hit
counter
Open Letter To Wireless Regulator Challenges “Safety” Claims | William Thomas Online | William Thomas

Open Letter To Wireless Regulator Challenges “Safety” Claims

cell tower tall

  




















OPEN LETTER TO WIRELESS REGULATOR

CHALLENGES ‘SAFETY’ CLAIMS


Note: FCC “Safety Code” = Canada’s Safety Code 6



March 15, 2017



Dear Mr. Stanhope and attached addressees:

 

You may be interested to note that a local political representative, Tony Law recently wrote to Health Canada requesting information on biological effects from the microwave tower proposed by Telus for communications backup and future cell phone service on Hornby island.

 

While our trustee’s initiative is commendable, this is like asking a fox with feathers around his muzzle if the chickens are safe.

 

I fear that Mr. Law's faith in Canada's lucrative revolving door, corporate-government-regulatory nexus is misplaced. In every “safety review”, we have seen Health Canada's overriding mission to ensure the safety of corporate profits by ignoring all contrary evidence in setting standards low enough to approve wireless technologies whose drastic effects are most apparent in the country that started this stampede – Sweden.

 

This is pertinent to your agency since Industry Canada relies on Safety Code 6 to regulate wireless technology – including cell towers.

 

Health Canada soothingly replied to Mr. Law: “The Department’s Safety Code 6 makes Canada’s limits among the most stringent science-based limits in the world.”

 

In fact, 40% of the world’s population lives in countries with allowable exposures more limiting than Canada’s.

Canadian “safety” standards allow for millions of times more microwave exposure than the Austrian Medical Association recommends.

 

Belgium, Israel, Taiwan, China, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Russia have set allowable Radio Frequency and microwave exposure limits hundreds and even thousands of times lower than the misnamed "Safety" Code 6.

 

Health Canada went on to claim: “Safety Code 6 has always established and maintained a human exposure limit that is far below the threshold for potential adverse health effects.”

 

Yet, in testimony before the Parliamentary Health Committee, Health Canada’s Mr. Andrew Adams admitted studies showing harm below Safety Code 6.

 

In fact, microwaves at 1/10th similar British safety guidelines emit frequencies causing the biggest changes in cell calcium levels, which are major determinants to health.

 

After collating thousands of health studies, the BioInitiative Working Group concluded: “The evidence points to a quite substantial hazard” at extremely low levels of exposure. [BioInitiative Report Aug 31/07]

 

How low? According to Environmental Health Perspectives, microwave radiation from cell towers can open the blood-brain barrier to toxins in the blood for up to five hours after “two minutes of exposure at density levels of only 1/10,000 of a watt.” [Environmental Health Perspectives June/03]

 

This limit is far below the dangerously obsolete “Safety” Code 6 established 30 years ago before the onslaught of the wireless tsunami. The latest cell tower map shows 112 cellular transmitters within 20 Km of my remote island location. (At least 40 Telus and Rogers transmitters are radiating 24/7 on adjacent Denman island. I am currently researching a reported cancer cluster around that tower.)

 

Mr. Law was also informed that Safety Code 6 "protects" living cells from all electrical field adversity by taking into account both heating and non-heating effects of microwaves in setting radiation exposure limits.

 

What Health Canada did not tell Mr. Law is that Safety Code 6 takes into account non-thermal, biological effects of radio waves only up to the 100 KHz seen in induction stoves and AM radios.

 

For the entire gamut of continuous compounding exposures – from cell and portable and smart phones to iPads, baby monitors, airport security scanners, ferry radars, police radars, smart meters and so much more – only computer-simulated thermal heating effects on an adult male are considered by the newly “updated” Safety Code 6.

 

Bio-impacts on female and male reproductive organs, fetuses in the womb, smaller-sized women and the much thinner skulls and rapidly dividing cells of infants and children are excluded from "Safety" Code 6's industry-coddling, heating-only standards.

 

So are birds, bees, amphibians and other wildlife known to be even more vulnerable to electrosmog because of their rapid metabolisms and much smaller body mass.

 

In a February 2013 hearing regarding a Rogers cell tower application before the Superior Court of Quebec,

Health Canada scientist, James McNamee confirmed that Health Canada cherry picks only studies supporting their industry-friendly conclusions.

 

Regarding documents that Health Canada considered in its latest “update”, Dr. McNamee pointed to papers that “Helped to reinforce our own assessment of the literature.” And another industry-funded document that “supported Health Canada’s decision” not to lower allowable exposure limits.

 

Dr. McNamee further stated that the better studies are the ones that show “no effect.” He also assured the court, “Health Canada does not acknowledge electro-hypersensitivity.”

 

The World Health Organization does. Health Canada says it seeks direction from the WTO, which has also classified Radio Frequencies and microwaves as a “class 2B possible human carcinogen” – as dangerous as constantly inhaling formaldehyde.

 

In their 2014 “review” of Safety Code 6, Health Canada looked at 36 heavy-duty studies detailing:

 

Cancer

Brain/nervous system impacts

Biochemical disruption

Development and/or learning behaviour impacts

 

All of these studies, along with two requested scientific reports disputing Safety Code 6, were dismissed by Health Canada without showing cause.

 

Interestingly, half of the Royal Society of Canada “Expert Panel” members overseeing this sham “review” had strong financial ties to industry. The original panel chair resigned after the Canadian Medical Association reported an undisclosed conflict of interest.

 

I note, as well, that the statement: “Certain members of the general public may be more susceptible to harm from RF and microwave exposure” which appeared in the 1999 version of Safety Code 6 is omitted from all versions since 2009.

 

What does all this mean to everyday Canadian lives?

 

Austrian Dr. Gerd Oberfeld has shown a 23-fold increase in breast cancer and a 121-fold increase in brain tumors for those who lived within 200 meters of a cell-phone tower for five years or longer. These findings are confirmed by British physicist John Walker, Ph.D.

 

Melatonin helps prevent Alzheimer’s by scrubbing free radicals from the brain. It also blocks estrogen from developing breast tumors. “Microwaves from cell phones, portable phones, wireless routers and cell phone towers sharply reduce melatonin production.” [BioInitiative Report]


So does aging. With a median age over 65 on Hornby Island, and elder housing adjacent to the proposed vector tower that would soon be festooned with 5G transmitters, this double-whammy of age and microwave melatonin reduction could become an experiment in euthanasia.

 

Germans living within 1,200 feet of a transmitter site in Naila had a high rate of cancer and developed their tumors on average eight years earlier than the national average. Breast cancer topped the list. [Institute of Science in Society press release May 24/07]

 

Israelis in Netanya who lived near a cell tower for 3- 7 years had a cancer rate 400% higher than the control population. Breast cancer was most prevalent. [International Journal of Cancer Prevention Apr/04]

 

One district in Berlin with cellular antennas had a breast cancer rate 700% higher than the national average. [Berlin Cancer Registry Sept 21/06]

 

But cancer is not the only likelihood from prolonged cell tower exposure. “At least seven recent high-quality epidemiological studies show that people living close to wireless transmitters consistently develop a long list of neurological problems, including depression, sleep and memory disturbances, with pronounced loss of ability to learn and concentrate.” [Idaho-Observer Sept/07]

 

An Egyptian medical study has found that people living near mobile phone towers are at “high risk for developing nerve and psychiatric problems, plus debilitating changes in neurobehavioral function – including significantly lower performance on tests for attention, short term auditory memory and problem solving.” [Neurotoxicology Aug 1/06]

 

No wonder all neighbours living near Hornby’s proposed microwave tower site are opposed to its construction.

 

And no wonder Industry Canada forbids all discussion of health impacts in siting cell towers. I can only wonder: How do all those technicians, installers, regulators and accountants sleep at night?

 

Health Canada also neglected to inform Mr. law that its omissions are so egregious, in July 2014, 52 world-class scientists condemned Safety Code 6. The 52 scientist petitioners “urgently call upon Health Canada:

 

i)  to intervene in what we view as an emerging public health crisis

 

ii)  to establish guidelines based on the best available scientific data

 

iii) To advise Canadians to limit their exposure and especially the exposure of children.”

 

In March 2015, Health Canada “updated” Safety Code 6 to include smart phones, smart meters and cell towers – while retaining its outdated and irrelevant heating criteria.

 

I submit to Industry Canada that Health Canada’s reprehensible deceptions continue to favour an out-of-control industry. There are currently 972 Industry Canada-approved transmitters blasting away within 30 km of my location.

 

What happened to the Precautionary Principle Health Canada claims it adheres to? Why are Industry Canada and Health Canada allowing an invisible "possible human carcinogen" to permeate the bodies and brains of tens of millions of Canadians?

 

Could it be because Industry Canada auctions wireless "Spectrum Licences" to telecom companies making multi-million dollar bids it has a substantial stake in selling as many licenses as possible? According to an online Canadian petition opposing these practices, in 2008 alone nearly $4.3 billion was “earned” auctioning public airwaves to telecom companies for wireless transmissions.

 

It all makes a circle friendly to profits and harmful to life. In enforcing industry-friendly exposure standards, Industry Canada relies on ICNIRP to guide them. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is funded by industry.

 

During the Telus open house on our island, Safety Code 6 was conspicuously absent from the bullet points enumerated in the graphics displayed around our community hall. Nor did "Safety Code 6" cross the lips of any industry rep in attendance, who knew that the informed citizenry crowding the hall would have instantly shredded such a foolish gambit.

 

As long as it continues to point to Safety Code 6, while profiting from cell tower licensing, Industry Canada's assurances of the "safety" of licensed wireless technology are without credibility. For the reasons cited above, the Telus tower proposal for Hornby Island – and the full cellular coverage that would be immediately tacked to that extended tower without further community input – should be rejected.

 

Your renewed vigilance and earliest reply are appreciated.

 

Sincerely Concerned,

 

William Thomas




SEE: Cell Tower Risks: What We Know





                      HOME QUICK

 发件人     William Thomas 2017