Based only on Thermal Effects
March 2, 2013. This is a follow-up to the article I wrote and posted on my website on February 20th entitled, ''Health Canada admits safety code 6 guidelines for microwave radiation is based only on thermal effects!''
Some of you know that I removed this article from my website for several days. The more I thought about removing it the more uncomfortable I felt and I realized I removed it for the wrong reasons.
Link to read more: http://www.magdahavas.com/follow-up-to-hearing-before-superior-court-of-quebec-re-rogers-and-chateauguay/
Municipalities now must be notified every time a cell tower or antenna goes up
MONTREAL. More smartphones and tablet traffic on wireless networks means an increase in antennas and cellphone towers, and now municipalities will be consulted on where this digital infrastructure will go.
''Demand for data in Canada from mobile devices is growing at the rate of five per cent every single week.''
The people who let Canada down
Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices
Abstract: At the request of Health Canada, the Royal Society of Canada has assembled this expert panel to conduct a review of Safety Code 6, which concerns the potential health risks of radiofrequency fields from wireless telecommunication devices.
Dr. Daniel Krewski, Chair - University of Ottawa
Dr. Brian Christie - University of Victoria
Dr. Richard Findlay - Health Protection Agency (UK)
Dr. Kenneth Foster - University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Louise Lemyre, FRSC - University of Ottawa
Dr. John Moulder - Medical College of Wisconsin
Dr. Frank Prato - Western University
Dr. Rianne Stam - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Bilthoven, the Netherlands)
How could they ignore all the biological effects caused by electro magnetic radiation?
Letter to the Royal Society of Canada
We plan to send the following letter [ http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter/t/5ef37228c94214c6
] to officials of the Royal Society of Canada concerning the recently announced expert panel charged with reviewing Health Canada s Safety Code 6. This letter will be copied to Health Canada, the Health minister and the Health critics from the other political parties.
(We will ensure that the formatting is improved after all the forwarding is done.)
Will you add your signature? If you would like to do so, please reply as soon as possible with your name as you would like it to appear, as well as your city, town or regional municipality and province.
If you are involved with any other ''safe technology'' groups you can distribute it to your members as well. Please forward their signatures as soon as possible. I hope to send a copy of the letter out by early Friday, but don t worry if your reply is late; we can send another copy out with added signatures next week sometime.
My email is: lorraine.penner(at)gmail.com
Victoria B.C.-School District 61 Ignoring Children s Safety
Is the Royal Society of Canada Deaf, Dumb, Stupid and Corrupt?
Letter to the RSC
I sent you a question and you ignored, regarding review of safety code 6.
The panelists I mentioned in the original email are not the only ones with conflict of interest. I added more info on the conflicts of interests at the bottom of the original email [Question on Safety Code 6 panel of experts
If you think this email is not worth your attention I would like to know why.
People s lives are dependent on the reliability of your reports (in case you did not notice).
Again, I ask to receive a proper response.
Access To Information: The agreement between Health Canada and the Royal Society
July 10, 2013.
I have recently obtained an ATI document consisting of 153 pages regarding the agreement between Health Canada and the Royal Society of Canada to review Safety Code 6.
In such documents some of the information is blacked out. Despite this the ATI is quite revealing.
It reveals that Heath Canada recommended who should be on the panel (names were blacked out) and Health Canada provided the documents to be reviewed by the panel. How on earth is this 'independent'?
This process is deeply flawed. It makes a mockery of independent scholarly reviews. It demonstrates?at the best?that the RSC has been duped by Health Canada or?at the worst?that the RSC has colluded with HC. Neither are acceptable.
The read more visit: http://www.magdahavas.com/access-to-information-ati-document-reveals-rsc-expert-panel-review-is-far-from-independent/
The world knows that Health Canada is NOT protecting Canadians against electromagnetic radiation
Another Huge Conflict of Interest: Royal Society review panel member Louise Lemrye
Informant: Martin Weatherall
Health Canada s admission the public is not protected from non-thermal effects of wireless
Canadian Medical Association exposes undeclosed conflict of interest with chairmam of a wireless safety panel
More on Daniel Krewski s conflict of Interest
Magda Havas on the Royal Society of Canada s 'Krewskigate' scandal
More about the theme: