[CBC’s Marketplace with Wendy Mesley & Cell Phones Safety – Children – Comments Please: NHTSA & V2V Radar Safety – Dane Snowden, CTIA – FCC & RF – Health Canada – Health Critics & HESA members – Jane Philpott – Letters by Janis Hoffmann & Sherry Ridout – Microsoft & Toyota – NTP – Studies – The Wingspread Conference & Precautionary Principle – WHO | Canada – USA] & (videos)
1) Microsoft is ramping up for vehicle-to-vehicle transmitters. Please get your comments in to the USA government about this planned requirement for all cars. Another sample letter is below.
Toyota gets license to Microsoft’s connected vehicle patents
The software company is giving Toyota access to its suite of vehicle technologies, which includes an operating system, voice recognition, gesture control, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity tools. The agreement is not exclusive, and Microsoft said it is looking to partner with additional automakers.
2) I forwarded my email that I sent to Minister Philpott to the Health Critics, and here are their email addresses:
I also forwarded it to the HESA Committee members, whose names and email addresses can be found at:
[scroll down to Other Canada Government Contacts: HESA members]
If you write, and I sure hope you do, you might consider sending a cc to these people as well as your MP.
Many, many people have already written to Min. Philpott and I’ve included a few below in Letters. Please keep them going – politicians, and I suspect CBC, react to getting feedback. We need to make the most of this opportunity to keep battering at the walls of Health Canada and the telecoms.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Re. V2V transmitters being mandated by US government.
This is how your comment will appear on Regulations.gov:
Being as multiple U.S. Government Agencies have acknowledged that the FCC RF limits do not protect people from
experiencing biological effects when exposed chronically to levels of RF radiation commonly found in our environment I
strongly oppose the proposed V2V communication rule.
In 2016, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) released results showing that exposure to non-thermal levels
of RF radiation causes cancer and DNA breakage. Furthermore, a replicated European toxicology study showed that RF
radiation promotes cancer growth (http://ehtrust.org/science/facts-national-toxicology-program-cellphone-rat-cancer-study/).
This alone provides an important basis for tightening regulations on RF levels in cars and our environment not increasing them.
When it comes to road safety, below are but two factors that need to be reviewed:
– Cognitive and Neurological Impairment studies show that reflexes, including conditioned reflexes, are slower in
individuals exposed to RF. These studies state, “It is possible to observe degeneration of the neurons in the cerebral cortex
and the basal ganglia, the pons, the medulla oblongata, and in some cases even the cerebellum, as well as histological and
chemical changes in the vicinity of nerve fibers.” Obviously, it is not a good idea to have an environmental toxin that can
impair reflexes and damage nerves inside vehicles whose safe operation relies on those very reflexes and good neurological
and brain function. (Mahra et al 1971)
– Cardiac arrhythmias can be caused by wireless technology. A number of studies show that electromagnetic radiation,
including radiofrequency radiation, alters heart rate variability, blood pressure (including inducing hypertension with
microwave exposure) and increases risk of arrhythmia related heart disease and heart attack. (Mahra et al 1971)(Cherry 2000)
(Havas et al 2010)(Havas and Marrongelle 2013)(Havas 2013). The very serious consequences of cardiac arrhythmia
or cardiac arrest while operating a vehicle should impel the FCC and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
tighten RF limits on all classes of RF emitters in vehicles.
Thank you for considering these serious matters before continuing down this ‘road’! Pun intended… 🙂
Sherry Ridout (name included with permission)
= = =
[Comment Now! until April 12, 2017:
From: Janis Hoffmann (name included with permission)
Sent: March 26, 2017
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Ramez.Ayoub@parl.gc.ca; Colin.Carrie@parl.gc.ca; Bill.Casey@parl.gc.ca; Don.Davies@parl.gc.ca; Doug.Eyolfson@parl.gc.ca; Darshan.Kang@parl.gc.ca; Kellie.Leitch@parl.gc.ca; John.Oliver@parl.gc.ca; Rachael.Harder@parl.gc.ca; Sonia.Sidhu@parl.gc.ca; email@example.com; Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca; HESA@parl.gc.ca; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Murray.Rankin@parl.gc.ca
Subject: “EVEN IF A SMALL CHILD WERE EXPOSED TO A CELL PHONE… 24 HOURS A DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR … THERE WOULD BE NO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT.”
Dear Hon. Health Minister Philpott,
On Friday night, CBC Marketplace broadcast a program called, “The secret inside your cellphone” where it was explained the Minister of Health, which would be you, was unavailable to comment on the safety of cell phone use. Instead, Health Canada submitted the most outrageous and irresponsible comment “EVEN IF A SMALL CHILD WERE EXPOSED TO A CELL PHONE… 24 HOURS A DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR … THERE WOULD BE NO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT.”
Your silence by refusing to inform the public of the potential health risks by not enforcing the safety manuals mandated by the federal government and included in all wireless technology makes you accountable for any and all permanent injuries to our children.
In January 1998, The Wingspread Conference held a three-day academic conference where the Precautionary Principle was defined. It involved 35 scientists, lawyers, policy makers and environmentalists from the United States, Canada and Europe.
It was agreed the Precautionary Principle would be implemented when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof, insisting that those responsible for an activity must vouch for its harmlessness and be held responsible if damage occurs.
Your job and obligation to implement the Precautionary Principle and protect the public on this potential health crisis would have taken 5 minutes of your time to comment on the need to inform the public on the basic safety measures of using a cell phone and protect themselves and their children from the potential health risks from the radiation exposure.
Maybe it’s time to read over the mandated letter from Prime Minister Trudeau and the promises you made to live up to the highest ethical standards so Canadians could look up to their government with pride and trust?
We have committed to an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards, and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds. I expect you to embody these values in your work and observe the highest ethical standards in everything you do. When dealing with our Cabinet colleagues, Parliament, stakeholders, or the public, it is important that your behaviour and decisions meet Canadians’ well-founded expectations of our government. I want Canadians to look on their own government with pride and trust.
As Minister, you must ensure that you are aware of and fully compliant with the Conflict of Interest Act and Treasury Board policies and guidelines. You will be provided with a copy of Open and Accountable Government to assist you as you undertake your responsibilities. I ask that you carefully read it and ensure that your staff does so as well. I draw your attention in particular to the Ethical Guidelines set out in Annex A of that document, which apply to you and your staff. As noted in the Guidelines, you must uphold the highest standards of honesty and impartiality, and both the performance of your official duties and the arrangement of your private affairs should bear the closest public scrutiny. This is an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. Please also review the areas of Open and Accountable Government that we have expanded or strengthened, including the guidance on non-partisan use of departmental communications resources and the new code of conduct for exempt staff.
“EVEN IF A SMALL CHILD WERE EXPOSED TO A CELL PHONE… 24 HOURS A DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR … THERE WOULD BE NO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT.”
This irresponsible statement is unacceptable, proving you have not fulfilled your obligation to the public by protecting them from potential harm. It should not be up to the public to prove that a product is not safe but up to the industry to prove it is safe.
Dane Snowden of the CTIA does not say cell phones are safe
Subject: concerned parent over Health Canada’s remarks
“EVEN IF A SMALL CHILD WERE EXPOSED TO A CELL PHONE… 24 HOURS A DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR … THERE WOULD BE NO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFCT.”
As a mother of three, I pride myself in doing my best to provide my children with as safe a home as possible. I always err on the side of caution when choosing products for my children that are potentially harmful. For a representative of Health Canada to say on public television that it is safe to expose children to a cell phone for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous. The fact that the World Health Organization has classified electro-magnetic radiation from wireless devices as a Class 2B potential carcinogen, is enough for me to use wireless devices safely. And, I have taught my children the same. It is a shock that Health Canada would disregard the scientific findings that went behind this classification.
The public is weary of Health Canada always siding with industry on questions of public health and preventive measures. But, this blatant disregard for the health of Canadian children has gone too far.
This statement needs to be withdrawn immediately.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“When there is a doubt, when it comes to our children, there is no doubt.”
~ Haifa’s mayor, Yona Yahav
STOP Buying Wireless, STOP Using Wireless, DEMAND Safe Options.