[5G – BC Hydro – Causality / Causation – Cell Phones – CTIA – Deborah Kopald – Doctor – EHS Accommodations – EMF – EMR – FCC – FDA – Health – ICNIRP – Jerry Flynn – Judge – Language – Legal – Michael Kundi – Microcells – Morgan Christen – Papers / Studies – PowerPoint – Proof – RF – Right to Know – Susan Foster – Ted Olson – Twitter – WHO – Wireless | BC – Canada – Berkeley, California, USA] & (audio)
1) We need to use social media to get word out about smeters and the many defects/dangers associated with them.
Job description: Establish Twitter site and post daily (or close to daily) tweets to spread word of the many dangers of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation to health from exposure to smart meters and other wireless devices; also to post tweets concerning safety (especially fire), security, privacy and cost. Re-tweeters also needed and encouraged.
Job duration: Can start immediately. This position can be shared, duplicated, passed back and forth, or passed on relay-style to another person or persons at any time.
Experience required: None. (If Trump can do it, how hard can it be?)
Pay: None. But potential payback in the form of galvanizing potential voters for the object of achieving favourable political rulings is very high.
Risks: None. All tweets to be taken from credible published sources.*
Satisfaction: Extremely high. (Look how much Trump enjoys tweeting.)
Time required: A few minutes daily – as long as it takes to choose a suitable statistic or short statement and type 140 characters.
– Personal empowerment.
– Heady social engagement.
– Bragging rights to major contribution in the case of favourable outcomes.
How to apply: Send email to me at: email@example.com with “tweeter-in-chief” in subject line.
*Help in finding sources for suitable messages is available from other Coalition members. A good start is Jerry Flynn’s excellent 283-page PowerPoint presentation, available at: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521067071.pdf. There’s enough in this one source alone for at least a couple of hundred days.
2) How other groups are Tweeting about smeters:
3) An excellent interview with Deborah Kopald about wireless devices and the efforts being made in the USA to allow 5G microcells to be free of regulation. As in Canada, the telecoms want to put these things outside homes without advising those who will be irradiated constantly and without allowing anyone choice. Her interview starts at approx. the 33 minute point. We need to educate people about this and organize to stop this proliferation of these dangerous radiation emitting transmitters.
http://prn.fm/gary-null-show-02-07-17/ (audio 55:04)
4) Here are some good articles and documents that can be helpful when writing about or discussing EHS.
A newly found and good website re. EHS. Lots of good links so we can connect with other groups.
5) Below is a discussion between 2 very knowledgeable people about the WHO’s practice of parsing words to mislead re. non-ionizing (microwave) radiation. Both participants have allowed me to share and Dr. Kundi sent his paper re. causality.
6) Throughout the province, BC Hydro is facing problems due to trees falling on power lines. If the money spent on unnecessary projects like smeters and Site C had been spent to put power lines underground, this sort of problem would have been eliminated. Repairmen and Linesmen have to work overtime when these things happen – many making salaries well into 6 figures per year.
From: Susan Foster
Sent: February 6, 2017
Subject: Re: [cheemf] Critical change in WHO website re non-ionizing radiation
Thank you for the explanation as to WHO’s parsing of words. As you know, the FCC uses almost identical language:
From the FCC’s webpage “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns”:
Several US government agencies and international organizations work cooperatively to monitor research on the health effects of RF exposure. According to the FDA and the World Health Organization (WHO), among other organizations, to date, the weight of scientific evidence has not effectively linked exposure to radio frequency energy from mobile devices with any known health problems.
[and] … currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.
It is possible to find language in more obscure places of the website that is somewhat cautionary, yet the truth is most people go to these webpages dedicated to cell phones for definitive answers about their own mobile phone use, their children’s, etc.
This language was recently used in an attempt to mislead a panel of federal judges in the Berkeley right-to-know cell phone notice case. The CTIA quoted from the FCC website and misled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the CTIA v. City of Berkeley appeal (Berkeley wants to place notices with FCC mandated language about cell phone use in stores that sell cell phones). That decision is still pending. Yet during the September 2016 hearing, one of the federal judges, Judge Morgan Christen, asked if there were any adverse health effects from cell phones. She wanted to know if there were a legitimate need for consumer information. The CTIA attorney Ted Olson answered, “The FCC says ‘currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.'” It was an incredibly misleading statement, because the judge was not asking for the legal interpretation with respect to the burden imposed by causation. She seemed to be honestly asking if there were any legitimate health concerns, and I believe she was purposefully misled.
So what you are saying, Michael, is that WHO, ICNIRP, CTIA, FCC are promoting the legal interpretation of language disguised as lay language on frequently visited websites. From this parsing of words, not only will most consumers could draw [false] assumptions of safety, but so might judges making critical decisions about legal cases that could ultimately offer us more protection.
How does one lift this veil of deception?
Thank you for your insight.
& Revised and Amended IAFF Resolution No.15; August 2004 – Study of Firefighters Exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation from Cell Towers/Masts by Susan Foster Ambrose, Joe Foster, Dr. Magda Havas, Dr. Henry C. Lai, Janet Newton – August 2004: http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp]
= = =
On 2/5/2017, Michael Kundi wrote:
This statement at the “Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones” webpage
” Are there any health effects?
A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use. ”
uses two significant words: ‘established‘ and ‘caused‘. ‘Established‘ has the meaning of overwhelming consent in the scientific community. It is a subjective term because there is no criterion at which stage of the scientific discussion something gets established. As Kuhn conjectured this is only the case once non-consenters have virtually died out. The other word ‘causation‘ can be meant in different ways. There are many different definitions but the essential point here is not merely the definition but the level of proof afforded. You can break it down to the level of proof afforded at criminal court as contrasted to civil court. In criminal court you must not assume causation by the defendant if there is any reasonable doubt, while in civil court you can assume causation if you consider it more likely than not that the defendant did what he was accused for.
On this WHO webpage the criminal court level of proof is applied. This strategy has been adopted by ICNIRP in the early 2000s because it became clear that the blunt previous statement: “To date, no adverse health effects have been established” cannot be maintained anymore.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest
– but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrelenting.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
~ John F. Kennedy