Friday, August 8, 2014

Kids are at risk of biological damage results from microwave radiation emitted by wireless devices

A scholarly article on wireless safety, published online in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, reports that children and fetuses are the most at risk from neurological and biological damage that results from microwave radiation emitted by wireless devices, due to the higher rate of absorption of microwave radiation by children than by adults. The paper is available on the following 

The paper, titled "Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences," describes how the fetus is particularly vulnerable to microwave radiation, which can cause degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surroundsbrain neurons.  The authors recommend that wireless toys be banned due to the serious potential health risks.
The paper also documents cancer registry studies showing increased brain cancerincidence. Because the average latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of a tumor can be decades, the total number of tumors induced in children may not be diagnosed until well into adulthood.
The authors explain that current exposure limits are based on the erroneous assumption that tissue damage from overheating is the only potential danger of wireless devices. However, extensive scientific reports document the non-thermal biological effects from chronic (long-term) exposures. Although government warnings have been issued worldwide, most of the public is unaware of such warnings.
Pediatric neurologist Dr. Maya Shetreat-Klein stated, "Pregnant women deserve to know that wireless radiation can have an impact on the developing brain. We're seeing alarming increases in the number of children diagnosed with neurological disorders over the past decade, and anything we can do that might help reduce that rate should be taken very seriously." during her remarks while launching the Baby Safe Project in New York this June.

The authors state that consumers are unaware that cellphones, tablets and laptop manuals have specific advice on recommended distances (20 cm rule for tablets/laptops and about ½ inch for cell phones) from the user in order to ensure compliance with exposure standards. Children and adults use wireless devices in ways that "violate" these recommendations, putting them at even increased risk.
The authors make specific recommendations:  pregnant women should avoid wireless exposures; children should not play with wireless toys; adolescent girls and women should not place cellphones in their bras or in hijabs; and government exposure limits need to be urgently revised.
The paper's authors include: Santosh Kesari, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurosciences at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and Director of Neuro-oncology at Moores UCSD Cancer Center; Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, cancer researcher, toxicologist, Founder and President of the Environmental Health Trust; L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Science Fellow at the Environmental Trust.
Dr. Santosh Kesari investigates the biology of gliomas with the aim of developing new therapeutics for patients with brain tumors. He has an interest in neural development and cancer stem cells and focuses on their role in the formation of brain tumors and resistance to treatments.
UC San Diego School of Medicine

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

May 27, 2014

Parks Canada's proposal to make the National parks a vast network of hotspots was quickly denounced by people across Canada. Now they state that the proposed wireless hotspots in national parks would be restricted to visitor centers and campgrounds -- “not in the wilderness, and not in the back country,” says Andrew Campbell, Director of Visitor Experience with Parks Canada. Read more here….Link

© CAST, 2014

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Public Consultation for Safety Code 6

Safety Code 6 Review Continues... !!
Citing the first time ever safety codes have been opened up for public consultation, Health Canada released Friday their 60 day period accepting public and scientific input as part two of the process in updating SC6. This follows the conflicted RSC report delivered April 1st to Health Canada, and will result in the final version of SC6 scheduled to be released this coming fall.
C4ST is organizing efforts in order to have maximum impact over the next 60 days. We will be involving scientists and medical experts from around the world to provide vital input in the current science showing biological harm at levels much less than SC6.
Our campaign will launch later this coming week. 
Health Canada Launches Public Consultation on Safety Code 6
OTTAWA, May 16, 2014 /CNW/ - Today Health Canada launched a public consultation process to solicit feedback on a revised version of Safety Code 6. This Safety Code is Health Canada's guideline for recommended human exposure limits to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy, the kind of energy given of…

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

April 16, The Canadian Medical Journal

Federal Wi-Fi safety report is deeply flawed, say experts

An expert scientist says the Royal Society of Canada panel report "ignored recent evidence that wireless radiation is a probable carcinogen."

A new review of Health Canada's safety standards for radiofrequency devices, including Wi-Fi and
cellphones, is deeply flawed due to the authors' conflicts of interest and lack of expertise, say two
scientists. The Royal Society of Canada's (RSC) Expert Panel Report on the Review of Safety
Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields endorses current safety standards while
calling for more research. The RSC invited the two scientists to peer review the report.

The RSC's eight-member panel "actively blinded themselves to vital evidence," says Martin Blank,
an expert on the effects of electromagnetic radiation and special lecturer at the Columbia University
Medical Center in New York City. "The panel's position on maintaining the current standards is so
 fixed that it leads them to conclusions one would never expect from policy officials in the field of
 health," Blank added in an interview. "I am almost certain that the reluctance of the panel to be
guided by biological evidence reflects a lack of expertise in cell biology."

Dr. Anthony B. Miller, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of
 Public Health, was likewise critical. The panel included members with "major links to the
 telecommunications industry," says Miller. "This is a conflicted panel, with insufficient expertise
in epidemiology. It ignored recent evidence that wireless radiation is a probable carcinogen."

Miller flagged concerns about the panel last summer after a CMAJ article revealed that the RSC
panel's original chair, Daniel Krewski, failed to disclose to the society that he had received a
$126 000 contract in 2008–2009 from Industry Canada. Krewski was replaced as panel chair.

Amidst concerns about links between the telecommunication industry and John Moulder, professor
and director of radiation biology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
two members of the original panel stepped down and were also replaced. Moulder remained on the

These changes to the panel remained unsatisfactory, says Miller. "It is unfortunate that the
Royal Society failed to amend the membership of the panel as requested by some of us."

After reviewing the panel's final report, Miller and Blank now say that the RSC, which was
paid $100 000 by Health Canada to establish the review panel, failed in its obligation to the public.

"This is actually a failure of the panel to fulfil its primary function — to protect the health of the
population," says Blank. "This failure is occurring in an environment with increasing exposure
to a wide range of non-ionizing EMF [electromagnetic frequencies], including ELF [extremely
low-frequency]. To do the job right, the panel should be reconstituted to include members having
the expertise needed to evaluate the biological research and to formulate safety standards that take
into account the biological indicators of EMF danger levels."

Instead of outsourcing the safety review to the RSC, which is not subject to government
accountability and transparency rules, Miller suggests Health Canada should conduct the safety
review internally, using traditional expert advisory panel review procedures which are far more
accountable. "That is a process that is far better."

Frank Clegg, CEO of Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST), an Oakville, Ontario-based advocacy
group that campaigns against the dangers of exposure to unsafe levels of wireless radiation from
technology, says the RSC's panel was "an expensive exercise that was corrupted by industry and
so is a waste of taxpayer dollars."

Russel MacDonald, officer on expert panels at the RSC in Ottawa, Ont., did not respond to an
interview request.

Sarah Lauer, a media officer with Health Canada, says the department is reviewing the panel's
 April 1 report and "will consider the RSC's recommendations, as well as all feedback received
during the upcoming public consultation on Safety Code 6." The revised Code is expected to be
 published in the fall of 2014.  The RSC, she added, "notes that there are no established adverse
health effects at exposure levels below the proposed limits.

— Paul Christopher Webster, Toronto, Ont.

Monday, April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014

For Immediate Release

Two Scientists Break Silence on "Major Flaws" in Royal Society's Recent Report on Safety Code 6

Ottawa - Two peer reviewers involved in this month's Royal Society report on wireless safety say the results cannot be trusted, because the Panel ignored evidence that wireless radiation is harmful to humans.

The scientific reviewers also said key panelists were in conflict of interest as they regularly accept funding from wireless and energy companies.

One of the reviewers, Dr. Martin Blank, holds two PhD's and has published more than 200 papers at Columbia University on the health effects of wireless radiation. The other reviewer, Dr. Anthony Miller MD, is Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto.

Both say the Royal Society panel ignored scientific evidence published over the past five years. As peer reviewers, they noted some panelists were conflicted and others lacked sufficient expertise.

"The Royal Society panel has failed in its obligation to the public," said Dr. Miller. "It ignored recent evidence that wireless radiation is a probable carcinogen." Dr. Miller said he is most concerned about involuntary exposure, such as children exposed to Wi-Fi in schools.

Dr. Blank said the Royal Society dismissed definitive studies that prove wireless radiation causes harm to human cells, including sperm cells when men carry phones in their pockets. "We don't need further study to lower safety limits," said Dr. Blank. "There is already enough evidence to recommend lower limits for wireless radiation in Canada."

The Royal Society's panel has been mired in controversy. Last summer, the original Chair resigned after a conflict of interest was exposed in the media. The Royal Society promised to publish the remaining scientists' conflicts in its final report, but did not.

PH: 705-444-9662

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

April 2, 2014

Good Afternoon,

For the past year C4ST and Canadians such as yourself have been working diligently to bring awareness to the industry conflicted panel at the Royal Society of Canada reviewing Safety Code 6. This morning in Ottawa, the review was made public. Click HERE to see our press conference and reaction.  

As expected, despite phenomenal increases in technology use and resulting exposure to wireless radiation, the industry-conflicted panel chose to side with the profitable and powerful wireless industry and ignore domestic and worldwide published peer reviewed science warnings of related health risks.
This RSC review is an expensive exercise that was corrupted by industry and so is a waste of taxpayer dollars. In spite of the original panel chair having been forced to resign due to his previously un-disclosed industry conflict, the panel contrived to ignore important medical and scientific data. Without full disclosure of all panel member conflicts, this report’s findings are questionable at best. Rather than providing value to Health Canada, RSC’s rubber stamp leaves Canadians exposed to unprecedented risk.

At this time we call upon Health Canada to distance themselves from this industry review of Canada’s wireless safety codes, and publicly lay out the next steps in the review process they have publicly committed to.

Health Canada - "Following receipt of the report from the RSC, anticipated in March 2014, Health Canada will consult further with Canadians prior to finalizing the revised Safety Code 6."

Health Minister Ambrose is building a track record of improving transparency within Health Canada. This is a tremendous opportunity for her to direct that focus on the process used to update Safety Code 6. We ask you to please send Health Minister Ambrose encouragement to follow through on their commitment for Canadian's input before finalizing the review, and open up the process to a transparent look at the current research finding great harm at levels much less than Safety Code 6.


Frank Clegg

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Le 10 février, 2014

Monsieur Daniel Brassard,                                                                                                                      
Conseiller Services Immobilier et Relations Municipales.                                                                                   
200 Boul.Bouchard, 5CS                                                                                                                                         
Dorval. Qc. H9S 5X5
Sutton Jonction le 10 février 2014.
En réponse à votre lettre, nous citoyens de la communauté de Sutton-jonction ne pouvons accepter votre proposition, afin de préserver nos qualités de vies.
Les documents que vous nous avez fournis ne nous ont pas convaincus et en cas de doute pour la santé de nos enfants, sommes obligés de refuser. Les scientifiques s’accordent à  classer les antennes du genre : « 2A » , étant cancérigènes. D’ailleurs le code de sécurité 6 est actuellement contesté à Ottawa.
Au lieu de vous évertuer à vouloir spolier notre environnement, pourquoi  ne feriez-vous pas volte-face et trouver d’autres solutions plus adéquates pour préserver notre région. Cela existe déjà aux États-Unis, où des compagnies comme la vôtre ouvrent et partagent les réseaux existants comme la fibre optique en implantant des relais moins invasifs et plus durables. Celle-ci passe devant notre porte et par ailleurs nous sommes déjà pleinement couverts.
Cela vous mettra dans une position de leader où l’on pourrait vous admirer pour votre attention envers diverses communautés, au lieu de cette attitude corporatiste d’une personne à la morale psychopathe.
Les vents changent, voir l’annexe, il va vous falloir dès à présent montrer patte blanche, on est maîtres chez-nous.
Nous sommes aussi prêts à nous battre pour épargner la ville des argents que vous lui réclameriez en cas de non construction de la tour par vos représentations dolosives.

Il est temps d’admettre que votre projet  «F1416 Mansville » était une erreur en d’en faire amendement honorable, vous avez sûrement des assurances pour ce genre de cas.

S’il vous faut absolument une tour dans notre secteur, la Ville de Sutton vous indiquera les possibilités et dorénavant ne pourra être sur terrain privé.
Pour fin de non-recevoir.

Olivier Burnham.
Annexe :

Voici l’annonce qu’a faite James Moore à midi sur les tours de télécommunication et les communautés.

Ça devrait vous intéresser.
La version anglaise suit.

Adjointe de circonscription | Constituency Assistant
Bureau du député Pierre Jacob | MP Pierre Jacob’s Office
Nouveau Parti démocratique | New Democratic Party
(TEL): 819-868-1305 | (FAX) 819-868-5609
Sans frais : 1-866-683-5538 |

Le gouvernement Harper modifie les règles sur l'emplacement des pylônes de téléphonie cellulaire
Les nouvelles règles permettront aux Canadiens d'avoir un mot à dire au sujet des pylônes dans leur collectivité
Le 5 février 2014 — Ottawa — Industrie Canada
Au cours des 20 dernières années, les services sans fil sont devenus une nécessité de tous les jours pour les consommateurs canadiens. Leur utilisation a entraîné une augmentation du nombre de pylônes de téléphonie cellulaire dans nos collectivités. La détermination de l'emplacement de ces pylônes devient de plus en plus problématique, compte tenu de la croissance soutenue de la demande pour les services sans fil.
Les Canadiens devraient avoir un mot à dire sur la manière dont les emplacements de nouveaux pylônes sont choisis dans leur collectivité. Des améliorations à la politique d'Industrie Canada sur l'emplacement des pylônes d'antennes mettront les résidents et les administrations municipales à l'avant-scène du processus de sélection des emplacements des pylônes.
À la suite des changements à la politique, les entreprises devront :
  • consulter la collectivité au sujet de toute nouvelle installation de pylône commercial, peu importe sa hauteur;
  • construire tout pylône dans les trois ans suivant la consultation;
  • faire en sorte que les résidents soient bien informés des consultations à venir.
Les améliorations à la politique favoriseront également la communication entre le gouvernement fédéral et le public à l'égard des procédures menant au choix de l'emplacement des pylônes d'antennes. De nouvelles ressources seront mises en ligne, tandis que de nouvelles procédures de déclaration faciliteront le suivi des enjeux et la communication avec les citoyens.
Ces mesures font fond sur les politiques actuelles du gouvernement Harper en matière de partage des pylônes d'antennes. Les entreprises doivent étudier la possibilité de partager l'infrastructure déjà en place, dans la mesure du possible, afin de réduire le nombre de pylônes devant être construits dans les collectivités.
Les consommateurs canadiens veulent que les décisions de leur gouvernement donnent lieu à plus de choix, à des prix plus bas et à de meilleurs services dans le secteur du sans-fil.Au cours des semaines à venir, le gouvernement du Canada continuera à collaborer avec l'industrie du sans-fil pour répondre plus adéquatement aux préoccupations des citoyens à l'échelle locale.
Consultez la fiche d'information pour en savoir plus à ce sujet.
Les faits en bref
  • En vertu de la politique actuelle sur l'emplacement des pylônes de téléphonie cellulaire, les entreprises sont seulement tenues de consulter la collectivité lorsqu'elles prévoient construire un pylône d'une hauteur de plus de 15 mètres.
  • Avant de construire un pylône, une entreprise doit examiner les autres options, dont celle de partager l'utilisation d'un pylône se trouvant déjà dans la zone en question.
  • Afin d'assurer la sécurité de la population, tous les pylônes d'antennes, peu importe leur hauteur, leur emplacement ou leur puissance, doivent être conformes aux exigences techniques d'Industrie Canada et aux normes de Santé Canada.
« Le choix de l'emplacement des nouveaux pylônes de téléphonie cellulaire est une question souvent controversée dans les collectivités canadiennes. Il est essentiel que les résidents se trouvent au cœur du processus de sélection de l'emplacement des nouveaux pylônes, et l'industrie du sans-fil doit tenir compte du point de vue des citoyens. Ces nouvelles règles donneront aux collectivités une meilleure occasion de se prononcer sur l'emplacement des nouveaux pylônes. »
— Le ministre de l'Industrie, James Moore
Produits connexes
  • Fiche d'information : Modifications à la politique canadienne sur l'emplacement des pylônes d'antennes
  • Discours : Modifications à la politique d'Industrie Canada sur l'emplacement des pylônes d'antennes
Lien connexe
  • Industrie Canada : Bâtis d'antennes
Suivez-nous sur Twitter : @industriecanada
Renseignements :
Jake Enwright
Attaché de presse
Cabinet du ministre de l'Industrie

Relations avec les médias
Industrie Canada

Saturday, February 8, 2014

Febuary 8. 2014

For information about the towers in Frelighsburgh: Les tours à Frelighsburgh :

Les tours à Potton : For information about the towers in Potton