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 XM Radio
Microwave Installations XM
Satellite Radio 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 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 XM
microwave transmitter in 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 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 Website URL:
<http://www.strategis.gc.ca/spectrum>> 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 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 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 “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 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 Thanks, Andrew  -----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:11 PM Subject: electromagnetic
radiation New Radio Program Examines Wireless
Health Risks Recognizing the ... Warming or Cooling? 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 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 -----
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 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 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
“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 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 As you know
exposure limits in XM Radio 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, 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 Mr. Ben Nguyen Regional Engineer, Technology Industry Spectrum
Management - Regional Office Telephone: (416) 973-1214 Fax: (416) 973-6272 E-mail: Nguyen.Ben@ic.gc.ca You may
request Industry 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 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 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 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 Mr. Ben Nguyen Regional Engineer, Technology Industry Spectrum Management - Regional Office Telephone: (416) 973-1214 Fax: (416) 973-6272 E-mail: Nguyen.Ben@ic.gc.ca You may
request Industry 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 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 Health 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
URL du site Web: <<http://www.strategis.gc.ca/spectre>>
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)Â 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
Martin Weatherall wrote:
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
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
Martin Weatherall wrote: