Betreff: Anonymous information about XM Satellite Radio

Von: Martin Weatherall

Datum: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:17:41 -0400

The information below and in the attached e-mail messages has been sent to me by Andrew V, a person who wishes to remain anonymous for reasons he has not disclosed.  The information is provided so that you are aware of another potentially strong source of electro magnetic radiation that may or may not be affecting your community.

The information has not been verified by WEEP or myself.  There are several e-mail messages sent between Andrew V. and Health Canada (attached) which seem to support Andrews concerns.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/health_canada.pdf

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/health_canada_letter.pdf

Martin

----- Original Message -----

From: Andrew V

To: weather

Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:55 PM

Subject: XM

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing you this letter because of a very alarming situation that is currently happening in Kitchener, Ontario and in other cities across Canada. I and several other residents of Kitchener are very concerned about the operation of an extremely high power microwave radiation transmitter installed by the company called XM Satellite Radio Canada in the downtown Kitchener. Please find below detailed information about XM radio microwave installations in general as well as about the situation in Kitchener.

XM Radio Microwave Installations

XM Satellite Radio Canada had launched its services officially on December 1, 2005 and since then is actively installing terrestrial repeaters on the roofs of buildings in the urban and densely populated areas across Canada. The repeaters are very high power (effective radiated power for some of them is as high as 12,500 watt according to Industry Canada data) microwave transmitters operating in the 2335-2342 MHz frequency range. They represent a so-called terrestrial portion of the Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) and are listed in the Industry Canada broadcasting database. Operation frequencies of the repeaters are very close to the frequencies of wireless networks and microwave ovens. You can compare a 12,500 watt (12.5 kilowatt!) of power coming from the XM Radio repeater to a 0.1 watt that a residential wireless network typically produces. Base stations for mobile phones transmit in average at 60 watt. This is 200+ times lower than the radiated power of XM repeater.

The original purpose of the repeater is to get the XM Radio signal delivered to the outdoor (street) areas where the satellite signal is blocked by high rise buildings. This concept looks somewhat unusual because the term “satellite radio” by itself means that the signal should be delivered via the satellite. However, XM Radio is taking an advantage over the situation and is trying to deliver its signal to an “every basement” and every indoor location by installing the repeaters and operating them at extremely high power levels. It will be more correct to say that XM Radio is, in fact, building the terrestrial radio network and hiding it from the public attention by calling itself “satellite radio”. As a result of that, every person living/working in the area affected by the XM microwave repeater is now exposed to a continuous microwave radiation significantly higher in power than the one coming form the wireless network or the mobile phone base station.

Health consequences and symptoms caused by microwave radiation in the 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency range (mostly from exposure to wireless networks) are widely discussed in press and experienced by many people in the world. One of the Canadian publications describing these symptoms is called “Distress Signals”. It was written by Tyler Hamilton and published in the Toronto Star on Nov. 11, 2005. This paper can be purchased online from the Toronto Star website. The most typical first reaction to such a powerful microwave radiation source as XM transmitter may include chronic fatigue, headaches, irritability, poor concentration, problems with sleeping. The long term effects can be more serious and lead to genetic damage, infertility and cancer.

Exposure to electromagnetic radiation in the 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency range is significantly more harmful for humans than, for instance, exposure to a 100 MHz signal coming from FM radio or 900 MHz signal coming from a mobile base station antenna. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency corresponds to the first resonance frequency in water and, therefore, it is easily absorbed by a human body. One of the main reasons for microwave ovens to work at 2300 - 2500 MHz is because at these frequencies water can be heated faster and so do all water containing substances such as food. By installing high power microwave transmitters XM Radio is virtually converting Canadian cities into “microwave ovens”.

XM radio creates a totally new microwave broadcasting service that was newer allowed in Canada before. It is also very different from mobile communications. All mobile data communications (including cell phones, cordless phones, wireless networks, etc.) are dual way communications and their maximum power is limited by the power of the mobile device such as laptop or the cell phone. XM Radio is a broadcasting service, not a dual way communication. In order to save money on the transmitter installations this company will try to broadcast at a maximum possible power level(s) pushing the limits of the Canadian “Safety Code 6” – the document that is supposed to protect Canadians from RF and microwave radiation. This power level(s) will be hundreds of times higher than the power level of a typical mobile phone base station. This is the first time in the history of Canada when high power broadcasting at microwave frequencies is allowed. People and all other living organisms were never exposed to such microwave radiation levels before and health consequences can be devastating. General public is unaware of this situation and will not be able to relate negative health symptoms to the new microwave radiation source. Installation of XM microwave transmitters did not get a wide public attention yet because very few people can even imagine that the service that calls itself “satellite radio” is, in fact, transmitting its signal from the roofs of the residential buildings.

Canadian “Safety Code 6” cannot be considered an adequate protection standard when it comes to microwave radiation. It was drafted several decades ago when microwave radiation sources did not affect general public and were only used in military and aviation (radars). The Code is based on assumption that microwaves are harmless until they are capable to heat up the body tissue and internal organs above a certain threshold. During the time when the Code was created this assumption represented the most straightforward way to address the totally unresearched phenomenon and create a safety guideline for the very limiter number of professionals who had a possibility of being exposed to microwave radiation. No serious health and safety research was ever done. Today Canadian Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau says that even though Safety Code 6 was initially based solely on thermal effects of microwave radiation, there were and there are no other proven negative health effects related to the microwave exposure. To support this position Radiation Protection Bureau proactively dismisses all research findings that show dangers of microwaves (“unfavorable” to the Bureau studies). The Bureau claims that all “unfavorable” to its position studies are either not known to the Bureau, or not published in the recognized by the Bureau journals and are inconclusive, or… etc. For the few “unfavorable” research studies that are too difficult to dismiss the position of the Bureau changes to the following: “this is difficult to replicate” or “this is a natural body response to microwave radiation rather than an adverse health effect”. For instance, one known to Bureau “natural body response to microwave radiation” is the calcium efflux from the cells exposed to microwaves. Two of the “difficult to replicate effects” are the blood-brain barrier effect and the melatonin effect. Such position of the Canadian health and safety authority is very unfortunate taking into consideration the fact that some of the recent studies show that microwave radiation can cause cancer.

XM Microwave Transmitter in Kitchener

XM microwave transmitter in Kitchener was installed more than a year ago on the roof of a residential building located in the downtown Kitchener at 221 Queen St. South. Since then it transmits in the 2335-2342 MHz frequency range with the 12,500 watts of radiated power. We strongly believe that microwave radiation levels at the top floors and on the roof of the transmitter hosting building are unsafe. XM transmitting antennas installed on the roof have almost no elevation above the surface of the roof and relatively wide radiation angle. There are several high rise residential and commercial buildings around the transmitter hosting building that can be unsafe as well.

The person at XM Radio who seems to take the responsibility for the current situation is Mark Knapton, Vice President of Customer Operations. He can be reached at mark.knapton@xmradio.ca. We tried to convince him to reduce the radiated power of the transmitter in Kitchener but without any success.

We are sending you this information with the hope that you can help us to stop XM microwave radiation in our community.

Please let us know if you have any questions,

Andrew

---

Betreff: RE: TDARS Satellite Broadcast Transmitter - Kitchener, Ontario

Von: Hergott, Rick: OS_CWOD

Datum: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:52:16 -0400

An: Andrew V

Dear Andrew V:

This is in reference to the electronic correspondence you sent to Industry Canada for various dates in March and April 2007, indicating your concerns involving the operation of a 12.5 kW Terrestrial Digital Audio Radio Service (TDARS) broadcast undertaking at 221 Queen St. South in Kitchener, Ontario. This facility is operated by Canadian Satellite Radio Inc. (XM Radio).

In response to your concern of associated health risks as a result of this installation, Industry Canada requires that all radio stations be installed and operated in a manner that complies with Health Canada’s "Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz - Safety Code 6." If you would like more information on Safety Code 6, a copy of it is available at the following Health Canada web site: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/99ehd-dhm237/index_e.html.

We would like to assure you that, based on analysis and measurements conducted by the Department at various locations on the main rooftop of the building, we have concluded that this site is operating in compliance with Safety Code 6 requirements for the general public, which also includes (among others) Fire Fighters. Please note that these requirements are also being met through the posting of Radio Frequency signs to advise those that require access to the upper rooftop area of the equipment room, that radio frequency emissions from transmitting antennas are present. Our findings are consistent with those of the engineering consultant who was retained by the broadcaster to conduct their own assessment.

The equipment listed below was used to perform the measurements.  It is capable of measuring RF emissions from 0.3 MHz to 40 GHz.

Measurement Equipment:

Equipment Name                              Frequency Range             Manufacturer

Narda Safety Code 6 Probe CN8722N   0.3 MHz to 40 GHz          - L3 Communication

Narda Meter 8718B Narda                                                          - L3 Communication

Narda Fiber Optical Transmitter 8748 Narda                                 - L3 Communication

Narda Fiber Optical Cable

Nonmetallic Stand

Yours truly,

Rick Hergott
Acting District Director
Central and Western Ontario District
District du centre et de l'ouest de l'Ontario
Directeur de district intérimaire
Tel | Téléphone (519)-571-6615
Fax / télécopieur 519-571-6623
hergott.rick@ic.gc.ca
Industry Canada | 451 Talbot Street, Suite 1112, London, ON N6A 5C9
Industrie Canada | 451,  rue Talbot, pièce 1112,  London, ON N6A 5C9
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

Website URL:    <http://www.strategis.gc.ca/spectrum>>
URL du site Web: <<http://www.strategis.gc.ca/spectre>>

---

Betreff: Health Canada Info

Von: Andrew V

Datum: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:34:29 -0800 (PST)

An: Martin Weatherall

Hi Martin,

I just want to send you some information regarding thermal grounds of the Safety Code 6. Please find attached the document that was sent to me by Industry Canada. Please notice that Health Canada has changed its official position regarding thermal/non-thermal effects. They now say that:

"Other non-thermal effects such as blood brain barrier effects and melatonin effects are difficult to replicate. The more established non-thermal effects such as calcium efflux effects are considered to be more of a biological response than an adverse health effect".

So, I guess, if you ask Health Canada about your problems they will likely say that what you experience is just a biological response rather than an adverse health effect. I think that according to this Health Canada publication it is even possible to say that: "death is just a biological response of the body to…", let say, exposure to the toxic gases.

Andrew

---

Betreff: Re: Operation of a high power microwave transmitter in Kitchener, Ontario

Von: Art Thansandote

Datum: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:20:33 -0500

An: Andrew V

Dear Andrew:
 
It was unfortunate that part of my previous correspondence "Concerning new
RF/microwave antenna towers, it is up to all concerned parties to discuss
the proposed siting details and reach an appropriate consensus solution"
was misinterpreted.
 
I am fully aware that XM radio transmitter is for broadcasting and not for
cellular communication. However, the reference in my previous e-mail was
meant to include all broadcast and radiocommunication towers.
 
In regard to your question concerning the qualification of an "established
effect," the acceptance of such an effect is based upon peer-reviewed
scientific reports, where the effect is demonstrated to be reproducible (in
more than one laboratory), consistent (within the same laboratory and
across other laboratories) and causal (due to the exposure agent). While a
number of articles in the scientific literature report radiofrequency (RF)
field bio-effects within a particular study, these effects do not stand up
to scientific rigor as they are often not reproducible within the same (or
other laboratories) or are subsequently found to arise as a result of
confounding factors such as sample/tissue heating or vibration.
 
Since Health Canada is not a regulator of XM radio transmitter or other
broadcast/radiocommunication towers, your question on reducing or shutting
down the power of the XM microwave transmitter in Kitchener should be
addressed by Industry Canada who regulates them. I take the liberty of
forwarding your e-mail and this reply to Mr. Sumesh Mohabeer, my contact at
Industry Canada, for his attention.
 
Sincerely,
Art
 
 
 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 | |
 | To: Art Thansandote    |
 | Subject: Re: Operation of a high power microwave transmitter in Kitchener, Ontario |
 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 
 
 
 
Dear Art,
 
I am writing you on behalf of the group of people who are concerned about
the situation with XM Radio microwave transmitter in Kitchener. Our group
is very new, some of the people in the group do not want their names to be
released. Therefore, we decided to use this way of communication to deliver
our concerns to your organization. We were hoping for a quick resolution of
the problem. We did not plan to register the group, send any collectively
signed letters etc. I was selected as a technical writer because I have a
relevant engineering background and knowledge about the microwaves. At this
time we are still hoping that XM Radio transmitter in Kitchener will be
shut down and no further actions from our side will be needed.
 
Art, first of all I would like again to ask you how you qualify an
"established effect". Unfortunately this question was not answered. I am
sure that you understand that not every person should become sick with a
new disease before this new disease becomes officially recognized. The same
principle should apply to microwave radiation exposure induced disease. If
some people are already contacting you regarding the adverse health effects
related to the microwave radiation exposure you should acknowledge that the
problem exists. You can look at the Swedish experience where this is
already done.
 
With regards to XM Radio, I think that Health Canada and Industry Canada do
not quite understand what they are about to start. All mobile data
communications (including cell phones, cordless phones, wireless networks,
etc.) are dual way communications. The power of these communications is
limited by the power of the mobile device (not the base station), such as
laptop or the cell phone. There is no need to increase the power of the
base station beyond a certain level because even if the remote mobile
device will be able to receive the signal, it will not be able to deliver
its reply to the base station. That is why the network of the base stations
is dense and they are working at moderate power levels.
 
The situation is very different for XM Radio. XM Radio is a broadcasting
service, not a dual way communication. In order to save money on the
repeater installations they will try to broadcast at a maximum possible
power level (pushing the limits of the Safety Code 6) that will be hundreds
of times higher than the power level of a typical mobile phone base
station. Everybody should understand that this is the first time in the
history of Canada when the high power broadcasting at microwave frequencies
is allowed. People and all other living organisms were never exposed to
such a high power microwave radiation before and the health consequences
can be devastating.
 
Art, I want to emphasize again that you are contacted because of our
concerns regarding XM Radio microwave transmitters, not regarding dual way
(mobile) communication systems and their base stations. We are concerned
about XM microwave transmitter in Kitchener that operates at an
outrageously high power of 12,500 watts and should be shut down
immediately. We checked effective radiated powers of similar transmitters
installed in the USA and found that all transmitters installed in the urban
areas with the close proximity to other buildings do not exceed 1,000 –
3,000 watts. The majority of them are set to several hundred watts.
Transmitters with more than 10,000 watts of effective radiated power are
only installed on separate towers outside of the residential areas.
 
I am not sure how we can apply a precautionary principle to the transmitter
that has hundreds of times higher power than the typical mobile
communication base station. I do not understand how Health and Industry
Canada can talk about the precautionary principle while planning new base
station installations and at the same time allow XM Radio to operate
microwave transmitter that are equal in power to 200 base stations combined
together. XM Radio should not be allowed to operate their transmitters at
higher than mobile base stations power levels. If this company wants to
increase its coverage area they should install more transmitters but not
use higher power transmitters.
 
Art, while we are having this discussion, is it possible to shut down (at
least temporarily) or reduce the power level of the XM microwave
transmitter in Kitchener? It is really hard to keep a discussion while
somebody is cooking your brain in a microwave oven (this is exactly what XM
Radio is doing when operating a 12,500 watts 2.34 GHz microwave transmitter
in the downtown Kitchener area). Please let us know if you can help.
 
Thank you,
Andrew
 
 
Art Thansandote wrote:
 
Dear Andrew (Mr. ?),
 
This is in reply to your e-mail of January 11, 2007.
 
All scientific studies published in peer-reviewed literature, whether
positive and negative, are taken into account when revising any of Health
Canada’s Safety Codes, including Safety Code 6.
 
The increasing public concern over the RF/microwave-health issue has led to
demands for industry and regulatory authorities to apply precautionary
principle (PP) to the use of cell phones and the proposed construction of
new antenna towers. In order to clarify this principle, it may be helpful
to understand what PP means.
 
PP is a public policy approach for risk management of possible but unproven
adverse health effects. The extent of PP ranges from monitoring scientific
developments and providing information to stronger measures such as
lowering exposures.
 
The application of PP should be proportional to the level of risk and its
associated uncertainty, the severity of the outcome, and the level of
societal benefit. In the context of radiofrequency (RF) fields from
broadcast and radiocommunication transmitters, health risks from exposure
below the limits specified in Safety Code 6 have not been established.
Therefore, if precautionary measures are introduced to reduce exposure
levels, it is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) that they
be made voluntary by considering low-cost or no-cost options. For example,
if a person is concerned about RF emissions from cell phones, he/she may
apply PP by limiting the length of calls and using "hands-free" devices
that keep cell phones away from the head and body. This advice is stated
in the Health Canada document on "Safety and Safe Use of Cellular Phones"
(http://hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/prod/cell_e.html).
 
Concerning new RF/microwave antenna towers, it is up to all concerned
parties to discuss the proposed siting details and reach an appropriate
consensus solution.
 
As part of the implementation of PP, scientists at Health Canada are
monitoring scientific developments and carrying out research in the area of
RF bio-effects.
 
Sincerely,
Art
 
 
 
| To: Art Thansandote |
|
| Subject: Re: Operation of a high power microwave transmitter in
Kitchener, Ontario |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 
 
 
 
Dear Art,
 
Thank you for your reply. Instead of writing you a separate email with all
my comments and suggestions I just inserted them between the lines of your
email where needed. Please see them below. There are few questions in these
comments. We will appreciate if you can answer these questions especially
the one that asks you about the procedure that is used at Health Canada to
establish a negative health effect. Thanks again for your response,
 
Best Regards,
Andrew
 
**************************************************************************
Dear Andrew:
 
Your e-mail was forwarded to me for reply.
First of all, I would like to clarify that Health Canada does not
Regulate or approve the installation of radio/microwave transmitters. The
regulator of these devices is Industry Canada. The appropriate person to
contact for inquiries concerning regulatory compliance with Safety Code 6
is:
 
Mr. Ben Nguyen
Regional Engineer, Technology
Industry Canada
Spectrum Management - Regional Office
151 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M5C 2W7
Telephone: (416) 973-1214
Fax: (416) 973-6272
E-mail: Nguyen.Ben@ic.gc.ca
 
You may request Industry Canada to check the transmitter and its
surrounding area to ensure that they comply with the guidelines contained
in Safety Code 6. As you know, this Code is used by Industry Canada in
their regulation of radio/microwave transmitters.
There is to date no convincing scientific evidence to support the
contention of adverse health effects that are speculated to occur at levels
below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6.
 
COMMENT (Andrew):
No convincing evidence is needed to start using the "precautionary"
approach. If some studies are already showing that possible negative health
effects can occur, you should start using the "precautionary approach"
immediately. You cannot put people at risk until you get 100% prove that
microwaves are not safe.
 
It should be pointed out that not all radiofrequency exposure standards
throughout the world have the same recommended exposure limits; some are
more stringent than others. The variations of recommended limits may be
attributed to differences in the scientific data, philosophy and
methodology used for standard development.
 
COMMENT (Andrew):
There are no differences "in the scientific data". The data itself does not
change depending on who reads it. Once published, this data is available to
everybody in the world similarly. Maybe you are trying to say that you do
not consider some scientific data, possibly the one that point out to
negative health effects of the microwave exposure? I believe that people of
Canada are expecting Health Canada to review all scientific data published
globally and base decisions on what was learned.
 
However, recognized exposure standards (e.g. Safety Code 6) that are based
on established effects should be distinguished from some municipal and/or
state guidelines that are based on socio-political considerations.
Safety Code 6 is not considered less stringent than other recognized
exposure standards that are based on established effects.
 
COMMENT (Andrew):
Safety Code 6 was created based on the thermal heating effects of
RF/microwave radiation only. Therefore, when you say established effects
you actually mean thermal effect only. Can you let us know what is the
formal Health Canada process of "establishing" an effect? How can we help
you in establishing more effects? Can you please send us a formal procedure
of how you establish an effect? If you say "established effect" you should
refer to a procedure that you use to establish an effect.
 
Health Canada continuously conducts its own research and reviews new
research findings published in peer-reviewed literature as they become
available. Should sufficient evidence become apparent, a revision process
will be initiated for Safety Code 6. Scientific data will dictate our
future exposure limits. We cannot comment on the lowering of exposure
limits in other countries.
 
COMMENT (Andrew):
Regarding the "sufficient evidence" I can see two approaches that can be
used:
 
Approach 1: Potentially endanger people’s health by exposing them to
potentially harmful levels of microwave radiation until a sufficient
evidence of microwave radiation being safe or unsafe is received. Some
people may die, become chronically ill during this period. This is the
approach of Health Canada.
 
Approach 2: Reduce exposure limits as soon as any noticeable evidence about
dangers of microwave radiation occurs in scientific press or in a form of
public concerns. This is a precautionary approach. This approach saves
people’s life and health until sufficient evidence of microwaves being
safe
or unsafe is obtained. This approach is used by several European
governments who are truly concerned about people’s health.
 
I am wondering which approach do you personally prefer?
 
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Art
Art Thansandote
Chief, Electromagnetics Division
Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau
Product Safety Programme
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Health Canada
Tel. (613) 954-0306
Fax (613) 941-1734
*******************************************************************
From: Andrew
To: Health Canada
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are writing you this letter regarding the operation of a high power
microwave transmitter installed by XM Satellite Radio Canada in the
downtown Kitchener area (Ontario). This transmitter was installed one year
ago and since then transmits in the 2335-2342 frequency range with the
12,500 watts of radiated power. We (myself and several other concerned
residents of Kitchener) contacted Industry Canada regarding this
installation and were informed that it was approved by your organization.
We are very shocked to find out that it is possible to install a 12,500
watt transmitter on the roof of a residential building in the close
proximity to other high rise residential and office buildings in the heart
of our city. It is not clear for us what measurements and/or calculations
allowed such an extraordinary high power transmitter to operate next to
residential apartments and condominiums. Industry Canada official, Brian
Ropp, forwarded us a copy of the letter received by Industry Canada from
Health Canada that explains current norms for microwave radiation
protection. It is attached to this email for your reference. This document
states the following:
"Other non-thermal effects such as blood brain barrier effects and
melatonin effects are difficult to replicate. The more established
non-thermal effects such as calcium efflux effects are considered to be
more of a biological response than an adverse health effect"
Based on this citation we can conclude that people who live next to the
transmitter can develop calcium loss that, as far as everybody knows, can
lead to osteoporosis. Many residents living in the area surrounding the
microwave radiation site are seniors and this is a significant threat for
them. The blood-brain barrier effects that according to this document "are
difficult to replicate" are already triggering headaches for some people
living in the area.
The health consequences of a microwave radiation in the 2300 – 2500 MHz
frequency range (mostly from exposure to wireless networks) are widely
discussed in press and experienced by many people in the world. Several
links to relevant papers published in Canadian and International press are
given at the end of this letter for your reference. Health Canada should
take into consideration what is observed and sensed by many. It seems like
the exposure to electromagnetic radiation in the 2300 – 2500 MHz
frequency
range is significantly more harmful for humans than, for instance, exposure
to a 100 MHz signal coming from FM radio. I am not sure if there is any
published research work that explains this difference. One possible
explanation that I can suggest is that 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency
corresponds to the first resonance frequency in water and, therefore, it is
easily absorbed by a human body. Please note that the typical power of a
wireless network that some people are concerned about and which health
effects are usually discussed in the press is around 0.1 watt. Base
stations for mobile phones transmit in average at 60 Watt. You can compare
that to the 12,500 watts emitted by XM Satellite Radio transmitter. At that
power level significant part of the population may develop severe negative
health effects.
Based on the aforesaid we suggest the following:
1. Launch an investigation why it was possible to install 12,500 watt
transmitter on a roof of a residential building next to other high-rise
residential buildings. Such an extraordinary high radiation power combined
with a close proximity to residential high rise buildings makes the XM
Satellite Radio transmitter extremely dangerous.
2. Order XM Radio Canada to stop using its transmitter in Kitchener or to
significantly reduce its radiated power - at least by 20 dB (100 times) in
terms of radiated power.
As you know exposure limits in Canada ("Safety Code 6") are the highest in
the world (along with the limits in the United States and in few other
countries) and are likely to be lowered in the future. China, Eastern
European countries and Russia have power limits 100 times lower (allowable
maximum power density 0.1 W/m2). Recently Switzerland, Italy and few other
countries have lowered their exposure limits to 0.1 W/m2 as well using a
so-called "precautionary approach". You may find more information on that
from the World Health Organization. We suggest that Health Canada accept
the same precautionary approach for XM Satellite Radio and order this
company to reduce the power of its transmitters or to uninstall them
completely.
XM Radio Canada does not provide any vital service to the residents of
Kitchener. It also does not represent an emergency service needed to
protect the safety of our community. Contrary to that, XM Radio is actually
broadcasting some obscene and uncensored content and endangers the health
and well-being of the residents of Kitchener by exposing them to very high
levels of microwave radiation. Installation of XM microwave transmitters
did not get a wide public attention yet because very few people can even
imagine that the service that calls itself "satellite radio" is, in fact,
transmitting its signals from the roofs of the residential buildings.
We are looking forward for your help in resolving that. We appreciate the
time that you spent reading this letter and we are looking forward for your
positive response.
Best Regards,
Andrew,
Kitchener, December, 2006
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1131663011758
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19509-2461748,00.html
 
 
 
 

Betreff: my correspondence with Art Thansandote (Health Canada)

Von: Andrew V

Datum: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:06:28 -0800 (PST)

An: Martin Weatherall

Hi Martin,

Please find below the rest of my correspondence with Art Thansandote (from first to last). Unfortunately he stopped answering emails. I guess he has nothing to say.

Regards,

Andrew

************************************************************

Art Thansandote wrote:

Dear Andrew,

We are aware of the study by Dr. Lahkola, of which you refer, soon to be published in the International Journal of Cancer. It is important to point out that this study found no evidence of an increased risk of glioma related to regular mobile phone use, no association with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use. There was also no evidence of an increased risk of glioma when analog and digital phones were analyzed separately. The authors did note, as you point out, a borderline significant increase in the risk in the trend for gliomas on the same side of the head as the subjects used the mobile phone, in subjects using mobile phones for longer than 10 years. It is important to point out that this was one observation in a study where dozens of comparisons were made, where no supportive evidence was reported in any other comparisons. If you are interested in reading this study, it can be found at the following URL

( http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/114072761/HTMLSTART ).

As indicated in our previous correspondence, the establishment of a health effect requires consistency and reproducibility. A single observation does not provide such confidence, particularly when the results are not internally consistent within the same study. If this result can be replicated in other studies by other researchers, then the confidence in this effect would be strengthened.

It is still the position of Health Canada that radiofrequency radiation in the range of 3 kHz to 300 GHz does not produce any adverse health effects, provided human exposures do not exceed the limits outlined in Safety Code 6.

Microwave energy is unperceived by any of the human senses unless its intensity becomes so great that it is felt as heat. There is no scientific evidence that exposures within the limits specified in Safety Code 6 will result in detection by the human body.

Sincerely,

Art

********************************************************

Dear Art,

In your letter to Industry Canada sent in June 2006 you stated the following:

“Other non-thermal effects such as blood brain barrier effects and melatonin effects are difficult to replicate. The more established non-thermal effects such as calcium efflux effects are considered to be more of a biological response than an adverse health effect”

Could you please explain why calcium efflux that, I assume, people exposed to XM radio transmitter in Kitchener will have is considered a biological response? Could you please give us more information about this “biological response”?

Thanks,

Andrew

************************************************************

Art Thansandote wrote:

Dear Andrew,

Some in vitro (cell culture) studies have reported that EMF (including RF fields) may cause a transient change in the release of calcium (and several other ions) across cellular membranes when exposed to 27 MHz - 10 GHz RF fields, and low frequency modulation appears to be important for the occurrence of this phenomenon. Other studies have failed to replicate these observations. Despite the conflicting experimental data, the occurrence of ELF-modulated RF-field induced changes in ion flux in cultured cells remains the most well-established (e.g. consistent and reproducible) biological effect from low-level RF-fields (other than heating due to excessive exposures). However, since no adverse effects have been established in animals or humans related to such exposures, possible changes in ion flux across membranes by ELF-modulated RF fields is currently considered a biological effect, but not an adverse health effect.

It is important to remember that interaction of the body with EMF resulting in biological effects does not necessarily result in adverse health effects. For instance, the interaction of the visible light portion of the EMF spectrum with retinal cells of our eyes causes a biological effect, vision.

Sincerely,

Art

*********************************************************

Dear Art,

Thank you for the explanation. I think that you gave an excellent example with exposure to the sun light (visible light portion of the spectrum). Let me continue with that. As you know sun is not shining all day and there are periods of time when it is dark (nights). Humans are active during the daytime and are sleeping at nights. There are some animals that have an opposite lifestyle. Therefore, the periods of sun activity regulate the activity of a human body. If sun will shine 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year humans will develop significant negative health effects assuming that they remain outside on the sun and not inside any structure where the sun can be blocked. Here I also assume that there are no heating effects associated with the sun, only the presence of the light. Please do not try to use polar days and nights to disproof this. People who work there can use electricity as a light source during the polar night and hide from the sunlight inside the buildings during the polar day. So, they can create artificial days and nights.

It is also well known that it is easier to sleep when the light is dull and very difficult when the light is very bright. This has nothing to do with the heating effects of the visible light electromagnetic waves. So, this phenomenon depends on the intensity of the visible light electromagnetic wave and is not heat related.

I am sorry Art but we cannot hide anywhere from the excessive amounts of microwave radiation coming from the XM transmitter in Kitchener. This “XM sun” shines 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. It causes sleep disorders because of the headaches coming likely from the blood-brain barrier problems or calcium efflux from the brain. These problems are caused by the XM transmitter. I understand that you cannot shut down the XM transmitter completely but based on this new information can you at least order to shut down this transmitter between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am?

Thanks,

Andrew

Martin Weatherall wrote:



----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:11 PM

Subject: electromagnetic radiation

New Radio Program Examines Wireless Health Risks Recognizing the ...
Emediawire (press release) - Ferndale,WA,USA
Creating a safe, healthy atmosphere for families and the environment by providing education on the hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation. ...
See all stories on this topic

Warming or Cooling?
By BANC(BANC)
The real rise in global temperatures has been taken as validation of the model, but Svensmark’s work suggests that this rise is due to another factor: the increased solar electromagnetic field thinning the cloud over the oceans, ...
BANC Blog - http://bancblog.blogspot.com/index.html

alerts.

Betreff: Re: 2335-2342 MHz microwave transmitter installations by XM Radio Canada

Von: Andrew V

Datum: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:59:17 -0800 (PST)

An: Martin Weatherall

Hi Martin,

Thank you for your response. At this time I do not want my full name to be released to the internet sites. However, please feel free to send this information to any web site or any interested people and give my email as contact information. You can use the information that I sent you in any way that you think is needed. Please send my contact information to any other people who will be interested in talking to me and I will be happy to answer their questions. I have an engineering background and I understand the situation with microwave pollution very well. I can also exchange more information with you when I get it.

Thank you,

Andrew

Martin Weatherall wrote:

Hi Andrew

Thank you for the information.  This is something that I have not heard about previously and it sounds like a very dangerous development.

I am not a technical person who fully understands the details that you have provided but I am in touch with experts in this field.  Would you like to be contacted by these specialists so that you can work together on the problem?

What kind of background do you have?  Do you mind if this information is sent to internet sites that specialize in this subject, and can we use your full name? 

If you would like to discuss this further, you can telephone me at 519 462 3088.

Best wishes

Martin Weatherall

----- Original Message -----

From: Andrew V

To: weather

Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:27 PM

Subject: 2335-2342 MHz microwave transmitter installations by XM Radio Canada

Dear Martin,

I decided to write you because I am aware of your political activity regarding electromagnetic pollution prevention and because of a very alarming situation that is currently happening in Canada. One of the satellite radio companies, called "XM Satellite Radio Canada" had launched its services officially on December 1, 2005 and since then is actively installing terrestrial repeaters on the roofs of buildings in the urban and densely populated areas. The repeaters are very high power (effective radiated power for some of them is as high as 12,500 Watt according to Industry Canada data) microwave transmitters operating in the 2335-2342 MHz frequency range. They represent a so-called terrestrial portion of the Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS). I observe them working in Kitchener and Cambridge, Ontario. Operation frequencies of the repeaters are very close to the frequency of a wireless network. You can compare a 12,500 Watt (12.5 kW!) of power coming from the XM Radio repeater to a 0.1 Watt that a residential wireless network typically produces. Base stations for mobile phones transmit in average at 60 Watt. This is more than 200 times lower than the radiated power of XM repeaters. Therefore, XM repeaters currently represent the highest danger to the public health and open a new era of microwave electromagnetic pollution in Canada.

The original purpose of the repeater is to get the signal delivered to the outside (street) areas where the satellite signal is blocked by high rise buildings. This concept looks somewhat unusual because the term "satellite radio" by itself means that the signal should be delivered via the satellite. However, I suspect that XM radio is taking an advantage over the situation and is trying to deliver its signal to an "every basement" and every indoor location by installing the repeaters and operating them at extremely high power levels. Therefore, every person living/working in the area affected by the repeater is now exposed to a continuous microwave radiation significantly higher in power than the one coming form the wireless network or the mobile phone base station.

The health consequences of a microwave radiation in the 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency range (mostly from exposure to wireless networks) are widely discussed in press and experienced by many people in the world. It seems like the exposure to electromagnetic radiation in the 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency range is significantly more harmful for humans than, for instance, exposure to a 100 MHz signal coming from FM radio or 900 MHz signal coming from a mobile base station antenna. I am not sure if there is any published research work that explains this difference. One possible explanation that I can suggest is that 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency corresponds to the first resonance frequency in water and, therefore, it is easily absorbed by a human body. One of the main reasons for microwave ovens to work at 2.3 - 2.5 GHz is because at these frequencies the water can be heated faster and so does all water containing substances such as food. Therefore, XM Radio is virtually converting Canadian cities into "microwave ovens"

Installation of high power microwave repeaters in the urban areas looks like a very dangerous practice. General public is unaware of this situation and will not be able to relate negative health symptoms to the new microwave radiation source. It is the first time in Canadian history when general public is exposed to an extremely high power microwave (2.34 GHz) radiation source. This situation is outrageous and unprecedented. Installation of such transmitters did not get a wide public attention yet because very few people can even imagine that the service that calls itself "satellite radio" is, in fact, transmitting its signal from the roofs of the residential buildings.

The person at XM Radio who seems to take the responsibility for the current situation is Mark Knapton, Vice President of Customer Operations. He can be reached at mark.knapton@xmradio.ca. I tried to convince him to reduce the radiated power of the transmitter/repeater in Kitchener but without any success.

I suggest to take this new hazard into consideration as the most serious electromagnetic pollution issue. Please let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to answer.

Thank you,

Best Regards,

Andrew,

December 18, 2006

Betreff: XM Radio transmitter X my correspondence with Health Canada

Von: Andrew V

Datum: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:47:03 -0800 (PST)

An: weather

Gentlemen,

I just want to share with you my correspondence with Art Thansandote, Chief, Electromagnetics Division, Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada regarding the installation of an XM radio microwave transmitter in Kitchener. My letters and his replies are given in a direct sequence (from first to last). It is amazing how easily this person dismisses facts and does not answer uncomfortable questions. I hope you will find this interesting.

Best Regards,

Andrew

****************************************************

From: Andrew

To: Health Canada

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are writing you this letter regarding the operation of a high power microwave transmitter installed by XM Satellite Radio Canada in the downtown Kitchener area (Ontario). This transmitter was installed one year ago and since then transmits in the 2335-2342 frequency range with the 12,500 watts of radiated power. We (myself and several other concerned residents of Kitchener) contacted Industry Canada regarding this installation and were informed that it was approved by your organization.

We are very shocked to find out that it is possible to install a 12,500 watt transmitter on the roof of a residential building in the close proximity to other high rise residential and office buildings in the heart of our city. It is not clear for us what measurements and/or calculations allowed such an extraordinary high power transmitter to operate next to residential apartments and condominiums. Industry Canada official, Brian Ropp, forwarded us a copy of the letter received by Industry Canada from Health Canada that explains current norms for microwave radiation protection. It is attached to this email for your reference. This document states the following:

“Other non-thermal effects such as blood brain barrier effects and melatonin effects are difficult to replicate. The more established non-thermal effects such as calcium efflux effects are considered to be more of a biological response than an adverse health effect”

Based on this citation we can conclude that people who live next to the transmitter can develop calcium loss that, as far as everybody knows, can lead to osteoporosis. Many residents living in the area surrounding the microwave radiation site are seniors and this is a significant threat for them. The blood-brain barrier effects that according to this document “are difficult to replicate” are already triggering headaches for some people living in the area.

The health consequences of a microwave radiation in the 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency range (mostly from exposure to wireless networks) are widely discussed in press and experienced by many people in the world. Several links to relevant papers published in Canadian and International press are given at the end of this letter for your reference. Health Canada should take into consideration what is observed and sensed by many. It seems like the exposure to electromagnetic radiation in the 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency range is significantly more harmful for humans than, for instance, exposure to a 100 MHz signal coming from FM radio. I am not sure if there is any published research work that explains this difference. One possible explanation that I can suggest is that 2300 – 2500 MHz frequency corresponds to the first resonance frequency in water and, therefore, it is easily absorbed by a human body. Please note that the typical power of a wireless network that some people are concerned about and which health effects are usually discussed in the press is around 0.1 watt. Base stations for mobile phones transmit in average at 60 Watt. You can compare that to the 12,500 watts emitted by XM Satellite Radio transmitter. At that power level significant part of the population may develop severe negative health effects.

Based on the aforesaid we suggest the following:

1. Launch an investigation why it was possible to install 12,500 watt transmitter on a roof of a residential building next to other high-rise residential buildings. Such an extraordinary high radiation power combined with a close proximity to residential high rise buildings makes the XM Satellite Radio transmitter extremely dangerous.

2. Order XM Radio Canada to stop using its transmitter in Kitchener or to significantly reduce its radiated power - at least by 20 dB (100 times) in terms of radiated power.

As you know exposure limits in Canada (“Safety Code 6”) are the highest in the world (along with the limits in the United States and in few other countries) and are likely to be lowered in the future. China, Eastern European countries and Russia have power limits 100 times lower (allowable maximum power density 0.1 W/m2). Recently Switzerland, Italy and few other countries have lowered their exposure limits to 0.1 W/m2 as well using a so-called “precautionary approach”. You may find more information on that from the World Health Organization. We suggest that Health Canada accept the same precautionary approach for XM Satellite Radio and order this company to reduce the power of its transmitters or to uninstall them completely.

XM Radio Canada does not provide any vital service to the residents of Kitchener. It also does not represent an emergency service needed to protect the safety of our community. Contrary to that, XM Radio is actually broadcasting some obscene and uncensored content and endangers the health and well-being of the residents of Kitchener by exposing them to very high levels of microwave radiation. Installation of XM microwave transmitters did not get a wide public attention yet because very few people can even imagine that the service that calls itself “satellite radio” is, in fact, transmitting its signals from the roofs of the residential buildings.

We are looking forward for your help in resolving that. We appreciate the time that you spent reading this letter and we are looking forward for your positive response.

Best Regards,

Andrew,

Kitchener, December, 2006

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1131663011758

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19509-2461748,00.html

***********************************************************

Dear Andrew:

Your e-mail was forwarded to me for reply.

First of all, I would like to clarify that Health Canada does not

Regulate or approve the installation of radio/microwave transmitters. The regulator of these devices is Industry Canada. The appropriate person to contact for inquiries concerning regulatory compliance with Safety Code 6 is:

Mr. Ben Nguyen

Regional Engineer, Technology

Industry Canada

Spectrum Management - Regional Office

151 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M5C 2W7

Telephone: (416) 973-1214

Fax: (416) 973-6272

E-mail: Nguyen.Ben@ic.gc.ca

You may request Industry Canada to check the transmitter and its surrounding area to ensure that they comply with the guidelines contained in Safety Code 6. As you know, this Code is used by Industry Canada in their regulation of radio/microwave transmitters.

There is to date no convincing scientific evidence to support the contention of adverse health effects that are speculated to occur at levels below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6.

It should be pointed out that not all radiofrequency exposure standards throughout the world have the same recommended exposure limits; some are more stringent than others. The variations of recommended limits may be attributed to differences in the scientific data, philosophy and methodology used for standard development. However, recognized exposure standards (e.g. Safety Code 6) that are based on established effects should be distinguished from some municipal and/or state guidelines that are based on socio-political considerations.

Safety Code 6 is not considered less stringent than other recognized exposure standards that are based on established effects.

Health Canada continuously conducts its own research and reviews new research findings published in peer-reviewed literature as they become available. Should sufficient evidence become apparent, a revision process will be initiated for Safety Code 6. Scientific data will dictate our future exposure limits. We cannot comment on the lowering of exposure limits in other countries.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Art

Art Thansandote

Chief, Electromagnetics Division

Consumer and Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau

Product Safety Programme

Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch

Health Canada

Tel. (613) 954-0306

Fax (613) 941-1734

*************************************************************

Dear Art,

Thank you for your reply. Instead of writing you a separate email with all my comments and suggestions I just inserted them between the lines of your email where needed. Please see them below. There are few questions in these comments. We will appreciate if you can answer these questions especially the one that asks you about the procedure that is used at Health Canada to establish a negative health effect. Thanks again for your response,

Best Regards,

Andrew

Dear Andrew:

Your e-mail was forwarded to me for reply.

First of all, I would like to clarify that Health Canada does not

Regulate or approve the installation of radio/microwave transmitters. The regulator of these devices is Industry Canada. The appropriate person to contact for inquiries concerning regulatory compliance with Safety Code 6 is:

Mr. Ben Nguyen

Regional Engineer, Technology

Industry Canada

Spectrum Management - Regional Office

151 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M5C 2W7

Telephone: (416) 973-1214

Fax: (416) 973-6272

E-mail: Nguyen.Ben@ic.gc.ca

You may request Industry Canada to check the transmitter and its surrounding area to ensure that they comply with the guidelines contained in Safety Code 6. As you know, this Code is used by Industry Canada in their regulation of radio/microwave transmitters.

There is to date no convincing scientific evidence to support the contention of adverse health effects that are speculated to occur at levels below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6.

COMMENT (Andrew): No convincing evidence is needed to start using the “precautionary” approach. If some studies are already showing that possible negative health effects can occur, you should start using the “precautionary approach” immediately. You cannot put people at risk until you get 100% prove that microwaves are not safe.

It should be pointed out that not all radiofrequency exposure standards throughout the world have the same recommended exposure limits; some are more stringent than others. The variations of recommended limits may be attributed to differences in the scientific data, philosophy and methodology used for standard development.

COMMENT (Andrew): There are no differences “in the scientific data”. The data itself does not change depending on who reads it. Once published, this data is available to everybody in the world similarly. Maybe you are trying to say that you do not consider some scientific data, possibly the one that point out to negative health effects of the microwave exposure? I believe that people of Canada are expecting Health Canada to review all scientific data published globally and base decisions on what was learned.

However, recognized exposure standards (e.g. Safety Code 6) that are based on established effects should be distinguished from some municipal and/or state guidelines that are based on socio-political considerations.

Safety Code 6 is not considered less stringent than other recognized exposure standards that are based on established effects.

COMMENT (Andrew): Safety Code 6 was created based on the thermal heating effects of RF/microwave radiation only. Therefore, when you say established effects you actually mean thermal effect only. Can you let us know what is the formal Health Canada process of “establishing” an effect? How can we help you in establishing more effects? Can you please send us a formal procedure of how you establish an effect? If you say “established effect” you should refer to a procedure that you use to establish an effect.

Health Canada continuously conducts its own research and reviews new research findings published in peer-reviewed literature as they become available. Should sufficient evidence become apparent, a revision process will be initiated for Safety Code 6. Scientific data will dictate our future exposure limits. We cannot comment on the lowering of exposure limits in other countries.

COMMENT (Andrew): Regarding the “sufficient evidence” I can see two approaches that can be used:

Approach 1: Potentially endanger people’s health by exposing them to potentially harmful levels of microwave radiation until a sufficient evidence of microwave radiation being safe or unsafe is received. Some people may die, become chronically ill during this period. This is the approach of Health Canada.

Approach 2: Reduce exposure limits as soon as any noticeable evidence about dangers of microwave radiation occurs in scientific press or in a form of public concerns. This is a precautionary approach. This approach saves people’s life and health until sufficient evidence of microwaves being safe or unsafe is obtained. This approach is used by several European governments who are truly concerned about people’s health.

I am wondering which approach do you personally prefer?

******************************************************

Dear Andrew (Mr. ?),

This is in reply to your e-mail of January 11, 2007.

All scientific studies published in peer-reviewed literature, whether positive and negative, are taken into account when revising any of Health Canada’s Safety Codes, including Safety Code 6.

The increasing public concern over the RF/microwave-health issue has led to demands for industry and regulatory authorities to apply precautionary principle (PP) to the use of cell phones and the proposed construction of new antenna towers. In order to clarify this principle, it may be helpful to understand what PP means.

PP is a public policy approach for risk management of possible but unproven adverse health effects. The extent of PP ranges from monitoring scientific developments and providing information to stronger measures such as lowering exposures.

The application of PP should be proportional to the level of risk and its associated uncertainty, the severity of the outcome, and the level of societal benefit. In the context of radiofrequency (RF) fields from broadcast and radiocommunication transmitters, health risks from exposure below the limits specified in Safety Code 6 have not been established.

Therefore, if precautionary measures are introduced to reduce exposure levels, it is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) that they be made voluntary by considering low-cost or no-cost options. For example, if a person is concerned about RF emissions from cell phones, he/she may apply PP by limiting the length of calls and using "hands-free" devices that keep cell phones away from the head and body. This advice is stated in the Health Canada document on "Safety and Safe Use of Cellular

Phones"

( http://hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/prod/cell_e.html ).

Concerning new RF/microwave antenna towers, it is up to all concerned parties to discuss the proposed siting details and reach an appropriate consensus solution.

As part of the implementation of PP, scientists at Health Canada are monitoring scientific developments and carrying out research in the area of RF bio-effects.

Sincerely,

Art

********************************************************

Dear Art,

I am writing you on behalf of the group of people who are concerned about the situation with XM Radio microwave transmitter in Kitchener. Our group is very new, some of the people in the group do not want their names to be released. Therefore, we decided to use this way of communication to deliver our concerns to your organization. We were hoping for a quick resolution of the problem. We did not plan to register the group, send any collectively signed letters etc. I was selected as a technical writer because I have a relevant engineering background and knowledge about the microwaves. At this time we are still hoping that XM Radio transmitter in Kitchener will be shut down and no further actions from our side will be needed.

Art, first of all I would like again to ask you how you qualify an “established effect”. Unfortunately this question was not answered. I am sure that you understand that not every person should become sick with a new disease before this new disease becomes officially recognized. The same principle should apply to microwave radiation exposure induced disease. If some people are already contacting you regarding the adverse health effects related to the microwave radiation exposure you should acknowledge that the problem exists. You can look at the Swedish experience where this is already done.

With regards to XM Radio, I think that Health Canada and Industry Canada do not quite understand what they are about to start. All mobile data communications (including cell phones, cordless phones, wireless networks, etc.) are dual way communications. The power of these communications is limited by the power of the mobile device (not the base station), such as laptop or the cell phone. There is no need to increase the power of the base station beyond a certain level because even if the remote mobile device will be able to receive the signal, it will not be able to deliver its reply to the base station. That is why we have so many base stations installed and working at moderate power levels.

The situation is very different for XM Radio. XM Radio is a broadcasting service, not a dual way communication. In order to save money on the repeater installations they will try to broadcast at a maximum possible power level (pushing the limits of the Safety Code 6) that will be hundreds of times higher than the power level of a typical mobile phone base station. Everybody should understand that this is the first time in the history of Canada when the high power broadcasting at microwave frequencies is allowed. People and all other living organisms were never exposed to such a high power microwave radiation before and the health consequences can be devastating.

Art, I want to emphasize again that you are contacted because of our concerns regarding XM Radio microwave transmitters, not regarding dual way (mobile) communication systems and their base stations. We are concerned about XM microwave transmitter in Kitchener that operates at an outrageously high power of 12,500 watts and should be shut down immediately. We checked effective radiated powers of similar transmitters installed in the USA and found that all transmitters installed in the urban areas with the close proximity to other buildings do not exceed 1,000 – 3,000 watts. The majority of them are set to several hundred watts. Transmitters with more than 10,000 watts of effective radiated power are only installed on separate towers outside of the residential areas.

I am not sure how we can apply a precautionary principle to the transmitter that has hundreds of times higher power than the typical mobile communication base station. I do not understand how Health and Industry Canada can talk about the precautionary principle while planning new base station installations and at the same time allow XM Radio to operate microwave transmitter that are equal in power to 200 base stations combined together. XM Radio should not be allowed to operate their transmitters at higher than mobile base stations power levels. If this company wants to increase its coverage area they should install more transmitters but not use higher power transmitters.

Art, while we are having this discussion, is it possible to shut down or reduce the power level of the XM microwave transmitter in Kitchener? It is really hard to keep a discussion while somebody is cooking your brain in a microwave oven (this is exactly what XM Radio is doing when operating a 12,500 watts 2.34 GHz microwave transmitter in the downtown Kitchener area). Please let us know if you can help.

Thank you,

Andrew

******************************************************

Dear Andrew:

It was unfortunate that part of my previous correspondence "Concerning New RF/microwave antenna towers, it is up to all concerned parties to Discuss the proposed siting details and reach an appropriate consensus solution" was misinterpreted.

I am fully aware that XM radio transmitter is for broadcasting and not for cellular communication. However, the reference in my previous e-mail was meant to include all broadcast and radiocommunication towers.

In regard to your question concerning the qualification of an "established effect," the acceptance of such an effect is based upon peer-reviewed scientific reports, where the effect is demonstrated to be reproducible (in more than one laboratory), consistent (within the same laboratory and across other laboratories) and causal (due to the exposure agent).

While a number of articles in the scientific literature report radiofrequency (RF) field bio-effects within a particular study, these effects do not stand Up to scientific rigor as they are often not reproducible within the same (or other laboratories) or are subsequently found to arise as a result of confounding factors such as sample/tissue heating or vibration.

Since Health Canada is not a regulator of XM radio transmitter or other broadcast/radiocommunication towers, your question on reducing or shutting down the power of the XM microwave transmitter in Kitchener should be addressed by Industry Canada who regulates them. I take the liberty of forwarding your e-mail and this reply to Mr. Sumesh Mohabeer, my contact at Industry Canada, for his attention.

Sincerely,

Art

**************************************************

Dear Art,

Thank you for your feedback. Please find below the link to a very recent study that describes the increased risk of brain tumours among the long time (10 years) cell phone users. Will this study be considered as an established effect? Please note that cell phone radiation inside the user head does not exceed the Safety Code 6 limits.

12,500 watt XM transmitter in Kitchener can be represented (based on its power and proximity to the residential buildings) by several dozens of cell phones attached to all parts of the human body and working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In this case, I guess, we can expect tumours to grow all over the human body within a shorter than 10 years period. Please note that in Kitchener one year of XM transmitter activity is already gone. This, once again, raises our previously asked question – how can we use a precautionary approach and protect ourselves from XM transmitter?

I am surprised to hear that so many studies regarding health effects of microwave radiation are not reproducible. I can feel and detect 2.4 GHz microwave signal easily, I read many stories on the internet that other people can do the same. It is very similar to allergy, some people have it and others do not.

Thank you,

Best Regards,

Andrew

******************************************************

Dear Andrew,

We are aware of the study by Dr. Lahkola, of which you refer, soon to be published in the International Journal of Cancer. It is important to point out that this study found no evidence of an increased risk of glioma related to regular mobile phone use, no association with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use. There was also no evidence of an increased risk of glioma when analog and digital phones were analyzed separately. The authors did note, as you point out, a borderline significant increase in the risk in the trend for gliomas on the same side of the head as the subjects used the mobile phone, in subjects using mobile phones for longer than 10 years. It is important to point out that this was one observation in a study where dozens of comparisons were made, where no supportive evidence was reported in any other comparisons. If you are interested in reading this study, it can be found at the following URL

( http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/114072761/HTMLSTART ).

As indicated in our previous correspondence, the establishment of a health effect requires consistency and reproducibility. A single observation does not provide such confidence, particularly when the results are not internally consistent within the same study. If this result can be replicated in other studies by other researchers, then the confidence in this effect would be strengthened.

It is still the position of Health Canada that radiofrequency radiation in the range of 3 kHz to 300 GHz does not produce any adverse health effects, provided human exposures do not exceed the limits outlined in Safety Code 6.

Microwave energy is unperceived by any of the human senses unless its intensity becomes so great that it is felt as heat. There is no scientific evidence that exposures within the limits specified in Safety Code 6 will result in detection by the human body.

Sincerely,

Art