standard agnotological diversions employed in the great tobacco scam. There’s ‘no convincing evidence’ of harm and that’s the end of it, so citizens should just shut up and go away.
But the evidence of potential harm as attested to by independent medical experts the world over is readily available, overwhelming, and undeniable to anyone willing to look. The refusal of the Provincial Health Office to acknowledge this information is unethical, immoral and in my opinion constitutes a serious breach of authority.
Thank you for the three reference links. The first two are based on outdated and industry-based bias which ignores repeated studies showing the effects of non-thermal radiation below that of ‘SC6’ safety levels. Based on the expert evidence and opinion of scientists the world over, I reject these two links as outdated and misleading.
The third and most contemporary link you sent, a review of the recent ‘Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program (‘NTP’) Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation’ study I will comment on, as in my opinion it is a typical example of the type of misleading information symptomatic of the Provincial Health Office.
This is the link you provided: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/usa-national-toxicology-program-partial-study-findings.pdf
This link goes to (yet another) anonymous and unattributed document. The paper outlines three ‘flaws’ in the NTP study. I communicated with Ron Melnick, the NTP scientist who designed the protocols for this study. He was kind enough to provide a refutation of the three assumptions questioning the research. I can send you that information, but why should I?
The Provincial Health Office could have made these clarifications itself, and common-sense would dictate that it would, if it was truly interested in protecting the health of citizens. Instead, it has pasted what appears to be an anonymous drive-by smear of the NTP study and the associated scientists on its website. The U.S. National Toxicology Program, a respected division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released these preliminary ‘partial findings’ as a warning to public of potential harm… but after passing through the twisted filters of our Provincial Health Office it is simply written off as yet another ‘flawed study’. Citizen health depends on accurate and unbiased analysis of science by competent persons, and disclosure of information relevant to health to the public. I, and many other citizens, have no faith in your office to provide this.
Could you please provide information on who authored this Provincial Health Office document, and why it was not signed?
I am not a medical doctor, perhaps I’m not officially qualified to comment. I can and do read widely the work of those who are qualified as legitimate experts in this area, and who are not funded by the wireless industry. After six years of research, I have come to the conclusion that any reasonable and unbiased person, of even modest intelligence, who examines the data put forth by independent researchers (and who learns to navigate through the disgusting swamp of medical malfeasance and deception endemic in the scientific research industry) will come to the same conclusion of harm. It seems to me not possible, unless you willingly deceive yourself, to come to any other conclusion.
Frances Oldham Kelsey, who died recently at 101 years of age, was from Shawnigan Lake, BC. She became a doctor, not an easy thing in her day, and was hired by the US FDA in 1936. Kelsey felt that there was insufficient evidence of safety to approve the drug ‘thalidomide’. She came under severe and relentless industry attack for her stance. Meanwhile, the drug was expediently rubber stamped in Canada, leading to the deformity and deaths of hundreds of babies. Today more than 100 victims still survive. Oldham’s moral courage in demanding evidence of safety in the face of adversity saved potentially thousands of US children from deformity and death. Today in contrast, and in spite of vast volumes of literature pointing to the potential harm from ‘wireless’, our Provincial Health Office simply dismisses these concerns outright, giving a green light to the wireless industry to do whatever they want.
I do remain optimistic that there is still hope with the Medical Health Officers in this Province and their staff to have the moral courage to seriously investigate the evidence of harm which is readily available today. As with tobacco and asbestos and a dozen other dangerous products unleashed on a trusting and unsuspecting public, the truth is always known in the end. But the end is often a very long time away, and many families will fall victim to cruel and unnecessary illnesses and deaths.
I am attaching the second letter from Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute to the B.C. Provincial Health Office. Johansson, whose experience in the topic vastly exceeds that of anyone in this Province, remains one of the sole voices of wisdom, caution, and basic respect for human beings. (the attachment is at this link: http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Johannson2Kendall-Sept.112012.pdf
re Tips to Reduce Consumption – Watch BC Hydro rates very closely as our consumption is reduced. Hydro One in Ontario penalized citizens for their reduction. If BC Hydro wants us to curb our dependance on their electricity, why are they promoting “electric” automobiles and marginalizing renewables?
As an experiment we shut off our stove, refrigerator, hot water tank and used a wood cookstove for heat, hot water and cooking – drying clothes on a line in the basement where the stove is. We used a root cellar in place of a refrigerator. We were able to get our consumption down to 3 kWh per day (from the 22.19 kWh/day for pricing on tier one).
Now, if all house homeowners were able to reduce consumption like this (for the winter months) how would you expect the corporation to act in light of diminishing returns?