Please forward to your lists and respond to the Peterborough Examiner on Magda s behalf. Thanks
Anti Wi-fi crusader hurts Trent s reputation
The Peterborough Examiner
3 Sep 2011
Science education at Trent has been dealt a huge blow with the rise in prominence of professor Magda Havas. Ms. Havas is part of the Centre for Health Studies at Trent and part of growing fad movement claiming that non-ionizing electromagnetic... read more...
Anti Wi-fi crusader hurts Trent's reputation (The Peterborough Examiner, 3 Sep 2011, PageA4)
It is always important you take me as literally as written. I understand the University s position on this but there is real help for Dr. Havas and Trent in the understanding of Wi-Fi.
What is going on with Havas is part of the domino effect of Health Canada s negligence in not following Safety Code 6 or reporting to Trent the mechanism linking the frequencies to adverse health effects has been found. Trent University doesn t know the mechanism linking the frequencies has been found as Health Canada didn t pass on the information but neither did Havas. The mechanism substantiates Havas including her Environmental Petition of 2008.
I have watched Dr. Havas in interview after interview and there is zero reference to the mechanism linking the frequencies to adverse health effects reported through Canadian Parliament by the electrical profession. (Government Trained and Certified Electrical Professionals) I have no idea why Havas hasn t thrown the electrical profession under the bus and let us represent electricity. Trent knows and teaches electricity, they don t know it was reported as the mechanism linking the frequencies.
This problem for Havas will get worse unless Trent knows there is qualified science taught as electrical standards around the world backing her up. Trent doesn t even know the dangers of Wi-Fi is lectured in medical education for education credits doctors need for licensing.
PLEASE, let us help or they will get rid of her as they have with Olle.
Letter to Editor at Peterborough Examiner
Anti Wi-Fi Crusader Hurts Trent s Reputation?
Patrick Coffee s letter is the domino effect of political interests taking precedence over the public. Patrick, Trent University and others don t know the mechanism was found linking the frequencies to adverse health effects.
The Government of Canada uses Safety Code 6 for limits of exposure to radiofrequency EMFs and those standards are the same used globally. Health Canada s Safety Code 6 admits the mechanism linking frequencies to adverse health effects has been missing. The reason W.H.O said there was a 'possible' link between cell phones and brain cancer is because the mechanism was missing.
The mechanism was reported by electrical professionals to Health Canada a year ago and again by expert witness to Canadian Parliament s Standing Committee on Health in October 2010. Safety Code 6 says Health Canada will use the weight of evidence approach on an ongoing basis with new data but didn t follow their own code and dismissed electricity as peer reviewed science. Safety Code is based on EMF exposure but they left out the frequencies of biologic systems.
The reason the frequencies are important discussion is code says if humans are electromagnetically induced, experimental studies have shown it can lead to nerve and muscle stimulation and that is to be avoided. Neurological challenges are to be avoided.
Health Canada s administration continues to report the frequencies are safe but doesn t include the mechanism found showing they cause harm and are in fact violating Safety Code 6. Health Canada did not pass on to Canadian Universities including Trent that the frequencies are causing adverse health effects. Humans are unprotected, intricate electrical systems and while Wi-Fi is installed to communicate with wireless computers in classrooms, the other wireless devices called humans don t run at those frequencies. All EMFs are different and you can t compare natural EMFs to man made EMFs going through bodies.
Health Canada is the shame of Trent, Dr. Havas should be applauded for stepping up in the face of adversity when others didn t. That is service before self and she doesn t deserve disrespect. The dangers of Wi-Fi is now lectured in medical education for education credits.
Here is a link to a Wi-Fi Health Risk Advisory which includes inaccurate reporting on Wi-Fi safety. http://www.thermoguy.com/pdfs/Wi_Fi_Health_Risk_Advisory.pdf
Director of Operations
Interprovincial Journeyman Electrician(Red Seal)
Thermografix Consulting Corporation
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Michrowski
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 5:42 PM
Subject: letter by Patrick Coffey re 'anti wi-fi crusader hurts Trent s reputation'
We regret the position by Patrick Coffey regarding Prof. Magda Havas' openness in advising public aspects about certain types of exposure to a variety of the electromagnetic fields. Understandably, the nature of electromagnetics is vast, it extends from cosmic pulses every so many hours / minutes / seconds, to electric power, sound, infra sound, ultrasound, 'dirty electricity' - noise from electric power delivery and hundreds of different types of appliances, radio frequency / microwave emissions from commercial, military, government and wireless technologies, terahertz security system (used after 9/11), heat and heating technologies and light and lighting technologies through the biologically important ultraviolet before attaining the ionizing radiation (stronger ultraviolet into the radioactive and cosmic radiations). This complexity has apparently confused the writer, Patrick Coffey. For example, he assumes that the radio frequencies from the sun are stronger than those which are man made from Wi-Fi, they are several trillion times weaker. As to studies about health risks from certain man made emissions, including the random emissions from wiring errors, transformers, currents in water mains and some appliances including compacts and fluorescent lighting: these were studied and documented very thoroughly since the infamous Nazi concentration camp studies. One of the world's best researches was brought to the culminating mega studies done in the early 1970s to the credit of Queen s University (with the full support of the Canadian National Research Council) to the point that it helped that university build a strong reputation in Health Physics and medical device design studies. Similar quality work has enabled McGill University and en suite its Institut Armand Frappier to raise tens of millions of dollars in electromagnetic research over the years by, essentially, quietly going over the work that Prof. Magda Havas is promulgating in the interest of the general public and especially the more vulnerable sectors of the public, such a young children, pregnant women, ill individuals and the environmentally hypersensitive (at least 15% of the adult population, according to the Government of Ontario research since the 1970s). The two studies referred to as being weak methodologically were important in that they brought new attention of a phenomenon for which at the time very few meters existed in the public domain and which only confirmed that which was well studied (and proven in cause-effect laboratory studies in humans and animals at Yale, Harvard and Queens in another form as early as the mid-1960s) under low frequency bio-effects.
We feel that, indeed, Trent University s reputation is growing considerably and her good work will only generate more jobs locally, not only in the academe but also through applications engendered by her openness and her good communication skills.
Dr. Andrew Michrowski
The Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Maisch
Date: 6 September 2011 9:52:11 PM AEST
Subject: Reply to Patric Coffey's letter to the editor, Sept. 3.
Patric Coffey s vitriolic attack on Dr. Magda Havas (Anti Wi-Fi crusader hurts Trent s reputation) is a good example of the level of misunderstanding that exists over the possible hazardous effects of radiofrequency/microwave exposure. For example, he claims that RF poses no risk and that there are 'zero' studies that links RF to any diseases. This is simply not true. Take for example the published papers of Dr. Ross Adey (Readers can Google his name) who was one of the worlds leading researchers in bioelectromagnetics up till his death in 2004. Dr Adey has stated that the laboratory evidence for low level biological effects for radiofrequency and microwave fields constitutes a major body of scientific literature in peer-reviewed journals. He also stated that it was his view that to continue to ignore this work in the course of standard setting was irresponsible to the point of being a public scandal. These very concerns were also expressed in 1999 by the U.S. government s Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG). In particular, RFIAWG criticised the biological rationale for the American RF exposure standard for its failure to address chronic (low intensity/prolonged) as opposed to acute (high intensity/short term) exposures. In order to address this, and other concerns, RFIAWG recommended a comprehensive review of long-term, low-level RF exposure studies that had relevance to environmental chronic occupational RF exposures and neurological-behavioural effects. Now in 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), after their review of the relevant studies, classified RF as a possible human carcinogen. So for Mr. Coffey to claim that there are zero studies is disingenuous to say the least.
Don Maisch PhD
Author of The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency. Electromagnetic Radiation
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:37 PM
Subject: Peterborough Anti Wi-fi crusader
The Peterborough Examiner 6 sept. 2011
Professor s Wi-fi work put Trent on world stage
Re?AntiWi-FicrusaderhurtsTrent?sreputation? (Letters, Sept. 3)
I wish to make two points regarding a letter by Patrick Coffey, which draws unfavourable attention to the work of Dr. Magda Havas.
1) Dr. Havas research finds adverse health effects from the application of microwave technology; and 2) Mr. Coffey is participating in a process called mobbing to attackan opponent.To attack an individual in the public media creates a crisis for the individual.
As an ethical scientist, Dr. Havas release of her research offers protection and benefits everyone. Her work forms the basis of a cautionary response to new technology. She was asked for her findings. She did not seek publicity. As a result of her research, city-wide Wi-Fi was blocked in San Francisco and labelling of cell phones was mandated. And the world listened to her.
By attacking Dr. Havas, Mr. Coffey is attempting to create a controversy.Increating a controversy, other actors intervene to act in ways that are aimed to silence the individual who is being attacked. The focus on the individual distracts from the truthfulness of their work. This has happened time and time again to scientists who reveal inconvenient truths. It is a pattern we have witnessed, most recently to Prof. Olle Johansson, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm; Dr. Annie Sasco, Université Bordeaux Segalen, Bordeaux, France; and Dr. Dimitris Panagopoulos, the University of Athens, Greece.
Dr. Havas is a credit to Trent University. Her work has put Trent University on the world stage. She should be venerated for her bravery as well as her science.
The matter should be judged according to the numbers of those who could be harmed by the irresponsible use of this technology.Only the industry and its financial backers are hampered by Dr. Havas andherwork. If Mr.Coffey is to bebelieved, the potential to destroy the lives of millions around the world would be unleashed.
Only one question needs to be asked of Mr. Coffey. Cui bono? How does Mr. Coffey benefit? Dr. Havas produces science. Mr. Coffey provides opinion.
JOHN WEIGEL, Ryevale Lawns County, Kildare, Ireland
Informant: Iris Atzmon
Please pass this letter on also to Patrcik Coffey, I invite him to respond directly.
Patrick Coffey should do his homwork before he goes to publish libel on the pages of local newspapers.
Wi-Fi frequencies were already shown to cause DNA breaks which contradicts all his claims.
Example in this link plus he should also read the Bioinitiative report which is full of references.
I reommend him to change his music and his tone. Apart from the fact that this letter is simply libel and shows his ignorance, it is not clear how it was published without filtering words by the editor.
The comparison between radio waves and the sun represents a phyics point of view. Since Physics is not the expertise nor authority on radio waves effects on living organisms, it is not clear from where he took his extra confidence in his unfounded claims, it is in any case not justified. Not only is Physics not the expertise for radio waves effects on living organisms, but also, if Patrick wants to compare the sun to artificial radio waves, he should make an honest, full comaprison. He definitely neglects the biological aspect, which is the most relevant for health arguments. The sun, for example, creates photosythesis - a biological process that gives life. Plants cannot live without sun but they can live without artificial radiowaves. Artificial radio waves do not produce vitamin D in the human body but the sun does. Artificial radio waves are not essential for life but the sun yes.
I would like to know what credentials Patrick has that make him an authority on radio waves and health effects, and how many papers he published on the subject of health effects from radio waves, that he allows himself to publish libel on Dr. Magda Havas studies or on the journals where she published them.
To my knowledge, he published none, so he has no right to critisize Dr. Magda Havas studies nor journals.
That already makes Dr. Magda Havas a trillion times a greater expert than him on radio waves effect.
Open letter to Steve Jobs of Apple
Informant: Martin Weatherall
More about the theme: