1) A member has translated the warnings re. cell phones that are provided by the German Radiation Protection Agency. I highly recommend you look at what Health Canada and Perry Kendall say on their websites, both of which attempt to minimize the risk and the scientific evidence that has existed for decades and is growing. If there is a law that can hold these agencies and people guilty of conflicts of interest that lead to physical harm, we should pursue charges.
(click on photos to enlarge)
- Use a landline, when you have the choice between a hard wired or mobile phone..
- Keep telephone calls with the mobile phone or Smartphone short, if at all possible.
- Use a headset when making telephone calls.
- When reception is poor, do not make pone calls, for example in the car, without an auxiliary antenna.
- Use mobile or Smartphones, where your head is exposed to the lowest mobile transmission fields. The lower the so-called SAR – value of your mobile – the better. The SAR – value of your mobile phone, for example, you find under . . . . . . . or, in the manual of the telephone.
- When you carry your mobile or Smartphone near the body, pay attention to the minimum distance, as indicated by the manufacturer.
- Write text messages. Then you do not hold the mobile to your head.
- Surfing the internet, or downloading emails, should be done only when the reception is good. With WiFi, the transmission strength is usually lower than with mobile phone standards UMTS, GSM or LTE.
- Download emails only when needed, manually.
- Avoid downloading emails while you are on the phone. If you wish to minimize your personal radiation burden, switch off the other background data traffic.
With these recommendations, the personal radiation burden can be efficiently minimized, without foregoing the benefits of a mobile phone.
Especially important is the minimization of any radiation burden for children, as they are still in the developing stages and because of this, react health wise, more sensitive. Because of this, the BfS (German Radiation Protection Agency) advises to minimize mobile phone use for children. [http://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/emf/mobile-communication/protection/precaution/smartphone-tablet.html;jsessionid=3C96917CE94DAD23FEDE2B3E6F1972EB.2_cid349]
Compare with Health Canada’s website which basically says there really isn’t much to worry about.
The warnings are limited. (sorry, I cannot cut and paste.)
And Perry Kendall’s website is shamefully lacking accurate warnings or information and, worse, misleads, e.g. about FM radio.
“Given that cell phones, wi-fi and smart meters all transmit information with radiofrequency waves, some members of the public have also argued that these devices, as well as baby monitors, and FM radio, which also use radiofrequency transmission, be curtailed or banned.
Dr. Perry Kendall, British Columbia’s provincial health officer, recognises these concerns. Dr. Kendall and his colleagues across the country regularly review information and new science as it becomes available, and have established ongoing review mechanisms to ensure that new knowledge is assessed quickly.
Given the current scientific evidence, the consensus of public health practitioners is that at current exposure levels these electromagnetic fields do not constitute a threat to the health of the public.”
And has this precautionary statement:
“Q – I am worried about my time spent using a cell phone. What should I do?
A – There are many ways you can limit your exposure to radiofrequency waves if you are concerned. For example, you can:
- Spend less time on the phone
- Use the speaker option
- Use blue tooth technology
- Use an earpiece
- Use the texting option”
2) A new report on EHS patients having abnormal brain scans (MRIs). People with a history of head injury or exposure to chemicals are more vulnerable to effects from RF/EMF.
“Interestingly, the differential diagnosis for the abnormalities seen on the fMRI includes head injury. It turns out that many of our patients indeed had a history of head injury which was then followed sometime later by the development of EHS. Many of our patients also had a history of exposure to potentially neurotoxic chemicals, especially mold. Head injury and neurotoxic chemical exposure may make a patient more vulnerable to develop EHS.”
3) For anyone concerned about microcells with the potential/probable 5G transmitters in the future, thanks to Environmental Heath Trust, here is a list of US states where there have been actions, many being legislative, that give the telecoms full rights to our public lands and the public reactions.. We do need to share this information with Councils and encourage them to protect the public rights and health of their constituents.
List of US State Bills Streamlining Wireless Small Cells/DAS/Nodes on Rights Of Way
4) A recent CBC article about lithium batteries exploding, primarily ion batteries which are being improperly recharged. But given this heat wave, everyone needs to know that heat can cause a lithium metal battery (which is what is in the smeter) to overheat and explode. If you notice anything odd about your electricity (e.g. flickering lights) or if your meter feels warm to the touch, call BC Hydro/FortisBC ASAP. People have experienced unusual electrical things happening prior to a fire. Remember, these things are fire hazards, with many design flaws, one being that it is combustible.
Misusing your phone charger could spark a fire, warn officials
5) A letter of thanks in a Eugene, Oregon paper for not having smeters which are vulnerable to cyberattacks.
Smart Meters Heighten Attacks
Sent: July 7, 2017 5:48 PM
To: Singer, Tim (HC/SC) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Jane Philpott <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: CBC’s Markeplace episode on cellular phones
Dear Mr. Singer,
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So, of course, the majority of studies report no “biological effects for RF fields at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6.” Having watched industries of all types gain approval for their products when they are later found to be harmful, industries all too often submit industry-sponsored or industry-linked studies/information for their approvals. Tobacco science should not be running Health Canada. Health Canada should be able to guard against this.
Since the HESA Committee reported:
“The [HESA] Committee agrees that the potential risks of exposure to RF fields are a serious public health issue that needs to be brought to the attention of Canadians so that they have the knowledge to use wireless devices responsibly and are able to make decisions about the use of wireless devices in a manner that protects their health and the health of their families,”
I find it unacceptable that Health Canada continues to support the wishes of the wireless industry instead of the health of Canadians.
If you know a small child who you care about, I hope you wouldn’t expose the child to Safety Code 6’s limits 24/7/365!
Since other “industrialized countries have more restrictive limits for RF field exposures from cell towers,” perhaps HC should explore the reasons for this. Health Canada seems too interested in harmonizing standards with the United States (and satisfying the industry) instead of protecting the health of Canadians.
Finally, I understand that Lloyds of London is not interested in insuring against any damages related to RF.
I do not find that your “comments are helpful”. The dangers still exist, and your comments will be helpful when you can tell Canadians that HC has begun to address important health issues related to this technology.
= = =
On Jul 7, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Singer, Tim (HC/SC) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Thank you for your correspondence of May 7, 2017, addressed to the Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health, concerning the broadcast of an episode of CBC’s Marketplace on cellular phones. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Minister. I apologize for the delay in responding.
I wish to clarify the statement you quoted from the Marketplace broadcast, attributed to the Department. Health Canada’s complete statement provided to CBC is as follows:
“Safety Code 6 limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy are designed to provide protection for all age groups, including children, on a continuous basis (24 hours a day/seven days a week). This means that if someone, including a small child, were to be exposed to RF energy from multiple sources for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, within the Safety Code 6 limits, there would be no adverse health effects.”
Health Canada’s intention was not to make a statement respecting exposure to a specific device. The original purpose of this statement was to clarify that Safety Code 6 provides protection for all age groups.
As stated in my earlier email to you dated January 7, 2017, Health Canada updated Safety Code 6 in 2015. During the update, 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 studies report biological effects for RF fields at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6, I want to emphasize that these studies are in the minority and do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence. Based on the latest scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that exposure to RF energy below the levels in Safety Code 6 is not dangerous to the public.
As also mentioned in previous correspondence to you, Health Canada is aware that internationally, a few jurisdictions have applied more restrictive limits for RF field exposures from cell towers. However, scientific evidence does not support the need for limits that are more restrictive than Safety Code 6.
Thank you again for taking the time to write about this important issue. I hope my comments are helpful.
Director General, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate
Health Canada / Government of Canada
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
Even if all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken.
~ Bertrand Russell