House of Commons Standing Committee on Health to hear from witnesses on the dangers of wireless

"Should I post this list here with some 100 signatories already? Who knows, some of you might sign on. "

I'm accustomed to not getting much response around here. But who cares, enough of you I've come to respect for me to still come by this way on occsasion; and who knows, some of you might spread a good word against the travesty set upon us all. Ever notice that during the 90s provincially-borne health care costs finally plateaued for a number of years -- only to begin their inexorable upward since the late 90s' mass deployment of wireless?

There is just so much in all this with which to draw in people on the political left. So here's the list quickly drawn up to assist MPs floundering before the bad news raining down at the meetings. Would very much like to see comment & argument, more even than extra signatories (but send me a private message, or post here, with name & locality to add your name to around 100 from across Canada already).

.........................................................

We respectfully submit to Members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health (HESA), that the Committee urgently recommend to Parliament that:

PARLIAMENTARY CONCERN

1) In light of information recently brought to its attention via the HESA Committee, Parliament announce in the shortest delay its serious concern about exposure of Canadians to electromagnetic radiation under
prevailing Health Canada guidelines;

URGENT INVESTIGATION

2) the Government urgently examine possible dangers and remedies in depth and commit to prompt remedial and protective measures;

IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM

3) Industry Canada declare an immediate moratorium on new telecommunications installations;

EXPOSURE REDUCTIONS

4) Industry Canada order immediate provisional reductions in maximum allowable radiative output of cell mast antennae, such that public exposure levels be at least commensurate with the most stringent
guidelines or regulations found anywhere internationally, subject to further revision downward in accordance with continuous monitoring of health effects at even these lower levels;

PUBLIC WARNINGS

5) Health Canada issue warnings, particularly regarding more vulnerable segments of the population, recommending minimization of exposure to electromagnetic radiation from all sources;

AWARENESS PERIOD

6) Parliament declare a period dedicated to public awareness of electromagnetic sensitivity, as has been done elsewhere;

WIDE ADVERTISEMENT

7) the Government widely advertise these warnings in non-governmental publications, including enumeration of various types of radiofrequency emitters, in consideration of the general lack of information among the general public about these matters;

LOCAL EMPOWERMENT

8) Parliament amend the Telecommunications Act and Radiocommunication Act to explicitly refer to health and safety, and to admit provincial and thus indirectly municipal ability to affect, on health and
environmental basis, the operation and installation of telecommunications equipment;

"WHITE ZONES"

9) as long as Canadians are afflicted by electromagnetic sensitivity, involving "debilitating responses to [...] electromagnetic radiation" (as described for example in a 2007 report published by the Canadian Human Rights Commission), and provincial authorities feel constrained from dealing with these issues, there be federally arranged establishment of zones of refuge of extremely low presence of electromagnetic radiation for those afflicted, with appropriate support and access to services;

EXTENDED RESEARCH

10) Health Canada include in research and deliberation learned adherents of complementary medical traditions, in light of the inability of prevailing conventional biomedical research to sufficiently account for the effects of electromagnetic radiation, and in the expectation that valuable insight from such complementary bodies of knowledge would assist with overcoming this inability;

EFFECT ON WILDLIFE

11) research into the effects of electromagnetic radiation on flora and fauna be conducted under federal auspices;

JOINT COMMITTEE

12) a Joint Parliamentary Committee be created, involving at least members from the Standing Committees on Environment and Sustainable Development, on Health and on Industry, Science and Technology, to
address the governance of the effects of electromagnetic pollution in Canada, to possibly arrange for the transfer of such oversight to the Environment Ministry;

UTILITY METERS

13) the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act be amended to prohibit wireless transmissions from most utility meters, such as are deployed throughout Canada adding to electromagnetic pollution;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

14) a Royal Commission examine the dangers of too close participation of commercial and military interests in biomedical research, in light of such close association having led to dismissal or neglect of well-established deleterious bioeffects of electromagnetic radiation, as well as to influence against such comprehensive research;

SAFE ALTERNATIVES

15) privileged federal funding be provided for research and development of safe alternatives, some already in existence, to all existing possibly dangerous microwave technologies;

HEALTH TAX

16) a significant new federal levy on all telecommunications goods and services involving possibly dangerous electromagnetic radiation be raised, to help offset the continual and steady increase in
provincially-borne health care costs since the mass deployment of such technology in the late 1990s;

ADVERTISING BAN

17) the Government ban public advertisement with intent to induce acquisition or use of such technologies, whereby vulnerable segments of the population would be encouraged to expose themselves to possibly
dangerous forms and levels of electromagnetic radiation;

NON-EXHAUSTIVE

18) this list of recommendations be not considered exhaustive in general description of action required by the Government of Canada to perform the utmost service of protection of its citizens from the
potential harms of exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

IN SUPPORT

The following signatories support all or most of the above recommendations:

...............................................................

Thanks for reading.

Timebandit wrote:

It's another conspiracy theory.  Don't make eye contact, you'll only encourage them.

You mean, worried about cataracts? Indeed, one of the main early effects of radar exposure. Find out what happened to Milton Zaret a generation ago for some honest opthamology. Or, no, you mean, look away from things like the Council of Europe Committee reported:

..................................

19. To back up their argument, the experts quoted the scientific assessments carried out by associations such as the International Committee on Non-Ionisation Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a small private NGO near Munich, or by official organisations: the World Health Organization, the European Commission and a number of national protection agencies. It appears that these European and national organisations or international bodies have based their thinking on the threshold values and recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP when that private association was set up near Munich at the beginning of the 1990s.

[...]

29. The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.18. In the face of fast-growing concerns and opposition in many Council of Europe member states, the response of top executives of electricity companies and mobile telephone operators is to deny that their industrial and commercial activities have any adverse effect on human health. At the hearing in Paris on 25 February 2011, the official representatives of French and European mobile telephone operators passionately argued that the official threshold values applicable in most countries in the world were adequate to protect human beings from the thermal effects of mobile telephones and that any biological effects, if these could be demonstrated, would not have any adverse effects on human health

30. If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented themselves with replicating and adopting the safety recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP, this has essentially been for two reasons:

- in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their promise of economic growth, technological progress and job creation;

- and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for the environment and health.

31. With regard to the frequently inconclusive if not contradictory findings of scientific research and studies on the possible risks of products, medicines or, in this case, electromagnetic fields, a number of comparative studies do seem to suggest a fairly strong correlation between the origin of their funding - private or public - and the findings of risk assessments, a manifestly unacceptable situation pointing to conflicts of interest which undermine the integrity, the genuine independence and the objectivity of scientific research.

32. Concerning the assessment of health risks resulting from mobile telephone radio frequencies, for example, in 2006 Swiss researchers from Bern University presented the findings of a systematic analysis of all research results and concluded that there was a strong correlation between how the research was funded and the results obtained: 33% of studies funded by industrial concerns conclude that exposure to mobile telephone radio frequencies has an effect on our organism. That figure rises to over 80% in studies carried out with public funding.

.......................

In a gross culture, a hierarchy only needs to be captured at a few critical nodes to co-opt the whole process. In Canada, "Health" (Death) Canada & sidekcick Industry (Injury) Canada, assure provincial acquiescence via the FPTRPC, and the RP stands for radiation protection, literally. Read the excellent work by Don Maisch (I muts have brought it on another thread somewhere here), about how regulatory process has been thoroughly corrupted from the WHO, IEMFP, ICNIRP all the way down, The Procrustean Approach, (as in, lop off what is uncomfortable to ones' wretched cause), http://international-emf-alliance.org/images/pdf/The_Procrustean_Approac... .

But our HESA Committee hears similar testimony to what the PACE Committee hears, and Canada lies down to play its corporate
playground role some more, hESA putting out a near-useless (and censored) report. So we resolve that, just as with committee failures re e.g. prostitution laws a few years back, it's time to go the cruel court route; except that by he time a Charter challenge reaches the SCC, Harper might have had his way with stacking it, and could even find a way to ignore a ruling of Section 7 violation. Why it is important to resume the political pressure, and maybe a few more babblers can learn about real "conspiracy".

What's a"ton"? Consult the '07 & '09 BioInitiative Report which exercised the EU Parliament in '09 to express its perturbation at the status quo. And if you get to reading the COE doc I link to, the new max. exposure limits are far from prtective, it is too late for that. Eg I know someone who suffers seizures at exposures a 100s x lower threshold than their new suggested max. Here is an example of one such sufferer, not a great article, but there he is: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/disconnected, "The Man Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves" . And there has been a"ton" more since that compendium was put out a few years ago, see eg from HESA testimony Apr 29 of Panagopouos, from just after 0925 at
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4478290&L... . And you won't want me to tell you what happened to him after daring to give that testimony in a political venue (and to three colleague witness whistleblowers), wouldn't want you to eye a conspiracy.

Trevormkidd wrote:

About two years ago I did a literature review of CCD with an entomology professor. There are several legitimate possibilities for for bee colonies to collapse: mites, viruses, fungi, invasive species, current transportation methods and so on. At that time cell phones made no sense. Not only was there no evidence, but there also was no correlation of between areas of high cell phone use/towers and CCD. I doubt that the evidence has changed in the last 2 years.

At the same time I think that this researcher performed a solid study and first we will see if the study is replicated. However, the study did not provide evidence for the fear mongering claims that are being reported. That doesn't mean that those claims are impossible, but there is no evidence for yet. 

Let's see, the person I mentioned before who suffer from even nanoW exposures will have a seizure like clockwork the following morning, when & only when so exposed. If the person suffers a blow to the head during a seizure, is the cause the falling to the ground, or is it more sensible to ascribe cauality further back? Immune function weakening is among the top effects of synthetic xenobiotic electromagnetic exposures. Take eg its well-known melatonin suppression. You can't sleep well enough (rates of insomnia ever increasing), nocturnal prime immune function activity is suppressed, and one becomes ever more susceptible to whatever is there to get one. If you're a bee, that could be  things such as you list.

Please do tell me who the prof. was. Was there any dosimetry involved? Just antennae search via IC? I want to know, I want to contact the fellow.

The bee danger has been reported for very long, and in the past 2 years there has indeed been a great increase in wireless addictions, if that matters to you, proliferation of antennae with new telecom entrants as well as  general increased usage. Eg at our house the ambient backyard e-pollution in the 1mHz-8gHz range has dramatically increased since Oct '09, around when Globalive-Wind was allowed its CRTC override and set up an antenna aimed our way at a dangerous 200m (see eg best such study yet, "Specific Health Symptoms and Cell Phone Radiation in
Selbitz (Bavaria, Germany) - Evidence of a Dose-Response Relationship", https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxub... .

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I have no dog in this fight, and I don't know who is right, nor do I have the time and energy to research this question deeply enought to imagine that my opinion would be any better than flipping a coin. What does impress me about this thread is that Trevormkidd seems to me to be making a more logical and evidence oriented argument than are DV and Fidel, whose postings seem long on emotion, and short on data.

Michael, this is a political forum, I thought, that is why I chose it, among many others, to post about these issues from the angle of political involvement, a year ago. A year later, after vindication of a sort, by COE committee acceptance, of the very recommendations I was involved in putting before our own hapless Cdn. committee, I thought to revisit this thread.  Now the HESA & PACE/COE committees are not exactly comparable, but they are in being advisory, in offering recommendations. So hearing much the same stuff from expert & lay witnesses in diverse fields in condemnation of wireless mania, albeit probably a lot less, HESA does poorly; the Euro. committee in contrast revisits the EU Parl. own toothless recommendations in '09 that national microwave standards be revisited, esp. based on the BioInitiative Report, and ups the ante. (In Canada, two reports came out in the interim, in Ontario a hapless OAHPP one on wifi, and an even more hapless INSPQ one on cell base stations. They are not worth pointing to, I can if you want, and even show careful dissection of them, for what that would be worth.) So anyway, the point is, this does not seem to be a thread for rehearsal of much more than political evidence, which I think has been adduced well enough. The WHO, ICNIRP, IEMFP are all called into question by this august if little-known political advisory body. That is at the crux, deep and obvious corruption and co-optation of process. That is what all "skeptos" I have encountered ignore, preferring when it comes to evidence of harm, looking for heads to actually fall off bodies to be convinced, looking completely away from corruption of process, so well documented by now in the bioeffect research field. The PACE/COE report emntions the Swiss study indicating skewing of results based on funding source; Henry Lai did the same with similar stats in the 90s. Call it anthropological data if you will, it is pretty telling. Now that the Russian national body has weighed in again on the dangers just last month, albeit with too narrow focus, http://iemfa.org/images/pdf/RNCNIRP_Resolution_2011.pdf , and an Israeli Parl. committee has also made made recent precautionary (again too mild, but a major step forward) receommendations, for some examples, it is time to step up political pressure here. There are a few other threads about here on babble, even one where I remember your name from, I think, maybe I could go back and see what was covered. The sci. evidence itself is truly more by far than has been needed to condemn any other health/env. contaminant. The industry knows it is killing people, quite the confident claim made by Sage in the Harper's article, "For Whom the Cell Tolls", last year. She's right. You want a particular type of study evidence, tell me, and maybe I'll bring some samples.