[5G – Austrian Medical Association – Doctor Thomas Rau, Paracelsus Clinic – ECERI – EHS / MCS – EMF / RF Studies – ICNIRP – Internet Privacy – ISED – Jane Philpott – Marcus Schluschen Letter – Microcells – Precautionary Principle – Safety Code 6 – SAM – Tim Singer, Health Canada – WHO – Wi-Fi – William Rea, Environmental Health Centre – Wireless Devices | Canada – USA]
1) An extremely interesting article that shows, from historical perspective, that evidence showing the harmful effects of RF and EMF has been available for decades, and how it has been stifled by both governments and industry. I highly recommend that everyone read this.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Hazards of EMFs and RF Microwave Radiation
2) Below in Letters is a stream of emails back and forth between a member and Tim Singer from Health Canada. In his first email (the last one down), he admits there are studies that show harm, yet he says RF is safe. Would something that is truly safe ever be shown to be dangerous? Shouldn’t the fact that there are studies, any studies, that show harm below SC 6 levels be reason for concern, to employ the Precautionary Principle? How many would it take? Give us a number, Mr. Singer, and we’ll provide them. These are in the minority only because Health Canada cherry picks the studies they review, reviewing more industry-funded studies than independent ones. We tried to get them to review hundreds at the last panel review, and they refused.
We must continue to pressure Minister Philpott as well as the WHO. Without WHO’s bias and industry support, Health Canada would not be able to hide behind this agency.
3) Non-RF but re. PRIVACY INVASION. As you may know, the USA administration has revoked a bill that protected internet privacy. This will make browsing history, along with buying history, banking history, etc. available to anyone willing to pay. Since most of us do a lot of searching and reading of US sites, we are vulnerable. I am not aware of any means for Canadians to be exempted from this loss of privacy.
“Snoops may soon be able to buy your browsing history. Thank the US Congress”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/snoops-buy-your-browsing-history-us-congress
4) Just recently, a group of well-respected researchers met with members of the team at WHO who will be responsible for reviewing current scientific studies to determine if guidelines are adequate. Many concerns have been raised about the objectivity of WHO and ICNIRP panels, many members being closely associated with industry. This meeting was intended to pressure the panel to review the evidence that is overwhelming and to call for a re-classification of RF/EMR and to recognize EHS and MCS.
European Cancer and Environmental Research Institute
5) Another bizarre industry that is worried about small/microcells and 5G is involved with negotiating sites for transmitters and cell towers. Suddenly these companies are concerned about “the property rights of the individual homeowner”. How bizarre is this?
Yes, Businesses want 5G technology, but not this way.
“But this bill sets the fee for placement in the public right of way at a paltry $15 annually. Who can compete with that? And why should the private sector have to? Are legislators so eager to offer this extraordinary corporate handout to the telecoms that they will destroy the existing free market system?
But there’s an even more disturbing part of this proposed legislation. If passed as written, the Legislature would have the distinction of actually regulating a whole industry out of business. How’s that for Republican values? In today‘s free market, firms work with local governments on mapping and planning to choose the best locations and aesthetics and then sell that research to the telecoms. Others reserve space on top of buildings and then rent it to the telecom industry for their equipment. Those firms would literally be regulated out of business.”
6) A gallery of people who are suffering with EHS. All ages, both sexes. This is real and becoming more common. People and their doctors just don’t know about it.
Letters:
From: Singer, Tim (HC/SC)
To: Marcus (name given with permission)
Sent: March 28, 2017
Subject: RE: Cherry picking electro magnetic research by Health Canada
Dear Mr. Schluschen,
Thank you for your further correspondence of January 24, 2017. I understand that you do not agree with the methodology used by Health Canada in assessing science-based evidence when setting the limits in Safety Code 6 for radiofrequency exposure.
Health Canada monitors the scientific research on the biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) energy on an ongoing basis, considering all peer-reviewed scientific studies and employing a weight-of-evidence approach. As stated in our previous correspondence, the weight-of-evidence approach takes into account both the quantity of studies on a particular endpoint (whether adverse or no effect), and more importantly, the quality of those studies. Poorly conducted studies (e.g., an inadequate exposure evaluation, a lack of appropriate control samples or an inadequate statistical analysis) receive relatively little weight, while properly conducted studies (e.g., with all controls included, appropriate statistics and a complete exposure evaluation) receive more weight.
As with most scientific conclusions, it is possible to find differing scientific opinions. There are scientific studies that have reported biological effects of RF fields that are below the limits in Safety Code 6. These studies are in the minority, are very far from conclusive, and do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence in this area. Health Canada continues to monitor the scientific research in this area. If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure to RF energy below levels found in Safety Code 6 from wireless technologies is a concern, Health Canada would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.
Based on the latest scientific evidence, the Department has determined that exposure to RF energy, including that from Wi-Fi technology, below the levels in Safety Code 6, is not dangerous to the public.
Tim Singer
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Health Canada / Government of Canada
tim.singer@canada.ca
Directeur général, Direction des sciences de la santé environnementale et de la radioprotection
Santé Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
tim.singer@canada.ca
= = =
From: Marcus Schluschen
Sent: 2017-01-24
To: Singer, Tim (HC/SC)
Subject: Cherry picking electro magnetic research by Health Canada
Dear Mr. Singer,
As expected, your response is industry friendly, while public health receives little attention.
It is obvious that Canadian officials like you, as well as your American counterparts, are instructed to direct responsibility away from the billion dollar wireless industry.
Dr. Thomas Rau, Medical Director of the world renowned Paracelsus Clinic in Lustmuehle, Switzerland, is convinced that ‘electromagentic loads‘ from modern technology, lead to cancer, concentration problems, ADD, tinnitus, migraines, insomnia, arrhythmia, Parkinson’s and many other ailments.
At Paracelsus (www.paracelsus.ch), cancer patients are routinely educated in electromagnetic field remediation strategies and inspectors from the Geopathological Institute of Switzerland are sent to patients homes, to assess electromagnetic radiation exposures.
Annually, the Paracelsus Clinic treats thousands of people suffering from electro hypersensitivity (EHS), aka. microwave syndrome. Many of their EHS patients are from North America.
Dr. William Rea, MD founder of the Environmental Health Centre, Dallas – and former president of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.
“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant!”
Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association – for the diagnosis and treatment of EMF related health problems and illnesses (EMF syndrome)
Consensus paper of the Austrian Medical Association’s EMF Working Group ( AG-EMF)
http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Austrian-EMF-Guidelines-2012.pdf
“There has been a sharp rise in unspecific, often stress-associated health problems that increasingly present physicians with the challenge of complex differential diagnosis. A cause that has been accorded little attention so far is increasing electro-smog exposure at home, at work and during leisure activities, occurring in addition to chronic stress in personal and working life. It correlates with an overall situation of chronic stress that can lead to burnout.
How can physicians respond to this development? The Austrian Medical Association has developed a guideline for differential diagnosis and potential treatment of unspecific stress-related health problems associated with electro-smog. Its core element is a patient questionnaire consisting of a general assessment of stress symptoms and a specific assessment of electro-smog exposure. The guideline is intended as an aid in diagnosing and treating EMF-related health problems.”
If Health Canada truly values the health of Canadians, you would contact Dr. Thomas Rau (speaks English fluently) of the Paracelsus Clinic, Dr. William Rea of the Environmental Health Centre, as well as The Austrian Medical Association.
Not contacting any of these experts, who have gained extensive knowledge in this field, would affirm Health Canada’s unhealthy, profit-driven relationship with the telecom industry.
Only people of low intelligence are convinced that they have all the answers, and blindly dismiss the research of world renowned scientists and doctors of other countries.
If men of science would have chosen to remain ignorant in the past, Earth would have remained flat.
Kind regards,
Marcus Schluschen
= = =
From: Singer, Tim (HC/SC)
To: Marcus
Sent: January 17, 2017
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Radiation
Dear Mr. Schluschen,
This is further to your correspondence of October 16, 2016, addressed to the Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health, concerning electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation and the health of Canadians. I am truly sorry to hear about the health conditions that your wife is experiencing and I hope she is receiving appropriate medical care. I also apologize for the delay in responding.
Health Canada’s mandate regarding human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy from wireless devices includes conducting studies on possible health effects, monitoring the scientific literature related to such effects on an ongoing basis, and developing RF exposure guidelines, commonly referred to as Safety Code 6. The responsibility for the regulation of communications equipment such as cell towers and wireless technologies lies with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). ISED has developed regulatory standards that require compliance with the human exposure limits outlined in Safety Code 6.
Health Canada’s 2015 revision of Safety Code 6 followed a thorough evaluation of scientific evidence and literature on the effects of radiofrequency energy on biological systems. In the establishment of acceptable limits, departmental scientists considered all peer-reviewed scientific studies, and employed a weight-of-evidence approach when evaluating possible health risks from exposure to RF energy. Poorly conducted studies receive relatively little weight, while properly conducted studies receive more weight. On the basis of such analyses, Health Canada established limits for human exposure that are well below the threshold for any potential harm. The limits recommended for general public exposure were designed to provide protection to all age groups, including children, if exposed on a continual basis.
During the 2015 update to Safety Code 6, Health Canada considered all studies that were both in the scope and of sufficient quality for inclusion in its risk assessment. While it is true that some of these studies report biological effects of RF fields at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6, I want to emphasize that such studies are in the minority and do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence. If new scientific evidence were to demonstrate that exposure to RF energy below levels found in Safety Code 6 from wireless technologies is a concern, the department would take appropriate action to help protect the health and safety of Canadians.
With respect to your comments regarding Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM), please note that Health Canada does not use a SAM when developing the human exposure limits in Safety Code 6.
Health Canada recognizes that some individuals have reported health symptoms that they believe are due to exposure to RF-emitting devices. While the symptoms are real, the scientific evidence provides strong support that these health effects are not associated with RF exposure. Health Canada, other leading health agencies, and the World Health Organization, have concluded that, to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence linking adverse symptoms to levels below existing RF exposure limits.
I hope that you will understand the Department’s position on this matter and find that my comments are helpful.
Tim Singer
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Health Canada / Government of Canada
tim.singer@canada.ca
Directeur général, Direction des sciences de la santé environnementale et de la radioprotection
Santé Canada / Gouvernement du Canada
tim.singer@canada.ca
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
~ Albert Einstein
Please use tech wisely. Use wires.