[AAPA American Public Power Association – Brain Tumours – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 8 – Cell Towers – Children – Cancer Society – Data Mining – Dietrich Klinghardt – Doctors A.K. Mahapatra & P.K. Sethi & P.N. Pandey – EEI Edison Electric Institute – Fourth Amendment – HESA – Immune Defense Summit – Letter to Jane Philpott / Reply from Tim Singer re Safety Code 6 & Health Canada Statements re CBC’s Marketplace with Wendy Mesley on Cell Phones – Lloyds of London Insurance – NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association – NSMA Naperville Smart Meter Awareness Lawsuit – NTP National Toxicology Program – RF Radiation – Safety Code 6 – Smart Meter Searches Invasion of Privacy – Studies – Wireless | BC – Canada – India – Naperville, Illinois, USA]
1) People continue to receive, and respond to (keeping the pressure on !!), Tim Singer re the CBC Marketplace dangerous statement. In reading Singer’s letter below, he is saying that exposure to RF radiation is safe, that only a small number of studies show harm. As we all know, that is just not true. Why does Health Canada (HC) continue to deliberately mislead the public? If something is truly safe, would there be high quality studies showing otherwise? I don’t think so, yet HC refuses to acknowledge even studies that the Cancer Society accepts as high quality, such as the recent National Toxicology Program’s 10 year $25 million study. The industry influence is overwhelming and it is only through pressure from us, unrelenting pressure such as the response by X, that we will make a difference.
(click on photos to enlarge)
When you write, please consider Ccing Wendy Mesley at firstname.lastname@example.org , your MP, and Minister Philpott directly.
2) A member sent me this article about smeters and invasion of privacy. I am not sure if I sent it before but it is worth the risk – this is a good article. And there are other excellent articles at this site.
3) The number of people suffering brain tumours is increasing dramatically around the world, especially in younger ages. Unfortunately, in most places, even in Canada, the statistics are not readily available even if they are maintained. This is from India.
Brain tumour among children on the rise in India
“It is rising in the paediatric age group of 3-15. This month alone we saw 10 such cases of malignant cancerous tumour,” said Dr P.N. Pandey from the department of neurosurgery in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP) Hospital.
“In such cases, the tumour is mostly uncontrolled and starts developing when the baby is in the prenatal stage. Survival, in such cases, is one to two years after the tumour is detected in the child,” he said. The doctor added that the environmental factors to which a mother is exposed, affect the baby in both pre natal and post natal life.
According to a study in 2016, every year 40,000-50,000 persons are diagnosed with brain tumour in India, out of which 20 per cent are children. The study showed a drastic increase in the cases of brain tumour in children post 2015. Doctors said that this could be attributed to long-term mobile use.”
4) Online presentations, including one by Dr. Klinghardt on Day 4 about wireless radiation. These are “on demand” for 24 hours which, I think, means free.
Immune Defense Summit presentations
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) <email@example.com> 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
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
~ Albert Einstein