A PROTESTER was arrested at a demonstration to stop a mobile phone mast being built. Alan Cheetham, a member of the NO2O2 campaign group, was arrested ...
For several years I have been sending scientific studies to the Minister of Health, and members of Health Canada in an effort to have Safety Code 6 reviewed. I always receive the same letter back which says that Health Canada has reviewed all evidence and has concluded that there is no evidence that Safety Code 6 is outdated or inadequate; that all evidence shows that there is no harm at levels below that permitted by Safety Code 6. This despite directors of Health Canada, including Beth Pieterson, having committed to making revisions should any evidence of harm be presented.
Below is one of many submissions I've made, this with 5 studies showing cellular and genetic damage due to exposure to radiation at very low levels of radiation which are mere fractions of those currently allowed. As you can also see, I have copied various people at different levels in Health Canada and well as the Auditor General's department, asking for someone to take this information seriously. Sadly no one has.
As time passes, more people are becoming exposed to very high levels of this pollutant. What is especially distressing is that when I and others who are concerned try to raise the issue with groups such as school boards and hospitals, they contact Health Canada and are told that there is no danger. Therefore, no precautions are taken such as removing WiFi from classrooms or transmitters from rooftops. Not only is Health Canada not protecting its citizens but it is preventing them from taking steps to protect themselves. It does appear that there is no reason for Health Canada except to give us a false sense of security.
Please consider the evidence presented last week from independent experts and that from other experts which I am forwarding below. We ask that Canadians, especially our children, at least be given the same level of protection from radiation as people in other countries.
Respectfully,
Sharon Noble
The Minister of Health for Canada
Dear Madam Minister,
Last week I sent you the following along with 3 studies concerning the Blood Brain Barrier :
"In June, 2008, I submitted a petition to the Auditor General charging Health Canada with failure to acknowledge independently funded scientific research which, by and large, shows harm from electromagnetic radiation at levels drastically below those allowed by Safety Code 6. I asked for answers, which I did not receive, to explain why many other developed countries, like Sweden, France, Italy, Russia and even China have much stricter guidelines which restrict exposures to 1% of what is allowed by Canada's. The respondent for Health Canada stated, in November 2008, that if/when credible studies are provided, immediate revision of Safety Code 6 would be made, and kept reiterating that there is no evidence of harm from levels of exposures permitted by the code."
Following are 5 more studies demonstrating severe, consistent and irreversible damage to DNA after exposure to electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal levels. Safety Code 6 does not protect against non-thermal radiation, only thermal. Health Canada maintains there are no "credible" health effects at the non-thermal level. Please look at these studies done by independent, non-industry-funded scientists.
1) REFLEX Report, (December 2004) Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards From Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods, A project funded by the European Union under the programme "Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources" .
"Twelve institutes in seven countries have found genotoxic effects and modified expressions on numerous genes and proteins after Radio frequency and extremely low frequency EMF exposure at low levels, below current international safety guidance, to living cells in-vitro. These results confirm the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile phones and other sources of electromagnetic fields. The idea behind the REFLEX study was to attempt replicate damage already reported to see if the effects were real and whether, or not, more money should be spent of research into the possible adverse health effects of EMF exposure. They concluded that in- vitro damage is real and that it is important to carry out much more research, especially monitoring the long-term health of people."
2) Diem et al [2005] exposed human fibroblasts and rat granulosa cells to mobile phone signal (1800 MHz; SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg; different modulations; during 4, 16 and 24 h; intermittent 5 min on/10min off or continuous). RFR exposure induced DNA single and double-strand breaks as measured by the comet assay. Effects occurred after 16 h exposure in both cell types and after different mobile-phone modulations. The intermittent exposure showed a stronger effect than in the continuous exposure.
3) Paulraj and Behari [2006] reported an increase in single strand breaks in brain cells of rats after 35 days of exposure to 2.45 and 16.5 GHz fields at 1 and 2.01 W/kg.
4) Phillips et al. [1998] found increase and decrease in DNA strand breaks in cells exposure to various forms of cell phone radiation.
5) Sun et al. [2006] reported an increase in DNA single strand breaks in human lens epithelial cells after 2 hrs of exposure to 1.8 GHz field at 3 and 4 W/kg. The DNA damages caused by 4 W/kg field were irreversible.
Madam Minister, this makes a total of 8 studies I have sent you over the last couple of weeks all of which show harmful effects from non-thermal radiation. I urge you to send this data to an independent researcher/scientist, one not in Health Canada which has become infamous for its affiliations with the industries it monitors. Please send it to someone who has no connection to the telecommunication industry, either indirectly (using industry journals to publish "studies" to further his/her career) or directly and ask for an objective opinion. If you need references I would be happy to provide a list of names. If you want more studies, tell me how many are needed, 20? 100? 1000? I've got them.
Many people who have worked for Health Canada in various areas have described it as being corrupt, corrupt to the core (as per Shiv Chopra). It is time for this department to be cleansed for the sake of the Canadian public.
I dare Health Canada to look at its commitment to me to amend Safety Code 6 if I provided one credible and to tell me in writing that there is no credibility to any of the studies I've provided.
Failing that, I dare Health Canada to tell me there isn't enough evidence in the 8 studies I've provided so far to invoke the Precautionary Principle, the true Precautionary Principle, not the one that refers to cost implications and risk assessment. The one that says: "When an activity raises threats to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not established scientifically." If Health Canada will not follow its mandate and protect our children and families as it should, and as other countries have, then Health Canada has no reason for being. That department should be done away with. Currently Health Canada is a farce, and a dangerous one at that. It is your job, Madam Minister, to end what has been happening for far too long -- either bring in reliable, capable, independent people who answer to the Canadian public and not the corporations, or do away with this department.
Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
Victoria, BC
Here are the latest audio files from the House of commons debate
International experts were invited to Ottawa to present information about the health effects of microwave radiation from wireless communication technologies to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA). The hearing took place on April 27 and 29, 2010 in Ottawa and among those invited to participate are Olle Johansson (Sweden), Andrew Goldsworthy (UK), Claude Monnet (next-up.org), Francois Therrien (Laval University, Quebec), Daniel Krewski (University of Ottawa, Canada), Magda Havas (Trent University, Canada) as well as reps from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, Health Canada, and Industry Canada.
Safety Code 6 is purported to provide protection against both thermal and non-thermal radiation. This what Health Canada keeps saying. But these radiation exposure limits are based on ICNIRP's standards which, ICNIRP will tell you, are intended for short term thermal effects only. (www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf) This is the deception.
I have been told by members of Health Canada and the Royal Panel that they follow ICNIRP's selection criteria, meaning they use the same basis for selecting scientific studies and literature. Also, they use the same causation criteria, meaning they follow ICNIRP's thermal "cause of damage". In addition, Health Canada often states that they follow the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Before assuming that this should satisfy any critical review of Safety Code 6, please read the attached document entitled "Conflict of Interest & Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO's Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Task Force." This document, which is being submitted with the author's permission, is the result of many years of study by Don Maisch, and forms part of his doctoral dissertation. He explains the close relationship between ICNIRP and WHO, and between WHO and the telecom industries. In contradiction of stated policies ensuring and promising independence, WHO's EMF Task Force has become driven by the very corporations which are being regulated, through allowing their participation in decision-making and through funding members of the Task Force (both directly and indirectly), most notably Michael Repacholi. These same Task Force members are also members of ICNIRP, the very body upon which Health Canada relies to confirm the adequacy of Safety Code 6.
This relationship between ICNIRP, WHO, Health Canada, and the telecommunication industry alone should cause a demand for a truly independent review of Safety Code 6, which must include evidence of biological harm at non-thermal levels.
Obviously, there is a conflict of interest which cannot be denied which has lead to the deception, of which all of us are victims. But there is more to it.
Soon Dr. Maisch will publish his entire dissertation which includes evidence that "risk assessment" and determination of peer-review criteria has been defined in such a manner as to arrive at results supporting the status quo, which allow ICNIRP, WHO and Health Canada to tell everyone "there is no evidence of harm from non-thermal radiation." It is true that they have found no evidence because, based on their selection criteria, studies showing harm from non-thermal radiation have been excluded from investigation. In pure layman's terms, if you don't look for it, you won't find it!
This document supports statements made by several experts during the Microwave Meetings, April 27-29, advising that Safety Code 6 is inadequate and does not protect the public against exposure to wireless devices such as cellphones, cell transmitters, WiFi and DECT phones. I ask that you consider this as evidence supporting our request for a new safety guideline based on independent research showing biological effects, not ICNIRP's or WHO's industry-funded recommendations.
Respectfully,
Sharon Noble
Chair, Citizens Against UnSafe Emissions
Victoria, British Columbia
... des Umweltmediziners der Universität Freiburg und der Zahnklinik Konstanz, Joachim Mutter, zum Thema ?Mobilfunk ? die verkaufte Gesundheit? statt. ...
Penzberg - Welche gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen Elektrosmog auf die Gesundheit hat, darüber wollen Stadt und Aktion Antenne Penzberg (AAP) informieren. ...
